Template talk:Infobox noble

location of birth & death
I don't understand why these do not show on the articles; it has it on the template so why is it not there!? Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It should work now. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

CoA image
How about adding coat of arms image as an option? It is done on pl:Szablon:Szlachcic infobox. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 16:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I don't speak Polish but I think I've accurately captured what the code should look like.


 * label3 = Coat of arms
 * data3 = |[[File:|120px]]


 * style="text-align:center; font-size:95%; border-bottom:1px solid #aaa; background-color:white;"

If someone wants to verify this will work (lest we experiment), we can implement it. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That needs an alt parameter for a text alternative. See WP:ALT. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * that particular chunk of code would do nothing. the code you want is probably more like this


 * image2 =
 * caption2=
 * which fairly closely matches the code in infobox settlement. the main question here is what to do with the existing CoA when both are specified. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Native name
Can fields be added for "native_name" and "native_name_lang" similar to at template:infobox person. This is important because many people are not native English and their name in their native language may be quite different form that used in English. Particularly, I have noticed editors of Chinese nobles putting the Chinese characters beside the English name in the name field which breaks the microformat underlying the template, and causes display problems as the text is bold and bold Chinese text is hard to read. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done; with some other standard biographical fields. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue and native name language

 * 1) The "issue" entries all appear left-justified unlike the rest of the entries. Can this be fixed?
 * 2) Is there an "| issue -type          = " option? "Issue" itself is an odd word to use in the context of early Viking age nobles, who had "children".
 * 3) The ISO 639 code I need is an 639-2 code 'non' for Old Norse. I have tried entering 'non' and  but neither seems to work. I am trying to fix Thorfinn Torf-Einarsson and his kin.  Ben   Mac  Dui  18:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ I modified this template with regards to issue to align with Infobox royalty, so it now also has an issue-type. —Uzume (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ben   Mac  Dui  10:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

House type
I have made a change to how house type is displayed.
 * If the parameter "house type" is set it alters the display of the label next to the noble "family parameter". Instead of displaying the default "Noble family" ( with a link to the article Nobility), the link is change to whatever the "house type" is set to and the word "Family" is displayed in place of "Noble family". So for example if  is entered then the label is changed to Family.

This change has been made to satisfy an issue that came up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 11. Some editors are using this box on biography articles about people who's families were part of the English landed gentry but not noble families. when used this way it was confusing to have "Noble family" in the infobox. This change allows the box to be used on Gentry biographies and alter the wording so that it is less confusing. -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Formatting of Issue and Issue-link
I noticed that in Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon  the formatting from infobox noble turned up strangely, trying to crush "Issue", the issue's name, and "Detail" onto the first line. I did some code digging, found it was not a syntax problem, and that the infobox royalty code formats it in a better way, dropping the first name down a line.

Code for Infobox royalty (seems to work well):

Issue

|

Code for infobox noble where the line is "mooshed" together:

Issue

|

Although the change seems straightforward, I think it should be given a quick review by someone who has a more thorough understanding of the code than I do, given it will affect many pages. Can anyone help? Thanks. Peacedance (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Peacedance, should be fixed? Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing an issue :-) with formatting whereby the issue are left justified inside the infobox instead of being indented. Can someone who understands this code please fix it? WilliamKF (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Frietjes, a belated thank you for fixing this box. I had just been looking at the layout, not the actual code, in which I would have been working for a very long time! Sorry for not replying sooner - I would love to work on WP all day, everyday, but... Peacedance (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. There is an indentation inconsistency as WilliamKF said above, too, also with the Full Name line. However, neither problem confusing to viewer as previous, so less priority.  I'm going to look into that code to see if I can do it.
 * if you check the documentation, issue, full name, and styles are all left aligned. presumably, since the full name could be very long.  I really have no preference, but will see about slightly indenting. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reader confusion regarding the inconsistency of formatting of Issue may depend on your platform. For instance, in browsers the table appears left-justified, so the word Issue is lined up alongside all the other text in the left-hand column (Born, Died, etc); therefore royalty and nobility render differently to only a minor degree. But the Wikipedia app on iPad centralises the majority of the table with the sole exception of Issue - that is, Issue in royalty infoboxes is lined up with other text, but Issue in nobility infoboxes is pushed over on the left, out of alignment. (I came across this while quickly scanning through minor members of the Houses of Lancaster and York, where you progress through the generations from royalty to nobility; the children of royals catch your eye in the Quick Facts box, but the children of nobles are much harder to spot.) Manfred (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ I modified this template with regards to issue to align with Infobox royalty, so issue now aligns on the right (and also has an issue-type). I left full name and styles alone (they still are "left aligned"). —Uzume (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Changing the order of parameters
I tried to apply my changes to the template by editing the sandbox and examining them first, but the results weren't satisfying as nothing changed and the overall appearance remained the same. Anyway, I think by looking at my edit, you can probably realize what I intended to do: Changing the order of parameters by moving "Born", "Died" and "Burial" (labels 12, 14 & 15) to the top of personal details, above "Spouse" and "Issue" and beneath 'header6' which marks the end of the section titled succession. I also tried to move "Baptised" (label 13) and put it beneath "Religion" (label 20) as they seem to be more related. The goal was to create a template which is pretty much similar to Template:Infobox royalty and Template:Infobox officeholder, with "Born", "Died" and "Burial" appearing as the first three parts of personal details. Usually a person's date of birth, death and burial are the first things that can be seen in an info box, so I don't know why this one should be an exception. Keivan.f Talk 20:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * okay, I will have a look tomorrow. Frietjes (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I moved that section up, but kept it below the names (since names usually come before birth/death information). I also kept the baptised between the birth and death since those are chronological.  let me know if you want to make any further changes. Frietjes (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Honorifics?
Could we add a "honorific_prefix" and possibly a "honorific_suffix"? PPEMES (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Signature is broken
The merge broke the signature images. Infobox peers used module:InfoboxImage to show the signature, and infobox noble just use whatever passed to it (i.e. as it is). Christian75 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with the merging. However, did you include all the variables from the merged one? I have a hard time identifying them in the visual example infobox on the right side. PPEMES (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not update the /doc, if that's what you're asking. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In order to not interfere with your process, would you mind updating the docs accordingly? PPEMES (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a process, and generally leave updating the /doc to people who care about such things, but I have done so in this case. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 October 2020
I'm not sure exactly what needs to be changed in label38, but please disambiguate the Noble House link to Noble house (term). Nick Number (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand: Noble house (term) is just a redirect to Nobility &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The link already goes to the page that the requester wants it to go to, apparently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Embed/child
Does this template have an 'embed' or 'child' parameter? None of these functions activate, but they would be useful. Avilich (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This template needs the embed parameter, please! If someone with the proper knowledge to do that could do that, that would be fantastic. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Religion parameter?
Infobox royalty has this: Father Mother Religion Occupation



I came across an article trying to use that parameter. Cheers; Facts707 (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

religion & issue params

 * 1) The template is supposed to support the "religion" param but the param's content is not output and the error "Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox noble with unknown parameter 'religion'" appears instead.
 * 2) When the "issue" param is populated with the names of the offspring within the , the entries do not output in the right column but in the left column, indented. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ religion was removed in 986543831 but I also recently modified this template with regards to issue to align with Infobox royalty, so issue now aligns on the right (and also has an issue-type). —Uzume (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata
Does this module automatically link wikidata information? AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 07:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Linking to subtemplate
- «rv: not an appropriate template to recommend in present form, please take to talk if you disagree» - «Undid revision 1054204459 by Nikkimaria talk)»  - «rm»  - «Add link to Template:Infobox noble/Wikidata»
 * Please explain yourself. This is just a simple link that is completely appropriate in this place. You know unreasonable reverts like this are highly disruptive.
 * AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 00:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As you are already aware, the template is currently designed to import unsourced and poorly sourced data, which precludes its use in its present form. As such, advertising the template as a viable alternative is not appropriate at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we should deprive others from opportunity of assessment of infobox noble/Wikidata, so lets keep the link. I see no problems here. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 02:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the significant issues with the template, it would be misleading to include it as proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't justify the revert; let's others decide whether there is an issue or not; take it an appropriate template talk page if you have issues with template itself AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 08:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Issue"
I'm not really asking for a change here, mostly just trying to understand something. In genealogical usage, the word "issue" means everybody in the direct line of descendence—one's children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. It's an odd word to use here, I think. Why not just use "Children," which is a clear term for the people one has fathered, mothered, or adopted? Also, why do we use "Father" and "Mother" here when every other infobox just uses "Parent(s)"? I can't think of any nobles with two fathers or two mothers, but is there a reason we're ruling it out? Perhaps Lord Ivar Mountbatten and his partner James will have a kid someday. Just curious.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This comes from and the question has been asked (and answered) numerous times, including: Template talk:Infobox royalty/Archive 2, Template talk:Infobox royalty/Archive 2 and Template talk:Infobox royalty/Archive 3. It is meant to refer specifically to genetic offspring and thereby rule out adoptive children and other heirs (you are not the first and likely won't be the last to take issue with "Issue"). Biologically we normally have exactly one father and one mother. You might be happy to know that since 1058631003 (on 2021-12-04) there is now an issue-type parameter (also borrowed from ; see Template talk:Infobox royalty/Archive 2 and Template talk:Infobox royalty/Archive 2) so the default label can be altered to any provided wikitext (e.g., Progeny, Spawn, etc.). —Uzume (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. Well, that sounds "wrong" to me, but if it's what people want, keep calm and carry on.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Full name
Your recent edits appear to have resulted in full name being a required parameter. Was that an intended outcome, and if so why? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not intentional. I make exactly one mistake every day, and you found yesterday's! Congratulations. I think I have fixed it. Thank you so much for pointing it out and being nice about it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Honorific affixes
Thanks for your edits. Could you please restore the 77% font size for the  and   parameters? I know it's a slight violation of MOS:SMALLFONT, but it's at least consistent with Infobox person, so it's arguably something that might need fixing more widely. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk  · 16:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The template formatting was such a mess that I failed to notice that the honorific formatting was in above, which is enlarged, so reducing it to 77% results in 84.7%, a trivial violation of MOS:SMALLFONT which I'm not going to fight about. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)