Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive 4

message: I've noticed that this office has for some reason been categorized as a military office.  It was, in fact, a political office, although it dealt with the military and was always held by an officer in the army.  The Master-General was a member of the government, and often of the cabinet, and changed with ministries.  His position would be similar to a serving admiral acting as First Lord of the  Admiralty (which occurred into the 19th century, with, I believe, Lord Barham in 1805-1806 being the last instance.), or to Prussian ministers of war, who were always generals.  The master-general was usually chosen for his political loyalties and administrative capabilities, not for any particular reputation as an officer, and many of them - Montagu, Richmond, Chatham, Mulgrave - were not particularly notable military figures.  So, anyway, I think positions like this should go in the political offices section, not the military offices section. john k 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. What's your take on the Naval/Sea Lords: political or military? Choess 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master-General of the Ordnance 

message: :VOTING CLOSED: Proposal APPROVED: This discussion has been closed and the proposal has passed with a unanimous vote from the current active members.  The discussion for this proposal has been archived and moved here. Thank you to all who voted!–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Additional Parameter in [[Template:s-bef]] and [[Template:s-aft]] 

message: :VOTING CLOSED: Proposal Approved: The proposal to remove the parameter la from Template:s-par passed and has been enacted.  All instances of that parameter have been removed or redirected.  The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes.  Thank you to everyone who voted.–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: [[Template:s-par]] remove the parameter ''la'' (Local assembly) from the parameter list

message: :VOTING CLOSED: Proposal Approved: The proposal to move all instances of Template:s-pol to Template:s-civ using the |pol parameter has been approved.  All transclusions have been redirected to the appropriate template and a deletion request is pending for the removal of s-pol.  The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes.  Thank you to everyone who voted.–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: [[Template:s-pol]] merged into [[Template:s-civ]]

message: Two thoughts on this.  First, I don't see a generic "Protestant" or "Christian" parameter, something like that could be useful as there are countless individual denominations/divisions of Christianity, not to mention non-denominational churches/movements (perhaps a customizable parameter?).  Also a guideline on whether/if/what titles should be included for non-hierarchal, or congregational, denominations - particularly for those where the majority of the positions which deal with multiple churches may have primarily administrative, not ministerial roles (e.g. a District Superintendent rather than a Bishop) - could be useful.  --Tim4christ17 talk 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are tons of titles that could be covered under s-rel and that option should always be available but currently nearly all the header templates are locked meaning that we need to practically make a proposal for every addition.  Putting something simple like a denomination would probably be easy without discussion.  We will not allow for an open parameter because of the problems relating to template standardization within open header parameters.  Regarding guidelines, we perhaps should add something regarding the instances you mention, but overall, the rules are that if the title is successive, then it is eligible for a succession box.–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  S-rel 

message: This is currently also being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car Racing.  I've noticed the succession boxes used on various drivers pages is a very nice and clean design that is nicely centered.  However at the moment, individual race reports have a succession box based on the :Template:Sportscar Race Report, which is itself based on the Template:F1 race report template.  As you can notice in a page such as 2007 Northeast Grand Prix, the box is uneven because the title of the before and after race throws everything off.
Therefore I think it would be nice if the nice Succession boxes here could be adapted for use to things such as race reports, so that one could move through an entire season of races in succession, or even to go from year to year for the same race.  Thoughts? The359 19:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get to it in just a bit.  Thanks for the heads up.–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I converted both of those templates to the standard-ish style.  Since they are not technically under our jurisdiction nor work with our formatting styles, I did the best I could to make then sync properly.–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you much for the work, I'm sure both the Sportscar and F1 projects will fiddle with them a bit, but they certainly seem to work at the moment.  Much appreciated. The359 23:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, there are many succession boxes about non-humans (that sounded funny), like states, championships, subway lines, etc. Maybe it would be prudent to start working on those some time in the future, after we have finished with the boxes with people of course. Waltham, The Duke of 10:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of succession boxes for more then just people? 

message: :VOTING CLOSED: Proposal APPROVED: The proposal to remove dates from British parliaments' headers has passed with a unanimous vote from the current active members. The change has already been implemented by an administrator. The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes. Thank you to all who voted.Waltham, The Duke of 12:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Removal of dates in parliament headers 

message: This discussion, having opened on 30 July 2007, closed on March 1 2008 with a vote tally of 3 in favour, 1 against, and 0 neutral; failing to gather the needed support in seven months, it has failed due to a lack of participation. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. The proposal can be re-submitted whenever there is sufficient interest for its revival. Waltham, The Duke of 15:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: New Header for Justices titled [[Template:s-jud]] 

message: This discussion, having opened on 31 July 2007, closed on March 1 2008 with a vote tally of 2 in favour, 1 against, and 0 neutral for its first components, 2 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral for its second component, and 3 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral for its third component; failing to gather the needed support in seven months, it has failed due to a lack of participation. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. The proposal can be re-submitted whenever there is sufficient interest for its revival. Waltham, The Duke of 15:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Full colour scheme for blue headers 

message: This discussion, having opened on 31 July 2007, closed on March 1 2008 with a vote tally of 2 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral for each of its two components; failing to gather the needed support in seven months, it has failed due to a lack of participation. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. The proposal can be re-submitted whenever there is sufficient interest for its revival. Waltham, The Duke of 15:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Full colour scheme for green headers 

message: I know that I should have posted this earlier, but here is how it goes: I have moved the two archives (with help from an administrator) from their previous locations to /Archive 1 and /Archive 2. The aforementioned administrator (Stemonitis) has also kindly replaced the previous archive box with an automated one, which will need no maintenance in the future as long as the archives are saved in pages whose titles follow the same convention ("Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive [Number]). The only downside seems to be the lack of the dates in the box, but it seems to be a minor one (especially since we only have two archives at the moment).
I may add small lead sections in the archive pages some time in the future, giving the type and date range of the messages they contain. On another point, I am already considering a third archive page, although it might be a little too early. Waltham, The Duke of 07:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives reorganised