Template talk:Succession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Switch to skin-formatting

Should this be changed over to the new format (id="toc")?
James F. (talk) 17:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I update the table with a prettier version (and appropriately update Template:preceded and Template:succeeded too, in place of prev/next in this example)?

Preceded by:	{{{office}}}	Succeeded by:
{{{prev}}}	{{{office}}}	{{{next}}}

--Gene s 13:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given that I suggested switching a fortnight ago, I'm happy with changing the box itself, but I don't think it looks so good with the differently-coloured "Preceded by:" and "Succeeded by:" bits...

James F. (talk) 13:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, also, I don't think it works too well on two lines, because it makes the spacing that bit larger...

James F. (talk) 13:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it copies the style of various geography templates. It has the same color and spacing as, for example, the Template:G8 or Template:Europe. --Gene s 14:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That it may be, but these are not set boxes like the ones you mentioned, but instead succession boxes, which, everywhere, seem to use the formatting as shown on Tony Blair, Winston Churchill, and several hundred other articles on British politicians...

James F. (talk) 17:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Everywhere" is a big stretch. As far as I can see, the majority of articles still uses the plain HTML table for succession boxes, or no succession at all. The succession box on Winston_Churchill page looks unreasonably verbose with "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" in every row.

I believe all navigation tables should have the same look. The geography navigation IMO looks prettier. It serves the same purpose as the succession navigation boxes. I don't see a reason why they should be formatted differently. The British politicians succession boxes use {{succession box}} templates. It would not be too hard to update that template to the same look as the geography navigation. --Gene s 05:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And another point regaring {{succession box}} on Winston_Churchill page. It bolds all text except years in office and padding (preceded/succeeded) which is useless in the first place. Bolding everything is wrong. Bolding should be used to emphesize a certain part of the text. When everything is bold (everything emphesized), then it's equivalent to nothing being emphesized. --Gene s 07:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And yet anothet point regaring {{succession box}}. The internal inter-cell vertical lines in that box are black, while horizontal lines and outer borders are gray. Why?

What's the reason for assigning style information through id (id=toc) instead of an explicit class declaration? Having two or more elements with the same id is invalid (see http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#adef-id This name must be unique in a document.). That page has multiple elements with the same id - the actual TOC and every row in the navigation box. That should be fixed. --Gene s 07:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

copied to Template talk:Succession box James F. (talk) 13:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Compatibility with the template "succession box"

Note: I'm going to use quotation mark for the template brackets so there won't be any problem with HTML.

As you can see in the page history, I've made a few changes in this template to make it more similar of the existing "succession box". I don't see the point in having two different kinds of boxes for the same purpose; uniformity would be great in this aspect. However, this box called "succession" is easier to use so I'd prefer to use it when it's possible.

The other reason why it should look the same as "succession box" is because only the latter can include multiple periods of reign under each other (by using "start box" and "end box"). So if one wants to use the simpler version, this "succession", sometimes they'll have to change for "succession box" when some ruler reigned multiple times.

This happened in the case of Peter Urseolo of Hungary: before and after him "succession" is used, but I had to apply "succession box" on his page.

The problem is that "succession" doesn't include dates, which "succession box" includes, so it will still look different from that. Do you think we could include the place for the dates in this template?

Adam78 23:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I proposed identical formatting originally (having done a great deal of work with both templates), but was shouted down (as you can see both above and at the talk page of the succession box template).

Good luck trying.

James F. (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deprecated?

Given that this appears to be a clone of Template:PeerNavbox, which has been deprecated and is being actively orphaned (less than 400 pages include it now), I suggest that this template be deprecated in favor of the Template:Succession box family, which is far more versatile. Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Besides being redundant, this uses the confusing and problem-causing (though I have no opinion on its merits) Template:qif. Anyway, s-boxes (or, if absolutely necessary, succession boxes, though I would prefer that they be phased out also) aren't really too much more complex. Ardric47 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The qif isn't even necessary, by the looks of it. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Only four hundred pages? Ahem! Standby-we're putting this little guy on a fair number of book series, mountain ranges, etc. So why not just do less work and let things be? We're not interested in years, for starters. FrankB 03:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The years are optional. And who is/are "we"? Ardric47 06:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, any time it uses the "years" it ought to be replaced by the succession box system. [edit] Having looked at the underlying code, it has already been altered to call the same underlying templates. Still, there's no real need to keep this particular template in use. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the matter, this is an effective clone of Template:Succession box, but with Template:Start box and Template:End embedded. There isn't much point in this, and it would make a great deal of sense to cut out the middleman. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template: Navbox redirect

Shouldn't "Navbox" redirect to Template:NavigationBox? 66.229.182.113 10:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Since there's currently no transclusions of {{navbox}}, I've gone ahead and switched the redir. Luna Santin 07:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simplicity

"Preceded" should be "before". "Succeeded" should be "after". Shorter, simpler and better. - Kittybrewster 13:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the goal of shortening and simplifying the template. However, I disagree on your suggested wording. If "Preceded by" becomes "before," it is not clear to me which comes before what. --Tiger Marc ^ROAR! 14:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old draft

The following, substed, is an old draft; it is as I write at Template:Succession/Temp, but is about to be deleted, quite sensibly. We mayk however, want to use these pastel colours again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Preceded by:	{{{1}}}	Succeeded by:
{{{2}}}	{{{1}}}	{{{3}}}

[edit] Historical

I've tagged this historical. At this point it merely includes newer succession templates, making it a packaged one-row only version of {{s-start}} and associated boxes. As such, its use should be discouraged; actually replacing mainspace transclusions seems unnecessary at the moment. Mackensen (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Succession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Switch to skin-formatting

[edit] Compatibility with the template "succession box"

[edit] Deprecated?

[edit] Template: Navbox redirect

[edit] Simplicity

[edit] Old draft

[edit] Historical

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search