Template talk:Orders of succession by country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

U.S. link name[edit]

An anonymous user just renamed the link "American Presidency" to "United States Presidency". Now, just as we don't write "Spain Throne" or "Monaco Throne" or "Great Britain Throne", we shouldn't write "United States Presidency" but instead use "American Presidency".

If you think that the link should be named something different, please explain why here.

DLJessup (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

————

I think I said US Presidential when I first created the template. However I don't mind American Presidency, and does seem to fit in with the other descriptions. Astrotrain 12:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

————

there is more than one "American Presidency", i.e President of a nation in the Americas. Therefore "American Presidency" is completely innacurate. I've changed it to "Presidency of the United States". --86.135.179.53 12:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

————

Actually, "American Presidency" is accurate—the office is, at least, an American Presidency—but I take your point. Changing it to "Presidency of the United States" is probably best, since there doesn't seem to be an non-controversial title in the form <nationality (adjective)>-<office type (noun)>.

DLJessup (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

————

  • Alphabetizing on the office (Presidency) instead of the country seems odd to me. We don't alphabetize the thrones under the letter T.
  • The other odd thing I see is that we have one Presidency mixed in with 10 monarchies. Perhaps we should subdivide this template, one section for monarchies, one for Presidents (and other elected heads of state). There must be other countries we can add to this template, and this division will be helpful once it gets bigger. NoSeptember talk 20:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

————

I've just implemented NoSeptember's idea of subdividing the template. This had the bonus feature of mooting the U.S. link name.

DLJessup (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Appearance of the template[edit]

Hi,

I think this template could do with a new look. I don't think the horizontal lines, or the larger font for "Order of succession" are esthetically pleasing, nor are they standard for Wikipedia linkboxes. I have tried to make it look better, although I'm not that satisfied with the result (still, I think it's an improvement on what we have now). The fact that all the flags have different aspect ratios makes it look a bit clumbsy. If you have any ideas or can make it better, please post or edit directly. Thanks. laug 04:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Some one seems to have gone ahead and made some changes since my last comment, so I am making mine, which I believe take the template one step further in the right direction. Please comment here if you disagree. laug 21:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I've made the changes, consistent with Wikipedia "linkbox" style, and fixed the links. laug 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How long will this template get?[edit]

There are hundreds of governments in the world, and in theory most have an order of succession. Is the idea only to list "western" governments here? Hardly seems NPOV. Or is the idea to list each and every one as it gets added to the Wikipedia? Then eventually this template will become hundreds of lines long, and unusable.

In short, what is the logical idea of having this template? GRuban 21:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We can always reformat it when that happens. (For instance, by listing only the ISO-3166 alpha-3 country codes with flags, or something like that.) We'll think of something, rest assured. ;) —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 09:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia[edit]

Ethiopia is a republic, so I think the country should not appear in the monarchies area...There are hundreds of republican countries with Royal Houses. Germany, Brasil, Portugal, Italy, Two Sicilies, Greece, Hungary, Turkey etc.... --Dantadd 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. There's lots of former royal houses, would we really want to add all of them to this template? —Nightstallion (?) 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If someone takes the trouble to write up a Line of Succession style article dedicated to explaining who today is in the line of Succession for those former royal houses, then yes. It could also be argued, whether it is just a "former" royal house, since it still is a royal house. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
What you've just done there, putting Bulgaria and Ethiopia in their own section, looks fine and is ok with me. I was afraid you were talking about totally cutting the article links out altogether. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it should be fine like that. I was not planning on removing them altogether; if we *do* happen to have lots of articles about orders of succession, we may want to split the templates into current monarchies, former monarchies, and presidencies, but we'll see how that goes in the future. —Nightstallion (?) 13:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tonga[edit]

I've made a start on Line of succession to the Tongan Throne, but I really don't know much about it. if anyone can check what I've got and improve the article, it'd be much appreciated! Grutness...wha? 13:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Former monarchies[edit]

I have no principled objection to the inclusion of suspended monarchies in the template. However, as is now becoming apparent, allowing their addition ad infinitum will only create an unwieldy list inappropriate for use in articles on current monarchies or presidencies. Thus, I suggest that, when the list of former monarchies reaches that length, they be split off to form their own template. I also suggest that said length be approximately eighteen (which is five more lists than there current are). Bastin 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The split you are suggesting has already been done, but I have it up for deletion now because a) it was done with no discussion, and b) it uses the term "pretenders" which is not accurate in all cases, 'former' would have been better. I also have suggested at the deletion discussion that the split be made along the lines of elected officials and presidents on one template and monarchies, current and former on the other. This is because the presidents list can get longer than the monarchies with current claimants put together. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Also note that some of the most recently added 'Former monarchies' are not strictly speaking, "Lines of Succession" in a parallel sense tothe other articles that list heirs beginning with the current claimant; they are rather lists of former claimants, ending with the current claimant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Strike that, they all do have legitimate future lines mentioned. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There were just two former monarchies listed on the template back in June when the section was added for convenience. The list of former monarchs is already overwhelming the template. Merging historical curiosities with the current lines of succession of actual Heads of State is nonsensical. It deserves a separate template for the formers (as it was arranged here and here), and I have no objection to calling them former instead of pretenders. NoSeptember 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

'Historical curiosities' is clear POV, some even have a POV that current monarchs are historical curiosities. Best to keep the monarchs separate from the Presidents list, which really could get huge. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Many presidencies do not have any real line of succession. They have provisions for the legislature or some other body to select a temporary replacement and a quick election for a permanent replacement. The US conception of a fixed term of 4 years regardless of how many vacancies may occur is not used everywhere, and most presidencies do not need a whole list of potential successors. With monarchies you get long lists, not because you need them, but because families just have a tendency to grow big ;). NoSeptember 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'd agree. There aren't going to be too many articles on presidential succession lines, as the concept is alien to most non-Americans, especially those with a parliamentary government; splitting the template into current monarchies + presidents and former monarchies appears to be the best idea. —Nightstallion (?) 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I take it neither of you is an expert in International Constitutional Law. You blithely assume that only Americans are clever enough to come up with the idea of a Presidential Line of Succession. The 'Former Monarchies' template has every appearance of being artificially inflated within a 12-hr period to make it as long as possible solely for the purpose of splitting the Template. Were similar tactics to be adopted for the number of presidencies on the globe that actually do have a Presidential Succession written into their Constitutions, the Presidents template alone would become so long it would have to be split by continent. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the discussion of the template made some people realize the gaping holes in that list. How can you have a list of former monarchies not including France or Austria-Hungary for example? We should be glad that someone has decided to get to work and fill in the gaps, there are a ton of former monarchies, many from no-longer-existant countries, or states like Mexico that had a monarch for just a few years, but could still have a line of successors. Don't forget that the Order of Succession template will still have a link to the Former template, so the information will just be a click away. Would you like to rename the Former template before we implement the two template system? I know the naming was a concern of yours, if you make the move, you will be happy with the result :). NoSeptember 14:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I already renamed it, a couple days ago (after the tfd failed)! Go right ahead and implement. But remember, the presidents list could get longerthan you think. Also, regarding 'states like Mexico', etc., of course the "former" template list would have to be limited to former monarchies for which there is today a current succession. There's lots of former monarchies where there are no reliable sources for who would currently be in the succession, for example, maybe some ones from 5000 years ago like the king of Elam... Therefore most 'former monarchies' will never be able to appear on the template... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh :). Well Mexico is just from the 19th century. And then we have China from the 20th century. I keep thinking of new ones :). As for the presidencies, I'll be happy when it is time to split those off, as an encyclopedia, we are always growing, so that will be a good thing when it happens. NoSeptember 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To summarise my take on this: I'd be happy to have articles on all the presidential lines of succesion there are, but I still doubt there are too many around, as there are not too many executive presidents in the world... About me "blithely assuming only the Americans are smart enough to come up with a presidential line of succession", I'm in fact a European, not an American... ;p Anyway, I'd advocate having separate templates for existing monarchies, presidencies, and for former monarchies, as soon as there are enough articles to warrant having separate templates. —Nightstallion (?) 13:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another split[edit]

Time to split presidencies and monarchies, methinks. Now, there are 19 orders for current monarchies and 13 for presidencies. That's enough to justify separation. Bastin 18:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye. —Nightstallion (?) 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Since there was no opposition in one month, I've gone ahead and done it. Bastin 14:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)