Template talk:Succession box

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


Current syntax[edit]

{{start box}}

{{succession box |
  before=— |
  title=[[Minister of Defence]] |
  years=1940–1945 |
  after=[[Clement Attlee]]

{{succession box |
  before=[[Neville Chamberlain]] |
  title=[[Conservative Party (UK)|Leader of the British Conservative Party]] |
  years=1940–1955 |
  after=[[Anthony Eden|Sir Anthony Eden]]


{{end box}}
For when the office's titles changes mid-way through tenure
{{succession box |
  before=[[Harriet Harman]] |
  title=[[Secretary of State for Work and Pensions|Secretary of State for Social Security]]'''<br />''Later '''Sec. State Work and Pensions'' |
  years=1998&ndash;2002 |
  after=[[Andrew Smith]]

Looks like this (with start and end):

Preceded by
Harriet Harman
Secretary of State for Social Security
Later Sec. State Work and Pensions
Succeeded by
Andrew Smith
For when the office's titles changes on hand-over
{{succession box |
  before=[[Stephen Byers]]'''<br /><small>''Sec. State Transport, Local<br/>Government and the Regions'''''</small> |
  title=[[Secretary of State for Transport]] |
  years=2002&ndash; |
  after=Current Incumbent

Looks like this (with start and end):

Preceded by
Stephen Byers
Sec. State Transport, Local
Government and the Regions
Secretary of State for Transport
Succeeded by
Current Incumbent


{{succession box |
  before=[[Stephen Dorrell]] |
  title=[[Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport|Secretary of State for National Heritage]] |
  years=1995&ndash;1997 |
  after=[[Chris Smith (UK politician)|Chris Smith]]'''<br /><small>''Sec. State Culture, Media and Sport'''''</small>

Looks like this (with start and end):

Preceded by
Stephen Dorrell
Secretary of State for National Heritage
Succeeded by
Chris Smith
Sec. State Culture, Media and Sport
Blank for easy copying
{{start box}}
{{succession box |
  before=  |
  title=  |
  years= &ndash; |
{{end box}}

Special usage cases[edit]

Splitting/merging of two titles[edit]

James has created Template:Succession box two to one also. Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

... and Template:Succession box one to two. James F. (talk) 22:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Splitting/merging of three titles[edit]

Template:Succession box three to one. We may never need it again after Neville Chamberlain...--Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

... and Template:Succession box one to three. James F. (talk) 02:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll put it on William Pitt the Younger and Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth. Timrollpickering 11:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Multiple title occupancy[edit]

Template:Succession box one to one, for when two offices pass from one person through another to one person. Mackensen (talk) 19:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC). Now Template:Succession box two to two. James F. (talk) 03:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

... and Template:Succession box one by three to one - no, I'm not happy with the name, either. Suggestions, please? James F. (talk) 03:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
... and Template:Succession box three to three. Mackensen (talk) 17:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ah. A much better name. I'll delete mine. Perhaps we should move "one to one" to "two to two"? James F. (talk) 03:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, Emsworth created Template:Succession box one by three to two and Template:Succession box two by three to one. Not to be outdone, I just created Template:Succession box three by four to two. Should you feel daring, it's in use at Arthur James Balfour! Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Multiple title occupancy ending and starting at the same time[edit]

Anyone feel brave enough to do a succession box for multiple positions with different combinations inherited and passed on? Winston Churchill is particularly bad for this. Timrollpickering 19:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I can come up with a name for such a beast, I'll do it. Mackensen (talk) 20:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. "Succession box three to three" has 3 people -> one person -> 3 people, but with differing timings. Would "Succession box two to two at once" &c. be appropriate for when the gaining and losing is all at once?
James F. (talk) 03:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What's the problem with adding a parameter span (or rightspan - leftspan, prevspan - nextspan so something like that) which would convert to html rowspan=""? That would cover all possible cases, any-to-any. --Gene s 11:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Err, well, to start with, for-loops don't work in templates, so referencing {{{titlen}}} and {{{years}}} would be just a little tricky. Otherwise, indeed, that would be a good idea.
James F. (talk) 00:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with loops. Here is an example
rowspan="2" rowspan=""
no rowspan
In the rowspan="X" X can be made into a template parameter. rowspan="" is equivalent to rowspan="1", so if the parameter is missing, the table would work as expected. --Gene s 08:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Really? Is that how tables work? Gosh, I never knew that, even though I've been using them since HTML 3.2.
My point, clearly made above, is nothing to do with the spacing of the columns to the sides, but relates instead to their content, and, specifically, that of the one in the middle, which is missing from your demonstration. Observe:
Preceded by:
before (rowspan 3)
Succeeded by:
after (rowspan 3)
... or, for a very slightly more complicated example:
Preceded by:
before1 (rowspan 1)
Succeeded by:
after1 (rowspan 2)
Preceded by:
before2 (rowspan 2)
Succeeded by:
after2 (rowspan 1)
... or even, given Tim's example below:
Preceded by:
before1 (rowspan 2)
Succeeded by:
after1 (rowspan 1)
Succeeded by:
after2 (rowspan 2)
Preceded by:
before2 (rowspan 3)
Succeeded by:
after3 (rowspan 5)
Preceded by:
before3 (rowspan 2)
Preceded by:
before4 (rowspan 1)
Whence do you expect MediaWiki to come up with the magic variable names, exactly? How do you intend for the template to know not to look for title8, excepting that it loops over titles 1, 2, and so on up to the limiting total rowspan as given it in its parameters - a for loop, of sorts?
Also, blank attributes are horrendously bad form, not to mention XHTML violations.
By your tone and repetitiveness of point to the extend of seeming to fail to read those words which I write, it would seem evident that you think that I'm some rambling blithering idiot who is far too stupid to understand your most wonderful solutions; I hope that this, at least in part, has lain any such impression somewhat to rest.
James F. (talk) 09:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, now you know. Your sarcasm is wasted. --Gene s 10:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am suggessting a different thing. There is no need for magic variable names and loops. Five templates similar to succession_box will be necessary to cover any number of arbitrary cases. There will be a need for left-title-right template, -title-right, left-title-, left--right, and -title-, each cell with rowspan parameters, no more than 3 per template. Each row is a separate tempate, evaluated separately, the variabls do not intersect between rows. The example above would go like
left(2) -title- right
-title- right(2)
left(3) -title-
-title- right(5)
left(2) -title-
left -title-
I don't know if it's possible to assign a default static value to a template variable. If it's possible, there will be no violation.
No, I honestly don't think you are a (quote) rambling blithering idiot. Seriously. I think you have a problem with temper and patience, but that's all. Instead of accusing me, and instead of typing long sample tables, just spend a couple of minutes thinking over the proposal. So far you have not said anything which would make me believe it would not work. The only thing of concern is the need for empty attributes.
As for inserting my comments between sections of yours, please provide a link to an appropriate policy. If there is such a policy, I will comply. Otherwise I will do as I am used to do. --Gene s 10:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[Back to one-indent, for sanity]
Aha, I now see what you're doing, and I'll go and implement it now. Looks interesting. Pity that it took so long for us to get here. :-)
No, sadly you can't assign default values to variables (it would be useful, I agree).
Re: comments: to quote Raul (from the semi-policy page, where he is quoted as an illustration of exactly what I am saying), who is perhaps rather more hardline than I am, but gets the point across, "not all of Wikipedia's rules are written down. You may [even] be banned for violating unwritten, community standards". This is one of them. Wikipedia policy is not prescriptivist, as you seem to suggest it should be, but rather guides people, along with general community actions. Indeed, general unwritten behavioural patterns play a more significant part that actual written rules in a huge amount of what we do on Wikipedia. In this particular case, this interspersing of comments is precisely one of these things. It was rather odd for me to adjust at first, as I was far more used to the interspersed commenting as practiced on USENET of old, but I have come to adopt it as mine own, and I would hope that you would do the same.
James F. (talk) 11:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
{{Office sequence start box}}
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Alice }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Holder of the Key | years=2001–2004 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Bob }}
{{End box}}
... gives:
{{Office sequence start box}}
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Alice }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Holder of the Key | years=2001–2004 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Bob }}
{{End box}}
... and:
{{Office sequence start box}}
{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Andrew }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title A | years=1 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Alice }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title B | years=2 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Brenda }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=3 | person=Bob }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title C | years=3 }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title D | years=4 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=5 | person=Caitlin }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title E | years=5 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Charlie }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title F | years=6 }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title G | years=7 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=David }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title H | years=8 }}
{{End box}}
... gives:
{{Office sequence start box}}
{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Andrew }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title A | years=1 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=Alice }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title B | years=2 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Brenda }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=3 | person=Bob }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title C | years=3 }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title D | years=4 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=5 | person=Caitlin }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title E | years=5 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=2 | person=Charlie }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title F | years=6 }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title G | years=7 }}
{{Office sequence person | rows=1 | person=David }}
{{Office sequence office | rows=1 | office=Title H | years=8 }}
{{End box}}
Obviously this is lots more flexible, but it's not quite as, well, easy to use as the current one. Thoughts?
11:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I object to the (a) very long template name (why not just sequence_... or seq_... ?) and (b) the hard-coded word office in the title. The template can be useful for royalty too. Using office to describe the position of King of Bohemia is kind of odd. {{seq_start|title=some title here}} would be better. --Gene s 13:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You "object"? ;-)
Again, {{sofixit}}. :-)
James F. (talk) 20:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's 2 + 3 + 2 +1 to 1 + 2 + 5 on Stanley Baldwin - would that be to unweildy? Timrollpickering 11:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In a word, umm, yes, I rather think so. Sorry.
James F. (talk) 09:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I still think that this is better than having lots of differnt n to m templates. I never liked that we had loads off differnt templates. I personally think that is better to have few but flexible templates. But I don't like the names of the templates or that "office" is hard-coded, but this hasn't anything to do with the fudamental design. Jeltz 16:32, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
This system means that we're practically coding each individual cell at times. I don't have any trouble using our current group of templates, and they're generally faster. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shared titles[edit]

How does one deal with the case of a shared office? Like Marcus Aurelius for exemple. Especially since their reigns end at differnt times. Can you alreayd do this with this template or is it something that needs to be added? Jeltz 13:00, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

That would not be a problem with the proposed design. It would be "office=Emperor<br />with [[XXX]]". --Gene s 14:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I should think before I ask. But this Roman Emperor template should be replaced. I don't think that we should have many different succession templates.Jeltz talk 15:01, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
But there is one problem and that is that you generally would want the title of the co-ruler not to be bolded which would create pretty ugly wikicode. Not that it matters much since I don't think that this will be used very often. But maybe it would be nicer if a field for this was added in the template. The question is if it's important enough. "office=Emperor<br />'''with [[XXX]]'''&nbsp;" Jeltz talk 15:11, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

This template produces invalid HTML result[edit]

The template uses "id=toc" to assign style information to elements. That's incorrect approach. According to HTML specification, the id attribute must be unique for a given document (page). It must not appear more than once on the page. The template produces a copy of id=toc for every row. That should be fixed. The style information should be assigned through class="some_class_name" instead of id="toc".

See http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#adef-id

id = name [CS]
   This attribute assigns a name to an element. This name must be unique in a document.

--Gene s 08:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed; it took all of 5 seconds.
James F. (talk) 13:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's because it was not a good fix :-P
You assign the class to every row, when a clean solution would only asign the class to the table itself {{start box}} :-)
--Gene s 13:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oy veh. {{sofixit}}.
James F. (talk) 13:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It was done before you posted your comment :-) --Gene s

Moved from Template talk:Succession[edit]

moved here, as it's more appropriate James F. (talk) 13:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I update the table with a prettier version (and appropriately update Template:preceded and Template:succeeded too, in place of prev/next in this example)?

Preceded by: {{{office}}} Succeeded by:
{{{prev}}} {{{next}}}

--Gene s 13:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given that I suggested switching a fortnight ago, I'm happy with changing the box itself, but I don't think it looks so good with the differently-coloured "Preceded by:" and "Succeeded by:" bits...
James F. (talk) 13:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Actually, also, I don't think it works too well on two lines, because it makes the spacing that bit larger...
James F. (talk) 13:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, it copies the style of various geography templates. It has the same color and spacing as, for example, the Template:G8 or Template:Europe. --Gene s 14:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That it may be, but these are not set boxes like the ones you mentioned, but instead succession boxes, which, everywhere, seem to use the formatting as shown on Tony Blair, Winston Churchill, and several hundred other articles on British politicians...
James F. (talk) 17:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Everywhere" is a big stretch. As far as I can see, the majority of articles still uses the plain HTML table for succession boxes, or no succession at all. The succession box on Winston_Churchill page looks unreasonably verbose with "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" in every row.
I believe all navigation tables should have the same look. The geography navigation IMO looks prettier. It serves the same purpose as the succession navigation boxes. I don't see a reason why they should be formatted differently. The British politicians succession boxes use {{succession box}} templates. It would not be too hard to update that template to the same look as the geography navigation. --Gene s 05:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And another point regaring {{succession box}} on Winston_Churchill page. It bolds all text except years in office and padding (preceded/succeeded) which is useless in the first place. Bolding everything is wrong. Bolding should be used to emphesize a certain part of the text. When everything is bold (everything emphesized), then it's equivalent to nothing being emphesized. --Gene s 07:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And yet anothet point regaring {{succession box}}. The internal inter-cell vertical lines in that box are black, while horizontal lines and outer borders are gray. Why?
What's the reason for assigning style information through id (id=toc) instead of an explicit class declaration? Having two or more elements with the same id is invalid (see http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#adef-id This name must be unique in a document.). That page has multiple elements with the same id - the actual TOC and every row in the navigation box. That should be fixed. --Gene s 07:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current {{succession box}} can be easily converted to something like this for the joined box, like the one on Winston Churchill page

Preceded by   Succeeded by
aaa bbb
eee fff

By adding a variable for rowspan="N" it would work for complex cases too. The word office in the caption should be a template. --Gene s 14:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that one could do what you want, I merely point out that it's absolutely awfully ugly. :-)
Years of office are important, but you seem to dislike these.
Also, I think I actually prefer saying "preceded by" each time.
James F. (talk) 16:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, clearly there are different opinions on what is considered ugly. I think the current table ain't grand either. Would you share anything more specific than that?
I made the table as a quick example. The actual template should be backwards compatible, thus the years in office must be present. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that such a minor detail can be skipped from the sample. Here you go, with the dates.
And I think that is redundant. It clutters the table with the obvious. What is the purpose of having the preceded/succeeded in every row? What does it achieve? Same goes for bolding all the text in the table.
By the way, what kind of monitor do you use to view this? Can it be some sort of LCD screen by any chance? --Gene s
I agree with James; I think the current style is quite decent and see no need for another change (hell, we haven't even updated all the old wikitax tables yet!) Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The style of this box is different from the styles of the other navigation boxes. As for the old style not being updated, that is really not a problem. One does not preclude the other. Templates are great because updating one automatically updates all the pages where it's used. --Gene s 05:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, your declaration that all geography templates use your personally-preferred style isn't wholly correct - see, for example, Hertfordshire and the like.
I wasn't responding to your table, but your comment, above, saying that you didn't like having years in the template. And not all the text is emboldened - indeed, that's the whole point, that the years and "preceded by" bits aren't.
As for what monitors I've looked at the different styles over the recent months, well, yes, LCDs feature - 3 Apple laptop LCDs, 2 Sun workstation CRTs, and my personal workstation's monitors - 2 Iiyama CRTs, 2 Iiyama LCDs, and 2 SGI LCDs. The colour saturation balance is off, IMO, and it looks much better unadorned with festoonery and the like about it.
I propose re-implementing Template:Succession with this one and startbox/endbox, for cleanliness and the vyed-for homogeneity.
James F. (talk) 16:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please don't move comments around. Your rearrangement of comments makes the sequance of responces less clear. If you don't like my responces inserted after your individual statements, just say so.
your declaration that all geography templates use your personally-preferred style isn't wholly correct - I never said all. It's not just a significant fraction of geography templates (world, Europe, EU, France, Russia, Switzerland, and probably more). There are a few others in this style, for example {{headgear}}. saying that you didn't like having years - please point me to that comment. I can't see it anywhere. I believe I never made such comment because I think years are useful.
As for LCD, I am using two different displays. One represents shades a lot better than the other. The templates look somewhat different on these screens. The template looks a lot better on the screen with better color reproduction. It also looks pretty good on a CRT screen. So, my suspicion was that you were using some sort of LCD with poor color reproduction, and consequently objected to the style.
I already described my objections to the current {{succession box}}: (a) the style is inconsistent with the majority of other navigation templates, (b) redundant preceded/succeeded in every row, (3) bolding of everything. I believe it's wrong to change the {{succession}} to the style which would incorporate these problems (compatibility should be considered too - see below). Can you actually state your objections to the style that I am advocating? Anything objective that can be addressed? Beyond it being "ugly"?
I propose re-implementing Template:Succession with this one and startbox/endbox, if we forget for a second that we have mot agreed on the style yet, then I'm sure you understand that the updated template must be backwards compatible. It would still have to be a single line {{succession|office=xxx|preceded=xxx|succeeded=xxx}}, because otherwise all the pages where this template is used would have to be updated. And that's a lot of work for no real gain.
--Gene s 10:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lot of work? Pah:
{{start box}}
{{succession box | before={{{preceded}}} | title={{{office}}} | after={{{succeeded}}} }}
{{end box}}
Obviously the template has to be backwards compatible - otherwise, we'd just delete it.
Mind you, fixing the pages linking to Template:Succession is no major problem either - I'm happy to do it (an hour, at most).
You still don't seem to actually understand what I'm saying - this is not like "the other navigation templates" - it's not a set-selection one, as you suggested, where there are dozens (all possible entries) listed, and one of them is highlighted, but a succession thing, which rather different in concept and, if anything, it is probably better that the two do not look wholly alike, as we are asking the reader to adopt a wholly different mental model to use them.
As for my re-formatting of your comment, it was to fix the mess created by interspersed comments - they work fine, but only if your comment is the last one in the discussion; any more, and it's unreadable to the nth degree. Policy comments on this, somewhere, I think, not to mention common practice.
James F. (talk) 02:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not create a Template:Start succession box and use that with Template:Succession box? This would make it easy to change the layout. If you want to change the layout of the table you edit the start template. The you just have to edit the templates if you want to change something. Jeltz 17:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

I'm rather unclear as to why the current setup need be changed at all. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I too like the current setup (Template:succession box; if that is what you refer to) but I was thinking of a way to make it more flexible if we for some reason would want to change the layout. Jeltz 21:41, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
Lot of work? Pah: -- We obviously have some kind of communication problem. I said it would be a lot of work if it is not backwars-compatible. I did not say it would be a lot of work to make the tempate:succession from the templates start_box-end_box-succession_box. Now, what's the advantage of going through another layer of indirection by assembling the template:succession from the three templates?
You still don't seem to actually understand what I'm saying - this is not like "the other navigation templates" -- And you still don't seem to actually understand what I'm saying. This is still a navigation box. It serves the same purpose - navigation through a sequence of similar entries. The reason you give does not seem to be good enough to mandate a separate style. I believe Wiki should use the same visual style for all service elements. I don't insist on any particular style. I insist on a uniform style.
I would like to point out that you are avoiding the subject of objective criteria. You have not produced any objective reasons why the template:succession has to be updated at all. The only reason you gave is "ugly". That's NOT objective.
Policy comments on this, somewhere, I think, not to mention common practice. -- If you can produce a link to policy, please do so. Otherwise it is not a "common practice" but your POV. My POV is to answer specific statements one by one. That avoids the need to copy quoted text, like I have to do here. I am following your request as a gesture of good will, not because there is something objectively advantageous about it.
By the way, I am satisfied with the status quo. I don't mind making another multi-line template in the same common navigation style. Say, succession_start, succession_end and succession_row. That way you can go with your style, I can go with mine, and we let the community decide what works best.
--Gene s 08:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can't we first decide on a way to implement this so it can easily be changed and then think about the exact layout? Should succession or succession box be the template that we will use? My oppinion is that it can't be made backwards compatible and correct at the same time. It's not much job at all to add the "start box" and "end box". At least not this ealry. Stop thinking of backwards compatibility and think of designing something that's easy to change in the future. Jeltz 10:50, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
I am not sure there is a disagreement with what to implement. We need a simple one-liner like the current template:succession to adress the vast majority of simple cases, and we need a multiline box like the current template:start box/template:succession box/template:end box for complex cases. Within these sets any changes can be made backwars-compatible, that's really not a problem.
It's not much job at all to add the "start box" and "end box". At least not this ealry. True. The template:succession is used by about 50 pages: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:succession, the template:succession_box by about 250: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:succession_box. On the other hand, it's not just the one time job of converting one box to the other, it's also a simplicity of future use. The one-liner is easier to learn and understand (and for the wiki engine to render) than a more complex multiline syntax. The majority of succession_box uses is an overkill. The simple template:succession is enough for like 90% of cases. --Gene s 11:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I completely agree that it is simpler to use a one-liner if we can. My suggestion about having Succession using Succession_box (and PeerNavbox, for that matter) is that it will join up the formatting/layout for all of them, and so make it simpler in future if we want to change the style - no need to change it thrice. It was a very minor point and I now feel sorry for making it. :-)
But I still fundamentally disagree with you about "navigation through a sequence of similar entries" being a use of the general set-boxes. They are about browsing between, and nothing at all to do with a 'sequence', nor anything else that you would navigate through instead of about.
James F. (talk) 03:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deny the obvious. Are you saying the list of US Presidents is not a sequential list of similar entries? Then what is it? The {{succession}} is a tool for browsing through this list. Functionally it's not much different than, say {{JanuaryCalendar}}. Please explain your position.
You still avoid the question of objective criteria. Why do you believe the "plain" style with redundant succeeded/preceded is better than the standard blue-colored style? --Gene s 09:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well done, after a whole bloody week of this, you've finally managed to hit the nail on the head - the set-template of US Presidents is neither "sequential" nor a "list", but a box. This is not denial of the obvious (or, at least, certainly not by me), but a fundamental part of user-interface design.
If you really, seriously, cannot tell the functional difference between a set-selector and a sequential-selector, then, well, I am terribly sorry for you; it is rather a sad thing.
As to having the redundancy of "Succeeded by" &c., and the separate issue over whether these texts should be highlighted in some way, I'm not wholly wedded to the idea of the former, but am against the latter, on æsthetic grounds. Arguing that this last point is objective is really quite an odd line to take, IYAM.
James F. (talk) 23:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The list of US presidents is a list, not a "box". There is nothing inherently "boxy" about a list. You seem to believe that a navigation box with a long list of components and a navigation box with just two components are fundumentally different GUI concepts mandating different styles. I don't think so. They are essentially the same navigation boxes.
I suggest you keep such "witty" remarks to yourself. They are simply an indication of your failure to conduct a professional discussion.
The question of esthetic superiority is a purely subjective one. The "blue" style exists and widely used. Thus, there are people who find its esthetic value sufficient. Personally, I am not against any style. I am against the discordance of styles. And IYAM, using arguments like "really quite an odd line to take" is unproductive. Such arguments are meaningless. --Gene s 08:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you fail to see my point with the box of US Presidents, what about that of NATO countries, or EU ones (the geographical templates to which you alluded, seemingly many moons ago, above)? Are you suggesting that one would always progress from Algeria to Andorra (or somesuch otherwise pairing) when using such a template? Of course not! The box-selector is for selecting any one of the (possibly quite numerate) related items, whereas the sequence-selector is for picking from exactly two chronologically-proximal items. That is my point, and I would have thought it not only obvious but a matter of fact, and not something to be discussed at all, let alone for quite so long as this.
No, I don't fail to see your point. I understand your POV, I just disagree with it. The essential functionality is the same - navigation. You are saying there are different types of navigation, I am saying it's still navigation. Is the glass half full or half empty?
I would protest most vigorously my not "fail[ing] to conduct a professional discussion" with you (though, I must admit, this conversation does seem to be overly taxing on my reserves of patience); my comment was intended to cause you to pause and reflect on that which I was referring to, as you seem to not respond to some of my comments directly.
Yes, I wholly agree, æsthetic grounds are subjective; this is, in fact, somewhat of a tautology. My point was that, as I have repeatedly said that my complaint against the use of the blue highlighting in this context is based on subjective grounds, you then jumping in with it as a "question of objective criteria" is rather bemusing — the odd line to take is that you seemed to link my stated subjective comments with objective ones, which they are most obviously not.
Finally, my point is that I do not believe that it is discordant to not use every part of a style in a particular area, and, this being the opinion of the two others who have commented here save ourselves, it would probably be a far better waste of our respective times if we went and did something else, somewhere else, and leave things be as they are. :-)
James F. (talk) 09:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, I don't mind dropping this matter for a while. Say a period of one month to cool off and to reflect.
As for the opinions of the other two people, I am not sure they agree with what you think they agree. I would rather see them speek for themselves, rather than to have their words interpreted. --Gene s 11:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added a translated version of the template:Succession to no.wiki and it goes pretty well, more people have been taking up the torch and most of the succession boxes is over to the new format. I belive the modular design is the best one, abeit more markup but in the long run you don't confuze people and end up with several boxes because people didn't understand that there was another template for multiple boxes. Having one template also helps with future updates. Profoss 22:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
oops, my mistake, i messed up the different nameing, what i ment was that we use Sucession box on no:. 22:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it would have been better if you waited a little while. People doesn't really seem to have made up their minds. I haven't really made up my mind yet, but it's not a big issue ot me. As logn as we decide on soemthing that is flexible and that people like. (If people alreayd have decide just ignore this.) Jeltz 00:04, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Succeeded by: Incumbent[edit]

I've noticed lots of pages that attempt to express the fact that John Smith is the present incumbent by using this template, and saying "Succeeded by: Incumbent". That seems to say he was succeeded by the current incumbent. That is absurd. Is that built in to the way this box is used? Michael Hardy 03:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it would make more sense to create a Template:Succession incumbent or something. At present, however, we have no such template, and therefore we simply have to indicate that the person is currently holding the office. – ugen64 05:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
It looks a bit weird as we have it now but do you have any suggestion for how to make it better? Jeltz talk 08:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I have created that template to test. It might be preferable to have that third block (where it currently says Current Incumbent) to be a variable: that way, we could easily indicate where a position changed names (i.e. Governor General of the Province of Canada to Gov. Gen. of Canada). I will make that change shortly, and I will also make an inverted version. – ugen64 13:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC):
{{start box}}
{{Incumbent succession box | title=[[Wikipedia|King of Wikipedia]] | before=[[Jimmy Wales]] | after=Current Incumbent | start=2005}}
{{succession vary1 | title=[[Wikipedia|Prince Consort of Wikipedia]] | before=New Office | after=[[John Smith of Jamestown]] | years=2005}}
{{end box}}
Good idea, but perhaps there can be a more generic term. "Incumbent" sounds strange when applied to, say, the current heavyweight boxing champion. —Chowbok 20:44, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
I tried to create a Template:Succession vary2, but the Wiki failed and I have been to lazy to create it again. I agree, though - incumbent is just a specific case that is very common, and when I remember, I'll make another template to vary that text. – ugen64 05:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Which titles to place in succession boxes[edit]

After seeing the horror that resulted when I made an absolutely complete succession box for René I of Naples and René II, Duke of Lorraine, User:John Kenney suggested triming them back. I'd like to propose some formal rules for this:

  1. No "titular" styles; the succession box should only contain titles of realms where a monarch actually reigned. (On the other hand, perhaps we should allow these for persons whose heirs eventually reasserted the claim and reigned.)
  2. After styles become united (e.g., Castile & Leon, Lorraine & Bar, etc.), only the premier title should be used in the succession box. (But this could create problems, say, with Charles I of England, King of England, Ireland, and Scots. Perhaps we should use a single box for them, see below:)
Preceded by
King of Foo and Bar
Succeeded by

Comments are appreciated. Choess 20:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's what I would suggest as well - take out the titular titles, and if two or more titles are held by way of another title, either just mention the main one or put them all in the same box. Adam Bishop 20:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, rather than the criterion of union (which is subject to a lot of pettifogging and POV), it might be better to just put titles with the same predecessor and successor, and the same dates, in the same box, a superset of my previous suggestion. Choess 18:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

While I agree on some grounds, I disagree in others. Titular titles are often necessary to understand how a ruler inhereted a throne following a usurpation by another ruler or government. Perhaps I should create a pretender template to cover this issue; it is one that I feel must be listed in some form but the current styles do not seem to function correctly. Regarding combined domains such as Castile and Leon, England and Scotland, and Lorraine and Bar, I agree that they should be combined on one line. For a while, I disagreed but now I am beginning to see the benefits of it. However, this should only apply to permanently conjoined realms, therefore Ireland probably should not be included and the instances where Aragon was ruled with Castile and Leon also should not be merged. Once they permanently combine, though, they should be on the same line. All open titles (such as in Navarre until its merger with France by Henry IV) should be on separate lines throughout the succession chain until they split again. They also should be organized in order of precedence (ie Emperor, King, Prince, Duke, Count, &c.), though these may have to be better defined. Continue to discuss. I will work on a solution to the titular problem shortly.
Whaleyland 22:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"current incumbent", revised[edit]

Like the editors who brought it up above, I too was unhappy with "succeded by: current incumbent." I came up with a possible alternative and started using it: "succeded by: N/A (current incumbent)." This seems to me to be the best solution (short of rewriting the code). Thoughts? Doops | talk 18:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. Other editors have come along behind me and "regularized" my innovation to the standard format. I passively let them. Oh well.

New Succession Forms[edit]

Hey everyone, since I work with these forms so much, I figured my input may be wanted. I created new templates for succession fields, following a mixture of the office template listed above and incorporating aspects of that with the new form we have all come to, at least partially, love. It is highly flexible, removes all the need for those two to one and three to three &c. unique boxes allowing a user to simply list the after, before, title, and years with a fairly easy rows insert in the event that the person governed (or whatevered) separate places or multiple times these can be accounted for.

The Templates are:

Template:s-start or Template:start succession box
Template:s-bef or Template:succession before
Template:s-aft or Template:succession after
Template:s-ttl or Template:succession title
Template:end or Template:end box

This form has already been used on Ferdinand II of Aragon as a test page, however I will test it on Winston Churchill, a more difficult case, when I get the chance. Please refer to Template_talk:s-start for instructions on how to use this new form. I believe it will make complex succession tables far simpler although the old Template:succession box is still fine for simple tables.
Whaleyland 00:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Embedding the new succession forms in the succession box[edit]

Whaleyland has created these new succession forms to handle complex succession cases. The best way to make sure that they stay in sync with this template is to embed them into this template itself. Moreover, if this and other templates use these basic templates as building blocks, it helps to ensure a more consistent look and feel. Therefore, I am going to restore embedding.

DLJessup (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In all honesty, it looks terrible; it's way too crowded and actually difficult to read. What was wrong with the way it was? I suggest we restore it and try to reach a community consensus before such a change that affects hundreds of articles is made... --tomf688{talk} 01:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Tomf688, it looks really ugly, see Winston Churchill, George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac. Was it a mistake? I think we should change it back. — Mushroom 01:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you guys did, but that Winston Churchill's succession box should not look like it does. I will work with it some more, I am still tweaking things. But I agree that some consensus should be made and I am still working on fixing problems inherent in the forms I created. I think what happened with those individuals is that the succession box form did not stack properly over multiple fields. This needs to be corrected. Every case of a single succession with the new template appears fine, so I will check on this other problem shortly.
-Whaleyland 02:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Back already and found the flaw. Strangely, after the form had been reverted, another person tried to create their own and supercede that over the revert. I will check that out promptly. Anyway, I discovered that the top line of the former code (|- style="text-align: center;") was missing because I have that included with Template:s-start on my other code. Noting that, I reincorporated the code into this and the other variants of this code to keep them in sync. That little portion of code you just read, that makes the computer see multiple succession tables as separations in the same table, MEANING that without it, it will just attach them on to the previous table in a row. Not very pretty. So for all you Churchill, Bush, and Chirac lovers out there, your tables are saved. Once again, sorry for that hour of Wiki chaos, I will try to avoid it from now on.
-Whaleyland 02:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Now it looks okay. Thank you, Whaleyland! — Mushroom 02:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, for all of you skeptical about my new format, note that all the previous forms are now created with my templates. Also, see Template talk:S-start for a complete guide with examples of all my templates, including quite an impressive (if I do say so myself) advanced example at the bottom. Please continue to leave feedback about problems and other issues. Thanks for all the help!
--Whaleyland 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

So, should we be using the new templates instead of succession box? I recently edited a succession box, and someone soon replaced it with s-###. I have no problem with this, but I think it would be helpful if there were a standard. Ardric47 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Technically all the succession boxes are now following this standard. For simple boxes (ie one to one) the succession box template can be used. For anything more complex, it would be more server friendly and compatable to use the s-### series boxes as they can account for many variables.
Whaleyland 09:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Incumbent succession box[edit]

Template:Incumbent succession box exists for standardizing the succession table for incumbents.

DLJessup (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Try fitting a simple box like that into something as advanced as Tony Blair's window. No, I think noting Incumbent is still easier than using a completely different template for that one title.
Whaleyland 04:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, Template:Incumbent succession box has replaced a similar template, Template:Succession incumbent in the succession table for Tony Blair.

I do appreciate that there are times that we might want to merge cells across rows in the succession table; however, I think that such an action makes sense when the underlying titles merge or split (e.g., the merging of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs to form the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs), not when a single person happens to hold multiple titles, as seems to be the case with Mr. Blair.

Template:Incumbent succession box actually does two things: it standardizes the handling of the {{{years}}} parameter and the {{{after}}} parameter. (This, incidentally, is why I prefer it to Template:Succession incumbent, which does not deal with the {{{years}}} parameter.) It provides a consistent look and feel to how incumbents are handled, much as the succession box templates do for the succession table; otherwise, you get an em-dash here, an (n/a) there, a "current incumbent" elsewhere.

DLJessup (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, Template talk:Incumbent succession box provides a common place to discuss what the standards should be, which does not seem to otherwise exist.
DLJessup (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to announce in this form that I created two new fields much like the ones above, although they fit into the system I am working with. They are:


The first is a replacement for Template:s-ttl and Template:s-aft for Incumbants and lacks the Succeeded by: header and fills in the second year field with "—Present". The second is a replacement for Template:s-bef for New Creations and lacks the Preceeded by: header. They can be used as follows:

Template:s-non (with others)

{{s-non|title=TITLE OF PERSON|year=START YEAR HERE}}

Which looks like:

Preceded by

And: Template:s-new (with others)


Which looks like:

New title King of Africa
Succeeded by

Tell me what you think of these. Obviously the fit into this area of discussion and I think they make the previous arguments easier to work with concerning incumbents. Take it or leave it, but please discuss it.
-Whaleyland 02:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I really do like all of those, but is there any way to incorporate them into one "super-template" (sorry, I'm still learning how templates work in the first place...), such as template:succession box? For example, could there be a way to embed it like
{{succession box ... after={{s-non | reason=Incumbent}} ... }} or
{{succession box ... | years=... | Incumbent}}?
Ardric47 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I know where you are coming from with this question and the simplest answer is no. Technically it is possible, but it would have to be an if/then statement which gets very complicated in the code thereby making it nearly impossible to handle. Most of the templates do have hidden code for special options, like Template:s-ttl allows for districts to be listed in the event the person is a regional representative of something. But there are many variances on what can be written in the s-bef and s-aft forms to make them capable of independence. I wrote s-inc so that incumbants could be listed easily without a hassle, while at the same time allowing an heir to be listed in a subline. To integrate all that code into an if/then clause within s-aft would be very difficult and probably not server-friendly. If I get a chance sometime soon, I will work on it, but don't get your hopes up.
Whaleyland 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Date Syntax[edit]

Alright, a recent discrepency between multiple succession fields has arisen which needs to be discussed. What should the decision be on Interwiki links for dates within succession froms? Since I have been creating charts, I have Interwikied all dates and converted many. The Russian Czars are all interwikied with full dates while many others are not interwikied at all. We need a consensus on this. I have already tried to make it work with all the templates involved, but there can be no auto-interwiki feature without overhauling all the succession templates ever made. Discuss. —Whaleyland 01:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Separate tables[edit]

I notice that for various British personages, various honorary titles (Lord Lieutenantships of counties, Warden of the Cinque Ports, various scottish justiceships, chancellors of universities, and the like) are being listed in the table alongside regular offices. I think this is problematic, and potentially confusing. I would suggest that all of the following should be separate as tables, and in this order:

  1. Monarchical titles - being the monarch of a place
  2. Substantive offices held - this would be a broad category. It could include diplomatic postings, cabinet offices, sub-cabinet offices, court offices, colonial governorships, military commands, and so forth.
  3. Honorary Titles - lord lieutenantships of counties, honorary justiceships, honorary great offices of state (the ones just created for coronations, the earl marshal, the lord great chamberlain, the ones for Scotland and Ireland); and so forth. Any office which doesn't require the bearer to actually do much of anything, and which can be held at the same time that one holds other substantive offices, would go here.
  4. Parliamentary Seats. Holding a seat in parliament is not an office of state, and including it with the other stuff can be confusing.
  5. Peerage titles. These go last.

Basically, since monarchical titles and peerage titles are already supposed to be separate, I'm proposing splitting the "offices held" category into three - a main one for most offices, another for honorary offices, and a third for parliamentary seats. What do people think? john k 04:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

But the honorary titles (lord lieutenancies, justices in eyre and so forth) were originally substantive, and only gradually became honorary. We'd have to agree on a cutoff point for each of these offices for the transition between substantive and honorary... Choess 05:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I already started a set of field separation templates to differentiate between offices (Template:s-off) and regal titles (Template:s-reg). I noticed this problem with Juan Carlos I but also was not sure how to tackle it. The split between offices and titles was easy enough, but then further splitting honorary titles from actual titles is not only difficult, but sometimes impossible. Most titles now short of reigning monarch (ie King, Queen, Sultan, &c.) are honorary but they weren't. The War of the Roses was between two very active dukes of duchies. However those titles now are only honorary. Similarly, some people don't actually rule such Juana of Castile but is technically queen. Does that mean she is honorary or actual ruler? I think we can only divide titles into two things: office titles (ie President, Secretary, Prime Minister) and regal titles (ie Queen, Earl, Duke) because the latter fluctuate far too much in what their title means and different people will have different opinions of if they actually ruled their titular domain.
Regarding adding a subgroup for Parliamentary seats, and by that I assume you mean any form of assembly seats, I can easily make up a third template if you two feel that it would make for a better flow. Personally, I see no problem with placing those titles with a list of offices held, but I will go with a concensus.
Whaleyland 07:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
PS Give me feedback on the Juan Carlos page because that is pretty much my final draft of the succession template in its complete (albeit simple) form. I am still trying to work out a better system for documenting children and their marriages on biographical pages, but significant gaps between rows is making me think it will never work.
I like the ideas on the Juan Carlos page, but the succession box template isn't actually used there, is it? Ardric47 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
This makes sense to me, provided we come up with a formula per Choess' concerns. I would add to the parliamentary seats the representative peers–I think that's a useful thing to show. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In terms of lord-lieutenantships, and so forth, I think it's fair to say that for the entire period when we have full lists of Lord lieutenants (17th century?) the title was essentially honorary. I'd say that probably all titles are honorary from the Stuart period on, and quite possibly earlier - the Earls of Oxfords were Lord Great Chamberlains under the Tudors, but as far as I can tell this was almost wholly honorary already. But certainly from 1600 or so on I think we can make the cut off. As to regnal vs. peerage titles, I don't think this is a big deal for England. I'd suggest that we simply treat all peerage titles as non-substantive, even if they were substantive. I will add that the Wars of the Roses were most certainly not fought between two active dukes of duchies. The House of Lancaster were kings, and were not dukes of anything. The Duchy of Lancaster was (and is) a real duchy, but was not one held by a duke. The Dukes of York were dukes, but they never ruled a duchy. In fact, the lands of the House of York were largely in the Welsh marches (where Richard Plantagenet inherited the lands of his uncle the Earl of March). At any rate, the issue only comes to the fore when somebody has both a monarchical title and a peerage title. For the British, I'd say we just always keep them separate, since British peerage titles have never really been like monarchical titles. For France, say, it becomes more complicated. I'd say that, for instance, Louis XII of France could have his title of duke of Orleans and his title of King of France in the same table, since his earlier title did involve actual rule over large areas. But I don't see the need for it. With German princes, obviously, they should be considered ruling princes, and not just as nobles. In terms of parliamentary seats, I think it would just make everything clearer to separate them from offices, in british contexts. I do not think the same thing is necessarily true for, e.g., American offices. The problem with the British is overlapping. It's much harder to get a sense of the course of someone's career when you have essentially dissimilar titles overlapping - it takes much longer when they're in the same table to figure out that somebody was member for South Yorkshire, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and Prime Minister all at the same time. For American congressional figures, this seems less necessary - they do not hold other positions while they are in Congress, except for positions of authority within the congress itself. john k 17:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright then, I will create a template to separate parliamentary titles from other office titles. It will be called Template:s-par though it can work for all assembly seats in any congressional system.
Regarding the various honorary and actual titles held by various Europeans, I think we may be going in too deep if we separate some of the titles. French and German titles often involve actual land through 1789 and 1918 respectively. Other countries that people know less about it will only become more vague where certain titles go. I want to hear a response from Choess on this before we decide to attempt a disconnect between honorary and actual titles. I could almost argue that the Queen of the United Kingdom is an honorary title in the British peerage system but that wouldn't due. While all your points are good for the separation, I think that hereditary titles/conquered titles (as they almost all must be to be successive) should be placed in one section regardless of the power held. We can place them in order of rank (ie King, Duke, Earl, Lord...) but I do not think it is wise to disconnect them.
Whaleyland 20:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I share the above reservations on trying to separate monarchical and peerage titles. It's easy for the UK, of course, but to invoke that 'bête noire' of succession boxes, René I of Naples, it isn't always so easy. (In that case, the layout is really governed by the transfer of titles to and from René; it's a rather pathological illustration of the greater fluidity of inheritance on the Continent. Anyway, in the UK case, keeping the royal succession on "top" of the peerage succession would seem sufficient; the royal peerages don't generally seem to be as complicated as in France, and I think that would be sufficient for easy scanning.
As regards Lord Lieutenants, the lists will get filled out as soon as I haul my lazy self down to NYPL to consult J.C. Sainty's "Lieutenants of counties, 1585-1642" and "List of lieutenants of counties of England and Wales, 1660-1974". They still seem to have been executing Commissions of Array during the English Civil War; perhaps the Restoration would be a better point at which to consider the office "honorary"? (This also takes advantage of the gap in appointments during the Commonwealth.) Choess 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

For British titles, peerage titles and royal titles are already separated. I would strongly oppose joining them back up again. As to the continent, I was not originally meaning to bring it up, and I'd prefer not to worry about it for the moment. I'm basically fine with keeping all continental titles together. For the commissions of array, my understanding is that this was already a pretty obsolete method of operations in 1642, but the restoration would seem a sensible breaking point, nonetheless, for lord-lieutenancies. It might be for other titles too. For instance, the Earl of Essex was Earl Marshal. That seems plausibly a real title for him, even if it later becomes an essentially honorary hereditary title of the Howards. john k 20:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, so here are the conclusions as I understand it: 1. In British politics, before 1649 titles are considered actual and after 1660 they are considered honorary. 2. Outside British politics, titles are considered actual unless otherwise noted. 3. There will be four sections that all titles and positions will be divided into (they shall be in the following order then further subdivided in order of chronology): Actual authority titles (ie King, Emperor, Archduke), Offices held (ie Prime Minister, Secretary of State, Exchequer), Honorary titles (ie. Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Wessex), and finally Assembly Seats. 4. All titles listed in succession boxes must be successive (ie someone else either has it before this person or gets it after) or hereditary titles. 5. This succession system will be used across Wikipedia for all succession forms and will be adapted when necessary through Template:qif placed inside the s-templates or through textual editing on the individual biographies. 6. There will be no wikified/interwiki linked dates within succession templates.

These are summed up in the following example of a master hypothetical person I have created. I know, it doesn't follow all the proper laws; assume the royal originally had given up his titles only to reclaim them later. We will call him Edward X of the United Kingdom.

Succession box
Cadet branch of the House of Wettin
Born: September 15 2050 Died: November 1 2137
Regnal titles
Preceded by
Edward IX
King of the United Kingdom
Succeeded by
William VII
Political offices
Preceded by
Henry Illingsworth
Leader of the House of Commons
Succeeded by
Mark Andrews
Honorary titles
Title last held by
Henry Edward George
Duke of Cornwall
Succeeded by
George William Stephen
Assembly seats
Preceded by
Francis Dylan
Member of Parliament
Representative for Plymouth Devonport
Succeeded by
Michelle Glyndwyr

Please tell me what you think. Obviously the colors can be changed and I seriouly doubt we will ever find a real case that has all four of these catagories, though there is always the chance. Its good working with all of you! &ndash:Whaleyland 10:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Request cat[edit]

Can <noinclude>[[Category:Succession templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude> be added at the end? —Mark Adler (markles) 11:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Book and movie series?[edit]

I was thinking about using the succession box as navigation for multiple-book series. Has this been done? Is there a more appropriate template for this sort of thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScottAlanHill (talkcontribs) 20:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC).

Order of offices for politicians[edit]

Is there a consensus preferred order for succession boxes for politicians? I've seen some where the most important offices are listed first and others where the offices are listed chronologically. — Bellhalla 15:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is that they be listed chronologically–earliest at the top. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic. Thanks. for the info. — Bellhalla 12:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed removal of colons[edit]

I propose the removal of the colons after the prepositions by in this box. There's no need to use a colon to separate the prepositions from their immediately following objects; in this box, especially, it's entirely clear that the information on the line immediately under the "Preceded by" (or "Succeeded by") line is the object of by. I say "I made this proposal by typing on the Internet", not "I made this proposal by: typing on: the Internet." President Lethe 05:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Box location discussion or style guide or policy?[edit]

In most articles, this is used at the very bottom--is this convention documented anywhere? They've started popping up in a variety of locations on 'entertainer' articles: Between "References" and "External links" section--Jane Fonda; bottom of "Filmology"--Jane Wyman; very bottom (under "External links"--Vivien Leigh (a featured article) as well as ABBA and Liza Minnelli. Anyone know where this has been, or is being, discussed or documented? 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

for film actors, which raised this question, there have been several persons posting that believe that they should be at the bottom of the awards or filmography section, which does seem appropriate. Doc 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me like Jane Fonda's succession box should be directly below the list of her awards and nominations, as the subject of the box itself is who preceded and succeeded her two Academy Awards. I would probably recommend putting all such succession boxes in a similar location, as near to the main info on their subject as possible. Andrea Parton 06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The Guide to layout says it should go at the bottom, but I have two other points to make, as well. I haven't personally used any succession boxes, but it looks like the WikiProject Succession Box Standardization is trying to phase out Template:Succession box in favor of Template:Start. I'm surprised no one's mentioned this here! Also, I'm working on revising the Guide to layout, so you can add your two cents at my Appendices order draft. --J. J. 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


I would like to propose to merger this template into Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing#Structure for articles about boxers#Championship table beause it looks nicer in my view. I know it is a not suitable reason, but it is not a good situstion that the same templates exist. What do you think?

--Yappakoredesho 21:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Insertion awkwardness[edit]

This template makes no concession for other boxes and layout elements in the article it is inserted into. For example, where it has been inserted into the Paris article, it is obliged to float one-third over to the left because of the 'Wikilinks' box to the right, and the resulting balance is very awkward. I would suggest having this box 'clear' to both sides through either an in-box style or an added 100% wide cleared div above it. Thanks.

Btw - I see no conflict here - any reason why this page is fully protected?

THEPROMENADER 08:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is already exists. You should use {{s-start}} instead of {{start box}}. s-start has clear which start box lacks. Jeltz talk 11:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, no start box is just a redirect to s-start so I don't know what your problem was. The succession box clears both sides. What browser do you use? Jeltz talk 11:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm on Safari using Mac OS 10.4.6. I just read that this template should be outmoded in favour of s-start... yet it was this one installed onto the Paris page this morning. Not my doing, but it did bring up a question or two. Thanks for your answer. THEPROMENADER 12:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw that you removed the temporary 'clearing' div today - so now the box is floating one-third to the left again. Any way to correct this? THEPROMENADER 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know it looks fine to me in Firfox and Internet Explorer. This sounds like an browser issue to me which I'm not sure how to fix in a good way especially since I have no access to any computer with Safari. Jeltz talk 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I finally got enough time to give it the ol' browser go-around and effectively, it centres in everything but IE Mac (which isn't surprising - with that one the template floats completely to the left) and Safari for Mac. IE windows, Firefox Mac/Windows, Opera Mac/Windows all check out. I wish I could see the css for this and I could tell you what's wrong... may even be the 'wikillink' box that is the problem. Never mind the IE mac users, but there's quite a few 'Safari surfers' out there... any way to look into this? I would if I could. THEPROMENADER 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The code for Template:s-start looks like this:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 0.5em auto; clear: both; font-size:95%;"
|- style="text-align: center;"

and wikitable looks loike this

table.prettytable {
  margin: 1em 1em 1em 0;
  background: #f9f9f9;
  border: 1px #aaaaaa solid;
  border-collapse: collapse;

which looks simple enough. Could it be the margin that causes the trouble? Jeltz talk 17:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is pretty simple. I like the css naming : ) I think it could be the "margin: auto" - you know, you should have all four measures there (top, left, right, bottom) and you only have top and right... it should be "margin:0.5em auto 0.5em auto;". I can point that out, but can't say for sure that that's the problem - wouldn't hurt to fix it anyways and see. I can experiment on my end with this - by grabbing the source code and giving it a wring as a page of my own in Dreamweaver. I'll let you know what I find. THEPROMENADER 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to use Dreamweaver. Yould do the testing here at Wikipedia. I have made a test in my own userspace User:Jeltz/Sandbox. You could do the same or in this case you could edit my test if you like (but I advice against it since it's best if not two persons use the same sandbox), since I unfortunatly have no access to Safari or any Mac at all. I have simply replaced the template inclusion with the Wikisytanx in the tempalte and modified the CSS. Jeltz talk 22:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I found something interesting (I use an online Safari tester) while the margin attribute seems to affect little to nothing I found that if I add a CSS width other than auto or 0% the table behaves correctly. Adding a width:1%; seems to work, but it seems like an ugly fix to me and raises the question "Does this break anything else?". Jeltz talk 23:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? I've seen the nasty 'expanding "no-width" div ' but have never heard of anything of the sort about missing table widths. Where did you 'fix' the CSS? I don't think I need mention that inline (in-page) CSS overrides orders from any external sheeet - as it is above you are only partially overrwiting 'margin:1em 1em 1em 0(?)' - with only 'margin: 0.5em auto' with the last two boundaries missing - did you fix this before testing? For the rest, I'll have a look around for similar problems. THEPROMENADER 07:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I tested messing around with the margin and I saw nothing happening. Setting width to 1% obviosuly breaks much but it seems to fix the problem of it not centering. See User:Jeltz/Sandbox where the first on is the original the second is the one with fixed margin and the third the one with a width of 1%. Jeltz talk 11:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I for one would like to see the "Jeltz/Sandbox travel guide from Wikitravel" - better pack a bucket and shovel. : ) Thanks for the display - I'll cut and paste the same to fiddle "chez moi" and let you know if I find anything. It's a mystery still to me for now. THEPROMENADER 11:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to add category[edit]

I don't have enough privileges to do this myself, so could any administator please add [[Category:Succession templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] to the page itself. Thanks. ThreeBlindMice 22:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many new table rows[edit]

The markup produced by this tempalte looks strange. Far too many rows in the table (|-). I think that s-aft, succession box, s-bef, and s-start all contains one table row, and most of them are empty. Below is the code generated by this template (succession box).

|- style="text-align: center;" |- style="text-align: center;" |width="30%" align="center" rowspan="{{{rows}}}"|Preceded by:
{{{before}}} |width="40%" style="text-align: center;" rowspan="{{{rows}}}"|{{{title}}}
{{{years}}} |width="30%" align="center" rowspan="{{{rows}}}"|Succeeded by:
{{{after}}} |-

I'm not sure which ones should be there but I suspect that of these I listed only s-bef should contain the start of a new table row. Jeltz talk 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Default for rows parameter (unprotection request)[edit]

Hi guys, as it is now this template, and many others related to it, yields invalid HTML code such as

<td width="30%" align="center" rowspan="{{{rows}}}">

when the invoking code doesn't specify a value for the rows parameter. Could we please either add #if conditionals or modify {{{rows}}} to {{{rows|1}}}? I can do it myself if an administrator grants me the appropriate rights. Thanks —Gennaro Prota•Talk 23:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fiction or reality?[edit]

Is there any reason this template can't be used on fictional articles? Specifically, it is constantly being deleted from the Darth Vader article, despite the fact that it is used often on other Star Wars articles (such as Palpatine). EVula 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Shared title[edit]

Is it possible to add an optional parameter that indicates a title is shared during that period with somebody else? Chanheigeorge 18:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what, don't worry about it. I'll just add the info with a line break after the year. Chanheigeorge 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There is; but you have to use the S-boxes. Template:S-ttl has an optional parameter "regent1" for a co-ruler (it doesn't have to be a regent); see Template:S-start/Instructions#S-ttl. Ardric47 05:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Shouldn't the before part actually show up in the article? If so, can someone correct this as i think it would be useful as background research...? Simply south 10:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Incompatibility amongst templates.[edit]

The succession box is incompatible with certain "tall" templates, e.g. the LDS template, and brings forth large amounts of whitespace. OneWeirdDude 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Who came before?[edit]

Is there a concensus on what to use if you don't know when someone took office or if you don't know who preceded them? I'm using "??" for now, but was wondering if there was a standard usage. --Tim4christ17 talk 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help/advice for new succession template[edit]

I have a kind of succession template that I think would be valuable, and I'd like to take the opportunity to learn a bit more about Wikipedia templates. Specifically, I'd like to create a succession template for World Science Fiction Convention guests of honor. The problem is that the number of guests of honor vary from year to year. In most year's there are 3 - 4 GoHs, but there have been as few as one (in the early conventions) and as many as 9 (in 1987 — What were they thinking that year?) Here's a link to the long list of Worldcon data] listing the GoHs to show you what I mean.

Could I impose on someone to provide some feedback to the code I've attempted at User:JohnPomeranz/Worldcon_Gohs? If the code is fine (which I doubt), am I right that I need to put the code on a page in the template wikispace with a name like "Template:WorldconGoH." Do I need to (or is it good practice to) propose the new template somewhere? Where do I need to announce a new template and how? Anything else I should know?

Feel free to tell me if I'm off base here. Just trying to stretch my skills a bit. --JohnPomeranz 02:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]


This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's tagged on the talk page. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for use of template[edit]

Is there a place on wikipedia that discusses an appropriate use for this box? In many sports articles, the box is used well over 10 times on some articles. It seems that most of the information is either already mentioned in the article or is trivial in nature. I'd like to see what wikipedia as a whole says about the issue. //Tecmobowl 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections (my take- even if they're not labelled as such), Wikipedia:Handling trivia, Wikipedia:Avoid template creep (an essay I just wrote). This template should be used sparingly, as discussed here. heqs ·:. 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New succession template series – Template:S-start[edit]

I should like to announce to the editors here that there is an alternative method of creating succession boxes to the one based on the Template:Succession box family. The templates of the S-start series are not only flexible and adaptable to most possible succession configurations, but also have the added benefit of simplicity, making the creation and editing of succession boxes more straightforward.

With seven core templates, three basic and four supplementary, it is relatively easy for editors to learn how to use the system. For specialisation purposes, the templates are equipped with several parameters, which are usually optional and which can improve succession boxes and offer more information without adding more templates. Furthermore, a simple "row" parameter can be used to produce most conceivable combinations of rows and multi-row cells in a table, giving editors the ability to accurately picture complex successions and removing the need for additional templates with obscure names.

Finally, a system of headers has been devised, helping to categorise titles and tidy up boxes; said headers are now widely used in boxes, even in those comprising Template:Succession box templates.

The s-start templates are fully documented in their main page, and are regulated by WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (SBS). If you are interested, you can join the project and help us improve the templates and their usage guidelines. Waltham, The Duke of 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


The word preceeded is not spelled correctly in this box! (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see "preceded" in the template, which is the correct spelling.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: modifications to reflect advanced options offered by WP:SBS[edit]

In an attempt to harmonise the use of this template with some of the more advanced options offered by the suite of templates at WP:SBS, I have just proposed a change to this template, and suggestions for further modifications. See discussion here - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a documentation page for this template, reflecting modern practice and the result of the discussion in question: that {{succession box}} is only suitable for simple succession lines, and that it should be allowed for these cases, but not more complex succession boxes where the templates of {{s-start}} are better adapted. Waltham, The Duke of 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Including other s-box templates proposal[edit]

I've created Template:Succession box/proposed as a replacement to the current succession box. It is compatible with current use, but adds a number of extra uses. It can use {{s-inc}}, {{s-vac}} and {{s-new}} (rather than {{s-bef}} and {{s-aft}}) where needed. Full details on Template:Succession box/proposed. It doesn't do all the special cases listed on {{s-inc}}, but does do the very common beginning and end cases. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Approve — I agree that, since this template is still heavily used and shows no likelihood to be replaced anytime soon, that these additional features will keep this template healthy while still in line with the wishes of WP:SBS. The removal of the "row" feature is actually a good move because it will stop people from using this template to create advanced templates and motivate them to use (and learn) the s-start series.
Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 23:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am very sceptical about this. I do dread the inconsistency that will certainly arise if these features are activated; we'll have plain "succession box" boxes, "succession box" boxes with special cells, "s-start" boxes with the same cells, "s-start" boxes with more advanced variations of the same cells, "s-start" boxes with complex row layouts, and plain "succession box"-style "s-start" boxes. This will be very confusing to most editors, and will serve as a lesser substitute for s-start that will prevent editors from learning about it, perpetuating a refined version of the current problem of succession boxes unsuitable for their purposes. Furthermore, the very reason for the retention of "succession box", namely its great simplicity, will be muted by the many instances of "succession box" with parameters that will be found by editors; what is the point of adding parameters to a template that has been kept as an un-parameterised version of "s-start" for simple boxes?
Activating these features, in other words, means to have two parallel systems partially overlapping, a recipe that has been time-proven to be minimally beneficial. I appreciate the labour that has gone into this project, and am glad about and encouraged by the fact that people still produce new and intriguing ideas related to succession boxes, but I don't think that any good will come out of this one. You are free to convince me otherwise, of course. Waltham, The Duke of 00:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is standardization. s-inc/s-new/etc are worded in a standard way. We can change a single template if we ever decide to change "Incumbent" to something else, or if we decide to change the CSS style class (ie the colors).

More importantly, the parallel system you describe is already here! Many people use {{succession box}} at the start of end of a sequence by setting |before= and |after= to "new something" and "incumbent". This mis-use of the template suggests most people are already not learning about the s-inc and s-new boxes. Adding explicit parameters will make people who use this template more aware of the alternatives. The overlap remains minimal, and only catches cases where the succession box template is currently mis-used anyway. It's taken me 2 minutes to find Craig Murray, Chris Higgins and Daniel Day-Lewis which have set |after=Incumbent, but I'd bet there's lots and lots of others.

Finally, I'd like to ask your opinion on |from= and |to= replacing |year=. &ndash; is a bit of html magic which I would love to see hidden from people using this template. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the "to=" and "from=" parameters, as long as they are optional (some boxes may not require both), are not a bad idea. However, after some discussion with Waltham as well as reviewing the issue, I now disagree with the original proposal as well and realize that it will only confuse people if two different systems can be used, even if they are based on the same one. I apologize for not informing you sooner but it is a decision I have thought hard about and decided to change. The second proposal I agree with, but I think you should still keep the original "years=" parameter and plan a protracted replacement.
Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"Duke the Scatterbrained". Please forgive the over-long delay; I had more or less forgotten about this discussion. Again, sorry.
I'm changing the indentation to a sustainable format where each person has their own level. This is a general discussion with few participants, after all; we are not addressing other editors' concerns separately.
Now, on to the subject at hand. I am sorry to say that the dash issue remains unresolved; the Manual of Style requests unspaced en dashes for ranges of plain years. I find this perfectly reasonable, yet there are also reasons to use spaced dashes for all dates in succession boxes. No major discussion has taken place about this, and, indeed, the entire concept of succession boxes, including their guidelines, has no official standing. Instead of further digressing, I'll conclude with this: if we end up using unspaced dashes for plain years, then we cannot use the automatic dash-insertion that a pair of "to" and "from" fields would necessitate. I suggest patience. Within the coming months, I shall personally make sure that all these issues is somehow resolved.
Meanwhile, we have to wake up SBS, for it has been slumbering all summer and there are serious efforts to be undertaken. Waltham, The Duke of 22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


In some articles, the succession box isn't helpful to readers. Its like trivial and just crowding the page, specially those song-related articles. Any solution? Thanks. --Efe (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

bs interwiki[edit]

Please, add bs:Šablon:Redoslijed. --BiH (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

End of the line[edit]

What template is used when there is a predecessor but no successor, for example if a constituency is abolished? JMcC (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

{{s-non}} perhaps? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate this template[edit]

I have no idea how anyone can read this. I got it now, but still. It is incredibly difficult. Is there a better format we can do?Bread Ninja (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

President of the Royal Society: academic office or cultural office?[edit]

Minor issue: I'm putting succession boxes on articles about Presidents of the Royal Society. I'm wondering whether to use Template:s-aca or Template:s-culture (i.e. is this an academic office, or is it a cultural office). Office holders are notable academics, but the PRS performs various diplomatic/figure head roles. --Oldak Quill 13:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rules to Succession boxes[edit]

Is there any rules to using succession boxes? Do we only list titles and offices that people held actual and real power in and nothing else? Thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

propose to clarify "years" parameter[edit]

I propose to clarify in the documentation that the "years" parameter is mandatory, as I found when I tried deleting it, and that it can take full dates as well as just years, as an example in the doc shows. Also, if anyone knows, please say, as appears to be the case, if a single year or date is sufficient, i.e., that a range is not needed for the template to work properly, and I can add that (this would be useful for one-year terms, for example), or if the "title", "before", and/or "after" parameters are mandatory, and I can add that. Obviously, not all of this template's parameters are mandatory, so those that are should be identified as such. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I edited the documentation for the "years" parameter, not for other parameters. If anyone knows about parameters other than "years', please feel free to edit the doc further. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


See box. Formerip (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result: There is no consensus to add instructions relating to the biographical value of a succession to the page.

There were 8 supports and 8 opposes. There were reasonable arguments on both sides, but the central questions involved were about subjective preference and can't really be answered for our purposes except by a very clear consensus one way or the other, which we do not have here. I've also looked at the previous discussion regarding infoboxes, but see no reason to infer a consensus there that could usefully help to determine the outcome here.

On a personal, totally non-binding note, I was surprised to read nothing in the discussion about how the proposed wording would affect the succession box in cases not related to US politics. Is there an unwritten assumption that this is only relevant to the US? Would the same principles apply in France or Taiwan? Is the word "redistricted" appropriate for Venezuela? Just idly commenting, but maybe some consideration could be given to that if there are discussions similar to this one in future.

Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization and Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox have been notified of this discussion.

Parallel to Template:Infobox Officeholder should this be added "but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders." See also an earlier RfC Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting where the concept of requiring the information to be of some value was raised. Collect (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - per discussion below. SleepCovo (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per discussion below. Kraxler (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per discussion below. TFD (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per discussion below. TL565 (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Meaningless succession boxes clutter up the bottom of articles and detract from any that do have value. In the case of numbered Congressional districts, there already is an article for each district that shows the sequence of people elected under that number. But that sequence has no meaning in terms of the biographies of the people involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Redistricting is a monkey wrench thrown in the succession box, as it completely changes the political contest and context. It should be its own special case, one which resets the string of office holders. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to create encyclopedia articles of use to readers, anything which may mislead or be of mal-utility to readers is contrary to the primary purpose of the project. The discussion below makes this eminently clear. Collect (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for many reasons. Including that redistricting is a relative change. Sometimes a new district uses significant parts of the old district, sometimes it is unrelated.—GoldRingChip 16:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The proposal is specifically aimed at cases where there is minimal, zero, or nearly zero actual overlap (i.e. that the people involved would not in any way consider themselves as "succeeding" the other person for biographical purposes), did you notice that? Collect (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Note: The above person was specifically WP:CANVASSED at [1] in a non-neutral manner, and the CANVASSer did not notify a group of varying opinions. Collect (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Note: The above person was not canvassed but notified, it is the original creator of Template:USRepSuccessionBox the use of which is being questioned here. Kraxler (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
        • You "notified" two and only two people, whose positions you knew from prior discussion five years ago. "I remembered our discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives which ended with the replacement of that mega template with succession boxes. So you may, or may not, want to opine there." seems to indicate you notified the person for a specific reason. Had you notified every single person from that discussion, you might have been able to assert you chose them neutrally. Choosing to notify people whose opinion you presumed to know is the "vote stacking" form of CANVASSing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
          • First: This is a straw poll, at best, not a vote count, stacking would be irrelevant. We want to hear arguments and opinions, as many as possible. Second: I notified two people who have a direct interest in the matter: the original creator of a template the use of which (and the abolition of which, if it depended on you) is discussed here; and the editor who originally suggested to substitute the deleted mega template with a place-holder and eventually with the aforementioned template. (The second one did not even reply.) I quote from WP:NOTIFY: "inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed and editors are expected to offer the right of reply wherever appropriate. Kraxler (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Um -- "notifying" people who are being discussed is one thing. Notifying two specific people who are not mentioned here but who were chosen for their prior POV is weird. Collect (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Did you canvass 17 people on November 27, a vast majority of whom you knew that they supported your side at a previous RfC? Do you agree to send a "neutral notification" to those who opined (both for and against) in 2009 when the currently valid consensus about congressmen succession boxes was achieved? Kraxler (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • support per previous RFC result. These successors and predecessors are nonsense. Does Charles Rangell have 12 successors and predecessors even though he has been reelected continuously by the same constituents since the 1950s? No, and saying so is rediculousGaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kraxler's comments, below. I would be in favor adding a (redistricted) to such succession boxes for clarity, but removing the names would destroy their usefulness to those who are tracking the history of the title. (Also note: for many districts, district articles/lists don't exist, so such navigation is dependent on succession boxes.) – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per previous RFC result, and as a move in the right direction. See my additional comments below. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The succession should be included even if redistricting took place in order to track the history of the office, but like Philosopher mentioned above I too would favor indicating that redistricting took place in such instances. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not the biggest fan of succession boxes in general. But in this case I substantially agree with Kraxler's comments: whatever happens to a district, it's still objectively useful to be able to track its history. I'm also concerned that the contrary result unnecessarily vests discretion in Wikipedia editors to decide how much redistricting is too much, rather than sticking to objective district numbering. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support based on previous discussion and the fact that a district having the same number does not in any way necessarily mean that it is in fact even remotely the same district. Regarding Arxiloxos's point above, having a link in the succession box to the article on the district is to my eyes sufficient to allow people interested in the history of the various districts which share the same number, but perhaps little else, to be able to follow that history. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Succession boxes are set up the way they are, with links to predecessor, successor, and office held, because the office, like those who held it, is supposed to be of some intrinsic interest. The redistricting and boundary changes seem to make "district 13" a completely arbitrary concept over time, even though it is official. (Contrast with British Parliamentary constituencies, where despite boundary shifts, there's some sort of shared geographic nexus in constituencies of the same name at different times.) Being "official" does not in and of itself entitle the district to a succession box; if articles on the districts are lacking, they should be created, rather than larding political articles with superfluous boxes of little merit. Choess (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per comments made by Kraxler, Philosopher and my rationale below.DCmacnut<> 20:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


I suggest that where the "successor" or "predecessor" in an elected office has essentially no connection to the person the article is about in any actual manner, that the use of such fields be avoided. In the case of Congressional districts, the number is only used by the State in numbering districts, and is not used in Congress as such. As the goal is to provide Wikipedia users with sensible and useful information, I find that in the relatively small number of cases (generally where a district is added or removed, making the overlap with the prior district in some cases essentially nil) where the information is useless, that we simply agree not to add it. I would point out that the "source" used for this template is Wikipedia itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is something that affects the actual use or not of succession boxes for parliamentary seats whose occupants are elected in numbered districts with shifting areas (like US Congress seats, state assembly seats, city council seats). For example, what's the use of the box which appears at the bottom? (Is there a way to insert it here? It moves down automatically)
Preceded by
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from New York's 13th congressional district

Succeeded by
Kraxler (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is a way to insert it here, and I just refactored your edit to do that. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The infobox discussion (linked aboved) starts with the wrong assertion that the the box "asserts that he was succeeded in Congress by". That's not true. The succession box asserts that someone was suucceeded in the district of this number by someone else. This is not "biographical information", the text in an article may say: "X was a member of Congress from 1976 to 2003" That means that the member sat for all that time in Congress, without being preceded or succeeded by anybody, "in Congress". The succession boxes at the bottom serve the purpose of cross-referencing the numbered district, which has a list of office holders from the creation of the district until today. The succession refers to this list. If you read old papers, documents or books, and see the district number, the list gives you info who was holding this seat when. That's what the succession box is for. Nobody, after reading "X was a member of Congress from 1976 to 2003" would think that he was preceeded or succeeded "in Congress" in 1983 or 1993, but they should see that his district changed the number, and perhaps the area shifted. A good example is Louis DeSalvio who had a very long tenure in the New York State Assembly, and where the district changes are well explained in the text. The succession boxes are important for the article writer to navigate between districts, members, and legislature lists. Kraxler (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
OK -- note that in a large state losing a district - that "lost district" may have no "successor" at all, and, in fact, the district numbers can be completely different so that the officeholders have no relationship to the officeholders under the old mapping. If the only "value" is one of "this is what the numbers are, but the people had no connection whatsoever with each other, and the Congressional biographies make no such connection, but Wikipedia does, so Wikipedia is the actual source for the succession list" then one well ought to look up "recursion" on Google. Unless a reliable source makes the claim, Wikipedia can not make the claim. So far, it appears Wikipedia is the only source for the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If there are less districts than before, some (usually the highest numbers) end the succession with "district abolished" or "district eliminated". I can't quite follow your argument about Wikipedia as a source. Do you dispute that at New York's 12th congressional district Major R. Owens, Nydia Velázquez and Carolyn Maloney are listed as having held this numbered seat, in this sequence? Do you dispute that these members have been officially elected, under New York election laws listing these numbers? Kraxler (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Sticking to the issue at hand - I do deny that Charles Rangel "succeeded" Michael Grimm in any rational sense - noting that Grimm has continued to hold the office of Congressman, representing the same basic constituency. In cases where there is no rational sense of being preceded by a person or succeeded by a person in an office, and no reliable source makes the claim, then it is improper for Wikipedia to use Wikipedia as a source for that claim. Collect (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Sticking to the issue at hand - Michael Grimm was elected to Congress in 2010 in the NY district numbered 13. Charles Rangel was elected at the next election in 2012 in the NY district numbered 13. That is, forgetting everything else, a rational sequence. Check out New York's 13th congressional district. Rangel is listed directly beneath Grimm. Do you dispute the logic behind the lists in all such congressional district articles?
I reiterate that the succession box at the bottom is rather a navigation aid, not a source of info. Info should be gotten in the text, or the aptly named infobox.
I would like to point you to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives which expressly estabished the consensus to add Congress succession boxes, in lieu of a template that contained about 1,500 names (all US congressman from New York since 1789).
I'll refrain from posting here now for some time, waiting for input from other users. Kraxler (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Um -- that discussion had was about a massive single template - I do not see it as in any way shape manner or form supporting use of succession info where the info is actually misleading to the reader. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Kraxler, everything you said is what I pointed out in another discussion. The only problem is that it should apply to the infobox as well, not just the succession box in the bottom. If it is just the succession box, then I can't agree with you on this. There is already enough inconsistency as it is. TL565 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It makes no sense to say that a congressman in an electoral district with the same number succeeded another congressman, unless the districts have remained largely the same. TFD (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Then 99% of all representatives articles don't make sense, as they are all still using that format. This issue has gotten way out of hand over nothing. Succession doesn't necessarily mean that a congressmen replaced another in congress, just in that numbered district. Where did this idea come from that it depends how much the district changed? The fact is that the numbered district doesn't change. It has nothing to do with physical boundaries. There will always be redistricting. This has been the layout since the start of Wikipedia, why is it suddenly an issue this year? TL565 (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I quote from Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#Overview (my bolding):
  • Succession boxes are template-created wiki-tables that serve as navigational aids in a wide variety of articles, mostly biographies. Placed at the bottom of their respective articles (or sections where applicable), they show the place of each article's subject in one or more well-defined chains of succession, naming in each line their predecessor in the left-hand cell, their title (and usually the dates wherein that title was held by the subject) in the middle cell, and their successor in the right-hand cell. Although succession boxes generally track titles held by people, they may also be used for anything that can be arranged in some order generally chronological, such as states, electoral constituencies, transit stations, buildings, ships, models of goods, such as cars and cameras, and art works, such as books, films, and music albums.
  • Succession boxes can visibly improve an article in several ways. Firstly, they offer an overview of a person's career through the titles said person has held throughout their life. Secondly, they gather and categorise all of the person's official titles in a form easy to understand, and in an order different from the one provided by the article itself. Thirdly, they offer dynastic information about monarchs, information which is usually not given in their articles.
  • There are also several advantages of succession boxes that are not limited to the individual articles: they offer readers the ability to follow a chain of succession, clicking their way from incumbent to incumbent, or to go straight to the article of the title, where they should be able to find a list of all of the title's holders; also, they can better illustrate cases of a change in a title's name, joined offices having passed down from/to the same person, and cases where a person has held an office multiple times.
  • Standardisation becomes more important when these features are considered, as succession lines of the same chain ought to be similar. However, it is also a matter of appearance; succession boxes should contribute to the positive overall image of an article rather than be simply tolerated for their functional benefits. Kraxler (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • And now a simple question: Do you dispute the logic behind articles like New York's 13th congressional district which combines all those congressmen who were elected in the district with this official number in one list? Are these articles unsourced? Do they make false claims? Should they be deleted? If yes, why has nobody come forward to propose deletion? Kraxler (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: That article specifically states the years when the district was altered and shows the changes in maps, and does not assign linearity per se to the district as it changes, nor imply "succession" as being to the same location. I would further note that the redistricting occurs once per decade, and is generally minor except where the number of representatives is altered. I decline to debate straw-man arguments, as it is reasonably clear that a student who wrote in a term paper "Michael Grimm was succeeded by Charles Rangel" would get an "F" and the teacher would note the absurdity of the claim. If Wikipedia makes an absurd claim, then it is simply an editor who thinks "Pigs Is Pigs." Collect (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Little is gained from applying this proposal, while it is hard to discern a standard for when a district is exactly the same or only partially. It is true that there is no apparent succession from one Rep to another in some situations. But little is gained in breaking up those succession tables.—GoldRingChip 19:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I have dealt with succession boxes in a number of context. I hav no view on their application to US representatives, but their not working well in that context does not mean that they do not do very well in othersI am not sure of the merit of having successors and predecessors in infoboxes, which can make those boxes overlong. Succession boxes serve a useful navigation function and should be preserved in general. In my experiecne the usual cause of excessive white space is badly placed photos and infoboxes. This may require wider alterations in WP so that text will wrap around objects. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Was the previous consensus implemented? If not, why not?[edit]

Consensus is reasonably clear that successor or predecessor should not be used in infoboxes where significant redistricting has taken place. Useitorloseit did raise a valid concerns about POV over what level of redistricting is needed to render these parameters unusable, so davidwr's suggestion that this is decided on a case-by-case basis is sensible. Number 57 21:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why this has not been considered a settled matter since the previous RfC was closed at the end of June, and why Collect felt the need to submit another RfC five months later, which seems to be covering the same ground again. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply put - 2 editors are quite insistent that the RfC on infoboxes does not apply to succession boxes, even though the same actual issue appears. Thus a second RfC to make clear that the desire to furnish useless information which is not sourced to a secondary reliable source, and which may beyond inaccurate in nature, is not supported by WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I see. The example of Charles B. Rangel is a good one. I see that the infobox there implements the results of the previous RfC, while the succession box at the bottom still handles "succession" the old way. While I think the change to the infobox is an improvement, that infobox is still rather out-of-hand with what amounts to borderline trivia in my opinion. What is important to show in the infobox is that Rangel represents Harlem or northern Manhattan, and that's not there. Simply listing the district numbers he represented, and the year range applicable to each district number, would be sufficient. As for "succession", I take that to mean who represented the physical location of Rangel's residence before and after Rangel. As he is still in Congress, he has yet to be succeeded. So. "Preceded by" Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and as he is still the incumbent, "Succeeded by" nobody.
But take a look at Dennis Kucinich to see how the idea of "succession" can get really complicated:
  • Where he lives, he was succeeded by the incumbent Marcy Kaptur, who was redistricted into his district by Republican gerrymandering.
  • If you go by district number, which is rather meaningless, he was succeeded by the Republican Mike Turner. The idea that he was voted out of office because voters' political leanings changed is silly. The idea that either Kucinich or his constituency picked up their roots and moved to Dayton is silly too.
  • Arguably, he was really succeeded by Joyce Beatty, who won a newly created (by Republican gerrymandering) "safe Democratic seat" in Columbus. The idea that Beatty was preceded by Mike Turner is silly too.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to draw their own conclusions about who would rather see Beatty than Kucinich speaking to the people on CSPAN. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Wbm1058, you're missing the point. The succession box serves for cross-referencing the district by number, which is the only way it is ordinarily described. Hence list-articles like New York's 13th congressional district. The succession box directly refers to that article and in that list, for whatever reason, Rangel succeeds Grimm, that's a fact. I asked Collect several times whether he disputes the logic of the congressional district articles, but he evades the subject. So maybe you could give me a straight answer: "Do you dispute the logic behind articles like New York's 13th congressional district?" Yes or no? Kraxler (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I'm missing the point of what you want to do; I'm just questioning its usefulness, and am concerned that casual readers will be misled about what it means and its (in)significance. Regarding articles like New York's 13th congressional district, I don't have a problem with tracking the history of the district number there, although that article is woefully incomplete. There should be a map showing the district boundaries for each decade of its existence. I'm sure the representative from Schoharie in the early 1800s didn't represent anybody living remotely close to Harlem. Such articles might be useful for tracking the history of gerrymandering strategies, and perhaps some other purpose that escapes me. What do you think such an article is useful for? As to succession of actual people, I think it's fair to track the succession of representatives over the five congressional terms of each districts' existence. Then treat each and every district as if it were dissolved every decade. That would avoid the issue of subjectively determining whether the district was "close" enough to the prior boundaries to track it for two decades as if it were substantially the same district. I'm fine with treating every district as completely reformed every ten years, even those that change so little that nobody notices the minor revisions to the boundaries. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, at a different venue, the following statement was put forward by me: "Charles Rangel[1] succeeded Michael Grimm[2] as a man who was elected in a district with the official number 13." I'd like you to parse the statement, analyzing the language, the logic, and the sources, and then opine on it. Kraxler (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I won't dispute the factual accuracy of such a statement, just its relevance. You could arbitrarily assign random numbers between one and fifty to each of the states every ten years. Then you could make the statement that Andrew Cuomo "succeeded" John Kasich as governor of state "37" in 2014, because you arbitrarily reassigned the "state identifying number" "37" from OH to NY that year. Then the casual readers will jump to the conclusion that the voters of the great state #37 just ousted their Republican governor and replaced him with a Democrat. Of course, this is all meaningless nonsense. If used the wrong way, it could put a POV "spin" on what actually happened. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


After taking part in this discussion, I realized that a bunch of politicians in California would be affected by the 2012–13 redistricting, so I started in changing some bios to fit the earlier RfC: Jerry McNerney, Pete Stark, George Miller and Barbara Lee. There are more of these to be dealt with. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The RfC for succession boxes is still going on. Please refrain from changing them until this RfC is finished. Kraxler (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The standing order is the previously decided RfC which says to use the word "redistricted" in place of nonsensical succession. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The RfC you cite applies only to infoboxes. Feel free to edit them any way you see fit. Whether that RfC applies to succession boxes, or whether it should be expanded to henceforth apply also to succession boxes, is currently being discussed here. Thus, please refrain from changing the usage of the succession boxes until this RfC is closed. Kraxler (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Succession can be found in infoboxes or footer boxes or any other kind of nav box. The previously decided RfC stands as the only rule currently in force which applies to them. Unless you are arguing that Barbara Lee's infobox should say accurately that her district 9 was redistricted, but that down in the footer nav box we should say incorrectly that she was succeeded by Jerry McNerney, despite the fact that she is still in office—was never voted out of her position. I don't think anybody here will support a disjunct between types of succession boxes. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to say anything about infoboxes. Could you please stick to the point? The cited RfC on infoboxes does not apply to succession boxes. So, here it goes again: First: "Infoboxes" are not "succession boxes", although succession boxes may contain info, and infoboxes may contain successions, could we agree on that? Second: There is currently a discussion going on, right here, about how to use "succession boxes" in the future, is that correct? I quote from WP:Revert: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Kraxler (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Binksternet: Succession boxes plainly fulfill a different purpose than infobosxes. Claiming that a rule designed for one automatically applies to the other is ridiculous. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Outdent I'm late to this Rfc, but have been involved in several in the past. I can see the point being made by User:Collect, and realized this issue has cropped up again after we had a conversation about my edits to Michael Grimm page. This issue comes up every time there is a decennial redistricting. In the case of some states (Alaska and Texas), it pops up more frequently if a redistricting map is thrown out by a court. I believe the consensus established in 2007 regarding this very issue during a discussion over a Michigan district should stand. Ignore geography when discussing districts. This should be true for federal and state legislative districts. As WikiPedia editors, we should not to be arbiters of determining which boundary changes are significant or negligible enough to determine when "redistricted" should be used versus the current method. To do so would open the door to original research.

  1. Using original districts is the simplest method.
  2. Succession is not limited to electoral succession. Individual district articles use linear succession based on the districts ordinal number.
  3. Something should be done to update or fix articles where the succession is illogical on its face, e.g. [[Michael Grimm (politician)|] and Charles B. Rangel. But we can do that without altering the current method. If we leave the articles as is, anyone that clicks through the links can easily discern the difference. We perhaps needs to add more clarification, which is what Template:s-ref is meant to do.
  4. Yes, the New York Times focuses on geography in their region, and many local newspapers around the country will reference Congressman John Doe representing Anytown, USA. But the Official Congressional Directory and the Historical Atlas of United States Congressional Districts use numbers.
  5. The Congressional Directory and Atlas also use geography (zip codes and counties) to denote historical boundaries. See my sandbox on the topic.
  6. With each redistricting, the old district ceases to exist. An official can move to a new district, retire, or run for reelection. (e.g. Mario Díaz-Balart)
  7. Using redistricted makes the succession box irrelevant since the links are not there to provide needed context. Template:s-ref by itself is not enough.

Examples of how this is handled in other articles (note the examples I'm using show inboxes, but the solutions they offer could easily be applied to succession boxes)

  1. Linda Menard. Represented Alaska Senate District G, but was redistricted to District D. She was defeated in the 2012 primary by Mike J. Dunleavy. Dunleavy's article mentions the race in context of the redistricting, but her article implies that she lost the District G primary, while the inbox says she was redistricted.
  2. Todd Sieben from Illinois. This article treats the inbox as one of electoral succession, and places a small ordinal number next to each successor. It would be straight forward to review past election results, but then it begs the question of ordinal vs electoral succession and conflict with the district articles.

Those are my two cents. I think keeping the status quo for succession boxes in place makes the most sense, with the use of Template:s-ref as needed.DCmacnut<> 20:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course an "Historical Atlas" of Congressional Districts would use numbers -- but it has no actual legal status in defining whether one person is a successor" or "predecessor" to another person ... if a fact is "technically correct" but "totally useless" to actual succession, and of no likely utility to the reader, then it is exactly like the anecdotal message given in the fog from the people in the office building to a lost pilot.[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/apr/30/microsoft .business]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The 5th District of North Carolina was originally geographicall contiguous to modern day Tennessee as that state was part of Nkrth Carolina until it became part of the Southwest Territory. Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would treat that district how? Using ordinal district numbers is the cleanest way way to keep things clean. Once you start down the geography path you need to revise resisting maps, election results, etc. to determine the successor. That verges on WP:synthesis. The atlas and directory are reliable sources. Any perceived fallacies can be addressed in text and references. Your proposal would render succession boxes unusable.DCmacnut<> 00:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Please see this related RfC Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox and comment. Kraxler (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.