Template talk:Ancestors of Charles II of Spain

Consorts
Why should some consorts here be titled and others untitled? I know of no restriction to piping articles. Disambiguations are always piped out. Mariana of Austria and Margaret of Austria were just as much queens of Spain and the latter should not be so titled if the former isn't. The article about the latter is titled Margaret of Austria, Queen of Spain, because there were multiple women known as Margaret of Austria. In this instance, however, it is clear that the Margaret of Austria in question is the wife of Philip III. Same for Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress, and Archduchess Anna of Austria; Isabella of Portugal was just as much Holy Roman Empress and Mariana of Austria was just as much an Austrian archduchess. Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Before replying directly, let me please remind you that we have edit summaries for a reason. If you don't use them, your changes are likely to get reverted, exactly as I did to you.
 * I created this template having no personal knowledge of the subject area at all, so titled the boxes exactly to match the names of the articles. Now you've explained your change, I have no objection to it. If there are inconsistencies in how our articles are titled, please take it up on their respective talk pages, or at the talk page for WP:CONSORTS, and update this template as applicable. Thanks. —  Scott  •  talk  12:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not mind seeing my edits reverted when I fail to explain them. It just seemed so obvious to me that disambiguations should be piped out, as they always are. The inconsistencies in article titles are neccessary, given that the Habsburgs had a relatively limited pool of names and non-reigning members of the house are not assigned ordinals. Surtsicna (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced and uneditable
user:Stolengood why did you make this edit?

The information in the template is unreferenced so why did you remove the template asking for references?

The template is no longer editable from any article in which it is embedded. This makes it next to impossible for an inexperienced editor to edit it, so why did you removed the code that allowed it to be edited?

-- PBS (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That appears to have been a mistake while removing the unnecessary reference warning that you added. All the facts in this tree (which I created) are trivially verifiable in the articles that it links to. —  Scott  •  talk  12:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Scott. Unlike an ordinary navigation template, ancestry treees contain information that is not covered by sources in the individual articles to which they link. For example which of the two articles contains a source that clearly states that Isabella of Austria is related to Charles II of Spain as this tree purport to show. Or take one much closer to Charles II: which reliable source in the article Mariana of Austria describes her relationship to her parents the article states "Her parents were Crown Prince Ferdinand and Maria Anna of Spain, the sister of Mariana's future husband, King Philip IV of Spain." (because there is no inline citation to a source to support that assertion). -- PBS (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are problems with the facts, you should fix them in the articles where they occur - by either finding a reliable source or removing them from the article. You can then update the tree accordingly. This applies to all family trees on Wikipedia. —  Scott  •  talk  19:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See footnote 3 in WP:BURDEN: if someone adds a template asking for citation you should not remove it without providing the requested citations (per WP:CHALLENGE). Many featured articles such as Charles I of England have fully cited family trees. If you think that all family trees on Wikipedia are exempt from the requirements of Verifiability please show me in which guideline this given. -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A tree like this does not need a citation on every node depicting the relationship with everyone to whom they are connected. As a parent can have many children, it is often simpler just to include a verification of parents in the child node as biographies usually include parents even if they do not include all the children. So in the case of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (1500–58) a citation confirming his parents is sufficient (and if that citation includes mention of his spouse -- Isabella of Portugal) then one citation has covered all the information necessary. If no mention of his spouse is to be found (in that citation) then that relationship will be covered in the citation in the node Philip II of Spain. These citations can be added to the articles if they also do not carry citations for these facts. -- PBS (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The number of sources needed is often much smaller that appears to be the case initially as a reliable genealogical source will often span many generations. See for example Charles I of England where one source covers the whole tree. Even where that is not the case in the example Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland all thirty entries are covered by just 8 citations. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The point here is that I have absolutely no intention of doing it, and it's pretty much guaranteed that no random editor will particularly want to either. So, essentially, you've permanently tag-bombed this page and moved on. If you really care about tree sourcing that much, why don't you do it? —  Scott  •  talk  14:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)