Template talk:Infobox family/Archive 1

Proposed merger of Template:Family name
I propose that Template:Family name should be merged with this Template:Infobox Family.

Please discuss this at Template talk:Family name. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. However, there is a proposed merger of Template:Infobox family name with Template:Infobox surname, which I suppose. Please see Template:Infobox family name. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger - Template:Infobox family is used to highlight a family's history and its key members, whereas Template:Infobox family name is focused more on the family's surname itself. -- Blairall (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That template was instead merged with Template:Infobox surname. PPEMES (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Variables
Some of them could be harmonised with that of Template:Infobox noble house. Also, the variable Crest (heraldry) (a component of an heraldic display often mistakenly applied to arms) could well be changed into coat of arms. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

These are the combined variables that should be implemented, please:

Infobox family
 * name             =
 * native_name      =
 * native_name_lang =
 * early_forms      =
 * other_name       =
 * meaning          =
 * coat of arms     =
 * coacaption       =
 * image            =
 * image_size       =
 * image_alt        =
 * imagecaption     =
 * type             =
 * region           =
 * origin           =
 * members          =
 * parent_family    =
 * cadet_branches   =
 * connected_members =
 * other_families   =
 * founded          =
 * founder          =
 * final_head       = <! -- Previously listed as "final ruler" -->
 * current_head     =
 * dissolution      =
 * ethnicity        =
 * titles           =
 * styles           =
 * deposition       =
 * distinctions     =
 * traditions       =
 * estates          = <! -- Previously listed as "estate" -->
 * heirlooms        =
 * website          =
 * footnotes        = <! -- Previously listed as "notes" -->

Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the "[show]" list, as seen in Template:Infobox clan, should be implemented by default in selected relevant variables, instead of the "using 'tlx|Template:Collapsible list'" advice in the code. Variables where this could be used: "titles", "styles", "members", "connected members", "connected families", "distinctions", "cadet branches", "estates". Perhaps could helpt get this correct as well? Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone must have already fixed this. I'm not seeing any of these auto-collapsed by default. See "Yojimbo-Doodah" demo to the right. There is no "connected families" parameter.  Anyway, we should not be auto-hiding anything, per MOS:DONTHIDE. The only time we'd auto-collapse actual content would be on a case-by-case basis in which WP:IAR was invoked with good reason, e.g. because a list of something like titles was so extensive it was distracting to the reader.  Even then, it would be better to move that material into a section in the article and not have it in the infobox.


 * — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Tradition(s)
What do you mean by that? Religious affiliation or just traditions, or what? Ernio48 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Colour
What about the "colour" variable, as seen in Rothschild family? Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Organisation/association
...could also be at hand. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Motto parameters
In the interests of improved data granularity, I've added three new parameters for mottoes:


 * 1) motto
 * 2) motto_lang
 * 3) motto_trans

Here is an. Note that motto_lang uses ISO language codes. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding these; however, they don't work. I tried to use them and get "unknown parameter" for all. The motto and the translation appear (despite the error in preview) but the language does not. See Arundell family. I purged the cache several times. (I undid your changes once I got the error bc I thought this had always been a part of this infobox and thought whatever you had done had screwed it up. Now I see you were trying to add it, so sorry for the confusion.) —Мандичка YO 😜 03:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Arundell family looks fine from here. The language name is not supposed to display; it's used in the HTML source of the page.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge Template:Infobox noble house with this template
I propose merging Template:Infobox noble house with this template Template:Infobox family. Please see: Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 27. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Merged version
I've made a merged version of Template:Infobox family and Template:Infobox noble house, post-CfD, at Template:Infobox family/sandbox. I note the inclusion of ethnicity and religion parameters, despite very, very clear RfCs to remove these parameters from bio infoboxes as too often abused and misleading, so they should probably be removed from this template, unless there's a consensus to keep them. In the vast majority of cases, inclusion of either of them will not be appropriate, and in the cases where it might be appropriate to note either datum in an infobox, this can be done with the notes a.k.a. footnotes parameter. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I've checked Template:Infobox royal house, also, and it is effectively merged (it has no unique parameters not already in the merged sandbox).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! However, I still don't really see the merged parametres from Template:Infobox noble house in Template:Infobox family/sandbox, though, or am I doing something wrong? As for the merge proposal, I agree, and have supported a condition merge of Template:Infobox royal house into Template:Infobox family on Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 13. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Try reloading the page or something. I just checked again, and all parameters of the royal house template exist in the sandbox of the family template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw it now in the code. Thanks! Would you mind implementing these updates into the live infobox template? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like people who actually use it to test it some; the exact layout of the two boxes was a little different. Is it displaying in various test cases exactly the way people want it to?  I don't want to push a change "live" in a zillion articles if people will object to anything about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was the one who initiated the merge proposal, which then gained support and a positive decision. Therefore I per WP:BOLD encourage you to proceed per WP:BOLD. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for you to go ahead and finish the merge? Ss soon as you have broadly put them together, with my more limited skills I should be able to refurbish it more in detail when I see you "catch x and y" variables for specific parametres etc. in the code. Hopefully that would bring about a clearer background for information in the present merge discussion regarding Template:Infobox royal house. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Four days seems like long enough for people to test and raise any obvious issues.  I'll address less obvious ones in next thread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Due cred! Chicbyaccident (talk)

Documenting and probably paring down the parameters
Notes on the parameters after the merge: Here is a complete list of all parameters as of this writing (parameter aliases are shown in parentheses a.k.a. round brackets):
 * 1) None of them are documented at all here (as to what they mean), and many of them are not listed as existing in the documentation or the templatedata block.  They don't have documentation on the merged-from template.
 * 2) At back-to-back RfCs at WP:VPPOL, the ethnicity and religion parameters were removed from Template:Infobox person and its derivatives, so they should probably be removed here. The consensus was that these are matters that are best covered in regular article prose, and that including them in infoboxes is too often misleading to readers and a source of editorial disputes.  Exceptions were made for infoboxes that focus on religious-figure biographies, and of course consensus at a particular article's talk page can decide to include this information as a custom parameter for a particular bio, if religion or ethnicity is central to someone's notability. For this particular template, is unlikely that many families/royal houses/dynasties will qualify for a single religious or ethnic label; for those that will qualify for a religious one, it's usually going to be stark raving obvious (e.g. "Roman Catholic" for all of Western Christianity until the Reformation), thus no reason to infobox it.
 * 3) Some paramaeters appear to be redundant and can probably be merged, though in some cases it's unclear what the intent was:
 * 4) * titles and styles
 * 5) * country and region and origin
 * 6) * early_forms and other_names
 * 7) * native_name and other_names
 * 8) * cadet_branches and other_families
 * 9) * Possibly all the coat_of_arms and crest parameters; when a coat of arms is given, the crest is given above it, so it's unclear why we'd ever present these as two separate image files.
 * 10) Some, if not exactly redundant, may be combinable into a single entry line:
 * 11) * founder and founded
 * 12) * final_ruler and dissolution
 * 13) Some have no clear rationale to exist at all:
 * 14) * connected_members – how is this different from members? What does "connected" mean? This seems too subjective to be useful.
 * 15) * distinctions, traditions, heirlooms – these seem like a huge invitation to original research, personal opinion, and other problems.
 * 16) * It's unclear if meaning is meant to apply to the name, the motto, or what.
 * 17) * What does deposition mean in this context? Is this something we really need in an infobox?
 * 18) I've probably missed a couple of potential problems.
 * 19) Update: Some have already been merged (e.g. surname with name; estate with estates; per discussion in earlier thread, crest etc. with coat_of_arms etc.).


 * name (surname)
 * native_name
 * native_name_lang
 * other_names (other_name)
 * coat_of_arms (coat of arms, crest)
 * coat_of_arms_size (crest_size)
 * alt
 * caption (coat_of_arms_caption, crest_caption, crestcaption)
 * image
 * image_size (imagesize)
 * alt2
 * caption2 (image_caption, imagecaption)
 * type
 * parent_house (parent house)
 * country
 * ethnicity
 * region
 * early_forms
 * origin
 * founded (founding_year, founding year)
 * founder
 * current_head (current head)
 * final_ruler (final ruler)
 * titles
 * styles
 * members
 * connected_members (connectedmembers)
 * other_families (otherfamilies)
 * distinctions
 * traditions
 * religion
 * motto
 * motto_lang
 * motto_trans
 * heirlooms
 * estate (estates)
 * meaning
 * dissolution
 * deposition
 * cadet_branches (cadet branches)
 * website (url)
 * footnotes (notes)

PS: I fixed some bugs, e.g. it was applying the same alt and image_size to both potential images, and the "unknown parameter" test code was not actually testing for many of the parameters, and thus throwing errors about actually-valid input. I also normalized all the multi-word parameter names to support "foo_bar" syntax; the style was wandering all over the place ("foo bar", "foobar", "foo-bar", etc.). The oddball variants that were already deployed are still accepted, but we shouldn't "advertise" them in the documentation.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Feedback
Great! Now, I have investigated the code, and I'm afraid my skills don't make it. Perhaps it is best asking for updates in text as below rather than risk crashing the code altogether. ** = added or updated parametre (- with reflection/comments)

- To go preferably right over the name (see House of Tudor) - Immediately above the name in equivalence with Template:Infobox person, as seen in House of Braganza (not sure about "Honorific_suffix", but there are some related cases arguably indicating some kind of need for that, such as House of Bernadotte) - Parametres could have a "1", "2", etc. possibility (for most common uses), as seen need for instance in Austria-Este etc. Not sure if needed, though. - Would do for use when applicable (as seen need for in for instance House of Lorraine, House of Grimaldi, Prince Murat)? Though, I guess this one should then be displayed in the top similarly to the "Name" parameter, in any case - Compare Carolingian dynasty, Ottoman dynasty, Pahlavi dynasty, Hashemites, Qing dynasty, Shah dynasty, Senussi, etc.). Perhaps even "/standard" and/or "/banner" would do if nothing else applicable, as seen in House of Dinefwr, Uí Ímair, and Alaouite dynasty, or yet even other solutions that would also circumferenc exemaples such as the picture of Eóganachta - And a general reflection: not sure about the "Coat of arms" use, is it supposed to typically contain a "lesser coat of arms" or a heraldic achievement - how to deal with that if only possible references is that of an individual - comment in caption or as "note" below in the infobox? And what about the legitimacy of use of attributed arms in infobox, such as in House of Normandy? - Where applicable, perhaps a "Blazon" parameter would do, such as in House of Lancaster, House of York, House of Burke, House of Nassau (but note sure that is preferrable as a general use due to lengthy paragraphs in infobox, and its visualisation typically already reflected). Hunyadi family infobox even indicates who granted the arms. - Could benefit from moving up right under the "Coat of arms" parameter - This one should be centralised below the name and image, similar to title in Template:Infobox Christian leader - "Parent house" could be changed to "Parent family" (along with the merge direction) or "Predecessor family"/"Predecessor" (as indicated preference in House of Este) - Compare Shah dynasty - Potential questions regarding this parameter - compare O'Neill dynasty - Legitimate subject of discussion in Talk:House_of_Bernadotte, perhaps "Citizenship" parameter would do in equivalence with Template:Infobox biography? - arguably more convenient than "religion" for some cases, such as in order to evade Confucianism vaguity etc. - However, what would be the optimal term? Should there be another term, "Seat" (as seen in Carolingian dynasty) or "Residence" as in Template:Infobox family? - See for instance Clan_Bruce) - I believe this one should be maintained - used in family noble families - In the bottom in equivalence with "Signature" in Template:Infobox person (compare signet ring of Childeric I in Merovingian dynasty). Applicable notably before emergence of coats of arms or when not applicable, such as House of Yi (see also: coinage as used in House of Knýtlinga, and signum manus) - The "Note" parameter doesn't seem to properly left align in row, as seen in House of Habsburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicbyaccident (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * crest (symbol)
 * crest (symbol)
 * crest_size
 * alt
 * caption (crest_caption, crestcaption)
 * honorific_prefix
 * surname (name)
 * native_names (native_name)
 * native_name_lang
 * other_name
 * name
 * full_name
 * coat_of_arms (coat of arms, emblem, standard, banner)
 * coat_of_arms_size
 * alt2
 * caption2 (coat_of_arms_caption)
 * motto
 * motto_lang
 * motto_trans
 * image
 * image_size (imagesize)
 * alt3
 * caption3 (image_caption, imagecaption)
 * type
 * parent_family (parent_house, parent house, predecessor family)
 * country
 * ethnicity
 * region
 * early_forms
 * origin
 * founded (founding_year, founding year)
 * founder
 * current_head (current head)
 * pretender
 * final_head (final_ruler, final ruler)
 * styles
 * titles
 * members
 * connected_members (connectedmembers)
 * other_families (otherfamilies)
 * distinctions
 * nationality
 * tradition (traditions)
 * religion
 * heirlooms
 * estate (estates)
 * meaning
 * rivals (opponents)
 * dissolution (deposition)
 * cadet_branches (cadet branches)
 * website (url)
 * seal
 * footnotes (notes)


 * Well, that's a big mixture of feature requests, observations, etc., and is way beyond a merge. Many of these ideas would need separate discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That's all I've got time for right now. Hopefully others will have plenty of input before I come back (or whoever; some other TemplateEditor could work on this in the interim). I've individually signed each of these bullets so people can insert whatever commentary they want without attribution confusion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Updates/replies regarding various line-items above:
 * In general, don't think in terms of adding a bunch of parameters. Every new parameter comes at several costs: 1) usage of the template becomes more difficult, 2) errors are more likely, 3) there's higher likelihood of people trying desperately to fill the parameter with, even if it's inappropriate, just to fill it. A new parameter idea has to provide a benefit that outweighs those costs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed the accidentally centered footnotes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "coat_of_arms (coat of arms, emblem, standard, banner" – We do not need to add more and more parameter aliases, but them by eventually hunting down all the odd-ball ones an replacing them with the canonical parameter name.  The way to indicate this parameter can be used for coats of arms, crests, emblems, etc., is in the documentation.  Done.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We also don't need to add more "sub-parameters" like blazon; there's a coat-of-arms_caption parameter for a reason (plus it's not even necessary to use it; as several of the above example articles show, you can actually append descriptive text to the image code, though this is clumsy).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "seal" – Also goes here, especially given "Applicable notably before emergence of coats of arms"; i.e., we have no reason to add the seal if we already have the CoA, but we have a reason to use the seal in absence of one, so: same parameter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "honorific_prefix" – That, and the suffix version, pertain to individuals. It is not, and cannot be, a goal of this template to include all the parameters of Template:Infobox person because they're for different purposes. The parameter you want already exists, as titles (or styles; these probably need to merge into a single line.  You can see this parameter already in use at many of these royal house articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Parameters could have a '1', '2', etc." – There's no need for that except for the image alts and such; these text parameters are intended to hold lists if they have more than one value. Whether people do them as bulleted lists or is up to consensus on the page in question.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "full_name" – Why? It's alread doable as House of Grimaldi House of Polignac-Matignon-Grimaldi or House of GrimaldiHouse of Polignac-Matignon-Grimaldi. We should be eliminating redundant parameters, not creating more of them, unless there's a clear demand for a particular new parameter and it will be used a lot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "motto - Could benefit from moving up right under the "Coat of arms" parameter" – Was thinking that as well, since the motto is generally part of the total heraldic presentation. It's possible someone would object though, since it's not exactly the most crucial fact, but verges on trivia.  That would be a change worth discussing for a while with more input.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "parent_family" – Implemented, since after the merge parent_house is no longer limited to royal houses; that's a parameter alias that's actually necessary for the template to make sense. "Predecessor" is the wrong word; it's frequently abused, but does not apply if the prior entity still exists (it literally means 'one who/that which died before').  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "citizenship" – Nope. No such thing as family citizenship. The term only applies to individuals. Same is generally true of "nationality".  People move around, but they don't sudden lose their family connections just because now they're in Scotland instead of England, or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "pretender" – Not necessary; as the Shah article you pointed to already shows, it's easy to indicate this an existing current_head or deposition template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "estate (estates) ... what would be the optimal term? Should there be another term, 'Seat' (as seen in Carolingian dynasty) or 'Residence' as in Template:Infobox family? – Terms that specific don't apply to a template this generic. That's part of the price of merging. both templates were using "estate[s]", and that's served them well the entire time, so there's no rationale for a change.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "rivals" – Too subjective and variable over time. In the odd case that it's not, people can use the notes parameter, but really this is something that belongs in article prose not an infobox in virtually all cases. The fact that the Scottish clans infobox is using this is likely a problem, not something to emulate here. And merging that template's features hasn't been discussed anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "dissolution (deposition) - I believe this one should be maintained - used in family noble families" – Except these don't seem to be the same thing, and we don't have any clear info on what the difference is or is supposed to be. This may be a term of art I'm not familiar with, or it may refer only to the deposing of a sovereign, in which case it doesn't belong in a family infobox. Basically, I have too little information on what this parameter's scope and intent are to do anything with it at present. If it synonymous with dissolution then it needs to merge with it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! All good arguments as response to the feedback. I agree. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional remarks
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicbyaccident (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) There is something wrong with the row handling in parameters espcially when there are * lists, as seen in multiple infoboxes such House of Savoy, House of Orléans, House of Wettin, House of Vasa
 * 2) Perhaps there ought to be some "show/hide" variable possible to use for extended detailed information (with code   in documentaton), as seen in House of Savoy, House of Bourbon-Parma, Austria-Este, Petrović-Njegoš dynasty?
 * 3) What about dividing the infobox in labels a little in equivalence with the "Orders" and "Personal details" labels in Template:Infobox Christian leader (see also Template:Infobox clan)? I was thinking something like "Distinctions" label for aristocracy and royalty, keeping titles, styles, and perhaps other related parametres there (country? see below)
 * 4) Perhaps "Country" could be split also in "Claim(s)", "Titular claim(s)" (as seen notes in House of Habsburg, House of York), "Country claim(s)", "Pretention(s)" or something similar, as seen need for in House of Glücksburg? /And/or "Former countries", as seen need for in House of Bourbon-Parma?
 * 5) Perhaps "Status" would be more neutral than "type"; more pertaining to a perspective than a 'stated fact'?
 * 6) Perhaps titles and styles should be the same parameter, such as in Template:Infobox noble (which also appreanetly has a hide/show function)
 * 7) Reflection on inconsistant terminology regarding "type": there is quite come inconsistency, even inside indivual articles including in parameters, related to "family", "dynasty", "Imperial house" (Julio-Claudian dynasty), "Imperial Family" (Palaiologos), "royal dynasty" (Carolingian dynasty), "royal family" (Anscarids), "royal house" (Robertians), "House of France" (House of Capet), "Noble family" (House of Malatesta, House of Este, etc.), "Black noble family" (Della Rovere, Orsini family, etc.), "landed gentry family" (O'Connor), "clan" (Clann Cholmáin, Clann Cholmáin etc., consider for the rest a merge with Template:Infobox clan), "cadet branch", "branch". Perhaps these examples could be further standardised, also taking into account generally the qualifications for "House of" prefix, as seen in Capetian dynasty ("also known as the House of France" in lead), Palaiologos etc. that could evually be revisited on a related note (in many cases it is anachronistically attributed at a later date, such as House of Sverre). There is also inconsistency in descendence (agnatic/-non-agnatic/cognatic) in parametres, see cadet branches parameter divided in "agnatic" and "non-agnatic" (Carolingian dynasty, House of Braganza), House of Gonzaga (in "head of a cadet branch"), House of Iturbide ("cognatic descendant"), "replaced by" (House of Sverre), "legitimized" (House of Lancaster), "Illegitimate" (Anscarids, House of Sforza, House of Normandy, Přemyslid dynasty, House of Trastámara). See also: "Dissolution: 1425 (agnatic line) 1441 (sole heiress' death)" in House of Évreux, as well as "Extinction: 1985 (in agnatic line)" in House of Nassau-Weilburg See also: notable "Claimants" in this parameter in Palaiologos, which indicate a need for an adjustment or additional such parameter. Note sure how to solve that. While at it, there is a related challenge of reflecting how "Styles" etc. are attributed to individuals of the family vis-à-vis collectively as a whole.
 * I'll look into no. 1 first; it's most important to fix bugs, before even thinking about additional features.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no list display issues. There was one on one of those pages because someone made a mistake in the list coding, but that had nothing to do with this template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's done in the parameter data supplied by the editor, with ; has nothing to do with this template in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As the articles linked to clearly demonstrate, this is already handled by being specific inside the content supplied to the parameter. So, there is no need for additional parameters.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the nature of the beast, especially given that the merged template is literally for every family type there is. Thus, variation in what people put here is guaranteed and not of any concern.  When editors are sensible it will likely be based on how the article is categorized, and what the lead says.  If they input something ridiculous other editors will fix it later.  This super-generic template cannot pre-figure every possible categorization that could be put into such a parameter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Finishing the merge
Thanks so much for your kind help! Would you mind finishing the merge and the redirect of Template:Infobox noble house as well, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you jog my memory where the consensus discussion is (was it a TfD?). I don't want to get people chasing me with pitchforks and torches.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually given that this directly related TfD discussion is still ongoing as of this writing, I'm going to defer on this a while longer until the consensus is clearer. I may sandbox some further merge work in the interim, though until the clarifications asked for at Template talk:Infobox surname are provided, that will probably run into a brick wall. It did already, when I was working on this before.  Some of the parameters conflict with each other, and it's not clear which should be retained.  And some of them don't serve a clear purpose. I have a responsibility as a TE to not just impose my fancy on them, especially since they're used in a large number of articles. Avoiding breakage on "live" pages is important.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What ought we do with Template:Infobox noble house and Template:Infobox royal house now? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit. It has never been propsoed to be deleted, right? So something seems wrong with that edit. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry?It was proposed for a merge.That did not gain consensus .But, I noticed a skew towards not merging it.Thus, the template is kept non-merged(status-quo). Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposal was about to merging Template:Infobox clan with this template. Nothing else, nor deleting this one. That was my remark. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep! It's a bit odd! I would have favored something along the lines of --This template was considered as the merge-target for Template:Infobox clan on 28 September 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus.But, I guess it's complex for the script to differentiate between deletion and discussion and create so many variable fields for the variety of actions seeked at TfD. would be the right person to look at the issue and comment. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I have finished the merge now, taking into account all the previosuly overlapping parametres from Template:Infobox noble house, and Template:Infobox royal house. Proposal of the latter is still an open merge proposal - see hatnote in this template regular page. I know you objected to ethnicity variable due to discussions on the Village Pump, and although I agree with the scepticism, for technical reasons I advocate keeping this at least until the last merge proposal is finished. All in all, this template now seems to work out well, and we can take it from here. However, for redirection of the two fore-mentioned depricated, merged templates, I would have to rely on your technical skills, though. I am sorry I am techincally unable to finish this last part of the merge! Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Would this be a good time to revisit the question of whether action should be taken to remove ethnicity? --Worldbruce (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. Yet, although I am opening to arguments, I am unable to see convincing reasons to drop it altogether. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you see it as covered by WP:INFOBOXETHNICITY? --Worldbruce (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Guess I leave this to and you. But I do have a hard time understanding draconically erasing information over the board. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See the RfC. Often what's included in ethnicity parameters is not but disputed and controversial  that lead to incessant fighting (most often because of the racist one-drop rule being used to pigeonhole anyone with an African ancestor).  And moving one- or two-word, over-simplified alleged information out of the infobox into a proper sentence or so of real information in the article body is not "draconically erasing information", it's proper encyclopedia writing.  That said, I have little time for this sort of stuff right now. I've been on wikibreak for months, and am only just now returning, with a tremendous amount of stuff to wade through. I won't be diving into this template code any time soon, much less something like a re-RfC about its parameters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit protected
There are two copies of the "this template is up for deletion" marker on this template. See their appearance at House of Plantagenet for example. Please remove one of them. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is because two templates are considered for merging with this one. Another option would be to only leave the notice on the templates issued to merge with this template, while leaving this template free of notice since this one is not asked to be changed. Protection per se would not be helpful, though. There is no other abnormal issue with this template that could give reaons for that. Please keep Wikipedia free as much as possible. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The request template is informing us that the article is already semi-protected, so the IP can't edit it. Not that the protection level will increase. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * [//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/830587746 Fixed]. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity parameter

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the ethnicity parameter be removed? Celia Homeford (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of restoring the Ethnicity parameter particular in relation to Royal and Noble families. I have noticed that a number of Royal Families still have the ethnicity section in the 'code' however it no longer appears. Was there a particular reason as to why this parameter was removed? Alssa1 (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove it. As noted above, the |ethnicity= and |religion= parameters were removed from biographical infoboxes as 'too often abused and misleading... In the vast majority of cases, inclusion of either of them will not be appropriate, and in the cases where it might be appropriate to note either datum in an infobox, this can be done with the |notes= a.k.a. |footnotes= parameter. SMcCandlish 12:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)'. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove, per WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127. I agree with the comments of a couple sections above that what is listed under the parameter is often not information but disputed and controversial assertions and labeling. Given the many ways in which ethnic groups can be defined and membership in those groups can be delineated, it isn't suitable for infobox summaries. The Village Pump RFC was clear on the consensus that it shouldn't be included for individuals, and listing it for families is even more problematic, as family members may identify as members of different ethnic groups.--Trystan (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons outlined below. Alssa1 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove. The consensus in the massive RfC about this at WP:VPPOL (our widest consensus-sampling venue for such matters), not only applies to this, it apply "extra much" because the template is about multiple individuals; all the BLP and other concerns are actually magnified when you apply contentious labels to entire families of people.  It also doesn't conceptually make sense anyway: families are not all going to uniformly be one ethnicity, under any definition. Ethnicities are not species, and humans are the furthest thing from strictly endogamous, tending to mate with anyone we take a fancy to).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove., if the 'ethnicity' of individuals is problematic, how on earth can the ethnicity of the family units they come from be less so? The example given below (the Tudors), claims that the Tudors had "Welsh and English ethnicity" and is simply a confusing way of saying they had both English and Welsh ancestry. It ignores the complex intermarriages of European Royals and aristocracy and ignores any Norman, and other European aristocratic components of their descent. If we are discussing British Royals, the present Queen is one of the few monarchs to have actually had two British-born parents (if that is what is meant by 'ethnicity'). Her son, Charles, is not able to make the same claim. 'Ethnicity' simply makes a claim that is unsupportable and much better rendered as text as to what the family ancestry is/was.Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove per SMcCandlish. Attempting to present familial or dynastic ethnicity via infobox will inevitably lead to gross oversimplification (at best) or misinformation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove, please. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - The rather obvious issues that make most any use of this parameter counter-rational in virtually every sense have already been noted above. Snow let's rap 06:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove Far too subject to abuse. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments
The previous RFC regarding ethnicities in infoboxes was to do with a discussion regarding an endless debate regarding Bernie Sanders' ethnicity. I agree strongly with the removal of the ethnicity section for an individual's infobox for the reasons you have described, but when we are talking of Royal dynasties/families I believe there is an encyclopedic merit in putting ethnicity down. The infobox "are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles" they are designed to provide concise and material relevant information "at-a-glance". Families have an objective ethnic origin, which can be summarised under the ethnicity parameter and it would be strange to not include it when the purpose of an infobox is to provide such relevant information. As for the potential for controversy, we have procedures for dealing with controversial topics and statements; however I simply don't agree that potential for controversy means we should haphazardly remove a parameter for relevant information (and thereby undermining the purpose of a infobox in the first place). I recently made an addition to the House of Tudor, in which I added their ethnicity as being Welsh and English. Is there any controversy in such an addition? Alssa1 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It gives the impression that all Tudors were primarily part of the Welsh ethnic group, when several of their most prominent members were primarily part of the English ethnic group. The information is best given in the text, where he appropriate qualifications can be provided.--Trystan (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's quite a silly interpretation of the information in the box and I therefore question the legitimacy of that assumption. If you applied that logic to all the information in the box, you would assume that all members of the Royal house of Tudor were Kings of England, Ireland and (claimed) France; when of course they were not. Alssa1 (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A further way of demonstrating why I believe the ethnicity parameter should not be seen as either "problematic" or anything else is by making reference to the Rothschild banking family. We have, since the creation of their page, described them as a "Jewish family", yet if we were to take your criticisms of mentioning ethnicity as legitimate, we would not describe them as Jewish because of "the complex intermarriages of European Royals and aristocracy". I don't deny for one second the complex nature of ethnicity, but the idea that we should remove a category for objective information is silly. The Tudors originated in Wales, the Saxe-Coburg's originated in (modern-day) Germany, the House of Bernodotte originated in France... By referencing the ethnic origins of their family we're not declaring them non-British (in the case of the Windsors), we're providing at "at-a-glance" relevant information that infoboxes are designed for. Alssa1 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On a final note I accept that on occasion there may be families in which listing their ethnicity may be controversial, but that can be dealt with by simply not mentioning it on that individual page/leaving that page's infobox blank. By saying that we should remove the parameter on the infoxbox template, we're saying that we should not mention ethnicity even in cases where the ethnicity is not controversial. Alssa1 (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC
 * The Tudors had both Welsh and English roots, both of which were relevant to their ascent. They also had other nationalities (which are not especially relevant) in their heritage. Extrapolating from that they were 'ethnically' English and Welsh (did the terms mean much at that time, when most English aristocracy were largely Norman in descent?). Why use an imprecise and somewhat problematic term (ethnicity) when all the relevant info can be rendered in text more accurately and fully. Of course there are families which are wholly Jewish or wholly some other ethnic group, but again that is simply rendered in text. The present British Queen is certainly wholly British by identification, but not 'ethnically' so - that is true of many/most royals. I do not see what the parameter adds which is not better rendered as text. Pincrete (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In the first instance, I must simply disagree that the term ethnicity is "imprecise and somewhat problematic"; the fact that you have accepted that there are going to be some families that are wholly one ethnic group (such as Jewish families) demonstrates that there is actually a benefit for having the ethnicity parameter in the template. As I have said previously, the existence of controversial categorisations for individual families does not mean we need to haphazardly remove the ethnicity parameter from the template as a whole; there are far more appropriate methods to dealing with such individual controversies. In answer to your statement regarding 'rendering the information' in the text, that attitude negates the existence of the infobox in the first place. If we were to be consistent, I could cobble together an argument to removing all the data in the box by simply re-hashing many of the arguments proposed here. The whole purpose of the infobox (as mentioned in WP guide for infoboxes) is to provide "at-a-glance" information; if you believe that we should remove such an infobox category, can you make the case for removing it specifically from the template? Alssa1 (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What I accept is that there may be some families in which a simple description in text is possible (eg notable Jewish families) - in other cases a more complex picture is also better rendered in text. The description 'ethnicity' is inherently problematic, imprecise and variable. A family which in the UK described itself as "British Asian" - would be very unlikely to be identified by either term if they were living back in whatever part of Asia they came from. I question whether there is such a thing as English/British ethnicity (as opposed to nationality). Pincrete (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Particularly - the motivation for this whole discussion - the infobox field is an absolute magnet for undesirable edits. I know someone will say "fix them, don't remove the whole thing" but as we know it is not always so easy as that; there is limited effort available and inevitably in some cases it will be a struggle to fix them up. I think this overall makes this field a net detriment to the project. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. While the con arguments seem convincing in many individuals cases - as too seems to agree with - per Advocatus Diaboli, do we have even better arguments for completely vanishing this variable altogether? In comparison, what about the "traditions" or "country" variables? Aren't many of the variables providing reflections of subjective assertions rather than empirically verifiable assertions of objectivitiy, and that the readers are spared some personal discernment and assessment of mirrored statements presented? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Honorific prefix
Certain families, like House of Braganza, indicate need for honorific_prefix placement above the name, similar to how rendered in Template:Infobox person. Would that be in idea? While at it, we could as well add a "honorific_suffix" after, similar to infobox person, although I would guess that would have less use, perhaps in som extra-European traditions? PPEMES (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)