Template talk:Infobox British Royalty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 August 10. The result of the discussion was to keep.

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 August 21. The result of the discussion was to keep.

Surely that's enough said?

Contents 1 Colour 2 House 3 Superfluous 4 from Prince William of Wales 5 What was your name again? 6 List of shorthand titles 7 Spouse

[edit] Colour

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

[edit] House

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)

I see your point. Okay, we'll go with house of birth then... -- DBD 20:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superfluous

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)

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)

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)

[edit] from Prince William of Wales

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)

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)

[edit] What was your name again?

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)

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)

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)

[edit] List of shorthand titles

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)

The latter -- DBD 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

I just check the Duchess of Cornwall's page. Her maiden name and first married name, with honorariums, are given in the Titles field (but not Princess of Wales). Does this also fall into the purpose of this field? If so, one could add Cadet William Wales and Cornet Harry Wales (or Lt. Harry Wales) to the appropriate pages. -Acjelen 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Spouse

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)

Bill Clinton is in fact President, and will remain so until the day he dies. Eixo 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)