Template talk:S-rel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sith titles

{{editprotect}}

I would like to add Sith as an option (for the relevant Star Wars articles). The added code to the top section should be:

|si=[[Sith|Sith titles]]

And to the bottom section it should be:

• si = Sith titles

Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

N Not done - inappropriate for encyclopaedic entries. If we don't have, say, scientologist or Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we're not going to have Sith, are we? More seriously, I don't think this template is used for fictional religions or characters. ck lostsword•T•C 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, maybe it is :S. Still, not done - this is referring to major existing religions. ck lostsword•T•C 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why a header designated as religious cannot be used for fictional religions? We allow for Gondor and Arnor in Template:s-roy. That seems like a bit of a double-standard. And on a different note, neither of those religions you listed have successive titles, unlike the Sith who have only two lords at a time, which are both successive.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing that prevents you from copying the correct code to that article, but I agree that these templates are meant for nonfictional things only. The one for royalty will need to be fixed at some point. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protect Request

{{editprotected}}

I am trying to standardize these templates a bit more by adding instruction pages and the such and also I am attempting to remove the required pipe after open parameters. Please make the following changes:

In the template, replace the current: {{{else=Religious offices||{{{test={{{1|}}}|1|}}}}}}{{#switch:{{{1}}}

With: {{#if:{{{1}}}||Religious titles}}{{#switch:{{{1}}} |#default={{{1|Religious titles}}}

This will create a default parameter that will allow old pipe links to work as well as new non-pipe links to work, without negating the integrity of the template.

Also, please add {{/doc}} at the bottom of the template just before the /noinclude to allow the page to link to its document page. Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 21:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to make it so that the following occurs?

• {{s-rel|bu}} produces "[[Buddhism|Buddhist titles]]"
• {{s-rel|other-religion-titles}} produces "other-religion-titles"
• {{s-rel}} produces "Religious titles"

If so, it might be better to replace the text you're proposing with {{#switch:{{{1}}}|#default={{{1|Religious titles}}} Tra (Talk) 22:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made that change, since no other opinions have been raised. Tra (Talk) 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Can you make a similar change so that {{s-rel|ac}} produces "[[Anglican Communion|Anglican Communion titles]]"? It's kind of odd that the template would support a national branch of the Anglican Communion (the Church of England) and not support the Communion itself. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 14:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Done - Nabla 17:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

|#default=Religious titles

with:

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

|#default=Religious titles

This will default all open open parameters to the default. Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, wouldn't that make the default "Royal titles"? And what is this <nowiki> tag doing in the middle of the thing? Circeus 00:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the above version should work now. I was using the same request on multiple pages and forgot to change it. Ignore the nowiki too, it was for making the template properly viewable from the non-source page.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

"Religious offices" at the bottom of the code should read "Religious titles" as per the top listing. Not sure how that got out of alignment. Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 16:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done --ais523 16:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Schism titles

I'm not sure how best to deal with this, but there may be POV issues with the application of this template to historical figures. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church split in the 11th century; prior to this, they claim a common history. Less significantly, in England, the Church of England declared itself out of communion with Rome in 1534; prior to this, it claims the history of the Catholic church in England as its own. Chad of Mercia, though, is currently marked as holding (in the 9th century) the "Catholic Church titles" of Bishop of the Mercians and Lindsey People and Bishop of the Northumbrians. This attribution to the modern Roman Catholic Church of the shared histories of the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches could be viewed by some as somewhat controversial - while it is certainly what the Roman Catholic Church asserts, it is at least nominally disputed by the other churches, who would view their descent from the early church as just as valid.

Perhaps less significantly, the article, after various prolonged and inconclusive debates, seems to be settled at the moment at Roman Catholic Church, due to the contentious and sometimes ambiguous meanings of the term 'Catholic'. Shouldn't this template follow suit? TSP 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, there, TSP. There is admittably an amount of ambiguity during certain historic periods. However, I should also like to draw your attention to the fact that the headers describe titles as opposed to individuals, something which should clear up at least some ambiguities, given that titles are long chains that can more easily be assigned to a specific religion (or branch thereof) from which they have originated or to which they were later closely connected.

On the Roman Catholic Church header, you have my support. The header ought to be precise and reflect Wikipedia's consensus on the name. But I am not the one to decide this. Basically, I believe you should bring both issues to WikiProject Succession Box Standardization's talk page. I am afraid these template talk pages are not much watched and few people answer posts here. Waltham, The Duke of 11:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I probably shall. I note that for most religions there are not specific denominational entries in here - there are, for example, simply 'Jewish titles', despite the existence of Reform Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, and so on.

To answer your specific issue - it is true that the template refers to titles rather than individuals; however, this doesn't remove the problem. For example, Paulinus of York is described as holding the Catholic Church titles of Bishop of York and Bishop of Rochester, both of which are now titles solely in the Church of England, which traces a continuous inheritance back to these individuals. You could say that these were Roman Catholic Church titles until the English Reformation, after which they were Church of England titles (though that still leaves you in a bit of a grey area with people like Thomas Cranmer), but that would seem to explicitly deny the Church of England's claim to be the continuation of the Catholic church in England, which seems POV. TSP 14:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Transferred to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#S-Rel_-_Pre-Schism_Titles —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSP (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Color

Per [1] can we change Orthodox Church titles to the appropriate color? Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I fear that we follow not such rules, my dear compatriot. Succession box headers are strictly thematic, as opposed to infoboxes, and thus each of them has one colour which is used for all of its parameters. (You might wish to see the chart at Template:S-start#Headers.) Thank you for your suggestion, all the same. Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 02:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints titles

I'm not sure if "Church of Latter Day Saints titles" is the appropriate phrase to use for these. For starters, there is no church called the "Church of Latter Day Saints". There is the Latter Day Saint movement, and it has many individual churches in it, the largest of which are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and the Community of Christ. Sometimes the LDS Church is called the Church of Latter Day Saints, but I think this template is used for Latter Day Saint leaders inside and outside of the LDS Church. If we're trying to make it generic across all Latter Day Saint churches, I would suggest simply "Latter Day Saints titles" or "Latter Day Saint titles". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to a new parameter?

Church in Wales using "wa" - since 1920, the Church in Wales has been separate from the Church of England. Thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 09:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Church of Ireland parameter

After the Reformation in Ireland, there are Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic Church bishops/archbishops. For example: Bishop of Clogher is now used by both denominations. Is it possible for a "Church of Ireland titles" parameter to be created? The code could be "ci" (for Church of Ireland) or "ie" (for .ie, Ireland's Internet country code). Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done, with "ie" as the code. Bencherlite^Talk 12:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for new title

{{editprotected}}

Could we please have

|ep=[[Episcopal Church (United States)|Episcopal Church (USA) titles]]

added here, presumably between the Church of England and Church of Ireland, to put it in alpha order within the code?

Thanks,. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm an admin, I've placed the editprotected template rather than fulfilling this request because I don't understand template coding. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

Should this not be religious offices instead of titles? "Titles" implies that it's merely the title that's being described not the person who holds it or the office it represents. It doesn't synchronise with other succession boxes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "title" isn't quite right. While "office" is used in political succession boxes, it doesn't seem quite right here because

• We say "Barack Obama ran for office", but don't use the word in that sense in religion
• Office has three meanings
  • Political office
  • Office building
  • Daily office (i.e. the name of a religious service)

None of which really apply here. I might vote for "positions" in place of "titles".Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Link destination

For the link, would it be an improvement to link to an article or section about the positions, instead of the overall religion's article, where one exists? — MrDolomite • Talk 16:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Did not want to turn in an {{editprotected}} without discussion. Also, still looking for additional target articles. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism -> Lineage (Buddhism) --Pnm (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding the word "religious"

{{editprotected}}

Any chance someone could add the word "religious" into each option, so it reads (for example) "Jewish religious titles". The terms "Jewish titles" and so on just don't seem to scan well. I'd suggest the ones that could do with editing are:

We might also want to do the others. Thoughts? — OwenBlacker 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There should be discussion and consensus before this change is made. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Buddhist traditions concerned with these titles use the term "lineage" or "patriarch." Buddhist lineage would be a better title. --Pnm (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

I was wondering if someone wouldn't be willing to edit the template to include this in the #switch: statement

|cc=[[Community of Christ|Community of Christ titles]]

The Sel box is used alot on the Community of Christ leadership pages and it has 250,000 members.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you much.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please revert undiscussed change

{{editprotected}} Please revert colour removal change for which consensus was neither sought or reached at the project's talk page. Bazj (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

this reversal has now been done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Episcopal Church Titles

{{editprotected}} Could someone please add an option for the Scottish Episcopal Church? --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 19:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please carry out my request made three months ago. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 14:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Move colour to top border as per WT:SBS discussion

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

background:

to

border-top: 5px solid

Thanks. Bazj (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

this one is done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

edit request - Anglican Church of Southern Africa titles

{{Edit protected}} Could a parameter be added for "Anglican Church of Southern Africa titles"? That is, could the line |sa=[[Anglican Church of Southern Africa|Anglican Church of Southern Africa titles]] be added to the giant switch statement? There are already parameters for the English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish and US provinces of the Anglican Communion, so I don't think this will be controversial. - htonl (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - htonl (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - Other Defined Titles

• Template:S-rel/sandbox - S-rel/sandbox
• Template:S-rel/testcases - S-rel/testcases

If the following edit was made it would allow users to define titles not currently defined (something I run into often).

The Third line from: |#default=Religious titles

The Third line to: |#default={{{1}}} titles

I have made the change to the Template:S-rel/sandbox and you can see it is working on the Template:S-rel/testcases page. If you look at the bottom of the table, I put the "Church of Denmark" in as an example of how you could enter your own title. Please also note that if left blank "Relious Titles" still show, but only when blank.

Unless someone objects I will do an {{Edit protected}} request to change the page, since I am not an admin. Once the change is made I will update the documentation to show that option.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 22:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks for your hard work. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Other Defined Titles V2

I have come to decided, threw use, that I minor change needs to be made to the Edit request I made above.

Could you please change the third line from

• |#default={{{1}}} titles

to

• |#default={{{1}}}

That way, the template doesn't forced "titles" into the box, but it is created by the user. I have run into cases where the reason this template isn't used is that the user needs to add stuff after the word "titles" which this edit will allow. This should be done now, so that the custom choice option isn't used a great deal before this edit is made.

Again, I have made is change to the sandbox to verify it works

• Template:S-rel/sandbox - S-rel/sandbox
• Template:S-rel/testcases - S-rel/testcases

--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 October 2013

Hi. I'd like to request the following edit: 'Shī‘a Islam titles' to 'Shia Islam titles'. Thanks. Shiite (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Shiite (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I did not see any controversy in this request, given that in the Shia Islam article, the primary spelling of this word is "Shia". Steel1943 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not done for now: Upon further review of articles related to "Shia", I found that this edit request could be considered controversial. I have reverted my edit on the template, and am leaving this edit up for discussion. Here's why:

1. In the article Shia Islam, the article clearly has several different spellings of the word "Shia". Specifically, in the section Shia Islam#Etymology, there is a description that goes into detail regarding which spelling refers to what language each of these words refers.
2. Other articles that I can find with "Shia" in the title by doing a random search (referring to Islam) refer have the spellings in several different ways, and seem to not give priority to any specific spelling.

With this information (and the fact that I am by means no expert in this field), I would not feel safe performing this edit unless there is consensus formed regarding the correct spelling that should be in this template. Steel1943 (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've marked the request as answered. Thanks for doing the legwork, Steel1943. Shiite, feel free to reopen this request if there is a consensus to make the change after more discussion. Perhaps you could ask on some relevant WikiProjects to get the attention of other editors? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Mr. Stradivarius, earlier, I posted a question referring to this discussion on WikiProject Islam's talk page, as well as on their Shi'a Islam task force's talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I wanted it to be the same as the article namespace (Shia Islam). I believe this is how people in the 'West' cite it. It's not controversial at all. Shiite (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Matching the form used as name of the relevant article seems sensible, and there has been no opposition, so I have fulfilled this request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Name of template

What do people think about moving this template to a more intuitive title, perhaps {{Religious succession box}}? The redirect {{S-rel}} will of course continue to work. An advantage will be that the wikicode will be easier to read/understand. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Template:S-religious will be a better page name. tahc ^chat 17:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the three letter abbreviations often used in the names of succession templates are not intuitive. I recently created a redirect to {{S-rel}} named {{S-religious}}, basing it on both the current template name and the first word of the default text. If this template is moved, I think it should become {{S-religious}} in order to retain the "S-name" format used by all the others at Category:Succession header templates. -- Zyxw (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I can support S-religious as it is better than S-rel. Ideally all those templates should be expanded to Succession but I don't think I have the energy to tackle that! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

After all the work undertaken by Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization to standardise the succession boxes it's really disheartening to see MSGJ suggest a way-out non-standard name like {{Religious succession box}}. {{S-religious}} is within the bounds of reasonable usage, being within the "s-" naming structure and would lead a user to the documentation at {{s-start}}.

While I can see that some folks are coming at this from the religious angle (as did the original creators of many of the former religious succession templates listed at WP:SBS/T#Deleted templates (for monitoring)), it's more important to emphasize its role as part of the succession boxes, firstly because an {{s-start}} will always be required first, and secondly because not all of an individuals succession boxes need be religious in nature, Rowan Williams being a recent and well-known example.

As for moving s-rel to s-religious, the sheer number of existing uses (11000+ I believe, the transclusion counter isn't working at the moment) make this less desirable option than having s-religious redir to s-rel.

The three letter names may not be intuitive but they do have the virtue of being more readable and easy to follow when you're working with them in bulk - take a peek at the wiki-code for Winston Churchill#Political offices - and have the counter-intuitive virtue of pushing editors to look at the documentation. Even in the code that's being suggested it's unlikely that any editor would memorize all the option parameters that have already been suggested for religions, churches & sects.

Zyxw - in collecting links for my reply I noticed at WP:SBS/T#Deleted templates (for monitoring) that you've already recreated {{S-weather}} as a redir to {{S-weather}}. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with what WP:SBS did, what it achieved, and how things have long since been discussed and decided before reinventing the wheel. Bazj (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Whaleyland, co-founder of WP:SBS chiming in here with my two cents. I remain strongly of the opinion that the shorter the better in regards to templates in general. Unlike article content, templates are supposed to be easy-to-use but also easy-to-code. I've felt for a long time that shorter codes are better. That is why we intentionally phased out the old system where all succession boxes were {{succession box [something]}}. It was getting ridiculous. The longest I found on the list linked above is {{Succession box two to one U.S. Rep to Senator}}. While that may have some basic intuitiveness to it, it certainly is a pain to write and code and it isn't flexible. Now granted, this suggestion here is specifically for one of the headers, a concept which I wasn't responsible for creating, but I still firmly believe that the default for all templates in the s-box series should remain as {{s-something}} and preferably {{s-som}}. As User:Bazj already stated, assuming you are using the s-box header templates properly, you are probably going to need to check the Template/Document page anyway just to figure out the code for the religion/denomination/sect/etc. Once that is figured out, well, then you already know the original code, so problem solved! I assume most people when creating a new article or adding an s-box to an existing one first look at a similar article to match its style. When this is done, the editor should notice the header template right away and if they don't understand it, do what any good editor should do and check the template page.

So I suppose what I am saying is that I see absolutely no reason for making {{Religious succession box}}, indeed were that to be created I would probably intentionally go and change all instances of it to the current system and recommend it for deletion as I have done literally 50+ times before (again, see list—I made almost all of those deletion requests six-eight years ago). The idea of creating {{s-religious}} is not as loathsome to me and I see you have been BOLD and already made it. So long as it remains the redirect, I see no problem with it. Were you attempt to switch it to become the primary template, however, I would strongly disagree with such a proposal and encourage other members of WP:SBS to vote against it as well. Just because the group is no longer active does not mean its editors are not.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 00:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)