Template talk:Infobox manner of address

Formatting
Instead of this template reading:

If we just removed the part I boldened, the border would go all the way around to make an actual infobox. And it would be more aesthetically pleasing. Does anyone disagree? --Matjlav(talk) 22:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

yes. They were all designed not to have a full box for a range of reasons, not least because they were modelled on the very successful papal infoboxes, which look far cleaner without a full box. Full boxes unless extremely carefully placed can also overrun the edge of texts and stand out, or appear too heavy, creating a stamp effect. Restricting the line to the left, as with the papal infobox, allows for a softer overall look, and also a better more professional design. Quite a few infoboxes on Wikipedia run into problems because the full box doesn't fit neatly onto the page but spills over. That is avoided, and the visual effect softened, by restricting the hard edge of the box to the text side and allowing the non-lined side to blend into the edge of the page without any demarcation, so that it isn't noticeable if it runs slightly to far, whereas a right-lined box would show exactly the edges of the box and the extent of any, even small, overrun. Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 22:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we delete this?
I found this template on a bunch of articles and would like to nominate it for deletion, but thought I'd post here first. I don't think any of the information in the box is useful, but if people want to preserve it then a couple of pages have a section called "Titles, styles, honours and arms" (or something like that) and the info can go there. What do you think? Tocharianne 05:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I clicked on a bunch of pages that use it and the styles are identical for everyone of the same rank, so it doesn't give any new information.
 * 2) On a related note, there's already an article called Royal and noble styles which explains styles, so it doesn't give any unique information.
 * 3) Most of the people using this template are dead, so it doesn't give any useful information.
 * 4) The style of address for a person should be a minor part of the article, not a distracting box, so it doesn't have any important information.
 * Had the discussion here the outcome was to keep.210.49.136.175 09:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous deletion discussion is at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 1. Opera hat (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Make altstyle optional?
At Aiko, Princess Toshi there is no  parameter and therefore the display looks awry. Having no knowledge of royal styles: Could it be made optional? --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is now optional. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Motto and motto translation in "bishopstyles"
I wanted to add the English translation of the Latin motto on the coat of arms for Robert Finn (bishop) to the infobox there.

For background: I don't know for sure but I've come to feel that the coat of arms for a Roman Catholic bishop is more attached to the diocese than to the bishop. It is added to the bishop's page, I know, under the Styles infobox using the "bishopstyles" template. But there's no provision for Motto in the template. I have set up the best amalgam I could from two templates -- the existing "bishopstyles" one and Motto from "Infobox Christian leader" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swliv/sandbox#.22infobox_bishopstyles.22_et_al. here at my Wiki sandbox]. But my mock-up shows the motto in a second Personal details box while there's another Personal details box for really personal details (assuming the motto is not really a personal detail); or, in any event, the "bishopstyles" personal details are shown in the Personal details box above Styles (where the coat of arms resides) -- not a good place for the translation, format-wise.

And, yes, I could have proposed moving Motto out of Personal details in "Infobox Christian leader" and into some more (as far as I see it now; I'm not an expert in church matters) germanely named section. But the translation seems to be a much better fit in the 'bishopstyles' template itself.

I certainly had no advance notice; but since my last post on my way to this proposal here, earlier this afternoon, I did hear on the radio the story that Pope Francis is moving to rely more on the vernacular languages and less on Latin in church affairs. Story here. I certainly don't, personally, wish to see Latin usage (secular, in my personal case) undermined; but I also don't think an English-language encyclopedia ought to be impermeably home to non-translated Latin bits.

I do recognize also, I think, that I have a hurdle to clear in terms of my (for now) reliance on Google Translate for my source, for the translation of the Finn motto. I will first note that Google Translate itself only added, to my pleasure, Latin in fairly recent times. I don't know how, right now, to solve the sourcing problem. But I feel there will be a way and meanwhile the template problem is the first one in my way.

Thanks much. Swliv (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * does [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Finn_(bishop)&oldid=628505378 this solve the problem]? Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * i'd prefer to have Styles still used and Motto= as part of it; because that's what's propagating, eg, across Wiki; with all that Latin untranslated I assume. I also like Styles because it doesn't presume that the coat of arms and motto are 'personal'; I don't know if it is personal or diocese-ian. (Any way to get rid of the "Personal details" sub-header in the Finn infobox? I'm assuming not.) I also don't feel the Latin needs to be repeated in the text of that infobox if it's already also in the footnote as it is. BUT I'm appreciative of having the Finn article 'better' (in my opinion) and having some template I can use if I wish to go further beyond Finn. At the moment? My interest has been quenched. Quite a journey. (And Google Translate has yet to be challenged; that may yet come.) Thanks much again. (For now? We'll see. Cheers.) Swliv 12:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ps: It didn't get easier for sure but I did after all go another step after 12:54 above (you did ask an open-ended question above, right?), here -- addressing the poster of all/many of the coats of arms -- FYI. I will say, I'm sure glad all the dialog above was in English. But I learned a lot going intra-Wiki machine-bi-lingual. Again we, or I, will see; and cheers. Swliv (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge?
Why can't this template merge with Template:Infobox Austrian monarch styles, Template:Infobox Spanish royalty styles, Template:Infobox Portuguese royalty styles, and Template:Infobox consort styles? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Chicbyaccident, those templates use this template, so there would be nothing to merge. if you want to substitute Template:Infobox Austrian monarch styles, Template:Infobox Spanish royalty styles, Template:Infobox Portuguese royalty styles, and Template:Infobox consort styles, go for it.  I believe they are all configured to substitute cleanly. Frietjes (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 May 2023
Change line 9

From: | label1    = Reference style

To: | label1    = Reference style  — Foxtrot1296 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: according to its link, Style (form of address), both "form of" and "manner of" are acceptable and synonymous phrases to describe the style.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 00:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The wikilink is stale and for those of us who use syntax highlighting while editing it shows as an ugly and unnecessary redirect in the infobox. Just do it. — Foxtrot1296 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)