Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
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)
Proposal Boxes Video
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)
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 wantbefore4=andafter4=; however I woukd not opposebefore5=andafter5=, 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: iswith1a synonym ofwith, or an extra? The un-numberedwithis 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) o (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)
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) o (contribs) 04:43, 27 November 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)
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)
Whydosomeeditorsappeartohaveagreatdislikeofwhitespacewhencreatingsuccessionboxes
OK, that was hard to read ... so here it is, with whitespace
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.
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) o (contribs) 18:37, 17 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)
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.
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) o (contribs) 13:34, 5 December 2010 (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) o (contribs) 17:38, 6 December 2010 (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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Arbitrary break
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but here's my tuppenceworth.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- Test all the colours for contrast, and where there is a problem, change them to a shade which offers higher contrast.
- Keep all the existing colours, but use them only the outer columns, as suggested above by Dodoïste
- 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
Any of these approaches will resolve the problems faced by visually impaired editors, whilst maintaining the benefits for those without visual impairment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) o (contribs) 13:49, 9 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)
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)
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)
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)
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, --? MIESIANIACAL 03:14, 30 December 2010 (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)
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:
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)
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)
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 deckertalk to me 06:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 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)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
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)
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)
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)
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)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon