Template talk:Succession box/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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=[[Wikipedia|King of Wikipedia]] | before=[[Jimmy Wales]] | after=Current Incumbent | start=2005}}
{{succession vary1 | title=[[Wikipedia|Prince Consort of Wikipedia]] | before=New Office | after=[[John Smith of Jamestown]] | 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)

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

rowspan="2"	rowspan=""
	no rowspan

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:

Preceded by: before (rowspan 3)	title1 years1	Succeeded by: after (rowspan 3)
	title2 years2
	title3 years3

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

Preceded by: before1 (rowspan 1)	title1 years1	Succeeded by: after1 (rowspan 2)
Preceded by: before2 (rowspan 2)	title2 years2
	title3 years3	Succeeded by: after2 (rowspan 1)

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

Preceded by: before1 (rowspan 2)	title1 years1	Succeeded by: after1 (rowspan 1)
	title2 years2	Succeeded by: after2 (rowspan 2)
Preceded by: before2 (rowspan 3)	title3 years3
	title4 years4	Succeeded by: after3 (rowspan 5)
	title5 years5
Preceded by: before3 (rowspan 2)	title6 years6
	title7 years7
Preceded by: before4 (rowspan 1)	title8 years8

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

left(2)	-title-	right
	-title-	right(2)
left(3)	-title-
	-title-	right(5)
	-title-
left(2)	-title-
	-title-
left	-title-

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)

[Back to one-indent, for sanity]

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 Wikipedia's rules are written down. You may [even] be banned for violating unwritten, community standards". This is one of them. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 [[XXX]]". --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 [[XXX]]'''&nbsp;" Jeltz talk 15:11, 2004 Dec 21 (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.

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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^{talk} 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)

Request cat

Can <noinclude>[[Category:Succession templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</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 Wikipedia: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)

Request to add category

I don't have enough privileges to do this myself, so could any administator please add [[Category:Succession templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] to the page itself. Thanks. ThreeBlindMice 22:51, 11 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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}}}">

when the invoking code doesn't specify a value for the rows parameter. Could we please either add #if conditionals or modify {{{rows}}} to {{{rows|1}}}? I can do it myself if an administrator grants me the appropriate rights. Thanks —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 23:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fiction or reality?

Is there any reason this template can't be used on fictional articles? Specifically, it is constantly being deleted from the Darth Vader article, despite the fact that it is used often on other Star Wars articles (such as Palpatine). EVula 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Shared title

Is it possible to add an optional parameter that indicates a title is shared during that period with somebody else? Chanheigeorge 18:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what, don't worry about it. I'll just add the info with a line break after the year. Chanheigeorge 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is; but you have to use the S-boxes. Template:S-ttl has an optional parameter "regent1" for a co-ruler (it doesn't have to be a regent); see Template:S-start/Instructions#S-ttl. Ardric47 05:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Before

Shouldn't the before part actually show up in the article? If so, can someone correct this as i think it would be useful as background research...? Simply south 10:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Incompatibility amongst templates.

The succession box is incompatible with certain "tall" templates, e.g. the LDS template, and brings forth large amounts of whitespace. OneWeirdDude 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Who came before?

Is there a concensus on what to use if you don't know when someone took office or if you don't know who preceded them? I'm using "??" for now, but was wondering if there was a standard usage. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help/advice for new succession template

I have a kind of succession template that I think would be valuable, and I'd like to take the opportunity to learn a bit more about Wikipedia templates. Specifically, I'd like to create a succession template for World Science Fiction Convention guests of honor. The problem is that the number of guests of honor vary from year to year. In most year's there are 3 - 4 GoHs, but there have been as few as one (in the early conventions) and as many as 9 (in 1987 — What were they thinking that year?) Here's a link to the long list of Worldcon data] listing the GoHs to show you what I mean.

Could I impose on someone to provide some feedback to the code I've attempted at User:JohnPomeranz/Worldcon_Gohs? If the code is fine (which I doubt), am I right that I need to put the code on a page in the template wikispace with a name like "Template:WorldconGoH." Do I need to (or is it good practice to) propose the new template somewhere? Where do I need to announce a new template and how? Anything else I should know?

Feel free to tell me if I'm off base here. Just trying to stretch my skills a bit. --JohnPomeranz 02:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editprotected}}

This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's tagged on the talk page. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for use of template

Is there a place on wikipedia that discusses an appropriate use for this box? In many sports articles, the box is used well over 10 times on some articles. It seems that most of the information is either already mentioned in the article or is trivial in nature. I'd like to see what wikipedia as a whole says about the issue. //Tecmobowl 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections (my take- even if they're not labelled as such), Wikipedia:Handling trivia, Wikipedia:Avoid template creep (an essay I just wrote). This template should be used sparingly, as discussed here. heqs ·:. 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New succession template series – Template:S-start

I should like to announce to the editors here that there is an alternative method of creating succession boxes to the one based on the Template:Succession box family. The templates of the S-start series are not only flexible and adaptable to most possible succession configurations, but also have the added benefit of simplicity, making the creation and editing of succession boxes more straightforward.

With seven core templates, three basic and four supplementary, it is relatively easy for editors to learn how to use the system. For specialisation purposes, the templates are equipped with several parameters, which are usually optional and which can improve succession boxes and offer more information without adding more templates. Furthermore, a simple "row" parameter can be used to produce most conceivable combinations of rows and multi-row cells in a table, giving editors the ability to accurately picture complex successions and removing the need for additional templates with obscure names.

Finally, a system of headers has been devised, helping to categorise titles and tidy up boxes; said headers are now widely used in boxes, even in those comprising Template:Succession box templates.

The s-start templates are fully documented in their main page, and are regulated by WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (SBS). If you are interested, you can join the project and help us improve the templates and their usage guidelines. Waltham, The Duke of 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling!

The word preceeded is not spelled correctly in this box! 67.53.81.83 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see "preceded" in the template, which is the correct spelling.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: modifications to reflect advanced options offered by WP:SBS

In an attempt to harmonise the use of this template with some of the more advanced options offered by the suite of templates at WP:SBS, I have just proposed a change to this template, and suggestions for further modifications. See discussion here - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a documentation page for this template, reflecting modern practice and the result of the discussion in question: that {{succession box}} is only suitable for simple succession lines, and that it should be allowed for these cases, but not more complex succession boxes where the templates of {{s-start}} are better adapted. Waltham, The Duke of 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Including other s-box templates proposal

I've created Template:Succession box/proposed as a replacement to the current succession box. It is compatible with current use, but adds a number of extra uses. It can use {{s-inc}}, {{s-vac}} and {{s-new}} (rather than {{s-bef}} and {{s-aft}}) where needed. Full details on Template:Succession box/proposed. It doesn't do all the special cases listed on {{s-inc}}, but does do the very common beginning and end cases. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Approve — I agree that, since this template is still heavily used and shows no likelihood to be replaced anytime soon, that these additional features will keep this template healthy while still in line with the wishes of WP:SBS. The removal of the "row" feature is actually a good move because it will stop people from using this template to create advanced templates and motivate them to use (and learn) the s-start series.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 23:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very sceptical about this. I do dread the inconsistency that will certainly arise if these features are activated; we'll have plain "succession box" boxes, "succession box" boxes with special cells, "s-start" boxes with the same cells, "s-start" boxes with more advanced variations of the same cells, "s-start" boxes with complex row layouts, and plain "succession box"-style "s-start" boxes. This will be very confusing to most editors, and will serve as a lesser substitute for s-start that will prevent editors from learning about it, perpetuating a refined version of the current problem of succession boxes unsuitable for their purposes. Furthermore, the very reason for the retention of "succession box", namely its great simplicity, will be muted by the many instances of "succession box" with parameters that will be found by editors; what is the point of adding parameters to a template that has been kept as an un-parameterised version of "s-start" for simple boxes?

Activating these features, in other words, means to have two parallel systems partially overlapping, a recipe that has been time-proven to be minimally beneficial. I appreciate the labour that has gone into this project, and am glad about and encouraged by the fact that people still produce new and intriguing ideas related to succession boxes, but I don't think that any good will come out of this one. You are free to convince me otherwise, of course. Waltham, The Duke of 00:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is standardization. s-inc/s-new/etc are worded in a standard way. We can change a single template if we ever decide to change "Incumbent" to something else, or if we decide to change the CSS style class (ie the colors).

More importantly, the parallel system you describe is already here! Many people use {{succession box}} at the start of end of a sequence by setting |before= and |after= to "new something" and "incumbent". This mis-use of the template suggests most people are already not learning about the s-inc and s-new boxes. Adding explicit parameters will make people who use this template more aware of the alternatives. The overlap remains minimal, and only catches cases where the succession box template is currently mis-used anyway. It's taken me 2 minutes to find Craig Murray, Chris Higgins and Daniel Day-Lewis which have set |after=Incumbent, but I'd bet there's lots and lots of others.

Finally, I'd like to ask your opinion on |from= and |to= replacing |year=. – is a bit of html magic which I would love to see hidden from people using this template. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the "to=" and "from=" parameters, as long as they are optional (some boxes may not require both), are not a bad idea. However, after some discussion with Waltham as well as reviewing the issue, I now disagree with the original proposal as well and realize that it will only confuse people if two different systems can be used, even if they are based on the same one. I apologize for not informing you sooner but it is a decision I have thought hard about and decided to change. The second proposal I agree with, but I think you should still keep the original "years=" parameter and plan a protracted replacement.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Duke the Scatterbrained". Please forgive the over-long delay; I had more or less forgotten about this discussion. Again, sorry.

I'm changing the indentation to a sustainable format where each person has their own level. This is a general discussion with few participants, after all; we are not addressing other editors' concerns separately.

Now, on to the subject at hand. I am sorry to say that the dash issue remains unresolved; the Manual of Style requests unspaced en dashes for ranges of plain years. I find this perfectly reasonable, yet there are also reasons to use spaced dashes for all dates in succession boxes. No major discussion has taken place about this, and, indeed, the entire concept of succession boxes, including their guidelines, has no official standing. Instead of further digressing, I'll conclude with this: if we end up using unspaced dashes for plain years, then we cannot use the automatic dash-insertion that a pair of "to" and "from" fields would necessitate. I suggest patience. Within the coming months, I shall personally make sure that all these issues is somehow resolved.

Meanwhile, we have to wake up SBS, for it has been slumbering all summer and there are serious efforts to be undertaken. Waltham, The Duke of 22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Futile?

In some articles, the succession box isn't helpful to readers. Its like trivial and just crowding the page, specially those song-related articles. Any solution? Thanks. --Efe (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

bs interwiki

Please, add bs:Šablon:Redoslijed. --BiH (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

End of the line

What template is used when there is a predecessor but no successor, for example if a constituency is abolished? JMcC (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

{{s-non}} perhaps? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate this template

I have no idea how anyone can read this. I got it now, but still. It is incredibly difficult. Is there a better format we can do?Bread Ninja (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

President of the Royal Society: academic office or cultural office?

Minor issue: I'm putting succession boxes on articles about Presidents of the Royal Society. I'm wondering whether to use Template:s-aca or Template:s-culture (i.e. is this an academic office, or is it a cultural office). Office holders are notable academics, but the PRS performs various diplomatic/figure head roles. --Oldak Quill 13:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rules to Succession boxes

Is there any rules to using succession boxes? Do we only list titles and offices that people held actual and real power in and nothing else? Thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

propose to clarify "years" parameter

I propose to clarify in the documentation that the "years" parameter is mandatory, as I found when I tried deleting it, and that it can take full dates as well as just years, as an example in the doc shows. Also, if anyone knows, please say, as appears to be the case, if a single year or date is sufficient, i.e., that a range is not needed for the template to work properly, and I can add that (this would be useful for one-year terms, for example), or if the "title", "before", and/or "after" parameters are mandatory, and I can add that. Obviously, not all of this template's parameters are mandatory, so those that are should be identified as such. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I edited the documentation for the "years" parameter, not for other parameters. If anyone knows about parameters other than "years', please feel free to edit the doc further. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)