Template talk:Infobox British Royalty

message: The colour is to bright imo; can you cool it down? Brian | (Talk) 07:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colour

message: Is House in this case meant to mean the house one married into or the house of one's birth? Frankly, the House of one's birth would be much more useful, in my opinion, since the house of the spouse or of the British royal family will be found on the respective sovereign's page. Charles 16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. Okay, we'll go with house of birth then... -- DBD 20:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: House

message: This infobox, besides being overly garish and hard to read, is superfluous to requirements as all data can be presented using the more than adequate :Template:Infobox Monarch. Also, as there is a lot of cross-over between different houses in Europe, the question is raised as to which one to use. It is therefore better to use just one box for all members of all families. --Bob 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the nomination for deletion, it was agreed that the BRoy infobox would be useful - the style and so forth will be discussed in the WikiProject - the template Monarch is not adequate - most of the people you have reverted are, in fact, not Monarchs! For goodness sake, please pay attention to past discussions *before* you rush in and undo someone's hard work. -- DBD 09:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the template states "Monarch" in its title, ir does not mean that it can't be used for other purposes. This template is absolutely the ugliest one I have seen on Wikipedia and is totally, 100% redundant to the Monarch template. Indeed, there is nothing that this template can bring than the other doesn't do 100% better. This one is hard to read, (purple background with black lettering!) and cannot be enforced due to the crossbreeding that has occurred between the Russian, Danish, French, etc etc royal families. --Bob 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superfluous

message: While I agree that this infobox lacks beauty and grace, I came here to complain about wrong information currently used in the infobox on the Prince William page.  Mainly, the wrong link is used for William's father (twice and once for his mother).  Also, the Prince of Wales does not precede William, he is his father.  Harry is not William's heir (heir to what?), but his brother.  Harry will only be his brother's heir if William is king and has no children.  William is not even heir to any of his father's titles.  -Acjelen 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure who is responsible, but the infobox looks much better at this article and the incorrect information/links have been removed. -Acjelen 23:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  from [[Prince William of Wales]] 

message: I don't think the infobox needs to give the name of the person three times, especially since its probably in the article title as well.  I think the most common name (good luck with that) should in the first bar, the full style with the "HRH" (or otherwise) in the second bar and any titles minus the name further down in the infobox.  The "Princess Michael" sort will be tricky, though. -Acjelen 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first field is a short-form of their name, the second is their primary title, and the later list is a full list of all styles-titles... I wouldn't call that excessive (but then again that's obvious - else I wouldn't've designed it like that...) -- DBD 19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the problem is with application.  For some royalty, the three fields will have basically the same information. -Acjelen 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was your name again? 

message: Is the intention of this field to give all current titles or only the chief titles over time? -Acjelen 14:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter -- DBD 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You should add that to the descriptions in the infobox, which are otherwise generally helpful.  You might want to add some examples of untitled royals so that editors understand your intentions. -Acjelen 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Camilla has never been styled Wales; the Wales's each have a title which outranks their military ranks // DBD 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah.  That didn't answer my question.  "Miss Camilla Shand" is not a title, or a place-holder for a title like on Prince William's page.  Why is it there and what does it mean for the infobox as a whole? -Acjelen 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do read - the idea of the titles box is not to list all titles, it is to list what she was known as over time. – DBD 22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of shorthand titles 

message: Well, now we've gone too far.  The deceased are not married to anyone and are no one's spouse.  One might as well claim Bill Clinton is the president of the United States as Diana is the spouse of the Prince of Wales. -Acjelen 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill Clinton is in fact President, and will remain so until the day he dies. Eixo 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spouse 

message: The usage of this infobox on the pages of monarchs is confusing. The Alfred the Great page has this template but Edward the Elder has Template:Infobox Monarch. Elizabeth I and Charles I have this template but James I has Template:Infobox Monarch. Surly every British Monarch should have this template or none of them should. I could understand if Anne (the first monarch of Britain has a whole) and all her successors used this template and all who came before her used Infobox Monarch but they don't, it just seems completely random. Philip Stevens 14:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be confusing. It's quite simple - Infobox British Royalty. If they're British and royal, then they should have it. I just haven't changed them all yet. And a few times they get reverted... *grumble grumble* – DBD 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that this template conforms to the styles employed in other infoboxes, it is almost identical to Template:Infobox Monarch. What is the purpose of having two infoboxes that provide and display the information in almost exactly the same way?? --Bob 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really can't be bothered to repeat myself. Look over this talk page, and over the TfD discussion linked at the top. – DBD 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: I'm trying to remove the collapseabilty of this infobox, but I can't work out how to do it. I really don't think that someone's infobox should be hidden when you first go to the page like this one is. It removes the photo and important details and I fail to see why it should be hidden at all. --Berks105 12:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've hit upon it. It shouldn't be hidden - I wanted it collapseable, but not hidden at first. I'm trying to find someone who can correct my blunder... – DBD 13:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the collapsibility from the template as it is defeating the objective of the infobox. From what I understand of these things, the problem was that the NavFrame class was used, which autocollapses if there are three or more of these tables on the page. To get the functionality that you want, you need to add collapsible to the class so it becomes class="infobox collapsible", but this causes problems with the alignment of the  parameter and it looks odd. For more info, see Wikipedia:NavFrame. I personally don't think that this needs to be added because the infobox shows information directly related to the article and there isn't really a reason to want to hide it, whereas with a navbox the info is 'you might want to also see...' and isn't directly related. Also, can I suggest that you test what you want to do in a sandbox as every edit to a template means a change has to be made in every page using that template, and when several changes are made, that's a lot of changes. mattbr30 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Hide"

message: Any objections if this template were to be added to the various infoboxes for Royalty? Using Queen Elizabeth as an example, the effect of this would be to change the birthdate from looking like this:
:April 21, 1926
to this:
:
And it's being increasing applied to the various infoboxes across Wikipedia. Tabercil 16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it should.  It is widely accepted and used in infoboxes for politicians (i.e. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown), sports figures (i.e. David Beckham, Ben Alnwick)), and entertainers (i.e. Parminder Nagra, Hugh Grant))  --rogerd 22:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so shall I add that to the usage notes? DBD 22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Having said this, now I find a small problem.  For those users that are signed in and have stated a preference in special:preferences, they will see the date formatted according what is set, but those who are not signed in or haven't stated a preference will see the date formatted according to North American customs "February 20, 1951 (age 56)".  Of course people in the UK or other commonwealth countries (except Canada) would expect to see it formatted "20 February 1951 (age 56)".  I think we need either have an alternate template for articles about subjects from countries other that the US or Canada or perhaps we can figure out a way to state the default formatting as an optional 4th parameter.  So, let's hold off until this issue is resolved.  See Template talk:Birth date and age#British or U.S. order.  --rogerd 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that a  template has been added to address this concern, but I hope that eventually we can get to a single template that meets everyone's needs with an optional 4th parameter that allows the user to specify a default date formatting.  Someone has already added it to Prince William of Wales and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh --rogerd 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one objects, I think that we should start adding  to members of the Royal Family besides the two members that already have it.  --rogerd 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Birth_date_and_age]]

message: Can someone please move the birth and death details (dates and places) further up the infobox, probably right up to just below the image bit. Such key data shouldn't be hidden away down at the bottom of the infobox. Carcharoth 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth and death details 

message: Please will someone added a coordinates parameter for "place of burial", using the "resting place coordinates" of  as a model? Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinates of resting places

message: The "reverse chronological order" suggested by the makers of the template make no sense; the appropriate order of presentation is chronological. These are articles dealing with history, not IMDB pages about an actors latest film. - Nunh-huh 02:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reverse chronological order makes sense due to the consideration that, more often than not, a person's most recent spouse either was their spouse at death, or still is – either way, it is probable that the couple are still married, so it makes sense for that spouse to be listed first DBD 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, there's no apparent reason why the last spouse would be more important than any other. Chronological order is the appropriate one here; if someone wants to know the last spouse, they look at the last one on the list. If they want to know the first spouse, they look at the first. Reverse chronological order is counterintuitive and misleading. - Nunh-huh 03:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm glad to see that this absurdity of presentation isn't a long-standing thing; for example, the reversal of the appropriate order of the wives of Henry VIII occurred only on 2 November. It's time to correct this before more work is created. - Nunh-huh 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with Nunh-huh on this one. Facts should be presented as they happended in life, it would be like starting an article with someone's death and ending with their birth. I also see no problem in putting "(1937-1972)" for Wallis & Edward, as they did cease to be married in that, you can't be married in death. --UpDown 08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, chronological order it is – but can we please leave marriages ending in death as open – if only because it can be confused for the termination of a marriage... DBD 14:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this listing of beginning and ending dates of marriages is another silly convention we seem to have taken from the IMDB. Give dates of marriages, and dates of divorce, appropriately marked as such. (Though, of course, the death of a spouse ends a marriage. That's why the marital status of a widow isn't "married".) - Nunh-huh 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, we can't just say married year and nothing else.--UpDown 18:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We could just leave dates off – they're in the body anyway... DBD 19:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with m. 1972, div. 1983. - Nunh-huh 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Length is what is wrong – it's preferred that each datum takes one line and one only... DBD 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're here to inform. Looking pretty is ancillary.  So take an additional line to both inform and look pretty. : eg: 
 - Nunh-huh 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are indeed here to inform, but looking presentable is important. I think the above is a bit OTT. Perhaps we could miss out the dates. Is there a general Wiki policy regarding this?--UpDown 10:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't seen any such policy. - Nunh-huh 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage order

message: The link has been criticised because it doesn't link to the right place. For example at the Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom FAC, Mike Christie pointed out that the link should go to the section "Titles and styles". Is there any way around this? I am reluctant to divide the section "Titles and styles" into "Titles" and "Styles", because there would be little point. Many thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 11:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Detail" link

message: This template survived two tfds on the basis that it had a purpose. By changing the use in this way, it becomes redundant to . What's "British" about Alfred the Great? I suggest you return to the original clearly-defined and more or less logical scope, the alternative would be another tfd. As regards the WikiProject, I would think that the change in scope there is equally ill-advised. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope creep

message: Hey, in templates like this where the default image size seems to be coded right in, is there a way to manually change it in an article?   Like, for example, at Edward the Elder, where the image is kind of small to begin with, and rendering it at 262px (or whatever this template's default is) makes the picture look unnecessarily pixilated and ugly.  There's got to be some way around this, but I don't know it.  Advice?  Ford MF (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an optional |imgw=<something> parameter that sets the image width. I know this because Dr. Kay just added it to Edward the Elder! Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's what I call service.  Ford MF (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Default image size

message: Could someone with the proper authority add this infobox into the Royalty and nobility infobox templates category? Thanks :) Morhange (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. DBD 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now every article containing this infobox is in category Royalty and nobility infobox templates. Imagine my surprise when I saw that Her Majesty is in category Royalty and nobility infobox templates! Can someone fix it? I tried, but failed. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Why has this field even been added? DBD 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Becuase certain monarchs have signatures uploaded. See: Elizabeth I of England, George III of Great Britain, and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. That is why it has been added. The Quill (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature 

message: It's Bold, Revert, Discuss, folks, not just revert revert revert. Shall we start discussing rather than reverting? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Quill was Bold in removing colour variations and adding several sections, I and others have reverted, but Quill hasn't grasped that the 'Revert' stage stops for the 'Discuss' stage. DBD 14:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I have grasped that however it seems slightly hypocrtical of you as you are the one making the reverts. I am merely reverting the page back to the version that was in use when the discussion started. The Quill (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's BRD... not BRRRRR....