"

Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization:  The work of this group is interesting, even though I am not myself drawn to join in at this point.  I did ask the following question in the SBS WikiProject talk/forum ... (in anticipation of something we both might want to tackle in the future?):

Exceptions to standardization?  My guess is that there are some plausible and well-informed reasons for those cases in which standardization is not the best choice.  

My question becomes relevant in that context:  Will someone please give me one example in which an understandable interest in standardization was not sufficient to overcome the reasons for a specific non-standard succession box?  One would hope that there would have been more than one illustrative example ...?  

I understand your question to be, 'Are there examples where the standard succession box is not the best choice.'  There is a long-standing disagreement about which article should be linked to from U.S. representative's boxes (discussion here: Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox) .  For example, should New Hampshire representatives' boxes link to United States Congressional Delegations from New Hampshire or List of United States Representatives from New Hampshire?  I happen to like the former, since all of these articles for all of the states are fully populated.  Another editor very much would like it to be the latter, expecting the articles to become populated once many articles link to them.  If the Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox gets changed, I was contemplating creating an alternate standard for some states, which admittedly wouldn't be ideal. 

Standardization of succession boxes is something we try to do to fit all needs.  Quite often we find exceptions to the rule, but when that occurs, we either bring it up here to discuss, or find some easy and manageable solution that attempts to correct it.  Personally, I have run across numerous templates that are not in this series and cannot easily be corrected to work with it.  In those cases, I try to convert everything I can in the code and leave or customize the rest to work with the format established.  This was everything that has been standardized is standardized, leaving only the code that we currently have no standards for.  As you can tell from the templates page, there are many templates in this series and many that are not.  Some of the members including myself are attempting to remove as many of the older (and often very complex) templates to this simpler format.  However, some templates such as those for the Canadian parliament are not even undergoing review currently until the current problems are resolved due to their advanced codings.

I hope this somewhat answers your question.  Was there anything specific you were wondering about?– ( Talk • Contributions ) 

I must add that I have myself been removing such templates for quite some time, and have adopted a specific format for both Representatives and Senators, samples of which one can find in the succession boxes for the United States Presidents. My versions look essentially the same as the old ones, with some redundant text having been removed. Link modifications can be performed on these newer, simplified templates much easier, as editing a template is a very different thing indeed from simply editing pages. , The Duke of 

Cut me some slack here, please: I'm the one who initially asked about exceptions to standardization, and now I'm going to try to sketch a bit of the rationale behind that query.  In a way, I hesitated to post any question in the first place for fear of arousing anyone's too eager interest  but now I have no choice but to deal with any unanticipated consequences.  

My concern is focused on pre-Meji Japanese history. I'm persuaded that the succession boxes for Emperors of Japan and Japanese era names are fine the way they are  for now; but they could become better, more useful, more focused ....  

In January 2008, I'd like to begin to work with others in a process of possibly improving the format somewhat, but I'm too wrappe