Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

This is the fourth (and current) archive of the main talk page of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization.

Master-General of the Ordnance

I've noticed that this office has for some reason been categorized as a military office. It was, in fact, a political office, although it dealt with the military and was always held by an officer in the army. The Master-General was a member of the government, and often of the cabinet, and changed with ministries. His position would be similar to a serving admiral acting as First Lord of the Admiralty (which occurred into the 19th century, with, I believe, Lord Barham in 1805-1806 being the last instance.), or to Prussian ministers of war, who were always generals. The master-general was usually chosen for his political loyalties and administrative capabilities, not for any particular reputation as an officer, and many of them - Montagu, Richmond, Chatham, Mulgrave - were not particularly notable military figures. So, anyway, I think positions like this should go in the political offices section, not the military offices section. john k 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. What's your take on the Naval/Sea Lords: political or military? Choess 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Additional Parameter in Template:s-bef and Template:s-aft

VOTING CLOSED: Proposal APPROVED: This discussion has been closed and the proposal has passed with a unanimous vote from the current active members. The discussion for this proposal has been archived and moved here. Thank you to all who voted!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Collapsibility

The proliferation of these boxes on some pages has gotten out of hand. Ideally they should be in a collapsible wrapper. Some people are starting to do this with extra table code in-article. Would it be possible to build this functionality in? See talk here and my essay at Wikipedia:Avoid template creep. heqs ·:. 23:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, though not entirely. Succession boxes are not lists of other relevant articles and thus cannot be judged to be as "harmful" to the overall appearance and usability of an article as the other boxes. On the contrary, they contain useful information that are supposed to be visible.

However, there are cases of extra-long succession boxes which can create problems. In those cases, it might be acceptable to have some of the less important categories (headers) within the boxes collapse. Or, have some of the less important titles collapse within the headers (like, for example, show only the most important peerage title of a person until one clicks on "show" and expands the box). But this will be a difficult issue to handle, and long discussions will have to be made to create guidelines that will perhaps be too complicated. Standardisation shall suffer in this case... Waltham, The Duke of 09:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To end this discussion, I have already tried creating a nice and easy collapsible succession box...not for main use but for my own family history section I am trying to create. However, I have not been able to find a div class that supports full table reading; virtually all of them cancel out the box borders despite everything. You can see the project to do this very thing at User:KuatofKDY/Sandbox, although you may have to go through this history to see its various incarnations. As it currently stands, the subtemplate I am using to replace s-start, located at User:KuatofKDY/s-hid is unusable, although I hoped the div class I am using was the correct one. If anyone wants to work on this project, I will help adapt it to use in the main series but currently I don't see it as a practical possibility. The essential element, no matter what, though, is that the template, when "show"n must be identical to the current template look, meaning all the borders must be visible without a padding between them.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had an epiphany. Give me a few minutes and let me determine it all and I will post again. This subject is not dead, though, that much is clear!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

'Tis done! I am so dumb it amazes me. I found that wikitables can be collapsible all by themselves. Using the class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" I have created this:

Regnal titles
Preceded by Henry VII	King of England 1509 – 1547	Succeeded by Edward IV

It requires headers to use. I don't want this used across wikipedia for succession lists but I think it could be used for extremely long lists. I have not released it from my userbox yet, either, as it still has a few quarks to work out such as how to get the text to stay centered. If anyone wants to try and fix that problem, I give them permission to edit that user subpage. However, this template is designed exactly like s-start in that there are no internal headers, thus making text centered may be a little difficult without changing the internal parameters of all header pages, which I find a bit unnecessary. Tell me what you think. Note: this is not a proposal, just a preview of a new s-start for some uses such as my own family tree and marriage history templates.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks great (except for the colouring). I am not the most tech-minded person, nor an advanced template coder but we need solutions like this for articles where the boxes are longer than the article. heqs ·:. 18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Collapsability is a good idea. But perhaps reducing the size of the text and padding within these boxes can help in reducing this clutter problem? There is no way that the text in these boxes needs to be the same as the body text. - 52 Pickup 10:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

{{s-start-collapsible}} was causing javascript pageload errors due to an incorrect usage (no header in table). To prevent this I have changed the way this template needs to be used. I understand that it goes somewhat against the idea of how these things were designed, but I prefer working pages over a tad more complicated usage. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:s-hou

I guess I have to talk about this here instead of the template talk page so here I am?

1. The bolding: The bolding of Birth and Death are really a poor change and I would prefer it the way it was. They're highly out of place, especially since only the most pertinent information is usually bolded (the title, the successor, the predecessor) This is especially terrible on small templates, for example, King Francis I or his father.
2. The name: I can understand wanting to have the name at the top of a suc box, after all, I often don't know who the page I'm reading about and I can't think to check the title bar or the URL or anything of that sort. More seriously, putting names atop templates has precedence, so I don't object to it, but the way its being handled by adding it to s-hou is awful.

   Objection a: It makes s-hou look bad, especially on small templates. (this is my weakest objection)

   Objection b: Putting the name of the person in s-hou and saying "there its at the top of the suc" box is positively topocentric (topocentrism: (protologism, wikislang) the tendency to look at the Wikipedia primarily from the perspective of one's topic area). Winston Churchill has no s-hou. Abraham Lincoln has no s-hou. So on, so forth.

   Objection c: There's the obvious problem that some suc boxes might not match their page name.

   Objection d: It overshadows the house name, which is the point of an s-hou template.

   Objection e:It doesn't look at all like how infobox's names look.

This last one ties in with my suggestion, another template that goes before s-bef, s-name. the first parameter is the name (if it isn't filled in it would be the page name) and it just says that in centered, italicized, and bolded. That way, everyone wins. Atropos 20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, some of these issues are actually resolvable, I believe. I was the one that made the s-hou template into a header when I was testing something but agree that it should not all be bold and I have returned it to its previous state. In addition, I made the name portion "small" and italicized, to marginalize its impact on the template as a whole. Creating a separate name template I don't believe would work, although I am up for other contributor's opinions. Because of the same issue you have stated, the templates already take over some smaller pages and we are trying our best to make those take-overs as small-looking as possible. Adding another template that is just for a name seems a little counter to that goal and it also would mean we would have a completely customizable header which I imagine some people would use for other things than just names. Currently the s-hou template allows for name changes by using "name=" at the beginning or end of the template. I am up for moving the name to another place on the template, but lets get some other users comments. One last comment regarding infoboxes, s-boxes are actually wikitables, not infoboxes, and we don't generally follow the same rules as infoboxes.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What? How would a new template take over boxes? The problem with this is that it makes s-hou twice as tall as single succession box. Having the name outside of s-hou would make s-hou shorter and the succession box better looking. And you're right, it would mean a "ustomizable header which I imagine some people would use for other things than just names" (not completely). I don't see that being a problem; if it was a problem, such changes could be reverted obviously. You're objections don't make sense to me at all.

Of course they aren't infoboxes, but having the templates on a page look similar is obviously a Good Thing. Atropos 23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I too disagree with the creation of a new template for names. Apart from the obvious concerns for standardisation that have already been mentioned, it will also greatly complicate the entire structure, creating the need to add such a template to every single biographical succession box and forcing the development of a whole new set of guidelines for names. That said, I do agree that some of the style issues should be addressed and that effects like bold and italic text should be handled with more caution. Waltham, The Duke of 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, it could easily be added to s-start, which makes more sense than s-hou or my suggestion. As I have previously said, including it in s-hou is actually counter to standardizing succession boxes, as it assumes that every thing with a succession boxes has a house, which some clearly do not (especially since some aren't even people!). Atropos 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you attach it to s-start you are assuming that is always used for succession boxes, which while usually is the case, I have found it being used on other, non-succession box, pages. It is the default header for any 3 column wikitable now, so changing that template at all really is out of the question. I tried to appease by making the font smaller and less present, but I am not sure if there is anything else we can really do except vote on the name parameter's removal entirely.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It could easily have a parameter to remove the name for people who are using s-start in a way other than as it was intended. More significantly, you have not yet addressed my most pressing objection to its inclusion in s-hou (which is objection b in the list above). Atropos 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on Objection B? We stupid people do not have the time to start taking out dictionaries :-). (What I understand is that, as not all people have the s-hou template in their succession boxes, not all people have their names at their boxes' top—is that what you intended to say?) Waltham, The Duke of 09:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Every page with a succession box isn't going to have an s-hou at the top. Some of them aren't even people! This can't be fixed, except by moving it out of s-hou. Atropos 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, to address some issues. Editing s-start is out of the question because, regardless of what we decided here, the template itself is not editable as no admin will allow us to edit it. The template is simply used in just too many pages and any edit actually would slow down the server quite a bit for a little while. That much being said, let me discuss some issues with this conversation. a) While I understand that placing the name at the top of the template is indeed "top-centric", where else do you propose it go? I think placing it in a separate header beneath the s-hou title would be less helpful and aesthetically unappealing. b) We understand that not all succession boxes are topped with a s-hou (although Winston Churchill actually did have an s-hou twice, but it was removed both times), but the name parameter is there to be another helpful line for the pages with the template. c) To appease this debate (and because I have thought about this before), I am willing to make the "house" option on s-hou as optional as the rest of the template. This would mean that if a house was not designated in the first parameter, the line does not appear and (assuming nothing else is entered in the template prompts either), the template will only produce the person's name and nothing else. That way the template can be used on any page, even if there is no house actually associated with the individual. While I know that that means there will be a little silliness with the name s-hou for non-house individuals, it will at least serve its role as the proposed s-name without the necessity of the template itself. Oh, and if birth and death information is known, that can still be entered within the template normally, although one would have to leave a blank parameter in the "1" field. I think this may be the easiest and best solution to this debate.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 20:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I'm sorry, I'm sort of at a loss. I have no problem with it being at the top. Every suggestion I've made has placed it at the top. Where the frick did you get that idea? I would have to be a complete idiot to think that there was a problem with putting the name at the top instead of somewhere else. My objection is what you responded to in b). "c)" is probably the best solution, because it doesn't make sense that s-hou has birth and death in it already. Those would have to be non-required, so that this could be used on non-people articles.

I would prefer to have birth and death require a variable instead of just being numbered, because then other similar parameters could be added (I think release dates for films with succession boxes would be a good idea). However, that would require editting all 1500+ pages that currently have s-hou. Atropos 23:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, editing 1500+ articles isn't really possible, however the birth and death parameters are optional, you just need to skip over them when typing. In fact, if you just type:

{{s-hou|House of York}}

you will get:

I believe that is what you were asking about. Concerning the auto-name, we should probably discuss this some more in a separate discussion I will begin tomorrow.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware (though there were errors before). If s-hou is to be the universal succession box topper, it would need to have other options, such as a release variable, to sit on top of film succession boxes. At this point, s-hou will be a misnomer, but the way s-hou has been developed it really must be. Atropos 01:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well s-hou was never intended to be a universal s-box topper, as guessed it was originally designed ONLY for royal house information for individuals, and since I believe it is still designed just for individuals with royal houses, but since the advent of the name parameter, it seems to be becoming something more, like a personalized header that tells you a brief summary of the individual or page (very brief). I believe that this template has progressed beyond its normal confines and now may need to be modified for the new age. Make some proposals for change for it, and I will work with them and see what I can do. We should get a consensus first, though, over if we want to continue these additions to s-hou or create a new header for non-royal house information; possibly something that is extremely versatile for everything (and includes parameter commands instead of defaults).
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Color changes

A lot of the templates have awful colors.

Are probably the worst, not to mention that the first two are highly used. Can we discuss changing these colors to something less bright? Atropos 20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The colours are hideous and unnecessary. I really disklike the way big ugly bars of colour have creeped into almost every infobox and navigational template on Wikipedia. They don't really help with anything. Bad design. There's a reason the basic layout of Wikipedia (for instance everything within my browser window right now with the edit box open, with default settings) has only white, black, blue, and some shades of grey. It's neutral and almost universally accessible. heqs ·:. 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The first two are heavily used and the first one is heavily misused (see User:The Duke of Waltham/SBS and the guidelines we are disparately trying to complete for the main page). Regardless, I think this merits an official proposal, although I in fact like the color of the s-roy template, but perhaps that color is more appropriate for religious titles. Unfortunately, User:Heqs, we will not be removing the color from the templates. Many of the colors used have been approved by members in the past in this very talk space. We can discuss color changes, but color removal is not going to pass, I am afraid.

To contributers and members, please submit suggestions for header colors. We have many (most can be viewed at Template talk:s-start) and some such as s-par are indeed hideous in color, especially when it is a link. Perhaps we need to work on more pastel colors and remove the bright and flashies. Ideas are welcome!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

s-reg (or whatever used to have "peerage of england") was a much better shade of green a few months ago. s-roy's color would be better if it was a little darker and more subdued, I guess. I'm sorry, I don't really know anything about color theory. Atropos 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the use colours has been debated in the past and been accepted, for various reasons with the most important one being the ease of navigation; one should not forget that succession boxes are more than anything else navigational aids. Apart from that, it is the structure of succession boxes with their coloured headers that helps much in their different appearance from infoboxes, something which is helpful to the reader. And, finally, I do not believe there are that many computers that might have a problem with the display of colour; we live in the twenty-first century, for crying out loud.

However, it is true that the colours should not be too bright; we do not want our pages look like a circus. I will look into the matter but do not expect much from me; my knowledge of colours is rather limited. Waltham, The Duke of 12:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity because he didn't indent, only Heqs wants colors removed completely, which would be better discussed somewhere that people who work on all kinds of templates could consider it. Atropos 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the use of colors here is valuable - however, I agree that some of them should probably be calmer/"duller" shades of the current colors if we wish them to be useful, but not too distracting. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am upgrading this to proposal status (now at the bottom of the page) with some color choices I have made. They may not be perfect, but you can reply to the proposal if you disagree. Either way, this problem seems to merit a proposal.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Template:s-par remove the parameter la (Local assembly) from the parameter list

VOTING CLOSED: Proposal Approved: The proposal to remove the parameter la from Template:s-par passed and has been enacted. All instances of that parameter have been removed or redirected. The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes. Thank you to everyone who voted.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Template:s-pol merged into Template:s-civ

VOTING CLOSED: Proposal Approved: The proposal to move all instances of Template:s-pol to Template:s-civ using the |pol parameter has been approved. All transclusions have been redirected to the appropriate template and a deletion request is pending for the removal of s-pol. The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes. Thank you to everyone who voted.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Creation of Template:s-fic

I propose to create a header, Template:s-fic, to act as a customizable header for all things fictional such as Sith and Kings of Gondor. I have been shot down twice now trying to add this option into s-rel (I wanted to add Sith as a religion, despite its fictional use, for use with the Darth pages). They also are planning removal of the Arnor and Gondor options from s-roy for the same reasons. After some thought, I somewhat agree and thing a new header should be created for fictional pages. Please, give me some input on this. I would like to get some consensus. On a side note, this would not conflict with Template:s-lit which is only for literary works.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree – It would be good by keeping our guidelines in line without polluting major header pages with fictional titles.–Whaleyland

Comment - If it wouldn't be too hard to create a customizable parameter within each of our headers, that could be used instead. The reason I suggest this is that like in real life, you will have people who would - if they were real - fall under several different succession box headers. It would be easiest to distinguish between them if they had different colors for the boxes, as real people do. Additionally, I see no reason for keeping the current templates restricted to real people - it's not like they're going to confuse fiction for reality just because the succession box is the same color. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Counter-Comment: An admin a little while back informed me that completely open parameters should be discouraged since vandals may use them to make up their own headers. Now I know that is a little paranoid, but I have tried to stick to the mentality. I personally am fine with adding titles as parameters within already established header templates, but if you follow my discussion on Template talk:s-rel, two admin are pretty adamant about keeping fictional references OUT of header templates. I am rather upset about this but decided perhaps a fictional header template would be a good compromise, hence the proposal.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I must heartily disagree with that admin, because its about as strong as "Pages should not be editable because vandals can vandalize them." If vandals change a header to say BOE IS GAYE!!! that's not any different than them adding it to the page and it can be quickly reverted. Though I'm not sure you did this, deferring to an opinion just because an admin said it is not generally a good idea. Atropos 00:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, two admins said it and neither would let me edit the page or edit it for me.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Are any of the appropriate headers are edit protected? Atropos 01:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, {{s-rel}} and several other relevant templates are fully protected. I think the primary problem is that practically speaking, we have different colors across our headers for a reason. If we create a single header (with a single color) we defeat that purpose with regards to articles for fictional characters. In order to avoid that problem, we would have to create a "shadow" header for each of the existing templates, which just isn't practical. However, the point brought up at WT:WAF that infoboxes should make it clear whether they are talking about a real-world continuity or a fictional continuity makes sense. I would further note that currently the MoS guideline WP:WAF currently disallows fictional succession boxes, and that that point has been under discussion there. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 16:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have posted on the page noted above and the guidelines have been voted down in favor of allowing succession boxes by a vote of 15 to 8 opposed. While the official policy page may not have been changed, I believe that the voters speak for themselves. While I will not yet create this succession page, I believe that the vote proves that succession boxes are allowed in fictional entries, and as such, headers such as this one proposed are allowed due to the guidelines of this project that make them so.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're both wrong. WP:WAF doesn't ban succession boxes, it just discourages them for most fictional situations. This part of the guideline has not been voted on, or been voted out. Discussion is ongoing about what extent we should discourage, as well as simply having other navigational options that might just be better. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Color change for Template:s-roy

Alright, this is the first of three proposals to change some of the header colors. We will begin with s-roy. The following is the original and my proposal for a different color, keeping it within the same blue lines:

And for the proposal:

You may either vote on this or propose an alternative to the color I choose. I picked a lighter one to appease the brightness censors.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Approve – Whaleyland

It looks okay. Atropos 23:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! --Tim4christ17 ^talk 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Approve. Alkari (?) 23:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been told that this color proposal clashes with that of Template:s-pre:

We need to find a color that appears lighter but not in contrast to s-pre. Any suggestions?

Here's one. 9BBDD9.

Little somber, but I think its okay. Atropos 00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This one's a little happier, I think. It's called 97CADD.

Here's the contrast with the previous example (up) and the "Titles in pretence" header (down); mine is in the middle...

...and here you can see it in a box:

Small difference, I know, but it does look a little less depressing to me (sorry Atropos!). Although it is still different from the s-prec header (I think mine has a slight tinge of green too), we can still enhance their difference by changing (i.e. lightening) the s-prec as well—it does look a little too vivid, in my opinion. What do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: That's the best one. Let's go with it. Atropos 02:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: I like this one too.—Whaleyland

Disapprove; rather too dark – I would prefer a paler and less obtrusive color. Alkari (?), 25 January 2008, 03:18 UTC

If more people could comment on this colour? We need a consensus so that the change can be made without objections. Waltham, The Duke of 16:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Personally have no objections, but one might contact the others at Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility and determine which if any colors editors which optical disadvantages have the least problem with. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't say that the general principle of colours is debatable in this sense... No two headers have the same titles, so there is no disambiguation problem; the colours help with finding a header easier, make it stand out from the rest, ease navigation. In any case, I shall make a contact; there may be more to this, right? Waltham, The Duke of 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The first proposed color (#ADDFFF) had some support, but was rejected as being too similar to that of s-pre. Is there necessarily a problem if two headers have similar (or even identical) colors? Alkari (?), 25 January 2008, 03:18 UTC

Well... The whole point is to be able to quickly locate the header in a large box, so the headers probably need to be adequately differentiated... This is for the whole project to discuss, and it is unlikely that this will take place now. I think we need to take care of the most important outstanding issues and come back to this later. After all, whatever problems exist regarding the colours of headers, they can be fixed easily, in contrast to many of our other problems. Waltham, The Duke of 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Color change for Template:s-reg

Alright, this is the second of three proposals to change some of the header colors. The following is the original color for s-reg and my proposal for a different color, keeping it within the same green lines:

And for the proposal:

You may either vote on this or propose an alternative to the color I choose. I picked a lighter one to appease the brightness censors.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Approve – Whaleyland

I inserted it into Henry IV of France and it still seemed fugly. I propose B3DAA9 instead

Example (taken from Henry IV):

I like it. Atropos 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Approve: I approve of this one.–Whaleyland

Looks good to me! --Tim4christ17 ^talk 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly fond of either of the above colors. As an alternative, I propose #CCFFCC:

Alkari (?) 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Disapprove of this alternative - too hard to see. If you didn't like the above colors, perhaps you could suggest one that isn't so pale as to be nearly invisible! --Tim4christ17 ^talk 07:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well; what about #BFEEBF? Alkari (?) 20:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: I like this one, it is slightly darker...but only slightly.—Whaleyland

I have yet another idea, which you can find in my full colour scheme for green headers (much) lower in this page. If you prefer that one, please vote there. Waltham, The Duke of 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Color change for Template:s-dip

VOTING CLOSED: Proposal Approved: The proposal to change the color of the header Template:s-dip to FACEFF has been approved and an admin has been notified of the approved proposal. The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes. Thank you to everyone who voted.

A noticeable problem

I have found the most depressingly beautiful succession box at Template:VeniceDogeSuccession but it completely flies in the face of everything this project has established as guidelines across wikipedia. I have put up a notice on its talk page that it must be merged with the current system, but I want to hear some discussion here too. The template uses artistic borders, images in box, and a unique template system. It is currently locked which provides me an opportunity to bring it to a discussion first. Give me some feedback, I don't really know what to do here. (Look at the Doge article on the mainpage or at any of the whatlinkshere links on the template page).
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 01:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Not only do I not thing this template looks very good, I think it is beyond a nonstandard succession box, it is nonstandard for what all Wikipedia tables (especially those in the article space) look like, and sticks out horribly. Atropos 03:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Atropos here - I think it looks beautiful! However, I agree that we should have standardization. And...that's all I've got for now. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 03:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I brought this succession box over from the Italian wiki because I hate all current succession boxes. They're all ugly to me. Why not have a little bit of variation instead of the same old boring gray box? Just my two cents... JHMM13^(Disc) 03:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In short, I do not see anything wrong with being unique. Sure it's not like the others, but why should all the others be exactly the same. They all have the same format of "Previous" "This one" "Next one", so really, there's not a lot different, except for the unique style of the box, which I think is very appropriate. Jared (t)  14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Because a standard appearance contributes to the professionalism of the encyclopedia. That's why all the different clean up templates are blue, all the more serious articlespace warnings (neutrality, OR, et cetera) are beige, and all the scheduled or current events (and so info may change as time progresses) templates are white. Why infoboxes all look basically the same, why images almost always have captions, why navigational templates are the same color unless someone thought "Oh golly it would be so fun to make this match the coloring of the title card", and why we have an entire Manuel of Style. Atropos 16:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are right to some extent, but this concept of "standardizing to professionalize" assumes that individual templates won't become professional looking through community consensus via discussion on each template's page. At the same time, I personally believe a well-designed succession box that is unique to a certain project can give more weight to an article and give a greater sense of professionalism in the same way that the Reichstag looks more professional to me than J. Edgar Hoover Building or the Boston City Hall, both of which have that standard, cement look for purposes of utility in design. I think perhaps the goal of this project should be to standardize boxes to a general concept...that there should be four basic pieces of information: previous, next, time frame, and title. Beyond that, there should be the ability to design a little bit...to make something that is unique to a project. Let me know what you think, and sorry for the bizarre architectural reference, but it's all I could think of. JHMM13^(Disc) 02:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Before I continue, it seems I need to work on my ability to articulate my opinion as, 4 times out of 5, I seem to be completely misunderstood. I'm sorry for the confusion, please bear with me. (This isn't a go at you, my arguments have just been woefully misunderstood in general. On this page even.)

You seem to be under the impression that my argument is that it is easier to maintain a professional look by becoming standard. This is absolutely not what I said, or at least what I meant. What I meant was that a standardized and consistent look adds to our professionalism, the fact that there is a single consistent appearance across all succession boxes in the project adds to our professionalism. Further, I believe that not maintaining a consistent look is beyond detrimental to our professionalism. Do you understand? Please tell me if I am still not clear.

Not only that, but this other succession box is also completely unlike every other table you are likely to see on an article. They all maintain the same thin black or gray line look and the squarish shape. They're just all consistent. This looks nothing like anything else on the rest of the page.

I have to characterize your analogy as entirely irrelevant. This is about internal consistency, not about which box is prettier. Were an odd corner of the Reichstag made in brutalist architecture, it would look horrible. That would be a fair anology. Atropos 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have understood your argument very well the first time around. You make a claim that using the same succession box adds to the look of professionalism and I wholly disagree. You seem to have missed my point about the fact that the aims of this project ignore the possibility of consensus being reached on different succession templates all on their own, just like different styles are adopted on different topics for articles. We have different quote box templates, for instance, because there is no one correct method to offset a quote. To pick one would limit the artistic creation of any single article, and yes it is something of an art. The concept of "consistency," as you put it, should only apply to the consistency across the entirety of a certain area. I have to also point to the many different types of navigation templates that create a certain type of artistic originality between the different topics. A separate succession box with the same basic information while staying within common sense (which will be the decision of individuals who work extensively within those specific projects) falls under this idea. Perhaps you didn't understand well what I meant with my analogy. All three buildings perform their intended function similarly, but a person sees a certain grandeur in the aesthetic qualities of the Reichstag. When a Bostonian sees City Hall, he says, "That's ugly and unoriginal." There is, in my opinion, no logical basis for jumping to the conclusion that consistency = professionalism. I could just as easily claim that consistency fails to foster a sense of interest between different topics and flies in the face of how our Wikipedia has fractured, however slightly, into many different projects that themselves support articles that fall within their scope. There is a subtlety here, however, that I mentioned above: there should be consistency across all user boxes so that they ultimately convey the same information, but beyond that, it takes more than an assumption of "consistency = professionalism," I believe, to justify the total aims of this project. JHMM13^(Disc) 19:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your logic is flawed. Wikipedia is not architecture where five hundred buildings of all different artistic tastes can possess the same function. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, like Britannica, where every article and every page possesses a certain consistency in style as well as consistency in content. And while Wikipedia may not yet have attained the status of "great work" as Brittanica or any other great encyclopedia, that is the ultimate goal. And regarding succession boxes specifically, artistry does not overpower consistency due to a second problem: pages that contain multiple titles (see Henry IV of France). If one series of titles, say the Kings of Navarre, are using the template currently being used in the Venice Succession series and then Henry IV comes up, who was also a King of France which uses the standard succession series, what happens? Do we use the Venice succession series (which, mind you, does not come with any option for multiple rows), do we use the standard succession series, or do we use both (thus returning to the awkward state we used to have succession boxes until this current project was created)? I believe, regardless of any other artistic exploits on the rest of wikipedia, this fact alone proves that we must keep succession boxes standardized.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Whaleyland (I assume you prefer that to KuatofKDY?) brings up my other argument that I didn't mention. The technical aspect overrides any aesthetic consideration, even if you have this strange notion that inconsistency will make it look more professional because its "interesting." And your analogy was not at all misunderstood; as I said, it is just irrelevant. It doesn't matter which is prettier, because these succession boxes must work in tandem, not stand as seperate artistic feats several thousand miles apart. Atropos 00:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have standardized Template:VeniceDogeSuccession due to inconsistency in regard to individuals with multiple titles. While no Venician doge may actually have multiple titles (which I find unlikely), the reason stands. Sorry for anyone who really liked the venice template, I liked it in some cases too.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us examine the issue from a different perspective, shall we? Standardisation is not more professional because it stifles creativity; it is more professional because it produces neutral, functional templates. Allow me to explain myself.

While the function of a template is something most people can relatively easily agree upon, its appearance is a completely different matter, and one where it is much harder to reach a consensus. Even from this very example you can see that, while Whaleyland has declared that he like the template (in its previous state) very much, Atropos believes that it did not look very good. (I myself have not seen it, so I can be somewhat more objective in this respect.) Now multiply this with the thousands of Wikipedians that exist and see what you end up with.

What I am saying is, creativity is good, but the artistic side of some things can produce more disagreement than is necessary and should thus be toned down. Templates with so distinctive an appearance are subject to anyone's taste, and this is why their functional side ought to take over, as it is the side pretty much everyone (always with exceptions, of course) has agreed on. Neutral templates provoke less opposition.

And to use your now infamous architectural analogy in a somewhat different way, JHMM13: while the Reichstag is considered by many people to be a most beautiful building, there are also many others who dislike it, maybe because they prefer neoclassical architecture or because they are against excessive decoration; on the other hand, most people seem to agree that Boston City Hall is indeed rather ugly, but they also accept that it is of utilitarian character, and it is useful as such. What matters in Wikipedia is consensus, and if some artistic standards must be sacrificed in order to enable a compromise, so be it.

All this boils down to one thing: for the casual reader, a good encyclopaedia is supposed to be a boring encyclopaedia with exciting articles. And in order to achieve the latter, we might have to endure the former. Waltham, The Duke of 07:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines subpage updated

Ladies and gentlemen, honourable members of this noble WikiProject, it has been done.

The /Guidelines page, one of the most important pages of SBS, has undergone a complete rewrite, and the draft that has been developed over the course of more than three months by myself and Whaleyland has been copy-pasted from User:The Duke of Waltham/SBS to its present location. Please read the page and comment here (not in its own talk page), so that we can have an immediate picture of its impact, as well as of any potential problems it might have.

There are very few guidelines that have not yet reached their final state; these will be submitted for discussion in due course. We thank all who have assisted in the process of writing this page and we sincerely hope that it shall help both this project and the whole succession box system improve. Waltham, The Duke of 09:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, allow me to express my gratitude toward those who've put a great deal of time and effort into this initiative! I regret that a lack of time precludes my reading the new page in full, but I promise to do so as soon as my schedule permits.

I would, however, like to point out one minor issue I've noticed: very nearly every instance of what should be an en-dash (–) in the examples on the page is actually an em-dash (—). Unless the em-dash is now being favored for succession-box purposes, perhaps the em-dashes could be changed to en-dashes. Alkari (?) 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As is stated in Years and Dates vi.a, en-dashes are indeed preferred. From a quick search (and with full knowledge of the careful inspections that have been performed on the page), I can assure you that all en-dashes are exactly where they are supposed to. I do not understand whence this confusion has arisen, but I believe there is no problem of this kind in the /Guidelines page at the moment.

In any case, I thank you for your concern and I am eager to hear your opinion when you have time to review said page. Waltham, The Duke of 09:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a disambiguation for n- and m- dash within the years and dates fields to better notice their differences in case users do end up using them by accident. It is possible that I used some mdashes because my computers quick keys were acting up a few weeks back. I tried to correct any problems before I printed, though. Alright, problem abated. Cheers!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

S-rel

Two thoughts on this. First, I don't see a generic "Protestant" or "Christian" parameter, something like that could be useful as there are countless individual denominations/divisions of Christianity, not to mention non-denominational churches/movements (perhaps a customizable parameter?). Also a guideline on whether/if/what titles should be included for non-hierarchal, or congregational, denominations - particularly for those where the majority of the positions which deal with multiple churches may have primarily administrative, not ministerial roles (e.g. a District Superintendent rather than a Bishop) - could be useful. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of titles that could be covered under s-rel and that option should always be available but currently nearly all the header templates are locked meaning that we need to practically make a proposal for every addition. Putting something simple like a denomination would probably be easy without discussion. We will not allow for an open parameter because of the problems relating to template standardization within open header parameters. Regarding guidelines, we perhaps should add something regarding the instances you mention, but overall, the rules are that if the title is successive, then it is eligible for a succession box.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of succession boxes for more then just people?

This is currently also being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car Racing. I've noticed the succession boxes used on various drivers pages is a very nice and clean design that is nicely centered. However at the moment, individual race reports have a succession box based on the Template:Sportscar Race Report, which is itself based on the Template:F1 race report template. As you can notice in a page such as 2007 Northeast Grand Prix, the box is uneven because the title of the before and after race throws everything off.

Therefore I think it would be nice if the nice Succession boxes here could be adapted for use to things such as race reports, so that one could move through an entire season of races in succession, or even to go from year to year for the same race. Thoughts? The359 19:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to it in just a bit. Thanks for the heads up.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I converted both of those templates to the standard-ish style. Since they are not technically under our jurisdiction nor work with our formatting styles, I did the best I could to make then sync properly.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you much for the work, I'm sure both the Sportscar and F1 projects will fiddle with them a bit, but they certainly seem to work at the moment. Much appreciated. The359 23:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In any case, there are many succession boxes about non-humans (that sounded funny), like states, championships, subway lines, etc. Maybe it would be prudent to start working on those some time in the future, after we have finished with the boxes with people of course. Waltham, The Duke of 10:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Removal of dates in parliament headers

VOTING CLOSED: Proposal APPROVED: The proposal to remove dates from British parliaments' headers has passed with a unanimous vote from the current active members. The change has already been implemented by an administrator. The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes. Thank you to all who voted.
Waltham, The Duke of 12:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yellow color is awful

The yellow color is awful. Who chose it to be a mustard yellow? Guroadrunner 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you are referring to the "Business positions" (s-bus) header? Let's have a look at it...

Yes, it is not very pretty. But we are running out of shades. Any ideas? Waltham, The Duke of 07:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest another shade of green or purple? As we already seem to have 5 shades of yellow. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yellow color on Template:F1_race_report is awful

I have reverted the change to the template box. I have done this because

1. This change was not discussed with the F1 WikiProject
2. It appears WPSBS was created without discussion with the individual WikiProjects affected
3. I have not seen anything in the WP:SBS page that suggests this is official Wikipedia policy or an accepted standard in the community.

If this had been discussed, I would not have reverted. However, this now raises questions about the positives and negatives relating to this.

For further discussion, please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Template:F1_race_report

Guroadrunner 06:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do excuse me for sounding a little stern, Guroadrunner, but it looks like you are saying that we have no authority. I can assure you that there is little policy in Wikipedia regulating succession boxes, and thus we are here to fill in this hole. Furthermore, WikiProjects are work groups and do not need much of a foundation in Wikipedia policy for their existence; the framework for WikiProjects is sceletal and basically consists of the definition found here, as well as some general guidelines in the WikiProject Council. You are coming from a WikiProject, you were supposed to know that.

1) I understand you are trying to form regulations, however there needs broader discussion and communication with the individual WikiProjects before changes are implemented. I also would say at this point, the authority is malleable, not set in policy. /GuRr

2) I am coming from a WikiProject, but working off of little-known bureaucratic texts isn't going to work. What I know from the WikiProjects I am involved in is that we have strong preference to discuss things among each other before making large changes. /GuRr

I do realise that we must discuss any changes to templates created and heavily used by specific WikiProjects with those groups,

This did not happen in this case, nor other cases. If this had been discussed, this would not have raised my ire. However, now it has so it makes me question everything. Regarding negating the weight of SBS members, that's not the point. Discussions need to happen is the point. /GuRr

but this does most certainly not negate our knowledge and experience as far as succession boxes are concerned, nor does it remove any weight from SBS's members' opinions on such matters. And I would be greatly surprised to hear that we actually needed any kind of permission or discussion in order to form as a WikiProject; our focus is a technical one and thus does not overlap with any topical WikiProject any more than the individual succession boxes are concerned.

It affects the appearance of boxes that come under selected WikiProjects. Also, I did not mean to indicate the project needed permission to be created. However, the weight of SBS' members should not override others because the SBS has decided, without discussion, how things should look. / GuRr

We shall of course discuss template changes with the projects affected, something in which we might, perhaps, have been lacking (and we apologise for this), and your revert might have been justified on the grounds of your first point; your other two points, however, are grasping at straws.

yes and no /GuRr

(Oh, and it might be better if you used proper links for pages within Wikipedia. They are much easier to create, modify, and use.)

Technicality point based on assumption of level of Wikipedia coding experience. /GuRr

I do hope we can resolve this issue peacefully and come up with a mutually acceptable solution. Waltham, The Duke of 07:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Guroadrunner 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that all of this stems from the discussion above where I discussed the possibility of using Succession boxes on a sports car template. I made mention that the template was based on the one used in the F1 project. Although the editing of the sports car template was helpful as a starting point, it was not actually discussed before being performed.

The F1 template on the other hand was never even suggested by me and modified apparently because I brought up its existance. I was acting only for the Sports Car Racing project and not for the F1 project when I initially asked the question of the possibility of using succession boxes. I agree with GURoadrunner that some discussion should have come first, even for the template I was actually requesting. The359 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

GURoadrunner's complaint in a nutshell

Here is what I see: A small group of people decided to standardize the boxes -- no problem here -- but concensus on how the boxes look, that the changes are coming, how the changes are implemented - that was not taken. Instead to me it appears a small group decided how things should be in accordance to what they like and are now bulldozing their way through various templates without there being a well-discussed Wikipedia policy.

I see a strong benefit to moving the boxes up from HTML. I see less of a point with color coding or the other changes considered. Combine these visual changes with the lack of concensus and this is an issue to me.

That is what I do not like - that is all.

//

Proposal: New Header for Justices titled Template:s-jud

This discussion, having opened on 30 July 2007, closed on March 1 2008 with a vote tally of 3 in favour, 1 against, and 0 neutral; failing to gather the needed support in seven months, it has failed due to a lack of participation. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. The proposal can be re-submitted whenever there is sufficient interest for its revival. Waltham, The Duke of 15:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Full colour scheme for blue headers

This discussion, having opened on 31 July 2007, closed on March 1 2008 with a vote tally of 2 in favour, 1 against, and 0 neutral for its first components, 2 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral for its second component, and 3 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral for its third component; failing to gather the needed support in seven months, it has failed due to a lack of participation. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. The proposal can be re-submitted whenever there is sufficient interest for its revival. Waltham, The Duke of 15:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Full colour scheme for green headers

This discussion, having opened on 31 July 2007, closed on March 1 2008 with a vote tally of 2 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral for each of its two components; failing to gather the needed support in seven months, it has failed due to a lack of participation. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. The proposal can be re-submitted whenever there is sufficient interest for its revival. Waltham, The Duke of 15:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Few questions

I came across the guidelines page and changed the succession box on Albert II, Prince of Monaco to look like this as I believed this to be the correct form.

1. This was reverted with the user saying that they are all Monegasque titles, so the royalty header is to be placed on the top, Is this correct.
2. Is the template s-roy used in succession boxes for any royal person as I don't see why Yikuang, Prince Qing would need it.
3. Is the template s-roy used in addition to the Regnal titles (s-reg) one like at Paul of Greece.
4. For pretenders is the template s-roy used in addition to the Titles in pretence (s-pre) one like at Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia.

Thanks.dwc lr 13:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Officially, none of those conditions warrant s-roy. S-roy should only be used in conditions such as a queen consort or some job that is given to royalty but does not fit under any other header. Following all rules of succession boxes, it still must be a successive title, but the major use of the template is to list individuals in a line of succession that do not have any peerage, noble, or other successive titles. According to official project policy, no template should ever have two or more headers above the same title, including royalty headers. That includes regnal titles, pretenders, and office titles. All three situations you noted should not be and I will correct them promptly. A couple users, those who created teh template originally, persisted for quite a while in adding them to everything they deemed royal, thus making such redundant templates. Please, if you see those and are editing the templates, remove the s-roy unless that is the only header toping the title. Thank you for your questions and concern.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS I updated the Monaco page to the proper setting.

Thanks for your response and clarifying things for me.dwc lr 22:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Archives reorganised

I know that I should have posted this earlier, but here is how it goes: I have moved the two archives (with help from an administrator) from their previous locations to /Archive 1 and /Archive 2. The aforementioned administrator (Stemonitis) has also kindly replaced the previous archive box with an automated one, which will need no maintenance in the future as long as the archives are saved in pages whose titles follow the same convention ("Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive [Number]). The only downside seems to be the lack of the dates in the box, but it seems to be a minor one (especially since we only have two archives at the moment).

I may add small lead sections in the archive pages some time in the future, giving the type and date range of the messages they contain. On another point, I am already considering a third archive page, although it might be a little too early. Waltham, The Duke of 07:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about redistricting

One item that occasionally causes some confusion with U.S. Congressional succession boxes (and perhaps with some other offices as well) is when district boundaries are redrawn in such a way that there is little or no geographic continuity. For the most recent example I've come across, see J. Bob Traxler and the edit history and this exchange. Traxler represented the 8th district in Michigan until 1993, when he retired. As a result of redistricting following the 1990 census, most of the area that was formerly the 8th district became part of a redrawn 5th district. Until 1993, Bob Carr had represented the 6th district. In 1992 he was elected from the redrawn 8th district, while James A. Barcia was elected from the redrawn 5th district.

In this case, an editor who happens to have personal connections with Traxler, read the article to him. He objected to it stating that he was succeeded by Carr and was, according to that editor, adamant that he was succeeded by Barcia. It is certainly understandable. For the people of Bay City and the surrounding area, after Traxler retired, they were next represented by Barcia.

Does anyone have any ideas about how to present cases like this where a geographic discontinuity is overlaid by an arbitrary continuity of office? older ≠ wiser 15:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This happens quite frequently. I've seen others get in this disagreement and the resolution has always been that in succession boxes and infoboxes, we essentially ignore the geographic changes. Carr succeeded Traxler in the 8th district. The footnote currently in the J. Bob Traxler is an OK way to convey that information, however often the earlier geographical area becomes part of two or three different districts after redistricting. Conveying all that information in a box might get too complicated.--Appraiser 15:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not that familiar with these new s-series of templates. Would it be possible to have something like {{s-ref}}, but for notes instead of references? I like how s-ref places the note better than how I had it before on the Traxler article, but I don't like that it says "References" when it is only an explanatory note. older ≠ wiser 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I will add the word note to the header for s-ref. I have noticed the increasing use of this template for non-references and think it is alright to add that option. Now it will say "Notes & References."
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(After every decision has been taken and every change has been irrevocably made:)

I approve this measure. You may now proceed. Waltham, The Duke of 09:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Exceptions to standardization?

My guess is that there are some plausible and well-informed reasons for those cases in which standardization is not the best choice.

My question becomes relevant in that context: Will someone please give me one example in which an understandable interest in standardization was not sufficient to overcome the reasons for a specific non-standard succession box? One would hope that there would have been more than one illustrative example ...? --Ooperhoofd 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your question to be, 'Are there examples where the standard succession box is not the best choice.' There is a long-standing disagreement about which article should be linked to from U.S. representative's boxes (discussion here: Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox) . For example, should New Hampshire representatives' boxes link to United States Congressional Delegations from New Hampshire or List of United States Representatives from New Hampshire? I happen to like the former, since all of these articles for all of the states are fully populated. Another editor very much would like it to be the latter, expecting the articles to become populated once many articles link to them. If the Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox gets changed, I was contemplating creating an alternate standard for some states, which admittedly wouldn't be ideal.--Appraiser 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Standardization of succession boxes is something we try to do to fit all needs. Quite often we find exceptions to the rule, but when that occurs, we either bring it up here to discuss, or find some easy and manageable solution that attempts to correct it. Personally, I have run across numerous templates that are not in this series and cannot easily be corrected to work with it. In those cases, I try to convert everything I can in the code and leave or customize the rest to work with the format established. This was everything that has been standardized is standardized, leaving only the code that we currently have no standards for. As you can tell from the templates page, there are many templates in this series and many that are not. Some of the members including myself are attempting to remove as many of the older (and often very complex) templates to this simpler format. However, some templates such as those for the Canadian parliament are not even undergoing review currently until the current problems are resolved due to their advanced codings.

I hope this somewhat answers your question. Was there anything specific you were wondering about?
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I must add that I have myself been removing such templates for quite some time, and have adopted a specific format for both Representatives and Senators, samples of which one can find in the succession boxes for the United States Presidents. My versions look essentially the same as the old ones, with some redundant text having been removed. Link modifications can be performed on these newer, simplified templates much easier, as editing a template is a very different thing indeed from simply editing pages. Waltham, The Duke of 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut me some slack here, please: I'm the one who initially asked about exceptions to standardization, and now I'm going to try to sketch a bit of the rationale behind that query. In a way, I hesitated to post any question in the first place for fear of arousing anyone's too eager interest -- but now I have no choice but to deal with any unanticipated consequences.

My concern is focused on pre-Meji Japanese history. I'm persuaded that the succession boxes for Emperors of Japan and Japanese era names are fine the way they are -- for now; but they could become better, more useful, more focused ....

In January 2008, I'd like to begin to work with others in a process of possibly improving the format somewhat, but I'm too wrapped up in another on-going project to take time to do more than mull it over for the next few months. I tend to do things slowly; and hence my beginning now with a rather open-ended question ....

For today, I'm unalterably convinced that the nature of the pre-Meiji Japanese monarchy requires that its succession boxes be handled in a slightly different way than the evolving Wikipedia standards for other sovereigns, but I don't know whether my current views are necessarily the best foundation for going forward. A stubborn certainty today may become flexible in the face of a compelling argument which changes my mind. What I want to do in the next few months is to try to figure out a way to walk with more assurance along a fine line -- to think through the issues a little better. When the gestalt is a little bit better refined, I plan to consult with others who are similarly interested, as for example in the case of the following corollaries:

• en:Japanese era names or en:nengō
• de:Wikipedia:Liste der Nengō
• fr:Wikipédia:Ères du japon
• nl:Wikipedia:Japanse jaartelling ... etc.

Please understand: For right now, I'll personally resist any precipitous changes -- even to the point of engaging in an impossible edit war, if necessary. But surely it doesn't have to come to that...? My problem here is that I don't know how to modulate my prose so that it comes across as firm, direct, reasonable -- but not too overly assertive so that my words are perceived as aggressive, alarming, confrontational. Do you see my point?

This is, for better or worse, naught but a beginning; and now I've raised questions.

Simple, ordinary courtesy now requires me to explain a little bit of what I was thinking. I hope this comes across as saying enough without saying too much. --Ooperhoofd 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As an Honourable Memeber (sic) of Sarcasm Society, I am tempted to attempt to do anything but cut you some slack and, noting that you have come here practically looking for examples to support your point and for advise on how to better phrase your suggestions, simply refer you to the Association of Members' Advocates.

But I am kinder than that. Even though you seem to be demonstrating possessive tendencies over a series of articles, something that if frowned upon in Wikipedia (although not necessarily in SBS, hehe).

Anyway, Ooperhoofd, there are some priorities here. The first and foremost thing that must be considered when editing succession boxes is to standardise the boxes along each particular succession chain. Standardising succession chains themselves comes after that (but not far away). The templates should at any event be the same in every chain, namely the succession templates family documented in Template:S-start, and only a few details are supposed to change from chain to chain (note that some additional parameters may be added to the templates as new special and sufficiently widespread elements are found).

Now, what I want you to do is kindly tell me what exactly the requirements of Japanese Emperor succession boxes are (as well as the other ones you have in mind), and we can eventually (and without any hurry) reach a mutually acceptable solution that will both conform to the guidelines (which are not set in stone anyway, and have yet to specifically take any oriental titles into account) and fulfil the needs of the succession chains in question. And when we do find that solution we may even leave the specific chains for you to manage at a later time. They are pretty long, and we have enough on our plates already, so there is no particular reason to rush.

What say you? Waltham, The Duke of 13:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for a graceful blend of wit, wisdom and whimsy. The jolly tone of your prose is a delightful and welcome surprise.

To better understand what will need to remain, for now, a series of unasked questions, please consider the following:

• Emperors of Japan: The pre-Meiji Japanese emperors often abdicated in favor of an infant or child, so that what is called cloistered rule becomes an essential feature of a given time period. This pattern was mirrored during the Kamakura shogunate and the Ashikaga shogunate, when the de-facto military governments were ostensibly headed by a generalissimo shogun. There were times when the shogun was, in fact, a strong man -- and in other periods, the shogun would have been naught but a figurehead with real power exercised by others. The complex politics of Japanese history suggest that some modification to the current succession boxes would be appropriate, but this is no simple matter. As I tried to explain above, I'm still in the process of parsing my own thinking about what needs to be done; and I'm not yet at the point of suggesting a tentative hypothesis about what to do or how to proceed.
• List of Emperors of Japan: The traditional order of succession was re-evaluated in the Meiji period. After 1870, imperial scholars determined that during what is called the Nanboku-chō period, some of the emperors who had long been accepted as sovereigns were to be retroactively re-classified as pretenders; and those who had been understood to have been naught but unlucky or misguided members of the kuge were re-classified as true emperors.

In the context of just these two difficult constructs, can you begin to see how issues like these -- and others -- would complicate any process of thinking through the alternatives which are implicit in any modification of imperial succession boxes?

As it happens, I myself am not especially interested in the Japanese imperial chronology. Rather, I'm only examining this subject because of its inextricable relationship to Japanese era names or nengō ... which I suspect becomes much more than you really want to know at this point.

In summary, my initial question here on this talk page was in fact straight-forward. I was trying to figure out how to begin the process of thinking about succession boxes in a more organized way. I am not ready to tackle the range of problems which may adhere. I don't have an adequate gestalt. This is just a matter of sticking a toe in the water, so to speak.

Expressed differently, I'm not ready to put as-yet-inchoate thoughts into the form of more specific questions -- not today or tomorrow or next month .... But maybe by the time 2008 rolls around, my appreciation of this topic will have matured. Do you better understand? Or does this approach to a problem still seem too vague?

In this instance, I'm persuaded that straightforward ≠ simple.--Ooperhoofd 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All right... More than two months have elapsed, and 2008 is approaching menacingly... And I have to present... Nothing.

As much as it pains me to write these words (especially after your kind comments; few people appreciate stylish meanness nowadays), I am at a total loss in regards to how to manage this trickiest of situations. Granted, I have not studied the matter thoroughly, due to the combination of two lacks: that of time, and that of interest (I mostly edit Britain-related articles). But still, I most definitely did not except at the onset that I could procure no solutions to the problem even after all this time, and despite the fact that this will deal a major blow to my reputation and good standing in Wikipedia's society.

Basically, I can think of no solutions other than creating new template parameters to manage some of the more complex successions, or applying the old, classic recipes of "pretender" headers and "Notes" fields. Although the latter is actually rather useful and can be used for all sorts of clarifications (template s-ref); its correct usage can help considerably.

I hope that I can be of more use in a later stage of this reviewing process. Sorry for delaying so much an answer like this. Waltham, The Duke of 11:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dashing dates

The Years and dates guideline here states:

A space should be added on either side of the n-dash for better readability.

This seems to be in conflict with WP:DASH, which states:

Spacing: All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight, the New Zealand – South Africa grand final, 3 July 1888 – 18 August 1940).

— — emphasis added

So, before I "fix" more succession boxes, I would like some clarification. Thanks. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the guidelines are consistent. 3 July 1888 – 18 August 1940. In this range of dates, spaces are present in each item.--Appraiser 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• But what of a date like 1888 — 1940? WP:DASH says no space, WP:SBS says space. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• If I were you, I wouldn't be able to sleep until I had found the month and the day—but I am a little OCD--Appraiser 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• And I do my best at that, but that is not the issue here. When I "fix" a set of dates per WP:DASH and someone reverts per WP:SBS, I'm not letting it get into an edit war. I stop, check the guidelines and try to see where the base problem is. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Three points, my friends, from the person who has more or less written the SBS guidelines page:

1. The guideline mostly refers to proper text—succession boxes are not text.
2. Here in SBS we aim for consistency; if it is better for a category of dates to be granted spaces, then we should probably give spaces to the rest of them if there is no actual reason for the contrary.
3. In addition, spaces between the dates and the years do improve readability, especially when whole dates are included, something which has been considered enough ground for af deviation from the guideline even if the other points are overlooked.

In other words: if it is succession box, one can insert spaces between the dates and their dashes per SBS, as these the purpose of these guidelines is to apply to succession boxes. Everywhere else the standard rules apply.

Any objections? Waltham, The Duke of 09:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Would it be too much to ask who has reverted your edit, Gadget850? I may know the person. PS2: Is any one of you fellows interested in joining SBS? We have been pretty understaffed lately. Waltham, The Duke of

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read over the whole dialog again, and I think we have crossed somewhere.

Spacing: All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced.

Thus, per MOS:DASH, a years only date would be formatted as 1888—1940; per SBS, this would be formatted as 1888 — 1940; this is the section that is in conflict. DASH and SBS are in agreement to use spaces with a full date. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but you are using the wrong dash (namely, an em-dash). Per MOS:DASH, a years only date would actually be formatted as 1888–1940, and per SBS this would be formatted as 1888 – 1940. This is indeed the only source of conflict here. Personally, I believe there should be no conflict there; it is a rather petty issue, and I thought my points above were enough to excuse this small deviation.

Dash it all— you go me on that one. A bit of a keyboard slip. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And were have our paths crossed, I wonder? I admit that I have difficulty keeping names in my memory, more so Wikipedia usernames. (One that I cannot possibly forget, though, is Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me. I find it extremely funny.) Waltham, The Duke of 13:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Other than here, I can't recall crossing any articles with you. Well, I'm going to leave this be. I will use the SBS guideline on this and get back to editing. You might want to add a note or something if this comes up again. Cheers!

I think the guideline is in place to allow consistency between the dates so they always appear the same, especially when one may come and add the full date from an incomplete date. I have been changing dates to the current format for that very reason. However, I was not aware that there was a policy/project in charge of monitoring dashes, but nothing surprises me on wikipedia anymore.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)