Template talk:Incumbent succession box

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WB's changes

WB has now made the same set of changes, without explanation, to this template:

  • The Unicode en-dash has been changed to a character entity en-dash.
  • "present" has been capitalized.
  • He has replaced the em-dash for successor with "incumbent".

I disagree with each of these changes, so I will be changing them when I have posted this.

  • With the MediaWiki upgrade to version 1.5, MediaWiki now supports Unicode characters; in particular, it now supports a Unicode en-dash. On the Edit pages of Wikipedia, immediately below the main edit box, is another box, labelled "Insert:", of special characters; by clicking on the special characters, you can insert them into the main edit box. Within that box is an en-dash and an em-dash. Prior to the version 1.5 upgrade, these would insert the character entity en-dash and em-dash; after that upgrade, it began inserting the Unicode en-dash and em-dash. It would therefore seem logical that the use of character entity en- and em-dashes is deprecated in favor of the Unicode characters.
  • (English) Wikipedia is definitely conservative in its use of capitalization. For example, its manual of style specifies that section titles should only use capitalization for proper nouns and the first word in the section title. It then makes little or no sense to capitalize "present"
  • "incumbent" is probably the most controversial of the changes. First of all, if we were to use incumbent, it should be parenthesized and italicized, as "(none)" is when there is no predecessor (for the first person to hold an office) or successor (the last person to hold an office that has gone defunct). The problem with the use of the word "incumbent", however, is that it makes it seem as if the successor is the incumbent. I have considered many alternatives to this phrase, and argued over its use in on my talk page, but none seems to work: "to be determined" makes it sound as if the subject of the article is on his way out of office; "unknown" should be used for the case when historical records are lacking. I have been using an em-dash as the least bad of the many alternatives.

— DLJessup (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this on the Talk.

  • I should have known the dash.
  • Most of the books I have read capitalized the Present, so I believed that it was necessary to captitalize is also. I understand that you do not capitalize many of them, but Present is not on a phrase, but in a separate entity. That's what I think at least.
  • emdash would might suggest that the position in question is not available anymore. More so if they are missing years.

-- WB 21:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Cox's change

User:Jack Cox has changed the template:

  • He has replaced the Unicode en-dash with a character entity en-dash.
  • He has removed the word "present".

I am reverting these changes:

  • As discussed in the previous section, it would seem that Unicode characters are to be preferred to character entities.
  • Omitting the end date could (and arguably should) be interpreted as a lack of data, as opposed to "present" which indicates that the subject of the article still holds the given title.

— DLJessup (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] After field format

As I noted above, I have been using an em-dash for the successor to the incumbent. I did this as the least bad alternative I had seen. As I noted above:

The problem with the use of the word "incumbent", however, is that it makes it seem as if the successor is the incumbent. I have considered many alternatives to this phrase, and argued over its use in on my talk page, but none seems to work: "to be determined" makes it sound as if the subject of the article is on his way out of office; "unknown" should be used for the case when historical records are lacking. I have been using an em-dash as the least bad of the many alternatives.

However, I came across a new suggestion: "(n/a: incumbent)". This has the advantage of explaining why there is no successor without making it sound as if the successor is the incumbent. It looks somewhat ugly to my eyes, but I suspect that that is an artifact of having used the em-dash for so long. I hope that people approve. If you do not, please discuss it here.

— DLJessup (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with the em dash? I agree that (n/a: incumbent) is an ugly replacement, and it seems to me that the em dash is perfect — it tells you that there is no successor, but it doesn't just look like we forgot to fill in the box. Especially since the "years" in the middle generally tell you that the person in question is in that office right now, the em dash is instantly obvious, at least to me. Why make a change? —Cleared as filed. 22:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the em-dash seems to have a low acceptance level. I have identified two reasons for that:

  • Apparently, some people (and they seem to be British more often than not) interpret an em-dash not as "intentionally blank" but as a synonym for (none).
  • People like to see the fact that (incumbent) or (current incumbent) make it instantly obvious what's going on. (n/a: incumbent) has that same property, whereas, when the em-dash is used, you must be used to this use of the em-dash or you must take the extra second to note the "–present" in the date.

This all boils down to the fact that I'd like people to actually use the template rather than have them revert it the second after I've made the change.

— DLJessup (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, aren't we using it as a synonym for (none)? If you're the incumbent, there is no successor until you're no longer the incumbent. Maybe an HTML comment in the template to ask people not to change the em dash without coming to the Talk page first to discuss? —Cleared as filed. 12:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In answer to your first question: no. If you're the incumbent, you may or may not have a successor, but it's unknowable who that successor is (although you may have a good guess). If you have (none) as your successor, however, that means that you are the last person to hold your title.

The comment in the template is a good idea.

— DLJessup (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems to me that (none) is still okay because you are the last person to hold your title until somebody else does. Since Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, we have no idea if the position will be abolished next week, or whatever. (I'm definitely against putting possible sucessors, even fairly certain possibilities, into the box before they take the position, a la "Joe Johnson (pending confirmation)" or whatnot.) Anyway, I still think that the fact that the infobox says "–present" is an instant indication of whether this is a position that has no successor because there's someone still in it, or it's a position that no longer exists. I think the em dash is a clean way to show that, as of right now, there is no successor. —Cleared as filed. 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives to Current Incumbent forms

Here are some new templates that fit my system (Template_talk:s-start):

Template:s-non
Template:s-new

The first is a replacement for Template:s-ttl and Template:s-aft for Incumbants and lacks the Succeeded by: header and fills in the second year field with "-Present". The second is a replacement for Template:s-bef for New Creations and lacks the Preceeded by: header. They can be used as follows:

Template:s-non (with others)

{{s-start}}
{{s-bef|before=INSERT PREDECESSOR HERE}}
{{s-non|title=TITLE OF PERSON|year=START YEAR HERE}}
{{end}}

Which looks like:

Preceded by
Chinggis		 {{{reason}}}

And: Template:s-new (with others)

{{s-start}}
{{s-new}}
{{s-non|title=TITLE OF PERSON|years=INSERT YEARS HERE}}
{{s-bef|before=INSERT PREDECESSOR HERE}}
{{end}}

Which looks like:

New title King of Africa
1820-1830		 Succeeded by
Amal

These are to be used in case there are no predecessors or the person is the current office holder. Any suggests for new ones is welcome, but I am trying to keep these few so that situations do not require things to get complicated.
-- Whaleyland 04:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Whaleyland, I'm not done mulling over your posting, but one concern comes to mind:
— DLJessup (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


I note your concern and agree that any edits to the Template:Succession box would not effect Template:s-start. However, after viewing the other form, I do not see many chance for change that will come about any time soon. The Template:succession box has remained mostly unchanged for quite a while now and, considering I am still running into it everywhere, I generally notice any new changes to the form. The reason I like the Template:s-start for is because it is more adaptable to complex situations than Template:succession box (not requiring advanced froms like Template:succession box two to three) and yet still appears the same as the other style. I can try to find a way to tweak it so that the old and new forms can be the same, but forms such as two to three would require a recoding of the Templates which may or may not be possible. Also, the fact that I have merged Template:start box with the succession box field makes merging them hard, unless I use imbedded templates within the Template:Succession box, which I quite possibly could do but have so far chosen not to (mostly to test the new form more thoroughly first). Any advice would be nice because I would love to make a transition to a cleaner form smoother.
— Whaleyland 22:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)