Template talk:Carolingians, East Francia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2008 January 8. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] RfC

I believe that the current template is too large. It is also inconsistent in that it links Carloman, Louis the Younger, and Charles the Fat twice, but Arnulf and Louis the Child once. It boldens and italicises "Children", which has to be the least important word on the template. The title ("Carolingian Dynast (Kings of East Francia)") is big and clunky. The image is of Charlemagne's autograph, which does nothing to distinguish East from West Francia. It lists Zwentibold, not an East Frankish king, but does not list Louis the Younger's son Hugh, or Charles' sons Bernard, or Arnulf's son Ratold. It is not clear either that Carloman and Louis the Younger were never kings of East Francia.

On the other hand, my version clarifies all that. It includes dates, specifies the relation each king had to his predecessor, gives his other royal/imperial titles, and removes the clunky "Children" and decreases the size of the title while incorporating better piped links. I also added an image of an East Frankish seal. My version is more informative and more aesthetic. My latest version is available here and earlier versions of mine can be seen in the history. Srnec (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I must support other version of template. In my thinking your version is against edit rules of wikipedia. Simple speaking until now king/dynasty template has be created in different way. Please look this Template:House of Valois1 or this Template:House of Plantagenet. I will not comment if your version is better or not. My only comment is that we are doing template in different way. --Rjecina 20:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So it is no problem to you if a worse template design is normative? Srnec (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your suggested template was abysmal. Why did you think it appropriate to make the titles of the people progressively smaller? You couldn't even read Charles the Fat's final two titles. This is meant to be a 'useful' interface. Michael Sanders 12:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The titles did not get progressively smaller. I don't know what you're talking about. Everything was very readable on my browser. The current infobox is not "useful" because there is no use in seeing who Louis the German's children were in an article on Louis the Child. I am opposed to these templates which just clutter articles with information that can be easily found by any interested party in just a click or two. It is not directly relevant to list the kings of East Francia in every article. And why favour lists of children over lists of titles? And nobody says "East Francian"! Srnec (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In reality we need to change name of this template and then everything will be OK. You are right Srnec with comments about children but if we change name of template in East Carolingian house (or dynasty) then everybody will be happy. In that way we are having other kings template. Will this be OK ? --Rjecina 20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this template? Instead of pretending that the mere existence of a template is justification for its use, why should this thing be included in the articles of East Frankish kings? Why list only sons, for instance? Why does Sanders want "Children" bold and italicised? Why say "East Francian" instead of the better "East Frankish"? Why a template on a dynastic branch rather than a list of kings (and titles)? What's wrong with incorporating dates? Sanders seems to want to revert me without reason... he certainly rarely provides one in the edit summary. Srnec (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is sort of agreement between hundreds of wiki editor that this sort of templates are OK. If you want to change this template it is possible for you to copy one of templates for which I have given links and then change names in names of East Carolingian rulers and children of this rulers. If you think that our template policy is not OK then you need to call more or less all template editors for discussion about change in our template policy. This call you will need to put on that editors talk pages. If enough of them will come you can ask for voting about policy change. This our your options. Bye --Rjecina 22:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the following would deal with the concerns raised at Talk:Louis V of France:

It would go at the bottom of the page and be hidden by default. If you'd rather list children than kingdoms and dates, that's fine with me, as long as it gets banished to the bottom of the article. Srnec (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be banished to the bottom? It's easier to use along the side. And the above is non-standard. And ugly with it. Michael Sanders 09:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is what should be used in the relevant articles - it's the form of infobox commonly used to list monarchs of countries. The current template, on the other hand, is meant to be used to list members of dynasties, not monarchs. And they aren't meant to be over-detailed; they're simply meant to refer the reader to the article they want. Michael Sanders 10:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

v • d • e Monarchs of Germany Carolingians: Louis II · Carloman · Louis III · Charles III · Arnulf · Louis the Child — Conradines: Conrad I — Ottonians: Henry I · Otto I · Otto II · Otto III · Henry II — Salians: Conrad II · Henry III · Henry IV · Henry V — Supplinburger: Lothair III — Hohenstaufen: Conrad III · Frederick I · Henry VI · Philip — Welf: Otto IV; Hohenstaufen: Frederick II · Conrad IV — Habsburg: Rudolf I — Nassau: Adolf — Habsburg: Albert I — Luxemburg: Henry VII — Wittelsbach: Louis IV — Luxemburg: Charles IV · Wenceslaus — Wittelsbach: Rupert — Luxemburg: Sigismund — Habsburg: Albert II · Frederick III · Maximilian I · Charles V · Ferdinand I · Maximilian II · Rudolph II · Matthias · Ferdinand II · Ferdinand III · Leopold I · Joseph I · Charles VI — Wittelsbach: Charles VII — Lorraine: Francis I — Habsburg-Lorraine: Joseph II · Leopold II · Francis II — Hohenzollern: William I · Frederick III · William II — Family tree

On the whole I prefer Srnec's style of template. I do not believe that sidebar templates are easier to use. They are also more unpredictable from a reader's point of view - how obtrusive they are depends on screen size. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(Sanders, that you would actually go out and create your template in article space and start adding it to articles while these discussions are ongoing says a lot. That you called my template ugly says even more...)

The question I have is, why should lists of family members run down the side of an article? They do not refer the reader to the article he wants because a reader who ended up at Charles the Fat is not looking for Louis the German (or at least not hard enough), or if he is, he will find him mentioned very early on and maybe accidentally learn some history while scouring the article for his name. And if they aren't meant to be overly-detailed, why mention sons who were not East Frankish rulers? Why prefer such names over dates or titles? Srnec (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is a reader who ended up at Charles the Fat from (say) Odo of France definitely not going to want to look up Charles the Fat's father? It's certainly possible for a reader to want to be able to easily move from one article to a related article. And, that being the case, it makes it easier for them to do so if they can refer so using the dynastic template along the side of the article: you simply move down to it and click. And it is easier to look by eye for names in a template than in article text; and it is not our place to force a reader to "learn some history". Maybe they aren't interested in history, maybe they just want to find out some niggling point. Maybe they have poor literacy skills and can't easily search for a name in a stretch of prose. Or whatever. We aren't meant to shove details down people's throats in blocks of prose, we're meant to make articles easily accessible. That's why templates, and infoboxes, and succession boxes, and every other tool of convenience are used in articles, and that's why they are meant to serve only their own function and no more. Succession boxes tell you when a monarch reigned. Succession pages give lists. Dynasty templates are meant to simply tell you the major members of a dynasty. Now, you may have problems with this: your preferred style of article seems to be a long dreary stretch of text without any help-aids, because you assume that because you are able to easily use and easily understand such a manner of presentation, everyone can. However, I suggest you put your problems aside, because the point of wikipedia is that it is an ecyclopaedia by everyone, for everyone. That means it has to be usable by everyone, and that means we serve the interests of everyone who reads it. It is not our job to dictate that readers should simply 'read it in the text'; we don't write for our own convenience, we write for that of the reader, which means that presentation is meant to be geared to accessability, not elitism. Deal with it. Michael Sanders 19:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Response to RfC I see no reason why there shouldn't be both a side and foot template, that could each be used in a particular article depending on its size, layout, etc (and for some it is reasonable to have the two in the same). I believe I remember that you can associate a side and a foot template somehow, but I'm not to high on exactly what that has for effects.--victor falk 07:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)