Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive 1

message: I have a few comments about the goals listed for this WikiProject. Treating the bulleted points in "Scope and Goals" as if they were numbers:
# Agree
# Agree
# Agree
# Agree, if possible (many full dates, or even exact years, are lost to history).
# Agree
# Is a table of succession boxes really the best place to put this?
# Personally, I would prefer to see regnal and noble titles come first, because that is how people are normally known, although in some cases I can see how this would create problems (like Harold Macmillan who was presumably much better known for being Prime Minister than Earl of Stockton!).
# Expand how?
And for "Still to Work Out":
# I don't know what the problem is; I try to avoid doing too much with those articles because of the confusion. Maybe that is the problem?
# For an example of my solution to at least a few cases, see Erik Axelsson (Tott). This might not be the same issue as with the example on the WikiProject page, though.
# I agree, and suggest incorporating Template talk:PeerNavbox, etc. in subpages for archival purposes.
Ardric47 22:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At present, the s-reg template will accept a parameter to change the wording, so  can be used over sovereign titles and , for instance, over peerages during the appropriate time period. The problem with the districts is that, in the case of the U.S. Congress, for instance, we either have to have an s-par heading for each chamber, or we need to be able to link both the chamber and the district in the title. 141.158.225.22 00:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Next time I work on the templates, I will work on creating parameters for title changes in the before and after boxes.  It won't be very difficult and will help in standardizing these matters.  To help with the nobility v. regnal title dispute, I have created Template:s-nob for nobles covering the same peerages as the s-reg and s-hon.  Hopefully this fixes some of the dispute.–Whaleyland 17:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mostly" 

message: I just noticed the following addition to the scopes and goals:
:* Replace Unicode en-dash (–) with character entity (–) for database streamlining.  (The database does not like the use of the Unicode en-dash for some reason, or so I have been told.)  Also, implementing spaces between the dates and the en-dash seems reasonable for better appearance.
The claim that the database doesn't like the Unicode en-dash seems fishy to me.  First of all, I can't see how the database would not like one particular Unicode character without having the same issue with all of them (or at least, all of the ones that are encoded with the same number of bytes in UTF-8).  Moreover, the people running the MediaWiki software have been encouraging people to replace named character entities with Unicode; there's at least one bot running (User:Curpsbot-unicodify) whose mission is to move from entities to Unicode.  Several searches for any discussion of such a problem on Wikipedia have revealed nothing.  I think somebody's pulling your leg, Whaleyland.
What I can see is somebody being opposed to the Unicode en-dash on the grounds that it's hard to distinguish from a hyphen or a Unicode em-dash in the fixed-width font used in the edit box.  (Note that this is emphatically not my view, but it's one that I can see a reasonable person holding.)
— DLJessup (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  En-dashes 

message: While I haven't worked with any succession boxes myself, I noticed that one of this project's goals is to phase out the succession box template; it looks like Template_talk:Succession_box is still pretty active, though. Why hasn't anyone mentioned this project over there?  Also, in editing the Guide to layout (see User:RockOfVictory/Appendices order draft), I noticed that Wikipedia:Navigational templates#General navigation templates refers to the use of Template:Succession box and makes no mention of this project or Template:Start. Does someone more knowledgable about this topic want to update this section of Navigational templates? --J. J. 14:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little confusing, but the second item actually refers to removing the old, completely non-templated tables. Template:Succession box is, at present, based on the s-bef, s-ttl, s-aft templates, and as it's a very convenient shorthand, it's not going away. 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession box template still active 

message: Several succession templates have been/are being listed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Ardric47 00:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I am also. I wasn't very clear, but I was trying to solicit delete votes (or, to be fair, keep) with my initial comment. Ardric47 02:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for deletion 

message: Should succession boxes typically go above or below other templates?  Example: The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle ~ Booya Bazooka 19:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positioning in relation to other page-bottom templates 

message: Shouldn't the headings that "Separate types of offices held" be listed in a category somewhere, so that it's easy to see what's available? There are ones not on this project page (I've seen one for military offices, for example). Could they be listed in :Category:Succession templates, or is a separate category appropriate? JRawle (Talk) 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for headings? 

message: I am currently engaged in a bit of a tidyup of succession boxes for UK & GB MPs, applying  etc to them.  I have been using the s-hon template for UK peerages, but I see that the description is remarkably similar to that of Template:s-reg. Apart from s-reg being vertically more compact, can anyone explain the difference between them in intended usage between the two templates?
And can anyone suggest which is the appropriate one to use for a baronetcy?
Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl 00:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: s-hon isn't really for peerages; in fact, I've removed them from the template now. s-nob is now a redirect to s-reg, which includes peerages. JRawle (Talk) 21:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  s-reg, s-hon and s-nob 

message: Is there a succession box for dates? That would be very helpful for navigating pages which contain date-sensitive information. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 12:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession box for dates. 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I have created a header for succession boxes concerning posts in the area of media including TV, radio, magazines and newspapers. 
Any objections or improvements? ~~ Phoe talk 00:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done Phoe: in principle, I think it's very useful. Earlier this year, I created succession boxes for the editors of some of the major British newspapers, and have also edited boxes for ITV chairman etc. So ar so good.My one concern is that it might encourage a proliferation for succession boxes for marginally notable positions, such as hosts of trivial chat shows on obscure cable TV channels, which doesn't seem to me to be a great idea. However, I doubt that's an argument against having the box available for appropriate uses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 10:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, it can encourage the proliferation for succession boxes for marginally notable positions, but it isn't said, that it must. If we are honest, the same can happen with  ,  or , therefore we must just pay attention and intervene if necessary. Phoe 11:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right: the potential for abuse does not negate the appropriate uses. Another thought, though: is it appropriate to use "med" as the name?  I'm just thinking that if there were grounds for a medical heading, there would a clash, and it might be better to call this one  instead.  Just a thought, because I'm not sure that I can see a useful case for a medical heading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 12:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought about this, too, but I don't remember to have seen a medicine box ever (additionally I can't imagine that someboy will create someone someday). However I have no problem with s-media, since the version with the full word can be identified better (to which "genre" it belongs). I will change it. Phoe 13:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: S-med

message: I have created a header for non-political government offices, which seemed severely lacking. This would cover civil servants, civilian intelligence officers, non-political officers of Parliaments (such as the Clerk of the Parliaments, Black Rod) etc. There are a huge number of non-political government positions which don't really fit into any other category.
Any comments or suggestions (grey seemed rather appropriate!)? -- Necrothesp 17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. And yes, grey is very appropriate. - 52 Pickup 10:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: S-gov

message: I may just be something I'm doing wrong, but when I use s-mil and s-vac together I get the following:
 
My current work-around is to use s-mil and s-bef as follows:
 
Any ideas? Greenshed 17:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I took so long to get around to this. Use this syntax:
|-
 
I should link the instructions page more prominently at the project. Choess 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with s-mil and s-vac