Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Gubernatorial Lines of Succession

I'd like to add a header for the lines of succession to governorships, currently you have to use the other header which makes the box itself crowded because you have to include the office, spot in line and current position.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide an example? I am not sure I understand why a new header is needed here; the purpose of headers is to group rows in succession boxes, not to give a title to every single row. Elected governorships are one of the very titles for which {{s-off}} was created. If some boxes have over-large sections under this header, it is possible that some rows have been miscategorised. I have been thinking that a review of {{s-gov}} usage might be useful; the "Government offices" header seems rather underused to me. To put it this way, I cannot remember the last time I have seen it in a box.

PS: I find your signature quite interesting. Very... meta. Waltham, The Duke of 06:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Overlap with Template:Infobox officeholder

Hi. I've started a thread about the overlap, at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Overlap with Succession Boxes (location chosen arbitrarily out of here and there). I'd greatly value your input there. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Creation of additional parameters for s-bef and s-aft

Dear colleagues,

I have been increasingly aware of the issue of customisation of the s-start templates. Thanks to their flexibility and adjustability, and as a result of the great extent and variety of their use, said templates are called to fulfil incredibly diverse needs, and host an extensive range of data types. Inevitably, the existing parameters will fail to fully cover some of the uses to which the succession templates are applied, and HTML tags will be placed within existing fields to provide additional functions.

The problem is that the widespread direct usage of such tags—the most common of which are <br> (for line breaks) and <small> (for small font)—defeats the purpose of standardisation and makes the editing of succession boxes less user-friendly. For these two reasons I find it important that we should try and limit their usage as much as possible. The available options are few: the main weapon in our arsenal is the provision of suitable parameters which will eliminate the need to use bare HTML tags. We cannot anticipate all needs, and indeed, I do not believe that we ought to (again, standardisation is a concern, and burdening templates with too many types of parameters is also something to be avoided), but we can certainly try and satisfy the demand for certain popular and useful functions currently not covered by our template scheme. In general, I find that we had better aim for general parameters that can fulfil multiple roles in different environments and can therefore produce the best results with the least possible complexity. With such parameters, we could also ensure more extensive consistency with regards to the formatting of data in succession boxes, and therefore combine greater simplicity and practicability with a uniform design.

For the first step of this process, I propose tackling the proliferation of <br> tags in templates {{s-bef}} and {{s-aft}}. As things stand, these templates only have one parameter each for predecessors/successors, a situation which necessitates the use of the aforementioned tags for multiple names (for example, in British parliamentary constituencies represented by two MPs). I find this situation unacceptable and recommend adding three numbered parameters to each template, for a total of three names on either end of a succession line. More specifically:

• The usual code for a "preceded by" box with two names is {{s-bef|before=[[John Doe]]<br>[[Richard Roe]]}}. In my proposal, this would change to {{s-bef|before1=[[John Doe]]|before2=[[Richard Roe]]}} . A "before3" parameter would also be available to editors, but nothing more than that; it is so rare to see a genuine succession chain with four or more predecessors or successors that, in my opinion, such a parameter could be counter-productive through its mere existence. The "before" parameter would be retained, for backwards compatibility and for use in the majority of boxes where only one name is needed; "before" and "before1" would ideally have identical effects and could be used interchangeably.
• For {{s-aft}} I envisage the same changes, namely the addition of parameters "after1" (interchangeable with "after"), "after2" and "after3".

Is there agreement with this proposal? And if so, is there anyone willing to apply it to the two templates in question? Waltham, The Duke of 14:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We amended the "alongside" parameter to "with" and created the possibility of "with", "with2", "with3", etc. (NB not currently "with1"). Alteration as suggested would be appropriate, but it is important that "before" should continue to work, even if "before1" exists as an alternative. Likewise all "after" items. It might be useful to make "with1" work in the same way as "with" for "s-ttl" at the same time. I think the "with" items go up to at least 9; before and after should match. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not find the sequence "before"–"before2"–"before3" objectionable, and I can even see advantages in using the fewest parameters necessary; I merely suggested that, if possible, we might have a "before1" parameter to play the same part as "before" and thus reduce confusion where more than one parameters would be used. However, I now realise that this would enable an editor to use both "before" and "before1" in the same box, which might cause problems. I think editors will easily make sense of the aforementioned sequence, so I am withdrawing support from the idea of creating "before1" and "after1" parameters.

Regarding the "with" parameters, I knew nothing about them until now; I must have missed the conversation because I wasn't very active in the project in 2009, and I haven't seen the parameters in use anywhere in the mainspace. Honestly, I find it hard to justify the co-existence of the "with" and the "regent" parameters, and having both sets seems highly redundant to me. The only meaningful difference between them is the font size... And even within each set, the numbers are dizzying: I can kind of understand the 8 "regent" parameters, but the 15 "with" ones? Where have more than ten (or even six) been needed, and how much can we allow a box to grow with all these lines?

(Regarding your question, Peterkingiron: even if we keep all these parameters, we don't have to match their number with the "before" and "after" ones. In a two-seat constituency, for example, a long-serving MP may see up to, say, five MPs pass from the other seat, but his predecessors and successors will still be just two.) Waltham, The Duke of 00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not objecting in principle to your proposal; indeed I support the principle. The main reason for retaining "before", rather than substituting "before1", is that it will be unnecessary to amend 1000s of existing boxes already using the parameter. Before the introduction of "with" the "alongside" parameter was little used, probably because it sounded too American to British ears. Instead some complex syntax was being manually inserted to acheive the same result but prefixed with "With". I regard the change which an admin made in introducing "with", "with2", etc. as highly successful and a lot of boxes on MPs have been converted to that format. I consider that the before and after parameters should go up to at least 4, because the City of London had 4 MPs. We do not have succession boxes for Lords of Treasury, Lords of Admiralty, etc, so that I would not welcome before5 or higher. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have forgotten to reply... I've certainly broken the nice pattern of the dates. Anyway, I understand that you support the principle of my proposal, and I thank you for it. I also understand the importance of retaining "before" and "after" as parameters; although my original proposal entailed the addition of alternatives (no substitution), I have realised that this would only confuse things and offer little benefit.

Regarding "alongside", I agree that it may sound too American, but it was not intended for any particular British use anyway: I believe it was created for the U.S. Senate, where it seems to have been considered desirable to mention the other senator in a box even though the two seats were clearly separate. My objection is not with using "with" parameters (after all, I am very well aware of the convention for MPs), but with having both the "with" and the "regent" sets of parameters, which create pretty much the same result, with the exception of a few minor formatting differences. It just seems terribly redundant to me, and I hope we can find some way to merge these two systems (possibly by removing the more specialised, at least in name, "regent" in favour of the more general and intuitive "with", adding the years functionality to the latter and making a couple of formatting changes). Then we could have one system for all uses and no confusion or overlap (which are both bad for standardisation).

I take your point about using four rather than three parameters; I only proposed three because I had not encountered examples requiring more predecessors/successors. Four is just fine. Waltham, The Duke of 14:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also see <br> and <small> tag used in {{s-bef}} and {{s-aft}} for information such as Acting... maybe there should be a parameter for that too? Or a parameter to add etc info (but that may leave the door open for excessive information) Tvtr (tlk–cntrbtn) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This can probably be dealt with by the use of the "as" parameter, possibly extended. I would certainly caution against excessive complexity. I suspec twe have a consensus need an Admin to implement it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that excessive complexity would be counter-productive, though I cannot say I have thought of a simple solution to the problem so far. I used to wonder whether it would make sense to list in a succession box both the acting office-holder and the next "proper" office-holder, but I am now inclined to consider this a bad idea; apart from the increased complexity, it would cause all sorts of problems with border-line cases (the question of when an office-holder is "active" is not always clear-cut).

In light of the above, the simplest solution might well be to make no changes to the templates but simply encourage the usage of the "as" parameter for such cases. If we go down this road, care should be taken to ensure that the succession box for the active office-holder would also include "Active" in the title cell, and make use of the "as" parameter in the predecessor/successor cells to show that the other holders were not also active. Use of the "as" parameter essentially means re-directing the succession line by changing the office's title, even if this only happens for a single link of the chain; as I am aware of offices with many active holders, this might not be the simplest solution after all... (sigh) Waltham, The Duke of 16:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• Yes to adding {{s-bef | before2 = |before3= }}, {{s-after | after2 = | after3 = }}. This is a logical extension of what we did with the {{s-ttl | with= | with2=}} parameters, and it should be done for the same reasons: simplifying markup. Like Peter, I do want before4= and after4=; however I woukd not oppose before5= and after5=, because they coukd be used in the five-seat constituencies in Ireland.
• No to {{s-bef | before1 = }} and {{s-aft | after1 = }}, because that would cause confusiuon as to the purpose of them: is with1 a synonym of with, or an extra? The un-numbered with is implicitly "No. 1", and having both causes confusion.
• We must retain full backward-compatibility. There are so may thousands of succession boxes out there that breaking it would require a horrendous number of fixes.
• The "with" and "regent" parameters may look the same, but are used in very different contexts. Asking editors to label other MPs as "regents" is too bizarre a stretch, so I would oppose removing the "with" params. I have never used he "regents" params myself, and don't know how widely they are used, so I can't comment on the need for them
• The number of "with" params was set deliberately high to allow for very long-serving MPs. I recall using one which was over ten, and only the other day encountered one which went up 9. In any case, extra ones casuse no harm; it's much better to have lots of headroom.
• As an admin, I am happy to implement any consensus reached here. However, while I think that 3 of us who have posted here so far are v close to agreement, I'd feel happier with a slightly wider consensus. Could you grace perhaps drop a note at WT:PEER? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me do my part here. One of the useful things about succession boxes is that the data is, at least theoretically, subject to semantic extraction (so someday you could feed a list of officeholders to a bot and have it automatically check the succession boxes). With that in mind:

• I agree about extending to before2, before3, etc. but not changing before (and so, mutatis mutandis for after). It would work like with, with2, etc. as we have now.
• Also agree that there's a significant difference in semantics, if not in formatting, between "with" and "regents".
• We do need ridiculously high numbers of parameters for some of these boxes—between constituencies of 4 and 5 MPs and the occasional long-lived MP who saw a large number of others come and go, the "with" parameters really do get run up. For before and after, you shouldn't need more than 4 or 5 though. (I know I've seen 4—Weymouth and Melcombe Regis or London—and BHG is reporting 5.)
• These proposals generally seem quite sound. Bear in mind the Pareto principle; there will always be some weird case which needs a bit of special markup tucked into it, so it's best to focus on getting the most widely-used things inline. I echo Peter in calling the introduction of "with" a great success in this regard. Choess (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have finally got to read that old discussion on the introduction of the "with" parameters and, along with the comments above, I am fully convinced of the desirability, and indeed necessity, of the "with" set of parameters. I congratulate all editors involved for this success, and I also wish to thank those who have offered input here. With this matter only one step away from its happy conclusion, it is now time to decide upon the future of another parameter: "creation". Waltham, The Duke of 03:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To be implemented

The discussion above seems to indicate agreement to create new parameters before2=...before5=, and after2=...after5=

This proposal was first discussed six months ago, and since His Grace notified WT:PEER on 24 November, I will implement the change on 1 December (i.e. 7 days after the notification) ... unless there are any objections in the meantime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! before2=...before5=, and after2=...after5=now implemented on {{s-bef}}, {{s-aft}}, and {{succession box}}. (And thanks again to His Grace for the gentle nudge)

The templates were protected, so had to be done by an admin, but would somebody else like to update the relevant doc pages? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just updated the documentation at Template:Succession box/doc, for {{succession box}}. (Yes, I know it's deprecated, but it is still widely used).

Maybe this will be useful as a basis for updating the other bits of documentation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Header for conductors

I have realised that many (most? all?) succession boxes for music directors (conductors) lack headers. Do people here think that {{s-culture}} ("Cultural offices") is suitable for such titles, and if not, what would be? Waltham, The Duke of 15:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Chart succession header

With the (over) use of succession boxes for songs and albums that reached number one on particular charts, could a new parameter for the {{s-prec}} template be created in order for it to say something like Chart precession and succession. Because the boxes can take up so much room sometimes on a song or album article, it would be great to have the ability to collapse them using a header such as this. Personally, I'd prefer not to use succession boxes for chart-topping songs and albums, but if they're going to exist, this might be a good idea. This would allow it to separate itself from award-winning songs that would use the {{s-ach|aw}} template. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, is there any way to discourage their use in these types of articles altogether. It's really gotten out of hand in many articles. Listing every country and chart in which the song/album reached number one adds nothing to the article itself and takes away from the subject article by introducing links to these other unrelated articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

To reply to your original question (with the customary delay), we do not have any collapsible headers for succession boxes; that is, none of the headers used within succession boxes can be collapsed, but a succession box as a whole can be placed within a special template. This is a practice which this project has not yet considered, but I have just noticed that Template:Navboxes can be used for this purpose, and that its documentation actually includes a succession box in its examples. I have just updated the succession box at Elizabeth II and it looks like a good prototype for this method.

Regarding music and charts, I confess that I know little about the subject, although I have noticed the widespread usage of succession boxes in such articles. Could you please provide some examples where the practice has gone to extremes? Our guidelines need much tightening and updating, but I'm sure there is (or ought to be) something on referencing in there. Succession boxes, like the rest of articles, must contain reliable information, and perhaps this will prove to be the key. Waltham, The Duke of 23:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The page I really noticed it as an eyesore basically is on Recovery (Eminem album). It's too large, it's hard to read, provides information on unrelated topics (ie. the previous and succeeding number ones) which don't aid in the understanding of the article. Having it collapsible would be great, but I think the elimination of these boxes is a better idea because of how they are used and the information they are supposed to provide. I have brought this up for discussion at the MOS for record charts talk page to see what kind of input I can get there. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Assemblymen

Various articles use various titles/methods of displaying district number when describing a member of a United States state legislator (see Rebecca Cohn, Kevin_de_León, Joe Coto, etc.). Any sort of already established guideline on how these assemblymen/state senators should be labeled (i.e. Assemblyman/woman/member) and how their district should be attached. Unrelated, is there any general rule on dates, so far as when to use years and when to use actual days? Thanks in advance. AP1787 (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: "Subtitle" parameter

As has been noted before, it is rather silly to have two parameters to do precisely the same thing. I am referring, of course, to parameters "creation" and "dynasty" of template s-ttl, which produce a line of italicised text below the bold title. My proposal is simple: replace these two parameters with a single "subtitle" parameter (same formatting), which can be used for both original purposes, as well as potentially new ones. (I have been thinking of territorial designations for baronetcies, which I have long thought would look better italicised; apart from the HTML, they require us to use apostrophes in the years field, a need which would now end.) With the new parameter, we could deprecate the old ones and preferably have a bot massively replace all their instances. An error message could also be displayed, at least for a while, on pages where the old parameters were used, to educate those not aware of the change. I realise there is no absolute necessity to eradicate "creation" and "dynasty", but I feel that the number of parameters in s-ttl has increased so much lately that it would be a good idea to reduce it a bit for a change. Three parameters are a more complex situation than one, after all. Waltham, The Duke of 03:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Offices sub-page

Does anyone remember this? An ambitious project, no? (Especially if one considers what is missing from the list.) I believe it is plain to all that SBS lacks the resources to keep such a record. I also think that, in case of doubt, it is easy to bring up on this talk page the occasional question about specific offices, and that the need for this catalogue has always been exaggerated. I propose that we should dispose of it. I have already kept it out of the WikiProject's navbox due to its unfinished status, so it is not exactly something people would notice, or miss. Waltham, The Duke of 03:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple title-holders in a single article

What's the best thing to do about this, especially when not all holders have sections within the article, but are still mentioned there and so serve as redirect targets?

For example, look at Lady Sarah Chatto. It shows that Samuel Chatto is next in the line of succession to the British Throne. However, Samuel doesn't have his own article - he just redirects to Sarah. As does the next after him, Arthur. Consequently, the succession boxes give no path forward to the 19th in line.

I'm bringing this up here rather than there as there may be other cases, and so this may help to establish a standard for wherever the phenomenon occurs. -- Smjg (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

To me the situation seems simple: if a subject has neither an article nor a dedicated section in a list article, then there be no succession box for that subject; it just makes no sense to include in an article a succession box about another person. True, this means that there will be missing links in the succession chain (both literally and figuratively), but that is the unfortunate effect of reality—non-notable people often hold notable offices or titles—and it happens often enough.

I do mind the circular link in your example, so it might be a good idea to replace the redirect with a link back to the same page (which would appear black and unclickable but not prompt passers-by to add a missing link, thereby re-creating the original situation), though it would have to be updated upon the creation of an article for that person if and when they are deemed notable. For the gap in the chain, the only solution at the moment is to click on the title link and by-pass the lacuna via the list of title holders. I have pondered a solution to this, but a succession box which would mention both the previous/next holder and the previous/next existing article would be larger and more complex, it would include a self-reference, and it would need updates to reflect the creation or deletion of articles. I do not know whether this conundrum can be successfully resolved.

By the way, I thought mentioning the exact position in the order of succession was discouraged; every time someone is born or married into the succession line, hundreds of numbers change. Or is it left only for the first few positions? I can see the case for that, though I consider the lack of standardisation far from ideal. Waltham, The Duke of 12:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Whydosomeeditorsappeartohaveagreatdislikeofwhitespacewhencreatingsuccessionboxes

Whydosomeeditorsappeartohaveagreatdislikeofwhitespacewhencreatingsuccessionboxes?

OK, that was hard to read ... so here it is, with whitespace

Why do some editors appear to have a great dislike of whitespace when creating succession boxes?

Easier to read, isn't it?

Tthe same applies to succession boxes. String them all together with no spaces or line breaks and they become an impenetrable mass of characters. Space them out properly, in the way that computer programmers do, and they become much more legible.

Example of the same boxes with and without whitespace

Succession box with no whitespace {{s-bef|before=[[William Elliot (MP)|William Elliot]]<br />[[George Ponsonby]]}} {{s-ttl|title=[[Member of Parliament]] for [[Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)|Peterborough]]<br /><small>with [[William Elliot (MP)|William Elliot]] 1816–1819<br />[[James Scarlett, 1st Baron Abinger|Sir James Scarlett]] 1819</small>|years=1816–1819}} {{s-aft|after=[[James Scarlett, 1st Baron Abinger|Sir James Scarlett]]<br />[[Sir Robert Heron, 2nd Baronet|Sir Robert Heron]]}} {{s-bef|before=[[Thomas Brand, 20th Baron Dacre|Thomas Brand]]<br />[[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]]}} {{s-ttl|title=[[Member of Parliament]] for [[Hertfordshire (UK Parliament constituency)|Hertfordshire]]<br /><small>with [[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]]</small>|years=1819–[[United Kingdom general election, 1826|1826]]}} {{s-aft|after=[[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]]<br />[[Nicolson Calvert]]}} {{s-bef|before=[[George Canning]]<br />[[William Henry John Scott]]}} Same box with whitespace {{s-bef | before = [[William Elliot (MP)|William Elliot]] | before2 = [[George Ponsonby]] }} {{s-ttl | title = [[Member of Parliament]] for [[Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)|Peterborough]] | years = 1816 – 1819 | with = [[William Elliot (MP)|William Elliot]] 1816–1819 | with2 = [[James Scarlett, 1st Baron Abinger|Sir James Scarlett]] 1819 }} {{s-aft | after = [[James Scarlett, 1st Baron Abinger|Sir James Scarlett]] | after2 = [[William Elliot (MP)|William Elliot]] }} {{s-bef | before = [[Thomas Brand, 20th Baron Dacre|Thomas Brand]] | before2 = [[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]] }} {{s-ttl | title = [[Member of Parliament]] for [[Hertfordshire (UK Parliament constituency)|Hertfordshire]] | years = 1819 – [[United Kingdom general election, 1826|1826]] | with = [[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]] }} {{s-aft | after = [[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]] | after2 = [[Nicolson Calvert]] }}

The example above is an extract from the long list of boxes in William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne. Having noticed a glitch in the list of MPs for Peterborough, I went to correct Melbourne's article to the succession box, and was confronted by this wall f unspaced characters. It was nearly illegible, so as well as making the correction I reformatted the boxes to use more whitespace ... and the result is much more legible

Please can we add something on this the the documentation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am happy with the unspaced format. The case you objected to was evidently created before "before2" and "after2" were adopted. I tend to update such boxes when I find them, though not necessarily with the line breaks (whitespace), but to eliminate the "break" instructions, which are now an obsolete form of syntax. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that some whitespace is better than the completely unspaced form, but I don't think we should mandate a specific format. In the absence of a Wikipedia IDE, I do find it rather time-consuming to line up each parameter on its own line when composing a succession box; I tend to go with a single space around each parameter for compromise between typing speed and legibility. Choess (talk)

The timing of this post is interesting; I have been thinking lately, for the first time, of changing my long-standing preference for no spacing in succession boxes. Considering that I have always liked to introduce empty lines between elements such as headings, images, hatnotes and text in order to ensure greater legibility in the edit window (as well as change ==Heading== to == Heading ==, etc.), my space-less succession boxes strike something of a dissonant chord. Even so, I feel uncomfortable with mandating any particular spacing style; my own new preference is for a space before every pipe, to allow parameters to change lines if necessary (but avoid stray pipes or equal signs at the end of lines). Indeed, with the new HTML-circumventing parameters, this style will look even better than it used to. Clear as it may be, the style in which every parameter has its own line seems a bit like a waste of space to me—especially for those editors with wide monitors—and creates the need for much additional scrolling.

There is also what one might call the "compensation spacing style", where not only every pipe and equal sign is flanked by spaces, but most template names are followed by numerous spaces to ensure that all templates' first pipes are aligned. In short, it is BrownHairedGirl's second example above, but without the line breaks; one sees this style a lot in infoboxes. So, if on one end of the spectrum we have the space-less boxes, my newly preferred "spaces only between parameters" style is next, the "spaces flanking pipes and equal signs only" style occupies the middle, compensation spacing follows, and the spacious "each parameter its own line" style forms the other end.

And before I start over-analysing (if I haven't already), let us get to my suggestions. Firstly, eliminate any totally space-less examples from our documentation system (including the individual template pages). Secondly... I suppose we could add a general recommendation somewhere on clear writing and perhaps encouraging some spacing, but without promoting a specific style. Most Wikipedians have their own spacing habits, anyway, and I find it important to avoid instruction creep. Funny, I know, coming from the author of the guidelines, but I assure you that was a different Wikipedian back in 2007, and the guidelines are currently under review. Waltham, The Duke of 19:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC for use of succession boxes on songs and albums reaching #1 on music charts

There is currently an RFC taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. Some third party opinions are very much welcomed. For some examples of how they are being used at their extreme, see I Will Always Love You, Tik Tok and Need You Now. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Template redirects

This one is simple. I have acquired the impression from some quarters that the template names s-bef, s-ttl and s-aft are hard to remember. Although I am personally fond of the three-letter-name convention, might it be better for the grand scheme of things to create the redirects s-before, s-title and s-after for these templates, in the interests of aiding the spread of the s-start template system? I believe this is an easy and effective way to cater for the needs of a greater proportion of editors and gain a strategic advantage over our ancient foe. Opinions? Waltham, The Duke of 03:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, {{s-before}} and {{s-after}} are already in use. However, the former is only transcluded in 115 pages and the latter in 83, so the situation may not be as entrenched as I feared. The template responsible for this situation, {{UK Motorway Service Station succession box}}, appears to be patterned on our templates—indeed, it makes direct use of s-ttl—so I see no reason why it could not also use s-bef and s-aft. If we can achieve this (provided we agree that we want to, of course), we can free up s-before and s-after for use as redirects to s-bef and s-aft respectively, and therefore for use with both the s-start series and the service-stations template, making everyone happy. Waltham, The Duke of 03:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, your grace, but I would suggest going a little further.

Instead of {{s-after}} being a redirect to {{s-aft}} and {{s-bef}} being a redirect to {{s-before}}, etc, let's use the unabbreviated form as the new canonical name for the whole series, keeping the old titles as redirects.

Old	New
{{s-bef}}	{{s-before}}
{{s-ttl}}	{{s-title}}
{{s-aft}}	{{s-after}}
{{s-vac}}	{{s-vacant}}
{{s-inc}}	{{s-incumbent}}

This use of unabbreviated names for the templates will make the whole structure much more straightforward for editors who have not encountered this before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... Why not? You have my blessing. Waltham, The Duke of 13:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be no objections to my idea ... but I do wonder a bit about the consequences of making such a change when the templates are so widely used. In the meantime, I will create the remaining unabbreviated forms as redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, but I do think we ought to make sure that there is consistency and that {{s-before}} and {{s-after}} also redirect to {{s-bef}} and {{s-aft}} respectively. It matters little what we do after that. Waltham, The Duke of 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl : You can try asking one of the many bot owners to help change the wording. It seems to be a straightforward task to replace the words. -- Xaiver0510 (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

More "with" parameters

There was some discussion above as to whether we needed as many as fifteen "with" parameters in {{s-ttl}}.

It turns out that 15 was not enough for Sir Matthew Wood, 1st Baronet, who has 20 of them, so I have modified {{tl|s-ttl}] to accept up to "with25". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I truly hope it will not be necessary to use all of them; one wonders at which point a succession box starts needing its own article...

As a side-note, I see that abbreviated year ranges of the format 1818–20 are used for the other MPs in that box. I am not necessarily hostile to that sort of convention in a place where economy of space is important, but I observe that no provision has ever been made for it in the guidelines, so it might bear some discussion.

And the "Civic offices" header used for the Lord Mayor of London row makes me realise how vaguely the headers have been defined in some cases; the template was only intended for police, fire and medical posts. Well, one more item for the agenda... But first we need to finish the ones already on the table, so comments are needed in the new sections above. Waltham, The Duke of 18:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I did consider whether instead on spending a quarter-of-an-hour building and checking the succession box, I should just have put in a with= lots of others, but it's done now. I'm not sure how many other editors will be so masochistic.

A discussion on the abbreviated dates is needed, and I had intended to one myself. A discussion on my talk happened after an editor changed some boxes to use that format for the main dates, in the years= field, which I didn't like. However it turns out that format is widely-used down under and that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) now recommends the abbreviated form. I still don't like it for the main dates, but I hate word-wrapping in the with= fields, so I have taken to using it there to reduce the risk. Dunno if that's the best approach (it saves only 2 characters), but one way or t'other it's worth exploring.

As to {{s-civ}}, my experience has been that it is widely used for ceremonial Lord Mayors: their role is not really political, more ceremonial, so a more political header would be inappropriate. I agree that we should clarify this one, tho. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to warm to the idea of using abbreviated year ranges in the "with" fields. To be honest, I have often been wary of the lack of standardisation that changing a rule would bring, but perhaps one ought to get used to the fact that there is a lack of standardisation anyway, and that one ought not to be too stringent about these things. In some respects I may be too out of touch with current practices.

With regards to {{s-civ}}, perhaps we ought to change the header to "Emergency services offices" or something similar, and replace the existing headers for Lord Mayors and such with {{s-hon}}. History and civic pride aside, how much different is the post of Lord Mayor of London from that of any old Lord Lieutenant in terms of actual power? Waltham, The Duke of 21:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to keep {{s-civ}} as it is, because a mayoralty is always a civic office. It may be ceremonial (as in Ireland, and as used to be the case throughout England), but it may also be an executive office (as in the USA, and now in some parts of England). Is it really helpful to complicate things by having difft headers for ceremonial and executive mayors? Seems to me to add avoidable complexity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New template request: initial succession box or first succession box

For cases where the simple succession box and incumbent succession box provide all the flexibility that is required, creation of the first in the chain is unnecessarily complex. Could the corollary of incumbent succession box be provided for the first in the chain, please? I'd suggest calling it either initial succession box or first succession box. Jim Craigie (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If you use a new style succession box, it is very very simple onstead of {{s-bef|before= XX}} use {{s-new|creation}}. See Template:S-new for full documentation. The new style succession boxes are quite flexible. Adding a new variety would just complicate things unnecessarily. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Peterkingiron -- no need for a new format. There is a general move away from {{succession box}} to the {{s-bef}}/{{s-ttl}}/{{s-aft}} series, and I would oppose creating another variant of {{succession box}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:S-ttl#Add |colspan=

There is a discussion about adding |colspan= to {{s-ttl}}. I was told to mention it here. So here I am. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Colours in succession box headers

Recently almost all of the succession box headers (e.g. s-ttl, s-mil, s-gov etc) have had their colours removed. The documetation appears not to have been updated and I can find no discussion on this change. I for one do not welcome the change and, unless I have simply missed the discussion, would like to see it reverted pending discussion within this Wikiproject. Greenshed (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've reverted where I could and put in edit requests for reversion on the remainder. I've also put a comment on the admin/editor's talk page pointing them to this project should they wish to discuss. Bazj (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. The colours have there for some time and should not have been removed without a discussion first. Snappy (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

These edits have made me realise that leaving {{s-hou}} without a colour may be an improvement on the aesthetics of royal succession boxes; the resulting line is already distinctive due to its size and location, and the lack of a bright colour makes the whole box a bit more discreet. That said, the other headers should retain their colours, because they help readers locate specific headers in large boxes (especially considering that the order of headers is usually roughly chronological and only in some respects follows the order our guidelines recommend, which means that it is not generally standardised). Waltham, The Duke of 21:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am the person who removed the color from these boxes. Just a note I am pretty sure I updated the documentation page for each template that I changed. Ok, Sorry to not have posted here but it looked like this wikiproject was inactive. Here is the rationale for removing the color:

• The color serves no purpose; it is gratuitous, and adds no meaning to the templates
• When multiple templates are present on the same article, the colors often clash. Let's take King Stephen of England as an example. The colors used in the succession boxes look ugly and unprofessional together, in my opinion:

• {{s-hou}}:  
• {{s-reg}}:  
• {{s-fam}}:  
• {{s-ref}}:  

• Some colored templates impede accessability as they do not have adequate contrast for readers with limited vision or for those that are color blind.
• Having the templates all the same color gives a more professional appearance. The Duke of Waltham's recommendation that a bit of color be added as a navigational aid is a good one, as long as the accessibility concerns are kept in mind. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that we now agree that the colour is not gratuitous, even if we might not necessarily agree as to its relative value in the headers. As I have said, I believe that {{s-hou}} ought to remain colourless, but that the rest of the headers ought to have their colours restored to them. I am open to reviewing the colour scheme, in the interests of accessibility, although I must say that it is a major task and that the colours must provide sufficient differentiation in addition to being aesthetically pleasing and allowing the text to be easily read. Perhaps a start could be made if you would state which header colours you find most objectionable, Diannaa. (Concerning combinations, we do not allow headers to be in contact with each other, so I do not consider this much of an issue, or at least not as much as you seem to. The sole exception is {{s-hou}}, which may not even count as a header.) Waltham, The Duke of 22:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much the colors are objectionable but how unprofessional they look together. Some I found really ugly were

• {{s-fam}}:  
• {{S-royalhouse}}:  
• {{S-ach}}:  
• {{S-mil}}:   Ok this one is really ugly.
• {{S-rel}}:   Ditto
• {{S-wea}}:  

This is partly because of how bad they look next to the standard Wikipedia blue. The last one does not look to me like it has adequate contrast. I am going to start reverting the templates back now until the discussion is over, as I think the interested parties have had a look at how the appearance differs without the color. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please have another look at King Stephen of England now that the colours have been restored. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• all of these colours are inappropriate as they are at odds with wp:deviations. There is no rationale for these, they add no semantic value and this wikiproject must defer to the MOS per WP:CONLIMITED. There's even been an RFC on this: Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. They *are* gratuitous, as things work just fine without them. They are meretricious ornamentation. Bzzzt, 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In looking at the colour of the House templates an honest re-appraisal leads to me the view that they add nothing that isn't already in the succession boxes beneath or the individual's infobox at the top of the page. They're royalist puffery ~ no other group of titles get this extra adornment. The three house templates ({{S-imperialhouse}}, {{S-royalhouse}}, and {{S-hou}}) ought to be deleted. Removal of these would resolve the issue of ungainly combinations of adjacent colours.

Colour elsewhere serves a useful purpose in grouping the succession boxes. Certainly they're far from gratuitous. As a basis for discussion, the examples at Winston Churchill and Henry VIII show the use of colour to good effect as they have succession boxes under a number of groupings.

The colours were reviewed a few years back, with ease-on-the-eye as a major consideration. A case could be made that the colours should be reviewed again with accessibility in mind.

I've put pointers to this discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. Bazj (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:s-roy fails accessibility guidelines according to this website. I suggest they all need to be checked. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As a member of the usability and accessibility projects, I agree with Diannaa.

Concerning usability, the most important thing is the graphic charter - I'm not sure if it's the right word in English, it might as well be "style guidelines", Human interface guidelines or something. That's for the professional look and consistency. It mean that for one type of content there is only one layout.

Regarding accessibility, the contrast between links and the background color is often not accessible. I did not reviewed them all, but among the six pointed out by Diannaa the following three are not accessible:

• {{s-fam}}:  
• {{S-mil}}:  
• {{S-wea}}:  

It would be best to choose one single color from an accessibility point of view. Because we would only have to choose one color that we know provides sufficient contrast, instead of having to review several colors and monitor changes being made. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A check of all the boxes (at User:Bazj/Sandbox3, using the website suggested by Diannaa) throws out the following failures which will need altering regardless of the outcome of the single-colour discussion.

Bazj (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

the website suggested by Diannaa is handy, but unfortunately it is outdated. It's written on the website that it uses the algorithm of WCAG 1.0, and results given by the tools confirms this. The now standard algorithm is WCAG 2.0, which is easier to reach. Thus, {{S-hou}}, {{S-par}} and {{S-sports}} pass the test, and the four others do fail.

Here are a few up-to-date tools you can use. The Color Contrast Analyser, provided you only use the up-to-date "luminosity" algorithm, and not the "color brightness/difference" which is outdated. You can also use Snook's color contrast tool, which is entirely up-to-date. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see, from an accessibility point of view, how one single colour would be any better than lots of colours (so long as the colours are suitable). The task of choosing the colour would be easier than choosing several colours, but there are other considerations than just the ease of the task. Finally, we have very infrequently changed the colours and so "monitoring" the changes, such as they are, is not going to be onerous. Greenshed (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Using a single color is especially important from a usability point of view. If the same type of content have the same appearances, they are easier to recognize. Of course the target of this change is not us power users, but readers.

As for "monitoring" the changes of color from an accessibility point of view, you would be right if you were able to review the colors yourself. The reviewer usually ends up being me. While I enjoy doing it, there are hundreds of projects like this one on the English Wikipedia, and I have nowhere enough time to check each of their daily debates and edits to see if a change of color scheme is hiding somewhere. Just like you said, color schemes don't change too often, but the accessibility project is rarely notified of said changes. Thanks Bazj for thinking about it, by the way.

I forgot about another key point Plastikspork mentioned in a similar discussion. Using one default color enables the visually impaired to apply the color scheme they need. If we stick with colors defined by MediaWiki:Common.css, this is possible by just creating a personal Special:MyPage/skin.css. If we override the "css classes" using "inline style statements" (which is in conflict with WP:Deviations), this becomes a barrier. In other words, we should not use various colors, or visually impaired people will have a hard time to customize their color scheme. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dodoïste, it would be really helpful if you could review and update the instructions provided at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Color. That is where I got the outdated link to accesskeys.org. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. This was on my to-do list for a long time, and I eventually forgot to do it. Thanks Diannaa for reminding me and participating in updating the guidelines. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If the colours were applied only to the outer columns of the row, and the text kept to the middle column, would that overcome the objections?

see Pope Adrian IV for comparison

I think it overcomes the readability issues (regardless of whether the text is black, or some kind of link, visited, unvisited or red), yet still keeps the groupings clearly visible in the table. Bazj (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It removes the issues with the color contrast, which is an improvement. There is one issue to fix however. The way you made the colors on the side was by creating two emtpy column headers, which creates another accessibility issue. But we can solve this issue easily:

Dodoïste (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I see discussion has kinda stalled here. I don't have anything new to add, really, and don't have time to pursue it further right now as I am heavily involved in another wikiproject. I hope your group will see this change through. Sincerely, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but here's my tuppenceworth.

1. The boxes should be coloured, to make it easier for readers to quickly identify which of the many succession boxes relates to their area of interest. It is not uncommon for an article to have succession boxes relating to a parliamentary career, to a governmental career, a military career, and various titles of nobility, and the colours make it much easier to identify which is which.
2. The principle of using colours in this way does not clash with the accessibility guidelines, because no information is added by the colour. The colour is purely a visual aid as an addition to the text, and (provided the colours are suitable) it adds value to sighted readers without depriving the visually impaired.
3. It seems to me that the only issue which needs resolving is that some of the colours provide insufficient contrast to the text. This poses an unacceptable obstacle to visually impaired readers, and I can see three ways of resolving it:
   1. Test all the colours for contrast, and where there is a problem, change them to a shade which offers higher contrast.
   2. Keep all the existing colours, but use them only the outer columns, as suggested above by Dodoïste
   3. Keep all the existing colours, but instead of using them as a background, use them as a top border for the header, as in my example below

      Academic offices
      Preceded by Eric the Viking	Vice-Chancellor of the University of Borsetshire 2012–2015	Succeeded by Dave Spart
      Parliament of the United Kingdom
      Preceded by Fran Finch	Member of Parliament for Bortsetshire South-Central 1891–2007	Succeeded by Felicity Fiennes
      Preceded by Fred Fox	Member of Parliament for Bortsetshire South-East 2016–2018	Succeeded by Flannery Foster
      Peerage of the United Kingdom
      Preceded by Fiachra Fink	Baron Bortsetshire 2013–	Succeeded by Finoula Fink
      Honorary titles
      Preceded by Farrell Finkelstein	Lord Lieutenant of Bortsetshire 1702–1923	Succeeded by Fffrederick Filibuster

Any of these approaches will resolve the problems faced by visually impaired editors, whilst maintaining the benefits for those without visual impairment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a really good solution, BrownHairedGirl. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Love it. Solves the accessibility issues and far more aesthetically pleasing. Bazj (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We can use this idea all over the wiki; see {{Periodic table}} for example. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea as well. This is much better than coloring the background behind the text. Frietjes (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely support this proposal from an accessibility point of view, great idea. :-) (I'll somehow manage to keep my ideas about design and style guides for myself, as few seems interested.) Dodoïste (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the earlier discussion - I generally love colors and have been disappointed by the gratuitous way so many standardized templates have been changed to become blander and less visually appealing. That said, I enthusiastically endorse BrownHairedGirl's top-color-band proposal. It keeps the functionally useful (and aesthetically appealing) colors, but adds a sense of understated elegance while overcoming the valid accessibility issues. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Side note - we may want to darken {{s-par}}'s color and possibly other light colors if we do this. It's a little hard to see on the example here. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Great solution (can't believe no-one thought of this earlier). Also agree with Philosopher's suggestion of darkening some of the lighter colours. Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant solution. Like all great ideas, it seems amazingly obvious in hindsight! Snappy (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that we have consensus, and no new comment in nearly a week, I'd go put editprotected markers on all the templates. But since we've got three admins on this discussion, would one of them care to do the changes without that step? {{S-civ}} will also need to have its color: white removed. Cheers. Bazj (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've put in edit requests where necessary and done the rest. Here's hoping the inconsistency doesn't last too long. Bazj (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

With the new-style boxes, it needs slightly more contrast between the heading lines and the boxes. I had to use a on-screen colour picker to convince myself that the former were slightly darker, I thought my eyes were playing tricks! I believe they should be a different shade to aid navigation further, but ultimately, they either need to have more contrast or none as the status quo somehow makes it more distracting as the brain figures out if the colours are the same or if it's an optical illusion. JRawle (Talk) 21:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd have preferred to endorse this proposal before it was actually applied, but my web access has been very limited lately. In any case, I had little doubt the proposal would pass. Thank you for thinking outside the box, BrownHairedGirl (pun intended—someone had to say it) and thus solving our problem in so elegant and effective a manner. (Also, I can tell you had lots of fun with the names in the example box.)

That said, JRawle may be right: the headers probably need to be a little darker for this scheme to work. I am not entirely sure myself—I'd need to see a mock-up—but if the proposed adjustment is applied, the {{s-par}} colour may have to be darkened somewhat.

On another matter, Bazj's suggestion regarding {{s-hou}} doesn't strike me as unreasonable: this is information that inflates succession boxes without adding much that of value at this point in an article. I am not so sure about {{s-royalhouse}}, however (though we can safely do away with {{s-imperialhouse}}, which is only used in one article). I am not arguing for the retention of the information it currently includes, but we could perhaps reduce it to a regular header for use in dynasty succession boxes. Waltham, The Duke of 00:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally missed all this discussion and just swung by the project having noticed the colour change on a Danish king. It looks really good as top-borders, rather than backgrounds. Awesome work, BrownHairedGirl! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Colour when Succession boxes nested in Navboxes

Where succession boxes are nested in Navboxes the headers are having a background colour imposed on them by the navbox. Elizabeth II provides an example. For the moment I've resolved it by removing the navbox. Can anybody suggest a better fix? Bazj (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a few options, (1) update template:s-start to add a collapsible option like I did in this version, (2) use template:hidden begin/template:hidden end instead of template:navboxes like this or (3) modify template:navboxes so the navbox class is not inherited by the objects embedded inside of it, which is probably a more difficult task. I would personally like seeing something rolled into template:s-start as an optional way to collapse the entire box. Frietjes (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Status?

It's been quite a long time since I last worked on succession boxes. Are they still supposed to be used everywhere? I noticed a mention above about a controversy on Talk:David Johnston, and it seems to have been resolved, but is this the consensus everywhere? I had a similar problem on Egbert of Wessex back in 2009: when I added succession boxes, they were almost immediately reverted. Ardric47 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Egbert article looks to have been WP:OWNed. It was just one person's opinion, and no discussion took place. Bazj (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Standardised succession table

Hello, I'm just here to advise of a standardised succession table I've recently created. See {{Succession table monarch}} for more info. Hope it comes in handy. ClaretAsh 13:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I presume this is to be used to replace plain lists in articles on monarchies. I would say that it looks good, but it would be useful of it could be generalised so that it can be used in lists of British peers (for example). There is a list article of every peerage. The notes section might be replaced by something like succession right, indicating the basis on which they succeeded. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. I tried to include the main info common to the various monarchs lists. I didn't name notes as "succession" or some such as, in some cases, it would contain nothing more than "Elected" or "Son of X". Also for spacing requirements, I opted to have a general notes section where any prose-type info could go. See Local government areas of South Australia as an example of a general notes section in use. Additional columns would make the table too unwieldy and would often be empty. As for generalising the table, I named it "Succession table monarch" as I envisaged it as one of several; e.g. "Succession table president", "Succession table prime minister", "Succession table peer". Different categories of official demand different requirements in their respective tables making the creation of a general table far beyond my ability. However, if someone with more expertise wants to create a general multi-use table, then feel free. Thanks again for the feedback. ClaretAsh 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

When to use and when not to use succession boxes

An issue has arisen at Talk:David Johnston wherein the appropriate use of succession boxes has come into question; namely, if the same succession information is already given in an infobox at the head of a page and in a navbox at the foot of the page, is it not then redundant to include a succession box? Input from those involved in this project would be of assistance. Thanks, --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have added my thoughts on the questions in relation to that article, as well as some wider thoughts on the generally poor state of navigational tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It is my view that succession information tends to clutter up infoboxes, and that it would be better if it were not included. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Peterkingiron but would suggest that one or at most two of the most signifiacnt sucessions might be included within an infobox so as to avoid clutter. An example of who this can go wrong is at the Winston Churchill article (or at least at this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winston_Churchill&oldid=479339674) where the infobox is more of an info-column. As regards successional navboxes, I would eliminate these altogether as they add irrelevant information to biographical articles (e.g. links to a person who held the same office as the subject of the biographical article but lived two centuries earlier is not relevant to the biography in question whereas the immediate predecessor and successor are). Greenshed (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Where in the article should I place the succession box?

(Sorry for asking this newb question, but I cannot find this information in the copious documentation on the topic)

I know the box goes towards the end of the article – but where exactly? Before the refs? Before the external links? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say after the refs, after the external links, but before the other navigation boxes. at least this appears to be the most common placement. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Frietjes is right, the guidance you're looking for is in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. WP:LAYOUT#Navigation templates is the specific section. Bazj (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. BTW I am surprised that a succession box is placed AFTER External Links and that it is not included when pinting an article. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Limit of succession boxes

While editing both Prince Louis of Battenberg and John McCauley, a question has arison as to the extent one should go to in listing succession boxes. Some editors incline to the view that only the high-level appointments such as First Sea Lord or Chief of the Air Staff should be included. My proposal is that if the post is either:

a) notable enough to get its own article,

b) the head of an organization notable enough to get its own article or

c) a senior post notable enough to be mentioned in an article on an organization notable enough to get its own article

then it warrents a succession box in the biographical article even if either the successor or the predecessor are not themselves notable enough for their own article. Minor appointments such as being treasurer of a local bowls club would therefore not warrent inclusion. Greenshed (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Tks for posting this, Greenshed. I think we should be aiming for the ideal of everything/everyone in the succession box being notable in their own right, although two out of three is fair enough I guess. To specifics:

• If we're dealing with positions notable in their own right, then the incumbants will tend to be notable in their own right too, e.g. First Sea Lord or Chief of the Air Staff, so I can't see much of an issue with a).
• If we're only dealing with the commander of a notable but relatively minor organisation, such as a squadron, we can't count on notability for the predecessor/successor, so I'd question the automatic inclusion of b).
• If it's only a senior post in a notable organisation, it won't necessarily have incumbants notable in their own right either, because while you'll sometimes get notable people in there "on their way up" (e.g. John McCauley as SASO North Western Area Command), you'll also have some who never rose any higher and therefore aren't notable by WP standards, which is why I'd also question c) as an automatic inclusion.

My last point relates to "drive-by" additions of succession boxes. The danger here is that there's no guarantee the predecessor/successor to a posting will have been mentioned and cited in the main body of the article. This is especially relevant when adding boxes to GA/A/FA-Class articles. If I'm creating or improving an article, when I come to the succession boxes I always make sure that I've noted/cited in the main body that the subject succeeded so-and-so in such-and-such post, and was succeeded by so-and-so2. Succession boxes should be treated like infoboxes, only containing info that's cited to a reliable source. So for instance in the case of McCauley and his successor as SASO NWA, another reason I preferred not to include that succession box was that I had no particular desire to add/cite that McCauley was succeeded by William Hely -- even though Hely eventually rose to air vice marshal, and hence would (just) meet WP notability criteria, I couldn't see myself creating an article for him soon, if ever, and I doubt enyone else would either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If the predecessor/successor does not warrent an article, what would be wrong with entering the name without a link? Personally, I find the succession boxes a useful career summary for my research outside of wikipedia when I quickly want to identify what post a particular individual held on a given date and the predecessor/successor information is only sometimes useful if in subject was close to the point of hand-over / take-over. It is my view that if the appointment is notable in the context of the biographical article then it warrents inclusion. If it is minor detail as regards the biography in question, then no - it does not. As regards citations to reliable sources, I agree that these are necessary but if we were to place succession boxes above the notes section then the successions could be referenced directly without always having to expand the sucessions in the text (may need further discussion in the section above, at Template talk:S-ref or at WP:MOS). In this respect I am not convinced that succession boxes should be treated like infoboxes - everything should be referenced, but unlike infoboxes, sucession boxes do not effectively form part of the lead and so do not need to be restricted to summarizing information only. Greenshed (talk) 12:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Incidentially, if you keep up with the mentions of William Hely, I may just get curious enough to start the article. Greenshed (talk) 12:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have cut a pasted below a comment concerning succession boxes form the talk page of the Earl Mountbatten article. I invite any interested persons to comment on this topic on that talk page. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes serve to illustrate succession. If there is neither predecessor nor successor, i.e. if there is no succession to illustrate, why should the box be there? Such boxes are normally not included, which isn't suprprising, since it's common sense not to put useless templates into articles. Also, why should there be seperate boxes for titles that were granted at the exact same time and inherited by the same person? That is not common practice; in fact, it's not even common practice to include the lesser of such titles at all. See relevant articles for examples. Surtsicna (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

New field "claim" for s-ttl?

There's an open edit request on the S-ttl template here which would add a "claim" field. I'm no opinion on the change myself, but would presume that this Wikiproject should have a chance to weigh in, if y'all haven't been notified yet. Comment there. --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I originally posted this suggestion at Talk:Line of succession to the British throne. I have now copied the discussion over from that Talk Page to here.

A large number of aricles feature people who are in line of succession to the British throne, but why they are in line is not quite clear. One such person is Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau (currently in a coma after a sking accident), but it took some research to find out what his claim to the succession was. After having found the relevant information, I added it to the succession box.

Since this applies not only to Prince Friso, but to many entries, I thought this an appropriate place to mention it - this site has over 200 watchers, so I can expect some feedback. If editors are agreeable, we could have a new field in the succession box "claim = " which will enable comments such as this to be added without them being bold. A note on usage would recommend that this box field only be used if the person in question is not mentioned in this article.

Comments? Martinvl (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the templates and use the s-ttl template, field "creation" to get the claimant text. Is this a good idea, or should we request a field "claim"? Martinvl (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It may not be necessary for everyone who's not listed in this article. Perhaps for anyone whose ancestry chart in his or her own article doesn't go back far enough to include a past monarch? For example, at Katharine Fraser, Mistress of Saltoun you can expand the ancestry chart to see her descent from Victoria. --LarryJeff (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, Prince Friso's claim goes back to George II. I was thinking of cases such as his rather than Katharine Fraser's. Martinvl (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying we don't need to show the person's claim. I like the idea. I was just offering an alternative criterion for deciding when to use it. I just picked Katherine Fraser out semi-randomly from the 4th generation of Victoria's descendants. --LarryJeff (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

End of copied text. Martinvl (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Line of succesion

If Charles were to die before the queen and therefore not take the throne, wouldn't Andrew (or maybe Anne?) be the next in line for the throne? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.33.248 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No—under primogeniture as practiced in the U.K., a person's descendants always precede his or her younger siblings. The order in which people die doesn't affect anyone else's position in the line of succession. Alkari (?), 3 June 2012, 23:02 UTC

Changes to Guidelines

I have added to the general guidelines something fundamental that was missing, namely a section on linking. I don't expect it to be particularly controversial, having taken care to keep it simple and describe current practice as I understand it, but I did include one piece of guidance that neither corresponds to general practice nor contradicts it: the one about linking to lists of holders rather than the articles on the titles. I have included arguments for this guidance, because people tend to go either way, but mostly against what I have written.

Below the "General" section (which I believe is just fine in its current state), I intend to do some streamlining and tightening of the page; I expect that moving most of the header material to the individual templates will contribute greatly to this effort. Our guidelines need to be brief and to the point, or people will not bother reading them, much less following them. I have started this discussion for the purpose of expressing objections and bringing up ideas regarding the shape of the Guidelines page. I am open to suggestions... Waltham, The Duke of 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Creation of additional parameters for s-vac

It seems that, when we added parameters to {{s-bef}} and {{s-aft}}, we forgot to do the same thing for {{s-vac}}, which plays a similar role. As things stand, the template allows for only one predecessor before the vacancy (or successor after it), and any additional names must be added manually with unwieldy <br> tags. Time to change that, perhaps? I recommend that we add parameters like "last2", "next2", "last3", "next3", etc. to the template, in order to lift the restrictions to its function. Waltham, The Duke of 22:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church titles

Not sure if this is the right place for this or not but shouldn't the box {s-rel|ca} redirect to the page Hierarchy of the Catholic Church instead of Catholic Church since it says "Catholic Church titles"? Just a thought. Coinmanj (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to improve Template:S-ttl

Please see a proposal to improve the data granularity of {{S-ttl}}, at Template talk:S-ttl#Data granularity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Application to unofficial successions

Is it appropriate to use succession boxes for unofficial "titles" such as "World's oldest person"? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been opened at Template talk:Succession box#RfC. I think that the participation of users who work with succession boxes would be helpful. Kraxler (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Add a box positioning parameter, make the box enclose-able in a table or make it collapsible.

I would like to ask if you could consider adding a positioning parameter to this template which would allow this box to be either movable or make the template enclose-able within external tables or stuck to the right side instead of the center. Userboxes are an ubiquitous example of boxes which can be placed within tables and moved around to wherever they are needed. Boxes which are stuck to the right where they don't get in the way of the article include WP:Taxobox and WP:Infobox. There are numerous examples of boxes which can be collapsed down to single lines on the page. Thanks Trilobitealive (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of moving succession boxes to the right? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If the boxes could be repositioned the blank spaces left beside the writing in the section above them could be decreased. Look at the article Kenneth MacAlpin as an example. There is a large blank space in the External links section caused by this box. There is a similar blank next to the contents box after the lede, however that particular box can either be hidden by the reader or removed by an editor using the NOTOC command if it is found to be too noxious in a given article. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

By "the writing in the section above them" I take it that you mean the list of external links. To have these appear alongside (and therefore to the left of) the succession box means that the succession box doesn't just need to be moved right, it needs to be floated right, and also be placed before the external links in the wikicode (see for example the positioning of the {{Commons category}} at Forth Bridge#External links - this is a right-floated box); but MOS:LAYOUT says that succession boxes go after the external links. As for the blank space alongside the table of contents, this is by design, and any change to that needs a much broader discussion than can be provided here - such as at WT:LAYOUT or WP:VPR. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Kenneth MacAlpin is an outlier, as is Winston Churchill at the other extreme. Locating the box centrally is at least visually consistent - just as you'd expect from a project with Standardization in its name. Bazj (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)