Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4
Shortcut:
WT:SBS

This is the talk page of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Here you can post your questions, leave your comments, or make suggestions for the WikiProject.

Click here to post a new message

Unsigned messages will be ignored, so make sure to include your signature and timestamp by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. It is suggested that you follow the indentation rules as these are stated in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

Participants in conversations are expected to be civil and avoid personal attacks.

Proposals, which are discussions about important actions or changes affecting the entire project, are not restricted to members of SBS. Keep in mind, however, that simple voting will not suffice; each editor will need to back their preference with an argument. No proposal shall be closed before ten days elapse from its submission, and until at least five people vote (unless too long a time period passes, in which case the proposal automatically fails).

Succession Box
Standardization
Image:SBSlogo.jpg
Project Page (WP:SBS)
Discussion (WT:SBS)
Documentation
Guidelines (WP:SBS/G)
Templates (WP:SBS/T)
Navboxes
Cheatsheet

Proposal Archives
Category

To see previous conversations, you can visit the archives (see box on the right). For archived proposals, please see the relevant page.

Contents

[edit] Changing S-Sports color to less bold color

In relation to other colors being lightened for easier reading, I want to propose s-sports to have either a lightened or darkened color. The current color hurts the eyes due to it being too bold.

This correlates to discussion on Template_talk:S-sports#Proposed_colour_change introduced 5 days ago. The less bold, pastel color (99FF66) is much preferred. I also like 99FF33.

Check out the less aggravating greens at VisiBone's html-color-codes.com/.

If no further discussion occurs within one week, I will manually change s-sports to an appropriate color and consider the issue closed and the change permanent. Overall, this request should be considered a fair compromise. -- Guroadrunner 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold your horses, there, Guroadrunner. There is a whole colour system for the green succession headers here waiting for approval and it would be the best if you would be kind enough to wait a little. Most of the members here are away and all business has essentially halted. I am somewhat busy myself, at the moment, and if you would give me some time I could make sure that the new colour is not only acceptably pale and aesthetically pleasing enough but also compatible with the rest of the green templates and sufficiently different not to be confused with any of them. We have enough problems with the new s-npo template (which is also green).
You can find the proposal higher in this page; I shall include the s-npo template within a few days and adjust the s-sports template. Then I can present a solution that takes on the issue collectively. Waltham, The Duke of 09:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No worries about that deadline - it is nullified because discussion has started. I made a deadline in case nobody responded but would get upset if I had changed it without an explanation (the time limit passed). :: The NPO/Boy Scouts color looks like it may be very similar, but I know we all can figure out a solution. -- Guroadrunner 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I selected the Scouting color— that's an easy fix. I think npo is only used in one succession at the moment. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Call to action: So what's the next step here? What color is desired? -- Guroadrunner 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my delay, but I am ill and I also have two tests coming. (If this does not sound like an excuse, nothing will.) But one should know it is undesirable to use indistinguishable (and even more so identical) colours for different headers. Every header ought to be told apart from the others at a glance. Waltham, The Duke of 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. While the s-npo header is not used much now, it also has not been given much time to be used. I am very in favour of changing the color on s-sports but not to the same colour as something else. Icky icky! Let's keep talking about this for a bit. I liked the light green better myself, but I think we need to also talk about changing the colour entirely because we already have so many greens. (aren't there more unique colours out there!?)
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Are there any that use silver? Remind me and I will make a "big color chart" thing (all of the ones I can find put into a spectrum) -- Guroadrunner 05:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Like the charts in the article web colors? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep! Guroadrunner 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I just found List of colors while trying to describe a color (deep peach if you really wanted to know). There is also list of Crayola crayon colors. If you really want to go crazy, here is a Pantone chart. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the Pantone chart; it has been very useful. Even though I rarely use the colours as they are, I do like crossing them with the colours I had picked and eventually discover the solution that combines all the qualities I have in mind. The results? Look at the new section, please—I have a couple of ideas. Waltham, The Duke of 14:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] S-sports

Currently:

Sporting positions

Proposed by Waltham, Duke of in below widespread change:

Sporting positions

Another proposal:

Sporting positions

[edit] In use: (Giancarlo Fisichella)

Current

Sporting positions
Preceded by
Christian Pescatori		 Italian Formula Three Champion
1994		 Succeeded by
Luca Rangoni

Waltham, Duke of's idea:

Sporting positions
Preceded by
Christian Pescatori		 Italian Formula Three Champion
1994		 Succeeded by
Luca Rangoni

Other proposal:

Sporting positions
Preceded by
Christian Pescatori		 Italian Formula Three Champion
1994		 Succeeded by
Luca Rangoni

[edit] s-npo

What are the issues with {{s-npo}}? I had created it as s-Scout and it got moved to s-npo, which is no problem. I think it is currently only used in one succession series. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues? There are no issues that I am aware of—except, perhaps, from the header's colour, which may change.
The s-npo header will prove to be a very useful one, I can assure you; apart from Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, non-profit organisations include charities and unions, plenty of which have offices tracked by succession boxes. I have even added the header to Ronald Reagan's succession box (a rather high profile one), which is the first time I have added it anywhere. More will follow, but SBS is currently short of staff and few people are editing succession boxes at the moment, or at least doing so in an centrally organised fashion. In any case, there is no reason for concern about the header's light usage whatsoever. Waltham, The Duke of 14:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
From the above discussion, you stated "We have enough problems with the new s-npo template (which is also green)." From that, I though there was some sort of problem I could help work through. Lightgreen is the color of the Scouting WikiProject, selected as the most common color used by most Scouting organizations worldwide. It works nicely with the {{Scouting}} template, as in Robert J. Mazzuca. It's just a color and we should be able to work something out. As far as usage, I meant that it is simpler to hammer out any issues now, before folks get attached to it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for full header colouring scheme, preliminary phase

Honourable members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, fellow Wikipedians. My illness has now passed (leaving an annoying cough behind) and I have sat for my three tests (with moderate success). Therefore, all impediments between myself and the ability for me to work on header tincturing have been removed. I have already developed my ideas, some of them older (many of those already visible in this very page) and others more recent.

I have insured that all colours are within the acceptable brightness limits (not too light nor too dark), sufficiently pale, and adequately differenced from one another. In this, I have had to make adjustments to most headers, but if this helps with the overall system then there should be no problem; if the editors support the scheme, the necessary changes can take effect easily.

In the following chart I am listing all the different headers per colour category and shade. It is a little crude in its structure, but I believe it fulfils its purpose.

Current header roster
Tone Brown
& Reds		 Orange
& Yellows		 Greens Blues Pink &
Purples		 Greys
Dark S-mil S-ppo S-civ S-wea
S-aca S-media S-lit S-gov
S-bus
Medium S-reg S-roy S-off S-par
S-court S-hon S-culture S-legal
S-rel S-ach S-sports S-pre
Light S-herald S-prec
S-npo		 S-dip

Here follows the header system with my suggested modifications:

Proposed header roster
Tone Brown
& Reds		 Orange
& Yellows		 Greens Blues Pink &
Purples		 Greys
Dark S-mil* S-ppo S-civ* S-wea
S-media S-bus S-lit* S-gov*
S-aca S-reg
Medium S-court S-hon S-roy S-off* S-par*
S-sports S-culture S-legal*
S-rel S-ach S-prec
Light S-herald* S-npo* S-pre S-dip*


Note: The s-edu header is meant to have the same colour as s-culture; the s-other header has the same colour as s-par. The asterisks denote headers with unchanged colours.

The full list of header colours follows, with the final colours of my proposed scheme bolded:

(colours in hex code—RGB in parentheses)

  • S-aca – from DAA520 (218, 165, 32) to E8B62D (232, 182, 45)
  • S-ach – from FFF179 (255, 241, 121) to FAEF64 (250, 239, 100)
  • S-bus – from FFCC66 (255, 204, 102) to 8D8DE5 (141, 141, 229)
  • S-civ – no change, remains 191970 (25, 25, 112)
  • S-court – from FF9966 (255, 153, 102) to FF8C66 (255, 140, 102)
  • S-culture – from 99CCFF (153, 204, 255) to 85BEFF (133, 190, 255)
  • S-dip – no change, remains FACEFF (250, 206, 255)
  • S-edu – see s-culture
  • S-gov – no change, remains BEBEBE (190, 190, 190)
  • S-herald – no change, remains FFFF99 (255, 255, 153)
  • S-hon – from FFF157 (255, 241, 87) to F9E82F (249, 232, 47)
  • S-legal – no change, remains DDCEF2 (221, 206, 242)
  • S-lit – no change, remains CC99FF (204, 153, 255)
  • S-media – from 8FBC8F (143, 188, 143) to 7EC296 (126, 194, 150)
  • S-mil – no change, remains CF9C65 (207, 156, 101)
  • S-npo – no change, remains CCFFCC (204, 255, 204)
  • S-off – no change, remains CCCCFF (204, 204, 255)
  • S-other – no change, remains CCCCCC (204, 204, 204)
  • S-par – as above
  • S-ppo – from FFBF00 (255, 191, 0) to FEC112 (254, 193, 18)
  • S-pre – from 79DBFF (121, 219, 255) to 9FDFFF (159, 223, 255)
  • S-prec – from CCFFCC (204, 255, 204) to 8CF2B8 (140, 242, 184)
  • S-reg – from ACE777 (172, 231, 119) to 8CEB96 (140, 235, 150)
  • S-rel – from FABE60 (250, 190, 96) to FCC271 (252, 194, 113)
  • S-roy – from 65BCFF (101, 188, 255) to 97CADD (151, 202, 221)
  • S-sports – from 99FF66 (153, 255, 202) to 78FF78 (120, 255, 120)
  • S-wea – from CC9999 (204, 153, 153) to DA8484 (218, 132, 132)

I should prefer to know your opinion about the overall scheme first, and if it is well-received I believe we can then initiate a discussion on the specific colours.

So, what do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 14:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: If you know a way to make the tables' rows higher (so that the colours can be better seen), by all means have a try. I have only just learned the basics about tables, and only because I wanted to make these two ones. Waltham, The Duke of 14:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections, but my interest is confined to the NPO box. I think you wanted the demo table cell height changed, so I set height="30" for each row. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Approve: Despite my sudden wikibreak, I am trying desperately to keep up on this project right now. I like the new proposed scheme, although I would like s-rel to be a different color. I would propose purplish but that seems to be pretty full right now. Either way, I support the change. We need a better structure for these templates right now. They have so much conflict and overlap. I definitely agree with the new color for s-npo. Since scouting was the source of it, it makes sense to use their approved color for the entire header system.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Approve -- Adding just that little amount of teal takes so much off from the eyestrain looking at S-Sports. (See examples above in S-Sports topic). Good job doing all this! Guroadrunner 06:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Approve. I am generally in favor of lighter and paler colors, and I think a few of the proposed colors could be improved further, but the new scheme is by and large an improvement on the old. Alkari (?), 25 January 2008, 03:18 UTC

[edit] Succession template Step does not conform to standard of S-start

"If you find a succession template not in this standard, please contact WT:SBS or Whaleyland." I already put this on Whaleyland's talk page, but have gotten no response yet so far. I just noticed that now it also says I can contact WT:SBS (which it didn't say earlier), so I'm just putting it here again: I think Template:Step should be included in the succession box standardization. Thanks. --the Wild Falcon (talk | log) 12:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Whaleyland has been somewhat busy lately. In any case, I have had a look at this template and realised that what is does is to create a small succession box of sorts near the top of the page. In addition, it is very scarcely used. Would it not be better simply to erase the template and introduce proper succession boxes at the affected pages' bottom? That is, unless there is a specific reason why it would be necessary to retain such a box near the pages' top.
This is one possible course of action. We are open to suggestions here, so anyone with a good idea is free to share it with us.
In any case, Wild Falcon, whatever the conclusion of this matter, thank you for reporting the template. This might have solved many future problems, knowing that the more articles a template is used in, the more difficult it is to change anything about it. Keep it up! Waltham, The Duke of 14:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually did respond to the notice but forgot to reply to the note. Either way, I attempted my speedy delete policy on it but it failed utterly due to the fact it already had a delete request done on it a few months back and the result was rework/reconsider. I tried working with this template a little but it is not used with any article any more and I see no need to keep it. I think we need to propose it for deletion. It is a nuisance that need not exist, says I! The Great Khan has spoken.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
{{Step}} is used only in several IBM PC articles. I would suggest that the succession be added to {{Infobox computer}} (which should be merged with {{Infobox Computer}}). --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call to Arms

The main page has a link to an HTML succession box and I don't have time to fix it! Would someone start the conversion of the mid and late Ptolemaic rulers to the current succession box format? You can start with Ptolemy IV (actually Ptolemy V because he doesn't have a box at all. It ends with the second to last monarch. Thank you!
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 17:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Another I just found for the Gupta emperors. All of them need converting and proper dating!
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I have converted all the succession boxes for the Gupta Emperors. Keep in mind, however, that there are a couple of discrepancies with the dates that cannot be easily fixed. Waltham, The Duke of 10:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I see that progress has already begun on the Egyptian dynasts too. Great news!
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 21:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement – Project categories

I have moved SBS members from Category:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization to Category:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization members in order to conform to the instruction by Wikipedia:User categories for discussion; the former category is now used for Project pages, most of which I have categorised there.

The category move was performed by changing the code of the SBS membership template (Template:User WP:SBS). I have categorised the new category under the old one and shall see that the old category is also appropriately categorised.

By the way, I have added (as you might have noticed) a "WikiProject" template in the main page. It is useful, it looks nice, and it is all the rage in the WikiProject world, I can tell you. Waltham, The Duke of 11:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement – Cheatsheet

I have created a Cheatsheet, a page that lists all the succession templates with their parameters (headers have less coverage than the rest). This page is meant to be a simple and useful guide to new and old editors alike. More details about all the templates, of course, is given in the Documentation page–plans for its renovation and update are already under way.

The page in question has already been categorised, and its shortcut created and registered into the appropriate list. I have also included it in the SBS navigation template and have updated the Project's page directory accordingly. Waltham, The Duke of 11:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do Dalai Lamas get succession boxes?

Trinley Gyatso, 12th Dalai Lama and the other Dalai Lamas do not have a colored box. I don't know if this is worthwhile for fixing? Guroadrunner 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe s-rel ? Any idea? Guroadrunner 14:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Try {{s-rel|bu}}; I'm not quite sure how the years work on this one:

Buddhist titles
Preceded by
Khedrup Gyatso		 Reincarnation of the Dalai Lama
1860? – 1875		 Succeeded by
Thubten Gyatso

[edit] Catholic titles succession boxes (or, I don't understand how this works on Pope Leo XIII)

Pope Leo XIII 's standardized boxes look like this:

Preceded by
Filippo De Angelis		 Camerlengo
1877–1878		 Succeeded by
Camillo Cardinal di Pietro


Roman Catholic Church titles
Preceded by
Pius IX		 Pope
1878–1903		 Succeeded by
Pius X


or, alternatively, the code is:

 {{start box}}
 {{succession box | before=[[Filippo De Angelis]]|title=[[Camerlengo]] |  years=1877–1878| after=[[Camillo Cardinal di Pietro]]} }
 {{end box}}
 
 {{Pope|
 Predecessor=[[Pope Pius IX|Pius IX]]|
 Successor=[[Pope Pius X|Pius X]]|Dates=1878–1903}}

So folks, how do we get the upper box to fit under the bigger orange box? Carmelengo is a Catholic Church title, but this box on Pope Leo XIII is not found under the orange box, which uses the template "{{pope}}".

It appears that {{pope}} creates its own header in orange and that it only handles two specific inputs: predecessor and successor. Is it possible to make a {{s-catholictitle}} box, sort of like my much-loathed {{s-sports}} ?

I know I had a beef with how new it all was, but now that I've gotten used to it, I am glad there is a place to introduce questions like this. Besides, my new beef is the "no free image" box. ;-) -- Guroadrunner 06:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Like this:

Roman Catholic Church titles
Preceded by
Pius IX		 Pope
1878–1903		 Succeeded by
Pius X
Preceded by
Filippo De Angelis		 Camerlengo
1877–1878		 Succeeded by
Camillo Cardinal di Pietro

You can fill in the other titles as desired. This uses {{s-rel}} instead of {{pope}}. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am gaze at this template with an open mouth, in awe and wonder, marvelling at the utterly unfathomable stupidity of some people. Whose idea was it to cramp every single title Popes have ever had into a succession box that clones itself throughout the entire lineage, often without even giving the titles held by the Pope in question? I most certainly believe that steps must be taken to undo this. A proper succession box, like Gadget850's one above, should solve the problems; Popes' titles can be found in a very specific article, coincidentally titled "Pope". Waltham, The Duke of 13:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to make you cry, but Pope Benedict XVI is among other things, using {{s-hou}} and an image. And Pope John Paul II has a freaking Time Person of the Year succession box—when will people realize that it is *not* an award. A quick survey shows that the successions are using different formats from one to the other. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, dear. We really need to start spreading the word: there are guidelines for this sort of things! Elected officials do not belong to any house, and images are not acceptable in succession boxes!
Quickly, deep breaths, deep breaths. Ahhhh... Now, where was I?
Well, I have corrected Benedict XVI's box, but there are about 250 Popes, most of whom I suspect are using the Pope template; these will be preferably replaced by proper boxes, but it is too much work and there are too few people. In any case, the classification of Person of the Year is a problem that I have often met while working on the U.S. Presidents' boxes. It is not an award, but it is not an honourary title either. So what on Earth is it? Unofficial titles like this one and "Oldest living U.S. president" are not supposed to be under s-hon, as these are formal titles that are simply not accompanied by any power. But can we really create a new header for unofficial titles? Waltham, The Duke of 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: Since you are here, Gadget, can you please comment on the parliament headers discussion? We need to get done with this, and I believe the quorum is five people. Waltham, The Duke of 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: I have corrected the boxes for all the Popes of the twentieth century. I might continue backwards at a later date. Note that the order of the offices must be ascending chronological, thus the example above ought to have the two lines reversed. Waltham, The Duke of 12:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone started phasing out "step:" can it still be used?

As the creator of Template:Step, and having seen it evolve into a more useful form (thanks to the work of others), it would seem to me that we should be using it more, instead of snuffing it out like a candle. Can we come to a consensus on if it can be still used or not? Cwolfsheep 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error report: s-pol didn't work

I put s-pol in a box area and it didn't work. I think it is because the box is not the right format??? I don't know why s-sports works for Giancarlo Fisichella, et. al. but it didn't work for this guy.

Article: Jusuf Habibie

Code:

Template:S-pol

Preceded by
Suharto		 President of Indonesia
1998–1999		 Succeeded by
Abdurrahman Wahid
Preceded by
Try Sutrisno		 Vice President of Indonesia
1998		 Succeeded by
Megawati Sukarnoputri
v • d • e
Presidents of Indonesia

Guroadrunner 03:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be because template s-pol does not exist. I think you want {{s-off}} for political office. You should also use the new s- series of templates to build the boxes:

Political offices
Preceded by
Suharto		 President of Indonesia
1998 – 1999		 Succeeded by
Abdurrahman Wahid
Preceded by
Try Sutrisno		 Vice President of Indonesia
1998		 Succeeded by
Megawati Sukarnoputri

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadget850 (talk • contribs) 22 October 2007

Clarification: there used to be a Template:S-pol, but it was used for police appointments and has now been superseded by Template:S-civ ("pol" parameter). Waltham, The Duke of 11:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return to discussion: Updated header coloring scheme

The proposal for full header colouring scheme had its last vote/discussion one month ago. It had unanimous approval among those who posted a vote.

I move to forward this from preliminary phase to the next step, which in theory is actual changes and putting it to use? Guroadrunner 10:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the few people that have voted on the scheme supported the overall idea, but a couple of points have been raised. I should say that the next step is the concentration on the particulars of the scheme, and the approval of minor modifications to the colours that may need them in order that the scheme can be more welcome amongst the concerned parties.
Perhaps this discussion ought to be wider. I intend to post a couple of messages to this effect in the immediate future, unless anyone objects (and has a reason to). Waltham, The Duke of 11:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea. Guroadrunner 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement – November finds SBS with a member list six editors shorter

I hereby announce to the Honourable members that Wikipedia editors John Kenney, Mackensen, Stilltim, DLJessup, Adam Bishop, and Wjhonson have failed to renew their memberships before the deadline set more than two months ago expired, something which happened at 23:59 (UTC) on 31 October 2007 CE. (Happy Halloween, by the way.) As a result, their names have been stricken off the Great Roll of Members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization in accordance to the provisions of Section 3, paragraphs 2, 3, 5, and 8 of the Membership Renewal Act (WikiProjects and Work Groups) 2007. The remaining members are eleven and have either succeeded in renewing their membership or registered themselves after the commencement of the renewal process. It is hoped that the conclusion of the first membership renewal in the history of the WikiProject will improve communication and cooperation between the remaining members, something beneficial to the project and, ultimately, Wikipedia.

Seriously, though, every removed editor can return whenever they see fit, and we shall be glad to welcome them back whenever any one of them elects to act in such a manner.

...Even if only to tell me that I am a pompous git. ;-) Waltham, The Duke of 17:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Secretary of State

Would being appointed to the position of US Secretary of State be considered a political post or a diplomatic one? I would like to ensure I don't header too many boxes incorrectly. Thanks. Mikebar 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I could simply avoid answering to this, but I have decided to be brave. For once. United States Secretary of State qualifies as a political office, as do all other ministerial positions. This is because, even though the Secretary of State is concedered the most senior diplomatic officer, it is still first and foremost a position of political responsibility and is filled by a politician.
Generally, and having had a quick look at your contributions, I am sorry to say that there are a few guidelines which you seem to have missed. Small mistakes like these are not that bad, as both SBS's and Wikipedia's purpose is to eventually create perfect articles, and not to enforce a policy of being perfect in the first attempt. Still, I believe that you might want to make your edits as helpful to the improvement of succession boxes as possible. Therefore, I will draw your attention to the following:
  • Do not link dates unless in special cases (most importantly succession lines tracking parliamentary terms); see the Guidelines (Years and dates, vii.d). Date links are quite unnecessary (and are already present in the article), and they clutter the box. Also, leave spaces between the years and the connecting en-dashes, and always use the word "present" after the dash for incumbents.
  • Use headers carefully as far as their type, number, and order (not chronological) is concerned; see the Guidelines (Headers and parameters, general guidelines). Generally, most headers are used in limited categories of offices: diplomatic headers for specific diplomats, military headers for people in the military (and not politicians or agency officers connected to it), etc. See each individual header's section in the same page for more details on their usage. (Pay special attention to the s-ppo header, used for party political offices—it is generally much more underused than what would be appropriate.)
  • Use the features of the "s-start" template system to their full extent for special cases of succession, like chain beginnings and endings, and vacancies. The full, and very recently renovated, instructions and individual template analyses can be found in the Documentation page.
Bottom line: stick to the guidelines to the extent that you can and that you are willing to, and the rest will be taken care of by someone else at a later time. But to make your edits even more helpful, and to avoid mistakes that could potentially prove more serious than the rest, have at least one go at reading the Documentation page and the Guidelines page. Who knows, it might help more than you expect.
Please, do not misunderstand this (rather long) message. Your efforts are greatly valued. But I am sure that you would like yourself to be even more efficient, and to take those boxes to their final destination (perfection, or whatever is closest) one hour earlier.
By all means contact me in my talk page if you have any SBS-related questions, no matter what time it is. It's not like you are going to wake me up or anything. Waltham, The Duke of 11:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have studied the templates and I believe my later edits are better than earlier ones. Your comments are appreciated and I will try to follow standards as closely as I can. Mikebar 12:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S-Rel - Pre-Schism Titles

(Transferred from Template talk:S-rel)

I'm not sure how best to deal with this, but there may be POV issues with the application of this template to historical figures. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church split in the 11th century; prior to this, they claim a common history. Less significantly, in England, the Church of England declared itself out of communion with Rome in the 1530s; prior to this, it claims the history of the Catholic church in England as its own. Chad of Mercia, though, is currently marked as holding (in the 9th century) the "Catholic Church titles" of Bishop of the Mercians and Lindsey People and Bishop of the Northumbrians. This attribution to the modern Roman Catholic Church of the shared histories of the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches could be viewed by some as somewhat controversial - while it is certainly what the Roman Catholic Church asserts, it is at least nominally disputed by the other churches, who would view their descent from the early church as just as valid.

Perhaps less significantly, the article, after various prolonged and inconclusive debates, seems to be settled at the moment at Roman Catholic Church, due to the contentious and sometimes ambiguous meanings of the term 'Catholic'. Shouldn't this template follow suit? TSP 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reply transferred from Template talk:S-rel and re-dated—sorry for the lack of originality, but my opinion has not changed, so what's the point of re-writing the same thing?)
You have a point, there, TSP. There is admittably an amount of ambiguity during certain historic periods. However, I should also like to draw your attention to the fact that the headers describe titles as opposed to individuals, something which should clear up at least some ambiguities, given that titles are long chains that can more easily be assigned to a specific religion (or branch thereof) from which they have originated or to which they were later closely connected.
On the Roman Catholic Church header, you have my support. The header ought to be precise and reflect Wikipedia's consensus on the name. But I am not the one to decide this. Basically, I believe you should bring both issues to WikiProject Succession Box Standardization's talk page. I am afraid these template talk pages are not much watched and few people answer posts here. Waltham, The Duke of 00:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ditto :-)
I note that for most religions there are not specific denominational entries in here - there are, for example, simply 'Jewish titles', despite the existence of Reform Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, and so on. (There are entries for Shiite and Sunni Islam, but also one for Islam in general.)
To answer your specific issue - it is true that the template refers to titles rather than individuals; however, this doesn't remove the problem. For example, Paulinus of York is described as holding the Catholic Church titles of Bishop of York and Bishop of Rochester, both of which are now titles solely in the Church of England, which traces a continuous line of inheritance back to these individuals. You could say that these were Roman Catholic Church titles until the English Reformation, after which they were Church of England titles (though that still leaves you in a bit of a grey area with people like Thomas Cranmer), but that would seem to explicitly deny the Church of England's claim to be the continuation of the Catholic church in England, which seems POV. TSP 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Run out of replies to transfer. I guess I will answer to this tomorrow; I'm kind of running out of time now. Waltham, The Duke of 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that I have forgotten about this little thing... Sorry about that. Anyway, we need to take things at face value here: whatever state of affairs is true in every different instance is the one we ought to take into account, and it is therefore not necessary to assign the same header to the entire chain. Nobody has ever said that it was. This is history: things change.
Furthermore, the headers provide general descriptions and are not supposed to be used to draw any kind of conclusions about the titles under them apart from the fact that there is a relationship. This relationship must be sufficiently clear, of course, but it is not required to be as exact, referenced, and unambiguous as the content of the boxes. After all, we use "Royal titles" headers for lines of succession, a usage that has been contested but upheld (not in a court; we have none of those here), exactly because this configuration serves our needs and is still close to reality.
And, well, as far as the grey periods are concerned, we shall just have to work like historians do: define some events as the conventional boundaries that separate different periods.
About the other issue: there should be headers available for various degrees of specialisation, with the most specialised ones used a) wherever it is possible to use them without compromising accuracy (not all cases are clear-cut), and b) whenever there are people that know that these headers are supposed to be used, and insert them into the boxes. The more general headers are used when the more specialised ones have not yet been used, or cannot be used at all. In other words, I do agree that specialised headers (not too specialised, though) ought to exist for large branches of religions.
It's your turn to answer now, and I will not blame you if you take your time. I most certainly have. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 00:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Deletions?

Well over a year ago I nominated some obsolete succession templates for deletion, and that all went well. Plenty have disappeared since then, but many (many many; I'm surprised at what's out there) remain. Obviously they should be unused, but are there any other criteria that should be met before something is deleted? Historical interest or novel coding perhaps?

In any case, I have some suggestions that are unused (several of these I have personally "orphaned"):

Template:Archbishop of Gniezno, Template:Archbishop of Kraków, Template:Arizona State University Basketball Coaches, Template:Assyrian king, Template:Bishop of Gniezno, Template:Bishop of Poznan, Template:DrawnTogether navigation, Template:Flemish Count, Template:Footer Prime Minister of Iran, Template:Michigan State University Basketball Coaches, Template:North Carolina State University Basketball Coaches, Template:President of Portugal, Template:Presidents of Nauru, Template:Primate of Poland 1, Template:Succession box double, Template:Succession box one to seven, Template:Succession two successors

Interestingly enough, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as what's out there...Ardric47 (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Do a nomination for deletion or merge via the standard wikipedia process. The stakeholders and others can chime in and see if the deletionists can get them thrown out. The category deletionists are the most active, they are merciless! Mikebar (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note that in order to delete them, you must first ensure that they are not used anywhere in the mainspace. This is what we do in the Templates page: we remove templates from articles, substituting them with the correct S-start series ones, and then we nominate them for deletion. You cannot delete a template that is still used; all sorts of boxes can break. Waltham, The Duke of 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I do understand that part; I was once rather active in deletion processes, and I have been doing exactly what you said about replacement. I just wanted to make sure we weren't missing any larger issues...in other words, being un-bold. I'm a bad Wikipedian. :p Ardric47 (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't you worry about that; by Wikipedia's standards, most Wikipedians are. (Evil grin)
In any case, the templates you have given here are indeed succession templates eligible for deletion (although two of them, Template:Succession box double and Template:Succession two successors, are actually redirects (the latter to a still heavily used template). Therefore, you can list them all under the "Templates under evaluation" section of the Templates page, in order to help better organise the deletion operation, and you can even list Template:Succession box one to seven (which is no longer used) under the "Deletion proposals" section if you are not willing to propose it for deletion yourself.
Now, if you have time, you can spend some of it removing Template:Succession box double (actually Template:Succession box two to two from boxes. I am doing that too, and it is a particularly educating experience. Waltham, The Duke of 09:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that was all of them. Removed! Muahahaha. The Great Khan has struck again.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 01:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow, I was meaning to list them eventually...was there not even a deletion debate? :p Ardric47 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creeping templatitis

I'd like to mention quickly that there are now some cases where a succession box is actually just redundant — some head of article infoboxes now include entry fields for a person's predecessor and successor in a sequential position, and some positions now have templates which list all of the prior occupants of a particular political position. This certainly doesn't entirely eliminate the need for succession boxes, but per the principle of reducing template creep, we shouldn't add succession boxes for positions where the same information is already given in the infobox or a dedicated template. Bearcat 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that succession boxes should not be used where extensive navigational boxes are present (like those for several awards, including the Nobel Prize). However, succession boxes list (or at least ought to) all of a subject's important titles, which means that if there is a succession box there shouldn't be missing titles just because they are present in the infobox. To take this even further, the infoboxes are at the top of each article, while succession boxes are at the very bottom, and there is often a lot of text between these two points. Their combined usage is only problematic in very short articles. Waltham, The Duke of 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Expanded numeral disambiguation criteria

This poll, having opened on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 CE (in the Gregorian Calendar), closed on Sunday, 16 December with a vote tally of 6 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral, resulting in the unanimous approval of the proposal. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. Waltham, The Duke of 22:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Adoption of banner for succession templates' talk pages

This poll, having opened on 11 December 2007, closed on 26 January 2008 with a vote tally of 6 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral, resulting in the unanimous approval of the proposal. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. Discussion has begun for the final form of the banner lower in this page. Waltham, The Duke of 14:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motion: Closure of proposals

This poll, having opened on 11 December 2007, closed on 26 January 2008 with a vote tally of 6 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral, resulting in the unanimous approval of the motion. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. Waltham, The Duke of 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement – Main page, definition

Moderately important news: In the course of an extended update of the main page, I have rewritten the overview of the project, including the closest thing to a definition of succession boxes I could create. As the definition will be one of the most important elements of a Wikipedia guideline for succession boxes, if and when we manage to have one approved by the community (a little early to talk about that, but it is a long-term target), I should like to know whether you agree with this definition. It is the first paragraph of this section that I am talking about, although it will certainly do no harm to anyone to read and comment on the whole section. It is not that long, after all. Waltham, The Duke of 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas!

I wish a very Merry Christmas to everyone here, and I hope that, after some rest during the holidays, the project can progress even more thanks to its wonderful members. And, whatever your Christmas dinner consists of, may you enjoy it immensely! :-D Waltham, The Duke of 00:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, I wish you all a happy New Year! May 2008 bring health, wealth, prosperity, and success to me, and to SBS, and to Wikipedia, and to the entire world! But mostly to me! (Has another glass of champagne.) Cheers! Waltham, The Duke of 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I second this motion. Happy New Year to all! It has been a long and good year for this project and I expect great things in the future, especially with the likes of the esteemed Duke of Waltham working with organizing the group toward its future goals. For those wondering, I am not dead (yet) but have been very busy with personal goals of learning Latin and French, being accepted to a graduate school (either in the US or Great Britain), and many other lesser things. I do not plan to resign from my work on Wikipedia any time soon, but as many of you know, Wikipedia can be tedious at times and I am taking a break. I have proposals to come soon and more page cleanups to do in the near future, so look for me (first star on the right then straight on until morning). I would never abandon this project; that is just not me. Without further ado, I depart. Farewell SBS, look for my coming.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 05:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Ok, in trying to "do right", I have taken the advice in the article #Secretary of State above, using dates like 1983 – 1985 where the dash is an ndash and spaces between the dash and the date. Now, there are people using AWB to replace all ndashes with - per some decision (recent example - see Revision history of James Buchanan).

If I edit sboxes, I'd like to make sure I'm doing it right - what is the latest? Thanks Mikebar (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Both are ndashes, just a different way of presenting them—HTML vs. unicode. You can get the unicode ndash by typing ALT 0150 or by using the symbol box below the edit box. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, this has been discussed before... Wait a minute.
(leaves to find excerpt; ambient music starts playing)
(returns, covered in dust and cobwebs)
Indeed; it came up 618 days ago. If you go to the 1st archive, 4th door to the left, you will see that the aforementioned edit is in accordance with what appears to be a preference for Unicode; HTML has generally been replaced by either Wiki-code or Unicode, depending on the circumstances. You can use whichever version you want for the en-dash, but it is very likely that the HTML dash will eventually be replaced by the Unicode one.
Hey, Ed, why don't you have a look in the polls above? We need more input here, and most editors are having a break... Ungrateful procrastinators. ;-) In any case, you seem to be interested. Waltham, The Duke of 15:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Update: I have just had a look in Wikipedia's Bible of copy-editing, but it does not support any one dash code. I suggest, Mikebar, that you should contact the editor who has made the substitution, in the hopes that there actually is a decision upon which they are acting.
Who knows, perhaps the Cabal is behind this... Waltham, The Duke of 16:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agenda for the new year

All right, all right, five weeks are enough for a break. I officially declare the beginning of the new succession box year (Year III for SBS) and begin the legislative work with two simple and relatively uncontroversial proposals (as well as continue the discussion on the banner). I intend to submit another two next week, which will require a little more thought. Waltham, The Duke of 11:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would appear that my agenda has been completely overturned, both by the situation here, and by the course of my exams (by the way, they have been a disaster). As a matter of fact, you don't even know the agenda. In an attempt to rationalise and smoothen the "legislative"—if I may freely use the term here—process, I have decided the following:
  • To archive more often, and more properly. As a result of the recent discussion regulating proposals, my proposal for the change of colours for headers fulfils the criteria for automatic failure, so I shall archive it (the comments have been replied to, after all, and I doubt any fresh ones will appear). It hurts, I know, but I must ensure that everybody here receives the same treatment. After all, it is not a really urgent matter; it can be brought up again in the future, when the more pressing concerns will have been properly dealt with.
  • To post the agenda (i.e. the line-up for proposals and other matters for discussion) in advance at the beginning of each month, and try to stick to it. This way, the honourable members can be informed of the upcoming issues and prepare for their examination (or simply avoid them entirely). It will also show to outsiders that we are busy. :-)
    Any notices regarding the progress of the discussions on this page shall be left under these sections. Please do not fear bureaucratising; it is just a very simple process that will rationalise business here and will help us avoid returning back to immobility, and I promise to take care of it personally.
    If there are disagreements, of course, I shall ignore them and do as I wish anyway seriously attempt to address them, and perhaps alter my grandiose plans accordingly. Obviously, you have a fortnight to file any such complaints before March's agenda comes out.
From your unofficial tyrant, have a nice evening (UTC). Waltham, The Duke of 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Standardisation of titles for medals and trophies

I shall go straight to the point: there are two ways of naming recipients of several kinds of awards in succession boxes: the first is by simply naming the award, as in the following example from the article of Benjamin Franklin:


Awards
Preceded by
John Pringle		 Copley Medal
1753		 Succeeded by
William Lewis


The second follows the format "Recipient of the [medal/award (linked)]" or "Winner of the [trophy (linked)]", as in the following example from the article of Rudy Giuliani:


Awards
Preceded by
Billy Graham		 Recipient of The Ronald Reagan Freedom Award
2002		 Succeeded by
George H.W. Bush


I think you will agree that we must choose between one of these two methods. In my opinion, the second one is the way to go, as the boxes are all supposed to refer to their subjects, which have to be identified (in this case with the "recipient" or "winner" description). The name of a medal is not equivalent to an office, the name of which always describes its holder ("secretary", for example, is a person). On the other hand, of course, there is the size issue to consider.

Discuss. Waltham, The Duke of 11:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to favor the second alternative, for the reason outlined by His Grace; it seems logical and sensible, even if it does result in somewhat longer strings of text. I am also of the opinion that the definite article in titles of awards should be lowercased and not linked (hence "Recipient of the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award", not "Recipient of The Ronald Reagan Freedom Award"). How do others feel about this, and is it something that should be added to the SBS guidelines? Alkari (?), 28 January 2008, 21:30 UTC
I favor the second alternative as well. Regarding the definite article, I wouldn't mind seeing it lower case, except maybe in those instances, if any, when the award name clearly contains the word "The", like in, for instance, The Ohio State University. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Regarding articles, I think that we should use whatever the official name of the award is. Ardric47 (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should use the official name of the award, and that ought to define the first letter of the definite article as well. And not all awards have long names; "Recipient of the Copley Medal" won't even fill the entire line (in most cases, of course; each monitor has a different opinion on this).
By the way, nice example, Mr Carter; I'd like to see who won The Ohio State University this year. (Evil grin) Waltham, The Duke of 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It would appear that there is an agreement, ladies and gentlemen. If there is no further comment to be made, I shall close this proposal within a few days, with the comment "proposal approved; note that care ought to be taken with the use of the definite article". Or something like that. Waltham, The Duke of 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I declare this discussion closed and this proposal approved. I shall archive it soon, as well as update the guidelines to reflect this consensus. Waltham, The Duke of 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Guideline encouraging universal linking of predecessors and successors

This is more or less standard practice, but it is not a guideline, and there are more exceptions than what could be described as "sorry, I forgot about this one". One of the chief purposes of succession boxes is to ease navigation by allowing readers to click their way from the beginning to the end of a chain. In order to make that feasible, it is necessary that all predecessors and successors should be linked.

This is the easy part; the tough one concerns missing links in the chain. Red links are unavoidable, as hardly every chain passes exclusively through existing articles. Some of these red links will eventually turn blue, as their subjects acquire their own cosy homes in Wikipedia; some of them, however, will never do (a basic problem, to be dealt with in the future). In any case, I find that it is inexcusable to remove red links just because they lead nowhere at the time (or not to add them for the same reasons). Apart from the lack of standardisation this practice generates, it creates more gaps in the chains than if all names were linked. I thus propose that we should adopt a guideline encouraging editors to link all predecessors and successors, regardless of whether the target articles exist or not.

We could also include a couple of tips to editors, helping them avoid erroneous linking practices. It is, of course, better to have a red link than to link to the wrong article. Therefore, a couple of suggestions could be along the lines of "avoid linking to disambiguation pages" and "if an article does not exist, link to its proper title according to the naming conventions; if you cannot, leave it unlinked and somebody else will do it instead".

Please discuss; as we shall need to shape this guideline (if, that is, we do agree with the principle), simple voting will not suffice. Waltham, The Duke of 11:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be forced or even pushed. If an article on that person is indeed created they will get the succession boxes and then they will most certainly be linked back and forth. Red links are jarring and ugly and I don't like them unless they are necessary. More often than not, a person with the knowledge is going to create the article eventually without even looking at a succession box. Even then, who is to say what name it is going to be created under (I speak from the experience of renaming royalty articles on a daily/weekly basis, titles are omitted, house names are sometimes used, variants of forenames are used, etc). I support waiting for the article first before making a link to it. Charles 04:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I tentatively support the linking. In doing it, we (ideally) create a uniform page title to be linked to. Perhaps we shouldn't need to create uniform titles...but in practice, I think that they are helpful. For example, see [1]. Ardric47 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it should depend on whether there is a reasonable expectation that the article will be created. There's no sense creating permanent red links.--Appraiser (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If an article cannot be expected to be created on its own, can't it be expected, however, to be created as a list entry? I mean, if one has held an office important enough to be tracked by a succession chain, shouldn't that person deserve coverage by at least a couple of paragraphs? The existence of succession boxes in such lists has not been discussed so far, from what I know, but one would think that there is no problem simply adding the (almost certainly one-line) box at the end of the entry, and before the next (Level One) heading.
We don't really know that a person fitting our tracking criteria will never be covered on Wikipedia. Waltham, The Duke of 00:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
List entries belong in lists, not as separate articles. That's why, at least for royalty, we have lists of monarchs, kings, etc as single articles. That's also why we shouldn't be expected to create a chain with the linking. Charles 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Moses E. Clapp has an article because he was a senator. He also was a state attorney general and has a succession box for that. But his AG predecessor and successor will probably never have articles, because very little has been written about them. I think those names should be de-linked. That can always be reversed if someone does learn anything beyond their names and what years they served as AG.--Appraiser (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Perhaps I have used the wrong words. How do we call it when we have an article comprising sections too small for their own articles? Well, that. (Although I must note that the trend has been to turn those into stubs, so we are back to, as they say, "square one".) Waltham, The Duke of 00:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to support (red)linking for all but truly exceptional cases. The presence of redlinks is useful when creating new articles, to see what should be tied in to them. Omitting them means that if the article *is* created, the author has to hunt out all the appropriate succession boxes and add the links. Even if there's not enough material to furnish a standalone stub on that individual, it may be best to redirect the individual to the appropriate list article. I've been doing this for baronets, for instance (Sir Anthony Thomas Abdy, 3rd Baronet redirects to an anchor in Abdy Baronets and is appropriately categorized), and I think it's pretty useful. Plus if more material turns up, the redirects can always be expanded to an actual article. Choess (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. By the way, such redirects to list articles would better be tagged with the appropriate template: {{R to list entry}} (as it turns out, I did use the correct name). Personally, I support red-linking for election dates as well, when the articles for the corresponding elections have not yet been created (most commonly seen for by-elections). However, this might prove even more controversial, which is why I have only made this proposal for the predecessors and successors' names. Waltham, The Duke of 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion usually ends when there is consensus on a matter. Is there a consensus here? I am not sure. Waltham, The Duke of 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I basically see three alternative possibilities here. One is to provide a link to a list of the holders of the title, office, whatever, the second is to create redirects to a list for each successor, and the other is to provide links to articles for each individual successor. I guess my favored choice would be to create the list of names and individual redirects to the specific name on the list if there is no extant separate article. There are now extant projects or work groups for every country and US state that currently exists, so the likelihood of someone at some point creating an article for most, if not each, name is probably fairly good. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur. I do not quite agree with directly linking predecessors and successors to lists of holders, because I believe these lists ought to be linked to from the title cell. (Currently, there appear to be two main linking practices for the title cell, with some preferring to link to the article of the title and others to the list of the holders. This is not to be discussed here, but surely we cannot ignore the facts.) John Carter's plan also has the advantage that, although it is not guaranteed that upon the creation of an article all links will be corrected, anyone following the succession chain and ending up in the list of holders will probably see a blue link there leading to the new article, which will increase the possibilities of someone correcting the succession box's link to lead directly to that article. If, of course, we are talking about a list entry, upon its creation the redirect will be replaced by the article, instantly fixing all the links. Waltham, The Duke of 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Do the honourable members have anything further to say on the matter? I don't want to invoke the "silence is consensus" principle, but if another few days pass without a comment I shall have no choice but to start a poll on the plan submitted by John Carter. Personally, I prefer discussion. Waltham, The Duke of 23:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that linking seems appropriate, although my personal caveat lies where the same person appears multiple time (e.g. at Michel-Édouard Méthot for an example). I am a big proponent of not linking more than needed, and I think linking a name only once makes it more easy to notice multiple appearance by the same name. That might just be me, though. Circeus (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consorts

I think there should be a separate header for consorts. Currently, {{s-reg}} is being used on some consorts and some people who were consorts and sovereigns in their own right (such as Maria Theresa of Austria). Maria Theresa was Queen of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia and Slavonia, Archduchess of Austria and Duchess of Parma and Piacenza in her own right but Holy Roman Empress and Queen in Germany by marriage, as an example. Charles 01:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm dubious about the whole notion of succession boxes for consorts as such. Perhaps we should raise that issue. The "succession" of consorts is inherently discontinuous, although I suppose you could say that for the Principality of Wales etc. too. Choess (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
We have articles listing consorts to various thrones and even the {{s-vac}} template with the "last" and "next" parameters. Discontinuous or not, they are just as useful as any monarch succession series and should be distinguished from them. Charles 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The current practice is to use {{s-reg}} for Queens and Empresses Regnant and {{s-roy}} for Queens and Empresses Consort; the former have royal powers, while the latter are simply royalty.
Perhaps this ought to be clarified in the Guidelines? (Gosh, the page needs a shorter shortcut.) Waltham, The Duke of 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the header should explicitly state the status of the titles. Simply "royalty" is fine for a title like Princess Royal or something like that, but consort titles with almost automatic succession (depending on if there is a spouse for the successor of the actual title holder) should be differentiated. Also, I think s-roy is flawed as is (it doesn't make sense in some cases with a generic "British royalty" applied to people in line of succession to the British throne who are not British or not royalty, etc). Charles 23:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well...
  1. We had a discussion at the template's talk page last October. I stated my arguments there (yes, there), but you failed to answer. If you really wanted the matter solved, all you had to do was continue the discussion.
  2. I asked at WikiProject Royalty as early as last June, and they told me it was all right. (The link is this.) If there is a disagreement between you and Danbarnesdavies, I am certainly not aware of it.
If you are still not satisfied, then we probably ought to have a big discussion about this here. However, and I beg you to forgive the delay, more serious matters need to be addressed first, and whatever decision is taken about the headers it can be implemented rather easily anyway. I have scheduled several header-related discussions for May—if this is not resolved otherwise, it can be taken care of then. Ample time for everyone to prepare their arguments, I trust. We have to set our priorities, you know... Waltham, The Duke of 16:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Change of "Catholic Church titles" header (Original title: Catholic or Roman Catholic?)

The proposal has been unanimously approved with six supporting votes (or seven, if one counts the nominator), and was thus terminated at 16:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC). It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. Waltham, The Duke of 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: Format of SBS banner

So. The adoption of a banner for the talk pages of succession templates has been approved in a poll (see above). However, we also need to decide on the specifications. How exactly do we want it to be? The current format follows; I have entered it manually because if I transclude the template and later we do change it the discussion will make no sense. Please do not tamper with it; leave your comments below the code. (Latter instruction misleading; Carter took it literally) Waltham, The Duke of 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Logo of the SBS

This template is within the scope of the Succession Box Standardization WikiProject, a collaborative effort to bring all succession boxes across Wikipedia up to a specific set of standards.
If there is something you would like to discuss about this template, it is strongly suggested that you do so in the project's talk page.
If you would like to participate in SBS, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


For one thing, I consider the possibility of creating a category with our "adopted" templates. I also suggest that we should consider creating a logo for our project; if anyone out there likes designing things like this and has a lot of time in their hands, this is your chance. I have a tentative proposal here, but I am not entirely sure that I feel like using it. However, it could work as a basis for better designs. Waltham, The Duke of 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections to the template, although I might add a category to it. It'd probably help to add a "recent changes" function to keep track of any unknown changes to it, and that'd probably be best done by monitoring a specific category. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A little more detail, please, for those of us who are not as educated as you are in these technical matters. What exactly would that do? Is it like watchlisting the entire category? It does sound as a good idea to me, at least, because I currently am watching all the "s-" succession templates and their documentation pages, but this is not something editors with already long watchlists can do. And we really need to keep an eye on these templates. Waltham, The Duke of 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That's basically it, yes. Quite a few projects have a little template on their pages which allows them to hit a link and see all the recent changes in the pages being watched. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. In my opinion, this is an excellent idea; many editors tend to want to apply their little ideas on templates, usually in good faith, I know, but that would wreak a lot of havoc if most templates were not protected (and many still aren't). Besides, we have the talk pages to watch as well. Waltham, The Duke of 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr Carter did place, a few days ago, such a template in the main page, watching the Templates page; now you can all see how it works. I think that this will work even better if we go forward with the banner-generated category, so that only changes to the templates tagged by SBS will be visible; different pages could be created for the SBS project pages and for the rest of the succession templates. Clarity is an advantage, in my opinion.
Any other ideas? Objections? I want to make sure that this banner will have the project's consensus in this form. Waltham, The Duke of 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I see no feedback... Perhaps greater exposure will bring in some ideas. I have placed the template in Template talk:S-start and shall start adding it to other templates' talk pages, including those which redirect to S-start. It is best to have an individual talk page for each template, to expedite edit requests and allow for comments to be in context; the banner urges users to leave most messages here. On another note, I have moved the template to {{SBS banner}}, which seems more intuitive. Waltham, The Duke of 06:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Supreme court is done!

Finished. :) Foofighter20x (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also... General rule-of-thumb I've been using for boxes I've been doing... Tell me if I'm wrong. Basically, I group all the offices into their correct category, and then order them by the dates of the earliest position held in that category... Hope that's okay... Also, with link farms, I've been tidying up by following this order: Senate, Senate offices (e.g. Pro tem), House, House offices (e.g. Speaker), President, Vice President, Secretary of ___, Other executive branch offices, Chief Justice, Governor, etc... For the Justices, I then put the USSC composition while they were on the court last...??? Foofighter20x (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry for failing to reply more quickly, but we are all quite busy here. First of all, some clarity, please. When you say "US Supreme court is done", which boxes do you mean that you have edited? As far as the order is concerned (I suppose you are referring to succession boxes—we do not use the term "link farm" for them), there are full guidelines on the order of the lines in WP:SBSGUIDE. If you are referring to something else, please say so. Waltham, The Duke of 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut format for SBS pages

A little housekeeping-related idea. The shortcut for the main page is WP:SBS, and for the talk page it is WT:SBS; the subpages, however, are more complicated.

At the moment, we only have one shortcut for a subpage, namely that for the Guidelines page, and, although WP:SBSGUIDE is certainly much shorter than Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines (eleven characters as opposed to sixty-three), it still has its shortcomings. I suggest that we use another, shorter shortcut, in addition to the existing one (a replacement is out of the question).

I propose WP:SBS/G (8 characters), which, at least for those who are into things, will be even more convenient. Obviously, I didn't know about this little slash trick when the current shortcut was created, so I'm making up for it now, and it can be expanded to cover all of our subpages (or at least those important enough to have their own shortcuts). Think of it: WP:SBS/O, WP:SBS/T, and WP:SBS/D (for /Offices, /Templates, and the Documentation page, namely Template:S-start) make up for a coherent and intuitive system.

How do you feel about it? Do you have another idea that you prefer? Please state your opinion. Waltham, The Duke of 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Support – For the reasons outlined above by... well, me. Waltham, The Duke of 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Support; this makes a great deal of sense. Alkari (?), 23 February 2008, 01:46 UTC
Support - reasonable proposal. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else who would care to comment? Waltham, The Duke of 16:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm no a member, but that seems just fine, I don't see why you couldn't be bold and just create it. Circeus (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I wanted to take a break from reverting to committee mode whenever the quorum was not met, but this happens for a great part of the year, so being bold would probably be more productive, at least where there is no opposition.
All right, then... I claim my right to boldness.
I declare this discussion closed and its associated proposal approved without quorum due to extraordinary circumstances (i.e. The Snowball Clause). I shall proceed with the creation of the shortcuts presently. Waltham, The Duke of 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: "product" parameter for s-new template

Hiyas,

I've been using succession boxes for product lines, such as the Canon EOS series of cameras. For the first model in a line, I'm currently using {{s-new|first}}, as at Canon EOS D30, which is ok but not terribly specific.

Over at Template talk:s-new, I proposed (requested) that a "product" option be offered, with next "New Product Line", and Waltham suggested it be discussed over here.

What do y'all think? (About this proposal specifically and using succession boxes or similar templates for product lines?)

Nbarth (email) (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections to the idea in principle. A few questions come to mind though. First among these is just how many products would be potentially related to this template. I doubt that we are likely to have articles on all the various Barbie models, for instance, but if they did exist would they be included as well? The same might apply to, well, substantially altered automobiles which retain the same name, reformulated cereals (Lucky Charms with the new marshmallow added), and any number of other products as well. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I did suggest it, and I thank you for following my advice, Nbarth. I share Mr Carter's views on the issue: I don't mind the parameter, but I do have doubts on the practicality of creating succession chains for products. We haven't really discussed this before; it looks to me like opening a whole new can of worms here... Waltham, The Duke of 13:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Walthan on the basic element (not sure of the necessity for product "succession"), bit this also seems definitely redundant with {{Canon DSLR cameras}} with has for its header "Canon EOS Digital SLR Timeline". Circeus (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There are several work-arounds for succession boxes. I think we need to start gathering information on which exactly these are... Waltham, The Duke of 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes at Jeremy Paxman

Hi. Would some kind soul please sort out these boxes as (1) it needs doing, and (2) it'd be a useful example (for me). Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. For detailed instructions on how to use the succession templates, please see the Documentation page; for style and headers, see our guidelines. Read these and you will be able to deal with the boxes on your own (it's always better); if you have any questions or observations to make, we're still here for you. Waltham, The Duke of 11:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers and speedy work! Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template change

Can someone please read my post on Template_talk:S-rel#Color. Grk1011 (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How about doing getting some business done now?

Surely one can imagine why editors like taking some time off, but this is ridiculous. It's been four weeks now that every activity here has just frozen. I suppose that I shouldn't be asking for much if I requested some effort to get us out of the standstill, should I? There are all sorts of things waiting to be discussed, and we're just being rude to them. Waltham, The Duke of 08:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Spring Break time, many people traveling. Mikebar (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I suppose that this is enough to justify the situation. Still, we need to get back on-line; in three days it will be the first Sunday after Catholic Easter, and there will be no excuses from that day on. Waltham, The Duke of 11:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Having just rejoined this group after a long absence, I'm now going on a semibreak. Bad timing perhaps, but there you go. I think you'll find that my excuse (as given on my talk page) is sufficient. Still, I'll be around, just not as active as per usual. 52 Pickup (deal) 14:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I could take the Standard Calm Approach ("You shall die!"), but I have decided to take the Extremely Serene Approach: we are happy to have one more contributor, so whenever you are available this is a gain for us. You need not worry about participation. (You can leave that to me...) Waltham, The Duke of 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS:DATE and Template:S-hou

Dates aren't wikilinked (via #ifexist) in {{s-hou}}, meaning user preferences don't take effect on date formatting. I'm sure they used to be wikilinked; is there a reason they're not any more or am I just remembering it wrong? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We have decided that Wiki-linking dates in succession boxes clutters the boxes too much with links, so we have mostly stopped the practice; exceptions include linking years in parliamentary boxes to elections, years in awards to the respective ceremonies, etc. As far as dates are concerned, the format used in the subject's country is used. Waltham, The Duke of 09:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
But is it? For example, see Hirohito. There, the US format is currently used: month-day-year. The correct Japanese format is year-month-day. 52 Pickup (deal) 14:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This hadn't really occurred to me until now... I (still) have no earthly idea on how to deal with this complication. Some thought (and discussion) will certainly need to go into this... Waltham, The Duke of 08:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that no matter what method we agree upon here, editors with no idea how these templates should be used will change the dates to their personally-preferred format anyway. To prevent this once we've come up with a clear idea of what to do, we should probably seek out articles on key personalities in various regions and make the necessary changes there; and hope that the responsible authors can then spread the correct practices to other articles.
For the Hirohito example, I believe we should reword the instructions to indicate that swapping the year and date fields is valid (YMD is a common format in Asia). At the moment, the template does not perform any calculation work, so this can be done without immediate disruption. - 52 Pickup (deal) 09:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My gut feel is still that we should follow MOS:DATE and just ignore that it puts lots of links in. We could come up with CSS to mask the links, if people would prefer? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that this is an alternative everyone would have preferred, if I may speak so; personally, I had never thought it possible to hide the links, which saddened me, because it would solve most problems. Waltham, The Duke of 03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it a solution worth now following, if the current solution isn't uniformly implemented? I'm happy to write the CSS to provide to people who are bothered by it (we can even make the links appear black and not underlined, so the dates are visible without appearing to be links, as well) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it like that... If there were an acceptable solution perhaps it would be easier to spread. Right now, links are discouraged by our guidelines, so if we do decide to use links again the extra work will be proportional to the success of this project. (I have no idea whether I should feel happy or sad about this...) Waltham, The Duke of 23:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boxes, boxes and more boxes

Have a look at the bottom of William II, German Emperor. No problem with the succession box on its own, but what should be done with the multitude of other boxes there? 52 Pickup (deal) 14:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of them, aren't there? My guess, at this point, would be to do nothing, unless you're one of the parties involved in the page already. However, if the article were submitted for some sort of peer review, I'm virtually certain that the reviewers would comment on the number of boxes. If it were to be possible to adjust one box to include the functionality of all of them, (he, he, right ;) ), that might be acceptable, but, until then, I don't see any pressing need for the removal of the redundancies. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in now way involved with this article, but the number/placement of boxes just jumped out at me. But this seems to be a symptomatic problem when it comes to royalty articles. 52 Pickup (deal) 15:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The shape of those boxes is simply unsuitable for the bottom of articles. I don't know about the system followed for German royalty (I only know about British monarchs, each of whom has a simple box naming them), but it certainly needs to be changed. I suppose that this would be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates or whatever venue is the most suitable; we only deal with succession boxes here (or at least try to). All we know is that succession boxes come before these navigational templates, so we can't really make a decision here about anything. Waltham, The Duke of 21:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the German Emperors, Holy Roman Emperors, etc, should all be in one box with a switch used to display the relevant section on each page. The rest should be collapsed. In my opinion, the pretender template at the very bottom is not needed. Only more complex cases like that of France should have them. Charles 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
At the moment I don't think there really is any system in place for German royalty. I've dabbled a little bit in some of the German royalty articles (eg. Frederick II of Prussia), but not yet with the Emperors, so I was planning on trying to come up with a suitable standard here. After looking at some other articles, there are 3 strongly overlapping templates, two of which are used in this particular article. In an attempt to sort this out, I've started a discussion over at Template talk:Holy Roman Emperors if anyone is interested. 52 Pickup (deal) 09:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Important proclamation by the Duke of Waltham

(please click to read)

It's a bad year, isn't it? First the spaghetti harvest fails, and then His Grace makes us all remove our succession boxes :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Dire news indeed, Your Grace. - 52 Pickup (deal) 09:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess that just leaves an uprising against him as our last option. Lemme get my pitchfork. The rest of you grab whatever you can to help in storming the castle. John Carter (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The peasants are revolting... --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, dear. I wish I had been better at moat dredging. Gwguffey (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(eyes the mob nervously from the battlements) It's not that good to be the Duke... Where are those bloody mercenaries when I need them? Waltham, The Duke of 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(suddenly attentive at the talk of mercenaries, who work for money): Uh, how much are we talking here? John Carter (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Two hundred sovereigns for your services for a year, Mr Carter. I shan't be needing you all the time, and the price of gold has risen exponentially lately. I'll pay for your arms and uniform as well.
Tempting, isn't it? Waltham, The Duke of 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really used to, well, uniforms, lately. Been dressing like this [2] a lot lately. Is that OK? I'm the one with the sword. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do. As of this moment, you are in my employment. Now arrest these ridiculous people with the torches. Arrest Tony as well; he is clearly an agent of the enemy. Here are the keys to the dungeon; I am counting on you to make good use of them, Mr Carter. Waltham, The Duke of 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • His Grace has my full support. TONY (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official Response from creator, Whaleyland

I say this with much heartache and much acceptance to the fact that Waltham indeed has a point. The project is a bust. It was begun with good motives, continued through many traumas, and in the end, did not succeed. I regret that I must agree that this project is over, at least to the degree to which it has thus far been promulgated. It is not that succession boxes are not helpful, it is just that there are easier ways to present the data than we currently use.

Ultimately, I believe that the project is not quite dead yet, just the current goals and arbitration is far overboard. Our group has become what became of Star Wars Customizable Card Game: it started with a relatively simple idea, but continued to grow into a beast before anyone was able to control it. We tried, but in the end we just became another bureaucratic cog in the Wikipedia wheel.

That being said, I urge everyone NOT to simply start deleting succession boxes. That will just result in broken succession boxes all over Wikipedia. Instead, begin to replace them with equivalents. Create pull down lists such as those for the Kings of England, Template:English Monarchs. Also, use infoboxes such as Template:Infobox British Royalty that already have succession boxes incorporated. Expand these kind of boxes to be used on other pages such as nobles and whatnot. The pull down succession lists are just as functional as succession boxes, they just don't have the dates and the obnoxious color schemes. In other words, don't give up succession lists, just maybe we should depart from the boxes we all spent so much time establishing.

We did well, everyone, creating boxes on so many pages and resolving many problems I didn't even know existed. However, there comes a point when certain boxes just become more of a pain than anything else. Incorporate information not found in a page elsewhere into the main text, make sure some succession list can be found somewhere for the titles, but then remove the box and move to the next one. Don't give up on successions, but the boxes may be due for a removal, as Waltham has proposed.

Thank you for the two years of support. They have been hard, long, but productive, and I don't think by closing down this project we are giving up what we came together to build, we are just going in a new direction that will look and feel better for Wikipedia and the future of the organization. Thank you for everything, I will continue to monitor the boards in these next weeks to see where we want to go next. Adieu.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 00:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Whaley, did you see the date on which His Grace posted his message? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I know I shouldn't be happy about this, but having fooled someone could be considered a success. My only one, I suppose, as relatively few people pay much attention to these things in Real Life after a certain age.
As far as the Great Khan's response is concerned, I daresay that he has been away from the project for too long and is not fully informed of the current situation. True, there are some participation problems in the project. However, the concept of succession boxes is a successful one, worthy of further development and refinement. And it's popular: according to the latest statistics, {{s-ttl}} is the 56th most-used template in the whole of Wikipedia with 92,553 links, {{s-bef}} is 59th with 92,029 links, and {{s-aft}} naturally takes up the next (60th) slot with 89,784 links. In other words, SBS's templates are used in at least 93,000 articles, by the most conservative estimates. Furthermore, our guidelines are in a mostly good shape, improving with every successive discussion held on this page, and there is virtually no objection to the existence of succession boxes on pages, with only some minor points raised. Succession boxes are far from dead, Darius, and this project shall also remain alive, at least for as long as I can make sure of it personally.
I am sorry to see the upheaval my hastily drafted little practical joke has created, although, as I have already mentioned, I also felt a little glee, which would be hypocritical of me not to confess. After all, it was an opportunity to lure you here, after all this time. The same goes for BrownHairedGirl, actually, who I had no idea that watched this page. Now that she is here, I hope that she shall stay a little longer so that we can discuss a few matters which have been on hold for far too long. I have attempted to contact her in the past several times but couldn't get through, her talk page being something of a dump (no offence).
Now, until Whaleyland takes all this in, I think it will be more prudent of me to stay locked up in my castle, where I'll be safe. I'll have Carter in the room as well, just in case. Waltham, The Duke of 03:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Darius peeks around the corner looking for a peanut gallery. Blast, there it is! He's been caught. Ah, but 'twas the joke on him or the joke on them? The world may never know.
Well...okay, I guess they can. I was quite aware of the date, thank you (see Gmail's joke and Google's jokes), and have been attempting to keep up with the forums as well, despite my lack of contributing to them. I was merely taking Waltham's joke one step further, perhaps too far as some seem concerned. I find myself personally at war with Infobox editors to such a large degree that I cannot possibly avoid a chance to think they earned some cession from our group. While they can be handy, does anyone really want to see something as nasty as the pile-up at the bottom of Napoleon I of France? While we too have our own rather large boxes (see Winston Churchill) at least we did our spring cleaning at made them look proper. I believe Winston would be proud while Napoleon would go REVOLUTION to his page.
Hmm, revolution sounds good...or sieging...I like sieging. Waltham's in his castle, eh? Anyone up for a good old fashioned siege? I heard the crocodiles in his moat are really just stuffed animals he won at Circus Circus. Strange, I just thought of Waltham as Saruman with Carter as Gríma Wormtongue as they realize their little fight with Rohirrim was ended in defeat. Hehehe...
Right, I've got to go prepare the catapults, siege towers, ballistas, rabid cats. Hope no one else took me too seriously. I do come off that way sometimes but I don't mean it; at least not usually. Cheers!
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 06:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(shouts from tower) Hold your horses, o Great Khan, we could perhaps negotiate. Your point about Napoleon's article is valid, after all, and Churchill could as well do with some kind of collapsible box, like the solution applied on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (with some tweaking, though). I also admit that I have not been completely abreast of developments in the world of succession boxes and navigation templates, too absorbed in style issues; I have just realised that Time Persons of the Year have splintered off into a navigation template of their own, solving a great problem we had (we had no idea how to categorise them, as this is not a title). Perhaps some kind of alliance with the userbox-makers would be beneficial (we don't need them take all our good titles, after all, hehe).
All that said, don't you dare insult my moat again; Gwguffey will be outraged, and we don't want that.
In any case, stay right where you are and I'll be down in a jiffy. (whispers) Cartwright— sorry, Carter, get my crossbow, quickly.
(frowns) Where is Cartwright? Waltham, The Duke of 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(coming from behind him) Got it right here. (holding it horizontally, pointing forward) Um, we were still negotiating the contract as I recall. I think an extra stipend would be reasonable, under the circumstances. One other point, while I've got your attention like this. I get the impression that most of our boxes will relate directly to articles related to the Biography project. That group is actively considering breaking down some of its subject projects into even smaller fiefdoms, to keep them from getting too large to be easily controllable. If and when I and some of my allies finish the extant project directory, we're intending on trying to integrate some of the smaller descendant projects in, which would reduce the number of succession boxes each group deals with and maybe a bit more closely focus attention on them. Now, about that money... ;) John Carter (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The good news Your Grace's stalling diplomacy has allowed the moat widening to be completed at a most opportune time. The decoys worked a brilliantly.
The bad news: The contractors won't be here to finish extending the bridge to nowhere drawbridge until Friday.
Your Grace's humble moat dredger, Gwguffey (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Good news overall, Gwguffey; I don't mind staying inside for a couple of days. Our "guests" are not to be released before Friday, anyway (and until they swear an oath of loyalty to me). You may go now.
Mr Carter, your demands are fairly just, and I believe a bonus of two sovereigns is in order for your trouble. Now sign the bleeding contract and I wish to hear nothing further about any pecuniary demands henceforward.
Our boxes are indeed mostly used in biographical articles, therefore the news you bring are of great interest. As you are involved in WikiProjects as few others are, I trust that you shall monitor the situation and report back on any significant changes. Co-operation between different projects can be very beneficial in many different ways.
I think we are done for today. Please go and make sure our "guests" are comfortable in their cells. I should like to have some privacy while I am planning SBS's next moves... Waltham, The Duke of 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New NavBox Subpage

In response to my random post two days ago, I have reconciled and added a new link on the WikiProject nav bar at the top of the page which links to a growing list of Succession navigation bars that sit at the bottom of many of the pages we edit. I didn't put that much effort into finding a lot of bars for the page, so if anyone wants to add some, that would be great. Mind you, though, this is only for succession-related navbars, nothing else. I am doing it somewhat so I can figure out just what succession lists still do not have navbars so we can create new ones for those pages. Cheers!
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: modifications to Template:Succession box

{{Succession box}}, while not exactly part of the WP:SBS suite, is a very simple and widely-used template. For these reasons, I do not believe it should be eliminated, but there are times when I have replaced its usage with SBS templates to improve appearance. The most common case is for incumbents. For example, e.g. Mike Rann

Preceded by
Rob Kerin		 Premier of South Australia
2002 – present		 Succeeded by
Incumbent

The "Succeeded by: incumbent" part irks me somewhat, so I have modified a few articles to remove the call to {{Succession box}} and insert a call to {{s-inc}}. But it is clear that this is not at all an elegant solution and hardly a long-lasting one. Then I realised that if we modify {{Succession box}} itself, it is possible for this template to check for instances where "after=incumbent" and make the necessary change automatically. Here again, using my test version (with no other changes):

Preceded by
Rob Kerin		 Premier of South Australia
2002 – present		 Incumbent

Not only is it relatively easy to make this modification to the template, but it is also rather easy to make other changes (e.g. "before=New title" --> {{s-new}}, "after=Abolished" --> {{s-non|reason={{{after}}}}}, etc.) without damaging the template's functionality.

Since this template is fully-protected, I did not want to go ahead and make such a change without discussion. So if there are any objections, I will not make the change. If you think that this is a good idea, then we should also work out what other modifications can be made to this template and its cousins (two to one, etc.) in order to allow usage of these simpler templates while creating a seamless difference between them and the SBS templates. 52 Pickup (deal) 07:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess my timing is a little off, but meet Template:Incumbent succession box. Choess (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Didn't know about that one. The problem is that many people who should use it don't seem to know about it either. That is why I'm interested in modifying the more commonly-used templates to eliminate the guesswork. - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't like {{succession box}}, partly because people seem to find it simpler without it necessarily being so. It just uses parameters instead of separate templates, and it prevents people from finding out about the much more flexible S-start templates. Not to mention the army of succession-box-type templates we've had to delete, which were used for all sorts of line configurations. Call me narrow-minded if you like, but I think {{succession box}} ought to be replaced entirely. I find its active maintaining rather pointless at any rate; statistics indicate that the S-start templates are already used significantly more. Waltham, The Duke of 03:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
But you do realise that {{succession box}} is currently used on over 50,000 pages? I don't know exactly how many since I got fed up after going through 100 clicks of the "what links here" list. Replacing its usage manually is an act in futility. The only way you can remove it is to pass a TfD, which is very unlikely to succeed, given how widely it is used. In such a TfD you could request that the template be subst'ed. Since it does not contain any parser functions, subst'ing is no problem. Of course, you can try subst'ing any instances you see without calling for its deletion, but that will still take a long time to get done. The changes that I have proposed here would add parser functions and thus make subst'ing impossible (or at least very messy), and for that reason I will not go ahead with these changes at this point. 52 Pickup (deal) 14:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they are many, and yes, they cannot be easily replaced. We need an organised attempt here. If people could be persuaded to consider the S-start templates an official replacement for {{succession box}}, then we'd have a much greater resource to draw upon for the templates' replacement. They are already much better documented, they are used in almost twice as many boxes, and have several notable advantages that just need to be properly explained to people. Personally, I do replace the templates whenever I find them; it might not be much, but it is something, especially since I always explain that in the edit summary and include a link, thus advertising our templates.
PS: I have taken the liberty to correct the dashes and capitalisation in the example; they bothered me too much as they were. Waltham, The Duke of 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Can a robot be used to convert succession box to s-box syntax? Mikebar (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Although it is not as easy as it sounds (it is surprising in how many ways this template can be used, as far as syntax errors and the order of parameters is concerned), I find it plausible. However, we cannot do this without some kind of approval by the community; we are talking about thousands of articles here. One must tread very carefully. Waltham, The Duke of 11:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I'm joining this discussion a bit late, but I only just noticed this discussion and wanted to plead with your grace to show for clemency to {{succession box}}, and to spare it from execution.

Yes, there are some situations where the {{s-start}} templates are better, but for simple cases {{succession box}} does the job just as well, and I use it a lot because it's easy to remember. I know that this irks His Grace, but the prob with s-bef etc is that I can't remember all the permutations, so I have to look it up, which takes time I'd rather devote to other things. For cases where the effect is the same, I think it's best to apply the KISS principle, because if succession boxes become too time-consuming to apply I just don't bother . This is particularly important for the many squillions editors who, like me, just humble and ignorant peasants.

I have no objection to {{succession box}} being replaced with {{s-bef}} etc in those cases where it adds something, such as when there was no successor ... but where it's doing the job satisfactorily , can't we just leave it be? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the desire for simplicity, but I really believe that {{s-start}} is as simple as {{succession box}}, and this is why:
The latter is one template comprising four parameters, and the former is three templates comprising, in total, four parameters. All that changes is the number of templates (in other words, the number of curly brackets). The permutations (I assume you are referring to the various extra parameters) only concern additional information; one does not need to add these in order to produce a functional box—they are added benefits of the {{s-start}} system. And when it comes to replacement templates (like {{s-new}} instead of {{s-bef}} and {{s-inc}} instead of {{s-aft}}), well, these are the cases in which {{succession box}} is inadequate anyway.
PS: This is besides the point, but there is a quick index for all the templates and their parameters (excluding headers): our cheatsheet. Waltham, The Duke of 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I know about the cheatsheet, and appreciate all the painstaking work involved in making it so clear (well done!), but the things is that with {{succession box}}, I don't need a cheatsheet: the params title/year/before/after, which I can use in that order (which is how it seems logical to me), so it's easy.
The other permutations are indeed needed in certain situations, in which case I open up the cheatsheet to figure out which ones I need. But if the situation is simple and the end result would be the same as with {{succession box}}, the I'll take the easy route. It's great to have the more sophisticated option there when needed, but that seems to be no reason to prevent use of the simple route when it does the job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, what can I say? I still find the difference in complexity incredibly small. Compare this...
{{start box}}
{{succession box|
 before=[[William Deane|Sir William Deane]]|
 title=[[Governor-General of Australia]]|
 years=2001 – 2003|
 after=[[Michael Jeffery]]
}}
{{end box}}
...to this:
{{s-start}}
{{s-bef|before=[[William Deane|Sir William Deane]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[Governor-General of Australia]]|years=2001 – 2003}}
{{s-aft|after=[[Michael Jeffery]]}}
{{end}}
The parameters are identical; all the one will need to remember is the names of the templates (and there are just three of them). This is a relatively small change that we could afford while enjoying the other, subsidiary benefits that a substitution would provide us with. I am not going to push it if there is further opposition, but I am a little disappointed.
Note: As far as the order is concerned, believe me: I have encountered all possible combinations. There no standard whatsoever. And I think it would be considered logical and intuitive enough to give the parameters in the order the resulting fields are encountered in the box. Waltham, The Duke of 12:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that the order required by {{s-bef}} etc is logical, but the thing is that a post-years-before-after order is also logical, and other editors find difft orders logical. That's the advantage of a multi-parameter template: it allows an editor to enter the data in whatever order appears logical to them, and still produces the correct output. This flexibility of input seems to me to be A Good ThingTM, because it increases the chances of an accurate result, and thereby makes it more likely that the box will be created.
If there a gain to be made by replacing {{succession box}}, then the inconvenience would be justified, but in simple cases of one title with a clear predecessor and successor, I don't see the gain. And I do see a possibility of a real loss, which is that some editors may not bother to create a box at all if it becomes harder (and I have encountered such cases). A clumsy box is surely better than no box?
What I do agree about, though, is that there are many many cases where I and others have used {{succession box}} in situations where the more sophisticated templates produce much better and more logical output, avoiding such horrors as "Succeeded by: (constituency abolished"). Could we perhaps compromise on trying to identify and replace those usages, and ideally get to the point where a bot could identify and list such inappropriate usages of {{succession box}}, even if it can't actually fix them by itself?
If we could get to the point where {{succession box}} is actually used only for the simple cases where it produces accurate output, and the other uses have been converted to the more sophisticated and flexible solutions, then it seems to me that we'd have a win-win situation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
All right, I'll concede this to you, although I fear that for as long as {{succession box}} exists it will be used for more things than simple succession lines. Can we at least make sure that the supremacy of the {{s-start}} series is recognised for all but the simplest types of succession boxes? There is currently no documentation at all on the template's main page, and the documentation on the talk page, in place since Anno Domini MMIV, is incomplete and outdated. SBS's guidelines should also be followed in those boxes, so a link to them should be prominent.
So, usage. Ahem: "The succession box template ought to be used only for the simplest succession lines. These are single succession lines showing nothing more than a succession of three people holding exactly the same title. For succession lines sharing cells with other lines, for new or expired titles, for incumbencies or vacancies, for titular rulers or pretenders, for titles which change their name before or after the subject, and for lines requiring other additional information, the specialised templates of the s-start series should be used instead of succession box." Not too complex I hope? Waltham, The Duke of 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The idea is great, and the form of words is perfect. Be bold, your grace! Raise the portcullis and set to edit :)
Actually, I wouldn't mind the text being a a little stronger and deprecating the succession box template, saying that the other sort are preferred. (Discouarge use strongly, but stop short of preventing it). And perhaps add a link to the cheatsheet, for the further assistance of such peasants as me? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

←Time flies, doesn't it? Twenty-four days have elapsed (co-incidentally, my favourite number), and only now I am answering. I was determined to do it after finishing with the documentation, so that I could have something impressive to present. My progress has been slower than anticipated, due to various distractions, but I am now in the pleasant position to smugly announce that all headers, in addition to {{succession box}}, now have documentation pages, informative and fully standardised. We can now expect more traffic to the {{s-start}} suite of templates and, perhaps, the SBS pages; hopefully, we shall also see fewer cases of template misuse. Waltham, The Duke of 09:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cabinet option, revisited

A long time ago, I proposed the addition of a "cabinet" field to s-ttl (thread here) after seeing its use on other language wikis. Here it is again, presenting John Moore (Australian politician) using my test version with cabinet=[[Second Howard Ministry|Howard 2]]

Preceded by
Ian McLachlan		 Australian Minister for Defence
Cabinet: Howard 2
1998 – 2001		 Succeeded by
Peter Reith

There was no decision regarding its inclusion, probably because I also discussed some other possible features in the same thread which then went on to dominate discussion (although I'd be interested in revisiting some of those issues too if anyone else is). So what do others think about this cabinet option? 52 Pickup (deal) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am interested, but a couple of issues must be clarified first. What if a minister serves in two consecutive cabinets? Waltham, The Duke of 15:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Personal 2 cents is it detracts from the subject. That and the proliferation of "cabinet boxes" at the bottom of articles means you'd have redundant info in the article. Mikebar (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the ubiquitous nav-boxes. We really need to get organised around here... Waltham, The Duke of 12:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, good point about the navbars. The other-language wikis where I saw this feature did not have so many navboxes as here. So I guess it should be one or the other.
To answer the question about multiple cabinets, I would probably say something like cabinet=Bloggs [[First Bloggs Ministry|1]], [[Second Bloggs Ministry|2]], [[Third Bloggs Ministry|3]] 52 Pickup (deal) 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Succession templates and district renumbering

I'm happy to have discovered the SBS project in the course of finding new, succinct templates in place of the older, table-based format. But now that I know that there are a bunch of people working hard on succession-related problems, I've got a question to lay at your feet.

Succession boxes are used to keep track of who gets elected to the various seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. These seats represent numbered districts in each state. Here's the problem: Now and then, the districts get renumbered. For example, Patrick J. Hillings succeeded Senator-elect Richard M. Nixon to represent California's 12th congressional district (CA-12) in 1951. But when Hillings ran for reelection in 1952, the district was renumbered as CA-25. At the same time, the district previously known as CA-9 was renumbered as CA-12. While it would be partially correct to say that Allan O. Hunter succeeded Hillings in representing CA-12 (as the succession box on the Hunter article does), it's also misleading since Hunter and Hillings both continued to serve the same districts, however renumbered.

Is there a convention in place to handle such cases? I tried experimenting with the {{s-vac}} and {{s-new}} templates on the Patrick J. Hillings article. I also tried adding some additional parameters to a customized version of those templates in my my sandbox. Your feedback is appreciated! -- Shunpiker (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well... Working hard is an overstatement in my opinion; we do need helping hands here. :-) In any case, the problem in question is known but I daresay has yet to be tackled due to the complexity of the area of congressional districts. In any case, I think most people will agree that the chain of succession for an area must remain intact, and that it is the name (or, rather, number) that should change.
My proposal makes use of the "as" parameter, which is intended for changing titles:
United States House of Representatives
Preceded by
Richard M. Nixon		 Member from California's 12th congressional district
1951 – 1953		 Succeeded by
Himself
as Member from California's 25th congressional district (renumbered)
Preceded by
Himself
as Member from California's 12th congressional district (renumbered)		 Member from California's 25th congressional district
1953 – 1959		 Succeeded by
George A. Kasem
(see the code in the edit window)
The box is comparatively concise, and retains the specific chain of succession. I am only unsure about the links; the articles for the districts do not mention the changes in numbering, so I cannot decide between plain links and links to the last incarnation of the specific (geographically) district. While the former might be inaccurate, the latter might be confusing and requires a great maintenance effort. I shall leave this to you.
Your sandbox experiment is interesting in that it tries to give the reader the ability to go both directions (either follow the geographical district or the numeral one). However, I do not know to what extent this is actually desirable, and if the new parameter and greater size and complexity of the box bear more weight as disadvantages than this additional information. This will need discussion and thought... Waltham, The Duke of 13:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well? Any comments at all? Waltham, The Duke of 01:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A few thoughts :)
In principle, I always like extra navigational options, and the "as" parameter seems simple enough in principle. However, I share His Grace's concerns about accuracy, because in the example illustrated I doubt that a redistricting often lends itself to such a neat a mapping of one district to another. I also fear that a parameter named "as" could be used for all sorts of unintended purposes, which would clutter the boxes
  • as=a reward for his support for the King
  • as=an attempt to balster left-wing support for the govt
  • as=his last military posting
  • as=a result of the Uzbek-Faroese Frienship Traety of 1801
Surely the succession boxes should indicate succession, which seems moot in these cases? Boxes can't convey everything, and doesn't this sort of detail belong in the article itself? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"doesn't this sort of detail belong in the article itself?" Actually, it's not often found there, but rather in the articles about ridings. Given that "as" is explicitly given for use of different titles, I don't see where the problem is. I've used similar tricks in several articles where ridings where merged or split today just today: Pierre Joseph Arthur Cardin, Christophe-Alphonse Geoffrion and Raymond Préfontaine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 May 2008
Indeed, I'd say that the relevant section of the documentation is clear enough in this respect. The examples cited by Circeus constitute perfectly legitimate usage of the parameter.
On another note... Uzbek-Faroese? Really? :-D Waltham, The Duke of 23:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually having second thoughts and am sort-of split between using {{s-new|district|reason= From part of Foobar}} and {{s-bef|before=John Doe|as= Representant for Foobar}}... Oh well. These things are almost impossible to apply regularly on a large scale anyway ^___^ Circeus (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Which is why we should discuss these things here and make guidelines about them to be used as references for the editors of succession boxes around the globe. :-) If one thinks of it, it is actually quite daunting how many things we have to standardise; I intend to post an extended checklist somewhere one of these days. What you say is related to one simple question: should we treat congressional districts as long, unbroken chains, or should we break them at re-numberings? Waltham, The Duke of 07:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts, before determining consensus for any specific guidance regarding U.S. Congressional redistricting, some input should be solicited from participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. The topic has come up there previously (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Redistricting and succession). As for specifics, I suggest that the district number should be treated as unbroken (which is how it is represented at Congressional sources), but that there may need to be something to indicate redistricting and that should be standardized. For one approach involving notes, see Dale E. Kildee. There are some other examples around, but at the moment, I'm not able to find them. older ≠ wiser 12:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree with discussing this with the appropriate WikiProject. Co-operation between projects should be encouraged. As far as the Kildee example is concerned, notes can be useful, but the box is still unwieldy. (And the proper template should be used for the notes anyway. Now that I think of it, wouldn't it be great if these reference-style links could be used in the text and lead to the relevant line at the end of the box (template {{s-ref}})?) Perhaps a hybrid could be worked out, still using the "as" parameters but also giving more details through notes. Waltham, The Duke of 02:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AutoWikiBrowser feature request to take a look at

There is a feature request for the AutoWikiBrowser tool being discussed at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature requests#wikify dates that needs to be looked at. If this became part of the general fixes automatically applied, would this run counter to SBS Guide Years and Dates vii d-f? --Gwguffey (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As, for the time being, we do not want links, it would. Thank you for the notice, Gwguffey; I have left a note there asking for the exemption of succession boxes (at least until we solve the problem with visible links). Waltham, The Duke of 01:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do I find a suitable box?

I went looking for a general box that would give the formatting seen in Sheridan State Scenic Corridor. I gave up and just used table code. Is this best or is there a good general template that simply centers the cells? --NE2 05:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Although it is not a complete solution, perhaps something like this using {{s-non}} and {{s-ttl}} would work:
Historic Columbia River Highway
Ruckel Creek Bridge
MP 42.7		 Sheridan State Park
MP 44		 Cascade Locks
MP 45-46
Compared to:
Historic Columbia River Highway
Ruckel Creek Bridge
MP 42.7		 Sheridan State Park
MP 44		 Cascade Locks
MP 45-46
from the aforementioned site.
We would probably want to create something that allowed for lower-cased successors and predecessors and for a standardized header, but for the moment, this may be a solution.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific societies

What should be made of positions in major scientific societies such as the Linnean Society or Zoological Society? I've switched one or two of those from {{s-other}} to {{s-aca}} because these are typically considered as highly-regarded positions for academics, but I'm not too clear, and I really don't think {{s-culture}} works. Circeus (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One of our newest headers, {{s-npo}}, was created for the various non-profit organisations, including labour unions and scouting organisations. Nobody seems to have thought about learned societies and the sort, but this header seems to fit.
{{s-aca}} should only be used for universities or equivalent institutions; {{s-culture}} is more relevant to museums and academies (they seem to have a more well-defined scope). Waltham, The Duke of 02:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I added a parameter to {{s-npo}} (pro, "Professional and academic associations") because "Non-profit organization" just doesn't cut it. Circeus (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I keep an eye on that one and your addition looks fine. ----— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
As long as SBS is notified, it is perfectly fine to add a parameter to a header when warranted; we want our system to be as effective as possible. "Professional and academic associations" sounds fine. Waltham, The Duke of 23:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for s-new|office

I'd like to propose that "New Office" is available with the s-new template. I'm currently working on listing ministers who have served as Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. During the 1960's this office was merged into other departments on a regular basis, from Commonwealth Relations, to Commonwealth Affairs, and finally to Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Using s-new|institution doesn't seem right for the new holders of these offices.

Thanks Stephennt (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, New institution was one of my ideas; I didn't want to create New college, New university, and who knows what else. Needless to say, it's been a failure. It might be better to replace it.
About New office, though... Isn't New title suitable enough for ministers? I am concerned that New office will be so heavily used that there will be serious inconsistencies between the usage of the default New title and the parameter-generated New office, which is pretty much what we are trying to avoid here. The boundaries seem vague enough. Believe me, I've thought about this several times; New office sounds like a very obvious parameter. I'd have created it a year ago if it weren't for this problem.
All that said, I should really like to hear what the other members think. Waltham, The Duke of 08:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The end of a sequence is extremely flexible, as we use s-non, where any reason can be given. Perhaps we should have an s-new equivalent; we have s-new|reason at the moment, but something like s-new|name=New office would allow the same flexibility. Stephennt (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It is the other way round: we allow this flexibility in {{s-non}} because it is particularly tricky to find suitable tags for the end of titles. The varieties here are endless. On the other hand, the birth of titles is rather easy to describe. For more information, there is the "reason" field. I repeat: we are aiming for consistency here. (I know our project's full title is long and we rarely ever use it, but standardisation is in there. Promise. :-D). Seriously, are there any problems with the current configuration? If yes, they should be dealt with, but what you propose sounds more like a stylistic preference, and an entirely different Book of Statutes applies there, so to speak. Waltham, The Duke of 10:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree we're aiming for consistency, but there should also be consistency between the end of a lineage and the beginning of a replacement too. E.g. if I end the Commonwealth Relations line with "Office abolished", I should be able to have "New office" at the beginning of Commonwealth Affairs.
However the discussion of complete flexibility in s-new is well beyond the scope of just s-new|office, so I'll stick to arguing for that. Given that s-off = Political Offices, I think there should be a new office feature for it... Cheers Stephennt (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As a complete aside, any idea why the s-off box on page Frederick Peel is so big? Stephennt (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you accept bribes? I've copy-edited the article and its box; the problem with the header was the extra line. All these empty lines in the box aren't really necessary, and on some occasions, as you can see, even cause problems. Apart from that, I linked the years to their corresponding elections, added the second MP for Leominster, switched the political offices and parliamentary seats, corrected the spacing of the dashes, linked H. Roberts, joined two neighbouring cells bearing the same name, and removed the "institution" parameter. I am not saying you should have done all that, but it is interesting in an educational sense; check our guidelines for more information on that. By the way, I am horrified to discover my completely unintended usage of the "institution" parameter in this context. This is all my fault, I'm afraid. Please remove them from wherever you find them used in this way, and tell me if I have to do some of this work as well. I'll see what else I can do for damage control...
As far as the "office" parameter, you might be right, after all... But I am still not sure. I'd like to see some input from other editors first. Waltham, The Duke of 11:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying up the box; I'll try to fix more up in future, but it's a painful task to go through the entire list of people who've served in the offices of people I'm trying to fix :-)
Would be great to get more feedback from others on this, thanks. Stephennt (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Personally, when in doubt, I use the handy "First". Besides, half the time, someone did the job previously, but as part of something else, under a different name: e.g. when the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada became the Canadian House of Commons, ridings were the same, so Joseph-Goderic Blanchet was not elected to a "new district", he was preceded by himself as MLA in a different body. This is what is happening here. The Legislative assembly of Quebec, however (and technically the office/title of speaker of it), was a New institution (although not a new district IMHO, as they were originally the same at provincial level). Overall, I think "first", "institution", and clever use of "as" in s-bef/aft cover most cases just fine. Circeus (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of using the s-bef|as option in this case; I'll see if I can make that work (ie if all the predecessors match the successors). I sitll do think there's a case for having a new-office option though - as s-gov, s-off, etc all refer to offices I think it makes sense; given that the point of the new succ boxes is to standardise and categorise things, there's no point trying to make something fit into a category where it doesn't really belong. Stephennt (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leader of the opposition?

What header are those? They seem to get filled as s-pol s-off, because "political offices" seems appropriate by name, but the guideline specify this is for elected government officials. s-par also feels a appropriate (as it is in parliament), but is not either. And s-ppo seems fairly silly (While there is overlap with party leader, there are large differences too). Circeus (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, {{s-off}} (I suppose that's the one you are referring to) is meant for political positions in general, not necessarily in government, and is the only suitable one for Leader of the opposition. You keep bringing up problems, and you should keep on doing that; the guidelines are in serious need of revision. I'll try to get that done over the following long weekend.
As far as {{s-par}} is concerned, it should only be used for parliamentary seats; the various associated offices come under {{s-off}} if political and {{s-gov}} if non-political; the situation is a little more complex with the whips, who also accept {{s-ppo}}... That's a tricky one. I can't explain more now; in the last 38 hours, I have slept two. After a long sleep, however, I'll come back to you with examples—I just thought you'd want a basic answer first. Waltham, The Duke of 03:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was referring to s-off >__>. Thanks for clarifying that. Circeus (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, left you last in my checklist, I'm afraid. Anyway, here it goes...
As far as {{s-off}} is concerned, a general definition like the one given in the template's page is probably the most accurate. For more details, one goes to the guidelines page, only that more details means more chances of error, especially in a page which is rarely maintained. I agree that the introduction to that section should be revised; however, if you look at the list, it is fairly complete (especially after the recent addition of mayors, for which I thank you). Leader of the Opposition is, I suppose, a position which had not occurred to me separately from the rest of the posts listed there. I shall attempt to compensate in the following days.
I have also mentioned whips... Although I have not yet proposed anything regarding this, and there are no "official" guidelines, I follow my principle on multi-layering. In the United States House of Representatives, there are Majority and Minority Whips, which are offices in the Congress and thus come under {{s-off}}. At the same time there exist succession lines for the Republican and the Democratic whips (under {{s-ppo}}). Although these are overlapping—a whip being, e.g. in the majority and the Democratic Party—if a whip is in office while the majority shifts, then the political succession line breaks and another starts, while the party succession line continues. I cannot find a good example at the moment, but be patient... Any questions so far? Waltham, The Duke of 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally I'd put both whips strictly in {{s-ppo}} (since he electorate does not have much to do with it, and the electorate hardly cares anyway), but so far so good. Circeus (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't always have to do with that; Whips influence politics, and in ways the electorate often does not understand. And using {{s-off}} for all political parliamentary offices ensures desirable consistency. Waltham, The Duke of 18:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: New succession template for sports venues

I should like to introduce before the honourable members an idea of Gwguffey regarding a new type of succession template. This template, User:Gwguffey/Succession Box Venue, has been designed in order to deal with the problem of great repetition often found in succession boxes for stadiums and other sports venues which have been used multiple times for the same events (see Louisiana Superdome for an example). The difference from the current system is that all rows for a particular event will be compressed into one, with the succession lines separated from each other with breaking lines, saving space. For an example of the template's usage, please see User:Gwguffey/Succession Box Venue/test.

I believe I have said enough for an introduction; I shall leave the editor himself to further analyse his idea, as well as answer any questions which might come. Waltham, The Duke of 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally interested in multiple parameters in general, which I think could apply in a number of places, and could do just as well, if not better than merged cells. It would certainly be far more elegant than the ugly set of succession box templates, and more intuitive than the cell merging system. Circeus (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in writing this after the Duke's introduction. The Superdome article now uses my proposed box temporarily.

In the course of editing articles related to venues (stadiums, arenas, facilities) I would like to provide guidance to editors in dealing with succession of events similar to Super Bowls — ones that have rotating homes and have been hosts of events multiple times, though not consecutively. So, I built the template to allow for this situation of succession boxes to be "compressed" into one template usage for each event for multiple years and do to so in a way that keeps horizontal alignment of before/years/after sequences regardless of the length of the text used in any of the three cells in a row.

[edit] An example

Currently, editors not involved with SBS work are doing the following (except for ones that I have already visited) for this type of event:

Preceded by
Rose Bowl		 Host of
Super Bowl XII
1978		 Succeeded by
Orange Bowl
Preceded by
Rose Bowl		 Host of
Super Bowl XV
1981		 Succeeded by
Pontiac Silverdome
Preceded by
Stanford Stadium		 Host of
Super Bowl XX
1986		 Succeeded by
Rose Bowl
Preceded by
Joe Robbie
Stadium		 Host of
Super Bowl XXIV
1990		 Succeeded by
Tampa Stadium
Preceded by
Sun Devil Stadium		 Host of
Super Bowl XXXI
1997		 Succeeded by
Qualcomm Stadium
Preceded by
Raymond James
Stadium		 Host of
Super Bowl XXXVI
2002		 Succeeded by
Qualcomm Stadium

...or are trying to place all of the entries into a single succession box by forcing line breaks, but the information does not align correctly horizontally unless everything fits on exactly one line per entry (including the event title) to arrive at the following:

Preceded by
Rose Bowl
Rose Bowl
Stanford Stadium
Joe Robbie
Stadium
Sun Devil Stadium
Raymond James
Stadium		 Host of the
Super Bowl
XII 1978
XV 1981
XX 1986
XXIV 1990
XXXI 1997
XXXVI 2002		 Succeeded by
Orange Bowl
Pontiac Silverdome
Rose Bowl
Tampa Stadium
Qualcomm Stadium
Qualcomm Stadium

So, I propose compressing into this:

Preceded by Host of the
Super Bowl		 Succeeded by
Rose Bowl XII 1978 Orange Bowl
Rose Bowl XV 1981 Pontiac Silverdome
Stanford Stadium XX 1986 Rose Bowl
Joe Robbie
Stadium		 XXIV 1990 Tampa Stadium
Sun Devil Stadium XXXI 1997 Qualcomm Stadium
Raymond James
Stadium		 XXXVI 2002 Qualcomm Stadium

--Gwguffey (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be great for any other complicated situation (with removal of the "host of" part). Of course, it runs into the issue of possibly needing to account for the various alternatives to s-aft and s-bef (inc, non, new, possibly vac). Maybe just having one "New=" and "Last=" with another param. for notes could cover all of those? Anyway, here's an example for a title:
Preceded by
Elzéar-Alexandre Taschereau		 Rector of Université Laval
1860-1866		 Succeeded by
Elzéar-Alexandre Taschereau
Preceded by
Thomas-Étienne Hamel		 Rector of Université Laval
1880-1883		 Succeeded by
Thomas-Étienne Hamel
Rector of Université Laval
1886-1887		 Succeeded by
Benjamin Pâquet
to:
Preceded by Rector of Université Laval Succeeded by
Elzéar-Alexandre Taschereau 1860-1866 Elzéar-Alexandre Taschereau
Thomas-Étienne Hamel 1880-1883 Thomas-Étienne Hamel
Thomas-Étienne Hamel 1886-1887 Benjamin Pâquet
Generally, though, there are already several succession box variants (e.g. {{U.S. Secretary box}}), so having one for these would probably be just fine. Circeus (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the hardcoded "Host of" from the box. It would be no problem to rename any aspect of the box or parameters to be more generalized. --Gwguffey (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that I want to see the template used too widely; the last example displays redundancy in the predecessor's name, obscures the common origin of the last two titles—better seen in the "proper" box—and does not take into account intervening titles (e.g. between the first and second title), which could lead to ruining the chronological or other order with the proposed template, as the intervening title would have to be placed out of order. I was willing to ignore that for sports venues, but for me it becomes an deal-breaker when offices are concerned. Waltham, The Duke of 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the Duke's objections to utilization beyond the issue it was specifically designed to address, I will, with the utmost respect to Circeus, like to steer the conversation back towards the originally proposed usage. With that said, I am (and will be) happy to be accommodating in any way that would be of benefit to the project. Are there modifications or features that aid in its venue usage? --Gwguffey (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I'll leave you to your discussions. Circeus (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to clarify a difference in purpose between this usage and successions for individuals that is raised in the Duke's response to Circeus above. As opposed to the convention with individuals where the successions are placed in a pure chronology, for venues, the current (though unformalized) convention is to place the successions in the following order:
  • Current tenants
    • Teams
    • Non-rotating events (like current American college bowl games)
  • Prior tenants
    • Teams that moved to new homes or disbanded
    • Non-rotating events (such as former homes of American college bowl games)
  • Rotating sports events in order of first usage (Super Bowls, NCAA final four's)
  • Non-sports rotating events (Republican National Convention)
So the successions are compressed into a grouping by event, thus in the example above all of the Super Bowls are grouped together rather than separated by the events that came between. The redundancies seen in the predecessor or successor's columns would be appropriate for this type of grouping as it is not an overarching chronology — it is a sequence for the specific event. However, eliminating the redundancy of the title listing is desirable for this type of grouping (hence the term "compression"), but would not be for individuals. --Gwguffey (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I disagree partly with Waltham, but I'll leave you two to discuss the details of the implementation as it applies to sports venue. I can only hold this many arguments at the same time. Circeus (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't start more, then. :-D
All this time I haven't been contributing much here (and still haven't reviewed the guidelines as promised) because I am involved in too many discussions, polls, arguments, and so on. I don't want to, but so many of them keep drifting away from my preferences; what am I supposed to do? </confession> Waltham, The Duke of 21:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I know myself. I'm flighty, with a moving target as to what I want to actually do on wiki. As such, I am a terrible project member (I've edited and taken mild interest in enough areas to qualify for dozens of projects), and I tend to wander away after sparking revival or new discussion. Circeus (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I could tell as much from your user page. My problem is not as much that of fickleness as it is one of over-extension; my interests are way too wide for me to cover them, and I spread my time and resources thin. Not to mention the associated neglect of Real Life...
(moment of reflection)
Anyway, I think we are straying off-topic here. (My talk page is always available, though. :-)) Waltham, The Duke of 23:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Several thoughts

  • I added a "line" parameter to {{s-other}} for lines of succession. Otherwise it's just silly (though it probably won't be used much, I suppose it's more practical to have it.)
  • What is the better header for non-ceremonial Lord-Lieutenants? I just switched a bunch of 19th century ones from {{s-other}} to {{s-hon}}, but I strongly suspect that I am incorrect.
  • Isn't it time we find a better way to deal with multiple seat constituencies? There has to be a more elegant way to do it, especially where more than one person has to be fit in "alongside", and how come there is no provision in {{s-bef}} or {{s-aft}} to deal with those? See George Pratt, 2nd Marquess Camden for an example where this would be useful (I did not have the courage to convert the first two {{succession box}}).

Circeus (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's take them in order, shall we?
    • I see that you mean the lines of succession for non-royal titles... However—and I am based on the American order here, but that could apply on other countries as well—isn't that, at least in the first few positions (which are the ones that matter anyway), the same thing as the order of precedence? That would create redundancy.
    • In any case, your idea has given me an idea, which would probably silence the objections about listing lines of succession under headers for specific national royalties. Why not simply create a "Line of succession" parameter in {{s-roy}} and split the lines of succession from other royal titles but still place them right below? Successors to thrones are always royal anyway, but there will be no specific countries. It's so simple that I marvel at my not thinking of it earlier.
    • As far as Lord Lieutenants are concerned, we have a practice to consider their offices political before the Interregnum and ceremonial afterwards. It is a rough break, and there are certainly exceptions, but all such breaks are.
    • Ah, my beloved Dunwich... I have always found that story extremely funny. (As an aside, the standard way to end such a succession line is Constituency abolished, although I'd keep the link.) I agree that the current way of handling such constituencies is inadequate, and that a parameter should be used; one of my principles, and I know people who agree with me on this, is to use as little HTML and wiki-code in the boxes as possible, leaving the editors to just deal with parameters—easy to enter, easy to take in information, easy to remove.
    • However, I am not satisfied by the visual outcome of the "alongside" parameter in this case, which should probably be used without any dates, when we clearly need them in succession boxes for Parliament seats. I rejected this solution in my mind a long time ago, actually. What might work better, and not upset the appearance of the boxes (which I believe is good enough, considering that a simple "Member of Parliament for Dunwich" might erroneously imply the existence of a sole MP), is to introduce a new parameter doing exactly what we see in boxes: small lettering and a change of lines. We could have different parameters for years, and have the final "and" added automatically or not, but that would depend on what level of complexity would be deemed acceptable by the honourable editors.
    • For the record, I am a proponent of using just Member for Dunwich and link the entire phrase to the constituency; the link is not much needed, especially considering its repetition in boxes, and one could click on the header for a link to the Parliament anyway. But I'm not going to make this an issue here.
    • And something extra: long frustrated with the huge, and continuously growing, table in Template:S-par, I've sorted it by country and put headings in it. Please tell me what you think.
Ah, and please comment on a few of the threads above, if you find the time; they've been sitting so long without any comments. I should suggest #Proposal: Guideline encouraging universal linking of predecessors and successors, #Discussion: Format of SBS banner, #Shortcut format for SBS pages, #Proposal for s-new.7Coffice, and perhaps #Proposal: "product" parameter for s-new template. (Another idea occurs to me now... Urgent matters box. Get some business going around here.) Waltham, The Duke of 21:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll see about commenting other threads.
  1. Honestly, I have no idea what you are saying, so I,ll just nod and leave you to do whatever you want. (I am not that familiar with the background of these templates, much less succession lines. I just like to use them—and most modular system in WP, they fascinate me.)
  2. Alright. Thanks.
    • I'm very much with you on the wikicode/html in parameters issue.
    • Personally, I think "with" would do just as well even if it means using the same words for regents and co-elects. I can't believe it could be that much confusing. As for parameter, you could take "regents" param as defaults for "with" sothat if "alongside" is used, it defaults to the current setting, otherwise the general "with X (year)" is used? This adds a minimum of new parameters, and I don't think many boxes use more than one regent (or regents at all) anyway.
    • Normally I unlink those (and multiple people, as I did in both rector examples above, which are from Michel-Édouard Méthot). I'm split as to whether use the full title, the abbreviation, or just "member", though. Generally, I keep to the lengthy title if only because that's currently the prevalent use overall.
  4. Couldn't just colored table cells (rather than headers) be used? It bloats the ToC in an unseemly way to me (although using a limited ToC is an obvious option).
Circeus (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No feelings of hostility whatsoever, but why did you create that header if you are not so familiar with the templates? I support being bold, but sometimes asking first can save one some extra work (I've learnt that the hard way). I have a love–hate relationship with redundancy, you know, and I've seen too many templates created out of pure ignorance trying to cover a non-existent gap, so forgive me if I ever go over the top regarding this subject.
  • The "regent" parameters... Why did I dismiss those? Ah, yes, because there can only be up to three. Why cannot there be more, I have always wondered; perhaps it is a relic of older coding practices which can now be safely superseded (or perhaps I am being too optimistic). If we can get the available slots to six or eight, then I could move to have the MPs transferred there. Otherwise, we should end up with more inconsistency (although awkward in syntax, the current format is enjoying a comfortable reign over our UK-Parliament boxes).
  • I am not very fond of abbreviations, and I'd say that a simple MP would not be very popular if unlinked (which is the intention). On the other hand, Canadian boxes use MLA for provincial assemblies, but these are separately linked and their full titles are too long anyway. I've broached this to BrownHairedGirld once, and she seemed to be positive to using Member (I hope I am not misinterpreting anything); the negotiations were abruptly broken, however. I'll try to bring it up again (if she isn't watching this discussion already).
  • If I just wanted heading font I'd have used tags that don't make them linked from the ToC. It was my intent to have it done this way, because the table is very large and people generally hate scrolling. Why do you object to a large ToC? (It can be minimised, anyway...) Waltham, The Duke of 23:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian ministry template sets

Anybody willing to look into Category:Canadian federal ministry boxes? I nominated {{Ministry box office header}} for tfd as separating that in a row is just silly, but I'm really not seeing the absolute necessity of having what are basically little more than complicated multi-row versions of {{succession box}}. Circeus (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Our relations with the WikiProject responsible for these boxes have not been the best possible. (Check the discussion here and Whaleyland's first message here.) Please tread carefully.
I might look into this later. Waltham, The Duke of 21:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not technically a member of either project, but I think something is workable. If maximum flexibility was really wanted, all the oddball parameters in s-ttl would be tossed out the window ("dynasty" and "creation" are exactly the same thing!) and replaced with a single "comment" parameter. Circeus (talk)
I'll try to contact Whaleyland about this (I still don't know where he intended to use the "dynasty" parameter); however, as the formatting between creations and MPs is different, a single parameter for both would probably not do. Waltham, The Duke of 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I know "regent", "alongside" and "creation" all use different formattings. The question is: are different formatting absolutely necessary? Circeus (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I cannot think of any better position or formatting for the "Creation" tag, and the "regents" and "alongside" ones are very well-placed at the end because their length is variable and can increase very much on occasion. I believe that the needs of the different types of information call for different tags to accommodate them, and that these needs are not always reconcilable. Simplicity is good, but not at the expense of other requirements. Waltham, The Duke of 23:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Quick note! The "dynasty" parameter was for use in mostly ancient dynastic lists such as the Egyptian dynasties where each is often differentiated with a Roman numeral even when we have now somewhat proved that they succeed each other in both family and right of inheritance. It was created before the "as" parameters were added in "s-bef" and "s-aft". It was meant to look like (from Khufu):
Regnal titles
Preceded by
Sneferu		 Pharaoh of Egypt
IV Dynasty
2589 – 2566 BCE		 Succeeded by
Djedefra
In contrast, the "creation" addendum was meant for multiple creations of the same title. In hindsight, I see that the "creation" and "dynasty" are really one in the same, and perhaps a more neutral "comment" or "subtitle" may suffice, however we will have to search for all instances of "creation" first. I believe "dynasty" was never widely implemented, although I am sure some, probably the Hellene kings of Egypt, use them.
On another note, the Canadian ministry project is very ardent about keeping control over their templates. I believe some of the templates' internal structures have already been replaced with the proper coding, and just need to be individually replaced (which will take a lot of work). The only way I ever saw getting around the project bureaucracy was replacing an entire template in rapid succession, and I never had the time or energy to do that. Good luck to you all if you can achieve it, because I think that is the last big series that has not been replaced. Alright, that is all for now. If you need me again for something brief, I am around, just...::sigh::...preoccupied.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 21:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I support using a "subtitle" parameter, which would easily indicate the tag's position right below the title. We just have to make sure that the documentation will not allow irrelevant uses. We could use a bot to make the substitutions—there will be the minimum margin for error, given the two parameters' simplicity and relatively limited usage.
What concerns me more at the moment is whether we can increase the number of available "regent" parameters; they would be most useful in hosting the extra MPs of multiple-seat constituencies but are too few for that job. Is there a specific reason why there are only three parameters? Waltham, The Duke of 09:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
At the time of creation, there was only really a need for three regents. Considering their nature, by the time a minor went through three regents, they had either reached their majority or were dead. However, since we have expanded it for other uses, I see no reason why we should not increase the number to whatever is needed. Feel free, it was created in a time when three was enough.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 17:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Good to hear. Does anyone disagree with having eight regents as the absolute maximum in a box? All of them would only be used in extreme cases, considering that other MPs have usually been significantly fewer. Any more would not only be redundant but also blow the box out of proportions.
In case of opposition, my next proposal would be to use six regent slots. Waltham, The Duke of 22:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Do it! Omnipotent former dictator has decided for all. (Muahahaha!) Wouldn't be a point in being omnipotent otherwise, would there be?
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 05:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed there would not. :-)
I have created, and posted an editing request at, Template talk:S-ttl. See also the banner thread higher on this page. Waltham, The Duke of 07:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One to Two?

Can someone help me quickly? I have Uriel Sebree. His role as Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet has a succession box, but I want to include in the box that midway through the Pacific Fleet split into two (added the Asiatic Fleet) and that he was followed by a different rear admiral for that position (and with a different end date for his "term".) How do I do this with the current templates in a way that is standard with other articles? JRP (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The template you were trying to edit is still using an older format. I have transferred the template in question here in order to help you. I have converted it to the newer format and included the requests you requested. Please input the successor, however, before What I believe you want is this:
Political offices
Preceded by
Benjamin Franklin Tilley		 Commandant / Acting-Governor of American Samoa
November 27, 1901 – December 16, 1901		 Succeeded by
Henry Minett
Military offices
Preceded by
William T. Swinburne		 Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
May 17, 1909 – February 19, 1910		 Succeeded by
Giles B. Harbor
New title
Split from U.S. Pacific Fleet
 Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Asiatic Fleet
ENTER YEARS OF TERM		 Succeeded by
ENTER SUCCESSOR HERE
Please look at the code to understand the changes. Also, note that dates in succession boxes are only wikified if they regard a specific event (such as an election) and should never be used for general date links as those dates should have already been referenced elsewhere in the article. If you have any other questions in the future, feel free to ask them here or look into our guidelines and instructions help pages where you should be able to find the answers.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 08:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, not exactly. There was no "C-n-C Asiatic Fleet" prior to the job being split off from his. So, he never had that title/job and this would imply that he did. It's more akin to a politician that has his district split into two. Does that make sense? JRP (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You present a good point and an interesting example of problems still present in this series. Following our normal procedure, I think this solution works best:
Political offices
Preceded by
Benjamin Franklin Tilley		 Commandant / Acting-Governor of American Samoa
November 27, 1901 – December 16, 1901		 Succeeded by
Henry Minett
Military offices
Preceded by
William T. Swinburne		 Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
May 17, 1909 – February 19, 1910
Split with U.S. Asiatic Fleet on January 28, 1910		 Succeeded by
Giles B. Harbor
Succeeded by
John Hubbard
as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Asiatic Fleet
While this now presents at least one redundancy, that of having Giles B. Harbor being listed with the same title that is in the title box, I believe it makes the succession box more clear. I can't really think of anything else to do in this strange case, but we are all up for ideas if you have any, or if you have any concerns with this solution. Cheers!
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 17:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This is perfect, thanks! The trick with the table formatting in the middle would have got me. I didn't know you could do that...JRP (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Whaleyland, the "as" parameter is almost certainly unnecessary for the same title. Having no different name will indicate a title that does not change. I'd also suggest putting that title up and leaving the break-away one at the bottom. Furthermore, if we are to standardise tags in the cells, a note at the bottom of the box might work better for the announcement of the split, the number placed at the Asiatic Fleet predecessor's cell; however, I am not completely sure about whether the same level of informativeness would be maintained this way. Waltham, The Duke of 22:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have just changed it... Isn't it better now? Waltham, The Duke of 07:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've put something almost identical to this on the page. I appreciate your help. JRP (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Good to know we've been of assistance. One last note, though: these boxes go to the bottom of the page. The very bottom. Nothing should follow them but categories and inter-wiki links (although there is also the dubious exception of stub templates); it is actually stated in the layout guide, one of the very few mentions of succession boxes in guidelines. Putting references afterwards, although a common mistake, is a practice that should be avoided. Waltham, The Duke of 05:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Documentation

Currently, each template has its own documentation page and a link to the s-start documentation. Instead of maintaining separate documentation, it would be better to have one documentation page and transclude it to each template with {{documentation}}. If one documentation page seems too long, it could be split into subpages with one main page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The documentation (Template:S-start) is not only quite long, but is rather irrelevant from the majority of our succession templates, namely the headers. These are easy to use and their recommended usage is documented at the guidelines, not at a template page. For the other templates, the ones actually creating the succession boxes, I cannot see what would be gained by repeating the same long page—in which the individual templates are pretty much lost—another nine times. The maintenance effort for the individual documentation pages is minimal, as they only change when their corresponding templates do (and non-header templates rarely change). For all the lack of participants here (or, perhaps, thanks to it), we are rather organised. Waltham, The Duke of 22:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming templates nominated for deletion

Not sure if they meet the criteria for speedy or not, but wanted to let the group know that the following have been nominated. At first look, I would say their functionality could be combined in some way, just not sure what would work best.

  • {{Namesake box}}
  • {{S-namedfor}}
  • {{S-namesakes}}
  • {{S-namesake}}

— MrDolomite • Talk 14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I put those up for deletion three days ago. The author agrees that they should be deleted. They constitute a succession in absolutely no way and I recommended to the author to make navboxes if he wanted to go through with the original intent of them, which was to show cities/towns with the same names. These should have been immediately deleted except an overzealous admin decided that I needed to post them with the 7-day wait speedy delete.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)