Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Completed proposals

This is the repository of all past proposals submitted to the editing body of the project for discussion and voting. Proposals are archived separately from the rest of the talk page's discussions because of the greater attention they have received, as well as due to the usefulness of the existence of a distinct page where one may trace the history of the project's actions and find out why certain ideas have been accepted or discarded.

Proposals are archived in three sections, depending on their outcome. The most recent ones are placed at the top of their respective sections, with the closing date given in the heading within parentheses.

= Approved proposals =

(2008-02-23) Proposal: Change of "Catholic Church titles" header (Original title: Catholic or Roman Catholic?)
I'm of the view that the header text for should be renamed from "Catholic Church titles" to "Roman Catholic Church titles" or simply "Roman Catholic titles". This is because the term Catholic Church may applied to the whole Christian Church (protestant view) or just to the Roman Catholic Church (RC view). Additionally, I think, but am not quite 100% sure, that members of the Eastern Orthodox Church consider themselves to be the true Catholic Church. This renaming would eliminate POV problems and fit in with the naming of the Roman Catholic Church article. Greenshed (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Has this not been discussed before? No, wait, this was supposed to have been discussed before, but for some reason it has not. In any case, I agree with the proposed modification. Precision is, I think, a desired quality for succession boxes (at least according to my standards). Waltham, The Duke of 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * AGREE: No, I am not back, just doing some short-term voting. I agree that it should be Roman Catholic Church or Roman Church to be less ambiguous/offensive/confusing.  Cheers! –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  05:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, reasonable Mikebar (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - We should probably use the name of the parent article, and the current name of the article in question is Roman Catholic Church. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree (I said so earlier, but why not make it more official, eh?) Waltham, The Duke of 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Seems correct and sensible. Choess (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree; this seems reasonable and should improve clarity. Alkari (?), 16 February 2008, 01:21 UTC
 * Comment – As it turns out, this has been discussed again; see . Waltham, The Duke of 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposal has been unanimously approved with six supporting votes (or seven, if one counts the nominator), and I have subsequently submitted a request for the appropriate edit on the protected template, which was promptly accepted. This poll was terminated at 16:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC) and transferred from the main talk page at 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC). Thank you all for your participation. Waltham, The Duke of

(2008-01-26) Proposal: Adoption of banner for succession templates' talk pages
I have created a banner to be installed in all succession templates' talk pages, in order to encourage editors to leave their messages in this page instead of the individual talk pages (which are not much watched), and even suggest to them the option of actively participating in SBS. I believe that these talk pages ought to exist (as opposed to being simple redirects to Template talk:S-start), so that "editprotected" tags and other important messages may be left in the appropriate pages. The template in question I have entitled Template:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization and here is how it looks like (now):

I am in no doubt that the banner can be improved in many different ways, so ideas are, of course, most welcome. I am not certain about whether I want to have a vote on the template right now; I should rather gather opinions first, test the waters. There are, after all, several different models for such templates, and perhaps the will of the project will be to adopt a version different from this one. Waltham, The Duke of 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: Now that I think of it, it might be better if the members voted on the principle here, and then the template tweaking process can commence. Waltham, The Duke of 10:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, better documents what we're trying to do. The format can always be tweeked as needed. Mikebar (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, per reasoning above. Waltham, The Duke of
 * Support: I agree (and may be back as soon as Michaelmas is over). – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean here. Michaelmas was eleven weeks ago. Maybe you wanted to say "Yule"? Waltham, The Duke of 00:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Centralized discussion is good, and more participants here wouldn't hurt either. Choess (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - based on all the above. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Waltham and Choess. Alkari (?), 25 January 2008, 03:18 UTC

I think I have left this here long enough. I declare this proposal officially (and unanimously) approved; SBS now has a banner. Well, almost. While the principle has been approved, there is still the precise form of the banner to be taken care of. Shall we trim it down a little? Change the image? Please comment. Waltham, The Duke of 11:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that there is an organisational problem here. I shall create a new section about the format of the banner, and archive this separately, together with the other proposals. After all, the principle has been approved. Waltham, The Duke of 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Official archiving note) The proposal has been approved (6-0-0), and I have subsequently started a discussion for the final form of the banner. This poll was terminated at 11:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC) and transferred from the main talk page at 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC). Thank you all for your participation. Waltham, The Duke of

(2008-01-26) Motion: Closure of proposals
This is purely a matter of process. I think that a guideline ought to exist for proposals, in order to prevent arbitrarily early closures.

I hereby propose that all proposals are left in this page for at least ten (10) days before being closed. I also propose that the quorum for votes is five (5), meaning that a proposal cannot be considered to have either passed or failed with less than five members voting. Proposals that are left for too long (a few months, perhaps) without satisfying this limit will fail automatically, and will have to be re-submitted if there is still interest.

As we are a small project, I do not yet feel that it is necessary to set a specific percentage of approval votes that will need to be exceeded for a proposal to pass. But I shall not object if one is suggested.

It is not that I like increasing bureaucracy; I just wish to make official a practice that will confirm the validity of our polls. Waltham, The Duke of 10:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, per reasoning above. Waltham, The Duke of
 * Support, consistent with many projects Mikebar (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: I always considered this a de facto rule so I guess it makes since to make it an official talk page guideline (can we put it at the top of the page?!). I approve wholeheartedly. –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have prepared the intro exactly in order to accommodate the new guideline, should it be approved. I am referring to the second-to-last paragraph. I hope you agree with what it says; the guideline is meant to be added to that paragraph as an extension. Waltham, The Duke of 16:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't want to layer too much process on here, but this makes these votes a bit less of an exercise in futility. Choess (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - with the provision that polls be kept open for longer if there are significant legal or other holidays falling within the period of discussion. If the polls were to close on the third day of a rare four-day weekend, for instance, there is a very good chance that there would be few if any votes tallied. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, certainly, this is the minimum time period during which a poll shall be left open, designed to prevent polls from closing super-quickly. The other end is left completely open (as you can see for yourself by looking at the top of the page: the proposal about the colours of headers has been sitting there since July... Waltham, The Duke of 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Waltham and Choess. Alkari (?), 25 January 2008, 03:18 UTC

The motion has been unanimously approved (6-0-0), and the intro of the main talk page has subsequently been amended by myself in order to show the consensus. This poll was terminated at 11:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC) and transferred from the aforementioned talk page at 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC). Thank you all for voting. Waltham, The Duke of

(2007-12-16) Proposal: Expanded numeral disambiguation criteria
My bill for the expansion of the disambiguation criteria for peers and baronets has passed through the Lords (as you can see here), and now I am submitting it here. What I am proposing is the following: that we should not disambiguate solely between different peers with the same titles that are the predecessor and successor respectively to the same title, but that we disambiguate between all such peers in any given succession box. The same should apply to baronets with the same names and numerals.

In the following example, the first box follows the guidelines as they currently stand, while the second box conforms to the guidelines as amended per my proposal.

You can see how awkward the first box looks, with the same title being repeated for the successors but actually referring to different people; editors might even want to try to join them before they see the different links (if they see them). All in all, I believe this small change will make succession boxes clearer and minimise confusion. Waltham, The Duke of 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I support the amendment. Does anyone else? Waltham, The Duke of
 * Support; this should help reduce confusion. Alkari (?) 6 December 2007 01:34 UTC
 * Support -- seems to make sense. Guroadrunner (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments elsewhere. Choess (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, it just makes sense. Mikebar (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: I entirely support. I never liked having ambiguous titles as successors. –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposal has been approved (6-0-0), and the guidelines have subsequently been amended by myself in order to conform with this proposal's provisions. This poll was terminated at 00:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC) and transferred from the main talk page at 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC). Thank you all for voting. Waltham, The Duke of

(2007-11-05) Proposal: Removal of dates in parliament headers
About a month ago, the brunette administrator added disambiguation dates to the headers for the Parliaments of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. As a result, their current appearance is the following:

I do not like this. For various reasons: I have attempted to contact BrownHairedGirl twice about this issue, but have received no answer due to her prolonged absense. I have thus decided to bring this matter to the attention of the project. Waltham, The Duke of 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The names of the parliaments are enough to help anyone distinguish them—England is a different thing from Great Britain which is different from the United Kingdom. Most people either know this or can easily surmise it without disambiguation dates, and if not they can always click on the header itself and have a look for the article of the respective parliament.
 * 2) Even those people who cannot understand the distinction will notice the dates of the various MPs' terms' dates, which will, of course, be within the limits of the time periods in which the corresponding parliaments existed. It is not easy to persuade one that the Parliament of England is a modern body if one can only see MPs from the seventeenth century and earlier.
 * 3) In addition, it is not the purpose of succession box headers to give any more information but what is necessary for the reader to understand what office is tracked here; the dates seem to be more helpful to the contributors than to the readers, and I believe this is wrong. Contributors can look at the template's page and at our guidelines page if there is something they do not understand.
 * 4) Besides, the dates in headers go against standardisation and make the headers look different from all the other headers. Furthermore, the text within the headers is supposed to resemble a simple heading (which is precisely why we only capitalise the first letter of the first word and no other in most headers); dates do not help in this respect. On top of that, the dates make the header text longer than it should (which could cause a feeling of cramming) and the fact that only half of the header is linked creates an unpleasant lack of symmetry in the colour of the lettering.
 * 5) And even if we accept that disambiguation dates are useful, they might work against the purpose of their creation: instead of seeing that a parliament existed for the years given, a person completely unacquainted with British history and politics might think that the years are disambiguating between parliaments with the same name. I know this is a little far-fetched, but it is not that hard to imagine someone seeing the header "Parliament of Great Britain (1707–1800)" and wondering what happened between that and the next "Parliament of Great Britain"...

So. Should dates be removed from the English and British parliament headers?


 * I support the removal. Waltham
 * Support: I never liked them much. –Whaleyland
 * Support the removal - dates are unnecessary due to unique names - particularly as they are wiki-linked. --Tim4christ17 talk 08:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Alkari (?) 22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support They seem to be superfluous, particularly in the presence of the linked names. Choess 00:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Waltham, The Duke of 12:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * VOTING CLOSED: Proposal Approved: The proposal to remove dates from the British parliaments' headers has been approved and an administrator has been notified of the approved proposal and implemented the change. The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes. Thank you to everyone who voted.

(2007-07-30) Proposal: Color change for Template:s-dip
Alright, this is the last of three proposals to change some of the header colors. The following is the original color for s-dip and my proposal for a different color, keeping it within the same pink lines:

! colspan="3" style="background: #FF99FF" | Diplomatic posts


 * And for the proposal:

! colspan="3" style="background: #FCDFFF" | Diplomatic posts

You may either vote on this or propose an alternative to the color I choose. I picked a lighter one to appease the brightness censors. – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Approve – Whaleyland
 * This is good Atropos 00:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should be a little brighter...this color is hard to see. It's better than the original overly bright color, but not by much.  --Tim4christ17 talk 16:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Approve. Alkari (?) 23:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What about this one? It's a little darker than the alternative, but retains the tincture.

! colspan="3" style="background: #FACEFF" | Diplomatic posts


 * Approve - Waltham
 * Approve --Tim4christ17 talk 08:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Approve. Alkari (?) 20:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the best one. Atropos 05:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: This one definitely fits the best.—Whaleyland


 * VOTING CLOSED: Proposal Approved: The proposal to change the color of the header Template:s-dip to FACEFF has been approved and an admin has been notified of the approved proposal. The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes. Thank you to everyone who voted.

(2007-07-24) Proposal: Template:s-par remove the parameter la (Local assembly) from the parameter list
Do you think we should remove the la parameter? We do not really need it; it is too general, and our parliamentary headers are normally very specific (not to mention the usually low importance of local assemblies).
 * Approve – Waltham, The Duke of 14:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Approve – la is just a parameter waiting to have problems. – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Approve per Waltham and Whaleyland; furthermore, LA is the ISO 3166 code for Laos and thus shouldn't be used for "local assembly". Alkari (?) 23:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put an edit request to delete this parameter has per the reasons Alkari noted. Despite the discussion, I believe this problem overpowers anything else. I will also remove the headers for any page currently using the la parameter so they will not end up with blank headers. – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 00:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VOTING CLOSED: Proposal Approved: The proposal to remove the parameter la from Template:s-par passed and has been enacted. All instances of that parameter have been removed or redirected.  The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes.  Thank you to everyone who voted. – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(2007-07-23) Proposal: Template:s-pol merged into Template:s-civ
As police appointments are relatively few, and probably too few to warrant their own template, Whaleyland and myself have decided that it is better to substitute it with s-civ ("Civic offices"), a template with parameters for police, fire, and medical appointments. As these three categories of offices are related to each other and none of them is large enough to warrant its own header, we believe the change is a sound one.

However, in order to convert all instances of s-pol to s-civ|pol there is no other way than to do it by hand or by bot – redirects will not work for specific parameters. A clear consensus is necessary for the task request to be accepted in Bot Requests, however, so I would like to hear your opinion. Waltham, The Duke of 12:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I myself support the conversion. Waltham, The Duke of
 * Support: After adding in a #default parameter, I believe this will be a good replacement for a small title. – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  )
 * Support; this change seems logical and sensible. Alkari (?) 21:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - makes sense. Any idea how many of them there are, though?  If there aren't too many I could do a run with AWB.  --Tim4christ17 talk 11:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are 114 pages that would need to be changed. – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 19:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll put AWB on it right away. It seems pretty clear that we've got consensus for the change. --Tim4christ17 talk 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

✅ :)  Note that the actual merger/redirect of s-pol will still have to be completed and any relevant documentation changed.  But the transclusions have been changed to  --Tim4christ17 talk 03:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VOTING CLOSED: Proposal Approved: The proposal to move all instances of Template:s-pol to Template:s-civ using the |pol parameter has been approved. All transclusions have been redirected to the appropriate template and a deletion request is pending for the removal of s-pol.  The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes.  Thank you to everyone who voted. – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 23:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(2007-07-16) Proposal: Template:s-par change upr and lwr to sen and hs for United States headers
Since few, if any, people are using the new s-par parameters yet for US states and territories, we may want to work out a solution to that discussion now, before reversion becomes impossible. Currently, it would take virtually no work to replace all the instances of upr and lwr in s-par to sen and hs. Three clicks in MS Word find and replace, and then just repaste it to the page (pending admin approval). But if we are going to change it, we need to do so soon. I somewhat agree with Tim4Christ17, although I do always like the transnationalness of this project (despite the abundance of Britishness about it, lol).

Proposal: Template:s-par change of US state and territorial legislatures from upr and lwr to sen and hs. Vote!
 * Approve – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 06:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak approval—I grudgingly accept the confusion that upr and lwr may create in the United States. However, these may work better for Westminster system and European parliaments. Waltham, The Duke of 16:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Approve - clarity is paramount. --Tim4christ17 talk 19:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing no further comment, I've put an editprotected request at s-par --Tim4christ17 talk 10:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing an apparent objection from Waltham here, let's revisit this. Proposal: Template:s-par change as above, specifying that legislatures that are "assemblies" rather than "houses" or "senates" use the "asy" parameter. Same logic as above - reduce confusion while enhancing accuracy and retaining standardization. --Tim4christ17 talk 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Approve --Tim4christ17 talk 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Disapprove – it will not retain standardisation to use an asy parameter for the no more than six lower houses that are called "Assembly"; on the contrary, it will make the scheme more confused and look like there are more than two types of houses in bicameral legislatures, which is even more confusing. Waltham, The Duke of 14:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Disapprove – Using hs is much better than asy as per Waltham. – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VOTING CLOSED: Proposal Approved: The initial proposal to replace all cases of upr and lwr to sen and hs within United States legislative headers passed and was implemented. The discussion for this proposal has been moved here for archive purposes.  Thank you to everyone who voted. – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 23:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(2007-07-12) Proposal: Additional Parameter in Template:s-bef and Template:s-aft
Proposal: As per a request I received some weeks ago from the individual responsible for all the double headers and screwy succession boxes throughout the French pages, I promised I would propose this revision to s-bef and s-aft. This small edit would allow title changes to be added in a preset format within the s-bef and s-aft templates as in the example below:

to

The later case uses an optional parameter, "as", added in after the name of the predecessor or successor thus allowing one to place title changes without having to resort to breaking up the template's code flow internally (adding lots of breaks and style additions and subtractions).

Give me your votes! – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Approve: I think this will standardize change of title fields across wikipages more smoothly than the current format.–Whaleyland
 * Strong approve; this should greatly aid consistency and ease of use. Alkari (?) 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Approve: I like efforts to replace that sort of bodged-in text with parameters. Choess 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly approve: this will better "enforce" the guidelines for name changes and will make it easier for new editors to create succession boxes with the correct format for content (and will help to completely eliminate those odd cases of double successor cells). Waltham, The Duke of 09:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Excellent idea. Get more info into less screen space without hardcoded hacks and kludges. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 11:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VOTING CLOSED: Proposal APPROVED: This discussion has been closed and the proposal has passed with a unanimous vote from the current active members. I have notified the administrators of the passed proposal and am currently pending the replacement of the current source code with the new code. – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

= Rejected proposals =

(2007-07-11) Proposal: Wider succession boxes
A proposal has been forwarded by User:Fabartus to expand the size of succession boxes from the current standard, which is based on a 30-40-30 percentage rate with no relevance to the actual page width to a mandatory 100 percent width, that would appear in most cases as a full page span consistent with that of Navigation templates that often follow a succession box. The following are examples of that template in action routed through a test template found at User:KuatofKDY/Template:s-start.

Original   (simple)

Proposed   (simple)

Original   (standard)

Proposed   (standard)

Original   (advanced, with Navigation box)





Proposed   (advanced, with Navigation box)





If approved, this template change will be implemented into Template:s-start and effect all templates that currently use,  , or. Let the voting begin! (A copy of this proposal is also located at Template_talk:s-start. – Whale y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 08:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Approve! – This change will make the template more consistent across Wikipedia articles and allow for some more space to write before a break is required in a succession box template.
 * Strong approval – This change will:
 * Make succession boxes more consistent
 * Utilise the space now lost at both sides of succession boxes
 * Reduce the impression of crammed succession boxes
 * Make large successions shorter
 * And can someone please fix this page? It is ridiculously wide. Waltham, The Duke of 11:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Disapprove. I don't find the proposed change very aesthetically pleasing, and I don't see that it would provide any great benefit. Since the boxes automatically expand to fit their contents, the only space being "lost" is that which wouldn't be used anyway. Likewise, the boxes already make themselves as wide (horizontally) as necessary, and therefore as short (vertically) as possible, so this change wouldn't make long successions shorter than they already are. Alkari (?) 22:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, they are as wide as is necessary for the words to fit inside, and therefore some of the cells will look crammed by definition. However, a little more space would make them look brighter and better in appearance. Waltham, The Duke of 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Disapprove. As Alkari stated, there's no "lost" space.  Additionally, it's useful to have succession boxes with a different width than other templates, to make it easier to scroll to - or past - a succession box when looking for information.  --Tim4christ17 talk 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How does a narrower template make scrolling easier? And if you are referring to distinguishing them by appearance, I would say succession boxes have a distinctive enough look. Waltham, The Duke of 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't bother me either way, but when the move from the "rail line" to the "s-rail" template was mention, one of the reasons the UK railways WikiProject said no (the Americans and the tube embraced it) was some editors didn't like that look. Thus the change risks ruffling feathers on a global scale without achieving any greater usability. Pickle 14:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Disapprove for the reasons articulated by Alkari and Tim4christ17. Mackensen (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Approve! – This change will make the template more consistent across Wikipedia articles and allow for some more space to write before a break is required in a succession box template.
 * Strong approval – I have already stated the reasons for my support in this section of this very page. Waltham, The Duke of 11:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Approve. This seems like a good idea. john k 18:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Disapprove. I don't find the proposed change very aesthetically pleasing, and I don't see that it would provide any great benefit. Alkari (?) 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

= Proposals for which no consensus has been achieved =

(2008-03-01) Proposal: Full colour scheme for green headers
Along the lines of the above section, I propose a few changes that just might improve the green header group.

The current roster is the following:

! colspan="3" style="background: #8FBC8F" | Media offices ! colspan="3" style="background: #ACE777" | Regnal titles ! colspan="3" style="background: #99FF66" | Sporting positions ! colspan="3" style="background: #CCFFCC" | Order of precedence

As you can see, the s-media header is rather dark and dull; the colour is so dark, in fact, that the letters are not always easily discernible (depending on monitor calibrations).

My suggestion is the following:


 * Change "Media offices" (s-media) from 8FBC8F to 6DC79C
 * Change "Regnal titles" (s-reg) from the current ACE777: my initial idea was to change it to 8CEB96, but after seeing the new colour I have decided to suggest a greener green, like 9CE987
 * Leave "Sporting positions" (s-sports) untouched: 99FF66 (a live green, fit for sports, and a basic colour as seen from its code—which can also be written as 9F6)
 * Leave "Order of precedence" (s-pre) untouched: CCFFCC (a fine colour, in my opinion, and a basic one as well—it can also be written as CFC)

And the resulting headers would be like the ones below:

! colspan="3" style="background: #6DC79C" | Media offices ! colspan="3" style="background: #9CE987" | Regnal titles ! colspan="3" style="background: #99FF66" | Sporting positions ! colspan="3" style="background: #CCFFCC" | Order of precedence

Note that the "Gaelic games" header (s-gaa), which currently has the same colour as s-media, should retain its colouring in this model; though it shall not be much different from the new s-media, we will at least have two headers that are not identical, something that is desirable as there is no similarity whatsoever between ''Media offices" and "Gaelic Games". Furthermore, the "dusty" feel of the colour may be more suitable for an ancient sports event, and the blue lettering (due to the link) is better contrasted against this colour than black.

I hereby submit the propositions for s-media and s-reg to the project's scrutiny and consideration. Additional sections about other colour groups are to follow soon. Waltham, The Duke of 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 1A: Do you support the change of the colour of the "Media offices" header (s-media) from the current colour (8FBC8F) to a slightly lighter and somewhat greener tone, namely 6DC79C?


 * Support - Waltham
 * Oppose - I don't really like the color, it seems to vivid. I say keep the old one. —Whaleyland
 * Support: Still darker than I would prefer, but definitely an improvement on the current color. Alkari (?), 25 January 2008, 03:18 UTC

Proposal 2: Do you support the change of the colour of the "Regnal titles" header (s-reg) from the current colour (ACE777) to a slightly greener and very slightly paler and darker tone, namely 9CE987?

! colspan="3" style="background: #9CE987" | Regnal titles


 * Support - Waltham
 * Support - I like this change, it gets rid of the mud. —Whaleyland

Proposal 1B: Maybe proposal 1A was indeed too vivid, and so I have crossed it with the original (current) s-media. The result is the following:

! colspan="3" style="background: #7EC296" | Media offices

For reference, you can see it in the middle, between the current s-media (up) and Proposal 1A (down):

! colspan="3" style="background: #8FBC8F" | Media offices ! colspan="3" style="background: #7EC296" | Media offices ! colspan="3" style="background: #6DC79C" | Media offices

I believe it is neither too vivid nor too dull. The contrast with the other green headers can be seen below:

! colspan="3" style="background: #7EC296" | Media offices ! colspan="3" style="background: #9CE987" | Regnal titles ! colspan="3" style="background: #99FF66" | Sporting positions ! colspan="3" style="background: #CCFFCC" | Order of precedence

I shall vote for this s-media proposal as well, and whichever one gets the most motes (if any of them does) will be fine with me. Waltham, The Duke of 07:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Waltham
 * Support - Whaleyland
 * Support; this is also an improvement. Alkari (?), 25 January 2008, 03:18 UTC

This proposal has been left here undiscussed for a six months; a comment was left afterwards, and then another month passed. I have thus decided to close this discussion as failed. As with all such cases, the matter can be raised again if and when there is enough interest by the editing community. Waltham, The Duke of 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Official archiving note) This proposal has failed (2-1-0) – (2-0-0) – (3-0-0) to generate enough interest for its continued discussion. This poll was terminated at 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC) and transferred from the main talk page at 15:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC). Thank you all for your participation. Waltham, The Duke of

(2008-03-01) Proposal: Full colour scheme for blue headers
Fixing headers is definitely nice (and helpful), but fixing many of them at the same time is even better, especially when contrast and differentiation between headers is of essence. Here I propose a few changes that will, in my humble opinion, produce a working group of headers.

The current roster is the following:

! colspan="3" style="background: #65BCFF" | Royal titles ! colspan="3" style="background: #99CCFF" | Cultural offices ! colspan="3" style="background: #79DBFF" | Titles in pretence ! colspan="3" style="background: #CCCCFF" | Political offices

As you can see, the contrast between s-culture and s-pre is minimal, as is the former's contrast with s-off (which I have only added to show this, seeing that it belongs to the "Purple and Pink" category rather than to the "Blue" one). In addition, s-roy and s-pre are rather vivid, perhaps too vivid for our standards.

My suggestion is the following:


 * Leave "Civic offices" (s-civ) untouched: 191970
 * Change "Royal titles" (s-roy) from 65BCFF to 97CADD
 * Change "Cultural offices" (s-culture) from 99CCFF to 85BEFF
 * Change "Titles in pretence" (s-pre) from 79DBFF to 9FDFFF

And the resulting headers would be like the ones below:

! colspan="3" style="background: #97CADD" | Royal titles ! colspan="3" style="background: #85BEFF" | Cultural offices ! colspan="3" style="background: #9FDFFF" | Titles in pretence ! colspan="3" style="background: #CCCCFF" | Political offices

Note that the "Educational offices" header (s-edu) should also be adjusted to retain its identical colouring with s-culture in this model.

I hereby submit the propositions for s-culture (and s-edu) and s-pre to the project's scrutiny and consideration; the voting for s-roy is already taking place in a dedicated section higher in this page. Waltham, The Duke of 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Do you support the change of the colour of the "Cultural offices" header (s-culture) from the current colour (99CCFF) to a slightly darker and paler tone, namely 85BEFF?


 * Support - Waltham
 * Support - Whaleyland

Proposal 2: Do you support the change of the colour of the "Titles in pretence" header (s-pre) from the current colour (79DBFF) to a slightly lighter and paler tone, namely 9FDFFF?


 * Support - Waltham
 * Support - Whaleyland

This proposal has been left here undiscussed for a record seven months; participation has been minimal. I am thus declaring it failed and shall archive it in the relevant page presently; the matter can be raised again if and when there is enough interest by the editing community. Waltham, The Duke of 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Official archiving note) This proposal has failed (2-0-0) – (2-0-0) to generate enough interest for its continued discussion. This poll was terminated at 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC) and transferred from the main talk page at 15:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC). Thank you all for your participation. Waltham, The Duke of

(2008-03-01) Proposal: New Header for Justices titled Template:s-jud
A new header is needed for Judicial positions, with the following parameters for the United States:
 * Supreme Court of the United States
 * United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
 * United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (through the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit)
 * Each state supreme court.

Presumably parameters will need to be added for other nations' courts as well.

I propose the following format for a few of the more obvious parameters: for the Supreme Court of the United States and for the state supreme courts, along the lines of what was done at s-par. --Tim4christ17 talk 04:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with s-legal? We can insert parameters into that template, which has already been judged (no pun intended) to be more suitable than a "Judicial offices" header and does embrace the specific examples that you mention. Actually, the addition of parameters to s-legal has already come up in a conversation some time ago, so it would not be a groundbreaking concept.


 * However, since geographical headers are usually preferred over too specialised headers for specific bodies (with the exception of s-par), I propose that we should create headers for legal offices in different countries as opposed to offices in different courts, something that is, in my humble opinion, redundant, since the court names will be given in the succession boxes anyway.


 * Therefore, my proposal is the following: add parameters to s-legal for "Legal offices of the United Kingdom" ("uk"), "Legal offices of the United States" ("us"), "Legal offices of France" ("fr"), "Legal offices of Germany" ("de"), "Legal offices of Canada" ("ca"), and for other countries as they come up, and categorise all the different offices under those. This way we can avoid creating too many headers that will only be suitable for few offices but still specialise the "Legal offices" header somewhat. Waltham, The Duke of 07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the "office" is typically that of Justice, Chief Justice, or Senior Justice - particularly with justices who served on the same court in different offices. (Much like in s-par, where the "office" is 1st District, 2nd District, etc.)


 * Secondly, "legal offices" is not appropriate - it would be appropriate for someone who is holding a legal office - that is practicing law (an attorney). I was proposing a header for a jurist (judge or justice), which is not a legal office, it's a judicial office.


 * Finally, a nation-based header would be worse than useless - with the exception of a very few international lawyers or jurists, people in a legal or judicial profession are going to be limited to practicing in one nation (and hence no need to differentiate in the header) - I can't think at the moment of any lawyers or jurists who have worked with non-international law in more than one country. The bases of law in different countries are just too varied.  --Tim4christ17 talk 10:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: I agree with the reasons of Tim4Christ17 and think this template should be created per his reasons listed above. Since each US state has its own superior court system and the titles within each court vary, just listing national court systems seems simple.  The point of the headers is to act as a fist line of disambiguation while the titles in the templates are the second line.  Since people almost never hold multiple nations judicial titles, then it doesn't make sense to list titles under national headers. – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 19:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I shall agree that Tim and Whaleyland have a point about the specific parameters. Still, I am of the opinion that we should add those parameters to the s-legal template, "Legal" not necessarily referring to "practicing law"; legal stands for everything that has to do with the law. I believe that we should refrain from massively creating new headers, and, since we do need the s-legal template, it would be a source of confusion and redundancy to also create a s-jud template. I refer you to the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines for more details; I think the people who initially took the decision that favoured "Legal offices" over "Judicial offices" did have a point. Waltham, The Duke of 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree - the different headings are good because otherwise we are going to end up with too many parameters to be practical. Just as we don't put all election-related offices in a single header, we shouldn't put all court-related offices in a single header.  Rather, we separate them by important differences - governors/presidents aren't in the same header as legislators because of an important difference in their roles.  Similarly, attorneys shouldn't be in the same header as judges/justices because of a similar important difference.  Even having judges and justices use the same header is questionable, though I'll concede that issue because their roles are somewhat similar.  --Tim4christ17 talk 11:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first point is completely irrelevant; since you propose that we create a new header for the parameters, it makes no difference at all to put all the parameters in the new header instead of the old one (which does not have any parameters at the moment). As for your second point: we create headers for groups of offices, not for specific offices. The "political offices" header (s-off) may include hundreds of different offices, as a matter of fact. But we must look at the numbers: s-par may only list legislators but there are hundreds of them for every country, thousands even (for federations). You cannot say the same things for judges, who are relatively few—especially those who are eligible for a succession box. Waltham, The Duke of 09:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mildly Support: I still don't get why there's both an s-court and an s-legal. What's the difference?  Also, the branch to which justices and jurists belong is the Judicial branch, not the "Legal" branch.  I also don't get why DAs, Solicitor General, Attorney General etc. are legal offices as they are--at least in the U.S.--political appointments or elected positions.  Additionally, someone like the AG has responsibilities that fall outside of the judicial branch, such as law-enforcement, criminal investigation, etc., not to mention they speak for the government and not for the court.  The only offices under s-legal should be the justices and their clerks, and maybe even baliffs. And even at that, the head underwhich they should be put is "Judiciary offices". Foofighter20x (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said in its talk page, s-court has nothing to do with courts of justice; it is meant for royal courts, and offices like Chamberlain and Groom of the Stole (or at least these court offices that aren't chiefly political). And the "Legal" term was used exactly because it has to do with offices not strictly in the Judicial branch of government, but which generally deal with the legal system. They are not as much political, as they are law-related. Furthermore, this header is not only meant to be used in the United States, so it should be flexible. Again, I refer you to the discussion that led to the creation of this header. Waltham, The Duke of 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has been sitting here for seven months and has only been commented on by four people. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be either an agreement or much willingness for further discussion. For these reasons, I am declaring it failed and shall archive it in the relevant page presently; the matter can be discussed at a later date if and when there is enough interest by the editing community. Waltham, The Duke of 22:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Official archiving note) This proposal has failed (3-1-0) to generate enough interest for its continued discussion. This poll was terminated at 22:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC) and transferred from the main talk page at 15:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC). Thank you all for your participation. Waltham, The Duke of