Template talk:S-ttl

Increase of regents parameters from three to eight
I request, following discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization ("Several thoughts" and "Canadian ministry template sets"), the addition of code for five additional regent parameters, in order to increase the total number to eight and allow for the potential use of the parameters for MPs in multiple-seat constituencies.

The proposed code for the template is the following:

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

The additions are actually rather simple; one only has to copy the code for a regent and their year and adjust the numbers. Waltham, The Duke of 06:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Y Done – Nihiltres { t .l } 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alongside...
The text for alongside doesn't really work for non-political titles, see Neville Bonner. I suggest dropping the word "Served". Bazj (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or replacing "alongside" with "with" as is used for MPs for multiple-seat constituencies, e.g. William Yates Peel Opera hat (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Post consulatum Longini
Is it possible to add a parameter that puts a text where the "alongside" and "with" parameters put, but without adding any text before? I need to put "post consulatum Longini (East)", but it is impossible, if I understand correctly. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Add colspan?
It would be pretty usefull for tables like this one to have the ability to have a cell span the whole table. Doesn't seem like a hard thing to implement (basically add something like  right before   . Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I confess that this is a most surprising and anomalous use of succession boxes; it lies entirely outside the remit of this template system as it is understood by the WikiProject managing it. As far as I can tell, succession boxes have been intended since their very inception for titles which form succession chains (i.e., are passed from one holder to the next), and the current system has been designed with this function alone in mind. I do not know when they were considered appropriate for listing all manner of records, but your proposal amounts to facilitating a major shift in the character and scope of the succession box system. Therefore, I propose taking it to WT:SBS, where others can weigh in. Waltham, The Duke of 10:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the alternative seems to live with people hard-coding a hack. But I'll mention it to SBS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not like hacks, but using something other than a succession box for this type of statistics would be closer to what I had in mind... We'll see. Thank you for making the post at SBS; I just hope that replies will be forthcoming soon enough because I don't trust myself to come up with a satisfactory solution on my own. We have something of a staffing problem, you see. Waltham, The Duke of 14:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the usage sought should not be in a succession box. It looks like something which could and should be included in an infobox. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New field "claim"
A discussion has been opened up at Line of succession to the British throne regarding a new field "claim". This field would be handled exactly the same way as the "creation" field is handled. I have demonstrated its use in the artcile Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau. Martinvl (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 May 2012

 * It is requested that the text


 * be replaced by the text


 * This will create a new field claim that will behave in exactly the same was as the field creation. If both fields are filled, the template will display the creation text ahead of the claim text.

Justification


 * The purpose of this change is to document the claim that somebody might have to the title when that claim is not actually mentioned in the article itself. For example, see the claim that Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau has in the List of succession to the British throne.  This has been discussed at Talk:Line of succession to the British throne. The only areas of controversy are misuse (hence documentation) and "field creep".


 * Once done,I will update the documentation. Martinvl (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like the SBS to have a chance to weigh in on this discussion if they haven't already. I've notified them.  Technically it's a simple enough change, of course.  I'll leave the request open for now. --joe deckertalk to me 06:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Disabling editprotected request for the time being to see if any objections are raised from the WikiProject. If not, ping me and I'll action this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Data granularity
In this template on, for example, William Kelly Wallace, we have November 1955 – November 1956. I propose that we subdivide that parameter, so that we would have something like: November 1955 November 1956 (and hard-code the en-dash in the template code), so that we have more granular data to aid machine readability. Once the template is recoded, we'd run a bot to convert the existing parameters. Any thoughts? Can you help? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sensible change, I'm not in a position to help with the bot coding right now, I'm afraid.  --j⚛e deckertalk 13:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The 'years' parameter isn't always used for dates – it is sometimes (whether or not it should be!) used for text, explanation, description or similar. DBD 16:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's, ah, very broken; the template has other parameters better suited for that sort of thing. If there are things that don't match dates in the year parameter, the bot should probably shovel them into some kind of maintenance category. I think it's generally a good idea, although I would call the parameters "from" and "to" (a lot of these templates are maintained "by hand", and I'd prefer to document their role on the template's documentation page rather than needlessly lengthening their own names). Maybe also a tweak to the template to suppress display of the range if "from" and "to" are identical, a not uncommon situation? Choess (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Change in title name
Do we want the correct format when a person succeeds themselves to a position that has in fact only changed name to include multiple rows? See for example the succession box in Mikhail Gorbachev. Circéus (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding "Disputed by" and "uxoris" parameters
I've been testing a slightly altered version of the code at User:Whaleyland/Template:s-ttl to try and add two new parameters to resolve issues I've been coming across. The "Disputed" parameter will add an extra "with" line below the current 25 lines to allow the listing of a rival to the title. We may want to expand this parameter out further to a few more numbers. The style is identical to that of "with" except it says "Disputed by:".

The other parameter is to resolve a formatting error that occurs when people try to add "jure uxoris" beside a title. "Jure uxoris" means "in right of wife" in Latin and was a fairly common term used in medieval and early modern law when husbands took their wife's title. The parameter, which currently is just "uxoris" (the user must enter any plain text as the response or it will not show up), prompts "(jure uxoris" beside the title.

Here's a sample of the code:

What do you guys think? How do you think this should be improved or expanded? One thing I'd like to do is try to get it so typing "uxoris" automatically prompts the command without the need of typing "=" or anything after that. Let me know. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 22:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed the issue with the parameter needing a value. Now just typing "uxoris" should prompt the data. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 23:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Add series ordinal
I propose adding a parameter called, which would allow an editor to indicate that a person was the nth holder of an office and where the   parameter would not be applicable. This would be displayed in front of the title. For example, for Woodrow Wilson, one would enter:

The output of the title line would be: "28th President of the United States". This is a feature that already exists in Infobox officeholder. It would make sense to enable it here.  Ergo Sum  01:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – I see no problem with the idea. Granted, it could be overused if people start numbering counts and dukes and whatnot, but many of the British aristocratic articles already do that, so I suppose it's fine. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 21:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just put this proposal in the sandbox, which can be seen here. The only thing I'm unsure of is whether the nth number displayed should be bolded or not. I'm inclined to say it should be bolded, since the title after it is already bolded.  Ergo Sum  03:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep it bolded for stylistic reasons. Now that I've looked around, it appears the number has disappeared for most aristocrats in their succession boxes, but they are still there in the article titles, and of course those are bold so keep it bold for sure. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 07:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Done  Ergo Sum  18:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

New considerations now that members of the House of Lords are elected?
Now that members of the House of Lords are elected, do we need to add a new parameter to s-par?

I mean, if you look at Rupert Ponsonby, 7th Baron de Mauley (if it weren't for the different year), and Rupert Carington, 7th Baron Carrington, both appear to have succeeded their fathers to the seat in the House of Lords, which they didn't.

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's clearer to use 2 successions, one to the peerage, one to the seat. Looking at Carinigton, he inherited the peerage from his father Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington, but he succeeded to the seat in HoL formerly occupied by Christopher James, 5th Baron Northbourne. Cabayi (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's why I'm asking, but how use the s-par template? There is no suitable parameter.  gives Parliament of the United Kingdom, not the House of Lords.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The House of Lords is just as much part of parliament as the House of Commons is. Cabayi (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, but that usually means you're a member of the House of Commons. Don't keep me in suspense forever. Also, there's no particular constituency involved. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone else has some input.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that it would be inconsistent to emphasize membership of the House of Lords by adding it separately to succession box under s-par, because that wouldn't be suitable for most members of the House who are life peers. Discontinuing the use of a mention with the peerage in the succession box should be considered, though. I think that the best ways to point out that a peer is or was a member of the House of Lords is to mention it in the lead section of a biography article and possibly to add the membership to the infobox. --Editor FIN (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it looked pretty ok before you reverted me. I suspect that the section in WP:SBSGUIDE you referred to (4.2.1.1) in your edit summary does not take into account the fact that peers are now elected.
 * To address your concern, there's nothing that stops us from having the existing design for peers that (originally) inherited their seats in the House of Lords from their fathers. The result of your revert is now that the reader can get the erroneous impression that Lord Carrington's predecessor on his seat in the Lords was his father – especially since Carrington's accession to the barony and the seat occurred the same year.
 * I think WP:SBSGUIDE might need to be amended.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that you have misunderstood my concern. Most members of the House of Lords join the House after being created life peers, not after by-election victory. Thus, it would be inconsistent to add membership of the House to succession box for minority and leave most members (e.g. life peers) without that. I think that better way to address the problem you have pointed out would be to just abolish the use of 'Lord parameter' with peerage in the succession box and remove those parameters from articles. It would be informative enough to mention the membership of the House of Lords in the biography text and in a possible infobox. --Editor FIN (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and didn't realize that most join the Lords on being created life peers. But are succession boxes really relevant in those cases? They are not succeeding anyone, are they? If so, they couldn't be created peers until someone died.
 * Anyway, I have started a centralized discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines. Please join the discussion there.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

add an "as" parameter?
several of the related templates have an "as" parameter, but s-ttl does not. I've noticed that quite a few articles kludge around this with markup that generates lint errors. Would it be possible to add a field so that this can be handled by the template? For example, Henry III, Count of Schauenburg-Holstein:

pauli133 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

produces two lines in the center box, which makes the predecessor box to the left awkward, since it has to accommodate accordingly.
 * I was just going to propose the same, and realized that this request has not been acted on, since it lacked the edit template-protected.
 * For an example on why/when it's needed, please see Rupert Ponsonby, 7th Baron de Mauley. In the order-of-precedence succession box, the
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Baron de Mauley article was just missing some closing italic markup; the br is not causing the space in S-bef to the left. I copied a simple version of that box to my sandbox to show that the problem appears to be with S-bef. I will poke around in that template to see if I can fix the excessive white space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hah! It turns out that I caused this problem myself, with a Linter-related edit to S-bef less than a month ago. I have fixed it now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * but will you add the "as" parameter? So we will not have to create that type of construct that's in the Rupert Ponsonby, 7th Baron de Mauley article?
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I could, but where should it go? This S-ttl template takes a ton of parameters. I have synced the sandbox with the live template, and this is the code that should be added, I believe: . – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It should display in the corresponding place, and in the same format, as the "as" parameter for the s-bef and s-aft templates – just like in the examples above and in the Rupert Ponsonby article previously mentioned. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that my question was unclear. S-bef takes a series of "before" parameters, before through before10, after which as is displayed. S-ttl, in contrast, takes many more parameters, which you can see in that template's documentation. Take a look at the section called "Output (as table cell)" in that template's documentation, and then suggest where an "as" parameter should display (for example, "after 'years'" or "before 'Served alongside:'"). Should it be on its own line? Bold? Italic? The same size as the parameter before it or after it? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed "under" parameter
I would like to propose an additional parameter "under", similar to the current "alongside" parameter. It would be used for offices that have a direct subordinate relationship, notably Lieutenant Governors serving under Governors or Vice Presidents serving under Presidents. Additional uses could include cabinet members under a President / Prime Minister, or a Prime Minister under a monarch. I think that it would be so generally useful that I'm quite surprised it hasn't been included already.

The proposed code is: This is simply the existing "alongside" code with the word "under" substituted for "alongside". I believe this is a rather straightforward, simple request that would be generally useful ... even more so than the existing "alongside" parameter, as this is a much more common relationship between offices. 2001:558:6017:107:78A6:8733:B442:2A44 (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 03:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed "disputed" parameter
I would like to suggest the addition of parameter which, if anything is entered, places a (Disputed) qualifier underneath the title. I've manually added such a tag this to Francis Wollaston (philosopher) as he tends to be listed by sources in the succession of Masters of Sidney Sussex College (e.g. ) but with the caveat that his election was later declared void.

I suspect other editors might find the option useful in similar circumstances. Charlie A. (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See my questions above re: where should it go? Be specific, or code it in the sandbox. It would probably be more useful to have a generic parameter indicating an optional note, like "disputed" or "interim" or other similar values. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jonesey95 thanks for responding. I would suggest this would go below creation and above years (in my head this would make the disputed qualify everything above (specifying the specific office), while everything below remains factual – e.g. the years per se aren't in dispute). So it would be:
 * ...|}}{{#if:{{{years|}}}... . Charlie A. (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)