User:Phoe/Archiv/Discussion1

This is a place I love to play:

base
! colspan="4" style="background: #ccffcc;" |
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * width="20%" style="background: #ccffcc;"|Peerage of 
 * width="30%" |Preceded by: 
 * width="30%" | '''
 * width="30%" |Succeeded by: 
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * width="20%" style="background: #ccffcc;"|Peerage of 
 * width="30%" |Preceded by: 
 * width="30%" | '''
 * width="30%" |Succeeded by: 

with text
! colspan="4" style="background: #ccffcc;" |
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * width="20%" style="background: #ccffcc;"|Peerage of of the United Kingdom
 * width="30%" |Preceded by: (new creation)
 * width="30%" |Viscount Nelson 1801–1805'''
 * width="30%" |Succeeded by: (extinct)
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * width="20%" style="background: #ccffcc;"|Peerage of Great Britain
 * width="30%" |Preceded by: (new creation)
 * width="30%" |Baron Nelson 1798–1805'''
 * width="30%" |Succeeded by: (extinct)
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * width="20%" style="background: #ccffcc;"|Peerage of the United Kingdom
 * width="30%" |Preceded by: (new creation)
 * width="30%" |Baron Nelson 1801–1805'''
 * width="30%" |Succeeded by: William Nelson

with creations
! colspan="4" style="background: #ccffcc;" |
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * width="20%" style="background: #ccffcc;"|Peerage of of the United Kingdom
 * width="30%" |Preceded by: (new creation)
 * width="30%" |Viscount Nelson 1801–1805'''
 * width="30%" |Succeeded by: (extinct)
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * width="20%" style="background: #ccffcc;"|Peerage of Great Britain
 * width="30%" |Preceded by: (new creation)
 * width="30%" |Baron Nelson (first creation)  1798–1805'''
 * width="30%" |Succeeded by: (extinct)
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * width="20%" style="background: #ccffcc;"|Peerage of the United Kingdom
 * width="30%" |Preceded by: (new creation)
 * width="30%" |Baron Nelson (second creation)  1801–1805'''
 * width="30%" |Succeeded by: William Nelson

with territorial designations
! colspan="4" style="background: #ccffcc;" |
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * width="20%" style="background: #ccffcc;"|Peerage of of the United Kingdom
 * width="30%" |Preceded by: (new creation)
 * width="30%" |Viscount Nelson 1801–1805'''
 * width="30%" |Succeeded by: (extinct)
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * width="20%" style="background: #ccffcc;"|Peerage of Great Britain
 * width="30%" |Preceded by: (new creation)
 * width="30%" |Baron Nelson (of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe)  1798–1805'''
 * width="30%" |Succeeded by: (extinct)
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * width="20%" style="background: #ccffcc;"|Peerage of the United KIngdom
 * width="30%" |Preceded by: (new creation)
 * width="30%" |Baron Nelson (of the Nile and of Hillborough)  1801–1805'''
 * width="30%" |Succeeded by: William Nelson

Kittybrewster's version
I think the problem is that we need 2 s-reg templates, 1 for GB and 1 for UK - and each barony should show of (where). Thus:

Yeah but the idea was to avoid so many headers, around this my suggestion with the fourth table field. Also I think the version with title and territorial designation is misleading; it would be enough if we link the titles to the respective creations: in example Earl Nelson#Baron Nelson, first Creation (6 November 1798)|Baron Nelson

PS: If really necessary we can add the territorial designation or number of creation in parentheses under the title (similar to the baronet succession boxes). --Phoe
 * We will of course lose one header - I was not certain the two baronies were respectively GB & UK. I don't like the headings on the left. - Kittybrewster 13:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah things are never simple. The problem with the headings on the left is you actually generate more headers - as five titles all of the same peerage would have the header for that peerage on the left for each entry.


 * The upside is that the use of the td in parenthesis or the 1st/2nd creation looks far better than I expected; I feared they would be very cramped. I'm happy to go with either of the latter though obviously where similar problems exist (Lord fairhaven comes to mind) we probably need to decide on one or the other as a matter of general policy that projectpeerage can be ok with. I see KB has sent the changes to the article Alci12 13:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes on titles with the same peerage there would be a header for each one, however I believe they do not stand out so - a matter of opinion. I have no problem with Kittys current version, but let me say two things anyway:
 * On the 1st Viscount Nelson's article the succession boxes look good, in cases with three different peerages they (will) look ugly.
 * Doing so, we can't organize them neither in continuous descending order of seniority nor chronological any more. Phoe


 * This is why I say this is such a problematic area. Every solution has problems. I hope that examples of three classes of peerages are so rare that they present a small issue or we can drop the lowest. I note for instance Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington page has viscount-duke succession shown but includes only those for wellington not the Douro marquisate or barony. So there is form for clipping excess titles where they are all given to the same person on the same terms. Alci12 18:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It actually seems, that we will have decide case to case. By the way shall I store this discusssion here anywhere? Phoe
 * Keep a copy for now might be a good idea. Could be worth trying to push a discussion on the project page to see if we can agree anything in this area. Alci12 10:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)