Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

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):

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)

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:

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:

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)

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)

Succession box

I've suggested some changes to {{succession box}} (talk) to handle the most common beginning and ending to series. The suggestion is at Template:Succession box/proposed. Please take a look and say what you think. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I shall comment there presently (I am a little short of time right now), in depth, but expect no positive response, h2g2bob, at least from me... From what I have seen, this proposal aims to integrate functions of the {{s-start}} series into {{succession box}}, which has only survived so far because of its simplicity. I am sorry, but this can only result in unwarranted complexity and confusing overlap. {{succession box}} should only be used for plain boxes, and {{s-start}} for everything else—it's a simple and viable solution. The only one I can see that entails the continued existence of the former template, actually. Waltham, The Duke of 20:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Interesting choice to use a "Succession box" heading in a page where nothing else is discussed. :-D

adding hCard microformat

Please Template talk:S-start#adding hCard microformat and comment there. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheatsheet

I've put this together as a quick aide-memoire for myself. If it's considered useful I could put it on the cheatsheet. Your thoughts...

Cheers, Bazj (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility

I've asked about the accessibility of complex succession boxes, at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#Succession boxes. Please feel free to comment. Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 22:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sporting Awards i.e. Player of the year from Overseeing Organization

Specifically, I wanted clarification/review of guideline b2 on Awards and Acheivements. I believe that Awards should be used for major sporting awards that are awarded annually, on the basis that it provides users with at least a quick reference to the prior/successive year winner, and at most, a way of researching leading players in a sport through continued link following. Below you'll find an explanation of how I wound up here.

I've recently been working on some of the tennis pages, specifically completing lines of succession boxes for ATP Awards. Specifically, if you go to a page like Roger Federer and see the succession boxes at the bottom, those lines of awards aren't completed (you head down the line, and there are players linked in the boxes that don't have a succession box on their own page.) I added or adjusted Most Improved Player boxes on all player pages listed under this award.

I was doing the same on the Player of the Year list, until I reached Boris Becker. Previously I had been through this page for Most Improved Player, and added flags in the box to conform with guidelines. I was looking up guidelines regarding wikilinking player names multiple times in the same S-Box table on the same page, when I realized that there was some information that indicated that Sporting Awards perhaps shouldn't be listed this way (shouldn't per the guidelines, that is.)

Again, if someone could offer clarification regarding whether or not {{s-awards}} should be used in these tables, along with further clarification as to whether the same players name should be wikilinked multiple times in the same S-box table, that'd be great! Thanks so much for your assistance!Gnowor (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

{{s-awards}} is deprecated, {{s-ach | aw}} is the preferred template. It's planned to have a bot convert all the occurrences of {{s-awards}} to {{s-ach | aw}} in the very near future. {{s-awards}} will then be put up for deletion.

I know it's considered bad style to have multiple links for the same person, but I've always thought that if a reader is following a thread of succession boxes, they want to quickly follow the succession, they don't want to be forced to search the rest of the page for the relevant link. Don't know what the official line is though. Bazj (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the quick response. I'll wait for consensus on the links. Going forward though, it sounds like I could continue my work, simply adding the succession boxes. (Typically these pages already have {{s-awards}}. If I should find one w/o one, I'll add {{s-ach | aw}}.) Gnowor (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:S-awards

Template:S-awards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I've had a go at tidying up Category:Succession templates, moving templates into the relevant sub-cats Category:Rail transport succession templates and Category:Succession header templates as applicable, and getting the templates to sort under their names rather than under T-for-template. Four templates show up as unused... {{s-prev}}, {{s-next}}, {{s-mar}}, and {{s-chi}}. Are they still works-in-progress, or TfD candidates, or speedy candidates? It looks as though the intentions for {{s-prev}} & {{s-next}} can be served through {{s-bef}} & {{s-aft}}. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole lot of them should be replaced/deleted. I am not sure where "s-prev" and "s-next" came from. "s-prev" seems to have some different text in it so it may be a good idea to see what the intention of that template is. The other two templates were miserable failures of my own creation. I attempted to create a chart in succession boxes/family fields to list marriages and children. But the attempt failed utterly and I have admitted defeat (actually, I admitted it a year ago). I will recommend it for speedy deletion immediately and you can add them to the pending deletion list (I don't really have time for both at the moment). Thanks for all the help on getting these templates sorted out. There are many of them. I deleted around two dozen before I started keeping track of them, too. Cheers!
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 10:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

{{s-prev}} & {{s-next}} look to have been aimed at a geographical succession (villages along the Trans Pennine Trail, Category:Villages on the Trans Pennine Trail). Given that the templates currently under WP:SBS are primarily personal successions I think they're better converted to WP:TRAIL. Bazj (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're too fast (and I am too busy). I had those two blacklisted for a few days and intended to do something for their deletion, but wasn't too sure. I've started feeling like I'm dealing with Cluebot here (that's a compliment). :-)

As I was combing the "s-..." templates the other day, I also found {{s-parampara}}; the rest of the remaining ones seem to be legitimate. Could you please check if it should be deleted? (I think it should.) Waltham, The Duke of 06:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

{{s-parampara}} is from the same creator as the late, unlamented {{s-parampara-nosat}}, looks to be a copy of {{s-hou}}. It was used on 2 pages. Switched to regular succ boxes with {{s-rel}}. Put it up for speedy as a {{db-test}}. Bazj (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Succession box not quite working in the BoxRec wiki

I tried to take advantage of Wikipedia's succession box templates for the BoxRec encyclopaedia wiki, but have experienced some problems. The box can only be created if {{s-start}} and {{end}} are replaced by {{start box}} and {{end box}} respectively. But more importantly, the box does not look like the one below so that there must be a bug. The defective box can be viewed on this page (link removed), which also links to the pages of the used templates. Have I created them incorrectly? Or might the current version of the BoxRec encyclopaedia wiki be the problem?

--Emaster82 (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you need to place a "|-" after the first s-aft line to tell the internal system that a new line has begun. While the s-bef and s-ttl will know that they are suppose to span two lines, the two s-aft do not, hence the need for the line break. Try it and tell us if it works.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 14:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It works as far as the "Succeeded by" column is concerned. The years-parameter in the title column is still displayed twice, though.--Emaster82 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I just checked your code for s-ttl on your site and it shows that you repeated the {{{years}}} parameter, hence the duplication. Just delete the first one and the <br/> and it should work.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 01:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You've solved it completely, which is highly appreciated. The test page in the BoxRec wiki will be deleted so that I hope it is correct that I've removed the links to it in the above paragraphs.--Emaster82 (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Alongside element

The staandard S-box template for succession to offices, Parliamentary seats, etc. has an element "alongside", where as the standard practice for British MPs is to put "with <br><small> <br> </small>" after the dates. Could the template be changed so that "with" could be a standard part of the template that would come out as "with". As I say this is standard UK usage. My preference would be to change "alongside" to "with", but I leave it to those from other countries to tell us how this suits the situation in their countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

United States federal judges

I have begun adding succession boxes to all biographies of United States federal judges, as all belong to a traceable line of succession. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Idea to redefine some succession boxes

I see that the original purpose of these boxes is to indicate the changing holders of various titles/offices/etc. However these have grown in some cases to describe someone's entire career or a significant part thereof.

In the same way that's been done with various "repeated data" (e.g. nested templates for NATO armed forces ranks, IOC codes, country/flag pairs etc.) would it be possible at the end of an article to have something like (in principle)

{{[template name]| Something_1
                 | Something_2
                   ...
                 | Something_n }}

Then the template will take the person's name (maybe an extra argument in the template where name/article don't match) and then grab the before/after from each of the article/temps/lists/etc Something_1,...,Something_n. I think the idea is general enough to encompass the various uses.

Of course, in those cited uses of nested tp's the thought that MediaWiki might need to be changed has invariably been discussed. Again, this is just an idea. 118.90.28.56 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Where would it be grabbing the before/afters from? I assume that someone is actually listing which offices were held, since that can be complicated and the nature of the office can change from time to time, e.g. the Iowa House of Representatives, which used to be elected by county but is now elected by district. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a "in principle". In the specific example you provided there obviously would be pointers in the master list---e.g., when dealing with something A which split over time into B and C then at the end of A there would be a thing indicating to see B and C, and the first entries of B and C would point to the last of A. 118.90.0.148 (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of American political nominees

It has come to my attention that the succession box header called "Political Party Offices" is being used for failed candidates for American political office (see, e.g., Walter Mondale and Michael Bakalis). This is simply an incorrect usage.

In the United States, being the nominee of a political party for a political office does not equate with holding a political "office". Even if we take out the obvious (e.g., Ross Perot, who held no office even as he stood for election as the 1996 nominee of the Reform Party), serious candidates such as Barack Obama and George W. Bush held the offices of senator and governor while running. They did not hold an "office" known as "Presidential Nominee".

Some may argue that, upon his nomination by the Democratic Party, that Barack Obama became the "leader" of the Democratic Party may have a minor point that does not address the overall problem: This header is being used on all types of failed candidates. Look at just one example: Bruce Lunsford. All he was was the Democratic nominee for Senate from Kentucky; he was not "the" leader of the Democratic Party of the US or even just of Kentucky.

I have no objection to having a header on this succession box, but I do object to this, as it conveys a false impression of the nature of the status of a nominee. Unschool 01:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you wouldn't call being a party's nominee a political office, what would you call it? Bazj (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, your edit summary ("Suggest an acceptable representation then") is spot on; it probably would have been better to have suggested an alternative. The only reason I didn't is because I couldn't think of one at the time. But my inability to think of one does not change the situation here—namely, that we are putting something incorrect into the project. If we were trying to come up with some category for small, furry animals that live on nuts, and you couldn't think of one, the situation wouldn't be improved if I suggested we use the category "reptile".

Party nominees are seeking office; they do not hold it. An office is a position that comes with authority and responsibilities. Party nominees have no more authority or responsibility than does one's boss at work. I don't right now know what the answer is, but I do feel that we'd be better off without this header than with it incorrect. And we had succession boxes for years before this came along.

Maybe "Nominations for elected office", I don't know. I'm still thinking it over, and, as always, am open to other ideas. Unschool 06:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is already there, public office {{s-off}} and party office {{s-ppo}}.

However, to address your points...

I would resist the idea that rights and responsibilities are necessary for an office. The role of Dean of the House has about an hours work each decade in those jurisdictions where the role has any responsibility at all. Baby of the House has none in any jurisdiction.

Party nominees certainly have responsibilities and rights. What if:

• Barack Obama had started espousing Republican policies between nomination at the convention and the November election?
• Barack Obama hadn't hit the campaign trail after receiving the nomination?
• Hillary Clinton had continued to campaign on her own behalf after the convention? The nominee has the right to expect the support of the party. See Ken Livingstone#Greater London's first mayor for an example.

Bazj (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I regretted using the word "responsibility" as soon as I posted. As I noted, nearly everyone has responsibilities. It is difficult to define the concept of "office". But one thing that I think should be implicit in the concept of an "office" is that someone holds it pretty much at all times, baring unforseen temporary vacancies from death or resignation. When a candidate receives his party's nomination, he's not filling a place that was just left vacant. It's just a temporary title ("nominee", not an "office".) Anyway, let me offer a few observations:

1. The very use of the term, "Political Party Office" is a violation of WP:OR. To the best of my knowledge, that specific term is not extant outside of this novel Wikipedia usage. On that ground alone it should be eliminated.
2. The term is being used in a manner that violates its own guidelines. The guideline for this header reads as follows:

vi. Party political offices (s-ppo)

These are offices that are part of the mechanisms of political parties. They include:

* Party leaders/chairmen
* Whips
* Party candidates for the Presidency of the United States, France, etc.
* Chairpersons of the Democratic and Republican National Committees (United States)

Only important positions in major parties should be given succession boxes.

First of all, I understand the designation of "political party office" being applied to both party chairs and whips. These are "party offices", as they are full-time, year-round offices filled at the discretion of the party for the specific purpose of achieving the will of the party. They have "specific" duties and defined authority to carry out their office.

Now as to the question of the nominees of the parties themselves, I can only speak in an informed manner about the United States. While I do not consider any nominee to be holding "office" as a result of her nomination, an argument can be made (as I alluded to in my first post on this page) that this nominee, unlike any other, is uniquely holding a party position. I don't actually see it this way, but I do understand that the party nominee of the party out of power is imbued with significant powers. He can reorganize the party in a manner to his liking, and at least between his nomination and the general election, the nominee is the unquestioned leader of the party. So I can accept, I suppose, the notion that a presidential nominee in the US is a political party official, kind of.

So what this means is that my only major disagreements with the guideline above is the fact that "PPO" is a creation of OR. So what's my beef? This header is showing up all over the place, including on nominees for the US Senate, the US House, governors, and so forth. Its use in this manner is explicity not sanctioned by the guideline above, and its use in this manner should be depricated. I don't mind having a different header, as I indicated, something indicating that Joe Schmo was the Democratic nominee for the US House of Representatives from the 23rd district of California. But we can't just call it an "office", any more than we can refer to unknown furry animals by the category "reptile". Unschool 05:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, elections are held at the whim of the Prime Minister who will call an election when the prospects for his/her party look best. The elections are held about 6 weeks later. Given this set-up (rather than fixed-term elections) the parties need to have nominees in place. Prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) are chosen well in advance of any election, often within a few months of the previous election. The role is (almost) continuous.

PPCs hold a major role in the local party. It's certainly not OR to recognise that.

I can see that the US situation differs, in that the nominees are selected much closer to the election, but that difference is quantitative rather than qualitative. How long does a nominee need to be in place before you'd be happy calling it a party office? Setting a threshold would be OR. Bazj (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually understand the UK situation rather well. I mean, you not only have candidates in place, you've got shadow ministers, etc. And that is a substantive difference. There is always a shadow chancellor, always a shadow home minister, etc. Calling those party offices makes sense in a way that is simply never true in the US. Even if Senator Obama had named his entire cabinet at the Democractic convention in December, it would not have been the same thing as the UK situation. It's not a matter of "how much longer do they need to be in place" at all. As to the point of it being OR, its immaterial what role these people play in the UK. I'm saying that, as far as I can tell, the existence of the term "Political Party Office" is a creation of someone's OR. I can't find the term in a Google search, I don't remember it from any of the poly sci books that I read either growing up or in college, and I never saw it in any of the books in which I taught government. It just looks like someone's creation for Wikipedia purposes, and that is not allowed. If you know of any decent publications or textbooks to which you can refer me to find this term, I would appreciate it, since such a source might more clearly define it for us. Which brings us to the final point: You didn't get around to addressing my point that the header is being used in a manner contrary to its description. A failed Senate candidate from Tennessee does not meet the criterion laid out for this ostensible "office". Unschool 05:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it safe to assume, then, that you agree to the removal of this header from party nominees only, but leaving them on true party officers, such as party chairs and party whips? Unschool 06:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd only do that if the headers are replaced with something else (perhaps "Political Party Nominees"?). I'd suggest (since I do consider them to be political party officers - I can explain if necessary) that this be a new parameter created in the existing {{s-ppo}} as was done for {{s-civ}}. This would avoid the problems of overburdening an already full scheme of templates while giving the clarity you are seeking to a significant number of biographies. (On a side note, WP:OR applies to the encyclopedia not the meta-encyclopedia of which these headers are a part. These headers are categorization tools to provide organizational rather than substantive clarity to the reader and their use may - indeed must - be internally defined by the encyclopedia.) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Replies to Philosopher:

• I agree that replacing is more desirable than simple elimination, provided that an acceptable header can be created. I've been thinking about it a few days, and "Political Party Nominees" would be fine with me.
• I think your point about these headers being part of the meta-encyclopedia is very significant, and I had not thought of this. I would agree that, if they are to be regarded as part of the meta-encyclo, that the rules against OR would be inapplicable. But I am not certain that I agree with the premise. Are info boxes part of the meta? Do not both the info boxes and these headers not provide the reader with information? Does not this information need to be as grounded in fact as possible? I'm sure that if someone had come up with a header for these people called "Losers" (and that is to whom they are almost always, it seems, attached; the winners do not get this tag very often), you would object, on the grounds that the header "Losers" does not reflect NPOV. Does WP:NPOV apply to these headers? And if so, why not WP:OR?
• Though I think it may be moot, if we agree on the PPN header, I am nonetheless very curious as to your reason(s) for considering the unsuccessful nominee for the US Senate from Tennessee to be a "political party officer". You have never failed to impress me with your insight, Phil, and I am really, really curious what your argument would be, and whether or not it could possibly be persuasive. Unschool 07:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will go ahead in the near future and create a template along these lines, something saying "Political Party Nominees". I've never created anything quite like this, so it won't happen overnight. But it should meet everyone's needs, I hope. Unschool 01:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:S-ref

Hopefully someone can help with this. I used s-ref on this page but there seems to be a problem with showing the reference if certain characters form part of a website address (I'm guessing '?' and '='). Could someone fix this it all or let me know a work-around? Thnaks in advance, Craigy (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The template was apparently designed to use the "1=", "2=", etc. parameters. I don't know why the others work without them and this one doesn't, but adding a "1=" seems to fix it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant. Thanks a lot! Craigy (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

alongside parameter

I had a note on my talk page from an editor who disliked the way the alongside= parameter is dispalyed by {{s-ttl}}, and we have had a bit of a discussion there: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Succession_boxes.

In summary, Phoe (talk · contribs)'s concern is that the text "served alongside" is wrong, and as a result of this Phoe has been removing the alongside parameter and joining its text into the end of the title= field. I think this is wrong for several reasons:

1. The content of the alongside= parameter is a separate piece of data to the title. Keeping it in a separate field allows its presentation to be adjusted by tweaking the template, which can't be done if it is joined onto another piece of data
2. The markup for the alongside= parameter is simpler. That makes it easier to use, and easier to read if it needs to be edited
3. The current display of the alongside= parameter places it below the years in office, which is a much more logical position. Using the "with" markup splits the title from the years in office, and does so in a way which will be confusing for those reading the pages through an audio reader

I'd welcome any other thoughts on this.

In the meantime, I have modified {{succession box}} to accept the alongside= parameter, so that it can now be used without having to replace {{succession box}} with the separate {{s-bef}}, {{s-ttl}} and {{s-aft}} templates. There are of course many purposes for which the separate templates are essential, but this tweak will allow wider use of the alongside= parameter by those who don't want to do the extra work of splitting up a {{succession box}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We have two issues here:

• I think we should move from the old style {{succession box}} to the new style ones with {{s-ttl}}, etc, but I doubt we can get a bot written to do this, so that we must probably live with the old kind for the moment. It would be very onerous to do it manually.
• I have created a lot of succession boxes (usually new style), and have noted the alongside element has not generally been used in British articles. I have gone along with this. I think this issue arose from my raising it with Phoe (talk · contribs), who suggested that I was putting the "with" in the wrong place. I had suggested that he should not use "alongside" in articles on Irish consitutencies, because it was not used in British ones. Certainly the "alongside" element has an American feel to it, which is unwelcome to me as an Englishman. I consider the best solution will be to provide both old and new style succession boxes with a "with" element that can be used instead of (but like) "alongside". This will produce a consistent style of boxes, without the need to type or paste in the "small" markup, etc (as at present). I suspect this would be simple enough for a bot to make wholesale conversions. Better still would be to have with, with2, with3, (etc to 9) elements, so that an MP could have up to nine successive colleagues, entered automatically and consistently, without the need for a manual line-break. This is as much as is needed to bring the box-coding in line with the succession boxes that we are actually creating. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the {{succession box}} format should be redeemed by the more flexible and expandable {{s-ttl}} format, and I also concure with User:Peterkingiron that a bot could probably not handle such a task accurately, for what reason it will come to good old handwork and will take its time considering the number of articles the template is used.
• I believe nobody will disagree to User:BrownHairedGirl that an additional parameter for contemporary MPs and the years they sat in parliament with the subject of the particular article will make new succession boxes easier to create and existing succession boxes better to edit, so it seems the only point we need to discuss is the parameter's result and its appearance. I'm sure that everybody prefers a consistent layout of the succession boxes and I think also that we should avoid rising a situation like in a library where different librarians use different catalogues to index the books :-). While as a German I'm not the best capacity to decide whether "served alongside" or "with" is the more linguistic and political correct form, I would chose the latter because its briefness matches the often long names better. Note that this is also the original form (see Wikipedia:SBS/G#i._Parliamentary_seats_.28s-par.29). Regarding the place of the perimeter, I amusingly find it more logically and cleary between the title and the years in office :-)
• At the moment I reckon User:Peterkingiron's suggestion as the best possible solution and would support it.
  ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're tweaking parameters, perhaps we should have separate parameters for the name of each with/alongside officeholder and the years they served? In theory, it should be possible to scrape data out of the succession boxes and automatically check it against the appropriate list articles, and this would make it easier to parse the contents of with/alongside. Choess (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems like we have quite a lot of agreement here.

1. I'm not particularly concerned whether the alongside/with parameter is called "with" or "alongside", so long as the data is not splatted into another data field
2. I don't much care whether the prefix added by the template says "with" or "served alongside". "Served alongside" is a little clearer, but it is an Americanism (MPs sit, rather than serve, and the notion that they exist they to "serve" people is a relatively new one) ... and "with" is shorter. If we switch from one format to the other, then a bot can easily trawl through the MP categories replacing s/alongside\s+=/with = /g
3. I strongly object to the idea of putting the "with" data between the title and the years, because if the formatting is stripped away (as it is with a speech reader), the connection between the years and the title is lost, which is confusing, particularly for a long-serving MP who had alot of colleagues . Keeping title and year together follows the logic that would be used if the central part pof the box was written as text:
   • John Jones was MP for Bigtown from 1810 to 1823. The other MPs for Bigtown at that time were Simon Small (1810-1818) and Denis Dennison (1818-1830)
   • ... but putting the other MPs in the middle is equivalent to a much more confusing sentence: John Jones was MP for Bigtown. The other MPs for Bigtown at that time were Simon Small (1810-1818) and Denis Dennison (1818-1830). From 1810 to 1823
4. I really like Perkingiron's idea of with1, with2, with3 etc. That reduces the amount of manual formatting, and probably allows for some more sophisticated CSS to reduce the excessive gaps between the lines of overlapping MPs.
   However, I'm not so sure about Choess's idea of a separate set of "withyears" parameters. In principle I like the idea of separating the data, but it will involve extra markup which will get visually bulky when there are a lot of overlapping MPs, especially when parameters are placed one-per-line for legibility.

BTW, I think it would be quite easy for a bot to split the old {{succession box}} templates into {{s-bef}} etc. However, I'm not sure that it's generally worth doing (other than when the old box is inappropriate, such as when there is a new constituency), because {{succession box}} uses {{s-bef}}, {{s-ttl}} etc for its output, so it's just a different way of achieving exactly the same thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have nearly achieved unanimity. The only dispute is the cosmetic one over whether the with items should appear above or below the dates, a matter on which I have no strong view. BrownHairedGirl's argument has some merit; so I would suggest we go with that. I do not see the point of "withyears" as a separate parameter; it is an unnecessary parameter. My suggestion was actually for the first item to be "with" not "with1", as there is often only one item, but would not insist: no doubt there are precedents on this. BrownHairedGirl is (I think) an admin and so able to implement this; I am not. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I'll go with your with, with2, with3 rather than the with1 I had written above: I think you're right that in many cases there will only be one of them.

I'm happy to also skip the "withyears" idea, because of its complexity.

So I think that what you and I have agreed is that this will generate a "<small>with {{{with}}}<br />{{{with2}}}<br />{{{with3}}}</small>" below the years, using as many of the with, with2, with3 parameters as are supplied.

Since I'm an admin I can implement this, but I am now going away until sunday. In any case I think we should check whether Phoe and Choess will be OK with this ... and then once we're all in agreement I'll doodle a draft in my sandbox for everyone to take a look at. If others want to do a draft in the meantime, that's fine too, but since I have done quite a bit of template coding I don't want it to rot anyone else's head if they find that stuff difficult!

Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I still like the version above the years personally more :-), I have nothing to object. However please remember to add suffienct "withs", since some MPs sat together with eight or nine others over the years.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Served alongside" may be an appropriate term for a shared political office, but it is nonsense for grouping British MPs who happened to have been elected for the same constituency. I am not sure serve is even the right term for an MP and "alongside" is a clumsy word and the whole thing just spreads the box wider. Someone seems to have wasted a whole day making this questionable cosmetic change to existing articles - and there must be hundreds more. The time could be better spent creating articles for the countless missing MPs and playing around with the succ boxes for them as fancy pleases. Also "succession box" is good - it is much easier to deal with labels like "title" than "s-ttl" or whatever. Just some thoughts Regards Motmit (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Motmit, as you may have seen in the discussion above, there is agreement that "served alongside" is inappropriate on both counts.

I have indeed edited hundreds of articles to use the alongside= parameter, which currently displays the "served alongside" text. It looks like that's not what we are going to settle on, but having separated out the data from the other field, it will be a very quick bot-job to replace all the "alongside="s with "with=". So regard it as intermediate step.

I'm a little bemused to be berated for not creating new MP articles. I have created hundreds of them, including three today; sometimes I work on linking them together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear - my watchlist was being bombarded with changes which did not seem to accord with what I could make of the lengthy discussion above. My comments we not intended to berate - on the contrary to regret what seems a needless distraction from your wonderful work. I know its nice to have a break with a bit of drudge work from time to time, but I couldn't see this doing anything for the reader:) As an aside I am trying to fill out the 1885 parliament. It seemed a good idea as it is a bit of a watershed, but it's also a bit of a bad idea because of all the one-year-wonders. I am only doing English MPs, not through prejudice, but because my geographical and social knowledge of the other areas isn't so good. Regards Motmit (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit growly in my reply, but glad we've cleared things up :)

Excellent idea to work on the 1885-1886 parliament; it was indeed a watershed, and it'll be great to have more comprehensive coverage of that period. And no problem in working on what you know: there's lots to be done, and if everyone works on their own areas of expertise we'll get there eventually -- for example, a lot of articles on 19th century MPs have been created by people primarily interested in peerages and/or baronetcies, which has been invaluable because those articles can be a bit tricky for those of us unfamiliar with the complexities of hereditary systems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I'm happy to sign off on this as a step forward, although I think as we develop some automated tools, we're going to revisit the years-as-parameter issue eventually. One nagging issue, though: does it really make sense to have 15 "alongside" parameters and 15 "with" parameters when they are essentially conveying the same information? Wouldn't it make more sense to have one style parameter that switches from "with" to "alongside" instead? Choess (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't intended to create 15 "alongside" parameters. Since we are only going to be using the multiple "with" parameters, they didn't seem necessary. Do you think we should create them?

I think you have a pint about the the years-as-parameter issue, though I'm not sure that the sort of automation you suggest is really possible when the data is as loosely structured as in a wiki. If this was all done in XML, I think that scraping the constituency pages for MP names would be possible, but at the moment they come in a fairly wide variety of formats from which it would be be very hard to extract data with a any sort of reliability; and even the MPS-elected-elections pages are of variable format. Sometimes I wonder whether those of us building the MP pages here might have done better to direct our energies to some more structured project along the lines of http://www.electionsireland.org/ ... because by starting with a database format, much more flexible presentation of data is possible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have been slightly confused. Perhaps I was looking at "regent". It did make sense to me that "alongside" and "with" should work the same way. As regards the question of MP lists, I've been working on converting the constituencies of the Unreformed House of Commons to a common style (at least for post-1660 members); I thought that they were in relatively good shape for screenscraping. (Disambiguation seems to be the biggest problem). Choess (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

MP lists is a different subject. Most seem to be in a similar format, but there are certain variations and a few that are quite differnet. However, that subject ought to be discussed on a different project page. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

testing the with parameters

Before I hit the road, I have done a quick doodle of the template at User:BrownHairedGirl/S-ttl, and a demonstration of it in use at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/S-ttl.

I have allowed for with, with2, with3 etc up to with15, which I hope will be enough. Anyone who has participated in this discussion please feel free to play around with it, and either edit the draft template or create more test examples on the talk page.

I think that the multiple "with" parameters in test 1 makes for much more elegant markup than before (see the old-style at Test 2, and both produce nice output ... but see what you think. Comments here, please, on how well it does or doesn't work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Test 1 looks very good to me. Test2 works but seems rather cumbersome. The "draft template" is not viewable, probably because I am not an admin. Keep up the good work. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. I agree that test1 is much neater, but it won't be like that unless people edit the articles, so I think it's important that both methods work, much as we'd prefer with, with2, with3 etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter: trying clicking the "edit" button for the draft template. You won't be able to edit it but you should be able to see the markup. Choess (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I had forgotten that since my user page is protected, that protection cascades through to its subpages … but as Choess notes, you can still see the source. And the talk page should be editable.

Please can folks let me know whether they are happy with the output? I don't want to make the change to such a widely-used set of templates until I'm sure that people are happy with them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nem con. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• For me test 1 is fine. I agree that for the next time of course both versions/methods should work/be usable. Thanks BHG for your efforts.
  ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

with parameter now implemented

Since we all seem to be agreed, and this discussion hasn't generated any other objections after 5 days, I have implemented the "with", "with2" etc parameters in {{s-ttl}} and {{succession box}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Consort succession boxes

Right-o fellas, it's been noted before that there are plenty of s-boxes for peeresses consort, which are not so much an issue of succession, and are therefore to be removed. My question is, should the same argument be extended to consorts of reigning monarchs? E.g., since The Duke of Edinburgh did not succeed Queen Elizabeth (rather, his wife succeeded her husband), there should be no Whatever consort of the United Kingdom s-box. Discuss. DBD 11:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Bazj (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had a discussion on this, somewhere else a couple of months back and decided not to have a succession boxes for consorts, on the basis that there is no regular succession. Strictly the death of George VI meant that the Queen Elizabeth became Queen mother (strictly Queen dowager), rather than queen consort. However succession boxes will not work well, becasue we would have to use s-vac whenever there is a batchelor king. Furthermore doing so, will encourage this to be extented to peeresses by marriage (i.e. the wives of peers). The peers will usually be notable, but notability is not inherited by relatives (including wives). Most peers wives are NN, except as the mother of the next peer, and do not need articles, but succession boxes will generate redlinks to them, which will in turn encourage articles to be created on NN persons. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree that I don't think consorts can be said to form a continuous succession, and that this is overuse. It's easy enough to do a list. Choess (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I've away a long time.

With regards to the particular issue, I don't mind either way about royal consorts, but it seems that the navbox works much better for a chain that is full of breaks in addition to the lack of direct succession.

And if we proceed as suggested, we should consider extending this treatment to First Ladies and presidents' and prime minsisters' spouses, where there are such boxes. It's the same thing, really. Waltham, The Duke of 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the Duke. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So, shall we call this agreed and begin a purge on consort succession boxes? DBD 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Req for help

This article came up on my to-do list, but I thought I'd post it here because it seems the succession boxes are quite messed up. Could someone more familiar with them fix this? Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed this, but only partly, as I have not wholly fixed the references. The old style succession box, such as you have used makes no provision for a reference. Though the old style is still acceptable, you may do better using the new style one, which is more flexible and makes provision for a reference. I would also encourage you to use the subject's full name (as in the Italian article) and in the succession box to link predecessors, even if this involves creating redlinks. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a lot more and integrated the references, although I had to use code to get the superscript on the Honorary Titles header. I also switched the templates over to s-inc for the incumbent titles. The two honorary titles, though, have no predecessors so unless they are intended for future successors, they aren't actually succession-box material. The fact that neither title has a date rather confirms this suspicion.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 13:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Consolidation

As they recently showed up in the broken tables report of WP:CHECKWIKI, I converted a few tables in Category:House of Isenburg to succession boxes (e.g. Henry of Isenburg-Covern etc). Personally I didn't find the correct subtemplate easy to locate and was wondering why these aren't consolidated into one. Wouldn't the resulting template data be easier to use as well? -- Docu 10:34, 18 April 2009‎ (UTC)

Authenticator

do you think we could use something else instead of timestamp in authenticator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.210.50.49 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with presidential line of succession

The current use of template:s-prec to provide a header for both the ceremonial United States Order of Precedence as well as the presidential line of succession (the constitutional/legal handling of an unexpected vacancy in that office) seems confusing. A reader unfamiliar with US government might think that the ceremonial list had some actual authority or non-ceremonial utility. Also, grouping trivial and significant information together under one header makes it difficult to find a good place in the list of succession boxes on some pages. The article on Joe Biden is a good example. His role as first in line to succeed the president seems like something that belong near the top of the list; the fact that he is seated after the President (and other heads of state), but before the Governor of the state in which an event is held, seems less important. I suppose I could use the s-prec twice, but I thought having a different color assigned for this would be better. This is new territory for me; I'd appreciate hearing some experienced opinions. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting problem. The US's line of succession for an elected office seems uncommon, France, Ireland, India, and Mexico all elect a new President. Brazil has a Vice-President and a line of succession.

I think adding an alternative parameter to {{s-prec}}, such as "us-pres" with a header of "United States presidential line of succession" would do the job. Bazj (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

...like you'd already suggested at Template talk:S-prec#Title change for usa. Bazj (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I hadn't suggested that addition, but I think I will. I was thinking to add a different template in order to use a different color, but your suggestion has the KISS principle on its side. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rulers in exile (Cenwalh of Wessex)

Cenwalh of Wessex was apparently driven into exile by Penda of Mercia (who may or may not have actually ruled Wessex), perhaps from 645 to 648, after while Cenwalh returned to power. I couldn't decide how to handle that in the succession boxes, so I ignored it for the time being. Alfonso XIII of Spain might be a precedent. His succession boxes use s-tul, but then again, Alfonso didn't return to power. Should any exiled monarch be considered "titular"? Ardric47 (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Edward IV and Henry VI might be useful examples to follow. None of the others at List of usurpers seem to have returned to power. Bazj (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I went ahead and made similar changes to Cenwalh. It still seems like we should have some explanation in the succession boxes, though (maybe). Ardric47 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Placement

Hi-- I'm looking for a guideline on where a succession box should be placed in an article. I'm thinking it shoudl be below external links, with any other navigation boxes. But I'm coming up short on a guideline. Is this discussed anywhere? (see David Frohnmayer for the example that sent me over here...) -Pete (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FOOTERS. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, perfect -- thanks! -Pete (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Succession_box_two_to_two

Hi, for your general information: I have recently started to replace the mentioned template in its using articles with the appropriate variants (s-bef, s-aft, s-non ... etc) and after the completion of this in probably two weeks I intend to nominate the template for deletion. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done: the new style succession boxes are much more flexible, and come out more standard. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I do wonder to what extent the old templates have been replaced in the past year, in the absence of the major drives that led to the extinction of the more awkward ones like {{Succession box four to three}}, {{Succession box three by four to two}} and {{Succession box one and three point twenty-six by eight to square root of five}}. I removed a two-to-one a couple of days ago, but I don't remember having done much more than that. Definitely no more than ten in 2009. This might be a good time to atone for my past sins and remember my old skills. (sigh)

By the way, are we still supposed to call the s-start series "the new style" after all this time? ;-) Waltham, The Duke of 05:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see what else we can call them to contrast with the old {{succession box}} series. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Eliminate the old style so that new style is the only style?
Well done to Phoe for getting rid of 2 to 2. Anyone for {{Succession box one to two}} or {{Succession box two to one}} ? Bazj (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I plan to start with the first one in a couple of days ... and after that will eliminate the second too. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is still a list of all the templates we haven't got rid of on the Templates page. I got rid of dozens back in the day. Just don't mess with the Canadian minister boxes. The Canadians are really protective of them. Otherwise, delete away. Oh, and I always call it the "s-start" or "s-boxes" when I leave comments on edits. Perhaps it should be called the "s-series" of succession boxes. That's where my vote is!
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 05:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, I disagree a lot. Sometimes people don't understand what these tools are used for. Whether someone thinks they are "awkward" or not, their very use shows that they are useful for some people. There is an old saying: "If it isn't broken, do not fix it."Ryoung122 13:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(For the prehistory of this see also User_talk:Ryoung122#Alphaeus_Philemon_Cole) Just the large use of the succession box-templates should be reason enough to replace them with the more flexible s-boxes system, that has more functions and variables then the old system would ever be capable of. Since the data is still existing after the replacement, I can't understand that you complain about what should be considered pure maintenance. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:USRep succession box

Template:USRep succession box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: rewording to allow for succession boxes at the end of sections within articles

This issue came to my attention when a well-intentioned editor who was diligently changing succession boxes to the newer format also moved some boxes from the ends of specific sections to the end of the article (after the External links). In most cases this presents no problem, but in some cases this is a very confusing move. For example, in articles on pop songs, chart succession boxes have previously been included in the "charts" section, which makes sense. In cases where more than version of the song has been a hit, succession boxes have been conventionally included in the "charts" section belonging to the relevant cover version(s) where applicable. However, when this information is moved to the end of the article, it is no longer clear which succession table refers to which version. Example: Take on Me, which was assessed as a good article with the succession boxes in the relevant sections, as is the norm with this type of article. In this version with the chart succession boxes at the end of the article as apparently advised by WP:SBS and WP:FOOTERS, the information becomes unclear. I raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:Layout, where ChyranandChloe advised me that it's a template issue rather than a layout issue, since WP:SBS defines the template and its usage.

In order to accommodate the usage I've described at the end of sections, which seems to work perfectly well in practice, I propose that the wording in WP:SBS be changed from

Placed at the bottom of their respective articles, they show the place of each article's subject in one or more well-defined chains of succession...

to

Placed at the bottom of their respective articles (or sections where applicable), they show the place of each article's subject in one or more well-defined chains of succession...

which I hope will contribute towards improved clarity. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean in this one case. Generally, succession boxes can be at the bottom because the article refers to only one item. In this case, though, it refers to multiple items and therefore should, indeed, be placed in the independent sections since those sections, in effect, are articles-within-an-article. I won't add the terminology yet, but as of the moment, I agree with its addition. Anyone else have any thoughts? Waltham, you made the rules, what say ye?
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 05:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I thought I was only codifying the rules, not making them up. Anyway, your reply above hasn't left much for me to say: I agree completely. These "mini-articles" follow, to the extent that this is possible and in their own scale, the same layout as regular articles. I have applied the proposed change to the project page. Waltham, The Duke of 01:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Succession Boxes in Music articles. INVITATION to discussion at Wikipedia talk page for record charts

I don't know if there are other types of articles that would have such use of succession boxes as song articles (in the case of multiple versions creating "mini-articles"), but there is discussion going on at the Wikipedia talk page for record charts regarding whether succession boxes are even needed for #1 charting songs and albums. Some further neutral party comments would be most welcome there. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Help wanted: Dutch ministries succession boxes

I'm working (in the most loose sense of the term) on creating succession boxes for Dutch ministries, such as Ministry of Finance (Netherlands). One particular position is leaving me rather stumped, as far as formatting succession boxes for it: the Deputy Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

Difficulties arise for me because there are normally (in recent times, anyhow) two people serving in the position. The details of the position aren't really important, but there are some interesting arrangements that occur from this, namely that one person might begin their "term" as deputy prime minister with one person, then begin serving with a different person, and end their term serving alone, over the course of several cabinets (ie. Gerrit Zalm).

Two specific questions I have:

1. In this case, where it's really just two people who have the same title at the same time, and do not necessarily share any duties, should you include the person or people someone served with in the succession box? If there are two separate people in the "alongside" parameter, do you include the dates each person held the position? (again, please see Gerrit Zalm for a better idea of what I'm describing)
2. If a person's term ends prematurely (before that of their partner deputy), who do you say they are "preceded" and "succeeded" by? (see Laurens Jan Brinkhorst for an example)

I attempted to base my formatting off of some other titles which are shared, such as Roman Emperor and Co-Prince of Andorra, but in the end I decided that coming here would produce a more satisfactory solution to my problem. I completed an entire "set," if you will, of deputies, being Gerrit Zalm and his counterparts at different times, Laurens Jan Brinkhorst and Thom de Graaf, for your viewing pleasure.

I do apologize if any of these questions are already addressed in the guidelines and documentation; I read through them as best as I could and am merely addressing points of confusion that remain for me. Thanks for your time!

Peloneous^tc 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi you might use the same format as with British offices (see for example George_Nugent,_Baron_Nugent_of_Guildford). The dates in the "with-parameter" represent however not the time the respective persons have held the office, but only the time they have held it together with the article's subject. The code might look like ...

{{start box}}

{{s-bef| before = [[Mister A]] <br/> [[Mister B]] }}

{{s-ttl| title = [[Minister of Something]]

| with = [[Mister B]] 1988–1990

| with2 = [[Mister C]] 1990–1992

| years = 1980 – 1994 }}

{{s-aft| after = [[Mister D]] }}

{{end}}

Hope this helps. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)