Template talk:S-reg

Move colour to top border as per WT:SBS discussion

Please move colour to top border as per WT:SBS discussion. Change

background:

to

border-top: 5px solid

Thanks. Bazj (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Avoid redirect

|gb-bt=List of extant Baronetcies should be changed to |gb-bt=List of extant baronetcies to avoid a redirect. Schwede66 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done for all links to that target (not just gb-bt). DMacks (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Add Serbian nobility?

Could somebody please add Serbian nobility (sr) ?--Zoupan 06:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

...see Serbian noble titles and Serbian nobility in the Middle Ages for its purpose.--Zoupan 09:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Bazj (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2012

To change the link for pt, portuguese nobility, from a link to the category but to the actual article" Portuguese nobility

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Jenks24 (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Legendary titles

Requesting a "Legendary titles" option (code "leg") to separate the real from the legendary titles for the legendary kings of Britain, legendary dukes of Cornwall etc. See the sandbox for diffs from the current version. --xensyria^T 01:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --xensyria^T 17:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 May 2013

Add this specific section :

|to=Tongan nobility

Mimich (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 March 2015

I suggest to add a s-reg version (such as s-reg|hre) for the Holy Roman Empire, with a link to the List of states in the Holy Roman Empire and displaying the text "Regnal titles in the Holy Roman Empire". Reason: the uniform subsuming of HRE titles under German nobility is much too narrow, not including areas of Bohemian, Italian, Autrian, Polish, Belgian, French and Dutch peerage. Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)--

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Coloring

Is there a reason they are all the same bright green? I think it would be cool to have Scotland be blue, for example. --—Мандичка^YO 😜 04:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Different colours are used for different header templates, so that they can stand out in succession boxes (whether of Scottish subjects or not). Shades of blue, for example, are used for {{s-civ}}, {{s-culture}}, {{s-edu}}, {{s-pre}} and {{s-roy}}. Besides, what might work in some cases would be difficult to apply in others, and it would be impossible to create a system to cover everything. What we have now works well, though the individual hues themselves could bear with some tweaking; considering that succession-box-related matters more important than that have attracted very little interest, however, don't expect much. Waltham, The Duke of 08:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Peerage titles

Having separate headers for the peerage of England, peerage of Scotland, peerage of Ireland, peerage of Great Britain and peerage of the United Kingdom is very impratical. Many peers hold titles in several of these and repeating all the parameters (predecessor, successor, years and possibly more) simply because each title requires a special header does not make sense. If there is a need to specify that the title belongs to, say, the peerage of Scotland, that can easily be achieved within Template:S-ttl. Can we get a header that says just "Peerage titles"? That would give us a more reasonable solution for cases such as Charles Gordon-Lennox, 10th Duke of Richmond. Pinging Mr. Stradivarius... Surtsicna (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for imperial titles

The specific problem I'm trying to solve is for titles and positions in the Roman Empire during the principate, when emperorship was avowedly not royal. Could there be a parameter "s-reg|imp" (or something) that displays as "Imperial dignity"? This could be used for Roman empresses (where "royal titles" is invalid on two counts) and potentially other such titles elsewhere (possibly in the empires of Mexico or Haiti?). Q·L·1968 ☿ 02:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good @QuartierLatin1968: is there a link it could point to? Maybe Principate? Or would it apply to the later Romans as well? ‑‑Yodin^T 08:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. It could probably apply to the dominate (Diocletian onwards), possibly later. And if it were also used for any other countries, we might want it not to point to a link—unless perhaps Emperor itself (which explains some of the nuances in various historical settings). Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Support either way, it seems like a useful addition, and ready for {{editprotected}} following the sandbox. ‑‑Yodin^T 18:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Super—thanks for your support! I've added a line to the sandbox that links to Emperor; did I do this right? Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one! Just need to put {{edit template-protected}} (rather than the one I linked to before... which I think is just for articles now) at the top of this section to ping the admins/template editors. Let me know if you want a hand making all the edits to emperor articles, and if so tell me where I should start. ‑‑Yodin^T 10:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Adding the template now. For the time being, I was just going to add it to the empresses of the principate (who are in an awkward betwixt-and-between situation, given that empress isn't strictly a "Political office" or royal or even formally a title). But maybe it should also be added to all emperors up to Heraclius (or maybe just all of them)... Picking one later emperor at random, I see that Tiberius II Constantine is labeled as having the "Regnal title" of "Byzantine Emperor", which strictly speaking is not his title but a description of his position. Q·L·1968 ☿ 14:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: It's been suggested before but rejected - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive 7#Consort succession boxes (Disclosure: I see I was a participant in the discussion) and according to some of the comments there it had been discussed before. Regards, Bazj (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive 5#Consorts which links to other prior discussions. Bazj (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Bazj: I'm not completely convinced by the logic of the archived discussions: in practice, for example, first ladies of the US have {{s-hon}} succession boxes, and any discussion to remove it should be opened up to the editors on those articles too. Regardless, would you be willing to implement this just for Emperors (which as far as I can tell, have no specific parameter at the moment and so are foisted with "Regnal titles", which doesn't really apply: see above)? ‑‑Yodin^T 16:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yodin, don't count my opinion as a veto, but if you want to overthrow the status quo you'll need more than a day's discussion, and you'll need to solicit a wider range of opinion from interested projects such as WT:SBS and at Template talk:S-start which is the daddy template for this class of templates. The proposal also needs to be more definite in its scope and implementation (what is it for, where will it be used, what should it link to...), to be more in keeping with the template's existing parameters, and to show its alignment with current usage.

• Chinese and French emperors fit in the current model - see Napoleon III & Puyi, why not Roman?
• {{s-reg|imp}} suggests it will be a general purpose imperial usage, but the implementation covers just one phase of one empire.
• The suggestion is to link to Principate which only covers one period of the Roman Empire, and doesn't cover Tiberius II Constantine who is also discussed. How about the Dominate & the Byzantine emperors?
• The Mexican emperors are already covered by {{s-roy|mx}}
• The Haitian emperors didn't have a succession. They were three separate presidents who each upgraded their own title.

Having participated in the discussion I'll rule myself out of implementing anything here. Feel free to reactivate the request once some consensus had been reached. Bazj (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bazj, thanks for your input. As you'll probably have gathered from the above discussion, I've never made this kind of request before and am just feeling my way about the right thing to do. So from what I gather, the ground for objection to the earlier proposal you mentioned was that consorts don't strictly speaking succeed to one another. But as Yodin points out, first ladies provide a reasonably close parallel that in practice goes the other way. Would you suggest that I/other Wikipedians remove the "Empress of Rome" succession boxes altogether? Or that we keep the "Regnal titles" and "Royal titles" succession boxes?

Regarding your question, "Chinese and French emperors fit in the current model - see Napoleon III & Puyi, why not Roman?" Well, the short answer is that nature of monarchy in each country is not the same. Now for the long answer (forgive my geekiness): French emperors fit the current model because they also assumed royal titles like King of Rome, intermarried with the established European royal families, and in other ways functioned within the framework of 19th-century royalty. (This is even more clearly the case with the Emperors of Brazil, who I never mentioned in this proposal; these were often styled El-Rei and evidently thought of themselves as kings with a slightly upgraded title.) Point taken regarding Haiti. My proposal's really motivated by the peculiarities of the Roman constitution. You're right in thinking that linking to principate would be too narrow—however, it may be that Roman emperor would work as a link target and this should be implemented for all Roman emperors.

The Roman monarchy was distinct from kingship in a number of ways: (1) The title of rex (king) was eschewed, along with related terms (regina, regnum, etc.). (2) There was no concept of royal blood. Theoretically any reasonably well-born Roman could become emperor (not all emperors were even noble), provided (3) they commanded the support of the Senate, the people, and the army. A new emperor didn't just succeed his predecessor and start planning a coronation where he would be anointed before God to lord it over his subjects. Rather, he appealed to the Senate to legitimate his authority (tribunicia potestas being the most important legal construct in this regard) and gave cash donations to the military and the public to try and win them over. Each emperor was almost more of a president for life than a king, even if (like Hafez al-Assad or Kim Il-Sung) they primed their sons for the succession. (4) Kings in the Roman sphere of influence were subsidiary to the Roman state (of which the emperor and the Senate were the main embodiments): they tended to be small-scale client rulers, like the King of Commagene, or secondary regional powers like Mariboduus, King of the Suebi. Even kings of larger kingdoms like Armenia could be deposed and replaced by Roman authorities. Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

QuartierLatin1968, you're getting bogged down in unnecessary detail. Your request (at its most basic level) is for a colour box relevant to Roman Emperors that links to Roman emperor. This doesn't require a long discussion about whether the succession was hereditary, by election from an eligible group or otherwise, whether salic or non-salic, whether an absolute monarchy, a constitutional monarchy or somebody wielding power while pretending to be a functionary of a republic.

Emperors are generally considered royal, and the uses of this template (s-reg) are mostly nobility. A request to add

|rome=[[Roman emperor|Roman emperors]]

to {{s-roy}} would (in my opinion) be non-controversial and achieve what you want. Bear in mind that the edit request expands to "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.", and anything you add in excess of what's needed complicates the issue and begs for further delay. Regards, Bazj (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bazj: Okay, that's helpful. However, Roman emperors not royalty (see "unnecessary" detail), though most were noble, hence my request here. Should I make the request at {{s-roy}} notwithstanding? Also, are you saying that no succession boxes should be used for Roman empresses as such? Thanks for your patience; as I say, I've never made this kind of request before. Q·L·1968 ☿ 15:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

QuartierLatin1968, Yes for emperors at s-roy. No for empresses. Bazj (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I've just done so. Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Good stuff! I agree s-roy is probably the right place (the semantics of "succession" and "royalty" in the title of the template aren't visible in the articles once this is implemented, and blue is probably the right colour, rather than green, to fit with other articles). I respect the consensus that was established here in 2008 & 2009 Bazj (and even more so the work you contribute), but the status quo seems, to me, that Roman Empresses, like First Ladies of the US etc. have succession boxes (because they're helpful to readers: again, the semantics of "succession" is not visible, though "royalty" remains inaccurate on these articles: my support was for this either to be unlinked as "Imperial dignity", or for "Imperial dignity" to be linked to the generic Emperor, rather than my own suggestion of Principate), but yep, the more input to work out the way forward the better. I think having a broader discussion on this, perhaps at the village pump, seems a good idea, unless you'd rather I stopped rocking the boat QuartierLatin1968! ‑‑Yodin^T 12:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

As you wish. These things aren't cast in stone, and even the Roman Empire fell eventually. Bazj (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, it sounds like the kind of discussion Yodin suggests should probably get started, if for no other reason than to double-check that the consensus from earlier still enjoys support. (My apologies for not responding earlier; I was enjoying a bit of vacation.) Thanks again for your pointers, Bazj. Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 November 2015

To add the parameter "arl" (Arleat nobility [[[Kingdom of Arles|Arleat nobility]]]). This will correct disputes over the use of the "de" (German nobility) or "it" (Italian nobility) parameters in areas that were part of the Kingdom of Arles rather than other Holy Roman Empire client kingdoms of Germany and Italy.  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 21:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Bazj (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Whaleyland Curious about a kingdom I'd never heard of I followed the links after doing the change... Arleat or Arelat?? Bazj (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Good call! I totally messed that one up—it should be Arelat nobility. Wow. I've been saying and spelling that wrong for years. Oops! – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 09:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Changed. Regards, Bazj (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 March 2016

Could someone add a parameter for Belgian nobility? --Editor FIN (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Bazj (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --Editor FIN (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

Please copy over from Template:S-reg/sandbox. It is a change to remove redundant conditions. Tested with the following and see exactly the same output.

{{S-start}}
{{S-reg}}
{{S-reg|1=}}
{{S-reg|123}}
{{S-reg/sandbox}}
{{S-reg/sandbox|1=}}
{{S-reg/sandbox|123}}
{{S-end}}

Display:

--ネイ (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Nardog (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi admins - pls add Baronage of Scotland

noble titles with link to Barons in Scotland Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

sct-bt, which would be the appropriate entry for Scottish Baronetage, is already taken by Baronetage of Nova Scotia. Kellycrak88 If you plan to use it in only one article, it might be OK to do {{s-reg}} or {{s-reg|other}}. Which articles are you planning to put this on? SWinxy (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Scottish Baronetage (hereditary knights) is different to Scottish Baronage (feudal barons that are not peers)

Some example pages these baronage pages are currently under the Peerage of Scotland (you won't find scottish barons on the peerage of scotland page) which is incorrect they should be under Baronage of Scotland as scottish barons are not peers (see https://www.scotsbarons.org/) :

Henry Lindsay, 13th Earl of Crawford

Baron of Kilravock

Barony of Roslin Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

sct-ba would be fine ) or I don't mind using the existing other Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Added |sct-ba=[[Barons in Scotland|Baronage of Scotland]]. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Please remove the piping "Barons in Scotland" before "Baronage of Scotland". Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done, please remember to update the documentation. Cabayi (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)