Template talk:S-start/Archive 1

(Why different templates?)
Why do we need different templates for pretenders and titular holders of titles? Choess 21:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Because pretenders and titular office holders are not the same thing. A pretender lays a claim to a country regardless of the status of the country (if they have a different monarch, if they are a republic, if the main line died out) and is not always dynastic or successive, although people like the Jacobites are.  Titular office holders are legitimate rulers who have gone out of power.  Often they are the same thing, but titular leaders generally reinherit the throne over a period of time (Juan Carlos of Spain, the successor of Louis XVII of France) and are therefore legitimate monarchs lacking authority.  Titular rulers also do not usually have competion while a pretender by definition is in competion with another power or person.  There are vague places between, but I believe the need to separate the two is necessary.  We can work something out if you disagree. –Whaleyland 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

request cat
can be inserted at the end?&mdash;Mark Adler (markles)  11:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Done Rich Farmbrough 12:26 4  May 2006 (UTC).

rows= example
Would it be possible to include an example or examples that show how to do, in the new system of s-___, what is now redundantly handled by Template:Succession box one by three to two or Template:Succession box two to two, etc.? Ardric47 03:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the Succession box one by three by two formula (as per the edit option on that template):

>  |-   |-

Which creates (with hypothetical names):





The other is similar. Just go into the source information for the templates and they should be in the above format. They were corrected this way instead of compeltely replaced because there were too many cases of use to make it simple to replace them all. If you would like, go right ahead. –Whaleyland 21:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A little too tall for a heading?
I notice people have been adding this to the succession boxes on articles about peers (example). Most of these only have one succession box. The heading is as tall as the box itself, and this makes it look rather unbalanced. And many articles are stubs, so the result is that most of the page is taken up with the box! I feel it would look better if the heading was halk the height of the boxes. What do people think?  J Rawle  (Talk) 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. john k 14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems superfluous. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If we have to have these headings, wouldn't the following be better? "Titles of Nobility" is definitely superfluous, and then the heading matches all the others in size:


 * -style="text-align: center; background: #ccffcc;"
 * align="center" colspan="3"|Peerage of the United Kingdom

(Sorry, I don't know how to make the proper template with switch statements, etc., and it's too late at night to figure it out)  J Rawle  (Talk) 00:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed, and added the Baronetage while I was at it. Choess 17:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. How does this template fit in with s-nob? I noticed Paul Capell, 11th Earl of Essex still has the two line version, and that it's because they have used the other template.  J Rawle  (Talk) 12:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * S-nob appears to be redundant, and should probably be converted to s-reg and deleted (IMO). Choess 02:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:S-nob
Template:S-nob has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.  J Rawle  (Talk) 14:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:S-tul
, to be used for pretenders to defunct throne, includes the phrase "NEVER RULED". However, the template is also used for former monarchs such as Michael I of Romania, Simeon II of Bulgaria, and Constantine II of Greece, all of whom did reign before being deposed. Therefore, I submit that the phrase should say "NOT REIGNING" instead, since that would apply both to pretenders who once ruled and those who never did. --Metropolitan90 03:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Peerage System
Also, if a better system can be created, that would be great. This one based on numbers is a bit of a hassle.–Whaleyland 21:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed the list of numbers and the links to peerages. I've temporarily dropped France because we'll need a somewhat different system there; the French peerage, unlike the English, is in fact a subset of the set of nobility. We can worry about that later. Choess 22:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to work on a way to get this system so it will have abbreviations, but perhaps that is not the best method. I can't find a way to get the qif template working to allow me to do that trick like I did in other templates. Perhaps it is because this is a headnote, perhaps not. –Whaleyland 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Current status: use one unnamed parameter, e.g.,, which will give a main text of "Titles of Nobility" and a link under it to the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Omitting the parameter, will give a main text of "Regnal Titles" and no link. (This is for sovereign rulers). Codes are as follows: Choess 00:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * uk is for the United Kingdom (after 1801)
 * gb is for the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1801)
 * en is for the Kingdom of England (before 1707)
 * sct is for the Kingdom of Scotland (before 1707)
 * ie is for Ireland (until 1922)
 * es is for Spain (after 1555)


 * Being pedantic, Baronets are not noblemen. But the tag remains useful. - Kittybrewster 09:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nova Scotia
I see that the code for Baronets of Nova Scotia, created by User:Choess, is sct-bt. It's agood idea to have a code, but the use of the "sct" prefix is is a little unfortunate, because the code for peerages in Scotland is sct.

If there are any Scottish baronetcies, there will be a name clash if we try adding a code for them, and even if there are not, it offends my pedantic side :)

So I propose changing the code to nsc-bt. If acceptable, I'll change any articles affected too (not hard a job, 'cos there ain't going to be all that many, and I can use AWB.

Any objections? --BrownHairedGirl 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Heia, the Baronetage of Nova Scotia is the baronetage for Scotland, so I think, the old code is sufficient. Phoe 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Phoe! After reading Baronet and Baronetage of Nova Scotia, I agree.  The existing code is spot on, and I was talking nonsense. :(
 * Anyone know a good cure for that most tedious of afflictions, being a pedant who's wrong? :( --BrownHairedGirl 21:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Width
Can something be done about the predefined width of the box? It makes text in the center box wrap when there's four words, namely Big Brother Australia winner; and a year. talk to JD wants e-mail 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Political parties
I just noticed this excellent series, and think that its use ought to become the standard across Wikipedia. However, if it is to become standard, it has to be comprehensive, which may not be the case. I have not seen one that I instinctively think is appropriate for positions within political parties, e.g. Leader of the Conservative Party, UMP presidential nominee, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. If I'm wrong, and one template has designed for this sort of thing, I'll just shuffle back into the shadows. Otherwise, a separate template is worth considering. Bastin 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been a month, and nobody's objected to the suggestion, so it's done: here Bastin 12:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Add interwikification notice
Please add &mdash; This succession 'facility' is being exported to the listed sister projects managed by the group template: interwikitmp-grp. It's been on the commons for a long while. Thanks // Fra nkB 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that template is: 1) Way too big. 2) Apparently broken (a number of the links don't work), and 3) Unnecessary; at least, as far as I can see.  Please fix these issues, and re-add the editprotected notice.  Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

nowrap
Please change "Preceded by:" to "Preceded&amp;nbsp;by:", and "Succeeded by:" to "Succeeded&amp;nbsp;by:" Yao Ziyuan 09:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for s-ttl: cabinet
I have been playing with some new features for s-ttl here. Some features are not quite ready yet, but there is one field that is ready that I would like to propose for inclusion in s-ttl: cabinet - to allow political office titles to link to cabinet details (if available)

eg. John Moore (Australian politician) -- |cabinet=Howard 2

Any thoughts? - 52 Pickup 13:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm intrigued by the idea, but not sure if the results might often be a little too cryptic... Anyone else...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I quite like the idea. — OwenBlacker 04:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes
I'm proposing a change for this template to bring s-new and s-non into symmetry for one another. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Choess 00:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

House of Lords
The creator here...I'd like to propose an addition of the House of Lords link for those who serve in the British House of Lords. If possible, it should be added at the bottom of the "with" parameter as such:

editprotected

This would allow an title-holders who are members of the House of Lords to be noted as such in the s-ttl frame. This topic is up for discussion, obviously, so if someone has another idea, please reply. I am speaking on behalf of myself and The Duke of Waltham, representing WP:SBS. – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this request. Template:S-start only begins a wikitable. What would the updated template do? I think this request might be misplaced. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've disabled this request pending clarification. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I want to edit the Template:s-ttl but that talk page redirects here. – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please replace s-ttl with this: |width="40%" style="text-align: center;" rowspan=""|

Thank you! – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 02:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't test this template as well as I thought I had. Can you replace the current one with this: editprotected |width="40%" style="text-align: center;" rowspan=""|

It fixes the Lords option and makes an automtic link to the House of Lords page, instead of making the user type that manually. – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 01:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright MZMcBride, I have been really stupid in not testing this first and THEN submitting it. After two uploads you have so graciously done, the template still has bugs. I finally imported into my own test sandbox and now it works, with slightly different parameters. This should be the last time this needs to be uploaded (I hope!).

|width="40%" style="text-align: center;" rowspan=""| – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done Circeus 17:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why clear?
I'm sure there is a reason for the "clear: both;" in the template. Unfortunately it has the result that the succession boxes become basically invisible at pages like Charles, Archbishop of Mainz. Is there anything that can be done about this? Kusma (討論) 17:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, could  be removed please? — OwenBlacker 04:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done; hopefully nothing broken as a result! Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, clear also makes sure that the succession box is well away from the main text, something I've always considered useful. The real problem with the archbishop is that gigantic right-hand template. Any chance we might put the clear back? Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See, for example, Adams/Wabash (CTA). Previously that box would have been kicked beneath other templates and pictures. This also guaranteed that it would be centered. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose the situation is "six of one, half a dozen of the other", but I guess I'd rather add something like a clear (as I've just tried at Adams/Wabash (CTA)) rather than find myself elsewhere trying to figure out some way around one that's already part of the template... Regards, David (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that there were good reasons that clear was included in this template; I don't think a good case was made for removing it. Some articles are practically broken by this change. Clear:both was in this template from the beginning (October of '05) and has been a long-standing part of the succession box system. I can bring a long list of templates negatively affected by this change and I don't see a compelling reason for having made it. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be necessary to add an additional template in order to solve a layout problem that should–and did–address. Mackensen (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't realize it'd had caused considerable problems; now restored. David (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Mackensen (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * the clear: both is now gone again. please bring it back. you can also add an optional parameter like clear:no for those who don't want that behavior. cheers. —lensovet–talk – 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can just use Template:Clear to the same effect. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a bit...ridiculous. —lensovet–talk – 03:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And out of date. I modified the template to take  as a parameter. Mackensen (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could someone add this parameter to the documentation? (Please include a clear description of what it does - I'm still not entirely sure...)  Thanks.  --Tim4christ17 talk 01:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional line "as [title]"
Hello! What I write here concerns the Template s-bef, s-ttl and s-aft, not s-start, I don't know why the other talk page links here...

There have been monarchs who were preceded or succeded by another monarch who chose another title. Let me introduce Louis XVIII of France as example:

I think, it will make sense to edit the templates to that effect that that line "as King of France and Navarre", "as Emperor of the French" or whatever is introduced into the templates, so that you just have to enter the preceding monarch's (different) title and it will appear as above (thus it wouldn't be neccesary any longer to enter  as ... every time). I've prepared something:

S-BEF


 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * width="30%" align="center" rowspan=""|Preceded by 

S-TTL


 * width="40%" style="text-align: center;" rowspan=""|

S-AFT


 * width="30%" align="center" rowspan=""| Succeeded by 

Could someone replace the current templates by this ones? That would be very nice... Louis88 13:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm not sure what the code itself does - that's not yet one of my strong points - I agree with the idea wholeheartedly. One thought, though - in order for this proposed new functionality to work with succession box (which uses all three of these templates), will that template need to be changed as well?  --Tim4christ17 talk 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it doesn't need but I didn't consider it as necessary to create three new templates while those changes are so easily introduceable into the established ones. - Louis88 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if someone answered... Louis88 08:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning TIm4Christ17, the old succession box series is only kept because it would take a user months to convert all the old page to the new style and it is an easy style to use if there is only one box in use. Concerning Louis88, perhaps propose this at WP:SBS.  All the templates in the series are suppose to redirect to this page because this page is the master page for all of them.  Any template that starts with "s-" is part of the series.  Regarding your request, it perhaps may work but not in the form you request it.  I am thinking maybe something more like "note=" instead of "title=" so users could type anything there (it is not always used for alternate titles).  I agree with the idea because it is good for succession boxes to show a major change in title from one monarch to another.  However, I have noticed that you also have been adding a "Monarch of ..." office title for nearly all offices, which I find completely redundant.  A few members at WP:SBS agree with me.  Obviously if the person is the "King of France" they are the "Monarch of France."  If they are not the "Monarch of France" historically they are not a "King of France."  I think that doing this change would be good for a box such as the following:


 * And that says everything you want it to.


 * However, if you make the following:


 * the entire list is redundant. Observe, the title regnal titles implied that it is "of a reign or monarch" (Webster's Dictionary). Well, if you are French royalty, you probably are either a monarch or related to one, at least the way we define it.  To be royalty is to be related to a monarch.  Now, after that it is clear who was before and after the monarch, what title the monarch had, and for how long.  In France, the title was always identical to the office position of "Head of State," at least in a legal sense.  Thus, "Monarch of France" must always mean either "King of France," "King of the French," or "Emperor of France."  All those title differences are made clear in the before and after boxes (an addition, mind you, that I support).  Therefore, why do you need to restate it by typing out a second succession row that states the same exact information as the above? Just a thought.  Tell me what you think.  Perhaps you can sway me.  In the meantime, I will test out your proposal and see if I can't get something working to your satisfaction. – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 05:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Whaleyland on this one: it may be within the purposes of succession boxes to reflect title name changes, but it is also important to show the subject's proper title in the s-ttl field. Thus, title changes ought to be shown as notes in the predecessor and successor fields. Personally, I believe the templates work just fine and should not be changed.
 * I also agree that the example above is utter redundancy. Things that go without saying should not be added to succession boxes and unnecessarily increase their size.
 * I only somewhat disagree with the complete removal of the "Regnal titles" header. I find no reason not to separate powerful, substantial regnal from other, less important royal titles.
 * Waltham, The Duke of 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Wider succession boxes

 * VOTING CLOSED: Proposal NOT Approved: I have closed voting on this proposal and labeled it as a failed proposal. While it seems some members wanted the more consistent look of this template change proposal, it seems others have noted that the change may damage other templates that WP:SBS does not monitor.  On those grounds, I have closed this debate.  The discussion has been archived at WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Failed proposals where it will remain indefinitely.  Thank you to everyone who voted and keep at it! – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 21:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protected Request for s-bef and s-aft
A proposal has unanimously passed located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization to add an additional parameter to Template:s-bef and Template:s-aft. The addition requires the following to replace the internal source code of Template:s-bef:

|- style="text-align:center;"
 * width="30%" align="center" rowspan=""|Preceded by 

The addition requires the following to replace the internal source code of Template:s-aft:

|width="30%" align="center" rowspan=""| Succeeded by 

You may check at the page provided above for approval for this edit. It does not change the aesthetic look of the template at all, it just provides a new internal parameter for better formatting of name changes in succession boxes. Thank you! – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Mackensen (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of Precedence
I've got a question over the use of the order of precedence boxes. Specifically, which order to put the 'precedor' and 'successor'.

For example: John Sentamu

This would imply to me that the 'order' of precedence implies that Gordon Brown is the highest, Jack Straw is the lowest. (ie the higher position is to the right).

As the actual succession is:
 * 1) The Archbishop of Canterbury (The Most Revd and Rt Hon. Rowan Williams)
 * 2) The Lord High Steward (office only in existence for coronations)
 * 3) The Lord High Chancellor (The Rt Hon. Jack Straw)
 * 4) The Archbishop of York (The Most Revd and Rt Hon. John Sentamu)
 * 5) The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, First Lord of the Treasury (The Rt Hon. Gordon Brown),

has the box been implemented correctly, or do others think that the higher position is correct in being on the left in the 'preceeded by' column. –MDCollins (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the convention is to put the higher position on the left, and I feel that this is logical and sensible (although I'm not particularly in favor of order-of-precedence succession boxes in the first place). I would be interested to know how others feel about this, though. Alkari (?) 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The precedent has always been set since I began working on Wikipedia that the highest or previous is on the left and the lower or next is on the right. Thus showing a succession. – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 22:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And, apart from the relative positions, the words "preceded" and "succeeded" should be clear enough. I feel that order of precedence succession boxes should be retained, as long as they are used correctly. Waltham, The Duke of 07:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What change exactly is being requested? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a section down; I've taken care of it. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request for Template:s-ttl
Please replace the current code for Template:s-ttl with the following for better syncing with the current system, implementation with the /doc option, and for the additional parameters "creation" and "dynasty" for allowing those options in the title box. Note: Dynasty is not for royal houses or family dynasties, only older numbered dynasties such as Egypt and Babylon.

|width="40%" style="text-align: center;" rowspan=""|

Thank you and I will work on the /doc page immediately so the link works as soon as possible when this edit protected is complete. Gracias! – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  18:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And please add  . Thank you. Rocket000 21:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Incumbent with no predecessor in line of succession
In lines of succession, is there a proper template to use for the first in line who has no predecessor? Strictly speaking, the incumbent to the actual title can't be listed. What about something like s-inc for use before the title rather than after? Charles 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is s-new, which can either be inserted as instead of the s-bef template, creating a simple "New title" cell, or be inserted as , creating a cell that will give the reason for the creation of the title along with the "New title" label above it. Since the title is a new one, there is naturally no predecessor, and the template can be used along s-inc, therefore creating a succession line for an incumbent without a predecessor.


 * You can read the instructions for its use in the template page (general information about the creation of succession boxes here, and more specific information about here).


 * A humourous example for Jimbo Wales:


 * Waltham, The Duke of 08:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is for titles though. I was referring to positions. For instance, the Prince Wales doesn't have the "New Title" of being first in line, nor is he preceded by "First". There should be a template for "No one" or one that alone says "First". Charles 13:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

S-roy
The way the S-roy templates are used and implemented is inappropriate. I have made note of such on the talk page. Charles 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protected Request for Template:s-start, Template:s-bef, and Template:s-aft
I would like the "/doc" on Template:s-start changed over to "documentation" to better fit the arrangement by the other "s-series" pages. For Template:s-bef and Template:s-aft please add a "documentation" link in the style of Template:s-start. Both pages have had /doc pages added. Thank you! – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk  01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What is this "Start of centred table" note at the top of the page? No other template page has it. Waltham, The Duke of 12:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't work with S-hou
If you put this template in stead of the s-bef template, it doesn't work together with the s-hou template, since the rows then become messed up. Could somebody please look into it? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Templates s-start, s-hou, and s-bef all have their roles and cannot be used interchangeably. You must always write s-start in the beginning of a succession box, and if you want to include s-hou it must come afterwards. The proper lines of the table start after that. And, even though end may be replaced by s-ref at the end of a box, s-start does not follow its example and thus cannot be replaced by any other template. Waltham, The Duke of 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I have looked this the wrong way. In this case, all you have to do is add a |- in a separate line before s-vac. That way the computer can recognise that there is a change of row. Waltham, The Duke of 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Page viewing items
editprotected

With this obscure title I mean nothing more than the following two matters: Both are things that pertain to the way the Template:S-start page is displayed, hence the title.
 * 1) There is a strange "Start of centred table" box at the top whose purpose I have no idea what could be. I suggest that it should be removed, as it serves no apparent purpose (perhaps it used to, but I doubt that it does now that Template:Documentation is used).
 * 2) There is no immediate visual indication that the page is locked, apart from the green appearance that not all editors know is derived from the usage of a documentation template and page. I suggest that one is added, preferably the small version.
 * Update: I checked the page's history and saw that it used to be topped by a centred table of contents. Maybe the "centred table" box is a relic of this past situation. Waltham, The Duke of 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The "centred table" thing is there to show what this template actually produces, rather than showing nothing at all. --- RockMFR 15:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, RockMFR; it had me puzzled for quite some time. I should have got it, it being in the top of the page and all. Yet I have not, and note that I am a member of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. It is my job here to work with succession boxes. I doubt many other editors, most of them with no special knowledge of templates, will readily understand what the cell is about. Not to mention that it is not very accurate; s-start is used to create succession boxes (not any kind of table), something that can not be easily shown visually. Besides, the effects of s-start are described in the introduction and are thoroughly analysed throughout the page. I doubt that the cell is in any way necessary or particularly useful (and if it were, after all, to be displayed, that ought to be done within the documentation part, if nothing else, so that it could be easily edited—it is not part of the template and therefore should not be protected).
 * "Centred table" aside, I believe the padlock request is pretty much uncontroversial, so I hope there will be no objection with that one. Waltham, The Duke of 16:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ❌ - please explain your change thoroughly, as this is a complex template. Neil   ☎  11:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

All right... I had forgotten about that. I am adding a new notice...

editprotected

...and here I place my order:

As the template is indeed rather complex, I have no idea how to remove the table without ruining it. (Well, almost no idea. I have noticed that there are no "includeonly" tags, so maybe they ought to be inserted.) Therefore, this is the syntax with the simple addition of the padlock. I believe it is fine; I have checked a few other templates and they include it in exactly the same way. Waltham, The Duke of 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Added the protection template. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Carl! It looks much better now. I shall consult with my associates and return in due course with a solution for the other problem (the cell).
 * Probably in a new section, too. Waltham, The Duke of 23:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible?
Is there any way to make the succession templates collapsible? For instance, someone just added them to Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, and they're nearly as long as the article itself - which is a WP:GA! Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this would be somewhat useful --Tombomp (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Artistic appointments
There doesn't seem to be a suitable header for artistic appointments. I'm thinking of things like artistic director of theatres, conductors of orchestras, organists at Cathedrals, etc. None of the existing headers (non-profit organisation offices, religious offices, business offices, etc) seems quite right, and yet these are often formal posts with a clear predecessor-successor pattern, and a single individual may hold several significant such posts, usually in succession but sometimes overlapping: this could be very clearly and usefully summarised with a set of succession box with a suitable header such as artistic appointments. Does anyone agree? Mooncow (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

S-vac bug
I reported a bug at Template talk:S-vac. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Added entry to s-new
editprotected

Hi admins,

I'd like to use for new products, like lines of Canon EOS cameras, as in, though there are many other possibilities. See Canon EOS D30 for an example of use.

Could y'all add: |product=Product line to the template? ...and then I (or you) can add to the documentation: Template:S-new/doc.
 * Product line
 * Product line
 * Product line

(I imagine that the absence of a settable parameter is to promote standardization, correct?)

Thanks!

Nbarth (email) (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Nbarth. Excuse me for (temporarily, of course) removing the administrator alarm, but I thought that this matter ought to be discussed more than... not at all. As a matter of fact, I suggest that you should initiate a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, so that it may receive more input from people working on succession boxes. Changing templates without consensus can create unnecessary friction amongst editors, something that is, you will probably agree with me, highly undesirable. I hope that we can co-operate in this matter. Waltham, The Duke of 15:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Waltham,
 * Sure thing–I've started a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization; I didn't realize this was the sorta thing what was discussed much, but that makes sense; thanks!
 * Nbarth (email) (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

On the wish list:HTML id
On the wish list: a param id for s-start like

that produces

So I could position it fixedly by CSS-instructions:

table#starnav { position: fixed; top: 40px; right: 0; /* ... etc, always available for view in my personal variant modern.css (or other) ... */ } ?  Said:  Rursus   ☻   11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Padding
Might we add a few points of cell padding? --Eliyak T · C 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

adding hCard microformat
I propose to make the following editprotected to multiple templates, whose talk pages redirect here; to add the hCard microformat.

Firstly, to S-bef, by changing: [code redacted to save space]

Each template should then be added to [{|Category:Templates generating hCards]].

Can anyone see any problems with this? Are there any instances where the templates are used other than for people? If so, is there a means by which the  can be switched on for people, an off in other cases?

Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disapprove of this change unless more justification can be made as to why this suggestion would help these templates. These templates are used on thousands of articles and adding a hCard to them seems unnecessary. Virtually all of the cards you want to edit also are used on non-people articles (and untracked), and changing them would prove very difficult, especially if the default requires typing in a switch. These templates have been through a lot already and it seems unnecessary to add this unless others deem it necessary as well. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  07:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The benefits of hCards and other microformats are well documented on the pages I cited; I did not come here seeking approval for their use, for which there is already widespread community consensus, with many, many thousands already deployed. They will not "help these templates"; they will help our users. The fact that "these templates have been through a lot already" seems both subjective and irrelevant; it's not like we're about to wear them out or use up their batteries! My question was about "non-people" templates and though you've answered that question, I'd be grateful if you could give an example, please. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the reason for the notice on our forums. Anyway, all 50 US states use "s-bef" and "s-aft" (eg. Alabama) as well as nearly every chart-hitting record such as Abba and songs such as Amazing Grace as they all contain successions of relevant details. Even the books of the Bible have succession boxes at the bottom of their pages (eg. Acts of the Apostles). And that is only on the first page of the "What Links Here" link of "s-bef." I hope that helps! – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  08:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you; it does help - I'll investigate, and see if I can find a way to work around the difference. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Even where the succession boxes are for people, most of the people concerned will be dead (all but the incumbent for kings, popes, and most bishops; all of the doges and roman emperors; all but the last 3 or 4 for most of the political offices significant enough to be tracked...). Can't see much need for the contact details of dead people. This would be better added to the infobox templates, if anywhere. Bazj (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * hCards for dead people are perfectly valid; many of those already on Wikipeida are for dead people. Though originally developed merely for contact details, they now have the wider semantic meaning of "this is a person" (or, in some implementations, "this is an organisation", or "this is a place"). They are being added to infoboxes, but in the case of succession boxes, the "before" and "after" names do not usually appear in the infobox. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But you know by looking at the article it's a person/organization/place, even when someone's changed their name to Milton Keynes or Royal British Legion it's pretty easy to tell. Can you give an example of a page that has been hCarded, and, if it's no longer merely a way of grabbing contact details into my address book, what it does it do for me? What can I do with a page that has an embedded hCard? Thanks, Bazj (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You might know, but a computer or search engine doesn't. I think you'll find your other points documented on the pages I cited and/ or answered at WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And the succ boxes, given the parameters they have at present, don't have that knowledge either. They could be any one of people/organizations/places which use succ boxes as Darius von Whaleyland pointed you to. Bazj (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and which I've already acknowledged. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And if you can't tell the hCards whether they're dealing with people/organizations/places (so it can't aid search engines) and they're not for downloading contact details, then we're back at my earlier question. What DO they do for us? Bazj (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * hCards do indicate whether the subject is a person, organisation or place. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If hCard tagging is supposed to improve the search, aren't s-bef and s-aft the wrong place? After all you know that the name you're tagging is definitely NOT the person/place/org that the page is about. Bazj (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I almost missed that, I hadn't seen you were acting for WikiProject Microformats. I've had a look at the project and now have a better idea what you're getting at. You're adding hCards to Infoboxes (which was where I suggested was the best place for them), and now want them in s-bef, s-aft, and s-inc. But the people referenced in s-bef and s-aft will have their own pages with Infoboxes containing far more information to meaningfully populate the hCard. For s-inc there's no detail about the incumbent in the succ box, far more is available in the Infobox.


 * No problem, but including search is just one benefit. Just think of adding a microformat as adding semantic richness; a label that says, to computers, "this is a person"; in the same way that  says "this is an item in a list".  Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To recap, an hCard :
 * That brings us back to the question you posed up-front, "is there a means by which the class="vcard" can be switched on for people, an off in other cases?", and there isn't, because there's nothing coded into s-bef, s-aft, or s-inc to indicate whether the template is being used for a person, org or place. I don't realistically see the existing 200,000+ uses of these templates being manually edited to include a person/place/org indicator.
 * Adds address card functionality : not relevant to its proposed use here.
 * Aids search engines : but tagging s-bef and s-aft means tagging pages which are definitely not about the subject of the tag.
 * Indicates "this is a person", but there's no way of knowing whether s-bef and s-aft are being used on a page is about a person, place, organisation, asteroid, or film.
 * Thanks for enlightening me on the benefits of hCards, but s-bef and s-aft aren't the place for them. At least with the infoboxes you know the subject of the box is the subject of the page, and whether the box/page is about a person or not. Bazj (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement for an hCard to exist only for the (main) subject of the page. Indeed, where a red link exists in a succession box, that text may be the only reference on Wikipedia to the person (or whatever) named (and thus the only possible search result). I've already said that I will look for a work-around to your later point (and can see several possibilities, none of which will involve anything like 200,000+ manual edits). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The simplest solution would be to duplicate some of the templates, e.g. S-bef, as S-bef-person, and allow editors to sue them as they see fit; or bots to substitute them if, say, there is WP:PERSONDATA on the page or they belong to WP:BIO, or meet some other suitable criteria Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"rel" attibute
I've raised the issue, on the MediaWiki wiki, of allowing "rel" attributes (shorthand: "@rel") on anchor links, which doesn't currently seem to be possible. If and when the use of @rel on links is allowed, this template should be modified to use  and , as appropriate. It may take a while for that to be possible, of course, but I thought it best to mention it here for the record. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Life Peerages
Should UK life peers have Succession boxes for their peerage? I was looking at Kenneth Clark and it struck me as odd that it used a succ box where, by definition, there is no succession. I'm not proposing a man-hunt to weed them out, but perhaps some comment on the doc for s-reg pointing out that it's not appropriate would discourage misuse. Bazj (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added a note at the beginning. I have also changed the links to Template:S-start/doc; documentation pages are not supposed to be directly linked to. Waltham, The Duke of 19:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is wrong use of the succession box. In case of a life peerage there is per definition no matter of succession, everyone would understand that. I will remove the succession box, since it make no sense. Demophon (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for new Parameter
The S-New template seems to be very useful for sports awards as well. For instance, I've recently completed adding succession boxes to all players listed under the ATP Awards. I worked backwards and when I got to the first player in the series, I was having trouble figuring out how best to proceed in what to use in the "before" box. I had been using the template, but went to the s-start/s-new template as it seemed that was better. Despite the fact that from what I can see, a lot of other awards are using a simple Emdash under Preceded By: in succession boxes for New Awards, would it be possible to add a parameter to the S-New template to designate "New Award" (instead of First as I did at the beginning of the of the Most Improved Player series)?

Additionally, anyone able to direct me to scripts to quickly (or at least more quickly than manually building) build succession boxes for a series based on an already existing list? Thanks! Gnowor (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese nobility??
I miss the parameter for Portuguese noble titles, where is it? Demophon (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We need to have the following added to s-reg


 * pt=Portuguese nobility
 * Bazj (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

please add
Please add dv:Template:S-start to the in other languages.

--~GlaCiouS~ (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Class
Please replace {| class="wikitable" style="margin:0.5em auto; font-size:95%;" with {| class="wikitable succession-box" style="margin:0.5em auto; font-size:95%;" . This does not have a visible effect on the template by default, but will allow users to change how it looks for themselves. I believe this edit is uncontroversial. TIA. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please add ru:Шаблон:S-off as an interwiki.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. I added it to Template:S-off.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to more specific lists of baronetcies
Several of the options in Template:S-reg (regnal titles) link to the List of extant baronetcies.

However, specific and comprehensive lists have since been created. Since some of these titles are dormant or extinct, I propose that we ask an admin to edit the S-reg template to link to the specific articles:


 * List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of England (en-bt)
 * List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of Ireland (ie-bt)
 * List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia (sct-bt)
 * List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of Great Britain (gb-bt)
 * List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom (uk-bt)

Please post your opinion. If there is a consensus, please tag this discussion with

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

rows
editprotected please change to as the typical omission of this is resulting in the invalid code being passed through to output xhtml, where template syntax is unknown.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You just need to add " |rows=2 " to the usual new style succession template. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * moar: this is re S-non whose talk page redirected me here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed, but a tad differently. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya, that's fine; better. fyi, there are a lot more in Category:Succession templates that have the |1 or nothing; S-vac, for example. I did a few of the unprotected ones today. Thanks, Jack Merridew 14:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprotecting
{| class="wikitable succession-box" style="margin:0.5em auto; font-size:95%;"

may produce an extra space.

If so, needs to change to:

{| class="wikitable succession-box" style="margin:0.5em auto; font-size:95%;"

174.3.103.39 (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I second the above, and added the editprotected above. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, ehm. I took the liberty of tweaking the markup for the above to make it clearer what needs doing. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jacobite peerage
The tempalte talk for redirects here, so I post my query here. I was trying to find the correct header for the "Jacobite Peerage", particulrly for peerages created by James II of England in exile after his abdication. I would suggest. I tried this in John Drummond, 1st Earl of Melfort, but it comes out as "regnal titles". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Regnal titles" is the default, and shows up whenever an invalid parameter is used. Concerning the Jacobite Peerage, I am not entirely sure such a header would be appropriate, considering that the Jacobites use the then-existing structure of peerages (English, Scottish, et cetera). I am wondering whether it wouldn't be better to use the existing headers and combine them with s-tul for the titles, as it is now or with modifications. Waltham, The Duke of 18:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciated that "regnal titles" was merely the default. I have used "s-tul" as suggested, but am not sure that the results are satisfactory: please see John Drummond, 1st Earl of Melfort.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay; I thought I had watched the page.
 * I should say that the current situation is not very satisfactory in general; the succession-box programme has made much progress but is not finished. The necessity that often arises to use "br" tags and various fixes shows that the templates are behind the guidelines and not fully user-friendly, and although I do not doubt that flexibility is the strong point of the s-start series, too much of it goes against our aim, which is standardisation.
 * To return to our specific problem, the main use of is for pretenders, hence the "line" parameter and the "reason for succession failure" tag. However, if we remove the latter, we are left with a box about a titular Duke of Melfort, which is exactly how the article describes John Drummond; we don't really need an explanation for "Jacobite Peerage" because it is self-explaining, and linked. I realise that the circumstances are somewhat unusual, but this is not the first time we are creating precedent; all we have to do is broaden the scope of the template.
 * With that in mind, I set out to complete the task that you started. You did a good job otherwise, but you merged the actual and titular titles, which confused things. I separated them, and applied the normal precedence guidelines; the only improvisation on my part here was placing the titular titles last in their section, with similar precedence amongst them. At the last moment I added the English barony (it wasn't a subsidiary title of any of the rest, so it had to be mentioned), and I think we have an acceptable, if a little large, succession box.
 * All I have to do now is undertake a massive update of the SBS guidelines... Waltham, The Duke of 08:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was puzzled how to sort it out and tried a lot of things that did not quite work properly. The solution that you have adopted is better still.  The only change that I have made is to remove a link that is in fact a redirect without possibilities.  There are a limited number of people where the situation will arise, as the Jacobite court in exile was a small affair: the Earls or Marquesses of Powis were Jacobite dukes; so was the Earl of Middleton; and the Earls of Derwentwaterlived in exile following an attainder, due to the 1716 Jacobite rebellion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that many redirects to peerage pages have little potential, but I think they keep the succession boxes tidier and more consistent (I remember being confused when I first started editing boxes about in which cases I ought to pipe). In fact, I only created the "Baron Cleworth" redirect for the sake of the box, and you will notice that "Duke of Melfort" is also a redirect. It's too trivial to revert or feel strongly about, but I certainly don't think the redirects are harmful, and indeed they may be doing us some service.
 * Perhaps it is reassuring to know that this anomaly, as it were, is not very widespread. However, this is the nature of history: more exceptions than rules, which is why we must be flexible. In any case, even if there are only two succession boxes with a specific set of special requirements, or just one, I consider it important when one has to deviate from the established forms exactly because a new precedent is created; as it may end up widely used, it has to be well thought-out from the start. And even though the boxes may not be as well regulated as one hopes, and creating precedent may not look so momentous in the midst of all the lack of standardisation, things may improve in the future.
 * Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to help.
 * PS: You may notice that I have used the "regent" parameter for the jointly held offices. It was (obviously) created for regencies, but doubles very well for this function (it is mentioned in the documentation). Waltham, The Duke of 13:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

S-tul rowspan issue
The |rows= parameter doesn't seems to work on {{s-tul, but it works on {{s-ttl Tvtr (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An example would help; I am not aware of a general problem with the template.
 * PS: If you want to mention a template, you can use {{tl|tl}} (with link) or {{tlf|tlf}} (without). Waltham, The Duke of 18:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's an example of the code error:
 * s-ttl w/ rowspan 2

{{s-start}} {{s-bef|before=Before}} {{s-ttl|title=Title|rows=2}} {{s-aft|after=After}} {{s-bef|before=Before2}} {{s-aft|after=After2}} {{end}}
 * s-tul w/ rowspan 2

{{s-start}} {{s-bef|before=Before}} {{s-tul|title=Title|rows=2}} {{s-aft|after=After}} {{s-bef|before=Before2}} {{s-aft|after=After2}} {{end}}
 * Tvtr (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * nevermind, i just fixed it. Tvtr (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's what I had forgotten. I'm really sorry; I have a lot of things going on. I had checked the table and you were right about the problem. I then tried to compare {{tl|s-tul}} with {{tl|s-ttl}}, but couldn't make any sense of the latter with all the parameters. Thanks for taking care of the template. Waltham, The Duke of 00:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Italian nobility
I think the parameter "italian nobility" in s-reg is too amiguous. There should the following parameters:


 * Neapolitan nobility for titles of the Kingdom of Naples (1282-1826), ex: Duke of Atri or Prince of Belmonte
 * Sicilian nobility for titles of the Kingdom of Sicily (1130-1816), ex: Duke of Bivona
 * Nobility of the Two Sicilies for titles of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (1816-1861), ex: Duke of Ripalda
 * Parmesan nobility for titles of the Duchy of Parma (1545-1859), ex: Marquis of Sant' Andrea
 * Tuscan nobility for titles of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany (1569 - 1859), ex: Prince of San Donato
 * Papal nobility for titles granted by the Popes, ex: Prince of Civitella-Cesi
 * Savoyard nobility for titles of the Duchy of Savoy (1416 – 1718), ex: Count of Villafranca
 * Sardinian nobility for titles of the Kingdom of Sardinia (1323 - 1861), ex: Prince of Anglona
 * Milanese nobility for titles of the Duchy of Milan (1395–1797)
 * Modenese nobility for titles of the Duchy of Modena (1452 - 1859)

Italian nobility should only be for titles of the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy (ex: Duke of Lodi) and of the Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946) (ex: Duke of Castel Duino or Duke of Addis Abeba). I think this distinction is necessary, because all these were different states, with differents monarchs and different succesion laws. I know some will say that italian is easier, but you must take into account that, for the nobility of the United Kingdom, which as you know is only one state, there is a parameter for the peerage of each part of the country. Paliano (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the British nobility "s-reg" is followed by a number of suffixes, which change the header to English peerage, Scottish baronetage, etc. I suspect that the problem with using succession boxes for some Italian nobility is that all the children of a duke are also dukes, so that there is not necessarily a single successor.  If I am wrong, I will be happy to be corrected.  The point you rasie is a legitimate one, but you need to get an admin to set up the appropriate series of suffixes perhaps "it-nea" for Neapolitan nobility to achieve what you are suggesting.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In some of the Kingdoms of the Italian Penninsula, as in other countries like Germany, all the children of a titled noble shared the style of their fahter, but it was only the eldest who succeded in the title and who will appear in the succesion box. For example, all the children of the Papal Prince of Civitella-Cesi are styled Prince or Princess Torlonia of Civitella Cesi, but only the eldest son will be The Prince of Civitella Cesi and would be the single succesor of the title. In other Kingdoms, like in Naples and Sicily, the succesion rules are similar to the Spanish, with a single succesor. Younger children of nobles in these kingdoms are styled Don/Donna Name Surname of the Princes/Dukes/Marquises/etc of XXXX. Therefore, I think it is neccesary to stablish the different parameters, because, as I said before, Italy wasn't a single country until 1861, and each Kingdom deserves a proper parameter.—Paliano (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fix for bold when no value is given
Please replace the use of wikicode bold with   in both s-bef and s-aft. This allows for the values to be omitted safely (if there is no current succession) without causing apostrophes to be shown in the output, as in this revision. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I have seen people circumvent this by using an –, but this will allow both options, so it should be fine. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Serbian nobility and royalty
Can somebody add the following: Serbian nobility  Serbian monarchs --Zoupan (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Can the spacing around the en dashes be fixed?

 * Year–present
 * Year–year

No spaces, please: see MOS and MOSNUM. Tony  (talk)  07:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The project guidelines (a work in progress, admittedly) were updated last year to conform with the Manual of Style guidance on dashes and date ranges; the dates are entered as they appear in a single "years" field, so this is not a template matter. I expect the formatting to slowly change across succession boxes as these are edited, although I must say that I am normally against editing them for no reason other than to remove some spaces. Waltham, The Duke of 15:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Request parameters for Template:S-reg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm missing the parameters for the nobility of following (modern) European monarchies: Belgium, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Norway, and Sweden. Countries like Belgium and Luxembourg did in first instance get their nobility from the Netherlands, France or Germany, but now they have their own nobility. The same with Monaco, which have many French nobility titles but also Monegasque titles. I would like to have a separate parameter for the nobility of the Holy Roman Empire, which is not the same as Germany. Could someone include these parameters too? Thanks! Diodecimus (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This request is still not processed! Could someone add the parameters for S-reg? Thus of the countries Belgium (be), Liechtenstein (li), Luxembourg (lu), Monaco (mc), Norway (no), and Sweden (se). I will need them too! Thanks in advance Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can somebody please fix these parameters? Also additionally the parameters for the nobility of Austria? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What should the parameters look like? Please leave the requested code (or if you don't know how to write the code, at least describe what the final result should look like).  When done, add editprotected to the section and an administrator will evaluate it.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does the code break?
In the following:

If I try to merge second and third row, first cells by using rows=3 as follows, why does the cells break? what am I doing wrong?

But the same thing without incumbent merging works perfectly fine.

--Jayarathina (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone sees this and posts a reply, please leave a message in my talk page too. Thanks. --Jayarathina (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have found the problem: you needed to use s-break in order to make explicit the break between the second and third rows. The "counting the rows" section of this page covers the use of the template, though it is admittedly somewhat confusing.


 * You may notice that I have also broken the titles (so that the box won't be so wide), linked them straight to the sections on presidents (as the links include the word "president") and removed the spaces in the dates (which are unnecessary when there are no spaces in either date, per the guidelines). Waltham, The Duke of 16:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your help and guide lines. --Jayarathina (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

s-reg does not end a row properly?

 * 

The succession box at the bottom is broken. s-reg didn't end a row as it was supposed to. What was wrong with the way I used these templates? Deryck C. 13:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 January 2015
Please remove the bold formatting, as it is clearly contrary to MOS:BOLD. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Likewise s-ttl and possibly others. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I am reluctant to do this at the request of a single person. Has it been discussed anywhere, such as at WT:SBS? -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Raised at WT:SBS. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Order of article elements
Where should a succession box be placed in relation to other elements of an article? See "WP:SECTIONORDER". With navigation templates? If yes, as the first navigation template? This S-start page does not specify. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you follow the link that you provided, and find item 4 (Footers) subitem 1 (Navigation templates) and follow that, it says "Contents: Navigation templates (footer navboxes), including succession boxes ...". If you follow that last link, you'll also see "Placed at the bottom of their respective articles (or sections where applicable)", so putting the succ box at the bottom of the article is not a rigid rule. See for example London Paddington station, London Paddington station and London Paddington station.
 * When placed at the bottom, the succ boxes are always above the navboxes, mainly because the navboxes are almost always full-width, and the succ boxes are normally a lot narrower. See for example Royal Oak tube station. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and into my 00Notes.docx file go your answers. Thanks for the good guidance. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding "disputed" parameter to code
I've been working on adding the parameter "disputed" to the code for Template:s-aft in order to note when successions are not entirely clear. This would fix a constant problem that exists and would help segue titular titles better than our current system. I've got the test code here: User:Whaleyland/Template:s-aft. It's a simple parameter addition that would look like this when used:

Let me know what you think. I also realised that while we have "after2", "after3", etc., we don't have any "with2", "with3", parameters that could allow a user to note spouses, co-rulership, or other situations where listing names separately is less appropriate. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 22:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just cleaned up the if/then parameters some to allow for up to three "disputed" successors. The code anticipates how many people will be listed by adding a comma after the first name if a third name is expected, but just adding "and" if only two names are anticipated. I honestly can't think of an example that would need a bunch of claimants listed as disputed, but at least the option is there. Below is a false s-box I have made to highlight this new feature:


 * Two "disputed":


 * Three "disputed":


 * Let me know what you think. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 23:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

alongside/with
Hello.

Is is only me, or does "alongside" go for (North) American office holders only, and "with" for British office holders (or the rest of the English-speaking world)?

And if so, couldn't we have a "with" parameter for this template series too, as succession box is deprecated?

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

italicize
Hello.

Am I the only one who thinks that "New creation", "Incumbent", "Office abolished", "Most recent", etc, should be italicized?

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for it. Is there a specific reason why you think they should be? – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 00:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Because it's not the name of the previous or next office holder/recipient etc. Thay's obvious for most readers, but I think it should be marked specifically. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)