Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines

message: OK, I've thrown up a page so we can have actual examples and detailed guidelines. This is mostly on my own hook, so comments and changes are very welcome. Choess 22:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (First section)

message: This was meant by me for religious titles, posts or offices like Dean, Archdean, Bishop, Archbishop, Abbot, Cardinal ... Phoe 23:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, although I would think it has to be limited to the heads of specific dioceses, abbeys, etc., etc. — to go in a succession box, there needs to be a succession from one holder to another. Choess 23:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deprecated and now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 4#Template:S-ecc. Bazj (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: S-ecc

message: Well done!  This looks good :)   A few points, though:
#I have used italicised text in round brackets for the text such as (constituency abolished), but I notice you suggest square brackets, as in [constituency abolished].  I don't have any strong preference (other than a slight hesitation at making so many pages off-standard!), but just thought I'd ask why you preferred the square brackets?  The only real downside of them I can see is that my little mind tends to think of them in wikipedia as a linking device, and in other contexts I use square brackets for inserted text.  I'm not sure how speech reading software distinguishes betwteen the two, and I'd like to suggest leaving the choice to those with expertise in that area.
# I have tended to list concurrent MPs in multi-member seats by surrounding that list with round brackets, like the example below, but I prefer your example without:
#XHTML pedantry: the line-break tag should be  (i.e. a space before the slash. I have amended the guidance page.
#It may be personal preference, but I find succession boxes much easier to create and maintain if they are laid out with the fields on separate lines, as below. Not many other seem to agree, though :(

 {{succession box
   | title  = 
   | years  = 
   | before = 
   | after  = 
 }}

Hope this helps :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely agree. - Kittybrewster 23:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! I thought by "brackets" you meant square brackets, rather than parentheses. I'll change that. Strictly speaking, I think the spaces in empty tags are a probably obsolete compatibility measure rather than a validation requirement, but they don't hurt. (It's been a while since I had to do SGML pedantry.) Succession boxes are a bit easier to deal with when laid out like that, but that also makes them very long, for individuals with a multitude of offices. I'm inclined to leave that to the personal taste of contributors. Choess 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, while I think this is already the case, I suggest we wikilink only the years pertaining to the individual (in the "years" parameter), not those in small type, etc., etc. That would (IMO) make the box a bit too "cluttered", and they're only another click away, since the simultaneous MPs are linked. Choess 02:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, that would be unnecessary clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: S-par

message: There's a lot to sort here. I created User:Choess/Offices, and Phoe has a sandbox diff somewhere, to deal with these questions: what is a political office (particularly in the UK, although there are things like Grand Master of France that we can box), and what is the distinction between a political and an honorary office? For instance, the lord-lieutenancy of counties originated in late Plantagenet and early Tudor times as a very functional office, responsible for raising troops, keeping the peace, and so forth, but nowadays the office is purely ceremonial. So likewise with the custodes rotulorum and vice-admirals of counties. As part of this project, we should start another page, WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Offices, and endeavour to maintain a list of such offices in various countries and the date at which we start to treat them as honorary. (This will be somewhat arbitrary, of course, but so be it.) Depending on detail/completeness, we might be able to spin off lists for individual countries as articles in and of themselves. If you're not already familiar with them,  and  have lengthy lists of British offices. (With a few odd exceptions: no Treasurer of the Chamber or Teller of the Exchequer [of Receipt].) Once this page is well on its way, it will be much easier to check if a particular individual's titles are all properly classified, instead of having to do them one by one.
We should also consider the status of "partisan" offices, that is, offices recognized within political parties (e.g., Majority and Minority Leaders of the US Senate, party chairmen, and so forth — in the UK, of course, the Government's partisans are in fact appointed to offices of state). In the original discussions surrounding the project, John Kenney argued cogently for separating them from political/government offices. I tend to agree, but I think we have to be careful not to get too carried away in creating more headings and increasing the number of bloaty pages where each succession box has a heading. Choess 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political and honorary offices 

message: What should one fill in when one doesnt know the name of the predecessor / successor? - Kittybrewster 09:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer Unknown Phoe 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of  which links to a category, indicating "attention required". - Kittybrewster 11:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When one doesn't know the successor's name

message: Life peerages don't have a succession, yet they are often given succession boxes.. - Kittybrewster 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remains. One User created them, however he had been convinced to do this not (with the same reason you have written). I'm currently going through all life peers and add their territorial designations, so I'll remove these boxes (where I find them) Phoe 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is no list of Life Peerages to check them against. - Kittybrewster 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various sources, I use ... normally I compare them with each other Phoe 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Life peerages

message: * Roman_Abramovich - Kittybrewster 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would take s-gov. ~~ Phoe talk 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Queries

message: The contents of this page have been substituted with a different version, developed mainly by The Duke of Waltham and Whaleyland in one of the former's subpages (User:The Duke of Waltham/SBS). The creators of the new page believe that it is clearer, more detailed, and more complete, and it includes guidelines for most categories of titles and offices. It remains on the honourable members of this noble WikiProject to provide their opinions and help us see whether this is true or false.
You are requested not to comment here on the guidelines outlined in this page but to do so in the main SBS talk page, at least for the time being, in order that the discussion ensuing may be centralised and thus more easily monitored. Waltham, The Duke of 08:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme Makeover 

message: Apart from the improvement of the Guidelines page, many guidelines themselves have changed from their previous versions. It is important to note that the order of headers is one of them, and that the order given higher in this page is no longer valid. The current order can be found here. Waltham, The Duke of 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of headers changed 

message: What was the final decision as to whether or not fictional characters get succession boxes?  Emperor001 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction

message: I disagree with the guideline that the postnominal "Bt" should be used for baronets. No-one else with postnominal letters (e.g. VC KT GCB KCMG CSI LVO OBE DSO AFC and bar QC MP DPhil BLitt MA (Oxon) FRSE ARA) is accorded them in succession boxes so why should baronets be any different? Opera hat (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Sir Opera Hat is a knight and Sir Opera Hat Bt is a baronet. Bazj (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? Bazj may be the eldest son of a Viscount and Jbaz may be a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (a far greater gulf than between a knight and a baronet), but we don't bother to indicate as much in a succession box. Opera hat (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of postnominal letters 

message: It has been brought to my attention by another editor that the guidelines here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization/Guidelines#B._Years_and_dates (point vii, a) advocate use of spaces in a year range, whereas WP:YEAR and WP:DASH are clear that spaces are not used in such situations. Can we please review this discrepancy. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember bringing this up a few years ago...let's see, User talk:The Duke of Waltham/Archive 3#Dashes for one half of the conversation and User talk:Choess/Archive4#Dates in succession boxes for the other half. To be honest, I generally haven't been inserting spaces in the succession boxes I create, and I'd support seeing our guidelines reconciled with WP:YEAR and WP:DASH. Choess (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was then, and I have seen the light  since. I have finally got to changing and streamlining the guideline; it's a long process, but the dates part is ready. Comments are welcome if anyone's watching. Waltham, The Duke of 00:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year range guidelines contravene [[WP:YEAR]] & [[WP:DASH]] 

message: I've just edited the succession box on the article Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge and amn't sure how best to handle that three rows, all separated by headers, have the same successor (his son, Prince George, Duke of Cambridge). I've posted this to the article's Talk: page, where I would like to canvas opinion. Please make any suggestions there. Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge 

message: There is a desperate need for guidelines regarding how succession boxes are being used on song and album articles for those that reached number one on one or more music charts, and a question of whether the boxes are needed at all. An RFC is currently taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. Some third party opinions are very much welcomed. For some examples of how these are being used at their extreme, see I Will Always Love You, Tik Tok and Need You Now. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC for use of succession boxes on songs and albums reaching #1 on music charts 

message: Why is it there is no template for posts held in these services?  Only "Military".  Eddaido (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are they necessary? In the context where I do the most work (pre-20th Century British figures) we've been using it for Sea Lords, Commanders-in-Chief of various naval stations, colonels of regiments, governors of fortifications, etc. Since a given person is generally not going to rise to posts worthy of a succession box in more than one service, it seems to work fine. Choess (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Choess and thanks for your response, somehow I have missed something important (meaning I don't understand your answer!). My second reason for writing this question was when I found an Admiral listed under the heading "Honorary Titles". My first puzzlement was over the choice of posts to be described as Honorary Titles, the classifier appears to have had an unattractive determination to belittle and then the next puzzle made me ask this question and here you seem to say naval posts and air force posts are to be regarded as if those people were soldiers. I do know these things are fully thought through, I am just stumbling/lost as I try to follow the logic of that thinking! Eddaido (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find the example? That might help put us on the same page. The definition of which offices are classified as "honorary" can be a little fuzzy, but basically it's for posts where the duties are largely nominal or ceremonial, but which are considered prestigious (or in former days, perhaps even lucrative!) to hold. The Vice-Admiral of the United Kingdom would be an example; there are no particular duties associated with the post; it's bestowed as an honour on certain senior naval personnel. Regarding s-mil, my point was simply that the term "military" could be applied to soldiers, sailors, or aviators, and so offices held by any of those three could be placed under that heading without undue confusion. Does that help? Choess (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy, Air Force 

message: Hello, I have taken the bold step of creating a template to match the  succession templates. The purpose of the template is to correctly announce -elects (i.e. president-elects etc.). Please have a look at  and let me know what you think. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession template S-elc 

message: Can we get a more precise definition of "cultural institution"?  There is an editor who claims that the presidency National Association of the Deaf (United States) is a "cultural office".  This claim seems odd given the examples offered in this guideline (heads, curators, etc. of museums and theaters).  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|S-culture}} 

message: Regarding Governor-General of the Philippines:
* s-gov ;or
* s-off 
? User:User 50 05:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the official was appointed and his title was "governor-general" does not mean that s-gov automatically applies; if he had executive powers (and used them), and his post was therefore more than just ceremonial, s-off would be the correct choice. This seems to be the case here, although I suspect you understand the post's nature better than I do. Waltham, The Duke of 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I recently removed a plethora of succession boxes from bios of persons who have been identified as the oldest living/ever person/man/woman in the world/country on the basis that there appears to be nothing in this guideline which covers this title. It has been claimed that Guinness World Records awards the title of World's Oldest Living person/man (by the presentation of a certificate) but this does not seem to me to fall into any category listed here. Would any editors experienced in this area care to comment? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People#RfC:_Should_longevity_biographies_have_succession_boxes. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are succession boxes valid for Longevity "title" holders? 

message: For example, William Whitelaw, 1st Viscount Whitelaw was created a viscount in 1983 and his title became extinct on his death. There is a succession box for his peerage in the article.
Prince Andrew, Duke of York was created a duke in 1986 and there hasn't been a succession and any future succession to the dukedom is highly unlikely. There isn't a succession box for his peerage in the article.
Should a succession box be placed, when succession is or has been possible, whether it has actually happened or not, or only when succession has happened?
(Should the box be removed from Whitelaw article or added to York article?)
*A succession box is a navigation aid.  Having a succession box where the first and third columns are "new" and "extinct" is rather pointless.  Furthermore in those cases we do not have an article on the title (unless it has bene used before).  The placeholder for that article is a redirect to the bio-article on the one holder of the title.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession boxes for peers (etc.) 

message: I suggest that we change to the guidelines that also lines of succession to thrones should be placed under s-other header with line parameter (instead of s-roy header). Using s-other seems to be de facto main practice already. --Editor FIN (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lines of succession to thrones 

message: There is a dispute about the succession box on Christian Porter (see Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Succession box headers). Porter was a member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly and held ministerial offices there. He is now a member of the Australian House of Representatives and holds ministerial positions in that parliament. The dispute is between the people who believe that the ministerial positions need to be grouped with corresponding parliamentary positions, and those who quote this guideline that "Each header should be used no more than once in a succession box...".  supports parameters and is thus allowed to be used for each parliament, but the subordinate  does not have parameters and so looks the same both times it is used rather than linking separately to Cabinet of Western Australia and Cabinet of Australia for example.
There are and have been a number of people who have sat in more than one parliament and held offices in each of them. We need a way to be able to group or identify that the roles in one are completely separate from those in another. Any suggestions as to whether this needs a change of guideline, a change in template, or something we haven't thought of yet would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 07:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Question re-asked up a level at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#Multiple use of s-off. --Scott Davis Talk 22:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple use of s-off 

message: ;Option 1 (current)
;Option 2 (proposed alternative)
:I propose Option 3, to remove the 'Lords parameter' without adding membership of the House of Lords separately to a succession box. Membership of the House can be mentioned in a biobraphy text and in a possible infobox, which would be informative enough.
:It should be noticed that most members join the House by being created life peers and without directly succeeding or being later succeeded by anyone. In these cases, adding membership of the House to a succession box wouldn't be suitable. I think that it would be inconsistent to emphasize membership of the House of some peers by adding it to a succession box and thus kind of 'lower casing' membership of most peers by not making it as visible in biography articles.
:Also, I would like to point out that there are about 800 members in the House of Lords (including 92 excepted hereditary peers) and members do not represent constituencies or other regions. Therefore, I think that it isn't very important information which peer has an excepted hereditary peer succeeded. It would be adecuate to mention the succession in an infobox or in a biography text. --Editor FIN (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lord de Mauley

message: I had requested that political party succession boxes be added to Joe Biden, but it was declined stating that there is no consensus or precedent for succession boxes for candidacies. Is this correct? If that's the case, then many articles run contrary to that. Here is the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Party Succession offices 

message: An RfC is occurring at  that concerns the inclusion of succession boxes in articles about US presidents. The RfC's outcome may have implications for the future of succession boxes more generally. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the village pump. Thank you. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on succession boxes on US presidential biographies (and the future of succession boxes)