Template talk:S-prec

Requested edit

This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 19:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

+gh for Ghana

Would it be possible to add gh is for Ghana to this template?--Natsubee 11:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

New template documentation

{{editprotected}} I have created a documentation page for this template at Template:S-prec/doc. Most protected templates have their documentation transcluded in this manner so that it may be edited by non-admins. The updated template code to do this can be copied from Template:S-prec/sandbox. -- Zyxw 22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done and also changed the syntax to remove one of the bugs mentioned. Tra (Talk) 02:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixing open parameters

{{editprotected}} It looks like we finally have the solution to the open parameter problem. Please replace:

{{#switch:{{{1}}}

|#default=Order of precedence

with:

{{#switch:{{{1}}}

|#default=Order of precedence

This will default all open open parameters to the default. Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

can for Canada

Canadian precedence boxes have started appearing DBD 17:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

United States Senate.

{{editprotected}}

Someone appears to have gone around adding the order of precedent for U.S. Senators to their pages. The problem: it says order of precedence in the United States of America, which is not the same thing. Can this be remedied with an "ussen" parameter? Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks. --Elonka 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

|uk

Suggest the |uk suffix be abolished. As the article on the order of precedence in the United Kingdom says, this is different in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so to lump them all together results in errors like those at Robert Lindsay, 29th Earl of Crawford. Opera hat (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Title change for usa

{{editprotected}} The title when the usa parameter is used is misleading. There is an Order of Precedence of the United States (called the United States Order of Precedence or United States Order of Precedence List), which is the source of much of the information displayed, but the concept Order of precedence in the United States has broader implications and ignores the co-equal nature of the three branches of the federal government as well as the independence of the state governments. Please change:
|usa=[[Order of precedence in the United States of America]]
to read:
|usa=[[Order of Precedence of the United States of America]]
That will make this accurate for the uses around United States order of precedence and I'll raise adding another succession header for the United States presidential line of succession with the folks over at WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Thanks for the previous change! I received a suggestion from user:bazj over at WikiProject Succession Box Standardization to just add another parameter to this template. That seems like a simple solution to me, as well. If it doesn't seem unreasonable, could you please add:
|us-pres=[[United States presidential line of succession]]
below the line which reads:
|usa=[[Order of Precedence of the United States of America]]
Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Could someone add

 |ni=[[Order of precedence in Northern Ireland]]

To this template? Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done WilliamH (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-political uses

Does it make sense to use {{S-prec}} for non-political uses such as a song's listings the charts on which it reached number one? (see Tik Tok (song)#Chart precession as an example) --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please revert undiscussed change

{{editprotected}} Please revert colour removal change for which consensus was neither sought or reached at the project's talk page. Bazj (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

this reversal has now been done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Move colour to top border as per WT:SBS discussion

{{editprotected}} Please move colour to top border as per WT:SBS discussion. Change

background:

to

border-top: 5px solid

Thanks. Bazj (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

this one is done --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ceremonial order only

Having encountered the "order of preference" template for the first time and then found that it's a ceremonial ordering only, I think it would be clearer to make "United States order of precedence (ceremonial)" the complete title for the US template at least. The "inside the state/outside the state" tiering, along with mixed federal and other-state officials, for the governor I was working on (Mitch Daniels), was really rather a confusing introduction to a concept. There was no context, signal or clarity as to its relation, in the Daniels' case, particularly to his subsequent non-government job. For me, the parenthetical qualifier would start the clarification process within the title rather than forcing an immediate link-click. Saying it is ceremonial (as the related article does straightaway) would allow a more casual approach to what is, after all, a fairly minor element which is being given quite a bit of space.

I am a little reluctant to propose a US-only change but it's all I'm attuned to. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: @Swliv: Sorry, but I'm really not sure what exactly you're proposing here. For these kinds of requests, it's best if you add your desired version to the sandbox so that it can be tested properly. (See WP:TESTCASES for the details.) If you need help with the coding, you can ask at WikiProject Templates or at the village pump. It would also be a good idea to ask on the relevant WikiProject talk pages what they would think of your proposed change, as changes to widely-used templates like this can only be made if there is a consensus for them. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

With respect, doesn't efficient sandboxing, as it were, require access to the current "code"; to which I've found myself so far to be blocked "fully" via the protection? As to my proposal, I'm glad to try to make it more understandable. Since I made the proposal I've removed the offending (to me) template from the Daniels article because it proved to be outdated as well as awkward and (for me) poorly titled but you can see it at the bottom of the page here before my removal of it here, in my next edit of the page. I think labeling the template, as I've proposed, "(ceremonial)" would at least lower the octane on the template so if a reader's attention is drawn to it as alien (as mine was) at least its importance is put in context promptly. (The first line of the United States order of precedence article reads: The United States order of precedence lists the ceremonial order ...." I'm just trying to make the "ceremonial" apparent where the title is used a lot. Save a click. (The obvious point of potential confusion, also nicely addressed in the US article, is with the "line of succession", a non-ceremonial different thing altogether.) Clearer? I know not crystal, yet. I'm trying (to gain some footing). Finally, I did look at village pump and the Templates project links but this page we're on seems the place to address a change in this template, no? Cheers. Swliv (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understood you this time. Is this test case the change that you want? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Thanks. (Was I missing something, or is that something only you all have access to?)

I have had to ponder it again in the Daniels' example of its use because there, as I assume elsewhere, there are two tiers -- Within Indiana and Outside Indiana -- underneath, but I think if it said "ceremonial" in this fashion in the header for both, above the two, that would be sufficient (and not somehow newly confusing). I'm open to alternative opinion on that issue. (Interestingly, the "within" and "outside" factors are coded in the s-ttl template under "|years=", seen here in the code I removed. No problem except it's obviously a location v. a time factor (and it was a time factor that didn't work, manual I suppose, to say "done when no longer governor").)

Anyway, thanks again for this step. Swliv (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Thank you for clarifying. I think that this may be a controversial change, so I don't want to implement it just yet. Instead, I have left messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States and Talk:United States order of precedence to solicit more opinions. If there is a consensus to make the change after a few days of discussion, or if there are no replies in those few days, please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template so a patrolling admin will see the request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you yet again. I may not be able to check back in until after 7 August but I will then. Swliv (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: This does a better job of clarifying the nature of the US Order of Precedence than the change I requested and received four years ago. Back then there were some editors who kept removing "foreign monarchs" from the list because they took the order to have some official meaning, but nothing like that has occurred for years. Some might argue that the parenthetical qualifier isn't needed, but I think the requester's experience is not unusual and many readers may be left with the wrong impression. Regards, Celestra (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and, with time passed, I've set the template to renew the request. I think the change can be implemented now. Swliv (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it is now Done. Thanks for your patience. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Permanent protection necessary?

• Thanks (and it's true it only came with hard-learned patience) for a successful conclusion just above.
• With continued respect for the seemingly long-standing and reasonably smoothly working process I've found here, I have to say I (a) found some evidence in the process of out-of-date even lazy stuff in my work here and (b) know from my own experience elsewhere that template work is hard enough on its own. The out-of-date Daniels article use of the template is one example. Of course the template's use there wasn't protected in itself. Its presence, though, did help spur my continued support for my now-implemented "ceremonial" proposal: If the template can languish in an article until manual removal well after the end of a term of service it seemed that much more important not to have the template misleading or overstating. A "lazy" example doesn't come right back to mind but as I worked through the many steps I know I saw incidental stuff I'd have changed if I was editing, not just "proposing". Of course protection avoids relatively novice editors like myself "messing with" something that seems to work. But plenty of "dusty corners" of Wikipedia, from naked-url footnotes on up, benefit I think at least from my "incidental" cleanups (coming alongside what I set out to do). I think encouraging open exploration of more arcane editing challenges like templates by editors like myself is in the encyclopedia's best long-term interest.
• The one expression of support registered for my proposal above signaled problems years ago with the template but none recently (protection helping or the full reason, no doubt).
• The Village Pump recommendation above did lead me to one old general discussion on the subject of protection. While it wasn't highly relevant to my specific proposal above and I didn't immerse in it, then or now, it did strike me (in the arguments against protection) as the more sympathetic to my feelings as I husbanded my patience in the pre-approval-required, moderated-editing process here.

Those points having been made, I'd say semi-protection – limited to editors of some seasoning; "ripe"ness a term I see in the VPump exchange, applicable I think also here – would maybe be sufficient on this template page. Full protection could always be brought back if vandals descended again.

Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. Two lines at WP:RFPP seem relevant, at first look: "Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article" and "If you are requesting unprotection, it is almost always a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before listing a page here". Via the first line, I come back here. Via the second, after a look at the revision history, I've located the user whom I think is the original protecting admin here. That link, this one and maybe this here signal it may be a dead end. I am leaving a note at that user talk page and will see. Swliv (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Page protection isn't always easy to find on the revision history; but at the top of the history you will see a link View logs for this page, which will narrow down the search significantly.

Anyway, if discussion here suggests that full prot is no longer necessary, and the protecting admin doesn't respond, please file a request at WP:RFPPU. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the public log lead. It indeed went to a different editor than the one I'd located. However, the second editor is definitively retired. If there's no response from the first editor, I'll at least put this record forward with a proposal as suggested. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

United States

The template being fully protected, I'm seeking consensus for three changes relating to the United States.

Firstly, I suggest that "us" be added as a parameter as an alternative to "usa". This would be in line with the other parameters which appear to use ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes.

Secondly, I propose that "(ceremonial)" be removed from the US header as an order of precedence is by its very nature ceremonial.

Lastly, given that this template is intended for orders of precedence, not lines of succession, I propose that the "us-pres" parameter be removed. My understanding is that {{s-other|line}} is normally used for lines of succession. Graham (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Having heard no response, I'll request that the template be edited accordingly. Graham (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please make the change you need in the Template:S-prec/sandbox and check the Template:S-prec/testcases - reactivate this edit request when ready to have change rolled to the main. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Graham11, The first two changes seem trivial, but you'll need to show the third change won't break anything. It seems contrary to the logic of the first change, add one unused parameter and remove another (which may not be unused). Regards, Bazj (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"United States" vs. "U.S."

For the sake of brevity and consistency with other United States succession boxes, I've changed the pipe link for the USA boxes to "U.S." instead of "United States." What do you think?—GoldRingChip 20:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

"Current"

These boxes do not reflect chronological order. They are for current order, so I've added "Current" to the beginning of the USA succession boxes' piped links. I'm more familiar with the USA boxes, so I only changed those. If you want we can change all of them; or we can change back the USA ones. What do you think?—GoldRingChip 20:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)