Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 5 December 2014

Template:Succession box is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Current syntax

{{start box}}
{{succession box |
  before=— |
  title=] |
  years=1940–1945 |
  after=]
}}
{{succession box |
  before=] |
  title=] |
  years=1940–1955 |
  after=]
}}
...
{{end box}}

For when the office's titles changes mid-way through tenure

{{succession box |
  before=] |
  title=]'''<br />''Later '''Sec. State Work and Pensions'' |
  years=1998&ndash;2002 |
  after=]
}}

Looks like this (with start and end):

For when the office's titles changes on hand-over

{{succession box |
  before=]'''<br /><small>''Sec. State Transport, Local<br/>Government and the Regions'''''</small> |
  title=] |
  years=2002&ndash; |
  after=Current Incumbent
}}

Looks like this (with start and end):

or

{{succession box |
  before=] |
  title=] |
  years=1995–1997 |
  after=]'''<br /><small>''Sec. State Culture, Media and Sport'''''</small>
}}

Looks like this (with start and end):

Blank for easy copying

{{start box}}
{{succession box |
  before=  |
  title=  |
  years= – |
  after= 
}}
{{end box}}

Special usage cases

Splitting/merging of two titles

James has created Template:Succession box two to one also. Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

... and Template:Succession box one to two. James F. (talk) 22:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Splitting/merging of three titles

Template:Succession box three to one. We may never need it again after Neville Chamberlain...--Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

... and Template:Succession box one to three. James F. (talk) 02:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll put it on William Pitt the Younger and Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth. Timrollpickering 11:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Multiple title occupancy

Template:Succession box one to one, for when two offices pass from one person through another to one person. Mackensen (talk) 19:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC). Now Template:Succession box two to two. James F. (talk) 03:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

... and Template:Succession box one by three to one - no, I'm not happy with the name, either. Suggestions, please? James F. (talk) 03:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

... and Template:Succession box three to three. Mackensen (talk) 17:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah. A much better name. I'll delete mine. Perhaps we should move "one to one" to "two to two"? James F. (talk) 03:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, Emsworth created Template:Succession box one by three to two and Template:Succession box two by three to one. Not to be outdone, I just created Template:Succession box three by four to two. Should you feel daring, it's in use at Arthur James Balfour! Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Multiple title occupancy ending and starting at the same time

Anyone feel brave enough to do a succession box for multiple positions with different combinations inherited and passed on? Winston Churchill is particularly bad for this. Timrollpickering 19:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I can come up with a name for such a beast, I'll do it. Mackensen (talk) 20:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. "Succession box three to three" has 3 people -> one person -> 3 people, but with differing timings. Would "Succession box two to two at once" &c. be appropriate for when the gaining and losing is all at once?

James F. (talk) 03:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What's the problem with adding a parameter span (or rightspan - leftspan, prevspan - nextspan so something like that) which would convert to html rowspan=""? That would cover all possible cases, any-to-any. --Gene s 11:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Err, well, to start with, for-loops don't work in templates, so referencing {{{titlen}}} and {{{years}}} would be just a little tricky. Otherwise, indeed, that would be a good idea.

James F. (talk) 00:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with loops. Here is an example

In the rowspan="X" X can be made into a template parameter. rowspan="" is equivalent to rowspan="1", so if the parameter is missing, the table would work as expected. --Gene s 08:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Really? Is that how tables work? Gosh, I never knew that, even though I've been using them since HTML 3.2.

My point, clearly made above, is nothing to do with the spacing of the columns to the sides, but relates instead to their content, and, specifically, that of the one in the middle, which is missing from your demonstration. Observe:

... or, for a very slightly more complicated example:

... or even, given Tim's example below:

Whence do you expect MediaWiki to come up with the magic variable names, exactly? How do you intend for the template to know not to look for title8, excepting that it loops over titles 1, 2, and so on up to the limiting total rowspan as given it in its parameters - a for loop, of sorts?

Also, blank attributes are horrendously bad form, not to mention XHTML violations.

By your tone and repetitiveness of point to the extend of seeming to fail to read those words which I write, it would seem evident that you think that I'm some rambling blithering idiot who is far too stupid to understand your most wonderful solutions; I hope that this, at least in part, has lain any such impression somewhat to rest.

James F. (talk) 09:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, now you know. Your sarcasm is wasted. --Gene s 10:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am suggessting a different thing. There is no need for magic variable names and loops. Five templates similar to succession_box will be necessary to cover any number of arbitrary cases. There will be a need for left-title-right template, -title-right, left-title-, left--right, and -title-, each cell with rowspan parameters, no more than 3 per template. Each row is a separate tempate, evaluated separately, the variabls do not intersect between rows. The example above would go like

I don't know if it's possible to assign a default static value to a template variable. If it's possible, there will be no violation.

No, I honestly don't think you are a (quote) rambling blithering idiot. Seriously. I think you have a problem with temper and patience, but that's all. Instead of accusing me, and instead of typing long sample tables, just spend a couple of minutes thinking over the proposal. So far you have not said anything which would make me believe it would not work. The only thing of concern is the need for empty attributes.

As for inserting my comments between sections of yours, please provide a link to an appropriate policy. If there is such a policy, I will comply. Otherwise I will do as I am used to do. --Gene s 10:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aha, I now see what you're doing, and I'll go and implement it now. Looks interesting. Pity that it took so long for us to get here. :-)

No, sadly you can't assign default values to variables (it would be useful, I agree).

Re: comments: to quote Raul (from the semi-policy page, where he is quoted as an illustration of exactly what I am saying), who is perhaps rather more hardline than I am, but gets the point across, "not all of Misplaced Pages's rules are written down. You may be banned for violating unwritten, community standards". This is one of them. Misplaced Pages policy is not prescriptivist, as you seem to suggest it should be, but rather guides people, along with general community actions. Indeed, general unwritten behavioural patterns play a more significant part that actual written rules in a huge amount of what we do on Misplaced Pages. In this particular case, this interspersing of comments is precisely one of these things. It was rather odd for me to adjust at first, as I was far more used to the interspersed commenting as practiced on USENET of old, but I have come to adopt it as mine own, and I would hope that you would do the same.

James F. (talk) 11:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done:

{{Office sequence start box}}

{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Alice }}

{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Holder of the Key | years=2001–2004 }}

{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Bob }}

{{End box}}

... gives:

{{Office sequence start box}}
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Alice }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Holder of the Key | years=2001–2004 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Bob }}
{{End box}}

... and:

{{Office sequence start box}}

{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Andrew }}

{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title A | years=1 }}

{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Alice }}

|-

{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title B | years=2 }}

{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Brenda }}

|-

{{Office sequence person | rows=3 | person=Bob }}

{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title C | years=3 }}

|-

{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title D | years=4 }}

{{Office sequence person | rows=5 | person=Caitlin }}

|-

{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title E | years=5 }}

|-

{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Charlie }}

{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title F | years=6 }}

|-

{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title G | years=7 }}

|-

{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=David }}

{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title H | years=8 }}

{{End box}}

... gives:

{{Office sequence start box}}
{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Andrew }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title A | years=1 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Alice }}
|-
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title B | years=2 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Brenda }}
|-
{{Office sequence person | rows=3 | person=Bob }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title C | years=3 }}
|-
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title D | years=4 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=5 | person=Caitlin }}
|-
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title E | years=5 }}
|-
{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Charlie }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title F | years=6 }}
|-
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title G | years=7 }}
|-
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=David }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title H | years=8 }}
{{End box}}

Obviously this is lots more flexible, but it's not quite as, well, easy to use as the current one. Thoughts?

11:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I object to the (a) very long template name (why not just sequence_... or seq_... ?) and (b) the hard-coded word office in the title. The template can be useful for royalty too. Using office to describe the position of King of Bohemia is kind of odd. {{seq_start|title=some title here}} would be better. --Gene s 13:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You "object"? ;-)

Again, {{sofixit}}. :-)

James F. (talk) 20:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's 2 + 3 + 2 +1 to 1 + 2 + 5 on Stanley Baldwin - would that be to unweildy? Timrollpickering 11:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In a word, umm, yes, I rather think so. Sorry.

James F. (talk) 09:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still think that this is better than having lots of differnt n to m templates. I never liked that we had loads off differnt templates. I personally think that is better to have few but flexible templates. But I don't like the names of the templates or that "office" is hard-coded, but this hasn't anything to do with the fudamental design. Jeltz 16:32, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

This system means that we're practically coding each individual cell at times. I don't have any trouble using our current group of templates, and they're generally faster. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shared titles

How does one deal with the case of a shared office? Like Marcus Aurelius for exemple. Especially since their reigns end at differnt times. Can you alreayd do this with this template or is it something that needs to be added? Jeltz 13:00, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

That would not be a problem with the proposed design. It would be "office=Emperor<br />with ]". --Gene s 14:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I should think before I ask. But this Roman Emperor template should be replaced. I don't think that we should have many different succession templates.Jeltz talk 15:01, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

But there is one problem and that is that you generally would want the title of the co-ruler not to be bolded which would create pretty ugly wikicode. Not that it matters much since I don't think that this will be used very often. But maybe it would be nicer if a field for this was added in the template. The question is if it's important enough. "office=Emperor<br />'''with ]'''&nbsp;" Jeltz talk 15:11, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

This template produces invalid HTML result

The template uses "id=toc" to assign style information to elements. That's incorrect approach. According to HTML specification, the id attribute must be unique for a given document (page). It must not appear more than once on the page. The template produces a copy of id=toc for every row. That should be fixed. The style information should be assigned through class="some_class_name" instead of id="toc".

See http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#adef-id

id = name 
   This attribute assigns a name to an element. This name must be unique in a document.

--Gene s 08:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed; it took all of 5 seconds.

James F. (talk) 13:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's because it was not a good fix :-P

You assign the class to every row, when a clean solution would only asign the class to the table itself {{start box}} :-)

--Gene s 13:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oy veh. {{sofixit}}.

James F. (talk) 13:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was done before you posted your comment :-) --Gene s

Moved from Template talk:Succession

moved here, as it's more appropriate James F. (talk) 13:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I update the table with a prettier version (and appropriately update Template:preceded and Template:succeeded too, in place of prev/next in this example)?

--Gene s 13:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given that I suggested switching a fortnight ago, I'm happy with changing the box itself, but I don't think it looks so good with the differently-coloured "Preceded by:" and "Succeeded by:" bits...

James F. (talk) 13:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, also, I don't think it works too well on two lines, because it makes the spacing that bit larger...

James F. (talk) 13:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it copies the style of various geography templates. It has the same color and spacing as, for example, the Template:G8 or Template:Europe. --Gene s 14:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That it may be, but these are not set boxes like the ones you mentioned, but instead succession boxes, which, everywhere, seem to use the formatting as shown on Tony Blair, Winston Churchill, and several hundred other articles on British politicians...

James F. (talk) 17:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Everywhere" is a big stretch. As far as I can see, the majority of articles still uses the plain HTML table for succession boxes, or no succession at all. The succession box on Winston_Churchill page looks unreasonably verbose with "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" in every row.

I believe all navigation tables should have the same look. The geography navigation IMO looks prettier. It serves the same purpose as the succession navigation boxes. I don't see a reason why they should be formatted differently. The British politicians succession boxes use {{succession box}} templates. It would not be too hard to update that template to the same look as the geography navigation. --Gene s 05:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And another point regaring {{succession box}} on Winston_Churchill page. It bolds all text except years in office and padding (preceded/succeeded) which is useless in the first place. Bolding everything is wrong. Bolding should be used to emphesize a certain part of the text. When everything is bold (everything emphesized), then it's equivalent to nothing being emphesized. --Gene s 07:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And yet anothet point regaring {{succession box}}. The internal inter-cell vertical lines in that box are black, while horizontal lines and outer borders are gray. Why?

What's the reason for assigning style information through id (id=toc) instead of an explicit class declaration? Having two or more elements with the same id is invalid (see http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#adef-id This name must be unique in a document.). That page has multiple elements with the same id - the actual TOC and every row in the navigation box. That should be fixed. --Gene s 07:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current {{succession box}} can be easily converted to something like this for the joined box, like the one on Winston Churchill page

By adding a variable for rowspan="N" it would work for complex cases too. The word office in the caption should be a template. --Gene s 14:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Argh.

I don't doubt that one could do what you want, I merely point out that it's absolutely awfully ugly. :-)

Years of office are important, but you seem to dislike these.

Also, I think I actually prefer saying "preceded by" each time.

James F. (talk) 16:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, clearly there are different opinions on what is considered ugly. I think the current table ain't grand either. Would you share anything more specific than that?

I made the table as a quick example. The actual template should be backwards compatible, thus the years in office must be present. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that such a minor detail can be skipped from the sample. Here you go, with the dates.

And I think that is redundant. It clutters the table with the obvious. What is the purpose of having the preceded/succeeded in every row? What does it achieve? Same goes for bolding all the text in the table.

By the way, what kind of monitor do you use to view this? Can it be some sort of LCD screen by any chance? --Gene s

I agree with James; I think the current style is quite decent and see no need for another change (hell, we haven't even updated all the old wikitax tables yet!) Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The style of this box is different from the styles of the other navigation boxes. As for the old style not being updated, that is really not a problem. One does not preclude the other. Templates are great because updating one automatically updates all the pages where it's used. --Gene s 05:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, your declaration that all geography templates use your personally-preferred style isn't wholly correct - see, for example, Hertfordshire and the like.

I wasn't responding to your table, but your comment, above, saying that you didn't like having years in the template. And not all the text is emboldened - indeed, that's the whole point, that the years and "preceded by" bits aren't.

As for what monitors I've looked at the different styles over the recent months, well, yes, LCDs feature - 3 Apple laptop LCDs, 2 Sun workstation CRTs, and my personal workstation's monitors - 2 Iiyama CRTs, 2 Iiyama LCDs, and 2 SGI LCDs. The colour saturation balance is off, IMO, and it looks much better unadorned with festoonery and the like about it.

I propose re-implementing Template:Succession with this one and startbox/endbox, for cleanliness and the vyed-for homogeneity.

James F. (talk) 16:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't move comments around. Your rearrangement of comments makes the sequance of responces less clear. If you don't like my responces inserted after your individual statements, just say so.

your declaration that all geography templates use your personally-preferred style isn't wholly correct - I never said all. It's not just a significant fraction of geography templates (world, Europe, EU, France, Russia, Switzerland, and probably more). There are a few others in this style, for example {{headgear}}. saying that you didn't like having years - please point me to that comment. I can't see it anywhere. I believe I never made such comment because I think years are useful.

As for LCD, I am using two different displays. One represents shades a lot better than the other. The templates look somewhat different on these screens. The template looks a lot better on the screen with better color reproduction. It also looks pretty good on a CRT screen. So, my suspicion was that you were using some sort of LCD with poor color reproduction, and consequently objected to the style.

I already described my objections to the current {{succession box}}: (a) the style is inconsistent with the majority of other navigation templates, (b) redundant preceded/succeeded in every row, (3) bolding of everything. I believe it's wrong to change the {{succession}} to the style which would incorporate these problems (compatibility should be considered too - see below). Can you actually state your objections to the style that I am advocating? Anything objective that can be addressed? Beyond it being "ugly"?

I propose re-implementing Template:Succession with this one and startbox/endbox, if we forget for a second that we have mot agreed on the style yet, then I'm sure you understand that the updated template must be backwards compatible. It would still have to be a single line {{succession|office=xxx|preceded=xxx|succeeded=xxx}}, because otherwise all the pages where this template is used would have to be updated. And that's a lot of work for no real gain.

--Gene s 10:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lot of work? Pah:
{{start box}}
{{succession box | before={{{preceded}}} | title={{{office}}} | after={{{succeeded}}} }}
{{end box}}
Obviously the template has to be backwards compatible - otherwise, we'd just delete it.
Mind you, fixing the pages linking to Template:Succession is no major problem either - I'm happy to do it (an hour, at most).
You still don't seem to actually understand what I'm saying - this is not like "the other navigation templates" - it's not a set-selection one, as you suggested, where there are dozens (all possible entries) listed, and one of them is highlighted, but a succession thing, which rather different in concept and, if anything, it is probably better that the two do not look wholly alike, as we are asking the reader to adopt a wholly different mental model to use them.
As for my re-formatting of your comment, it was to fix the mess created by interspersed comments - they work fine, but only if your comment is the last one in the discussion; any more, and it's unreadable to the nth degree. Policy comments on this, somewhere, I think, not to mention common practice.
James F. (talk) 02:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not create a Template:Start succession box and use that with Template:Succession box? This would make it easy to change the layout. If you want to change the layout of the table you edit the start template. The you just have to edit the templates if you want to change something. Jeltz 17:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

I'm rather unclear as to why the current setup need be changed at all. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I too like the current setup (Template:succession box; if that is what you refer to) but I was thinking of a way to make it more flexible if we for some reason would want to change the layout. Jeltz 21:41, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Lot of work? Pah: -- We obviously have some kind of communication problem. I said it would be a lot of work if it is not backwars-compatible. I did not say it would be a lot of work to make the tempate:succession from the templates start_box-end_box-succession_box. Now, what's the advantage of going through another layer of indirection by assembling the template:succession from the three templates?

You still don't seem to actually understand what I'm saying - this is not like "the other navigation templates" -- And you still don't seem to actually understand what I'm saying. This is still a navigation box. It serves the same purpose - navigation through a sequence of similar entries. The reason you give does not seem to be good enough to mandate a separate style. I believe Wiki should use the same visual style for all service elements. I don't insist on any particular style. I insist on a uniform style.

I would like to point out that you are avoiding the subject of objective criteria. You have not produced any objective reasons why the template:succession has to be updated at all. The only reason you gave is "ugly". That's NOT objective.

Policy comments on this, somewhere, I think, not to mention common practice. -- If you can produce a link to policy, please do so. Otherwise it is not a "common practice" but your POV. My POV is to answer specific statements one by one. That avoids the need to copy quoted text, like I have to do here. I am following your request as a gesture of good will, not because there is something objectively advantageous about it.

By the way, I am satisfied with the status quo. I don't mind making another multi-line template in the same common navigation style. Say, succession_start, succession_end and succession_row. That way you can go with your style, I can go with mine, and we let the community decide what works best.

--Gene s 08:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can't we first decide on a way to implement this so it can easily be changed and then think about the exact layout? Should succession or succession box be the template that we will use? My oppinion is that it can't be made backwards compatible and correct at the same time. It's not much job at all to add the "start box" and "end box". At least not this ealry. Stop thinking of backwards compatibility and think of designing something that's easy to change in the future. Jeltz 10:50, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

I am not sure there is a disagreement with what to implement. We need a simple one-liner like the current template:succession to adress the vast majority of simple cases, and we need a multiline box like the current template:start box/template:succession box/template:end box for complex cases. Within these sets any changes can be made backwars-compatible, that's really not a problem.

It's not much job at all to add the "start box" and "end box". At least not this ealry. True. The template:succession is used by about 50 pages: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:succession, the template:succession_box by about 250: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:succession_box. On the other hand, it's not just the one time job of converting one box to the other, it's also a simplicity of future use. The one-liner is easier to learn and understand (and for the wiki engine to render) than a more complex multiline syntax. The majority of succession_box uses is an overkill. The simple template:succession is enough for like 90% of cases. --Gene s 11:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree that it is simpler to use a one-liner if we can. My suggestion about having Succession using Succession_box (and PeerNavbox, for that matter) is that it will join up the formatting/layout for all of them, and so make it simpler in future if we want to change the style - no need to change it thrice. It was a very minor point and I now feel sorry for making it. :-)

But I still fundamentally disagree with you about "navigation through a sequence of similar entries" being a use of the general set-boxes. They are about browsing between, and nothing at all to do with a 'sequence', nor anything else that you would navigate through instead of about.

James F. (talk) 03:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why you deny the obvious. Are you saying the list of US Presidents is not a sequential list of similar entries? Then what is it? The {{succession}} is a tool for browsing through this list. Functionally it's not much different than, say {{JanuaryCalendar}}. Please explain your position.

You still avoid the question of objective criteria. Why do you believe the "plain" style with redundant succeeded/preceded is better than the standard blue-colored style? --Gene s 09:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well done, after a whole bloody week of this, you've finally managed to hit the nail on the head - the set-template of US Presidents is neither "sequential" nor a "list", but a box. This is not denial of the obvious (or, at least, certainly not by me), but a fundamental part of user-interface design.

If you really, seriously, cannot tell the functional difference between a set-selector and a sequential-selector, then, well, I am terribly sorry for you; it is rather a sad thing.

As to having the redundancy of "Succeeded by" &c., and the separate issue over whether these texts should be highlighted in some way, I'm not wholly wedded to the idea of the former, but am against the latter, on æsthetic grounds. Arguing that this last point is objective is really quite an odd line to take, IYAM.

James F. (talk) 23:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The list of US presidents is a list, not a "box". There is nothing inherently "boxy" about a list. You seem to believe that a navigation box with a long list of components and a navigation box with just two components are fundumentally different GUI concepts mandating different styles. I don't think so. They are essentially the same navigation boxes.

I suggest you keep such "witty" remarks to yourself. They are simply an indication of your failure to conduct a professional discussion.

The question of esthetic superiority is a purely subjective one. The "blue" style exists and widely used. Thus, there are people who find its esthetic value sufficient. Personally, I am not against any style. I am against the discordance of styles. And IYAM, using arguments like "really quite an odd line to take" is unproductive. Such arguments are meaningless. --Gene s 08:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you fail to see my point with the box of US Presidents, what about that of NATO countries, or EU ones (the geographical templates to which you alluded, seemingly many moons ago, above)? Are you suggesting that one would always progress from Algeria to Andorra (or somesuch otherwise pairing) when using such a template? Of course not! The box-selector is for selecting any one of the (possibly quite numerate) related items, whereas the sequence-selector is for picking from exactly two chronologically-proximal items. That is my point, and I would have thought it not only obvious but a matter of fact, and not something to be discussed at all, let alone for quite so long as this.

No, I don't fail to see your point. I understand your POV, I just disagree with it. The essential functionality is the same - navigation. You are saying there are different types of navigation, I am saying it's still navigation. Is the glass half full or half empty?

I would protest most vigorously my not "fail to conduct a professional discussion" with you (though, I must admit, this conversation does seem to be overly taxing on my reserves of patience); my comment was intended to cause you to pause and reflect on that which I was referring to, as you seem to not respond to some of my comments directly.

Yes, I wholly agree, æsthetic grounds are subjective; this is, in fact, somewhat of a tautology. My point was that, as I have repeatedly said that my complaint against the use of the blue highlighting in this context is based on subjective grounds, you then jumping in with it as a "question of objective criteria" is rather bemusing — the odd line to take is that you seemed to link my stated subjective comments with objective ones, which they are most obviously not.

Finally, my point is that I do not believe that it is discordant to not use every part of a style in a particular area, and, this being the opinion of the two others who have commented here save ourselves, it would probably be a far better waste of our respective times if we went and did something else, somewhere else, and leave things be as they are. :-)

James F. (talk) 09:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I don't mind dropping this matter for a while. Say a period of one month to cool off and to reflect.

As for the opinions of the other two people, I am not sure they agree with what you think they agree. I would rather see them speek for themselves, rather than to have their words interpreted. --Gene s 11:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added a translated version of the template:Succession to no.wiki and it goes pretty well, more people have been taking up the torch and most of the succession boxes is over to the new format. I belive the modular design is the best one, abeit more markup but in the long run you don't confuze people and end up with several boxes because people didn't understand that there was another template for multiple boxes. Having one template also helps with future updates. Profoss 22:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

oops, my mistake, i messed up the different nameing, what i ment was that we use Sucession box on no:. 22:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it would have been better if you waited a little while. People doesn't really seem to have made up their minds. I haven't really made up my mind yet, but it's not a big issue ot me. As logn as we decide on soemthing that is flexible and that people like. (If people alreayd have decide just ignore this.) Jeltz 00:04, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Succeeded by: Incumbent

I've noticed lots of pages that attempt to express the fact that John Smith is the present incumbent by using this template, and saying "Succeeded by: Incumbent". That seems to say he was succeeded by the current incumbent. That is absurd. Is that built in to the way this box is used? Michael Hardy 03:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it would make more sense to create a Template:Succession incumbent or something. At present, however, we have no such template, and therefore we simply have to indicate that the person is currently holding the office. – ugen64 05:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks a bit weird as we have it now but do you have any suggestion for how to make it better? Jeltz talk 08:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I have created that template to test. It might be preferable to have that third block (where it currently says Current Incumbent) to be a variable: that way, we could easily indicate where a position changed names (i.e. Governor General of the Province of Canada to Gov. Gen. of Canada). I will make that change shortly, and I will also make an inverted version. – ugen64 13:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC):

{{start box}}
{{Incumbent succession box | title=] | before=] | after=Current Incumbent | start=2005}}
{{succession vary1 | title=] | before=New Office | after=] | years=2005}}
{{end box}}

Good idea, but perhaps there can be a more generic term. "Incumbent" sounds strange when applied to, say, the current heavyweight boxing champion. —Chowbok 20:44, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to create a Template:Succession vary2, but the Wiki failed and I have been to lazy to create it again. I agree, though - incumbent is just a specific case that is very common, and when I remember, I'll make another template to vary that text. – ugen64 05:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Which titles to place in succession boxes

After seeing the horror that resulted when I made an absolutely complete succession box for René I of Naples and René II, Duke of Lorraine, User:John Kenney suggested triming them back. I'd like to propose some formal rules for this:

1. No "titular" styles; the succession box should only contain titles of realms where a monarch actually reigned. (On the other hand, perhaps we should allow these for persons whose heirs eventually reasserted the claim and reigned.)
2. After styles become united (e.g., Castile & Leon, Lorraine & Bar, etc.), only the premier title should be used in the succession box. (But this could create problems, say, with Charles I of England, King of England, Ireland, and Scots. Perhaps we should use a single box for them, see below:)

Comments are appreciated. Choess 20:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's what I would suggest as well - take out the titular titles, and if two or more titles are held by way of another title, either just mention the main one or put them all in the same box. Adam Bishop 20:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, rather than the criterion of union (which is subject to a lot of pettifogging and POV), it might be better to just put titles with the same predecessor and successor, and the same dates, in the same box, a superset of my previous suggestion. Choess 18:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

While I agree on some grounds, I disagree in others. Titular titles are often necessary to understand how a ruler inhereted a throne following a usurpation by another ruler or government. Perhaps I should create a pretender template to cover this issue; it is one that I feel must be listed in some form but the current styles do not seem to function correctly. Regarding combined domains such as Castile and Leon, England and Scotland, and Lorraine and Bar, I agree that they should be combined on one line. For a while, I disagreed but now I am beginning to see the benefits of it. However, this should only apply to permanently conjoined realms, therefore Ireland probably should not be included and the instances where Aragon was ruled with Castile and Leon also should not be merged. Once they permanently combine, though, they should be on the same line. All open titles (such as in Navarre until its merger with France by Henry IV) should be on separate lines throughout the succession chain until they split again. They also should be organized in order of precedence (ie Emperor, King, Prince, Duke, Count, &c.), though these may have to be better defined. Continue to discuss. I will work on a solution to the titular problem shortly.
–Whaleyland 22:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"current incumbent", revised

Like the editors who brought it up above, I too was unhappy with "succeded by: current incumbent." I came up with a possible alternative and started using it: "succeded by: N/A (current incumbent)." This seems to me to be the best solution (short of rewriting the code). Thoughts? Doops | talk 18:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. Other editors have come along behind me and "regularized" my innovation to the standard format. I passively let them. Oh well.

New Succession Forms

Hey everyone, since I work with these forms so much, I figured my input may be wanted. I created new templates for succession fields, following a mixture of the office template listed above and incorporating aspects of that with the new form we have all come to, at least partially, love. It is highly flexible, removes all the need for those two to one and three to three &c. unique boxes allowing a user to simply list the after, before, title, and years with a fairly easy rows insert in the event that the person governed (or whatevered) separate places or multiple times these can be accounted for.

The Templates are:

Template:s-start or Template:start succession box

Template:s-bef or Template:succession before

Template:s-aft or Template:succession after

Template:s-ttl or Template:succession title

Template:end or Template:end box

This form has already been used on Ferdinand II of Aragon as a test page, however I will test it on Winston Churchill, a more difficult case, when I get the chance. Please refer to Template_talk:s-start for instructions on how to use this new form. I believe it will make complex succession tables far simpler although the old Template:succession box is still fine for simple tables.
Whaleyland 00:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Embedding the new succession forms in the succession box

Whaleyland has created these new succession forms to handle complex succession cases. The best way to make sure that they stay in sync with this template is to embed them into this template itself. Moreover, if this and other templates use these basic templates as building blocks, it helps to ensure a more consistent look and feel. Therefore, I am going to restore embedding.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In all honesty, it looks terrible; it's way too crowded and actually difficult to read. What was wrong with the way it was? I suggest we restore it and try to reach a community consensus before such a change that affects hundreds of articles is made... --tomf688 01:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tomf688, it looks really ugly, see Winston Churchill, George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac. Was it a mistake? I think we should change it back. — Mushroom 01:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys did, but that Winston Churchill's succession box should not look like it does. I will work with it some more, I am still tweaking things. But I agree that some consensus should be made and I am still working on fixing problems inherent in the forms I created. I think what happened with those individuals is that the succession box form did not stack properly over multiple fields. This needs to be corrected. Every case of a single succession with the new template appears fine, so I will check on this other problem shortly.

-Whaleyland 02:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Back already and found the flaw. Strangely, after the form had been reverted, another person tried to create their own and supercede that over the revert. I will check that out promptly. Anyway, I discovered that the top line of the former code (|- style="text-align: center;") was missing because I have that included with Template:s-start on my other code. Noting that, I reincorporated the code into this and the other variants of this code to keep them in sync. That little portion of code you just read, that makes the computer see multiple succession tables as separations in the same table, MEANING that without it, it will just attach them on to the previous table in a row. Not very pretty. So for all you Churchill, Bush, and Chirac lovers out there, your tables are saved. Once again, sorry for that hour of Wiki chaos, I will try to avoid it from now on.

-Whaleyland 02:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Now it looks okay. Thank you, Whaleyland! — Mushroom 02:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, for all of you skeptical about my new format, note that all the previous forms are now created with my templates. Also, see Template talk:S-start for a complete guide with examples of all my templates, including quite an impressive (if I do say so myself) advanced example at the bottom. Please continue to leave feedback about problems and other issues. Thanks for all the help!
--Whaleyland 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

So, should we be using the new templates instead of succession box? I recently edited a succession box, and someone soon replaced it with s-###. I have no problem with this, but I think it would be helpful if there were a standard. Ardric47 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically all the succession boxes are now following this standard. For simple boxes (ie one to one) the succession box template can be used. For anything more complex, it would be more server friendly and compatable to use the s-### series boxes as they can account for many variables.
–Whaleyland 09:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Incumbent succession box

Template:Incumbent succession box exists for standardizing the succession table for incumbents.

— DLJessup (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Try fitting a simple box like that into something as advanced as Tony Blair's window. No, I think noting Incumbent is still easier than using a completely different template for that one title.

Whaleyland 04:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, Template:Incumbent succession box has replaced a similar template, Template:Succession incumbent in the succession table for Tony Blair.

I do appreciate that there are times that we might want to merge cells across rows in the succession table; however, I think that such an action makes sense when the underlying titles merge or split (e.g., the merging of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs to form the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs), not when a single person happens to hold multiple titles, as seems to be the case with Mr. Blair.

Template:Incumbent succession box actually does two things: it standardizes the handling of the {{{years}}} parameter and the {{{after}}} parameter. (This, incidentally, is why I prefer it to Template:Succession incumbent, which does not deal with the {{{years}}} parameter.) It provides a consistent look and feel to how incumbents are handled, much as the succession box templates do for the succession table; otherwise, you get an em-dash here, an (n/a) there, a "current incumbent" elsewhere.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, Template talk:Incumbent succession box provides a common place to discuss what the standards should be, which does not seem to otherwise exist.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to announce in this form that I created two new fields much like the ones above, although they fit into the system I am working with. They are:

Template:s-non

Template:s-new

The first is a replacement for Template:s-ttl and Template:s-aft for Incumbants and lacks the Succeeded by: header and fills in the second year field with "—Present". The second is a replacement for Template:s-bef for New Creations and lacks the Preceeded by: header. They can be used as follows:

Template:s-non (with others)

{{s-start}}

{{s-bef|before=INSERT PREDECESSOR HERE}}

{{s-non|title=TITLE OF PERSON|year=START YEAR HERE}}

{{end}}

Which looks like:

And: Template:s-new (with others)

{{s-start}}

{{s-new}}

{{s-non|title=TITLE OF PERSON|years=INSERT YEARS HERE}}

{{s-bef|before=INSERT PREDECESSOR HERE}}

{{end}}

Which looks like:

Tell me what you think of these. Obviously the fit into this area of discussion and I think they make the previous arguments easier to work with concerning incumbents. Take it or leave it, but please discuss it.
-Whaleyland 02:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I really do like all of those, but is there any way to incorporate them into one "super-template" (sorry, I'm still learning how templates work in the first place...), such as template:succession box? For example, could there be a way to embed it like

{{succession box ... after={{s-non | reason=Incumbent}} ... }} or

{{succession box ... | years=... | Incumbent}}?

Ardric47 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I know where you are coming from with this question and the simplest answer is no. Technically it is possible, but it would have to be an if/then statement which gets very complicated in the code thereby making it nearly impossible to handle. Most of the templates do have hidden code for special options, like Template:s-ttl allows for districts to be listed in the event the person is a regional representative of something. But there are many variances on what can be written in the s-bef and s-aft forms to make them capable of independence. I wrote s-inc so that incumbants could be listed easily without a hassle, while at the same time allowing an heir to be listed in a subline. To integrate all that code into an if/then clause within s-aft would be very difficult and probably not server-friendly. If I get a chance sometime soon, I will work on it, but don't get your hopes up.

–Whaleyland 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Date Syntax

Alright, a recent discrepency between multiple succession fields has arisen which needs to be discussed. What should the decision be on Interwiki links for dates within succession froms? Since I have been creating charts, I have Interwikied all dates and converted many. The Russian Czars are all interwikied with full dates while many others are not interwikied at all. We need a consensus on this. I have already tried to make it work with all the templates involved, but there can be no auto-interwiki feature without overhauling all the succession templates ever made. Discuss. —Whaleyland 01:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Separate tables

I notice that for various British personages, various honorary titles (Lord Lieutenantships of counties, Warden of the Cinque Ports, various scottish justiceships, chancellors of universities, and the like) are being listed in the table alongside regular offices. I think this is problematic, and potentially confusing. I would suggest that all of the following should be separate as tables, and in this order:

1. Monarchical titles - being the monarch of a place
2. Substantive offices held - this would be a broad category. It could include diplomatic postings, cabinet offices, sub-cabinet offices, court offices, colonial governorships, military commands, and so forth.
3. Honorary Titles - lord lieutenantships of counties, honorary justiceships, honorary great offices of state (the ones just created for coronations, the earl marshal, the lord great chamberlain, the ones for Scotland and Ireland); and so forth. Any office which doesn't require the bearer to actually do much of anything, and which can be held at the same time that one holds other substantive offices, would go here.
4. Parliamentary Seats. Holding a seat in parliament is not an office of state, and including it with the other stuff can be confusing.
5. Peerage titles. These go last.

Basically, since monarchical titles and peerage titles are already supposed to be separate, I'm proposing splitting the "offices held" category into three - a main one for most offices, another for honorary offices, and a third for parliamentary seats. What do people think? john k 04:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

But the honorary titles (lord lieutenancies, justices in eyre and so forth) were originally substantive, and only gradually became honorary. We'd have to agree on a cutoff point for each of these offices for the transition between substantive and honorary... Choess 05:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I already started a set of field separation templates to differentiate between offices (Template:s-off) and regal titles (Template:s-reg). I noticed this problem with Juan Carlos I but also was not sure how to tackle it. The split between offices and titles was easy enough, but then further splitting honorary titles from actual titles is not only difficult, but sometimes impossible. Most titles now short of reigning monarch (ie King, Queen, Sultan, &c.) are honorary but they weren't. The War of the Roses was between two very active dukes of duchies. However those titles now are only honorary. Similarly, some people don't actually rule such Juana of Castile but is technically queen. Does that mean she is honorary or actual ruler? I think we can only divide titles into two things: office titles (ie President, Secretary, Prime Minister) and regal titles (ie Queen, Earl, Duke) because the latter fluctuate far too much in what their title means and different people will have different opinions of if they actually ruled their titular domain.

Regarding adding a subgroup for Parliamentary seats, and by that I assume you mean any form of assembly seats, I can easily make up a third template if you two feel that it would make for a better flow. Personally, I see no problem with placing those titles with a list of offices held, but I will go with a concensus.
–Whaleyland 07:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

PS Give me feedback on the Juan Carlos page because that is pretty much my final draft of the succession template in its complete (albeit simple) form. I am still trying to work out a better system for documenting children and their marriages on biographical pages, but significant gaps between rows is making me think it will never work.

I like the ideas on the Juan Carlos page, but the succession box template isn't actually used there, is it? Ardric47 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense to me, provided we come up with a formula per Choess' concerns. I would add to the parliamentary seats the representative peers–I think that's a useful thing to show. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In terms of lord-lieutenantships, and so forth, I think it's fair to say that for the entire period when we have full lists of Lord lieutenants (17th century?) the title was essentially honorary. I'd say that probably all titles are honorary from the Stuart period on, and quite possibly earlier - the Earls of Oxfords were Lord Great Chamberlains under the Tudors, but as far as I can tell this was almost wholly honorary already. But certainly from 1600 or so on I think we can make the cut off. As to regnal vs. peerage titles, I don't think this is a big deal for England. I'd suggest that we simply treat all peerage titles as non-substantive, even if they were substantive. I will add that the Wars of the Roses were most certainly not fought between two active dukes of duchies. The House of Lancaster were kings, and were not dukes of anything. The Duchy of Lancaster was (and is) a real duchy, but was not one held by a duke. The Dukes of York were dukes, but they never ruled a duchy. In fact, the lands of the House of York were largely in the Welsh marches (where Richard Plantagenet inherited the lands of his uncle the Earl of March). At any rate, the issue only comes to the fore when somebody has both a monarchical title and a peerage title. For the British, I'd say we just always keep them separate, since British peerage titles have never really been like monarchical titles. For France, say, it becomes more complicated. I'd say that, for instance, Louis XII of France could have his title of duke of Orleans and his title of King of France in the same table, since his earlier title did involve actual rule over large areas. But I don't see the need for it. With German princes, obviously, they should be considered ruling princes, and not just as nobles. In terms of parliamentary seats, I think it would just make everything clearer to separate them from offices, in british contexts. I do not think the same thing is necessarily true for, e.g., American offices. The problem with the British is overlapping. It's much harder to get a sense of the course of someone's career when you have essentially dissimilar titles overlapping - it takes much longer when they're in the same table to figure out that somebody was member for South Yorkshire, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and Prime Minister all at the same time. For American congressional figures, this seems less necessary - they do not hold other positions while they are in Congress, except for positions of authority within the congress itself. john k 17:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright then, I will create a template to separate parliamentary titles from other office titles. It will be called Template:s-par though it can work for all assembly seats in any congressional system.

Regarding the various honorary and actual titles held by various Europeans, I think we may be going in too deep if we separate some of the titles. French and German titles often involve actual land through 1789 and 1918 respectively. Other countries that people know less about it will only become more vague where certain titles go. I want to hear a response from Choess on this before we decide to attempt a disconnect between honorary and actual titles. I could almost argue that the Queen of the United Kingdom is an honorary title in the British peerage system but that wouldn't due. While all your points are good for the separation, I think that hereditary titles/conquered titles (as they almost all must be to be successive) should be placed in one section regardless of the power held. We can place them in order of rank (ie King, Duke, Earl, Lord...) but I do not think it is wise to disconnect them.

–Whaleyland 20:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I share the above reservations on trying to separate monarchical and peerage titles. It's easy for the UK, of course, but to invoke that 'bête noire' of succession boxes, René I of Naples, it isn't always so easy. (In that case, the layout is really governed by the transfer of titles to and from René; it's a rather pathological illustration of the greater fluidity of inheritance on the Continent. Anyway, in the UK case, keeping the royal succession on "top" of the peerage succession would seem sufficient; the royal peerages don't generally seem to be as complicated as in France, and I think that would be sufficient for easy scanning.

As regards Lord Lieutenants, the lists will get filled out as soon as I haul my lazy self down to NYPL to consult J.C. Sainty's "Lieutenants of counties, 1585-1642" and "List of lieutenants of counties of England and Wales, 1660-1974". They still seem to have been executing Commissions of Array during the English Civil War; perhaps the Restoration would be a better point at which to consider the office "honorary"? (This also takes advantage of the gap in appointments during the Commonwealth.) Choess 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

For British titles, peerage titles and royal titles are already separated. I would strongly oppose joining them back up again. As to the continent, I was not originally meaning to bring it up, and I'd prefer not to worry about it for the moment. I'm basically fine with keeping all continental titles together. For the commissions of array, my understanding is that this was already a pretty obsolete method of operations in 1642, but the restoration would seem a sensible breaking point, nonetheless, for lord-lieutenancies. It might be for other titles too. For instance, the Earl of Essex was Earl Marshal. That seems plausibly a real title for him, even if it later becomes an essentially honorary hereditary title of the Howards. john k 20:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, so here are the conclusions as I understand it: 1. In British politics, before 1649 titles are considered actual and after 1660 they are considered honorary. 2. Outside British politics, titles are considered actual unless otherwise noted. 3. There will be four sections that all titles and positions will be divided into (they shall be in the following order then further subdivided in order of chronology): Actual authority titles (ie King, Emperor, Archduke), Offices held (ie Prime Minister, Secretary of State, Exchequer), Honorary titles (ie. Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Wessex), and finally Assembly Seats. 4. All titles listed in succession boxes must be successive (ie someone else either has it before this person or gets it after) or hereditary titles. 5. This succession system will be used across Misplaced Pages for all succession forms and will be adapted when necessary through Template:qif placed inside the s-templates or through textual editing on the individual biographies. 6. There will be no wikified/interwiki linked dates within succession templates.

These are summed up in the following example of a master hypothetical person I have created. I know, it doesn't follow all the proper laws; assume the royal originally had given up his titles only to reclaim them later. We will call him Edward X of the United Kingdom.

Please tell me what you think. Obviously the colors can be changed and I seriouly doubt we will ever find a real case that has all four of these catagories, though there is always the chance. Its good working with all of you! &ndash:Whaleyland 10:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Request cat

Can <noinclude>]</noinclude> be added at the end? —Mark Adler (markles) 11:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Book and movie series?

I was thinking about using the succession box as navigation for multiple-book series. Has this been done? Is there a more appropriate template for this sort of thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScottAlanHill (talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC).

Order of offices for politicians

Is there a consensus preferred order for succession boxes for politicians? I've seen some where the most important offices are listed first and others where the offices are listed chronologically. — Bellhalla 15:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is that they be listed chronologically–earliest at the top. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks. for the info. — Bellhalla 12:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed removal of colons

I propose the removal of the colons after the prepositions by in this box. There's no need to use a colon to separate the prepositions from their immediately following objects; in this box, especially, it's entirely clear that the information on the line immediately under the "Preceded by" (or "Succeeded by") line is the object of by. I say "I made this proposal by typing on the Internet", not "I made this proposal by: typing on: the Internet." President Lethe 05:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Box location discussion or style guide or policy?

In most articles, this is used at the very bottom--is this convention documented anywhere? They've started popping up in a variety of locations on 'entertainer' articles: Between "References" and "External links" section--Jane Fonda; bottom of "Filmology"--Jane Wyman; very bottom (under "External links"--Vivien Leigh (a featured article) as well as ABBA and Liza Minnelli. Anyone know where this has been, or is being, discussed or documented? 24.18.215.132 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

for film actors, which raised this question, there have been several persons posting that believe that they should be at the bottom of the awards or filmography section, which does seem appropriate. Doc 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me like Jane Fonda's succession box should be directly below the list of her awards and nominations, as the subject of the box itself is who preceded and succeeded her two Academy Awards. I would probably recommend putting all such succession boxes in a similar location, as near to the main info on their subject as possible. Andrea Parton 06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Guide to layout says it should go at the bottom, but I have two other points to make, as well. I haven't personally used any succession boxes, but it looks like the WikiProject Succession Box Standardization is trying to phase out Template:Succession box in favor of Template:Start. I'm surprised no one's mentioned this here! Also, I'm working on revising the Guide to layout, so you can add your two cents at my Appendices order draft. --J. J. 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I would like to propose to merger this template into Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Boxing#Structure for articles about boxers#Championship table beause it looks nicer in my view. I know it is a not suitable reason, but it is not a good situstion that the same templates exist. What do you think?

• Example:Lennox Lewis, Hasim Rahman

--Yappakoredesho 21:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Insertion awkwardness

This template makes no concession for other boxes and layout elements in the article it is inserted into. For example, where it has been inserted into the Paris article, it is obliged to float one-third over to the left because of the 'Wikilinks' box to the right, and the resulting balance is very awkward. I would suggest having this box 'clear' to both sides through either an in-box style or an added 100% wide cleared div above it. Thanks.

Btw - I see no conflict here - any reason why this page is fully protected?

THEPROMENADER 08:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is already exists. You should use {{s-start}} instead of {{start box}}. s-start has clear which start box lacks. Jeltz talk 11:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, no start box is just a redirect to s-start so I don't know what your problem was. The succession box clears both sides. What browser do you use? Jeltz talk 11:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm on Safari using Mac OS 10.4.6. I just read that this template should be outmoded in favour of s-start... yet it was this one installed onto the Paris page this morning. Not my doing, but it did bring up a question or two. Thanks for your answer. THEPROMENADER 12:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you removed the temporary 'clearing' div today - so now the box is floating one-third to the left again. Any way to correct this? THEPROMENADER 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know it looks fine to me in Firfox and Internet Explorer. This sounds like an browser issue to me which I'm not sure how to fix in a good way especially since I have no access to any computer with Safari. Jeltz talk 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I finally got enough time to give it the ol' browser go-around and effectively, it centres in everything but IE Mac (which isn't surprising - with that one the template floats completely to the left) and Safari for Mac. IE windows, Firefox Mac/Windows, Opera Mac/Windows all check out. I wish I could see the css for this and I could tell you what's wrong... may even be the 'wikillink' box that is the problem. Never mind the IE mac users, but there's quite a few 'Safari surfers' out there... any way to look into this? I would if I could. THEPROMENADER 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The code for Template:s-start looks like this:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 0.5em auto; clear: both; font-size:95%;"
|- style="text-align: center;"

and wikitable looks loike this

table.wikitable,
table.prettytable {
  margin: 1em 1em 1em 0;
  background: #f9f9f9;
  border: 1px #aaaaaa solid;
  border-collapse: collapse;
}

which looks simple enough. Could it be the margin that causes the trouble? Jeltz talk 17:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is pretty simple. I like the css naming : ) I think it could be the "margin: auto" - you know, you should have all four measures there (top, left, right, bottom) and you only have top and right... it should be "margin:0.5em auto 0.5em auto;". I can point that out, but can't say for sure that that's the problem - wouldn't hurt to fix it anyways and see. I can experiment on my end with this - by grabbing the source code and giving it a wring as a page of my own in Dreamweaver. I'll let you know what I find. THEPROMENADER 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to use Dreamweaver. Yould do the testing here at Misplaced Pages. I have made a test in my own userspace User:Jeltz/Sandbox. You could do the same or in this case you could edit my test if you like (but I advice against it since it's best if not two persons use the same sandbox), since I unfortunatly have no access to Safari or any Mac at all. I have simply replaced the template inclusion with the Wikisytanx in the tempalte and modified the CSS. Jeltz talk 22:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I found something interesting (I use an online Safari tester) while the margin attribute seems to affect little to nothing I found that if I add a CSS width other than auto or 0% the table behaves correctly. Adding a width:1%; seems to work, but it seems like an ugly fix to me and raises the question "Does this break anything else?". Jeltz talk 23:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? I've seen the nasty 'expanding "no-width" div ' but have never heard of anything of the sort about missing table widths. Where did you 'fix' the CSS? I don't think I need mention that inline (in-page) CSS overrides orders from any external sheeet - as it is above you are only partially overrwiting 'margin:1em 1em 1em 0(?)' - with only 'margin: 0.5em auto' with the last two boundaries missing - did you fix this before testing? For the rest, I'll have a look around for similar problems. THEPROMENADER 07:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I tested messing around with the margin and I saw nothing happening. Setting width to 1% obviosuly breaks much but it seems to fix the problem of it not centering. See User:Jeltz/Sandbox where the first on is the original the second is the one with fixed margin and the third the one with a width of 1%. Jeltz talk 11:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I for one would like to see the "Jeltz/Sandbox travel guide from Wikitravel" - better pack a bucket and shovel. : ) Thanks for the display - I'll cut and paste the same to fiddle "chez moi" and let you know if I find anything. It's a mystery still to me for now. THEPROMENADER 11:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to add category

I don't have enough privileges to do this myself, so could any administator please add ] to the page itself. Thanks. ThreeBlindMice 22:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many new table rows

The markup produced by this tempalte looks strange. Far too many rows in the table (|-). I think that s-aft, succession box, s-bef, and s-start all contains one table row, and most of them are empty. Below is the code generated by this template (succession box).

|- style="text-align: center;" |- style="text-align: center;" |width="30%" align="center" rowspan="{{{rows}}}"|Preceded by:
{{{before}}} |width="40%" style="text-align: center;" rowspan="{{{rows}}}"|{{{title}}}
{{{years}}} |width="30%" align="center" rowspan="{{{rows}}}"|Succeeded by:
{{{after}}} |-

I'm not sure which ones should be there but I suspect that of these I listed only s-bef should contain the start of a new table row. Jeltz talk 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Default for rows parameter (unprotection request)

Hi guys, as it is now this template, and many others related to it, yields invalid HTML code such as

<td width="30%" align="center" rowspan="{{{rows}}}">

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Misplaced Pages technical issues and templates When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Kraxler (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment