Template talk:Infobox monarch

message: I would like to see this template used on all the British monarch pages.  Currently, the House of Tutor and afterwards have those "British Royalty" templates which are about the House rather than the specific monarch.  --JW1805 17:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: British monarchs

message: I've added some colour to the template - mostly to fall in with WP:BRoy. However, this template will slowly be replaced by Template:Infobox British Royalty -- DBD 23:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The colourisations have been reverted as they made the box difficult to read and the langauge used in the template was overly complex. Also, we don't need different colour schemes for different people. Nor do we need a different template specifically for members of the British royal family. --Bob 01:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colourisation & WikiProject British Royalty 

message: Hello,
Could you please add an interwiki-link to the Dutch version of this template? This is a link: Sjabloon:Monarch.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers! – Luna Santin (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: I wonder if it might be helpful to have the template automatically insert the length of the monarch's reign next to the dates of his or her reign (just as some of the other templates for people automatically insert the person's age).--Tabun1015 02:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Reign 

message: Could it be made so that "Birthplace" appears if a place of birth is specified but a date of birth isn't, for monarchs where the date of birth is unknown? Currently the contents of the "place of birth" field are preceded by a blank space, with the expectation that "Born" and the date of birth will be above it. --Ptcamn 08:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --ais523 11:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested change 

message: I'm trying to generate a list of places of burial for all English monarchs. Is there a way to manipulate the data contained in the articles using this infobox to generate such a list? At the moment, I don't see a parameter for country, so I'm not sure how different countries can be separated out. Carcharoth 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of burial 

message: I've got a question concerning the edit-sections using this template. On nl.Wikipedia.org we've got a similar template but the edit-sections in an article next to the template are apearing under the template (example: :nl:Constantijn de Grote). How did you solve this problem? Evil berry 11:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit-sections 

message: A section should be included for children of the monarch too (See Abdullah of Saudi Arabia). thestick 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children 

message: I have a problem with these entries. First, the title of "queen". It is not needed, consort alone suffices as this is a monarch infobox, for use by monarchs and there spouses. Also, for the section of spouses, it shows up as "wives". It should be gender neutral and just say "Spouse(s)". Thirdly, the section for consort should have more entries in it. Holy Roman Emperor Francis II had four wives, three of whom were consorts to him as emperor. In summary, we only need "consort" and "spouse" entries, with some more spaces for consorts and get rid of the queen entry since it really is not needed. Charles 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, my solution at Template:Infobox British Royalty, one field, whose manifestation changes according to an initial property... DBD 17:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good, but would there be a possibility of compacting both into an template called Template:Royal or something like that? Charles 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall there being objections to that when IBR was first created, but your suggestion makes a boatload of sense (although prob Template:Infobox Royalty might be better), so please do look into it and, if possible, get the ball rolling! DBD 11:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you a suggestion as to where I should initialize this? Charles 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One would suppose Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Royalty and Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty would be the 'interested parties', so a discussion at the former, with a note to the latter? DBD 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I've made some additions to my copy of T:IBR, which would add functionality suiting any merger DBD 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. Charles 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen, consort, spouses 

message: I was going to change the colour from the generic light blue to "plum", to symbolise the royal "purple". However I found the purple to be a bit too dark. But I thought it better to ask here first how the reception is. I tried it once, it looks pretty good, I hope I can get your support...? Gryffindor 00:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea to change colour, but I don't think this shade of purple suits the Roman imperial style very well. Tyrian purple was really more of a dark red. I suggest a change to this colour: _________ Regards. --Steerpike 22:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: EDIT: Sorry, I was under the impression the box applied only to Roman emperors, but it seems to be a general 'monarch' box. Still, I prefer my suggested colour over the current purple. --Steerpike 14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I support Steerpike's proposal. /Slarre 09:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I am not happy about this colour red because to me it looks almost Communist, see Communist_party. What is wrong with the imperial purple? Or can we have a more "royal" red? Gryffindor 11:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the Royal blue which is described at the List of colours. It would look like this: colour: _________. -- Imbris (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do we have a colour in the first place? There evidently isn't one particular colour which denotes "royalty" to everyone, not least because this template is used in various places other than for European monarchs, and WP's template documentation discourages using colour without an explicit key. Infoboxen have gradually been losing their non-standard styling over the years, and it may be best just to drop the colour entirely. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  change colour 

message: The use of the term "issue" is archaic jargon and a disservice to the readership.  I propose changing it to "Offspring", or if that is unsuitable for some reason, "Progeny". 76.254.79.159 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was able to make this change, here and at Template:Infobox British Royalty.  This template is not protected, contrary to the box at the top of this talk page. 76.254.79.159 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my reply at Template talk:Infobox British Royalty DBD 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that reply, you provided no reasons that "issue" might be superior to "offspring," and in my subsequent reply, I provided four reasons that it is not.  I am disappointed that you seem to think that discussion is more important than using a term which is far more familiar to the typical English reader -- especially beginners.  I am reverting back. 76.254.79.159 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, you reverted the template but not the corresponding changes to the documentation. 76.254.79.159 (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Issue" is confusing; use "Offspring" 

message: I would like to draw people's attention to discussion on Template talk:Infobox Buddhist biography.
This information box is being used on each of the articles on the Dalai lamas as well as other lamas, it's usage is variable and three boxes now exist which could be used. I've made a suggestion there which I think will fix this and expand that template's usage. Thanks.--Alf melmac 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts required 

message: I need the original HTML script for creating this infobox template. This is because I am trying to build a similar template in Sanskrit Wikipedia. So the HTML script of this template would be useful. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the original HTML program ?? 

message: What's up with the "heir" field?  It just floats there, for no apparent reason, between predecessor and successor, and has no label, so readers aren't going to know what it is. PS: Isn't there some other term to use than "predecessor"? That word actually means "one who died before" so it is not an accurate term to use in all cases (e.g., abdications, no-fatal usurpings, etc.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs.    20:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "heir" field 

message: It's so dark it makes blue links quite hard to read, see e.g. Genghis Khan. I think people with some flavour of colour-blindness (as well as people printing it down in black and white) might be unable to read them at all. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 09:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. It violates our accessibility guidelines for color contrast. I know people like to have some kind of color-coding system for different types of infoboxes, but it's completely pointless. No one will see the purple and think, "Ah, yes, a Monarch." They'll just see purple and think it's strange. The default infobox color should be used, so the text can speak for itself. —Designate (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that the template worked OK until somewhat recently. It still looks pretty good when the titles aren't wiki-linked (for example see: Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick). Maybe someone can go through the template's recent history and see what caused the problem (for example I think Magioladitis's edits might have messed things up). I don't understand template-coding very well so I'm uncertain.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the changes by Eaglewanli to the article on the 23 June 2011 that added the links in the title. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, wiki-linked titles used to work OK. For example, the version of the template you edited on 8 May 2011 showed titles like this: User:Brianann_MacAmhlaidh/draft. I suppose we'll have to go back to something like that, or unlink all the titles.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The older version worked because the title parameter is shown below the coloured box rather than within it. I've placed an updated version in the sandbox with the title moved out of the coloured box. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

text: That's a lot better. I guess my next question is, is there any reason to even have the background color for the name? What's it achieving? —Designate (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the change above and also ask why there is color present at all. --Bob247 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Let's follow the infobox person scheme. No background color is needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd be OK with the right-hand side example, provided the documentation explicitly tells not to use links because they're hard to read against the dark background. I'd be OK with using the default Infobox person colours, too. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 10:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The right-hand example looks OK to me too. I'm OK with with the background colour only behind the name, because it's easy to tell where the name ends and the title begins. It means that there is less chance of readers becoming confused when dealing with foreign names and titles. I don't think a bit of colour is a bad thing; luckily the colours contrast each other pretty well.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've made the change in live now to remove the background colour from the title param. -= WOSlinker (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an attempt by Earth Wikipedian to put back the purple. As far as I can see this discussion agrees to use the red, so I reverted to the red, which was put in by WOSlinker. I can't even read the light purple with the white lettering. It ruins the template. I would never use the light purple in any article I am working on. It looks awful. The red catches the eye, add a bit a color to the page. So, I'm throwing in on the red background white lettering side. Unless another vote is taken that reverses the decision I will continue to revert the light purple.Dave (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background of the title field 

message: Hello,
Suggesting 'Issue' to replace 'Offspring', per Template:Infobox royalty wordings.
Thanks.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011   09:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Issue field 

message: Can someone please tell me what the difference is between "offspring" and "children" and why we need two separate categories in the box to cover this information? --Folantin (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Eh?

message: First, there are 2535 articles which use this template. After the change from  "issue" to "children" most of those infoboxes no longer display the children. Any change has to be backward compatible and preserve what is already out there. So that we can see the children again in the infoboxes on those pages I am changing back, but keeping "children" as an alternative so we don't lose anything with that field. 
&namespace=0 List of articles using Template:
Second, "issue" is the standard British English in formal lists of children of royalty. See Template:Infobox royalty and Template:Infobox noble. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National_varieties of English we don't edit articles to change from one variety of English to another. For example, an article that starts out using the spelling colour should not be edited to change it to the American version, color.
StarryGrandma (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always wondered about the word "issue", can an adopted child count as "issue"? Timmyshin (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am moving "children" field back to "issue" 

message: All these unique fields better be added :Template:Infobox royalty. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique fields 

message: When this template appears in articles, the merge notice says "See templates for discussion" and links to the non-existent section: 2013_July_13#template:Infobox_monarch. It should link to 2013_July_13#template:Infobox_royalty. Nurg (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points to wrong discussion section 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Infobox monarchy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress