Template talk:Orders of succession by country

U.S. link name

An anonymous user Bastin 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The split you are suggesting has already been done, but I have it up for deletion now because a) it was done with no discussion, and b) it uses the term "pretenders" which is not accurate in all cases, 'former' would have been better. I also have suggested at the deletion discussion that the split be made along the lines of elected officials and presidents on one template and monarchies, current and former on the other. This is because the presidents list can get longer than the monarchies with current claimants put together. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Also note that some of the most recently added 'Former monarchies' are not strictly speaking, "Lines of Succession" in a parallel sense tothe other articles that list heirs beginning with the current claimant; they are rather lists of former claimants, ending with the current claimant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Strike that, they all do have legitimate future lines mentioned. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There were just two former monarchies listed on the template back in June when the section was added for convenience. The list of former monarchs is already overwhelming the template. Merging historical curiosities with the current lines of succession of actual Heads of State is nonsensical. It deserves a separate template for the formers (as it was arranged here and here), and I have no objection to calling them former instead of pretenders. NoSeptember 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

'Historical curiosities' is clear POV, some even have a POV that current monarchs are historical curiosities. Best to keep the monarchs separate from the Presidents list, which really could get huge. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Many presidencies do not have any real line of succession. They have provisions for the legislature or some other body to select a temporary replacement and a quick election for a permanent replacement. The US conception of a fixed term of 4 years regardless of how many vacancies may occur is not used everywhere, and most presidencies do not need a whole list of potential successors. With monarchies you get long lists, not because you need them, but because families just have a tendency to grow big ;). NoSeptember 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd agree. There aren't going to be too many articles on presidential succession lines, as the concept is alien to most non-Americans, especially those with a parliamentary government; splitting the template into current monarchies + presidents and former monarchies appears to be the best idea. —Nightstallion (?) 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it neither of you is an expert in International Constitutional Law. You blithely assume that only Americans are clever enough to come up with the idea of a Presidential Line of Succession. The 'Former Monarchies' template has every appearance of being artificially inflated within a 12-hr period to make it as long as possible solely for the purpose of splitting the Template. Were similar tactics to be adopted for the number of presidencies on the globe that actually do have a Presidential Succession written into their Constitutions, the Presidents template alone would become so long it would have to be split by continent. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion of the template made some people realize the gaping holes in that list. How can you have a list of former monarchies not including France or Austria-Hungary for example? We should be glad that someone has decided to get to work and fill in the gaps, there are a ton of former monarchies, many from no-longer-existant countries, or states like Mexico that had a monarch for just a few years, but could still have a line of successors. Don't forget that the Order of Succession template will still have a link to the Former template, so the information will just be a click away. Would you like to rename the Former template before we implement the two template system? I know the naming was a concern of yours, if you make the move, you will be happy with the result :). NoSeptember 14:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I already renamed it, a couple days ago (after the tfd failed)! Go right ahead and implement. But remember, the presidents list could get longerthan you think. Also, regarding 'states like Mexico', etc., of course the "former" template list would have to be limited to former monarchies for which there is today a current succession. There's lots of former monarchies where there are no reliable sources for who would currently be in the succession, for example, maybe some ones from 5000 years ago like the king of Elam... Therefore most 'former monarchies' will never be able to appear on the template... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh :). Well Mexico is just from the 19th century. And then we have China from the 20th century. I keep thinking of new ones :). As for the presidencies, I'll be happy when it is time to split those off, as an encyclopedia, we are always growing, so that will be a good thing when it happens. NoSeptember 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To summarise my take on this: I'd be happy to have articles on all the presidential lines of succesion there are, but I still doubt there are too many around, as there are not too many executive presidents in the world... About me "blithely assuming only the Americans are smart enough to come up with a presidential line of succession", I'm in fact a European, not an American... ;p Anyway, I'd advocate having separate templates for existing monarchies, presidencies, and for former monarchies, as soon as there are enough articles to warrant having separate templates. —Nightstaa[[User:Nightstallion|llion(UTC)

Hawaii and Yugoslavia

IP editor 73.110.217.186 has removed these two entries because they don't go specify a list, but they note the family, the tradition of succession, and in the case of Yugoslavia, the next in line. I am going to go ahead and return those entries unless anyone else has any objections. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Yugloslavian entry was turned into a redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Yugoslav throne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect isn't a reason. The rule isn't "multiple" heirs, there only needs to be one at minimum. Altanner1991 (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind this topic. The article would say "pretenders" in the case of only one person at minimum. Otherwise it needs to have more than one person for a line of succession. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)