Template talk:Succession box/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: There is no consensus to add instructions relating to the biographical value of a succession to the page.

There were 8 supports and 8 opposes. There were reasonable arguments on both sides, but the central questions involved were about subjective preference and can't really be answered for our purposes except by a very clear consensus one way or the other, which we do not have here. I've also looked at the previous discussion regarding infoboxes, but see no reason to infer a consensus there that could usefully help to determine the outcome here.

On a personal, totally non-binding note, I was surprised to read nothing in the discussion about how the proposed wording would affect the succession box in cases not related to US politics. Is there an unwritten assumption that this is only relevant to the US? Would the same principles apply in France or Taiwan? Is the word "redistricted" appropriate for Venezuela? Just idly commenting, but maybe some consideration could be given to that if there are discussions similar to this one in future.

Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization and Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox have been notified of this discussion.

Parallel to Template:Infobox Officeholder should this be added "but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders." See also an earlier RfC Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting where the concept of requiring the information to be of some value was raised. Collect (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per discussion below. SleepCovo (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - per discussion below. Kraxler (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - per discussion below. TFD (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - per discussion below. TL565 (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Meaningless succession boxes clutter up the bottom of articles and detract from any that do have value. In the case of numbered Congressional districts, there already is an article for each district that shows the sequence of people elected under that number. But that sequence has no meaning in terms of the biographies of the people involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Redistricting is a monkey wrench thrown in the succession box, as it completely changes the political contest and context. It should be its own special case, one which resets the string of office holders. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support As the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to create encyclopedia articles of use to readers, anything which may mislead or be of mal-utility to readers is contrary to the primary purpose of the project. The discussion below makes this eminently clear. Collect (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for many reasons. Including that redistricting is a relative change. Sometimes a new district uses significant parts of the old district, sometimes it is unrelated.—GoldRingChip 16:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The proposal is specifically aimed at cases where there is minimal, zero, or nearly zero actual overlap (i.e. that the people involved would not in any way consider themselves as "succeeding" the other person for biographical purposes), did you notice that? Collect (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: The above person was specifically WP:CANVASSED at [1] in a non-neutral manner, and the CANVASSer did not notify a group of varying opinions. Collect (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Note: The above person was not canvassed but notified, it is the original creator of Template:USRepSuccessionBox the use of which is being questioned here. Kraxler (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
      • You "notified" two and only two people, whose positions you knew from prior discussion five years ago. "I remembered our discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives which ended with the replacement of that mega template with succession boxes. So you may, or may not, want to opine there." seems to indicate you notified the person for a specific reason. Had you notified every single person from that discussion, you might have been able to assert you chose them neutrally. Choosing to notify people whose opinion you presumed to know is the "vote stacking" form of CANVASSing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
        • First: This is a straw poll, at best, not a vote count, stacking would be irrelevant. We want to hear arguments and opinions, as many as possible. Second: I notified two people who have a direct interest in the matter: the original creator of a template the use of which (and the abolition of which, if it depended on you) is discussed here; and the editor who originally suggested to substitute the deleted mega template with a place-holder and eventually with the aforementioned template. (The second one did not even reply.) I quote from WP:NOTIFY: "inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed and editors are expected to offer the right of reply wherever appropriate. Kraxler (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Um -- "notifying" people who are being discussed is one thing. Notifying two specific people who are not mentioned here but who were chosen for their prior POV is weird. Collect (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Did you canvass 17 people on November 27, a vast majority of whom you knew that they supported your side at a previous RfC? Do you agree to send a "neutral notification" to those who opined (both for and against) in 2009 when the currently valid consensus about congressmen succession boxes was achieved? Kraxler (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• support per previous RFC result. These successors and predecessors are nonsense. Does Charles Rangell have 12 successors and predecessors even though he has been reelected continuously by the same constituents since the 1950s? No, and saying so is rediculousGaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kraxler's comments, below. I would be in favor adding a (redistricted) to such succession boxes for clarity, but removing the names would destroy their usefulness to those who are tracking the history of the title. (Also note: for many districts, district articles/lists don't exist, so such navigation is dependent on succession boxes.) – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per previous RFC result, and as a move in the right direction. See my additional comments below. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The succession should be included even if redistricting took place in order to track the history of the office, but like Philosopher mentioned above I too would favor indicating that redistricting took place in such instances. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not the biggest fan of succession boxes in general. But in this case I substantially agree with Kraxler's comments: whatever happens to a district, it's still objectively useful to be able to track its history. I'm also concerned that the contrary result unnecessarily vests discretion in Wikipedia editors to decide how much redistricting is too much, rather than sticking to objective district numbering. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support based on previous discussion and the fact that a district having the same number does not in any way necessarily mean that it is in fact even remotely the same district. Regarding Arxiloxos's point above, having a link in the succession box to the article on the district is to my eyes sufficient to allow people interested in the history of the various districts which share the same number, but perhaps little else, to be able to follow that history. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Succession boxes are set up the way they are, with links to predecessor, successor, and office held, because the office, like those who held it, is supposed to be of some intrinsic interest. The redistricting and boundary changes seem to make "district 13" a completely arbitrary concept over time, even though it is official. (Contrast with British Parliamentary constituencies, where despite boundary shifts, there's some sort of shared geographic nexus in constituencies of the same name at different times.) Being "official" does not in and of itself entitle the district to a succession box; if articles on the districts are lacking, they should be created, rather than larding political articles with superfluous boxes of little merit. Choess (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments made by Kraxler, Philosopher and my rationale below.DCmacnut<> 20:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I suggest that where the "successor" or "predecessor" in an elected office has essentially no connection to the person the article is about in any actual manner, that the use of such fields be avoided. In the case of Congressional districts, the number is only used by the State in numbering districts, and is not used in Congress as such. As the goal is to provide Wikipedia users with sensible and useful information, I find that in the relatively small number of cases (generally where a district is added or removed, making the overlap with the prior district in some cases essentially nil) where the information is useless, that we simply agree not to add it. I would point out that the "source" used for this template is Wikipedia itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is something that affects the actual use or not of succession boxes for parliamentary seats whose occupants are elected in numbered districts with shifting areas (like US Congress seats, state assembly seats, city council seats). For example, what's the use of the box which appears at the bottom? (Is there a way to insert it here? It moves down automatically)

Preceded by redistricted

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York's 13th congressional district 1993–2013

Succeeded by redistricted

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

Yes, there is a way to insert it here, and I just refactored your edit to do that. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The infobox discussion (linked aboved) starts with the wrong assertion that the the box "asserts that he was succeeded in Congress by". That's not true. The succession box asserts that someone was suucceeded in the district of this number by someone else. This is not "biographical information", the text in an article may say: "X was a member of Congress from 1976 to 2003" That means that the member sat for all that time in Congress, without being preceded or succeeded by anybody, "in Congress". The succession boxes at the bottom serve the purpose of cross-referencing the numbered district, which has a list of office holders from the creation of the district until today. The succession refers to this list. If you read old papers, documents or books, and see the district number, the list gives you info who was holding this seat when. That's what the succession box is for. Nobody, after reading "X was a member of Congress from 1976 to 2003" would think that he was preceeded or succeeded "in Congress" in 1983 or 1993, but they should see that his district changed the number, and perhaps the area shifted. A good example is Louis DeSalvio who had a very long tenure in the New York State Assembly, and where the district changes are well explained in the text. The succession boxes are important for the article writer to navigate between districts, members, and legislature lists. Kraxler (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK -- note that in a large state losing a district - that "lost district" may have no "successor" at all, and, in fact, the district numbers can be completely different so that the officeholders have no relationship to the officeholders under the old mapping. If the only "value" is one of "this is what the numbers are, but the people had no connection whatsoever with each other, and the Congressional biographies make no such connection, but Wikipedia does, so Wikipedia is the actual source for the succession list" then one well ought to look up "recursion" on Google. Unless a reliable source makes the claim, Wikipedia can not make the claim. So far, it appears Wikipedia is the only source for the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are less districts than before, some (usually the highest numbers) end the succession with "district abolished" or "district eliminated". I can't quite follow your argument about Wikipedia as a source. Do you dispute that at New York's 12th congressional district Major R. Owens, Nydia Velázquez and Carolyn Maloney are listed as having held this numbered seat, in this sequence? Do you dispute that these members have been officially elected, under New York election laws listing these numbers? Kraxler (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sticking to the issue at hand - I do deny that Charles Rangel "succeeded" Michael Grimm in any rational sense - noting that Grimm has continued to hold the office of Congressman, representing the same basic constituency. In cases where there is no rational sense of being preceded by a person or succeeded by a person in an office, and no reliable source makes the claim, then it is improper for Wikipedia to use Wikipedia as a source for that claim. Collect (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sticking to the issue at hand - Michael Grimm was elected to Congress in 2010 in the NY district numbered 13. Charles Rangel was elected at the next election in 2012 in the NY district numbered 13. That is, forgetting everything else, a rational sequence. Check out New York's 13th congressional district. Rangel is listed directly beneath Grimm. Do you dispute the logic behind the lists in all such congressional district articles?

I reiterate that the succession box at the bottom is rather a navigation aid, not a source of info. Info should be gotten in the text, or the aptly named infobox.

I would like to point you to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives which expressly estabished the consensus to add Congress succession boxes, in lieu of a template that contained about 1,500 names (all US congressman from New York since 1789).

I'll refrain from posting here now for some time, waiting for input from other users. Kraxler (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Um -- that discussion had was about a massive single template - I do not see it as in any way shape manner or form supporting use of succession info where the info is actually misleading to the reader. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Kraxler, everything you said is what I pointed out in another discussion. The only problem is that it should apply to the infobox as well, not just the succession box in the bottom. If it is just the succession box, then I can't agree with you on this. There is already enough inconsistency as it is. TL565 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It makes no sense to say that a congressman in an electoral district with the same number succeeded another congressman, unless the districts have remained largely the same. TFD (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Then 99% of all representatives articles don't make sense, as they are all still using that format. This issue has gotten way out of hand over nothing. Succession doesn't necessarily mean that a congressmen replaced another in congress, just in that numbered district. Where did this idea come from that it depends how much the district changed? The fact is that the numbered district doesn't change. It has nothing to do with physical boundaries. There will always be redistricting. This has been the layout since the start of Wikipedia, why is it suddenly an issue this year? TL565 (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I quote from Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#Overview (my bolding):

• Succession boxes are template-created wiki-tables that serve as navigational aids in a wide variety of articles, mostly biographies. Placed at the bottom of their respective articles (or sections where applicable), they show the place of each article's subject in one or more well-defined chains of succession, naming in each line their predecessor in the left-hand cell, their title (and usually the dates wherein that title was held by the subject) in the middle cell, and their successor in the right-hand cell. Although succession boxes generally track titles held by people, they may also be used for anything that can be arranged in some order generally chronological, such as states, electoral constituencies, transit stations, buildings, ships, models of goods, such as cars and cameras, and art works, such as books, films, and music albums.
• Succession boxes can visibly improve an article in several ways. Firstly, they offer an overview of a person's career through the titles said person has held throughout their life. Secondly, they gather and categorise all of the person's official titles in a form easy to understand, and in an order different from the one provided by the article itself. Thirdly, they offer dynastic information about monarchs, information which is usually not given in their articles.
• There are also several advantages of succession boxes that are not limited to the individual articles: they offer readers the ability to follow a chain of succession, clicking their way from incumbent to incumbent, or to go straight to the article of the title, where they should be able to find a list of all of the title's holders; also, they can better illustrate cases of a change in a title's name, joined offices having passed down from/to the same person, and cases where a person has held an office multiple times.
• Standardisation becomes more important when these features are considered, as succession lines of the same chain ought to be similar. However, it is also a matter of appearance; succession boxes should contribute to the positive overall image of an article rather than be simply tolerated for their functional benefits. Kraxler (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • And now a simple question: Do you dispute the logic behind articles like New York's 13th congressional district which combines all those congressmen who were elected in the district with this official number in one list? Are these articles unsourced? Do they make false claims? Should they be deleted? If yes, why has nobody come forward to propose deletion? Kraxler (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: That article specifically states the years when the district was altered and shows the changes in maps, and does not assign linearity per se to the district as it changes, nor imply "succession" as being to the same location. I would further note that the redistricting occurs once per decade, and is generally minor except where the number of representatives is altered. I decline to debate straw-man arguments, as it is reasonably clear that a student who wrote in a term paper "Michael Grimm was succeeded by Charles Rangel" would get an "F" and the teacher would note the absurdity of the claim. If Wikipedia makes an absurd claim, then it is simply an editor who thinks "Pigs Is Pigs." Collect (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Little is gained from applying this proposal, while it is hard to discern a standard for when a district is exactly the same or only partially. It is true that there is no apparent succession from one Rep to another in some situations. But little is gained in breaking up those succession tables.—GoldRingChip 19:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment -- I have dealt with succession boxes in a number of context. I hav no view on their application to US representatives, but their not working well in that context does not mean that they do not do very well in othersI am not sure of the merit of having successors and predecessors in infoboxes, which can make those boxes overlong. Succession boxes serve a useful navigation function and should be preserved in general. In my experiecne the usual cause of excessive white space is badly placed photos and infoboxes. This may require wider alterations in WP so that text will wrap around objects. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Was the previous consensus implemented? If not, why not?

Consensus is reasonably clear that successor or predecessor should not be used in infoboxes where significant redistricting has taken place. Useitorloseit did raise a valid concerns about POV over what level of redistricting is needed to render these parameters unusable, so davidwr's suggestion that this is decided on a case-by-case basis is sensible. Number 57 21:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why this has not been considered a settled matter since the previous RfC was closed at the end of June, and why Collect felt the need to submit another RfC five months later, which seems to be covering the same ground again. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply put - 2 editors are quite insistent that the RfC on infoboxes does not apply to succession boxes, even though the same actual issue appears. Thus a second RfC to make clear that the desire to furnish useless information which is not sourced to a secondary reliable source, and which may beyond inaccurate in nature, is not supported by WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. The example of Charles B. Rangel is a good one. I see that the infobox there implements the results of the previous RfC, while the succession box at the bottom still handles "succession" the old way. While I think the change to the infobox is an improvement, that infobox is still rather out-of-hand with what amounts to borderline trivia in my opinion. What is important to show in the infobox is that Rangel represents Harlem or northern Manhattan, and that's not there. Simply listing the district numbers he represented, and the year range applicable to each district number, would be sufficient. As for "succession", I take that to mean who represented the physical location of Rangel's residence before and after Rangel. As he is still in Congress, he has yet to be succeeded. So. "Preceded by" Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and as he is still the incumbent, "Succeeded by" nobody.

But take a look at Dennis Kucinich to see how the idea of "succession" can get really complicated:

• Where he lives, he was succeeded by the incumbent Marcy Kaptur, who was redistricted into his district by Republican gerrymandering.
• If you go by district number, which is rather meaningless, he was succeeded by the Republican Mike Turner. The idea that he was voted out of office because voters' political leanings changed is silly. The idea that either Kucinich or his constituency picked up their roots and moved to Dayton is silly too.
• Arguably, he was really succeeded by Joyce Beatty, who won a newly created (by Republican gerrymandering) "safe Democratic seat" in Columbus. The idea that Beatty was preceded by Mike Turner is silly too.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to draw their own conclusions about who would rather see Beatty than Kucinich speaking to the people on CSPAN. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wbm1058, you're missing the point. The succession box serves for cross-referencing the district by number, which is the only way it is ordinarily described. Hence list-articles like New York's 13th congressional district. The succession box directly refers to that article and in that list, for whatever reason, Rangel succeeds Grimm, that's a fact. I asked Collect several times whether he disputes the logic of the congressional district articles, but he evades the subject. So maybe you could give me a straight answer: "Do you dispute the logic behind articles like New York's 13th congressional district?" Yes or no? Kraxler (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'm missing the point of what you want to do; I'm just questioning its usefulness, and am concerned that casual readers will be misled about what it means and its (in)significance. Regarding articles like New York's 13th congressional district, I don't have a problem with tracking the history of the district number there, although that article is woefully incomplete. There should be a map showing the district boundaries for each decade of its existence. I'm sure the representative from Schoharie in the early 1800s didn't represent anybody living remotely close to Harlem. Such articles might be useful for tracking the history of gerrymandering strategies, and perhaps some other purpose that escapes me. What do you think such an article is useful for? As to succession of actual people, I think it's fair to track the succession of representatives over the five congressional terms of each districts' existence. Then treat each and every district as if it were dissolved every decade. That would avoid the issue of subjectively determining whether the district was "close" enough to the prior boundaries to track it for two decades as if it were substantially the same district. I'm fine with treating every district as completely reformed every ten years, even those that change so little that nobody notices the minor revisions to the boundaries. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, at a different venue, the following statement was put forward by me: "Charles Rangel succeeded Michael Grimm as a man who was elected in a district with the official number 13." I'd like you to parse the statement, analyzing the language, the logic, and the sources, and then opine on it. Kraxler (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I won't dispute the factual accuracy of such a statement, just its relevance. You could arbitrarily assign random numbers between one and fifty to each of the states every ten years. Then you could make the statement that Andrew Cuomo "succeeded" John Kasich as governor of state "37" in 2014, because you arbitrarily reassigned the "state identifying number" "37" from OH to NY that year. Then the casual readers will jump to the conclusion that the voters of the great state #37 just ousted their Republican governor and replaced him with a Democrat. Of course, this is all meaningless nonsense. If used the wrong way, it could put a POV "spin" on what actually happened. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

References

After taking part in this discussion, I realized that a bunch of politicians in California would be affected by the 2012–13 redistricting, so I started in changing some bios to fit the earlier RfC: Jerry McNerney, Pete Stark, George Miller and Barbara Lee. There are more of these to be dealt with. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC for succession boxes is still going on. Please refrain from changing them until this RfC is finished. Kraxler (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The standing order is the previously decided RfC which says to use the word "redistricted" in place of nonsensical succession. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC you cite applies only to infoboxes. Feel free to edit them any way you see fit. Whether that RfC applies to succession boxes, or whether it should be expanded to henceforth apply also to succession boxes, is currently being discussed here. Thus, please refrain from changing the usage of the succession boxes until this RfC is closed. Kraxler (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Succession can be found in infoboxes or footer boxes or any other kind of nav box. The previously decided RfC stands as the only rule currently in force which applies to them. Unless you are arguing that Barbara Lee's infobox should say accurately that her district 9 was redistricted, but that down in the footer nav box we should say incorrectly that she was succeeded by Jerry McNerney, despite the fact that she is still in office—was never voted out of her position. I don't think anybody here will support a disjunct between types of succession boxes. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to say anything about infoboxes. Could you please stick to the point? The cited RfC on infoboxes does not apply to succession boxes. So, here it goes again: First: "Infoboxes" are not "succession boxes", although succession boxes may contain info, and infoboxes may contain successions, could we agree on that? Second: There is currently a discussion going on, right here, about how to use "succession boxes" in the future, is that correct? I quote from WP:Revert: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Kraxler (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Succession boxes plainly fulfill a different purpose than infobosxes. Claiming that a rule designed for one automatically applies to the other is ridiculous. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Outdent I'm late to this Rfc, but have been involved in several in the past. I can see the point being made by User:Collect, and realized this issue has cropped up again after we had a conversation about my edits to Michael Grimm page. This issue comes up every time there is a decennial redistricting. In the case of some states (Alaska and Texas), it pops up more frequently if a redistricting map is thrown out by a court. I believe the consensus established in 2007 regarding this very issue during a discussion over a Michigan district should stand. Ignore geography when discussing districts. This should be true for federal and state legislative districts. As WikiPedia editors, we should not to be arbiters of determining which boundary changes are significant or negligible enough to determine when "redistricted" should be used versus the current method. To do so would open the door to original research.

1. Using original districts is the simplest method.
2. Succession is not limited to electoral succession. Individual district articles use linear succession based on the districts ordinal number.
3. Something should be done to update or fix articles where the succession is illogical on its face, e.g. [[Michael Grimm (politician)|] and Charles B. Rangel. But we can do that without altering the current method. If we leave the articles as is, anyone that clicks through the links can easily discern the difference. We perhaps needs to add more clarification, which is what Template:s-ref is meant to do.
4. Yes, the New York Times focuses on geography in their region, and many local newspapers around the country will reference Congressman John Doe representing Anytown, USA. But the Official Congressional Directory and the Historical Atlas of United States Congressional Districts use numbers.
5. The Congressional Directory and Atlas also use geography (zip codes and counties) to denote historical boundaries. See my sandbox on the topic.
6. With each redistricting, the old district ceases to exist. An official can move to a new district, retire, or run for reelection. (e.g. Mario Díaz-Balart)
7. Using redistricted makes the succession box irrelevant since the links are not there to provide needed context. Template:s-ref by itself is not enough.

Examples of how this is handled in other articles (note the examples I'm using show inboxes, but the solutions they offer could easily be applied to succession boxes)

1. Linda Menard. Represented Alaska Senate District G, but was redistricted to District D. She was defeated in the 2012 primary by Mike J. Dunleavy. Dunleavy's article mentions the race in context of the redistricting, but her article implies that she lost the District G primary, while the inbox says she was redistricted.
2. Todd Sieben from Illinois. This article treats the inbox as one of electoral succession, and places a small ordinal number next to each successor. It would be straight forward to review past election results, but then it begs the question of ordinal vs electoral succession and conflict with the district articles.

Those are my two cents. I think keeping the status quo for succession boxes in place makes the most sense, with the use of Template:s-ref as needed.DCmacnut<> 20:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course an "Historical Atlas" of Congressional Districts would use numbers -- but it has no actual legal status in defining whether one person is a successor" or "predecessor" to another person ... if a fact is "technically correct" but "totally useless" to actual succession, and of no likely utility to the reader, then it is exactly like the anecdotal message given in the fog from the people in the office building to a lost pilot.[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/apr/30/microsoft .business]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The 5th District of North Carolina was originally geographicall contiguous to modern day Tennessee as that state was part of Nkrth Carolina until it became part of the Southwest Territory. Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would treat that district how? Using ordinal district numbers is the cleanest way way to keep things clean. Once you start down the geography path you need to revise resisting maps, election results, etc. to determine the successor. That verges on WP:synthesis. The atlas and directory are reliable sources. Any perceived fallacies can be addressed in text and references. Your proposal would render succession boxes unusable.DCmacnut<> 00:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see this related RfC Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox and comment. Kraxler (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add |order parameter

To designate the nth holder of an office, which is both common and often helpful for religious or political titles, I propose adding a {{{order}}} parameter, either rendered above the office title, or immediately preceding the office title. --PanchoS (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Defaults for before and after

The before and after parameters are "suggested", but omitting them gives results like Adam Russel. I realise that a simple default {{{before|}}} would blank a mandatory parameter to {{S-bef}}, but would it be better to produce an empty box if before is omitted? Certes (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Mostly deprecated

Is there any good reason not to move from this template being "Mostly deprecated" to being fully deprecated? Greenshed (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wording changed to deprecate. It's better for new editors not to have a confusing arrangement of different templates which achieve the same thing. Happy to discuss though. Greenshed (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Converting the template into a multi-use template

{{rfc|style}}

Hi everyone, as stated in the title, I believe the template should be redefined from a "political template" to a multi-use one so that it supports other types of succession. To elaborate, the Succession box is used in the Samsung Galaxy S10 wiki page (scroll to the bottom of the page). The Succeeded by field contains the word Incumbent which doesn't make sense for the topic in question. I find that a more appropriate word would be Most recent. Regards, CroGamer 1 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

So change |after=Incumbent to |after=Most recent in Samsung Galaxy S10. It doesn't need a change to the template. Cabayi (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I tried but Hayman30 refuses out of reasons which make sense. After reading the guidelines of this template it clearly mentions the use on persons and not products. Even if I'm wrong about this it would be great to add this info to prevent future occursions of this issue. CroGamer 1 (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SBS : "Succession boxes ... serve as navigational aids in a wide variety of articles, mostly biographies". That's mostly, not exclusively. I've reverted Hayman30 and started a discussion on the talk page in case anybody wants to take it further. Cabayi (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

91.122.52.1 (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

| после = [Граф Инь Александр] }} {{Послать}}

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)