Talk:Edward Livingston

Untitled
The succession box lists Livingston as U.S. Secretary of State during the same years he was serving as Lt. Governor of New York. All dates need to be confirmed as accurate. As I've run into this on other Lt. Gov. articles (see DeWitt Clinton), I'm also tagging the List of Governors of New York article with the accuracy tag until such dates are confirmed. --CPAScott 13:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Headers
The headers are purely decorative, there can be any number of them. Important is that the user gets a chronological listing at a glance. These articles are supposed to be informative, not decorative. Kraxler (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines state that each succession header should only be used once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization/Guidelines#General_guidelines

Thismightbezach (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare said about this: "Much Ado About Nothing!" I have stated my personal opinion above. Now, as a historian, I think that this whole "order of precedence" for headers was invented by an interior decorator, not an encyclopedian. The chronological order would give a short overview (something of a timeline) and is unquestionable. The arrangement under the above guideline is not at all helpful, and leads to confusion. Besides, it is in itself contradictory. Under the double standard of highest power and only one header, Mr. X's succession boxes would be arranged like this: Political: President of the US, Mayor of Hicktown, then Party: US Senate, State assembly, then Legal: Chief Judge of the State Supreme Court, US Attorney for some District (or vice versa, the latter being a federal office???), this is ludicrous. I urge you to change the guideline. Kraxler (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the same info is in two different boxes, one on the right, and one at the bottom, let's have the one at the bottom be chronological, and the one on the right in any order whatever, pleasing both Greeks and trojans... I still urge you to change that ludicrous, anti-encyclopaedic guideline described above. Kraxler (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

From the guidelines...

'''iii. Each header should only be used once in a succession box and all similar succession lines should go under a single header, irrespective of chronological or other orders.'''

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it "ludicrous." You're making it look like a Christmas tree.

Thismightbezach (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the guideline, and have urged you to change it. Useless to cite it here. Thank you for your opinion. The problem is not that I "don't like them", just read the text above. Since you are unable to grasp the meaning of what I wrote above, and also unable to put forward an argument about the issue, I would appreciate it if you just let it be as it is. By the way, may I inquire how old you are? Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines/rules are there for a reason. If you don't want to play by the rules then leave. By the way, I didn't "invent" them. They were created by Wikipedia editors.Thismightbezach (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you are a stickler for rules. I suggest you read Ignore all rules! I'm concerned with correct info, readability and helpfulness of the article, not with rules. And... I'm still waiting for your argument. I suggest you attend a debating class in school.

Besides, I see on your talk page that you just mess around in succession boxes, and uploaded a lot of already deleted pictures, that is not such a good record. I urge you to refrain from further messing about in these succession boxes until you come up with an explanation for it, answering my above stated argument. Kraxler (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You are not only continuing to vandalize this article, but now you're insulting me. I've already reported you. Thismightbezach (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that a change of the number of headers in succession boxes, explained in a rational manner, and done by a veteran editor, might be considered vandalism. And... I'm still waiting for your argument on the issue. Kraxler (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)