Template talk:Sequence

Use as follows:

Bold
Can we have a discussion on whether or not "Suceeded by" and "Preceded by" should be bold? The standard of tables before switching to this template seems to be to have no bold there, and to have the names bold. And why "Followed by" instead of "Succeeded by"? --Golbez 18:18, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, the standard of tables seems to have been inconsistent about where bolding should occur. Many of them do prefer to have bold there, and the names non-bolded. For example check out people like Mirabeau B. Lamar, Edward Clark.
 * Those are older tables, and thus poor examples. Newer tables (and I'm not just including my own here) seem to have the names bolded, not to mention years.
 * I changed "Succeeded by" to "Followed by" for two reasons: because "Followed by" is a bit shorter and the equal in length of "Preceded by" (making for a prettier text-alignment in the box), and because it's somewhat plainer language. "Succeeded" usually brings up the idea of succession to a throne, but I wanted this template to be not *only* about that but to be useful about sequences in general. Aris Katsaris 20:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I can accept that. There's still no mechanism for multiple offices or multiple terms, though. This template might be useful for people who only held one office, but ... I dunno. I'll wait until MediaWiki 1.4 or 1.5 gives flow control (if/then) to templates until I start converting things wholesale to this system. I won't touch bold for now - after all, with a single template, it's a minor change - but it might be worth trying out/getting a vote on later. --Golbez 21:46, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

There's a very sophisticated set of templates patterned on Template:succession box (see Template talk:succession box for usage) for dealing with complicated matters of succession. I'm going to update the appearance of this template to match it, since it's prettier and seems to be becoming a standard, but perhaps this template could be better suited to non-officeholders such as Soyuz program missions and such? Bryan 07:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Line breaks?
Are the line breaks in this template really necessary? If a particular article needs a line break for the box to work, it can be added. If a particular article does not need the line break, it's stuck with it. It gets ridiculous when there's more than one sequence box in the same article and they have all these extra spaces between them. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 17:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Deprecate?
I wonder if we might consider deprecating this template in favor of the aforementioned Template:Succession box? Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Or does this really fulfill a different enough function to warrant its retention? Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am in favour of deprecating. The biggest flaw in using this template in its current form is when a sequence of these templates are used in a row. Compare the formatting and layout of this sequence box addition versus this succession box addition. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, Template:Succession box has an extra parameter for "years". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've de-deprecated the template because there are still some situations where a simple linked list of articles without fancy extras like multiple sequences or spans of years can use this. Bryan Derksen 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)