Talk:List of kings of Iraq

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Iraq

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

"...the province of Iraq came under the control of the United Kingdom." Iraq was formed from the three Ottoman provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basrah. There was no Ottoman province called "Iraq".Fsotrain09 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I suspected that the coat of arms used for the Iraqi monarchy was inaccurate, largely because the flags are not of Iraq but of Jordan, and are not the same as the one that is often thought of as being the flag of the Kingdom of Iraq. But according to [1] the flag would be valid for Iraq, and I assume then that the coat of arms may remain although the inscription is specific for Jordan. I can only assume that since both were Hashemite dynasties, they would have similar coats of arms.

DigiBullet 19:49, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Jordanian Coat of Arms is also that of the entire Hashemite Dynasty- IIRC, the line placed on the Jordanian throne is the senior line of the family. The only coat of arms used for the Kingdom of Iraq itself, however, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iraq_royal_arms.PNG . I'm not sure why this image was removed from the page. --24.147.128.141 16:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No; that's incorrect, both the Kings of Iraq and the Kings of Hejaz used arms different from those of the Kings of Jordan-all three are/were arms of dominion, meaning that in a monarchy, there is no distinction between the arms of the monarch and those of the state. And it's not a given that the arms of different branches of a royal house be similar: the arms of the Queen of Denmark, the Royal family of Norway, the royal family of Greece, and the children of Queen Elizabeth II are all different.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Succession table[edit]

I created {{Succession table monarch}} as I saw a need for it on WP. With dozens of articles having dozens of different ways of presenting the same information, it can be confusing or even frustrating for the reader, not knowing, upon reaching a "List of..." page, how the table is to be read, or finding, for example, that some tables provide dynasty or lifespan data but others don't.

Therefore, can I ask why the addition of the table in this article was reverted, especially to a version that gives less information than the new one? Claret Ash 11:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - which succession table?[edit]

Which of the following two succession tables best presents a summary of the kings of Iraq?

Option 1, or
Option 2

Claret Ash 13:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the template, and I'm glad to see User:Sundostund's edit warring and complete lack of communication is already being discussed at WP:AN/I. joe•roe^t•c 17:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Option 1. Adel (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're entitled to your opinion, but please don't adjust the article acordingly until this discussion has run its course. Claret Ash 00:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reverted my change of the table. Option 1 however, was the original table. I think the template is ugly with its thick black bordering, and the pictures are better on the left-hand side. Adel (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. I'm trying to adjust the border but it seems to be an issue with the system rather than the template code. I'll work on it and see what I can do. Claret Ash 00:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The border is fixed. I'd prefer to keep images on the right though as I believe it follows precedent both within tables and in terms of general page layout. Thanks again for your feedback. Claret Ash 01:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - How about changing the background colour of the header cells to a more neutral colour such as the same colour as the header cells in option 1? I think the pictures looked better on the left-hand side in this instance. Adel (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Personally, I think the grey looks a little boring. Having said that, I would have preferred to colour it green but opted for a lighter tone of Royal blue as I thought it'd be appropriate. As for the images, I don't think we'll ever agree on that one. I acknowledge your preference but, to me, it makes a table look as though all the action is happening over on the left; there's nothing to draw the reader's eye to the right, and remember that the majority of English WP readers are native english speakers and do not have a natural initial inclination to look at the right of the screen (i.e. direction of writing). By balancing the table with the subject's name (the primary topic) on one side and their image (something colourful to attract the eye) on the other, the table is balanced and can be appreciated in its entirety. But that's my opinion. Claret Ash 02:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support Option 1, of course. The template is pretty ugly, especially with pics on the right side. --Sundostund (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly prefer Option 2. I am afraid I have the exact opposite view to Sundostund and find the colours and Arabic script appealing. In option 1 the large image makes the grid too big and the whole thing looks clumsy. The lack of colour is uninteresting. It could possibly be fixed by making the images smaller. Still, having the image first, then the name, just doesn't make any sense to me. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. Much more visually appealing, and it's always best to present text describing a picture prior to showing the picture (that is, assuming most who read this page look at it from left-to-right). The Arabic text makes it that much more awesome.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I like Option 2 better, but I wish the pictures were on the left. Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support Option 1 looks much less cluttered. I find pictures are best on the left it looks much more natural that way. There is too much information that is not very relevant in the second table. For example having the family is very useful for long succession with multiple dynasty's but with all kings from the same family it is unnecessary. The notes section is also helpful if there is something to say in it but most just continue telling you that the king was son of the last king. On the Arabic text I'm generally opposed to foreign language text, but I understand many like it in scenarios like this if you want the Arabic names I think it could probably be incorporated in option 1 without adding too much clutter meitme (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 because it presents more information. The "Notes" may say only that the king was the son of the last king, as Meitme observes, but that's not self-evident, and putting the information here will spare some readers from having to click through to the individual article. I'm indifferent as to whether the images are better on the right or the left. JamesMLane t c 01:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, because of extra information, but it may would look better with the photos to left. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. More information in the same amount of space is always better. Listmeister (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 I prefer the pictures on the left, and the Family column doesn't have much point in this single family dynasty. However, it'd be good to see the note column added, and the blue colouring is slightly more appealing. CMD (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pictures[edit]

Photographs trump paintings. Color photos trump B&W ones.Ericl (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]