Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive 2

message: These templates, denoting the creation and abolition of some office, title, or what have you, should be roughly symmetrical to one another, and generally usable. At present, S-new reads: New Title, and has a "reason" parameter which appear beneath in italics. S-non, on the other hand, displays the text of the "reason" parameter in bold. I propose to make the two of them symmetrical by adding an optional parameter, "text", which would default to "New Title" in S-new and nothing in S-non. This is mostly compatible with the templates as they exist except that the "reason" in S-non would now appear in italics instead of in bold. There are 180 articles using S-non, so I anticipate manually changing them to accommodate the new format once the change has been made. After they have been switched over, I'd like to consider changing the default in S-non to "Extinct" (given the high proportion of succession boxes denoting hereditary titles), but that can be considered separately of the above.
I'll give this proposal a week to attract comment here; please register any objections you have and I'd be happy to wait and discuss them. Choess 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be much in favor of the bold-to-italic change and the "text" parameter. I'm less sure about using "Extinct", since that term seems applicable only to hereditary titles and not to the multitude of other offices succession boxes are used for. Still, I might be convinced otherwise, if there's enough support for the change. Alkari (?) 07:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Anything that makes for a more consistent box format tends to have my support. Alci12 13:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  S-new and S-non 

message: But while we're on the subject, some changes in usage would be good. 
*Lord X is just as good English as The Lord X; it indicates a different level of formality, that's all. This is an encyclopedia, not a Court Circular; let's use Lord X, save three characters, and minimize surprise for monoglot Americans. 
*It would be useful to indicate which Earl of Y succeeded to an office. This should be required for Lord-Lieutentancies, where the second Earl of Y is often succeeded by the third Earl of Y (and when he isn't, the fifth Marquess of Z is often preceeded by the second Earl and succeeded by the third Earl. Indicating this by using the numbers (not the names) would be much less confusing; having the Marquess' article showing him before and after The Earl of Y is misleading.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was given to understand (probably by User:Proteus, who doesn't seem to be around at the moment) that "The Lord X" refers to a substantive peer, while "Lord Y" refers to a courtesy peer, so there's a basis for the distinction. Courtesy peers also provide an instance where, if we indicate which Lord etc. succeeded to an office, we'd have to use the name to tell them apart (since they aren't numbered). I recall one instance where Lord X, the eldest son of a substantive peer and an MP, died; his next brother was returned at the ensuing by-election, and also became Lord X. Choess 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Lord X" refers specifically to a substantive peer, while "Lord X" can refer either to a substantive peer or to a courtesy peer.  Personally, I don't think it's necessarily that important to  make this distinction, so I don't see any problem with just changing to "Lord  X".  I agree with PMA's point about Lord-Lieutenancies, in particular, and other similar cases - if different men in the same succession chart have the same peerage title,  we should indicate which one is  which.  As far as courtesy peers succeeding each  other, that is a bit of a mess.  I'm  not sure  what  to suggest. john k 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And still, providing links in succession boxes, with no context to identify who the person actually is, is confusing and unhelpful.  You may understand who "The Lord Calvert" is and perhaps the few people who monitor this board, but the vast majority of editors would not, let alone readers.  I disagree that it's aesthetically more pleasing to say "The Lord Calvert" versus, John Browne, Lord Calvert (not a real person).  It seems like a very subjective point-of-view to say that one is more pleasing than the other.  I find calling someone "The Lord Calvert" very insulting to their memory, it completely denigrates their individuality in favor of something which sounds awfully pompous.  Surely you can see how confusing it is to read that a person was preceded by "The Lord Calvert" and succeeded by him as well when really these are two seperate persons.  And requiring people to understand the concept of mouse-hovering in order to clarify the matter is a bit elitist as the vast majority of web readers would have no idea to what you're referring.  In addition, none of our other articles require the use of mouse-hovering to answer a simple question like that posed here.  The only time, in non-British-peerage articles where this would be useful, is in the very few cases where a persons' notable children are referred to simply as "Mary" or "Joan" instead of "Mary, Queen of Scots" and then you *still* have a full reference somewhere in the article.  These succession articles almost never give a full reference to the predecessor or successor of a office *except* within the box, where instead of helping the reader, it confuses them. Wjhonson 20:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insulting to their memory?  Oh, please. Can we please have a sensible discussion about this, rather than this kind of nonsensical garbage? john k 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was rather extraordinary Alci12 16:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. I disagree with the uncited opinion that there is a distinction between "Lord X" and "THE Lord X".  Proteus is not an expert in this matter, and even should he claim to be, we should still cite a third-party, WP:RS on an issue like that. Wjhonson 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   now can we stop trying to argue against something every decent source agrees upon - oh and proteus! Alci12 11:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly does modern usage have to do with period usage?  Are you next going to claim that we have to remove all instances of "de jure" because obviously the modern usage is simply to call the person Baron X ? And you are wrong that "Every decent source agrees".  I can cite primary sources which violate these "rules" right and left with impunity.  And I think you know that. Wjhonson 18:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  An I know documents with spelling mistakes, titles that are entirely wrong, people shown holding the wrong office, the wrong dates. As with PMAnderson we're were writing for today with our present understanding of fact for our present audience.  Alci12 11:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *What does period usage have to do with us? We are not writing for the seventeenth century, but to communicate with the twenty-first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Should we list the de jure Earls of Devon, who never dreamed they were more than viscounts, as Earl of Devon rather than Viscount Courtenay? Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It begins again (see . Do not fell this under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing? ~~ Phoe talk 19:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what's disruptive?  When people revert my edits without even attempting to understand what I'm trying to do.  That's awfully disruptive.  I cite primary and secondary sources.  Others cite their own opinions.  But no, call me disruptive, that's helpful. Wjhonson 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do sources have to do with this?  It's a question of style, not of correctness. john k 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm placing an RFC on this issue.  If I cannot verify the usage, I cannot see how this can stand. Wjhonson 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about?  What is it that  you want verified?  Are you really claiming that calling the  Earl of Dartmouth the  Earl of  Dartmouth is incorrect? john k 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Wjhonson is overreacting a bit here.  The issue we address has nothing to do with verifiability.  Hypothetically, all the information in the succession boxes is already mentioned elsewhere in the article.  If it is not, it should go in the source listing at the bottom of the page with all the rest.  But generally speaking, the succession box is simply a means to summarize the data on the page in a way that makes it easier to observe the titles and positions and individual has held.  I really see no need to check the verifiability of most succession boxes unless people have been editing without reading over the page first.–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the information in the succession boxes is generally NOT mentioned anywhere in the article.  That's the problem.  If John, 4th Earl of Warwick (not a real person) were actually mentioned in the article in any fashion at all, not even specifically as the predecessor of a title or office, but just anything, it wouldn't be an issue.  When the casual reader reads that someone is preceded by The Earl of Warwick and no where has The Earl of Warwick been introduced as a character, you force the reader to either A) understand who The Earl of Warwick is or B) go to that page, and maybe back-and-forth to understand the situation.  No where else in wikipedia do we have anything remotely like this mess.  There's absolutely no way to understand what's going on without a lot of flipping about and a good memory. Wjhonson 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So apparently you don't find these helpful, so nobody finds these helpful.  I am sure that one of this project's members has already replied to the purpose of this site, but let me explain it simply by saying this: When I am searching for Robert the Bruce and find at the bottom of the page that he was preceded by a vacancy with the last king being John Balliol, this is helpful.  Actually, the fact that he was succeeded by David II of Scotland and he was an Earl of Carrick and Lord of Annandale (with helpful succession list links for each) are helpful too.  Ultimately, the point of making succession boxes is not to make every page an independent item because we've done those already.  The point of a succession box is to show that everything (especially with nobility and royalty) are connected and even if one person dies, they will be followed by another.  It is not our job to verify the pages and the facts we find on them.  We don't just get our dates from the page the box is on, we get them from succession lists posted and sourced on Wikipedia, such as Lord of Annandale.  Sure some people do not put the dates where they would be helpful in the page, but once again, that is not our job.  This project is for standardizing all succession boxes from their previous HTML versions and various other poorly designed tables, and making them consistent throughout Wikipedia.  This, I believe, falls perfectly within the bounds of what Wikipedia wants for its site.  Wikipedia wants the site to be enriched with information, to look beautiful, and above all, be informative and helpful for those who use it.  I use it regularly and without the succession lists, I would find it quite a bit less useful.–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 07:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think you're understanding the nature of the argument.  I do not object to succession boxes.  I object to piping within them.  It serves no useful purpose to the reader.  The sole purpose espoused here is that it's "more aesthetic" which I dispute.  I don't find it more aesthetic, and I find it creates unnecessary confusion, esp. when the persons named in the boxes have never been named in the article. Wjhonson 08:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally having read your paragraph again, what do you mean "It's not our job to verify the pages and the facts we find on them" ?  Yes.. it is our job.  That's our job.  Verification is an essential part of being an editor here.  Any succession box that cannot be verified, should not be used.  No one is above the policy, and merely waving your hand and saying "I trust editor x" isn't sufficient in my book and shouldn't be in yours either.  By the way to the commentator who, previously, ask about titles the person hasn't *yet* achieved, I have no problem piping.  I use piping myself all the time, but within reason and not in the pedantic fashion with which I encountered it in this case.  If Queen Elizabeth became the Grand Poobah before she became Queen then I suppose it would be fine to pipe Princess Elizabeth of England.  However what would be really silly would be to pipe The Princess which is essentially my arguement here.  There is no context within which to understand who the person being piped is, and the piping just makes comprehension that much more difficult. Wjhonson 08:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, then I can work with most of what you propose.  I actually agree about your argument with many members of this project.  I would prefer someone to write out "John Humperdink, 20th Earl of Somewhere" than "The Earl of Somwhere" because that does make it more clear.  Royalty, as always, is rather the exception to all these rules because if you call them "The Princess," that does not take into account that she is now "Elizabeth II."  So on that argument, I agree completely. Your second argument I can work with, although since it is suppose to be a summary (of information sometimes not on the page but from others, such as lists of incumbants), it is much more difficult to verify.  First let me make myself a little more clear from before, I don't think it is right to place information in the succession list that is not listed elsewhere unless it is well cited.  All I was saying about our project here is that if one of us runs across a page that has a poorly done succession box, we will fix it and replace it with the format agreed upon.  Our project to a great degree is about aesthetics, and less about verifiability.  If I am working on a page that is uncited, though, I will refer to the cited incumbant list to find the dates for the reign.  What I hear you suggesting is that we source those additions from other pages or outside sources, and that I can do.  I will try to pass a proposal through this project to add citations for outside sources if adding dates or unnoted individuals to succession lists.  But, to warn you, there are many pages that we haven't even found yet that don't follow your standards and many that we have done and may not go back to.  We generally work on a project and then go to another.  But I will do my best, that is all I can promise.–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: I have stayed up far too late to do this, but it is finally done as I said it would be.  I have created for all our pleasure (or horror) a special template for citing succession box entries.  It can be found at Template:s-cite, which I figured was convenient.  This template can currently store up to five separate citations and be placed at the bottom of a succession box.  It even replaces the  command as it is included at the bottom of this infobox.  Please, everyone begin citing any succession boxes that you create.  Edited ones you can pass on, but if you have time, find out a reliable source for it.  I have a sample up at William I of England if you want to see what it looks like.  
That succession box also features another new creation, simplified from what is being plastered all over the Spanish monarchy pages, a three generation family tree.  It is very simple but shows the source person, his or her parents (with titles), and their parents (without titles), and the royal house beneath each grandparent (if any).  I made it pretty flexible if a name is not known (though, come to think of it, I need to make both parents with that capability).  Please tell me what you think.  I have only applied it to about five pages currently, but I think it makes an excellent addition to the s-boxes because it shows decent to a small degree and summarizes some more information from the page (or not featured on the page).  As with the succession box, make sure to cite your sources if you use this genealogical tool on a page.  It can work independently with the s-start or s-hou (or s-hno) templates.  Ah, it feels good to be making s-boxes again!–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 08:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation template is great! I'd like to thank you for all the work you've done for this project. I'm less sure about the family tree – it's a good way of concisely conveying the information, but I think it should be separate from the succession boxes. Would it be possible to put it just below the s-boxes, instead of inside? Alkari (?) 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rather want it to be seen as an extension.  I have never liked disconnected boxes on the page just because they look messy.  I tried disconnecting it, but it didn't look so nice.  It can work independently, but I think it goes with the whole theme of Royal House (s-hou), titles and jobs, and ancestors (s-fam).  But it is up in the air.  Obviously it only links with the concept of dynastic succession.  I want more discussion on this, really but I also like how it shows a better connection to other articles.–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Succession Box Citation Form!!! 

message: So I decided to work on this a bit for a few of the French monarchs. I think the most complicated one I've made is Henry IV, and I want to make sure its accurate to the standardized whatever and all. Here's what I got:
|-
Any problems with it? Atropos 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think it looks beautiful, but the use of full dates is generally not used unless a precedent was already set before this group formed (ie the Russian Czars).  Also, the regent option is not for consorts, it is for someone who is ruling with or for the current monarch due to some problem (age, gender, disease).  So you do not actually have to put the consorts on the lists either, although that would be an interesting addition to the list.  The rest of it looks good, but you may want to add an Template:s-cite at the bottom of it to make it look more professional.  ESPECIALLY if you are planning to keep all the dates and change all the French monarchs to full dates.–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 03:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree with the inclusion of consorts. They had no real power (or at least they were not supposed to) and they were usually insignificant. The template exists for regents, and this is not the case. Waltham, The Duke of 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I've been doing a bit of this

message: I busy myself with contributions about the (London) National Gallery and have noticed that there isn't an appropriate type of succession box for the office of Director of the National Gallery. 'Honorary titles' seems to imply that the office is merely ceremonial, and that's not the case with museum directors. May I suggest that we create a new type of succession box that could be used for the directors of museums, theatres and other cultural organisations, possibly titled cultural offices or something similar? Wham! Bam! Thank you,  Ham 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't make an entire succession box for it, but I can make a header for it, if that would work.–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 20:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting me know that it's all right – and a header, rather than a separate box, is what I had in mind. I've now gone ahead and created the template myself at Template:s-culture. Wham! Bam! Thank you,  Ham 09:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Cultural offices'' box?

message: I have asked User:Kingboyk to cast his bot to convert s-off to s-gov. I could use some help in adding to the list of categories. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why exactly was this proposed?  It  appears not have been done, and in the absence of any stated reason, I'm rather glad that it has not been done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: s-off to s-gov

message: Where can I find the most "official" general overview of how to use succession boxes?
Also, I have a specific question, pertaining to appointive government offices (usually senior or, sometimes, mid-level managers):  suppose that the current incumbent was preceded by an "acting" officeholder, who in turn was preceded by an "interim" officeholder, who in turn was preceded by a regularly-appointed officeholder.  Would I use the "acting" officeholder, the "interim" officeholder or the last regular officeholder as predecessor in the succession box?  This situation occurred with the WMATA general manager.
Likewise, postmasters can be regularly-appointed, or "acting," or an "officer-in-charge."  Suppose, hypothetically, that there was a postmaster who was promoted from the position of acting postmaster; her immediate predecessor was an officer-in-charge, who succeeded another acting postmaster, who succeeded the last regular postmaster.  How would you write her succession box?
69.140.164.142 05:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a difficult question and one that I am not sure if I can answer completely.  What I think is that if the person is presumed to be the successor officially then there is no question that they should be listed as a successor.  If they are an interim just until an election or decision, I do not think they actually qualify as a successor.  The question has also come up many times in the question of regents.  When does a regent rule so long that they should be considered monarch?  The answer, when their son or daughter takes over they are generally reconsidered a monarch.  Thus, during the Scottish Civil War, John I of Scotland was considered the first monarch after Margaret of Scotland despite the fact that Edward I of England was regent in the intervening years.  He is not considered a canon monarch.  But in business, it is more difficult to really decided.  I'd say if they were in charge for more than a year as some form of interim officer, they are official; any other opinions anyone?–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Scottish example is not terribly great.  Edward was never the regent.  He was  simply the mediator in a succession dispute.  The Guardians of Scotland, who consisted of the Bishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, the High Steward, John Comyn, and the Earls of Buchan and Fife, acted as regents.  Beyond that, I think that we have never had any clear policy.  Sometimes an acting minister, or whatever, can be around for a long time.  In the Third Republic, an acting minister would often be in charge for approximately as long as a regular minister.  The time it took to send out a replacement meant that acting colonial governors would often  be in for quite a while.  I'm not sure how to do it.  I'd say we should have a bias towards not having red spots in the succession box.  If the acting or interim figure does not have an article, we should never include them in the box.  If they do...well, I don't know.  For regencies in the absence of a monarch, I think the canonical case would be the Duchy of Brunswick, where there were 30 years of regencies, and where we do include the regent.   But who knows?  john k 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree with that.  Some acting Colonial governors were in office for months, simply because it took that long to go over to England and back again with a new approval for the next guy.  So in that case even though Joe Schmoe was "Governor" in name, he was actually sitting on the ocean and had delegated his power to his son-in-law Arnold Barnold.  So who was Governor? The guy doing nothing or the guy with the power and the seal? Or do we list them both? I say include both, even if the other guy doesn't have an article, it may kick-start someone into *making* him an article.Wjhonson 15:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  It's generally a tough case. I'm not really sure how to do it. john k 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  documentation?