Time to end the style wars and find a consensus solution[edit]

Presidential styles of
George W. Bush
President of the United States
Presidential styles of; George W. Bush; President of the United States
Reference style	The President
Spoken style	Mr President
Alternative style	Excellency (historic. Rarely used now.)

Papal styles of
**Benedict XVI**
Papal styles of; Benedict XVI
Reference style	His Holiness
Spoken style	Your Holiness
Religious style	Holy Father
Posthumous style	not applicable

Royal styles of
**Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution**
Royal styles of; Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution
Reference style	His Majesty
Spoken style	Your Majesty
Alternative style	Sir

Users may well be aware that a rather bitter battle has been waged over whether styles should be used at the opening of biographical articles on royalty. The genesis of it is complex but boils down to this.

Background[edit]

This is my analysis of what happened. You may disagree. The background at this stage is irrelevant. I'm just putting this here to give an idea of where this issue, IMHO, came from. I think people should agree to disagree and try to find a consensus solution.

In early 2005 a vote decided to use styles in articles in the form "His Majesty King Nicholas VIII of Nowhere (Nicholas Von Humbernickle) (1751-1790) was King of the United Kingdom of Outer Nowhere from 1780 to 1790."
- Though the users initiating the debate believed that they had held a valid debate and set a policy, later users opposed to styles, and who were not aware of the vote, disputed this and argued later that there was no policy. They pointed out that no policy had been entered into the Manual of Style.

Some months later, as styles were being added into articles, a major edit war erupted, with deletions, insertions, deletions, insertions, etc taking place on articles that styles had been added to.

An attempt was made to try to reach a consensus on whether to use them or not, using a complex vote. A clear consensus about what to do did not emerge, just a bitter row.

Because a lot of bitterness had been generated in the debate, the issue was dropped by most people and a form of truce evolved, in which those articles with styles kept them for now and those without them were left without them for now. Apart from the odd flare up when some people tried to delete styles from those with them, everything has been quiet.

Up front or not up front?[edit]

Looking at the debates and vote results, there does appear to be a consensus that styles should be in articles. The big issue is where. Those advocating their use up front believed that that simply showed the usage of a style. Those opposed to their usage up front believed their usage was POV and unencyclopædic.

An underlying fear of those advocating styles is that their deletion from up front would involve either their total deletion or their downgrading, when they believe they are important.

Proposal[edit]

I am proposing a solution that

does not use a style up front, so taking on board the fear of some people that their usage up front is POV. (I am doing this because I think the scale of unhappiness with their up front usage is such that keeping them there is undesirable. As long as they are used in that form articles will IMHO remain a battleground for edit wars. That is undesirable.)

gives styles recognised visual status, to recognise the genuine belief among many users that styles are important and need to be mentioned in a prominent way.

The solution I came up with is a series of infoboxes. Some are specific to types of monarch, or royal title holder. Some are generalised to cover all elected heads of state. They are designed to have a unified colour-scheme so that on every page when people see the box of that colour they know immediately that it is the style box.

Very Important: The issue right now is not the colour scheme or contents of the boxes. That can be tweaked. It is simply whether the infobox option offers a way out of the style wars, that can, if not totally satisfy both sides, at least reflect the real worries of both sides and try to find a middle ground.

Examples[edit]

Here are some examples of how articles might look if we used infoboxes. (Again I stress, don't worry for now about colourscheme, content, location of the infobox, etc. That can be debated later if a consensus emerges on using infoboxes. This is just one option using some rough mockups of infoboxes I prepared.)

Also note: These aren't the real articles, just very rough mockups that will be deleted after the debate. As they are mockups, not the live articles they are protected. They are here just to give an idea of how this policy might work and in general terms how pages could look.

Three examples on the page. Others in situ in mockup temp articles.

Some comments posted on my page and elsewhere and being copied here[edit]

Comments from my talk page[edit]

You did an excellent job. My suggestions:

First off, the current versions are a bit heavy on the italics; it'd be a little more readable without some of them. Secondly, on my PC the color looks like light pink rather than purple. Maybe the color should be altered to be unique to the nationality (national colors, etc.)
I'd prefer a flag to a crown for reasons of clarity and aesthetics.
Perhaps "royalblue" is a fitting color to use?

Keep it up and keep me posted. Neutrality^talk 02:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

How are we going to deal with different styles/titles from birth to death (such as Edward_VIII_of_the_United_Kingdom#Titles_from_birth_to_death)? Neutrality^talk 03:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I remember hearing that "Your Majesty" in England and "Your Grace" in Scotland were both accepted spoken titles of the British monarch? How will we deal with this?

The templates look pretty good to me. I'd be hard pressed to suggest any improvements. Deb 17:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the general approach. I really don't mind where styles go so long as it is not at the start of the article before the subject's name. Adam 03:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The approach seems quite sensible. I'm beginning to feel that the disputes over whether to use "Her Majesty Queen Victoria," "Queen Victoria," or "Victoria" are rather silly and pointless. -- Emsworth 03:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with Adam and Emsworth - this seems like a reasonable way to get out of the mess. john k 03:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable? I think it's bloody excellent! What a great solution. Thanks, Jim! Pete 03:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that gets styles moved from use to mention is great by me. I think it would make a bit more sense to integrate the style information into the existing templates for the various offices; but that's a minor point. It can be flashing purple in 72 point fonts, just as long as a WP entry indicates that a style is used rather than endorse the POV that a style should be used. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:59, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

Guys, I've put the draft Queen Victoria box in situ on the Victoria of the United Kingdom page so that you can see how it could possibly be used. The page is protected so it isn't the subject of an edit war on styles right this minute. (No text was harmed —ie, changed— in the installation of the box. It was just a stable place where a box could be shown to give people an idea of how, if the policy is adopted, a box could be used.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The box looks fine. But to illustrate what you mean (or at least what I hope you mean), you should also remove the use of the style in the lead paragraph and at the lead of "Early Life". It doesn't do any good to add an extra mention if the use remains unaltered. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:38, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

That is how I would expect it to work. But because the page is locked I deliberately didn't tamper with the text, so the style there was left untouched. But if that template goes live, the opening line would of course lose the style completely. I think in the text HMs, HRHs, HHs, etc would have to be used very sparingly, only really where it is useful to show for historical reasons the status of someone, for example in lists, but even then sparingly. I find endless styling of individuals OTT. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 04:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is the intention. I think it is an elegant solution that will unify the various approaches currently in use. I like the colour for the heading bar; it complements the pastel blue of the dynasty box very well. Pete 05:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really up on the issue, but the concept seems like a good one. My only question is where would the template appear in an article? My feeling is that it would be a good addition onto {{Infobox Biography}} for use in the lead of the article along with a pic and the birth and death dates.--nixie 04:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also think its bloody cool —no doubt a good compromise between those who want to distinguish the title, but a bit more comprehensive and likewise flashy, to appease the superficial types. If it works, itll be the first time that color graphics would be used to appease a recurrent raging regal rhubarb.-St|eve 06:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up. I hope that there is/will be a place for the adjective proudly borne by some monarchs: His Apostolic Majesty (Hungary), His Christian Majesty (France), His Most Christian Majesty (somewhere else, but I forget where), His Catholic Majesty (Spain), etc. I think that crowns are better than flags as the graphic: they are less often illustrated so their pictures would be educational, and flags per se may not have existed except as banners containing the individual's Arms. Also, flags are more likely to change during a reign than the crown, and crowns are representative of the status of the person that is the subject of the article but flags signify the broader scope of the entire country. --StanZegel 13:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I belive that Most Christian was also used by the Kings of France, and Most Cathoic by the Kings of Spain, both, as I understand it, having been authorized by Papal Bulls. I don't know what other such styles may have been used. DES ^(talk) 14:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, only used by the Kings of France; although we must check whether Louis Philippe also used it. Septentrionalis 15:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact, he did, although he was "King of the French". See [1] and [2] (good information on French royal titles in general.) Choess 18:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

An ingenious solution. I am fairly neutral in this war; if polled, I would vote against styles, but I would not start a poll to get rid of them. I find the purple a tad garish, although I understand the reasoning behind it. The Franz Joseph template exhibits two of the problems here: it's wrong on Bohemia (which was one of the states of the Austrian Empire; so "H.I.M.") - these things are tricky - ; and I believe his style was contested in Hungary from 1848 to 1867 - and that is exactly the sort of thing which makes templates crowded.

I also predict that if these become actual templates, instead of being substituted into articles, they will show up on TfD within days. This is merely a prediction, based on observing the deletionists there; I'd vote Keep. Good luck. Septentrionalis 15:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is where are you going to put this into an article? Already we have some space-problems with some articles because they feature images and dynastic templates. I am afraid that the article will become squashed with boxes and templates in the end. I agree that the proposed solution looks very nice. However what are you going to do when there is no space left anymore? In case there is not enough space, would it not make sense to maybe include the different styles in the article, maybe by pointing it out in the beginning? Gryffindor

11:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Talk:Pope Benedict XVI[edit]

I, for one, think it's a fine idea. Pointedly not discussing layout, content and colorscheme, the idea of an infobox (presumably instead of using the style in the article) is a good one. So, uh... support. --User:Jenmoa 05:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom[edit]

This solution has my whole-hearted support. It is simple yet elegant, in complete accord to the style of the article(s). Pete 05:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Zscout370's page[edit]

This is a perfect solution. We can show what styles are used when, since depending on the situation is depending on what style you use. Also, I am not sure where we can place the infoboxes at, but I am sure that others will love this idea as much as I do. A Barnstar for you! Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If any other comments have been made anywhere else, please copy them to here. It will allow a clear view on whether there is a consensus on using styles this way. (Thanks, BTW to everyone who left messages in response to my asking them for comments and responses.) Hopefully we can end the style wars and find a mutually agreeable solution that everyone can work with. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From here[edit]

I suggest we allow other comments to come in over the next few days on the principle of using infoboxes. We can then deal with the practicalities (design, location) if there is clear agreement on using infoboxes. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

I like it; count me as a support vote. However, I'd like to see the aesthetics of it altered a bit after adoption. -- Essjay · Talk 04:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I like the principle too. My own main objection is that the current draft box is far more prominent than the matter deserves. A small box with normal-size type and no loud colors seems better to me. Bill 11:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with it as a solution, though it will certainly take up space. We have to live with that if we are going to please everyone. Deb 20:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I approve the principle of the box as the (only) location of those styles. I do not go to minor details, such as coloring, fonts etc - sooner or later such will get some appropriate form, and anyway they are minor. I'll say later something about location. The principle is good because there, the style is not used (nor endorsed), it is just mentioned / explained. And it should be kept in that way. Arrigo 23:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a complete amateur at designing these things, guys. It certainly can be made smaller. I just used an infobox that had been used elsewhere and tampered with it slightly. There are plenty of users here who would know how to tweak it more. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The crowd goes wild! What will you do for an encore? Robert A West 20:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I were standards czar (syled "His Royal Strictness" :) ) I would have gone with a mention in the text " Joanna III, Queen of Fooland (1387 -- 1222), formally styled Her Excessive Majasty was..." or something of the sort. But thsi will fill the bill, and may even be an imnprovement. I can support this with no problems. DES ^(talk) 22:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Placement[edit]

Seeing as the response to this idea has been universally positive, perhaps some specifics should begin to be discussed. Most notably - placement. Where in the article should these boxes be placed? Many monarchs already have infoboxes that go at the top of the article. john k 04:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the case of a British monarch, I think a decent place would be within the royal house templates. That is, place the style information along with information about children and the other relations. There's already a gigantic template on the right side of the article, a little more wouldn't hurt–and it wouldn't interefore with the existing flow and layout. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'd be against that for a couple of reasons:

The practicalities:
1. The royal house template is currently used for all members of that House. Adding in a style bit as a result could not be made specific to a certain office holder since an add-in would appear on all pages with that template.
2. On at least two occasions in Britain alone, styles were changed midway through a royal house — in 1509 and in 1917. A separate box for the individual royals who underwent the change could accomodate that change cleanly. It would be more complex to do it as part of an already huge template, and as I have mentioned, it would then appear on all pages using that template, while one only wants it to appear in the relevant one.
This proposal is aimed at producing a win-win situation for both the pro- and anti-styles side. Removing styles and including them as a small part of an already large template would, IMHO, be unlikely to satisfy the pro-styles argument. Getting an infobox focusing only on styles, is more likely to. They may not be happy to lose styles at the start of articles, but at least they are there still in a strong visual presence on the issue with a separate infobox. (Similarly the anti-styles side may not be happy that they would still be in articles, but at least they would not be used at the start.)

I don't think putting the styles information into a large already-existing template would live up to the win-win senario I am trying to achieve for both sides. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the response to the general principle has been universally positive, I think that is a good idea to discuss the detail now. There are I think 3 issues: colour, content and location.

If there are concerns by users of putting in styles or not, how about leaving styles in for articles about royals who are still alive? And taking the styles out of royals who have passed away and using the template, would that satisfy demands? Gryffindor

15:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that the information be presented, not in a template, but in a table at the bottom of the person's page. A template form would not be useful given the more important household templates on most royality pages, or other infoboxes for PMs and Presidents etc. Astrotrain 16:36, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion for location[edit]

Perhaps the most logical location might be at the point in the article where an office-holder assumed the office. That usually is at least half way down the page, so it would be neither too prominent nor lost at the bottom (where I think it might not satisfy the demands of some pro-style activists). FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how it would work.

From Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Succession

Royal styles of Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution

Reference style	Her Majesty
Spoken style	Your Majesty
Alternative style	Ma'am

King George's health declined during 1951 and Elizabeth frequently stood in for him at public events. She visited Greece, Italy and Malta (where Philip was then stationed) during the year. In October she toured Canada and visited President Harry S. Truman in Washington, DC. In January 1952 Elizabeth and Philip set out for a tour of Australia and New Zealand. They had reached Kenya when word arrived of the death of her father, on 6 February 1952, from lung cancer.

At the exact moment of succession, she was in a treetop hotel – a unique circumstance for any such event. She was the first British monarch since the Act of Union in 1801 to be out of the country at the moment of succession. Treetops Hotel where she went up a princess and came down a queen is now a very popular tourist retreat in Kenya. Elizabeth's coronation took place in Westminster Abbey on 2 June 1953.

From George W. Bush

Presidential campaigns

Presidential styles of George W. Bush 43rd President of the United States
Reference style	The President
Spoken style	Mr President
Alternative style	Excellency (largely historic. Rarely used for modern US presidents)

In the final official count, Bush won Florida by only 537 votes (2,912,790 for Bush to 2,912,253 for Gore)[3], giving him the state's 25 electoral votes and the presidency. See U.S. presidential election, 2000 and The 2000 Florida Ballot Project. Bush was inaugurated President on January 20, 2001.

In the 2004 election Bush won a second term, carrying 31 of 50 states for a total of 286 Electoral College votes. Bush also won a majority of the popular vote: 50.73% to Kerry's 48.27%. Bush's popular vote total, at 62 million, is the largest ever, with Kerry's total of 59 million being the second largest. Bush was the first presidential candidate since his father, George H.W. Bush in 1988 to receive a majority of the popular vote. As in the 2000 election, there were charges raised alleging voting irregularities, especially in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In 2004 they did not lead to recounts that were expected to affect the result. After a congressional electoral contest -- the second in American history -- failed, a lawsuit challenging the result in Ohio was withdrawn, because the congressional certification of the electoral votes had rendered the case moot.

From Pope Pius X

Pontificate of Pius X

Papal styles of Pope St. Pius X

Reference style	His Holiness
Spoken style	Your Holiness
Religious style	Holy Father
Posthumous style	Saint

The pontificate of Pope St. Pius X was noted for its conservative agenda and as one of the most controversial modern papacies. In what became his motto, Pius X stated in 1903 that his papacy will undertake Instaurare Omnia in Christo, or "to restore all things to Christ." In his first encyclical (E Supremi Apostolatus, October 4, 1903), he stated that his overriding policy as follows: "We champion the authority of God. His authority and Commandments should be recognized, deferred to, and respected."

Motu Proprio of 1903 & the Restoral of Gregorian Chant

Within three months of his coronation, Pius X published the Motu Proprio (possibly co-written by his friend, Lorenzo Perosi). classical and Baroque compositions had long been favoured over Gregorian Chant in ecclesial music. Pius X announced a return to earlier musical styles, championed by Don Perosi. Since 1898, Perosi had been Director of the Sistine Chapel Choir, a title which Pius upgraded to "Perpetual Director."

- I think this would be a better solution. Although some articles, particuarly smaller ones, may need to be tailered more for the individual page as existing templates already take up most of the room (eg Lady Louise Windsor) Astrotrain 17:33, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Colour[edit]

I reviewed all the colours on offer. I picked purple because

I did not see it being used anywhere else.
Purple is a colour identified with those most strongly associated with styles, ie, royalty and the Church, so it seemed a natural colour to use for styles.
The fear among supporters of styles was that they would be buried in the text. I created a box that would be noticed to meet their objections, while the fact that the styles were not being used in texts would meet the objections of those unhappy at their usage in texts.

Neutrality had an interesting suggestion, that different colours be used in different articles. On balance however I think that would be inadvisable. Using a standard layout and colour means that readers of articles the moment they see them know what they are because they all look alike. The moment you see a purple box you know "oh, that is the style of this person" so it aids clarity while avoiding complexity. I think simplicity of design is preferable to complexity.

One side issue was the inclusion of a symbol of the office the person held. I think that adds a visual impact that avoids simply yet another box of text. As we are an encyclopædia we need a mixture of simplicity, clearness of design and also images to minimise over reliance on text alone. In addition, all the offices have a unique symbol: almost all monarchies have crowns, even if they no longer wear them. Presidents have presidential standards, etc. Wikipedia already has those images on here, so for visual distinctiveness it seems logical to use them. So I used the papal coronation Papal Tiara for the box on popes, the British coronation crown for the British one, the Scottish crown for the Scottish box, the White House for the US president's one, etc. (Using standards on their own is problematical, as royal standards change when royal houses change, but the crown remains a constant.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

Content is relatively easy, IMHO. We need to answer the questions: what is the formal diplomatic style of a head of state? What is the spoken form? Is there an alternative version used? Individual states may have more options, but rarely a large number. The basic format should be simple, straight-forward and NPOV. Lulu made the fair point point about whether stating these styles might in some way be seen as suggesting that people must use them. To avoid this I deliberately described them in the caption simply as the styles of a head of state, not the styles used. Nothing in their layout suggests "if you meet Pope Benedict XVI in your local pub, or Queen Elizabeth in your local chipper, you must use one of these", merely that these are used formally by diplomats (hence the deliberate use of diplomatic. Whether you use them or not is entirely your business.

Two final issues — I used monarchical styles rather than just styles for monarchs because unlike presidents monarchs will have had past styles when a prince/ess, etc. That is just a suggestion.

Secondly, I think bolding the descriptive text on the left helps distinguish it from the unique information in a particular infobox about a particular office holder. I also italicised it. That was a matter of personal preference. I like using italics to mark different information. User:Neutrality is not a fan of the italicisation. That too is something we should discuss. (I do think it is a good idea, however, to keep the italics from the top headline.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

Location is tricky. On balance I think one standard location on all pages where possible is best. I would suggest that the style infobox go directly below the first picture of the subject of the article. (BTW I am not skilled at designing these things. There are other Wikipedians who could tweak any final layout.)

For example

Mockup of George III article

Royal styles of Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution

Reference style	His Majesty
Spoken style	Your Majesty
Alternative style	Sir

George III (George William Frederick) (4 June 1738 – 29 January 1820) was King of Great Britain, and King of Ireland from 25 October 1760 until 1 January 1801, and thereafter King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until his death. He was concurrently Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and thus Elector (and later King) of Hanover. The Electorate became the Kingdom of Hanover on 12 October 1814. George was the third British monarch of the House of Hanover, but the first to be born in Britain and use English as his first language. During George III's reign, Britain lost many of its colonies in North America, which became the United States. Also during his reign, the realms of Great Britain and Ireland united to form the United Kingdom.

Later in his reign George III was said to have gone mad. It is thought now that he suffered from mental and nervous disorders as a consequence of the blood disease porphyria, which has struck several British monarchs. Recently, owing to studies showing high levels of the poison arsenic in King George's hair, arsenic is also thought to be a possible cause of King George's insanity and health problems. After a final relapse in 1811, George's eldest son, The Prince George, Prince of Wales governed as Prince Regent. Upon George's death, the Prince of Wales succeeded his father to become George IV.

(rest of text left out).

Rest of discussion

There probably is a standard size for the with of images on Wikipedia, or at least an average width. Perhaps the infobox should be the same width as that average. I do stress, I am a complete amateur in designing these things. People more skilled than I may well be able to tweak the boxes to fit better.

Alternatively the boxes could be made as a left inbox rather than right. I do think, given the strength of feeling among pro-styles people about the usage of styles, and that this proposal would involve the deletion of styles from the start of articles, that the boxes should be high up the article. Putting them lower down my seem like a victory for the anti-styles side and this whole proposal is drafted in a way that should produce a win-win for both sides, a compromise that both sides could live with.

There is an issue about the size of royal house templates. These templates are superb (really really superb) but in themselves cause problems in short articles. Adding in an infobox on the right might make this worse, but the central issue is what to do about long royal house templates in short articles, and whether maybe a different shaped template should be available in those cases. But that is a different issue.

Overall, and this is quite important, I do think we should agree on a policy about locating these templates. Because of the touchiness over the issue of styles, a locate them where you want to could well produce edit wars over the degree of prominence people want them to have, wth user X putting them at the top, user Y putting them down the text, and each side reverting ad nausaum. A clear policy that everyone would follow would limit that danger. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree- they should be placed at the bottom of the article, as the more important House of Hanover template would be better placed at the top of the article. Astrotrain 16:38, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lonely dissent, and some suggestions[edit]

I'm not wild about these, but I see that they have a lot of support.

For U.S. pages, I'd like to suggest either not using them at all, making them and opt-in choice, or making them subdued and at the bottom of the page. My reasoning is that the style goes with the office and not with the person. I think the current format draws disproportiante attention.

Also, I'm not sure "excellency" goes with U.S. presidents. Maurreen (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like them either. They seem to give someone's style undue importance. As it is I think it's bad when articles have a detailed discussion on someone's style in the introduction. It's worth mentioning style, but this should be done without drawing undue attention to it. Using their current style right up front when we give someone's name and, if it's changed greatly over the year's having a small section on it at the very end of the article seems sufficient enough. Surely an article should concentrate on what someone's actually done rather than concentrate on style! jguk 15:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points. Excellency is a standard style used for presidents. It was certainly used in the 19th century for US presidents; I've seen a document in Lincoln's papers calling him "His excellency". It was, I understand, used sporadically in the twentieth century for US presidents. However at this stage it is little more than a theoretical style long since replaced by simply The President or Mr. President. Re styles in articles, it is an encyclopædic topic as heads of state and other office-holders do have styles. For the length of a period someone holds the post (whether one term or for life) they have a style. Using it also allows for changes in style to be marked. So for example, Henry VII of England was His Grace or His Highness whereas his successor, Henry VIII, was His Majesty. King Charles II was His Majesty in England and His Grace in Scotland, as were all joint English/Scottish monarchs but from 1707 all monarchs were simply His/Her Majesty. Until 1917 some British royals were His/Her Highness. After 1917 they all became His/Her Royal Highness.

The problem with minimising styles in the way you suggest, Jguk, is that won't stop the edit wars. They will just be put back in to articles over and over again by those who feel it is important to use them. The only way to stop that is to move them to a location prominent enough so that you can say to those people "look, styles are now being downplayed, just relocated to a prominent location elsewhere. That will IMHO remove the threat of edit wars (bar one of two insertionists who will probably keep going). But if there is a consensus among the middle ground, which this proposal seems to have, then a few fringe fighters can be dealt with. This can only work if sufficiently prominent to stop most insertionists from putting into the text, and sufficiently out of the text for those people who see styles in the article text as POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This whole "styles box" seems to be giving them way too much prominence in my view, jguk 17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really good idea but it looks a bit too scientific in a literary context - plus in each one there's not a great deal of information provided. I personally think it's better to have a box of just text rather than a table maybe like this added at the end of the article: (E.g. Queen Victoria). This method may avoid confusion by laying everything out for the reader (a novice to the subject might not know how to put the various bits of information in the table together to form how to address the person etc.)

"Styles and Titles" (Heading) - At birth Victoria was a granddaughter of a monarch (George III)through the male line and as such held the style and title of a Royal Highness and Princess of the United Kingdom and was known as Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria of Kent. When she acceded to the throne as Queen of the United Kingdom she was styled Her Majesty The Queen, and later (occasionally) Her Imperial Majesty The Queen-Empress after being created Empress of India in 1877.

- Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria of Kent (1819-1837) - Her Majesty The Queen (1837-1901)[occasionally Her Imperial Majesty The Queen-Empress (1877-1901)]

I didnt mean to offend you, Im just suggesting! (jayboy2005)

Regarding overwhelming titling and styling, I have observed that beginners in such topic tend to accept, or want, plenty of titling and styling in the introductions, in texts and in all sorts of use. But rather often, when a person has done some more work with the issue, much of the enthusiasm of titling and styling tends to disappear. Of course not all, but remarkably often anyway. Would it be acceptable to call that development as maturing?? For example, professional genealogists, prosopographers and historians are not extremely eager to put up with all sorts of nitpicking about titles and use of styles. Regarding this round of polling, I would wish that persons who here are desiring MUCH prominence and/or visibility to these styles and to the box, please downtune their demands... 217.140.193.123 14:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

going live[edit]

hey guys,

The discussion seems to have dried up but a overwhelming majority has supported their introduction. As there was such a consensus, and no subsequent discussion (though I repeatedly did try to generate discussions) I think it makes sense to make these live. OK? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of all the responses I received (all of whom said that the boxes should be used) I've added in the papal box for popes from the early 18th century to John Paul II. (Benedict XVI is currently locked.) Boxes have also been added in British royal pages from Victoria to Elizabeth II. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 19:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The style boxes have now been used on papal pages and pages on Italian, British, French and Austrian royalty. I've added in a summary of the consensus on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). I hope everyone agrees that it is an accurate summary. If inaccurate, feel free to tweak it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consort Infobox[edit]

I've created another infobox for royal consorts:

I think it could be used in articles such as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Also, shouldn't Template:Infobox UKkingstyles be moved? See its talk page for my reasoning. --Matjlav^(talk) 22:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]