User talk:The Duke of Waltham/Archive 3

This is the third archive of The Duke of Waltham's talk page. About half of its content consists of messages between the Duke and Whaleyland, which attempt to re-establishe SBS's good working order after the summer lull in activity. The specifics for the new title parameters of certain succession templates were also agreed here. Beginning in late October, however, this archive also contains messages from other editors, pointing to both Whaleyland's absence and to the now extensive connections of the Duke in the community, and indicating His Grace's ever improving status in Wikipedia. Here are stored all discussions beginning and ending in the time period from 1 September to 30 December 2007, the archive essentially covering the last four months of that year.

Archiving took place on 29 October, 16 December, and 23 December 2007, and on 6 February 2008.

H. Cartwright

Comeback – Past actions, theory of chain ends and breaks
Greetings, Darius. I bid you a good month. I should like to apologise for my unexpected delay (yours was entirely expected, I must say); I am just now coming out of a most unpleasant experience: house painting. The only fortunate thing about it is that it did not happen as a result of any fire.

I devoted much of the previous week to updating the succession boxes of the Postmasters General of the United States. All of them. Unluckily for me, many of them lasted little more than a few months on the job, and as a result there are more than seventy. And several were also chairmen of either the Republican or the Democratic National Committee, and in most occasions there were no succession lines for the latter. The only consolation is that all of them had succession boxes for the office of Postmaster General. (Even if all had Template:Succession box templates which I have had to update. All except for the grand finale: Benjamin Franklin himself. Nice box, but it still had a couple of deficiencies which I have graciously put right.)

In contrast to about half the Archbishops of York, where from a point backwards I had to create their boxes article by article (and it was not just the archbishopric; all of them had to be bishops before their translation to York). I stopped somewhere in the early nineteenth or late eighteenth century, I think—I intend to continue with that chain sometime in the future. This is an ancient title; centuries of work await me...

Back to the project of the week (the Postmasters). I have seen many interesting cases of succession boxes in the course of these days, some of which had me make some tough choices and have given me ideas about issues we ought to solve by clarifying some of the guidelines or even writing a couple of new ones. For instance, what ought our policy to be regarding military offices? All offices connected to the military (save political offices and regnal titles) are to be assigned to the s-mil header or are some of them exempted? I am asking this because I once encountered in my "mission" the office of Judge Advocate General of the United States Army and the few articles that exist about people who have held this office have no headers in their boxes. So, the dilemma is the following: Legal or military? I finally elected the latter thinking of the informal "rule" stated above (because it is in the military, which is a wholly separate branch), and that the "legal offices" category was created to mostly deal with people in the proper judicial system, the one tormenting civilians. This question is still open, though.

Other issues include the use of the alongside parameter, to which I had been rather oblivious until I started replacing it in Senators' boxes (not more than a dozen, though). I now realise the error of my ways, as the Regent parameter is for actual sharers of a position and not for senators serving on different terms. And it is not that important to note their years of coexistence either. But this parameter, much like the reason parameter in s-vac and the as parameters in s-bef and s-aft, and perhaps others that have escaped my attention, need to be described in the /doc page.

And I am in the pleasant position to announce that I have just taken care of it. I have performed various maintenance works on the page, leaving few paragraphs completely unchanged: I have corrected style mistakes (the dates in the example boxes were still linked, abbreviated, and without spaces between the years and the dashes!), brought the fairly complex and half-obsolete terminology in line with the one in the Guidelines page, and updated the text itself, adding information about some of the missing fields. I believe you will be satisfied with the result; it is the first actual large-scale maintenance of the rewritten page.

Another consequence of my bicentennial trip was the discovery of another special case. More specifically, the recreation of an office title under a slightly different name. In this case the as parameter could not be used because there was a gap of a few years and the s-aft template ought to be replaced by its vacancies counterpart. S-vac does not have an as parameter. I highly believe that it should have it, so that some of the more special cases can be more easily dealt with. Titles can change names while vacant as easily as when they are occupied.

And I have been thinking about other special cases too. Especially those incorporating s-vac. Like abeyances. Having both "Vacant" and "Title in abeyance" in the same cell looks quite redundant to me. As does the combination of "New title" and "New creation". And I then started thinking about your parameters idea under a different light altogether.

You see, when you first mentioned the idea I thought of parameters of a more compulsory nature. A scheme of "pick your parameter", if you like. I also thought of parameters creating supplementary text identical to that created by the reason parameter, but in this case automatically. Which two reasons were why I objected to this system on the grounds of simplicity. I mean, why put up a whole mechanism to do what can be done by typing a few normal words anyway? My epiphany is based upon two key-words: "optional" and "flexible".

We can put a couple of parameters in place that will substitute the main message. For example, will display the usual "New title" message (with an optional reason field) while  will display a message "New creation" instead of "New title", still enabling the optional reasoning (but often making it unnecessary and thus saving space). In the same way, will display "Vacant" without any further complications, while  will display a message "In abeyance" in place of "Vacant", which will remove all visual redundancies in the event of an abeyant title (as well as make the box smaller, as the abeyance will again be mentioned without an extra reason line). The parameters will do nothing that can be done in the reason field (thus eliminating redundant complexity) but will take up a new, very useful, and completely independent function. And inexperienced editors will not encounter any problems by using the unadorned s-new and s-vac templates (which will be their most usual forms anyway), for the parameters will be completely optional. (By the way, we should also take the opportunity of changing the appearance of s-new cells the way I have suggested. Also, note that I mention nothing about s-non; I believe we should add no parameters to s-non, given its different mechanics, and guidelines could help with its standardisation without automated one- or two-word tags. Although we might tackle the issue of bringing it into symmetry with s-new sometime in the future.)

I know this has mostly been your idea all along, but I think that it can work even better with this twist; I am already excited. I hope you shall forgive me for not having given more thought into your idea in its original iteration.

(Talking about technical changes, there is still the problem with custom-made headers in s-par. The faulty headers may not be visible but the problem is still there. I beg you to make haste and rectify this dangerous situations by enact the default tag "Assembly seats" option.)

Generally, my take on the general matter of templates is that we should ensure that all potential succession events can be dealt with in the most efficient, simple, and presentable manner. Succession lines are like pipes of different diameter: we must ensure there exist all the necessary pieces to connect them properly and without any leaks. The pieces must fit.

Anyway, apart from the templates, I have a full-fledged legislative agenda for this autumn. I have solutions to propose for matters ranging from title transitional boxes to approximate date abbreviations and from name-linking policies to chain termination standardisation guidelines. I also have ideas for the formats of orders of precedence and United States Senators and Representatives. But all in due course. This is not the time, with everybody still away, and this message is already overlong.

Indeed, summer is now over and it stands to reason to say that most editors have returned from their holidays. And even those who have not will do so in the following week or two. I require your permission to send out the "project renovated—need contributors—renew membership" messages to the members' talk pages. I believe two months are enough for all those interested to proceed with the renewal; you must have seen that I have set Halloween as the deadline.

What else? The SBS box is very good. I like its simplicity and functionality; good work, Darius. A small picture might look good at the top, I thought, but there might not be any picture suitable for a succession boxes infobox. Anyway, I have had to do two corrections: a typo and a redirect. About the latter, I believe it is better to direct editors to the proper Template:S-start page instead of the /doc page, which is only used for editing purposes and is not meant to be seen. I have already corrected all the intra-page links in /doc to take to the proper page instead of the /doc one.

Note: I have registered the Guidelines shortcut (WP:SBSGUIDE) in the relevant list.

The problem with infoboxes is that some of them are mostly used in long articles and the few short articles that use them look very ugly but have little prospect of growing much more. Maybe a policy of collapsible infoboxes or of infoboxes only showing the part of the dynasty relevant in each particular case would be more suitable.

SBS has been completely deserted lately. It is a little distressing, you know. In any case, whatever changes take place will not be seen until somebody returns, and this is why we are on committee mode anyway. Although I spend much time editing succession boxes, I also feel like doing some further meta work, and I believe my input can be useful elsewhere, too.

Do not think for a moment that I am abandoning SBS. But I am thinking of becoming a counsellor.

From the Council I shall be able to, amongst other things, help in the coordination of WikiProjects, so SBS will still have something to gain from my involvement there (after all, it has no "representatives" there at the moment). The Council is also an inter-project forum of discussion and many a useful cooperation can come as a result. In addition, I might make some Wikifriends there. Did you know SBS was the only WikiProject I participated in?

Listen, Darius, I am also saddened by the outcome of the WAF debate. But you can see that I have been keeping myself busy in Wikipedia, and we both know there are many things to do to develop SBS. (I have seen that you have also been keeping busy—I am the project's official Big Brother, after all, I see everything in SBS—and your deletion work is brilliant). It is your creation, after all, I am sure that you want to see it strong, healthy, respectable, efficient. I assure you that I will do my best to help this project grow, improve its templates and fine-tune its guidelines, attain a greater membership and start getting its tasks organised. My vision is to see a working project actively and effectively improving the tens of thousands of succession boxes out there and bringing them up to the standards that have so laboriously been agreed upon. I think this is your vision too. And maybe later, perhaps after some months, we shall have prepared our case well enough and have mustered sufficient support to bring fiction back. Policies are still being changed, and usually to the best; and when the conditions change in our favour, we shall be there. But until then, we shall be doing more than just bidding our time: we shall be improving Wikipedia in any other way we can.

Please do not lose sight of this target because of a disappointment.

I am waiting to hear what you have to say on all this. And good luck with your other pursuits, too. Waltham, The Duke of 18:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Have you noticed the new s-scouts template? I saw it as I was refurbishing the /doc page. We shall need to take it into account later, after reviewing it first. Waltham, The Duke of

Checklist
A summary of what you have proposed (to act as an easier checklist):
 * Finish York/Canterbury bishops succession boxes.
 * Resolving military offices and what qualifies for that header.
 * Add the optional parameters for s-ttl on the /doc page.
 * Explain to Waltham why there are so many different parameters. (j/k)
 * j/k means just kidding, or in jest.


 * Integrate parameters into s-vac to allow for more standardization. Done!
 * Integrate parameters into s-new to allow for more standardization and fix its appearance. Done!
 * Fix s-par problem. Done!
 * Create guidelines for completing incomplete succession chains.
 * Discuss new guidelines for the fall including:
 * Order of precedence chains.
 * Transition from proper to titular/pretentious titles and back.
 * Standardisation of s-non labels
 * And many others to come
 * Send out new membership requests and advertise project.
 * Add a picture to the succession box navbar. Done!
 * Add talk page link to nav bar. Done!
 * Register WP:SBSGUIDE in the relevant list. Done!
 * Propose an infobox policy for succession infoboxes (is this our jurisdiction? Should it be?)
 * Support the "Waltham for Counselor" campaign. (see my answer)
 * Wait forever for all the WP:WAF people to flee, desert, or die (whichever comes first).
 * Determine where S-Scouts stands (and move page because the S in Scouts is capitalized). I think this is the opportunity we have waited for to create Template:s-npo (non-profit organization).  Boy and Girl Scouts are both NPOs and we have had this issue with some other headers as well. Done!

I will reply to some of these issues in a bit. Anything you want to add to this list, please feel free. Also, cross off anything when it is done (although some cannot be completed, I know). May the grace of the gods go with you. – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. A couple of corrections/clarifications:


 * I have been working on the York boxes, but the Canterbury ones are also in need of improvement. Some of them I have already done, by the way, as they were also Archbishops of York. In any case, this might take some time as I am currently working on the U.S. presidents and I am thinking of taking up the British Prime Ministers some time after that (these already have boxes, at least). I have also fixed a couple of other short chains, the last one being the Dukes of Sutherland. But wait. I see the deleted templates list and I want to have more deleted... Maybe I should start replacing some of those outrageous four to one boxes...
 * J/k? What do you mean? Is this a joke?
 * I know we have put the advertisement campaign on hold, but may I at least notify all the old members? There has been a lot of change (to the better) during the last months and most of them probably know nothing about it. And they ought to know about the renewal option anyway. Not to mention that we do need a few contributors at the moment.
 * "Counsellor" was just a figure of speech. I can simply sign up my name as a WikiProject Council member, and this will be it. Basically, I shall do it as soon as I finish this message.
 * Non-profit organisations would be an excellent idea for a header. I have already had a couple of problems with unions and the sort. The scouts header can either be deleted or redirect there. Done!

I have also corrected the links in my previous message. Three faulty links; this must be my personal record. I doubt it warrants a succession box, though. ;-)

So, I shall await the sound of hooves at my gates. The table will be set and we can discuss these issues over dinner. Waltham, The Duke of 08:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Further updates
Some more updates (it has been a busy week, ugg!) Okay, that is all for now. Too busy to do much more than I can. I am slowly hacking away at the list where I can help. The strength of the horde goes with you! – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I finished s-vac and s-new and added /doc pages.
 * I think s-inc needs some work and some parameters for cases that incumbent is not technically correct but s-non doesn't really work either. By that, I mean non-flowing titles such as "Presidential nominee" doesn't really fit with incumbent because he isn't currently the nominee because the election is over, but the title is not extinct either because it will reform again four years later.  This will require an editprotect so tell me if there is anything else that should be worked into this change before I go through with it.  A few more parameters may be nice to make it not appear so slight a difference.
 * I am working on removing all uses of Template:Succession footnote with s-ref which seems to have been a decision made a while ago by many users but never acted on. I also changed the header name for s-ref from "References" to "Notes & References" since it is being heavily used for notes now.

Parameters for chain breaks

 * I am very happy with the implementation of parameters. My main concern is that there might be some opposition to the scheme when the Honourable members return from their long holidays (you have yet to reply to my request—do you want me to send out the messages for the renewal of the older members' memberships? I believe it is a necessary step to take if we are to do any significant work towards establishing SBS as the authority on succession boxes). In any case, I believe it works well.
 * As an example of the way the "parametered" s-vac works, I should like you to see my work on George III of the United Kingdom, which is a very tricky box indeed. (Not least due to the changes of titles; see George V's box for an extreme example—I have not yet dared touch the most extreme of all, Elizabeth II. Though there might be less to do there than one may initially think.) In George III you might also notice that the box is rather long and narrow; this has been done on purpose in order to obscure the very narrow nature of the "parametered" s-vac.
 * Now, I have taken the liberty of tampering with s-vac myself and adding all the parameters that I believe will be useful in making vacancies tidier and clearer. Most of them pertain to the peerage, even though not always exclusively so ("In abeyance", "Disclaimed", "Suspended"). "In commission", however, is useful for many offices, and very useful for special cases like a couple of the United Kingdom's Great Officers of State. "Loss of title" has also mystified me, but I have kept it on the suspicion that it might be used at the beginning of pretentious title chains. (However, s-new would be the correct template for such events, in which case we should again just delete this parameter. See argument below for "Extinct".)
 * I must stress that "Recreated", though undoubtedly useful, may be a little thorny. It must not be used for peerages, because when a peerage becomes extinct the chain breaks. If the title is recreated, that is a brand new chain and should be treated as such (i.e. s-new and s-non ought to be used instead of s-vac). It is not just overwhelmingly common practice—and, believe me, I have edited more peers' boxes than I needed to learn this—but it is also the way things are. You must know it yourself from the titles' articles, which list the creations. This is why I have had no choice but to remove the "Extinct" parameter, and this is also why I am now proposing the introduction of a Xth creation label in the title fields of peerage succession lines where the exact titles in question have been created at least twice—the feature may be used in the entire chains or, if preferable, only in those boxes where it is necessary as disambiguation information (e.g. there are two Dukes in the first creation and thus the "2nd creation" label will only be placed in the first two Dukes of the second chain).
 * The two-letter abbreviations are not particularly useful, given that they describe specific terms that are not as easily remembered as those for the templates themselves. I think we ought to follow the example of s-new and substitute the abbreviations with whole words. And apart from the complexity criterion, there is also another: two letters are easily lost in the sea of words that the code for a succession box can be, while entire words are more easily made out.
 * S-inc has no parameters at the moment. Which is funny, because it is the purest template in the collection, usually showing nothing but an unadorned "Incumbent" message. Much less complex than s-new, in any event, and much more standardized than the "free" s-non. To make a long story short, my proposal is to add a parameter showing the message "Most recent". It is most suitable for (vice) presidential candidacies and the sort, and I have seen it as a message in such cases in both s-aft and s-non. I had been thinking, actually, to adopt it as a standardised message for s-non, but of course s-inc will confuse the editors much less (even if the usage of s-non for these kinds of incumbencies would hardly be as strange as its usage in the predecessor—for crying out loud!—cell for a "First" message in the beginning of lines of succession and orders of precedence. See next paragraph.)
 * About s-new:
 * "New creation" and "New party" will prove to be most useful parameters, I am sure. One note about the latter: it can be used for party titles, but I am unsure about candidacies. Some parties do not field candidates as soon as they are created, and when they do the "New party" label may look wrong. I believe "First" is more suitable in these cases (see below) or a new parameter "First candidate" if the former does not satisfy you.
 * "First" is a simple choice that will fix the beginnings of all chains of succession and orders of precedence, where an assortment of odd solutions has been conscripted. And even though there have voices that ask for the deletion of all such chains, I believe that we should do whatever we can to improve them until the matter comes back to the table. Not only do I oppose the deletion, but I believe it might be helpful if the chains are up to scratch when the debate takes place. Anyway, this parameter may also be used for beginnings of candidacies and awards.
 * "New seat" is suitable for seats in courts, but also for electoral districts/constituencies that might be called "seat".
 * "New district" and "New constituency" are suitable for electoral districts (like in U.S.A. and Australia) and constituencies (like in U.K.). I believe it is high time that we should abandon the old "Preceded by: (constituency created)" format that was probably adopted before the advent of the s-new template.


 * As far as the s-ref template is concerned, I could say it is only reasonable that its usage for notes should be made official. I have been fixing the U.S. Presidents chain lately (a very important chain, by the way; not only a highway that connects articles about personalities more or less famous, as well as important to history, politics, and America, but it also connects many featured articles with each other), and many of the earliest ones have those little note cells at the bottom. I am entirely with you on this and will make some time to update the Documentation page and make sure the usage of little numerals instead of letters is standardised for notes and references. By the way, I am one article short of completing the chain.


 * Summary:
 * Please look at the s-vac and s-new templates and tell me if you agree with the parameters.
 * Can we change the s-vac parameters from abbreviations to whole words?
 * Can we insert a "Most recent" parameter into s-inc?
 * Can we introduce a change of format for parliamentary seats' creation and abolition?
 * Can we introduce a guideline for the disambiguation of multiple peerage titles' creations?
 * Do I have permission to send out the "Please return" (sort of) messages?

Generally, my idea is that we should try to limit as much as possible the cases in which the editors will be forced to use and . If we do not subject the inexperienced editors to such complex structures there will be less confusion (and thus fewer mistakes) and greater standardisation. All this we can manage through parameters, which can be easier remembered than the specific manually created formats—especially if they are presented in a way easily received and memorised. This may be achieved by creating a template-parameter cheatsheet, like the one that already exists for general editing. Think of it: a page listing all the parameters with brief descriptions. I do not know about you, but I find it would be hugely helpful. We cannot deny that the whole system's complexity has greatly increased during the last year, and most contributors will not want to start serious study of succession boxes just to make a few changes in some articles that interest them. They will probably either botch it up or not bother at all.

I do not need to stress that this is highly undesirable, now, do I?

May you always find empty roads in front of you on which to freely gallop, and welcoming inns for fine ale and a good night's sleep. Waltham, The Duke of 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: I have also devised the five pillars of succession box writing (guess where I was inspired from). I can tell you if you are interested. They could be included in the cheatsheet. Waltham, The Duke of

Update: Triumph! The U.S. Presidents are all done! Standardisation across the whole chain for the first time. I feel so tired... Waltham, The Duke of 16:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't be on much until Monday, but I thought I would at least say to send out the invites if everything looks fine. I think it is time to do that. I found and deleted some more old lists yesterday, but other than that my week was too busy to do much Wikying.  Anyway, have a good weekend and may the power of the gods go with you in your invitations.  We can use all the help we can get.  Cheers! – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have sent the membership renewal requests to all the old members. Let us see the turnout now... Waltham, The Duke of 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Taking action
I apologize for the long delay. To put it simply, I am in the process of many things currently, including (but not limited to): Regardless, my absence is anything but acceptable or helpful, and in my various researches (using Wikipedia as a portal) I have discovered two different succession series using old HTML templates, neither of which I have been able to touch yet.
 * A huge upsurge in Apple repairs, thus making it difficult to find time to edit wiki articles or discuss/debate changed
 * Learning two language (and juggling an anthropology class) simultaneously with 34 hours of work in between
 * Studying for the GRE, a very difficult and annoying exam required for graduate school in the United States
 * Researching graduate schools to apply to, considering November to January are the major application times
 * Mooching off former teachers so I can get letters or recommendation from them (this generally involves doing some minor paperwork for them as a gift)

Now, onto business. Firstly, I have broken our various conversations up into dated sections. I think it will make it easier to get to the sections which we are currently discussion, and it makes the edit option appear much more often. If you disagree, that is fine and I apologize for messing with your talk page. Perhaps one of the reasons I have been putting off a reply, though, is because of the length and mass of our conversations and how much time it generally takes to reply.
 * I am glad that the member invitations are out, although I see many are not returning as of yet. I think it is paramount that we develop relations with other projects and groups, as well as reach out to many of the other template editors out there.  Every opportunity I get to help in a template creation I take to request the editor to join our project.  It often does not work, but I always try.
 * One of the last major things I did within the project was to incorporate the parameters for the templates s-vac and s-new. After your previous request, I also spelled out the words within (I believe) s-inc, although I left the original parameters as hidden parameters for those articles that already are using it or for those editors who want a shortcut and not have to write "Abeyance".  I also removed "extinct" as requested.
 * I agree that we need to add a parameter that allows for creations within the s-ttl template. I realized this when I remembered that the Egyptian dynasties are numbered and the function would work well there.  Getting that working with a proper parameter name is a little harder.  I was thinking maybe something simple like "subtitle" would do, but we should choose something universal.
 * I like how George III of the United Kingdom works. Such s-boxes like that need to be more universal.
 * I agreed with you (if you noticed) and removed "Loss of title" from s-vac and added it to s-new. That is a template parameter I pushed to remove s-pos, which has subsequently succeeded in being removed.
 * I 100% agree with the division of s-inc into parameters. While "Incumbent" is the main objective of the template, it really is s-current and should be treated as such.  Adding in a parameter that adds "Most recent" is great because that will work with US presidential nominees who are hardly incumbent after the election (either winning or losing the election).  This is, I am sure, where the idea came to your mind.  This template would also be really easy to make, and I can only think of two parameters, although we should probably think of more to justify it to whomever will be implementing the protected edit.
 * I agree with all the other new proposals as well and I see you have already implemented them all into s-new. They look great and I think the template is far more usable than before.
 * As you surely noted, I added the "note" part into s-ref and it looks beautiful. I think that greatly widens the scope of the template and makes more sense for templates already using it as such.
 * Regarding new guidelines for multiple creations, let us first get the parameter added (to save time later) and then inact the rules. Adding the parameter should be easy enough, getting an admin to do it is the hard part but I think I can sway them.  Just give me a name for the parameter to add creation or dynasty or whatever.
 * I think the creation of a cheatsheet is not only important but absolutely necessary. I am amazed we have not thought of it until now.  But yes, something like that will be good and may possibly be a good replacement for the s-start doc page which I find a bit complex for the beginners.
 * I also agree that the purpose of many of these parameters is not just for template standardization but for the removal of small and br/ codes which are just a nuisance.
 * I would love to see the five pillars of succession box writing (surely derived from the five pillars of Islam).
 * Yay, chain standardization! Many more to go but it is always good news!

Now, onto your post on my page: That should be all! May the force of the wind fill your sails in your constant journeys and may the gods of old raise you up in your times of trouble. Until again, I bid adieu. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  23:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply – Check!
 * You are given full freedom to act on your own within this project, I would say you deserve as much since you have almost single-handedly cleaned up the entire infrastructure of the group.
 * I guess the colors for s-freemason is a little bright, but it works if it were dimmer. All our headers are pushing for lighter colors and this one should too.  On that same note, are masonic clubs considered NPOs?  If they are, we know where they can go.  If not, I think we need to find a home and fast.  That template is spreading like the plague across all your presidents and all my British kings pages.
 * s-npo seems to be fairly well established but we should probably figure out just where it goes. I was thinking in the same category as s-bus.  That would be the most appropriate, I think.

October's agenda
I did not know that you were (and are) nearly as busy as what you describe. It is entirely understandable that you should limit your activities in Wikipedia; people do have a real life to think about, after all. I have said time and again that I do not enjoy being pressing, but you seem to know yourself that you are necessary here. The project is still struggling for survival and there are countless loose ends and numerous new issues that need to be taken care of.

Because of this, I shall attempt to present to you the various matters and proposals in point-to-point reports here in this very page every time you answer, so that you may make the most of your time when dealing with SBS business. I shall be including revisions of the SBS talk page activity, so it will probably be better if you start here for a debriefing.

As far as the retouching of my (recently archived) talk page is concerned, I accept your apology—discipline must be maintained, you know ;-). Actually, it was a good idea, but I disagree a little with the particulars. Dates are not really useful in archives, especially since they are already present in the signatures. On the contrary, thematic sections are very helpful in researching and organising one's talk page and archives.

So, onto business, you say? I could not agree more. I shall take your points in the order you have given them.


 * Three members have renewed their memberships, but I have reasons to believe that more of them are involved in the succession box editing effort. For your information, I have stumbled on a couple of boxes strangely state-of-the-art in comparison with the rest of those in the chains I was editing. As I do in such occasions, I checked the articles' histories, only to find Choess's hand behind the edits. I do not know why she has not renewed her membership, given that she has been one of the greatest contributors in SBS, so all we need to do is try to not think of it.


 * I have noticed what you have done to the parameters of s-vac, and I find it very clever. It certainly is cleverer than my initial reaction (run to Sir Francis Dashwood's article and change the "Abeyance" parameter I had added), as its purpose is to remove the necessity for this kind of rushed reactions. Before your message, I believed that we ought to remove the shortened parameters from the articles whenever we found them in order to allow for the eventual removal of the parameters from the template; your reasoning has now convinced me otherwise.


 * I believe that I got the idea from an Earl of Wessex's article; it had all kinds of curious little additions in its box. In any case, a simple format should suffice, in my opinion: italicised lettering, unbolded, right below the title. Two questions:
 * Should the parameter for the label's creation be open (with the familiar standardisation problems) or be directed by specific parameters (leading to even greater complexity)? A dilemma worthy of the greatness of our project.
 * I believe that the label ought to be present in all the articles of a given chain, for the sake of standardisation and for other reasons (the Egyptian dynasties could certainly use it). However, it might be argued that it should be used only for disambiguation purposes, and thus if, for example, in the first creation of a title there were two Earls and then it went extinct, the label should only be used for the first two Earls of the second creation. I do not like it much, but it can be our last resort if the proposal meets with dissent.


 * So, "Loss of title" was indeed for use in titular rulers, eh? I have to say that I like it where it is now.


 * Now that you mention it, "current" might be a more correct name for the template than "incumbent". However, I do not find s-cur a better at all. Not to mention the cost of the transition. The idea has indeed occurred to me from the U.S. presidential candidates (by the way, I hope "candidate" is an acceptable alternative for "nominee", because half the articles used to have the latter, which I have replaced with the former). However, the terminology is also appropriate for awards, medals, and championships and other sports distinctions. Also, I have an idea for a second additional option: "Current holder", suitable for records, trophies, and the lot. I do not believe there are any more kinds of boxes that require different options, so further parameters are unnecessary, but one would say two are enough, right?


 * I am quite happy myself with s-new as it stands now, and I can say that I have already used its options multiple times, especially the "creation" parameter (working on nobles and all). Your "party" idea is also very good. Mind you, I am not done with s-new; as I discover new special cases in boxes, different possibilities will unveil themselves. For now, it will suffice to say that it is high time we should update the format for British MPs. When this format was approved, s-new and s-non were not nearly as advanced (if they even existed back then); this has changed. Apart from that, I do not like the double links in the title field, and I am thinking about parameterising the "with [other MPs]" part as well.


 * No further comments about s-ref. They would be redundant.


 * Before we try to persuade anyone we must solve the issues stated in paragraph three of this message. A generic name could be something like "lineage", but things will be easier if we take option No 2 (multiple parameters). Which I now realise that I probably prefer. We have gone down the road of complexity anyway. Parameters like "creation=" and "dynasty=" will be much more comprehensible, will they not?


 * Replacement? Not really. But introductory for beginners and a good template reminder/parameter guide for editors of all levels of experience. Basically, I have almost completed it. I have even found a formula to integrate it into the Documentation page if necessary; this is just an alternative, however, as a separate page will have more benefits. You should know that the Documentation page will be restructured anyway—its structure is rather unorthodox and the succession box creation instructions are scattered and complex. (Personally, I am not at all content with the current state of the page, which I initially created as a tutorial but which I now see has more roles to play than that). You will be hearing from this sector of operations soon enough.


 * Beginners are not really that adept at using HTML. Neither am I, if you think of it, but after all these months I can handle this kind of lightweight mark-up rather well. People will do less mistakes if given fewer options with which to make them.


 * Yes and no. The Five Pillars of Succession Box Creation are derived from the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which are in turn derived from those of Islam. The connection is indirect, and so I win and you lose. Mwahahahaha! Mind you, the name is the only thing derived from the pillars; this is more of a very simplified ruleset ("What to keep in mind"). Ahem:
 * Use the syntax properly – Use each template and parameter for the purpose it has been made for, write the syntax clearly, put the templates and the parameters within them in the correct order.
 * Use headers properly – Use the appropriate header for each title, use each header once, use only one header for each line, place them in the correct order.
 * Use the correct titles – Give formal, standardised, and consistently formatted titles.
 * Use the correct styles – Use the correct styles and prefixes per guidelines and depending on each case.
 * Use links properly – Do not link dates, always link predecessor/successor names, use pipe links where necessary, use as few and relevant to the title links as possible in the title field.


 * Not only have I finished all the Presidents, but I have also concluded the processing of all the Democratic and Republican candidates' boxes. I have now started working on the British Prime Ministers, but I am proceeding slowly, as I have now been absorbed by the editing and documentation of peers' chains of succession. They are pretty exciting, actually, merging and deviating and disappearing much in the same way banks do. Quick question: should you classify the Chair of G8 as a political or honorary title? While American presidents had it as a political office (which status quo I have retained), Margaret Thatcher lists it as honorary. And the G8 article has done little to clarify the situation.

No? Whatever. Within the following days, I am going to throw bridges to WikiProjects Peerage and Baronetcies, communicate with WikiProjects Biography and Royalty, leave notices in the Community Bulletin Board, the WikiProjects Noticeboard, and the WikiProject Council's talk page, and send invitations to various editors (including as many administrators as possible). All this ought to achieve something. And I shall think of other things along the way. Enough with all this inactivity...
 * Thank you very much, Darius. Your trust honours me. Can we now discuss my salary?


 * The colour for s-freemason is not only vivid, but it is also dark. The lettering is barely visible. Until I find myself in the vicinity of a properly calibrated monitor with an abundance of time at my disposal, I shall not be able to procure a solution that will permanently eliminate this problem. However, I happen to know that s-wea is a "lone gunman", so to speak, so there would be no compatibility problem if we used my paler colour for s-wea as a temporary replacement for s-freemason. That is, if we leave the template as is. Freemasonry probably does qualify as a non-profit organisation (officially, at least, hehe); thankfully it is a wide category.


 * My thought exactly. It goes after the government offices, but given that the wide range of offices s-npo also covers charities and organisations linked to the government, I believe it ought to come before the private offices and slide between the s-herald and s-media templates. In any event, it should not succeed s-bus.

Extra-long message as usual, but it demonstrates in the most telling manner how many and how complex the succession box world's problems are. It is a society even worse than ours, cruel, merciless, corrupt. We must be two of Wikipedia's greatest masochists. But, hey, rulers must have hobbies, right? Waltham, The Duke of 07:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First Response Squad Alpha Zero Epsilon Mu
I guess my header proves that I am, in fact, American despite my many attempts to hide that fact. But it does show the urgency of the situation, or at least my attempt to make it seem urgent...or something.


 * What can I say...? Colonial culture always shows. Here in Europe, when we want to show that something is urgent, we label it "Urgent". How weird does that sound, me wonders... Waltham, The Duke of

Loose ends are something of life that I have probably left many of. A great example would be the book I have been off and on writing for the better part of six years now. Let's just say it is a huge loose end that could really use a giant rubber band to at least get it a bit more coherent. I still have been keeping up with the talk page where I can, but there has not been much progress, although it has been a newer member who has been helping there, which is good. More outgoing recruits would be good.


 * My book only started a year ago, but I haven't worked on it since February or so. Lack of time and inspiration are only the primary factors. In any case, the recruiting campaign is in its starting phases (with a couple of deviations from the original plan). I am looking for information on how to make those coloured boxes so that I can send messages to individual editors using these. Much better than simple messages, as it attracts attention and indicates an organised attempt. I have spotted a few but they are full of strange parameters which I am not entire sure that are not redundant for the purpose we need them for. Waltham, The Duke of

Thematic sections work too, I just wanted something that was more easy to track and had more frequent edit lines. Of course with your messages, we could probably use sub edit lines, but that is something I think we can deal with.

Onto the 12ish points:
 * I'd like to see some of these succession boxes. I know Choess was one of the founding helpers of the project and very skilled at what she does.  I hope she does renew her membership but I am glad she is still a de facto member.


 * I met one of her boxes while editing the Democratic presidential candidates, but my memory will not help me more than that. You can always look at her contributions, of course. Waltham, The Duke of


 * I didn't want a bunch of articles to reverse originally, but after further thought, just keeping the parameters as a hidden option I found favorable. I mean, it doesn't hurt the integrity of the template and it makes things very easy for veterans.


 * It surely does, but do we really want to advertise the shorter options? Or simply leave them be, and if someone finds out about them while looking at the template's code they can use them thereafter? Waltham, The Duke of


 * We still need a name for the parameter, something to type. I think it can be flexible, but mostly because I don't want it becoming something like the static US congress templates that are impossible to completely change to our format.  On the other hand, perhaps a parameter "dynasty=XII" could work, and "creation=3" should result in "3rd Creation".  I am still hesitant to make a move on this until we have this decided.  I definitely think it should be used in all for dynasties for consistency.  I rather think the same for creations, but considering some are single individual creations while others are long chains of one creation, perhaps your method would make more sense.  I will leave that call to you.


 * Since all Pharaohs belonged to dynasties, it looks like the "dynasty" parameter ought to be used in all of their boxes. On the other hand, only titles created multiple times with the exact same name should have the "creation" parameter, as its nature is more disambiguatory rather than informational. On a different note, and since we shall use tactical arithmetics for the "creation" parameter, due attention must be paid to the correct display of the label. There are two options: either the editor should fill in the tactical (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 98th, etc.), in which case things are simple for the programmer but not for the editor, or the editor should fill a simple ordinal (1, 2, 3, 125, etc.), in which case the program must accurately translate it to a tactical. I prefer the second option, and I know that it is possible, because the U.S. Representatives box does exactly that thing when creating the links to the congressional districts. (Oh, the new heights of complexity s-ttl will reach if we proceed with this...!) Waltham, The Duke of


 * I like it where it is now too. It fits well there. I think this subject is closed.
 * I think s-cur is an excellent idea you insolent curr! No, just kidding.  Yes, let us stick with s-inc while adding in those parameters you have drawn out.  I agree that "Current holder" is a great second addition to "Current candidate" and "Incumbent."  If any other parameters are needed, we can discuss their addition at a later point in time.  As it is now, I will finalize these additions and post a request on Monday.


 * Eh, awkward moment. I have been under the impression that we had agreed on "Most recent" for candidacies (amongst other things, like awards). "Current candidate" implies that the election is taking place now, while the box is supposed to remain at this state until the next election. "Most recent", on the other hand, creates no false impressions.


 * All the parameters are flexible and more will be added undoubtedly. Concerning double links, give me your proposal or a sample replacement method and I will see how it works.  I am always open for new ideas in how to do succession boxes.


 * I believe that the title cells of succession boxes ought to contain as few and relevant links as possible, preferably one. According to this view, the titles for British MPs would not show the current "Member for Parliament for Sedgefield" but either "Member of Parliament for Sedgefield" or "Member for Sedgefield". Although the second option is shorter, the first is more traditional and, one could say, correct, so I shall stick with that one. Waltham, The Duke of

I will have to finish this on Monday. A customer stole the remaining time and I will be out of town this weekend. Cheers! – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  01:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cursed may that customer be for all eternity. May they turn orange in hue and their head fall off at an awkward moment. (Edmund Blackadder) In any case, before I finish with my answer: News.


 * I have almost finished the cheatsheet but I cannot post it in my SBS subpage for it is already occupied by the Offices page draft and I should prefer to retain the page's table of contents as it would be in the finished page. There is some final testing to do with the templates before I can say that the page is ready, and the templates' parameters must, of course, be stable.


 * Ever more parameters are added to s-par, covering various national parliaments. Everything seems to be in order in the page, although I have no real means to monitor the usage of the template.


 * I shall await your next visit. There is always plenty of work to do here... Waltham, The Duke of 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: If there are articles for the Egyptian dynasties, perhaps the "dynasty" parameter could create links to them. PS2: Nice new signature. Waltham, The Duke of

Counter-Memo: Great!
Okay, something like changing those I can do between customers. Still a busy day but I got a few converted yesterday. Let us see if we can get them all swapped on the same day. Oh, and I will finish my response from a few days ago, but as an aside, I did finish all the s-inc change over via the the discussion above (with the corrections you noted). I am still awaiting an admin to change if over, though. I am not sure what the delay is. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Admin finally changed it so all the functions of s-inc are now good to go and there is a /doc page for it. Same thing for s-ttl although I am waiting for the actual edit protect to go through.  Once that is done, I think basically all the pages will have a /doc section except some of the basic s-bef and s-aft templates, which we can work on getting into the system in a little while.  I also got all the s-freemason changed over and the template deleted. –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  19:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good, very good! Progress is being noted in the template field, even if in few other places. I, on my part, have finished the Cheatsheet and am gradually updating the Documentation page. I think I have come up with a formula that works pretty well. Quick question: do you think we should substitute the examples? I mean, I like the fact that they are separate from real-world examples (as this page is about creating boxes and not about guidelines), and I am also fond of the humour that is connected to them, but we need more examples and it might be much easier not to keep making up strange titles.
 * And one more thing: one of the greatest problems with succession boxes is that a single missing link can ruin the chain's navigational advantages. What about using s-vac for unknown holders of offices and combine it with an "unknown" parameter? Just think of it. Waltham, The Duke of 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it and I will start on it immediately! It will put an option in s-vac that will place the word Unknown and using the parameters "unknlast" and "unknnext" you can enter the next or last known successor.  Entering just "unkn" will give the Unknown field but no successor.  I think this will fix your problem.  I will go about fixing it immediately.  Regarding your first statement, yes, it is probably time to replace examples with REAL examples, if nothing else to give the critics something less to critique.  If you would like to start that process, I am behind you 100%.  On one more note, why are the admins so slow to do edits this week?!  I put the s-ttl request in on monday and still no response. –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  17:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: "Unknown" parameters tested and implemented. Only catch is you have to change the heading and the next/last fields to use properly, but I doubt this parameter will be used often anyway. –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  17:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: s-ttl is now updated with a /doc file. I think we are making great progress.  Only a few /docs left! –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Darius. It is nice to see that you are back, even if with a somewhat reduced presence. I hope your external pursuits are going well, and that you do not neglect them for Wikipedia's sake (as I do ;-)).

Currently, I am finishing up the long process of updating and correcting the British Prime Ministers' succession boxes by adding the final touch: dates to their terms' years. I am about in the middle of this, but when I find time I shall finish it once and for all. What I really want to do when I have more time and Internet access, though, is to surf the mainspace for good examples to add to the Documentation page, which I am now renovating in phases. I believe that it is now becoming much simpler and more helpful; I should like to know what you think of the instructions section (which is now complete).

I am also maintaining the Cheatsheet, which must stay abreast of the recent parameter additions to the templates. I have noticed that there are a couple of parameters I did not know of, like the "heir-type" one (discovered while editing Elizabeth II's article—talk about a major undertaking there), and I need to start looking at the sources of the templates to make sure there are not too many of them. I do like the change of documentation templates, though; the green look is a great improvement in appearance, and also makes the pages look more professional. I suppose I ought to give you credit for this.

A last note: Choess has voted on the parliamentary headers issue, and now we have five votes supporting the removal of disambiguation dates and none against. Perhaps we could wait a few more days and then petition an administrator for the change. At long last, I must add. Choess, by the way, has still not renewed her membership. I do not feel well with removing her from the list, but the deadline is approaching as fast as Halloween does.

Anyway, these are the latest in SBS. Tune in for the next update, after your reply. Waltham, The Duke of 08:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I finished two weeks ago all the major template changes I wanted to implement, including /doc pages and ((documentation)) links on all the major template pages. I am also considering removing s-urp and integrating it into s-bef and s-aft (it cannot be implemented into anything else due to the nature of the subheader change [Usurped from/by, Reclaimed from/by]).  Since it is only really used on two historic articles, the others being LotR, I may instead just propose its removal as too complicated and improper.  I mean, a usurper is basically just someone who takes a throne through means other than legitimate inheritance, that does not make them any less a ruler in the eyes of history (see Charles the Fat!  He took tonnes but is never called a usurper really).  Concerning Cheoss, I say stick to the plan and remove her tomorrow.  If she wants to join back up, she just has to add her name on the list again.  She is a great asset if she is officially or unofficially working with us, although she will be missed in the forums.  Either way, we should remove the header dates now that we have the concensus.  I am not sure if I will be able to anytime soon.  Most of my efforts are toward the GRE and graduate school right now since the deadlines are approaching.  I will do what I can with Wikipedia in the free time.  Oh, and if you remembered, I am in San Diego and our town was on fire last week.  Everyone I know is safe, but it did get close to some of my friends' houses.  Alright, may the horde protect you in your many journeys.  Cheers! –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your idea regarding the abolition of s-urp and the devolution of its functions to s-bef and s-aft finds me agreeable, as it will simplify the system, the occurrences of usurpers being rare in succession chains and the difference made by template s-urp (a simple label change) being perfectly compatible with the title parameter we have established. You have my full support on this, Darius.


 * On my part, I have proceeded with the conclusion of the membership renewal process, removing six former members from the official rolls (this deficit has mostly been made up for with new members, however). Choess is not amongst them, as a little diplomacy at the eleventh hour has brought her back into the fold. I have already briefed her on the latest events.


 * After a multi-phase overhaul, the Documentation page is again up-to-date. Most importantly, though, it has undergone a full restructuring, which has made it (I hope) much clearer and more helpful to the reader. I have at last started looking into examples with which to substitute the old ones in the page, and, apart from that, the only thing that needs to be taken care of is the awkward header template-parameter list. This will have to go, and be substituted by a shorter and more representative list, with links to the individual template pages for exhaustive parameter lists.


 * After that, we can finally tidy up the Offices page. The draft will need a lot of work to be fully usable, and both the character of the page and the exact information that will be listed in it will have to be worked out first.


 * I have been hearing about the Californian fires for some time now, but I did not remember that San Diego was within the dangerous zone (on the coast, actually). I do need to brush up my geography knowledge some time. In any case, I am glad that you and your friends are fine. (If you were not, you would not be able to contribute. ;-) )


 * So, until we meet again, may the Illustrious Horde be forcibly educated so that they can help you with your workload. Waltham, The Duke of 01:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines
Just a query really. The guidelines show the parliamentary succession boxes before the political offices. Was wondering why you've been reversing the order? Thanks Galloglass 05:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are making just a query, I am willing to offer nothing more than just an answer. :-)
 * Well, basically, there were previously no guidelines at all on the order of headers in succession boxes; it appears that the practice of putting the Parliamentary seats first was established by individual WikiProjects' guidelines and imitation, something far from a general guideline covering succession boxes per se (something to which the rather random order of the rest of the headers will attest).
 * When the order was discussed in SBS, it was found that the offices with the most political power, namely regnal titles and political offices, ought to go to the top, as more important and recognisable and in virtue of them usually being the titles for which the box's subject is known. On the other hand, a seat in a parliament has limited power on its own (there are usually a few hundreds of them in any given parliament) and it is rarely what the subject is known for.
 * The phrasing of your question gives the impression that someone has been reversing the order in the Guidelines page, something that, in my knowledge, has never happened. The reversion was only done once (when the page was written), and that took place after the only real discussion on the matter. I know that a lot of boxes will have to change, but these would have to change anyway, due to template and style concerns. I believe that this order will ultimately improve the boxes. (What is your opinion on the order, by the way?)
 * So, I hope I have satisfactorily answered your question. If you have anything else to ask, please do not hesitate to come. Have a very nice day. Waltham, The Duke of 12:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Its just the guidlelines as they now stand appear to a casual reader like myself that they run in the order:-
 * 3.2.1 i. Parliamentary seats (s-par)
 * 3.2.2 ii. Political offices (s-off)
 * Would appreciate very much a list of the correct order to follow if the page is misleading. Thanks. Galloglass 12:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, that. The proper order of header is the list at Headers and Parameters A.iv. The order of the sections is slightly different in order to make their content more easily comprehensible. The Parliamentary seats section is one of the most complex in the page, and so we have put it first.
 * Maybe I should add some kind of note to make sure none other is confused by this. I had never really thought of it, you know. Anyway, thank you for bringing it to my attention. Waltham, The Duke of 12:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just been looking at the talk page and there appears to be an agreed order listed there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines. This is the order we've been working to and does not appear to have been changed? Galloglass 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for reordering the messages but I had already prepared my answer to the previous message when you sent the new one. Yes, this is more or less the order—or, at least, the order at its preliminary stage. The proper order is at the link in my previous answer.
 * You are pretty observant, though. Waltham, The Duke of 12:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, wait, I thought that was SBS's talk page. That order... I was not aware of that order. But whatever else I have said is still valid. The order of the headers in that box does not seem to have been much thought out, so it is not policy. Waltham, The Duke of 12:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure you've gone about this the right way tbh. Probably would have been better to propose an amended order list to succeed the one by Phoe and agreed last year and then put it out for discussion on the talk page. Its probably still the best way to go now before amending any more major figures as big changes to page order often generate more heat than light if they are not well discussed first. Galloglass 13:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When I created this order, I started from scratch, trying to come up with the order which would be best for succession boxes and taking into account a certain set of criteria. When I finally completed it, I submitted it to SBS for approval. Approval was granted, and thus it was made SBS policy and took its rightful place in the Guidelines page that was prepared at the time. When all this took place, I had no idea that the series in which the headers were placed in a small box in the previous Guidelines page's talk page was actually interpreted as constituting a guideline, and I am not sure that even if I were aware of its existence it would have affected my choices that much.
 * And my experience has shown me one think about succession boxes: people generally do not seem to take them much into account, unless they are too big, too ugly, or have far too many or blatant mistakes. "Heat" would hardly be my choice of words in the event of a succession box-related dispute, believe me.
 * On another note, you seem to be pretty interested in the subject. Would you like to join SBS? We have been severely understaffed lately, and we need all available help. Waltham, The Duke of 13:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not too bothered what order they go in really, just want to avoid last years repeat where we had several people working from different 'song sheets' so that we had a number of diff orders to these things which got a little confusing to say the least :) That’s why I really want to avoid a situation where users like myself would look at Phoe's old list and think that one is correct. The prob is Phoe's list is still there(and has to remain there as its chat)so for casual users like myself we need a more up-to-date ref in the same format that obviously supersedes it. Best place for it prob would be immediately below Phoe's old one but the bottom of the talk page would do equally as well. Cheers Galloglass 13:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that I do not understand. There is this one WikiProject dealing with succession boxes, and there is no other. SBS is as close to an authority in succession boxes as you can get. Why should I add a comment to an old talk page to show that what is written in the official Guidelines page of the project supersedes an old makeshift guideline proposal? The dates alone show how old this really is. And there are no comments following it to show that it was actually accepted or anything. Waltham, The Duke of 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the reason I think you should do it is that Phoe's box is the one we have ALL accepted so far and been working to. So it would be usefull to let people know there is a new order. Galloglass 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There. I suppose it will not harm anyone, even though I still find it superfluous.
 * By the way, who's "all"? Any information you can give me is valuable; I have serious recruiting to do, you know. Waltham, The Duke of 15:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
Since you are not a member of the cabal, and have an interest in Wikiproject co-ordination, might I inquire if your Most High, Noble and Potent Prince, His Grace Christopher, Duke of Waltham would be interested in joining the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology? I must say the pay isn't great, but the work is hard. All the best Tim Vickers 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am terribly sorry but I will regretfully decline your invitation. I am afraid that my limited interest in, and knowledge of, the subject in question would not make me a useful asset to your WikiProject. I do thank you for your consideration, nonetheless, and I wish all the best for your efforts. Waltham, The Duke of 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I must admit that your subsequent attempt to flatter me has amused me, but my decision is final. Indeed, I have nothing to do with biology. Perhaps you might be, however, kind enough to consider, in turn, the possibility of your joining WikiProject Succession Box Standardization? The pay is equally bad, but the work is not necessarily as hard. Waltham, The Duke of 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Sir, I am afraid our differences in expertise prevent a happy outcome. I must admit with a heavy heart that I do not even know what a Succession Box is, my deplorable ignorance would only be a weight on your endeavors. All the best Tim Vickers 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a state of affairs that I have no choice but to accept. Even so, I should like to conclude our brief correspondence by referring you to the above linked WikiProject with the request that you peruse the WikiProject's main page. I have reasons to believe that the knowledge you will thus acquire will be of use to you, as all knowledge ultimately proves to be. It is exceedingly unfortunate that Wikipedia has not any official rules on succession boxes at the moment, and that we are to cover this lack unassisted. Succession boxes are actually rather widespread, perhaps too much so for this situation to be acceptable. Waltham, The Duke of 23:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As Your Grace commands. Tim Vickers 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note
As you've probably seen, I've been grinding away like a beaver in a coffee lake working on the listing and succession of Lord Lieutenants. I haven't had a lot of time to devote to the rules of succession boxes per se, but once I get the Lord Lieutenants dispensed with, I'm going to try to dash back into it. At least for the British history, which is probably the best documented in this regard, I'd like to try and develop our catalog and classification of the various offices we track by succession box — the distinction between political, court, honourary, etc. offices is sometimes elusive. Happy editing, Choess 12:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Proposal: Removal of dates in parliament headers
All done. Regards, Craigy (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Oh and mine's a double vodka and coke ;-) Craigy (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Coming up...! Waltham, The Duke of 12:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Signature
Darn it, seems like those weren't the common symbols any computer would recognize. Thanks for the heads up, a bunch of people I asked said it was alright, but I guess it isn't.  ✗iℎi✗  (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the funny thing is that I can now see them. That is, unless you have already changed them, it must be that the computer that did not recognise them was substantially older than this one. Well, what can I say, c'est la vie. Waltham, The Duke of 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: You are hereby arrested for the future murder of a Wikipedia guideline...
Thank you for the heads-up! I'd already realized when I started signing pages with that signature that it was frowned upon to transclude a signature template directly into a page -- since that point (which was probably about a year ago), I've used subst: when signing all pages. Most likely the signatures you discovered that appeared in "transcluded templates" were those that I inserted a long time ago. ;) &mdash; † Webdinger BLAH 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your navbox template
I replied on my talk, but then it might be better to try to make something, so I have created for you User:The Duke of Waltham/Navbox tiny, and applied it to this page.

Feel free to tweak it, or to nuke it out of existence if it displeases you.

If you do decide to use it, one small catch: it takes a parameter. On pages which are categorised, it needs different spacing, so you need to add the "cat=yes", as in

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear me... You certainly know how to answer your messages! I will now find it a lot harder to criticise you when I have to (but I believe I will be able to manage ;-)). Anyway, thanks a lot!
 * P.S. From your response, I gather it that there is a certain size limit in the box. Has it been already reached, or it can go into a third line (which I doubt)? Just in case; I don't know what I might want to add in the future. Anyway, thanks again. Waltham, The Duke of 09:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha :) As I think you know, I don't get to answer all of my messages, and my conscience still nags at me for never getting around to finishing the long explanation I started of why the dates were a good idea on,  etc. I had several most polite reminders from your good self, but every time I started, something else popped up that dragged me away from it :(
 * Anyway, please don't let your Dookness be distracted from criticism where you feel it due. Without critical dialogue, we'll never improve anything around here.
 * But I digress. As to the box, I doubt you'll get away with a third line, but you will probably find that the two existing lines can be longer. I suggest being pragmatic: if it works OK on Firefox and on Master Gates's Internet Exploder, on the pages to which you apply the template, then that's good enough. The thing to watch out for is whether it overwrites any other text, and I found that it was too big, it tended to clash with text at the bottom left of the screen when the whole page was being edited. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to format for British parliamentary succession boxes
I cannot remember introducing my bad self to you. You may have caught me off guard here. :-D

Blissfully unaware of what your arguments could be like, I still believe that the removal of the dates was the best way to go. You can have a look at the closed discussion in SBS's archives, if you want; the offices are closed now (being a Sunday), but you can use spare key under the doormat.

As far as the box is concerned, I think I will just remove the Clone link if I find that I need to add some new subpage. The Duck will be disappointed, of course, but I might find something else to comfort him with (perhaps extend his user page a little).

And now on to something else. I have been pondering a review of the format for the succession boxes of Members of Parliament, and, if I am correct, this is something within your sphere of interests, to put it this way, so your opinion will be much appreciated.

I should begin a new section for this in your talk page, but in that chaotic environment it might get lost. It is counter-intuitive, I know, but this peaceful country station that barely escaped the Beeching Axe may be better for this than busy busy Waterloo.

Ahem. The previous format for MPs' succession boxes was developed when the templates were in a more primitive state than they are today*, and some new features can now be incorporated. I have already changed the format for the beginnings and endings of constituencies, using templates s-new and s-non. I believe it looks much tidier now, and even more accurate (you cannot be preceded by a "Constituency created", it just makes no sense).

(* I believe you are still using Template:Succession box and its family. For this, I have already crossed you off my Christmas present list, and I have petitioned the Commonwealth of Nations to take further action against you, now that they still remember how it is done.)

The next change I am thinking of is to improve the title cell. My philosophy on this (soon to be included in the relevant subpage of mine that I am planning) is to include as few and as relevant links as possible, preferably one. In my opinion, Member of Parliament for Sedgefield is much better than Member of Parliament for Sedgefield. Succession boxes are not supposed to link to general concepts, unless there is no article for a title (and all UK constituencies have, or should have, their own articles). And I don't like the black in the titles.

Finally, I am reconsidering the format for transitions to new parliaments. Although somewhat repetitive in terms of titles and fellow MPs, the separation of the titles for different parliaments is probably better for accuracy. It also looks more widespread. Therefore, it might be for the best to change the current guideline to reflect this format, even though it will lead to slightly longer and more repetitive boxes. But a new format using the new parameters will be devised to improve the connection between the two chains of each pair, should we go through with this.

So? What sayest thou? I should be glad to know your opinion on this most significant matter. Waltham, The Duke of 10:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (Quick reply for now). Dear Dook, I'm afraid that expulsion from the chrissie pressie list is a not a grave threat; having been been involved in political activities, which whatever their hue inevitably generate great fluctuations in loyalties, I have been crossed off lots of them. And I should remind you that the Commonwealth of Nations has no jurisdiction, the likes of me having been expelled 59 years ago because a particular Nobel laureate had the bizarre notion that someone elected by the people as head of state should be allowed to perform that role in its entirety.
 * However, on the substance of the succession boxes, we should indeed talk, and you are quite right to point my own talk page is a rather noisy place, so your own siding is fine. I have things to say on all those points, and although there are issues on which I find it appropriate to urge the restraining of your most remarkably unducal Jacobin tendencies, there are many points where we are already clearly in agreement, and others on which I think we are close. And of course, your charm may persuade me on the others :)
 * However, this is the point on a winter afternoon where the man in my life attaches my lead and takes me out up the hill. I will reply properly later, if I obtain permission. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Jacobin? Moi? I understand not. My views on some issues may indeed reveal a certain degree of unseemly liberalism, but I am certainly not radical. I demand an explanation, or I will have the Commonwealth use its worst weapons against you: an unfavourable press statement (I had forgotten that Ireland is not in the Commonwealth).
 * In any case, whenever you are permitted to do so by your master, you are welcome to visit me in Waltham Hall for a spot of tea and a good, long conversation in front of the fireplace. Just notify me in advance so that the Brougham can pick you up from your residence.
 * (Quick—and irrelevant—question: can you use "beginneth" for plural?)
 * May you be blessed by Her Invisible Pinkness until our next contact. With regards, Waltham, The Duke of 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dashes
Happy to do so for the time being, but be aware that the guideline requiring spacing contradicts WP:MOSDASH. I don't think I've been linking dates, with the exception of elections, but perhaps I goofed and linked 1874 instead of 1874 or something. Choess (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. I didn't think of that date until after I'd written; that's covered by another aspect of the MOS. I'm a little uneasy at the idea of projects unilaterally overturning guidelines without checking in on the guideline page, but I don't want to start a feud about dashes, especially not in the Christmas season. I'll bring it up some other time. As for Lord Lieutenants, I normally do the list first, then the individual succession boxes. England and Wales should be complete for 1585-1642 and 1660-present, thanks to the London Gazette and Sir John Sainty's publications. (The data for pre-1585 lieutenancies is dispersed across a number of primary sources and not easily found or compiled). Scotland and Ireland are still works in progress. I've been treating the office as a political one before 1642 and an honourary one after 1660, based on a discussion with John Kenney which may still be somewhere in the project archives. I'm not sure if this is entirely accurate — Lord Lieutenants still played a role in the organization of the county militia into the 20th century — but for the time being it's a reasonable standard to work with. Let me know if you have any other questions. Choess 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've been treating custodes in the same manner. Choess (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Errors on the Main Page
May I suggest WP:ERRORS for next time? --74.13.130.156 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not know. I do not generally comment on the Main Page. Thanks for the tip. Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My first barnstar...!
I hereby award to myself this barnstar:

I have placed it here because I have yet to make a decision upon a suitable location in my userspace for more permanent exhibition. (I do not intend to create an "Awards" subpage yet; I would have no awards to populate it with!) Waltham, The Duke of 11:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Building consensus for exception to standardization
Thanks for your recent message. You were perhaps motivated by curiosity about whether I'd abandoned any interest in the broad questions I'd raised a few months ago at WT:SBS.

No, I've not abandoned this project. Yes, this subject is still very much in my thoughts; but I don't expect to be able to give it much attention until after the first of the year. Tentatively, I'm wanting to engage in a process which results in consensus agreement that two succession box series should reasonably incorporate non-standard elements up through 1868. The two series are treated as a whole in at least two general articles, with appropriate links to the hundreds of stand-alone articles which can be readily understood as logical corollaries or sub-sets:

1. Japanese era name or nengō: As you can see in the following example, the non-standard feature is the additional name of the current era name or "nengō" in a standard succession box format which identifies and links to both the previous and the succeeding era names. This is a deviation from standard guidelines; but -- I would argue -- this is necessary because of the eratic and unpredictable ways in which era name changes are initiated by the emperor, the reasons for changing era names, and the timing. For example, consider the following, which already suggests too much complexity for a venue devoted to discussing standardization of Wikipedia's succession boxes:
 * Bunsei gannen (文政元年); April 22, 1818: The new era name was created to mark the enthronement of the emperor Emperor Ninko in Bunka 15. The new era name was drawn from an aphorism attributed to the ancient Chinese emperor, Great Shun (大舜): "Shun reads the Heavens, and so brings together all seven governments" (舜察天文、斉七政).
 * Tenpō gannen (天保元年); December 10, 1830: In the 13th year of Bunsei, the new era name of Tenpō (meaning "Heavenly Imperial Protection") was created to mark the disasters of a great fire in Edo and an earthquake at Kyoto. The new era name was created from an hortatory aphorism: "Respect and worship the Ways of heaven. Eternally keep the Mandate of Heaven" (欽崇天道、永保天命).

2. List of Emperors of Japan: As you can see in the following example, the non-standard feature is the additional name of the current emperor and his reign dates in a standard succession box format which identifies and links to both Emperor Rokujō's predecessor and successor. This is a deviation from standard guidelines; but -- I would argue -- this is necessary because of the highly ideosyncratic aspects of Japanese imperial history. To explain more fully, I suspect that it will be necessary to distill a concise argument relying in large part on a synthesis of the following: (a) Emperor of Japan; (b) Cloistered rule; and from (c) Daijō Tennō.

As something of a practice exercise, I've initiated the following (which, I'd guess, concerns a subject which likely interests you not at all) ...:


 * Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events
 * Would you consider auditing or making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan


 * As you may know, WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the < >< < > format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).


 * In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me.  I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.


 * The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus.

Thank your for your kind attention and feedback ... and thanks as well for your demonstrable patience with me as I work through this problem a bit too slowly.--Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, I did not think much about the possibility of you abandoning the effort. You said yourself that you would be purposefully slow on this matter, so I had no reason to doubt this. I am myself a person who does not like leaving loose ends; your message haunted me for weeks until I answered it, as all unfinished business does. I assure you that I should definitely become a ghost when I die, the only problem being that I do not believe in them.


 * As far as cloistered emperors are concerned, I should suggest one modification:


 * The important element in the succession line's title cell is that the subject is Emperor of Japan. If the cloistered emperor is something important enough to include (and it would appear that it is), then a small note is probably in order. This note must explain what it is referring to, though, as non-Japanese may be confused. (Also, make sure to use the correct dash in the years.)


 * On another note, I am deeply disappointed in your usage of Template:Succession box. I thought I had converted you to the s-start series, but obviously I have not had the time. I probably ought to take care of that.


 * Now, as far as the chronology matter is concerned, I shall look into it presently and publish my findings in this page. I am afraid that I have run out of time for today. In any case, it is good to see that there is progress. I hope for the best conclusion on this front. I shall return soon. Waltham, The Duke of 10:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Guest Book
My apologies your Grace. I am now truly blessed to have such an exquisite signature gracing my page. I thank you a thousand times over. Farewell ~ Bella   Swan  22:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, there is surely nothing to be sorry about. And I am only too happy to help you attract more prestigious personalities to your Guest Book. Especially since you are a fellow Harry Potter fan, SimCity-player, Fanta Orange-drinker, chocolate-eater, non-swearer, non-smoker, and appreciator of the colour blue. (There are probably several other character similarities——you have too many userboxes!).
 * PS: I think I have spotted a typo or two in the userbox page. With your permission, I shall rectify these mistakes. Waltham, The Duke of 09:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, the typo I had noticed was actually the proper name of the userbox, about a Patronus strangely enough called pheonix. I wonder why that is. In any case, I might seize the opportunity to mention that I am a Ravenclaw. What House have you Sorted yourself into? Waltham, The Duke of 09:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thank you most graciously your honour. I have decided to sort myself into Gryffindor, though most think I belong in Ravenclaw. I do fancy myself very fit for the postion of a Gryffindor tho. ~ Bella   Swan  01:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I also must thank you, yet again, for catching my spelling error and apologize for not answering sooner. I have changed it myself to spare your precious time and energy. It was, of course, a spelling error on my part and I do believe I have too many userboxes, at least one of which illustrated my inability to spell quite artistically. ~ Bella   Swan  01:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Correcting spelling mistakes is one of my main pursuits in Wikipedia, after SBS, of course. I do wonder, actually, whether you should be interested to join in this project. WikiProject Succession Box Standardization can interest editors for many different reasons, as it is essentially a maintenance project, is is thus not restricted to any specific field. I have myself done a lot of (article) travelling around the mainspace on this job.


 * I agree with you, in any case, as far as the statistical inevitability of a mistake is concerned.


 * About the Houses, now. I consider myself a more or less typical Ravenclaw, based on both my character and aspirations. I am relying on a wonderful essay at Red Hen, which thoroughly analyses the four Houses and tackles the question of why Neville Longbottom was not Sorted into Hufflepuff (yes, it is a quite old writing). It also includes a theory about the Sorting Hat having being tampered with; a theory I was fond of, even though it has turned out not to be anything more substantial.


 * The entire collection of Potterverse-related essays is quite extensive, and tremendously interesting, though perhaps not as much as it used to be before the publication of Deathly Hallows. I warn you that the essays may be a little sharp-tongued as far as the aforementioned book is concerned; I have not yet read the essays of the latest revision (last October—they have been revised twice a year up to now) due to a lack of time, but I have corresponded with their author.


 * The main page of the collection is http://www.redhen-publications.com/Potterverse.html, and the specific essay about the Houses is this one. I hope you find them enjoyable and educating. Waltham, The Duke of 21:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wessex Children
Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, DBD 16:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard spaces again
Things are moving along at our page concerning hard spaces. You came along just at the right time. I hope you will stay involved, as we approach a crucial vote.

Best wishes to you.

–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I shall; I am always happy to help with these small things that still make a difference, and I am also a proponent of standardisation. Perhaps you would like to have a look at WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, the WikiProject I am most active in. We do need help, and you might find it of interest. Waltham, The Duke of 00:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)