Template talk:Crowns

Previously unsectioned comments

Shouldn´t we combine this Template setting of "British crowns" together with the "European crowns" and other crowns, otherwise it takes up too much space at the bottom. also by putting the british crowns first, it looks as if they have a prerogative over other crowns. which is not a good idea I think because this Wikipedia is international, right?

No. It doesn't work.

If you try that, then for technical accuracy one has to subdivide English British Crowns by era (English, Great British, United Kingdom) because some of the Crowns of England, though kept in the British Crown Jewels, aren't technically British Crowns as they have never been used by British monarchs (ie, worn after 1707). So it gets very messy.

Alphabeticalising them produces other complex problems, as does arranging them by date.

As the UK is the only major monarchy still to use crowns rather than keep them in museums or parliamentary buildings, it is natural that (a) they have more crowns than defunct monarchies, and (b) they should be subcategorised. If it was France that had fifteen or twenty crowns rather than England/Britain/the UK it would make sense to subcategorise them. Putting them together produces an unwieldly mess. Separating them keeps in easy to follow.

I tried other formulas. The reason this interim format was used is because most of the information available right now is about English, British and United Kingdom crowns. When we have the names and links to more crowns, we can then design a format for them. Or maybe have separate templates for consort crowns, coronation crowns and state crowns. But merging all crowns in one bunch is unworkable without using other information that makes the page big anyway. (The way you merged them here, for example, is POV as it treats English/British/UK crowns as special, ie, no need to say where they are from, while other international crowns are categorised.)

I've reverted to the original version, but swapped the position of the English and British Crowns and the European and world crowns, so that the latter is at the top. The template is one of the bigger ones, but unlike other large templates, this one does need subcategorisation to make it easy to follow. Having all in one pile, when most of them come from one category and need additional words like England, Great Britain or United Kingdom added in after every one of their crowns, produces a messy and ugly template. (I tried it and the results were neither easy to follow nor attractive.) FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 16:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it does still look bulgy, but I´ll go with the current format.... (talk)

TFD

This template was nominated for deletion, but consensus was to keep it. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/June 2005 for details. In the discussion, it was suggested to split the template (into one for British crowns and one for other crowns), or to convert it to a category instead. R adiant _>|< 09:29, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Crown of Scotland

Couldn't you link to Honours of Scotland instead of Crown of Scotland? --Hun2 16:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Honours is the set of crown jewels. The article I am proposing is specifically about the crown alone. We have a template that includes the Honours and all other crown jewels. This template is about crowns in the jewels. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to improve this template

I think it would be more logical if the crowns were ordered by alphabetical order by the names of their countries. Right now there's no logical ordering.
It would look nicer if there was an image on both sides of the template heading, now it looks very half-sided.

– Alensha 15:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of entries in this template

Apparently one editor is offended by me adding relevant Danish material to this template on the same level as the material of e.g. Romania, France, Prussia etc. In any case, it is constantly being removed.

I'm going to start articles on those, and I see absolutely no reason not to include such entries here. Precedence is established by similar material. The crown of Christian V is *the* royal crown of Denmark and has been a national symbol for the last 400 years. The crown of Christian IV is an exceptionally fine piece of Renaissance work, and most likely the only such preserved example in Europe Either all relevant examples should be included or all countries should have their material merged to one article each, starting with the British material. I don't see why the crown of the Queen of Romania should be included here, but not relevant Danish material. Valentinian ^(talk) 14:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the crown of the Queen of Romania has a separate article about it, while the Danish crown hasn't. WP:CONTEXT doesn't allow to spawn red links gratuitously, especially in templates. I do believe that you are going to start this one and will not revert any more. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call that a deal. Valentinian ^(talk) 14:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about individual crowns. If a country has 5 crowns, then all five go in. It is not meant to link to pages about whole regalias. And yes red links always go into templates, because templates are a work in progress so links are being filled. When this template was started, two thirds of the links were red. They were put in to enable others with information on crowns to add in articles are they arose. One by one people filled in those links (Iranians added in articles about the red-linked Iranian crowns, Danish people filled in links to Danish crowns, etc.) There is one remaining red link which no doubt will be used to create an article on that crown. Creating valid links to be used but which are still red is not "spawning red links gratuitously". Creating links to nothing in particular, or to non-existing topics, is. It is perfectly normal for templates to have red links to valid topics that simply haven't been written about yet. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Template:Types of Crowns

A couple of the entries in Template:Types of Crowns are actually individual crowns, and not types. If that template is cleaned up, there wouldn't be much left. I think it best to simply add a line to the bottom of THIS template linking to the basic types of crowns - coronet, circlet, coronation, consort, and state. PubliusFL 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holland and the Netherlands

Both kingdoms posessed a royal crown. The crown of Louis Napoleon existed only on paper. There are two modern crowns, one of them was used at Queen Beatrix's accession ceremony.

I am just out of hospital but I promise to write an appropriate article with a link to the Dutch Wikipedia ([1]) as soon as possible.

Faithfully yours,

10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Robert Prummel (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

crowns of the british isles

why the crowns belonging to countries in the british isles are given a preeminent position by being placed at the beginning of the crowns template? if primacy there is to warranted, then it should go either to the ancient ones, or to the numerous ones, like those belonging to states of the holy roman empire. otherwise a strict alphabetical order should be followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heterodoxa (talk • contribs) 07:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]