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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Added Legalism for your consideration. Could alternatively be named Chinese, but I used Legalist as a more universal name, given it's importation by countries like Japan, and, given it's origin of things like written examination, other countries as well. FourLights ( talk) 16:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It would probably make sense to have a section for history earlier than the magna carta.... FourLights ( talk) 22:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Added Legalism for your consideration. Could alternatively be named Chinese, but I used Legalist as a more universal name, given it's importation by countries like Japan, and, given it's origin of things like written examination, other countries as well. FourLights ( talk) 16:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It would probably make sense to have a section for history earlier than the magna carta.... FourLights ( talk) 22:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)