Talk:List of French monarchs

Infobox

Edit summary by Mathglot (talk · contribs): Drop infobox. This article isn't the type to be easily encapsulated in an Infobox. From a millenium and a half of history, we end up with, 'first', 'last', the 'residences' (?), and the 'pretenders' (??). Much better without it.

The talk page rationale given by Mathglot (talk · contribs) the Infobox really didn't do a good job of summarizing the article; given the topic, I don't think any Infobox could, it's too diverse.

My statement: this was a WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit and rationale. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought my rationale for removal was pretty clear, but I guess not, so let me attempt to clarify. The manual of style says this about Infoboxes, in the first sentence of the guideline:

An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop version of Wikipedia), or at the end of the lead section of an article (in the mobile version), that summarizes key features of the page's subject.^{[highlighting added]}

The version of the Infobox that you favor (e.g., in rev. 1105056805 of 08:48, 18 August 2022) utterly fails that guideline. The infobox contains:

• names and dates of the first and last monarchs,
• the four palaces monarchs lived in,
• the word 'hereditary' as the manner of selection, and
• the three living pretenders to the throne of France.

Except #3, none of these really contributes much to a "summary" of all the monarchs, and by no stretch are the palaces and the pretenders the "key features" of this article. First and last monarchs are not enough; that's one of the main difficulties in summarizing a list: you can't just pick a few from the list and certainly not just "first and last"—how does that help? Should we add an Infobox to List of countries, and include "Albania" and "Zimbabwe" as the first and last countries, and call that a summary? Obviously not. The situation here is not that different. There's maybe one data point in the Infobox that really is a key point worthy of a summary of the "List of French monarchs", and that's the fact that the throne is hereditary. But that is not enough to build an Infobox around.

By their nature, List articles in general are hard to summarize in an Infobox, and that's why most lists don't have them. How do you summarize a list, other than what's already in the lead, assuming there is a statement of list criteria, if it's not already obvious from the title? (In this article, the statement about Clovis and West Francia in paragraph two of the lead provides that criterion.)

There are *some* list articles that have an Infobox; we could do a search to get an idea of how they use them. Trying a search for List articles which have Infoboxes, almost all of the results are redirects. In the top 100 results, of the ones that aren't redirects, there are only four that show up : #8 List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, #75 List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, #86 List of English football champions, and #100 List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. Of those, #75 (prime ministers) is the most like this article. However, it turns out that it doesn't have an Infobox; maybe it used to have an Infobox, but doesn't anymore, and search hasn't caught up to it yet. The others seem much less analogous to this list, and are part of media empires that have other articles and can be summarized in an infobox. The majority of list articles don't have infoboxes, for the same reason. (Of the first 100 list articles (excluding redirects), the first one that isn't a redirect that has one is #11, List of largest cities.)

As an additional problem, placing information about the pretenders, the residences, and only the first and last monarchs all the way at the top of the article adjacent to the WP:LEAD is highly WP:UNDUE; they are simply not important enough to the article topic taken as a whole that they provide a sufficient summary of "key features". In other words, it's disproportionate to have that information there, and therefore not neutral.

Sorry this is so long, but I did say pretty much the same thing, albeit much more briefly, in the portions that you quoted above, which I would have thought was sufficient to explain what I meant. But I hope this longer version explains it better. Bottom line: the Infobox should be removed, because it doesn't fulfill the criteria defined in the first sentence of the MOS:INFOBOX style guideline, and because it's WP:UNDUE to have it there. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Wow—that was informative. I accept your explanation wholeheartedly. This will serve as a good writeup for anyone in the future wondering about infoboxes, and when not to use them. Thank you for your noble contributions! Altanner1991 (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I will still add that Lists of monarchs shows a divided picture regarding the infobox. Austria, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgarian, Burundi, Central Africa, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey (Ottoman), Vietnam, and Yemen have an infobox (total of 42), but Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Belgium, China, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Egypt, England, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Maldives, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Syria, Sweden, and Thailand, do not have an infobox (total of 33). Altanner1991 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a good bit of data gathering you did, there. That may point to the desirability of either gathering more opinions here, or bumping this up to a higher venue that can seek a recommendation more generally about Infoboxes on this type of "list of royals" article. Unfortunately, with respect to the latter, the whole issue of infoboxes is very fraught, with strong opinions to include or exclude regardless of topic which sometimes get so heated people get banned from talking about infoboxes, so you might find yourself suddenly embroiled in discussions involving a lot of strife and opinions about infoboxes in general which have nothing to do with this article in particular, whereas I'd prefer to concentrate on whether it is helpful here or not. Not sure what to advise you here, other than if you wish to pursue this further, maybe try first to neutrally attract additional editors to come weigh in here with their opinions. Some of the comments at WP:APPNOTE may help. Mathglot (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If other editors make a heated discussion, I would try to encourage civility. Thank you for the options raised. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Restore the longstanding infobox. We don't need any map or a college image box. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Article badly needs an infobox. Would strongly support one being added. Theimmortalgodemperor (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible map candidates

I'm going to start a gallery where we can add possible map candidates. After we have enough to choose from, we can talk about whether to use them, and if so, which ones. Please add more, and put numbers on your captions so we can talk about them in the comments.

Expand to see map candidates
some possible candidates for inclusion in the article 1. Treaty of Verdun 843 2. Under Hugh Capet (987) 3. France in 1030 4. 1154 5. 1223 6. Conquests of Philip II (1180–1223) 7. 1270 8. 100 Years War (1328) 9. 100 Yeras War (1429) 10. 100 Years War (1435) 11. 1435 12. 1477 13. 1552 to 1798 14. under Louis XIV (1648–1681) 15. Map of First French Empire (1804–1815) (comment below by the numbers)

This is just a start, and we don't have to use any of these. I just wanted to get the ball rolling, so please add your map candidates, and then we can talk about them. Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a good list, I like it. Thank you so much for your work. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

When I mentioned I was hoping for a gif showing the evolution, I meant something like this animated gif showing the Frankish expansion from 481 to 870, but spanning the period covered by this article instead. I'm still hoping to find something like that. Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I oppose any maps for the lead image. Restore the Coat of Arms image. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Please reassess

I just fixed a bunch of Harv errors, and there are at least 2 or 3 more; don't know how this can be FL class with that. Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

My chart, tree, image...

I don't know exactly how to discuss a change that was made to this page, but here I am. I had placed my chart of the monarchs of France on this page. It was created using only information AND royalty-free images from the various English Wikipedia pages. So this chart is completely neutral, containing ONLY information from Wikipedia, no personal analysis and/or commentary of any kind. It is literally a visual summary of the content of the English Wikipedia pages.

It's true that I'm the administrator of the Usefulcharts subreddit, but I'm in no way affiliated with its creator, Matt Baker, let alone my work. So my chart, apart from being published on their subreddit, is in no way connected to any commercial activity of Usefulcharts/Matt Baker. My style is about as close to Matt's as a Muscadet-sèvre-et-maine is to a cognac: other than both being alcohol, there's not much similarity. I don't make my diagrams for commercial purposes, but for everyone to use as a visual encyclopedia.

So I don't understand how my chart could be an advertisement for UsefulCharts and thus violate Wiki rules? It is clearly stated at the bottom of the charter and in the legend that the content is entirely from Wikipedia.

So I'm open to any form of discussion.

François 70.28.91.38 (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

At least my chart does not have any errors, in contrast to the one that you have on this page.

François 70.28.91.38 (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Go-Chlodio: Discussion is here. Srnec (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Frankly I tried to discuss, on the talk page. And it wasn't me who didn't respond. Last time I checked, there's no "owner" of this page. That's the basic idea behind Wikipedia. So, by definition, you're not the boss nor the manager of this page. With my publication, I'm providing an encyclopedic supplement, not the least relevant and interesting. What's more important, it only contains raw data from Wikipedia itself. So it's literally impossible for you to question its relevance. It literally puts into image the data you defend on this very page. It's one thing for you not to like it, but for you to impose your choices on everyone is something else. You can't tell me that this charter is inappropriate, unfair, irrelevant or contains false information. In terms of content, I'm impeccably faithful to the data. M F Gervais (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I have been busy. Firstly, I want to say whatever I like or dislike about your work is irrelevant, but for that matter, I do find it to be an amicable accomplishment. Yet I don't find it suitable for this article. It is quite messy, with walls of text and figures not related to the bloodlines, such as Jean D'Arc just thrown in there. I would go as far as to argue that it cannot even be considered a family of three, because it is off-focused. This article is about the king of the French, why include Polish kings? Wikipedia diagrams are designed to be useful, while your work is about spectacle. Secondly, regardless if you benefit directly or indirectly from UsefulChart, you include QR codes (which seem to lead to Reddit,) and also include your Reddit profile, all of which is an advertisement, to increase your social media following. If everyone begins riddling Wikimedia with QR codes to their profiles, what comes of it? thirdly, I never claimed to own the article, but I do maintain the right to undo your edits. And if we cannot resolve this in this discussion, a moderator will solve it for us. I guess we have to determine whatever is best and useful for the purpose of this article. My family tree family was made for this article, while I reckon yours was made for Reddit, regardless of what resources it used. Also, I'm curious what you meant, about errors in my family tree. Go-Chlodio (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me for my rudeness. I was not my intent to be misunderstood. The mistake is about Thibaut being the son of Thibert I, pas son frère. Your chart is about A lead to B, then to C and so on. Its linear. As mine follows the spider web that is the reality surrounding the main lines. And no, it was not made to do a spectacle, or to be grandiose in any way. It was made to reflect reality as it was. Nothing else. It is meant to help the « reader » to se the link in between two persons without having to read the article. It was not made with another purpose in mind. If anything else surrounding the tree itself is irrelevant or « useless » in your eyes, something can be done about it if necessary. Everything was put there to be useful, helpful, to have a meaning, to enhance the reading of the information. Not to show off. M F Gervais (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

QR codes leads to other charts, not my profile on another social media. Information leading to other information. M F Gervais (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of quasi-heraldry for Louis VI and Louis VII

I am inclined to add the fleur-de-lis on a azure field under the "arms" column, as used by Philip II onwards, to include Louis VII, and perhaps even Louis VI, as there is evidence that they both used at least the fleur-de-lis charge on its own as a sort of quasi-heraldic symbol (though admittedly, less so for Louis VI). I say this because the "List of English Monarchs" page has Henry II associated with his quasi-heraldic arms.

The only thing that is holding me back is the fact that I can not seem to find any sources on a, if any, color of the field on the arms that would have been typically associated with Louis VI or Louis VII's versions of the fleur-de-lis. However, it may be reasonable to assume that azure/blue was used for the most part as well, just as Henry II of England's coat of arms is assumed to be on a red field as later English kings used.

However, I also can not find a source that states that Louis VII and Louis VI used a tessellation pattern of the fleur-de-lis as is known on Philip II's version of the royal arms. Perhaps a version of the arms with just a single fleur-de-lis can be found or created to account for this.

What are some thoughts on this? If anyone has a source that goes into greater detail on Louis VI and/or Louis VII's use of quasi-heraldry, that would be greatly appreciated. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)