Template talk:Monarchism

Template needs revision

Certainly, a Monarchism template for certain subjects could be useful, but the topics in the 'history' section of the template seem odd choices. Only Magna Carta displays the Monarchism template. The main article, Monarchy does not display it. I think we need to rethink the purpose of this template. The topics the template claims are (tenuously, in some cases) related to monarchy, but other historical and political templates would seem to have a greater claim to them. I would like to open a discussion.--Gazzster (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the above. --Lawe (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the 'history' section of the template because the topics contained therein do not have the template. Neither can they make an exclusive claim to the template. Magna Carta is an exception. It does have the template, but even here, Template:History of England would seem more appropriate. By all means, though, let's discuss how this template could be revised and made more useful.--Gazzster (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not a monarchy, rather than monarchism template? Maybe pick the bones of the monarchism article. --Lawe (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. As 'Monarchism', a political ideology, its use is going to be quite limited.But if it becomes 'Monarchy', it can be applied to many historical articles. Even so, to avoid plastering such a template on a plethora of articles, it would be better to have more specific templates: 'UK Monarchy', 'Danish Monarchy', 'Monarchy of Lesotho', etc. But that seems over the top, as many of these templates would be specific to only one article. No, the more I think of this, Template:Monarchism should probably remain as; unused.--Gazzster (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, you reverted my edit and said discuss on the talk page. I have. Not my fault if only Lawe joined in. I started this page by inviting discussion. I would welcome your views.--Gazzster (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait first. Two for and one against is still no consensus for change (see WP:CON). Revolutions and important documents like the Magna Carta are obviously relevant to monarchism...--Cameron * 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day! Glad you joined us. OK. Make your argument.--Gazzster (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the Template lists articles, presumably that template should or could be applied to those articles? But there are far more relevant and appropriate templates assigned to these articles already. Why, for example, should Treaty of Versailles own the Monarchism template, rather than the template it already has?--Gazzster (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The magna carta is of vital importance for monarchies not only in the UK but on a global scale. Revolutions (effectively being the end of many monarchies) are also of great importance to the history of the monarchy in various countries. Templates do necessarily need to be present on all the pages listed. I'll leave a note at the royalty wikiproject to get some more input. --Cameron * 21:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I can't appreciate the significance of Treaty of Versailles in particular. The Treaty did not abolish any monarchies. The Emperors of Germany and Austria-Hungary abdicated at the end of the War in 1918, before Versailles.The monarchy of Turkey continued for a time, and the monarchy of Bulgaria continued through WWII.--Gazzster (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the Revolutions of 1848 were not specifically anti-monarchist. In fact, in Germany, the imperial crown was offered to the King of Prussia, and in France the Revolution placed the crown on the head of Louis-Philippe I--Gazzster (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The republican in me, prefers this Template deleted (ha ha). Anyways, whatever decided here, I'll abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do beg pardon. Louis-Philippe was 1830. He was deposed in 1848. Nevertheless, the 1848 Revolutions were not specifically anti-monarchist.--Gazzster (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time

I think enough time has expired without the usual interested parties offering a view. I will go ahead and edit the template. But in the interests of maintaining a discussion I will only remove Treaty of Versailles and Revolutions of 1848, for the reasons above.--Gazzster (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Versaille but I'm not entirely convinced as to the 1848 revolutions, can I add Revolutions of 1848 in the German states specifically? :) --Cameron * 09:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The revolutions in Germany were not motivated by republicanism. The issues the revolutionaries wanted addressed were electoral reform, freedom of the press, alleviation of economic distress, etc. The people in Prussia and Saxony petitioned the King for redress. The Assembly of the German Confederation offered the imperial Crown to Prussia. The King of that country declined.--Gazzster (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The template has gone through a number of changes regarding the image used. From what I understand, only one of those changes was accompanied by an explanation (I don't count "it just looks better" as an explanation) and that was Lobsterthermidor

Replaced image of Russian State Crown (File:Russian Imperial Crown.svg) with image more applic. to English WP.

There is a little bit of merit to this but I don't find it entirely convincing. In order to avoid perpetual changes of the "my country's crown looks better" variety, I propose a little bit of discussion. Is an image necessary? Is a crown the best choice? If so, what should be the basis of our choice? Familiarity for English-speakers? Neutrality? (By that I mean, image of a crown that's not actually a heraldic crown) Beauty? Pichpich (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image would be nice but obviously as there is the issue of various nations crowns having been used we should choose something non specific. The commons has some crown images, File:Crown_smpl.svg is a possibility as I don't think it is related to any country. - dwc lr (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think that image is... well let's just say it's not the prettiest image out there. I've just browsed through a few categories on Commons and if I understand the file description correctly, File:Heraldic Royal Crown (Common).svg is generic and might be exactly what we're looking for. I'm also open to the "no image" option. Pichpich (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about this image (File:CrownForShield.svg)? It isnt biased towardsany country, and it would be nice to have. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the first two, this image has a colored background which I think is a slight disadvantage aesthetically. Pichpich (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O, woops. I just didnt think of that, sry. Then I support the first crown, the second one bares to similar of a resemblance to a real crown. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why would we avoid something that looks like a real crown? 13 hours ago, you thought that the best choice was the Royal Crown of Portugal! My problem with the second choice is that it's not exactly discreet. Pichpich (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did want the Portugues crown, but then I read the whole "our crown is better" and I find that to be right. We should be objective, a crown that doesnt represent any counrtries crown as the image. Dont you agree? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree, that's the point I made to start this discussion. What I don't understand is why you think it's a disadvantage to pick an image of a crown that actually looks like a royal crown. It seems to me that this is exactly what we're looking for. The image I proposed certainly has some disadvantages but its credibility is its most obvious quality. Pichpich (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I favour the second option, the Heraldic Royal Crown. I think its looks best out of the three options. - dwc lr (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also favour option 2. I could live with option 1. The blue background on option 3 makes it at distant third in my order. I'm open to any other suggestion of course. Pichpich (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the discussion has died down and option 2 seems to be the choice with the most support. I'll include this one for now. Pichpich (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen it with out an image for some time, I have come to like it by itself. Does anyone else think it should stay with out an image? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]