Talk:Emperor Norton/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Successors and claimants to the title

Might it not be looked into if there was a successor named by J.A. Norton, and also I do believe there were claimants to his title appearing after his funeral. I have little way of locating any affirmation of named successors or claimants, at least in my present position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.226.227 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate in question

According to William Drury's book, "Joshua Norton was born in the London borough of Deptford on a day lost to mortal memory. ... On May 2, 1820, when John and Sarah Norton arrived at the Cape of Good Hope with three small children, one a babe in Sarah's arms, John told an immigration clerk that the boy they called Joshua Abraham ... was two years old. So there you have it from a father's lips; he was born in 1818."

There's an LDS-submitted record at familysearch which reflects this: http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/igi/individual_record.asp?recid=600000134529&lds=1&region=2

Drury's book is fairly well researched, including obtaining primary sources from South Africa. I'm not sure how reliable the Priors-Lee record is, given the seven year discrepancy. Is it worth noting in the main article? RJL20 23:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The Joshua Norton born in 1811 at Priors-Lee, Telford is a red herring. I removed him. That 1811 Joshua can be found listed in the 1861 Census living in Shropshire still. 1861 census. Telford most likely had no Jewish community in 1811, whereas Deptford certainly did. The birth range appears to be May 3, 1817 to May 2, 1818. [[User:Wilburbear|Wilburbear] 12 October 2005

Math skills

200,000 lbs of rice is 100 tons, not 90.

No it's not. To be precise it's 89.285174 (recurring) tons at 2240 lbs/ton.

As one might read at Ton, there's several different units known by that name. 200,000 lbs of rice would be 100 short tons, but just under 90 long tons. Short tons are probably what Norton and his fellow rice-market investors would have been using, since that was the preferred unit in the 19th century USA. Zack 01:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And present-day America, also R'son-W 20:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Confusion and undeletion

So, something here is kinda messed up. First, the damn article is deleted by a zealous admin or hacked account. Now it is a vandel page. WTF?? I move for undeletion and reversion to the unvandelized state, et cetera. Popadopolis 15:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

My error - I deleted the vandalized version while chasing down vandalisms from an anonymous IP, not taking the time to see that it was a legitimate article. I'm glad somebody fixed my mistake. - DavidWBrooks 15:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Then my apologies for being acusitory and hot-headed instead of actually trying to remedy the situation and whatnot. - Popadopolis 17:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Norton in Bonanza episode?

There used to be a "Television" subsection in the "Norton in the public imagination" section, with one entry:

• Bonanza, an American western television show, featured an episode titled, "The Emperor Norton." It first aired on February 27, 1966 as episode 225 in the seventh season. In the episode, Emperor Norton gets in trouble after calling for worker safety in the mines. As a result of his concern for the miners, his opponents attempt to have him committed. Mark Twain and the cast of Bonanza testify on Norton's behalf at a competency hearing. Norton's suspension bridge concept is also featured.

An anonymous editor, 24.7.63.62, injected this editorial comment below that entry:

[1] states that this entry is a complete lie. Bravo, but try somethign a little more obscure next time.

I confirmed that according to that webpage, episode #225 of Bonanza had nothing to do with Norton, so I have removed this entry from the article. However, it's possible that the webpage is in error, and it's also possible that the original author of this text got the episode number and/or season wrong. I'm not about to read episode summaries for all eight seasons of the show to find out for sure, so I defer to someone who is familiar with the show.

I would also like to remind everyone involved that around these parts, we assume good faith. Don't accuse people of lying without evidence (of lying, not just of error).

Zack 03:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The IMDB and other sites on the web certainly seem to think that Sam Jaffe played "Joshua Norton" in an episode of Bonanza which aired February 27, 1966. So it's either true, or a widespread lie, in which case the question is did Wikipedia contaminate the web with it, or did the web contaminate Wikipedia.- Nunh-huh 03:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, the Wikipedia entry was added after, not before the other sites picked it up. I confirmed this entry some time ago. It's considered a "lost episode". --Viriditas | Talk 03:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that Bonanza started in 1959, an episode that aired in 1966 should have been part of the eighth season. It's not listed on the TVLand page for the eighth season either; however, given that IMDB and MSN say the show continued to 1973, I'm thinking TVLand is just plain incomplete and not a trustworthy reference here. I'm not happy enough with the situation to put anything back into the article yet, though. --Zack 05:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the entry is correct and should be added back to the article. See [2]. --Viriditas | Talk 03:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The Civil War

How did he react to it? The article is surprisingly silent on it. So is Wikiquote. Did he just ignore the war for all five years? The closest thing I got to it was an edict on Wikiquote for Lincoln and Congress to be replaced with Democrats. Johnleemk | Talk 20:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd assume he was in favor of the south, then. zachol 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The GURPS roleplaying game once had two books giving stats for historical figures, and Norton was one of them. It said during the War Norton wore clothing emblematic of both sides, as they were both his people.--Bedford ^Pray 02:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming of Emperor Norton

his name is Emperor Norton. this is what everyone called him, this is how he was identified and distinguished from the rest of the sea of humanity. in present times, this remains the name by which he is identified. no one know who the heck joshua whatshisface was, no one really cares. on the otherhand many folks such as me (and you since youre reading this) care about the person who once was Emperor Norton. now for some cold hard facts. lets let goodle measure the issue. search: emperor norton -encyclopedia, results: 987,000. search: emperor joshua norton -encyclopedia (the term emperor was added to weed out real live josh nortons), results: 144,000. cleary, the people know him as an emperor.

its a matter of prestige, by descibing him as a mere man the fact that he was trully an emperor is denigrated. i dare say some people believe the man to have been insane and for this reason refuse him the respect and good humor that people gave him in his own time. this is unacceptable. if you insist with your conventions to omit across the board the term emperor, perhaps "Norton I" would be better, this being the same prestige given to folks such as king james. Or even "oshua a Norton, Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico", following other convetion listed on this website. but calling him by his name and nothing else? that is heresy!

You are treading over a road well-travelled, my friend. See: Archive 1 (2001 to May 8, 2005 --Viriditas 02:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

He was a self-declared Emperor, true, but so were many who declared themselves "Emperor" or "King" in the past. The title should be changed to "Emperor Norton I", but have his full name in the first line of the Article. -Alex, 12.220.157.93 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

I just reread the archived talk; I hope you won't have to. I will summarize. Even though the article is such that no one could possibly be confused, Nunh-huh and later mav (who apparently wrote Wikipedia's naming conventions) argued that it would be misleading on our part to refer to him as "emperor." Similarly, any usages of the term in the article are in quotes now, in case anyone somehow forgot after the beginning of the article that Norton had no army. The majority of people who wrote on the talk page thought the usage of the descriptor "emperor," unadorned was fine, but Nunh-huh and his scare quotes seem to have won anyway. I don't think anything can be done now. If you're crazy, you can petition for it to be removed from featured status. Probably, though, it would be better to simply bridle in silent, impotent rage than to start another edit war. The pedants have won. &mdashVivacissamamente 13:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How would it be misleading to refer to him as "emperor"? He was an "emperor". -Alex,12.220.157.93 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

Because he wasn't, and because people might infer from our titling the article in that way that he was. Thank you for providing additional evidence of this. - Nunh-huh 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There's never been consensus here for that interpretation, Nunh-huh. Not everyone has the same world-view you have, it turns out. The evidence provided by Alex is that, despite the article not being titled "Emperor Norton", yet another reader has decided, simply based on the facts of his life, that he was, in fact, Emperor Norton (the one and only). He could only be demonstrating what you say if the article were titled "Emperor Norton". I'm surprised to see you making mistakes in basic logic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could say I'm surprised to see that you think that factual errors are acceptable in an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 04:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Nunh-huh, and please see your talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

By Wikipedia naming conventions, Emperor Norton should be under Emperor Norton and not under a more obscure, more "correct" name. It is no more a claim that he was a "real" emperor (where do you go to get certified as a real emperor, anyway?) than the article Duke Ellington is an assertion that Edward Kennedy Ellington was a real duke. Nareek 05:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Nareek. He was known to the world as Emperor Norton I; that is how he should be known to Wikipedia. Greyscale 04:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

this article is about "Emperor Norton I" and it should be named "Emperor Norton I". --Isatay 00:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Emperor Norton didn't exist; Joshua A. Norton did. Besides, both "Emperor Norton" and "Emperor Norton I" redirect here. It should stay as it is. A better use time would be to fix up the article by improving the prose and providing cites, so it could regain FA status.--Paul 04:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Twain didn't exist either. But that is how the world knows him, and it is how Wikipedia knows him as well. The same goes for Dr. Seuss, who was not a real Doctor. I would be curious to know how many people actually search for "Joshua Norton." It should do this as the other articles do--have the title of the article be the name by which they were known, and have the first line contain his given name. Greyscale 11:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking into it further, there are a plethora of people whose pseudonyms are more famous than their real names, and these always come first on other pages of Wikipedia. Look, for instance, at Larry the Cable Guy and Borat. Until recently, Jon Stewart's name was not actually Jon Stewart, but that was how he was always listed on Wikipedia. Lewis Carroll didn't exist either. Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky were all affectations, and they all became more well-known than their respective real names--Wikipedia honors this. Look at the page on pseudonyms and you will find that this is a pretty unanimous trend. Further examples include Andre the Giant, Woody Allen, Carrot Top, Jon Bon Jovi, Dr. Dre, Ricky Martin, Martin Sheen, and Vin Diesel. Given the utter dearth of precedent or support of the naming of this page, I will change it in a few days absent any legitimate objections. Greyscale 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The legitimate objections are listed above. If you want to rename the page, feel free to follow the instructions for requesting a controversial page move on [[3]] - Nunh-huh 04:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be complete consensus on this issue, aside from yourself. I will do as I have said, and change it in a few days, absent the presence of any new disagreeing parties or any new evidence of precedent. I do not see any controversy; the vast majority of interested Wikipedians have weighed in on this side. It is no more controversial than any of the examples I named above. I could go back to the stage names page and dredge up four dozen examples, but I would rather you used your own time for that. My point has been made. Greyscale 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course, you could do that, but the likelihood is that unless you use the proper process, the page move won't last very long. And once the proper process is initiated, we can discuss the difference between a stage name and one which is misleading. - Nunh-huh 04:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrate that there exists a controversy, or else the proper process is to use consensus. It doesn't matter whether the name by which he was known is misleading or not; it matters what it was. See the above example of Duke Ellington. Also, the three Soviet leaders I mentioned might have taken issue with their pseudonyms being mistaken for stage names. My point has been made; neither you nor I can do anything more than we have done to establish consensus. Unless you can find more Wikipedians who agree with you, I suggest you let the rest of us take action and change the name to something everybody else who has commented has agreed upon. I am done taking up space on this page. Greyscale 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea that calling him "Emperor Norton" is misleading is ridiculous. This is a man who is famous entirely for calling himself an Emperor. If anything, "Joshua A. Norton" is the misleading title, in that it doesn't follow wikipedia convention, and leads one to believe that the guy is best known as Joshua Norton. john k 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No one contends that "Duke Ellington" was a duke. Yet people even on this very page contend that "Emperor Norton" was an emperor. If there were less of that nonsense - including suggestions that the article incorporate a succession box for a position that never existed - then I might be inclined to agree with you. However, that nonsense persists, and calling the article "Emperor Norton" with no indication that it's a nickname rather than a title seems to confuse many people. In any case, my point was that there is a mechanism for page moves, and that Greyscale needs to go through it if he intends to make a change. - Nunh-huh 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you all should take a look at Wikipedia official policy before you do anything. Specifically, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). The former says not to use honorifics like Emperor unless it's part of the title (ex. Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor is fine, but not King William I of England, instead William I of England). The latter says to avoid qualifiers and present the name in the most NPOV way possible. In this case, "Emperor Norton I" would fail NPOV because the article's title would present him as a real emperor when he is not. Duke Ellington is fine because 1) it is only a nickname and his most recognizable name and 2) he has been independently placed in the category of Jazz royalty by historians. Axem Titanium 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "real name". All names are just arbitrary labels. It's not at all unusual for people to be known by several different names at once, or to change their name. Should the Ice T article be renamed to "Tracy Marrow" just because that's the name that he was given at birth, and the name he uses while filing his taxes? No, because the vast majority of people know him as "Ice T". Same with Emperor Norton. --24.58.14.1 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what is the name on his tombstone?!!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/02-Norton.jpg/180px-02-Norton.jpg
Next you'll try telling me Prince isn't really a prince.
192.85.47.2 21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

More Math skillz

"Norton declared bankruptcy in 1858. He then left the city for a few years, and shortly after returning announced his title to the offices of the Bulletin."

How can he have left the city for a few years in 1858, and returned to declare himself Emperor in 1859? MorganLeFay 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, too, as I read the article.--SVTCobra 01:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha! I like this guy.--Old Guard 01:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if this could be fixed — KillerDeathRobot 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not Entirely Inconsequential

Whomever User 128.239.154.210 is, thanks for your edit! I totally agree that Emperor Norton's reign should not be called "almost entirely inconsequential." It's been featured in books, there's a bridge that may be dedicated in his name, he was a major influence on Discordianism, he may have inspired Mark Twain's character of the King in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and his reign led to this article. That's not inconsequential! Binky The WonderSkull 17:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The statement wasn't that his "reign" wasn't mentioned, but that it was without consequence. Which is correct. - Nunh-huh 08:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

His "reign" may not have had any geopolitical consequences, but it certainly has had consequences. Events such as the details of Discordianism, characters in Huckleberry Finn, and the existence of this article are all consequences of his "reign." Rpresser 18:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

If anyone wonders why I added Extra Space after the External Links, it's because for some reason the Categories box was covering up some of the links. If anyone knows a better way to fix this go for it! Binky The WonderSkull 18:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What a superb article - a masterpiece of good writing

What an absolutely superb article. It is factual, funny, fair and captures the context of the world Norton lived in perfectly. No wonder it is a feature article. It is one of the best things I have read anywhere. This article shows off Wikipedia at its very best. Congratulations, Wikipedia, on this masterpiece. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 14:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)}

Very much seconded. This is a fantastic article. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Mighty fine article. Kudos to all who contributed. And, rest in peace Emperor Norton. You are missed even though I knew you not other than what the written word conveys. And, I really like the monument upon thine grave. Only a good people would honor thee thusly.ObbopObbop 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out the "Legitimacy" section...

I'm going to assume that that wasn't there when it was featured, as its riddled with citation signals! Is that section worth anything, or should it just be removed? If its kept and not cited I suggest someone put it up for delisting. 68.39.174.238 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I might also add that it was featured under the old system: Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture. 68.39.174.238 08:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sort of confused why "citations" are required - they're mostly general statements, anyway. Regardless, it would be better to find some citations, if they're needed, than to simply delete that section. It is at least slightly interesting, and it is a question about Norton. zachol 03:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Internet

Isn't the section on usenet posts a bit inconsequential? We can't go writing new sections everytime Norton gets mentioned on a forum.

• Agreed. That section should probably be gutted. --Improv 13:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I'm not going to point out specific items (I'd rather see a "lower" standard of inclusion), but for the record, there are arguably more trivial items in the "In popular culture" section. You aren't being fully balanced in your exclusionary principles. —Vivacissamamente 00:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. The "food" section in particular seems like the same sort of thing as the hotel. The idea of a "lodging" section seems weird, though--is there another category that it could be put under? Nareek 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Buildings," perhaps? In any event, since the hotel has been deleted, there aren't any items to put in that subsection. I said I didn't want to delete anything, but the more I look at "Emperor Norton is an occasional character in the web comic Thinkin' Lincoln," the more it irks me. I mean, I could put up a web page with bubble text emanating from a repeated drawing (vaguely resembling Norton) if I wanted, but I wouldn't link it on the page. —Vivacissamamente

The hotel text is still there in the History if you want to put it back. What about "Brands" as a category and put the hotel and the food stuff together? Nareek 10:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I recommend preserving all of the content but splitting it off to Joshua A. Norton in popular culture. See Category:In popular culture for similar articles. —Viriditas | Talk 10:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Such articles tend to become rat's nests--it might become necessary for space reasons, though. Nareek 10:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of space and for preserving content that would otherwise be deleted as "trivial". —Viriditas | Talk 05:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Succession box

The removal of the succession box for Emperor Norton makes an untenable distinction between Norton and "real" emperors. All emperorship is based on self-proclamation and public recognition--that's kind of the point of Emperor Norton and why he has an article on Wikipedia at all. Nareek 10:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Real, schmeal. He's a real emperor as far as I'm concerned.

That said, there's no succession. He proclaimed the title himself, and nobody took it after his death. Not much point to a succession box with no succession. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of like Highlander: there can be only one. The box sort of highlights that. —Vivacissamamente 10:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro highlights that. I don't see any reason to have sboxes where there's no succession. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No such office, no succession, not an emperor. Pick any one: they all invalidate the idea of a "succession" box. - Nunh-huh 11:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically he was an emperor; I mean, it's not like it's a title that requires any qualifications. He wasn't a sovereign. But that's still three reason to dump the sbox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He certainly wasn't an emperor. He wasn't the supreme ruler; he had no subordinate rulers, and he had no empire. - Nunh-huh 15:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of succession boxes that indicate that the holder of a particular title had either no predecessor or no successor. That's not an unfortunate necessity of the format; that's information. Norton's box happens to convey the information that he has neither. (You can probably find that Charlemagne had no predecessor in his article, and also work out who his successors were, but that doesn't mean his box should be taken away.)

Norton carried out the same kind of role as many ceremonial nobles; most people with titles these days have no formal powers. Often they're not officially recognized by their home countries. I can't help but feel that Norton's box is being questioned because he's not a "real" noble; if by that we mean that he's not descended from a certain set of medieval warlords, that's true, but I'm not sure why that's supposed to matter. Nareek 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a very distorted view of what emperors are. You seem to have no sense of why Charlemagne could be called an emperor (hint: he didn't proclaim himself); and seem to forget that he had successors. There are no emperors that are acclaimed as such in one city only. - Nunh-huh 15:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for speculating about my reasoning in the face of my stated reasoning.

There's no succession. "Emperor of the United States" only existed for the period of time that he proclaimed it. It didn't persist after his death (even as a vacant seat), it didn't exist before he proclaimed it.

He wasn't a sovereign. His position wasn't a practical one (and indeed coexisted with the recognized government), so he doesn't fit into any timeline (like a timeline of leaders of the United States).

You mention Charlemagne. Charlemagne claimed several pre-existing-but-vacant thrones, several of which were later held by others. Additionally, he fits into timelines of leadership of various nations/regions/states/whatever.

I don't see what purpose the successionbox serves in this article, other than emphasis of something already stated repeatedly in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear that the actual purpose is to falsely label Norton an emperor. It falsely claims there was a "vacant position" of "Emperor of the United States" before Norton (there wasn't: the United States is a republic); it falsely claims Norton occupied a position of "Emperor of the United States" (he didn't: he called himself that, but there was no such position); and it falsely claims that after Norton's death the position was "abolished" when in fact there was no such position to be abolished. As the box presents nothing but misinformation, it must go. - Nunh-huh 15:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nunh-huh that the template misrepresents the existence of such a title before or after Norton's proclaimation of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes in any case are present in articles for ease of navigation, which is not a consideration when they navigate to nothing. - Nunh-huh 15:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of process, there was a change made to the article that some people approved and others disapproved. Why is it that the change should stand while we hash out whether it should or not? It seems like the disputed tag is the normal way to deal with such issues. Nareek 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No one ever challenged his claim or disputed his title. Emperors aren't elected anyway (except for the Holy Roman Emperor). A succession box isn't necessary until someone becomes recognized as the second Emperor of the United States.Antimatter 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Or a first. - Nunh-huh 00:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I went to the talk page to suggest a succession box and found this argument and that someone already thought of it. All I can say is that I think some people should get off their high horses and let something hilarious by for a change. What about the title of emperor under his photo? Why not delete that then? Mac OS X 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you add one (like above or below) and see what happens? Who knows how many supporters of this idea there may be? --Paul 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Norton was not Emperor of the United States, in that the United States is a country governed on the basis of a Constitution that enshrines a Republican form of government and disallows titles of nobility. That government had de facto authority over the whole United States during the time of Norton's life, with the exception of four years when several southern states declared themselves an independent state, the CSA, which had likewise a republican government and forbade titles of nobility, and was recognized by all foreign states as the legitimate government of the area. Norton's claims don't meet any kind of reasonable test for whether someone was an emperor. Henri V was recognized as such by numerous French monarchists, but note that we only call him "king of France" in a "titles in pretense" box. john k 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And Wikipedia isn't a joke book, so "hilarious" isn't a valid reason. Eric119 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a succession box is NOT appropriate in this case. However if it were, it would certainly read as follows:

Shaundakulbara 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)