Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive 5

Changing S-Sports color to less bold color
In relation to other colors being lightened for easier reading, I want to propose s-sports to have either a lightened or darkened color. The current color hurts the eyes due to it being too bold.

This correlates to discussion on Template_talk:S-sports#Proposed_colour_change introduced 5 days ago. The less bold, pastel color (99FF66) is much preferred. I also like 99FF33.

Check out the less aggravating greens at VisiBone's html-color-codes.com/.

If no further discussion occurs within one week, I will manually change s-sports to an appropriate color and consider the issue closed and the change permanent. Overall, this request should be considered a fair compromise. -- Guroadrunner 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hold your horses, there, Guroadrunner. There is a whole colour system for the green succession headers here waiting for approval and it would be the best if you would be kind enough to wait a little. Most of the members here are away and all business has essentially halted. I am somewhat busy myself, at the moment, and if you would give me some time I could make sure that the new colour is not only acceptably pale and aesthetically pleasing enough but also compatible with the rest of the green templates and sufficiently different not to be confused with any of them. We have enough problems with the new s-npo template (which is also green).


 * You can find the proposal higher in this page; I shall include the s-npo template within a few days and adjust the s-sports template. Then I can present a solution that takes on the issue collectively. Waltham, The Duke of 09:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries about that deadline - it is nullified because discussion has started. I made a deadline in case nobody responded but would get upset if I had changed it without an explanation (the time limit passed). :: The NPO/Boy Scouts color looks like it may be very similar, but I know we all can figure out a solution. -- Guroadrunner 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I selected the Scouting color— that's an easy fix. I think npo is only used in one succession at the moment.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Call to action: So what's the next step here? What color is desired? -- Guroadrunner 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive my delay, but I am ill and I also have two tests coming. (If this does not sound like an excuse, nothing will.) But one should know it is undesirable to use indistinguishable (and even more so identical) colours for different headers. Every header ought to be told apart from the others at a glance. Waltham, The Duke of 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. While the s-npo header is not used much now, it also has not been given much time to be used.  I am very in favour of changing the color on s-sports but not to the same colour as something else.  Icky icky!  Let's keep talking about this for a bit.  I liked the light green better myself, but I think we need to also talk about changing the colour entirely because we already have so many greens. (aren't there more unique colours out there!?) – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any that use silver? Remind me and I will make a "big color chart" thing (all of the ones I can find put into a spectrum) -- Guroadrunner 05:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Like the charts in the article web colors? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep! Guroadrunner 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just found List of colors while trying to describe a color (deep peach if you really wanted to know). There is also list of Crayola crayon colors.  If you really want to go crazy, here is a Pantone chart.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the Pantone chart; it has been very useful. Even though I rarely use the colours as they are, I do like crossing them with the colours I had picked and eventually discover the solution that combines all the qualities I have in mind. The results? Look at the new section, please—I have a couple of ideas. Waltham, The Duke of 14:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

S-sports
Currently:

! colspan="3" style="background: #99FF66" | Sporting positions

Proposed by Waltham, Duke of in below widespread change:

! colspan="3" style="background: #78FF78" | Sporting positions

Another proposal:

! colspan="3" style="background: #99FF33" | Sporting positions

In use: (Giancarlo Fisichella)
Current

Waltham, Duke of's idea:

! colspan="3" style="background: #78FF78" | Sporting positions

Other proposal:


 * colspan="3" style="background: #99FF33" | Sporting positions
 * colspan="3" style="background: #99FF33" | Sporting positions

s-npo
What are the issues with s-npo? I had created it as s-Scout and it got moved to s-npo, which is no problem. I think it is currently only used in one succession series. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Issues? There are no issues that I am aware of—except, perhaps, from the header's colour, which may change.


 * The s-npo header will prove to be a very useful one, I can assure you; apart from Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, non-profit organisations include charities and unions, plenty of which have offices tracked by succession boxes. I have even added the header to Ronald Reagan's succession box (a rather high profile one), which is the first time I have added it anywhere. More will follow, but SBS is currently short of staff and few people are editing succession boxes at the moment, or at least doing so in an centrally organised fashion. In any case, there is no reason for concern about the header's light usage whatsoever. Waltham, The Duke of 14:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From the above discussion, you stated "We have enough problems with the new s-npo template (which is also green)." From that, I though there was some sort of problem I could help work through.  Lightgreen is the color of the Scouting WikiProject, selected as the most common color used by most Scouting organizations worldwide.     It works nicely with the Scouting template, as in Robert J. Mazzuca.   It's just a color and we should be able to work something out.  As far as usage, I meant that it is simpler to hammer out any issues now, before folks get attached to it.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for full header colouring scheme, preliminary phase
Honourable members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, fellow Wikipedians. My illness has now passed (leaving an annoying cough behind) and I have sat for my three tests (with moderate success). Therefore, all impediments between myself and the ability for me to work on header tincturing have been removed. I have already developed my ideas, some of them older (many of those already visible in this very page) and others more recent.

I have insured that all colours are within the acceptable brightness limits (not too light nor too dark), sufficiently pale, and adequately differenced from one another. In this, I have had to make adjustments to most headers, but if this helps with the overall system then there should be no problem; if the editors support the scheme, the necessary changes can take effect easily.

In the following chart I am listing all the different headers per colour category and shade. It is a little crude in its structure, but I believe it fulfils its purpose.

Here follows the header system with my suggested modifications:

Note: The s-edu header is meant to have the same colour as s-culture; the s-other header has the same colour as s-par. The asterisks denote headers with unchanged colours.

The full list of header colours follows, with the final colours of my proposed scheme bolded:

(colours in hex code—RGB in parentheses)


 * S-aca – from DAA520 (218, 165, 32) to E8B62D (232, 182, 45)
 * S-ach – from FFF179 (255, 241, 121) to FAEF64 (250, 239, 100)
 * S-bus – from FFCC66 (255, 204, 102) to 8D8DE5 (141, 141, 229)
 * S-civ – no change, remains 191970 (25, 25, 112)
 * S-court – from FF9966 (255, 153, 102) to FF8C66 (255, 140, 102)
 * S-culture – from 99CCFF (153, 204, 255) to 85BEFF (133, 190, 255)
 * S-dip – no change, remains FACEFF (250, 206, 255)
 * S-edu – see s-culture
 * S-gov – no change, remains BEBEBE (190, 190, 190)
 * S-herald – no change, remains FFFF99 (255, 255, 153)
 * S-hon – from FFF157 (255, 241, 87) to F9E82F (249, 232, 47)
 * S-legal – no change, remains DDCEF2 (221, 206, 242)
 * S-lit – no change, remains CC99FF (204, 153, 255)
 * S-media – from 8FBC8F (143, 188, 143) to 7EC296 (126, 194, 150)
 * S-mil – no change, remains CF9C65 (207, 156, 101)
 * S-npo – no change, remains CCFFCC (204, 255, 204)
 * S-off – no change, remains CCCCFF (204, 204, 255)
 * S-other – no change, remains CCCCCC (204, 204, 204)
 * S-par – as above
 * S-ppo – from FFBF00 (255, 191, 0) to FEC112 (254, 193, 18)
 * S-pre – from 79DBFF (121, 219, 255) to 9FDFFF (159, 223, 255)
 * S-prec – from CCFFCC (204, 255, 204) to 8CF2B8 (140, 242, 184)
 * S-reg – from ACE777 (172, 231, 119) to 8CEB96 (140, 235, 150)
 * S-rel – from FABE60 (250, 190, 96) to FCC271 (252, 194, 113)
 * S-roy – from 65BCFF (101, 188, 255) to 97CADD (151, 202, 221)
 * S-sports – from 99FF66 (153, 255, 202) to 78FF78 (120, 255, 120)
 * S-wea – from CC9999 (204, 153, 153) to DA8484 (218, 132, 132)

I should prefer to know your opinion about the overall scheme first, and if it is well-received I believe we can then initiate a discussion on the specific colours.

So, what do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 14:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: If you know a way to make the tables' rows higher (so that the colours can be better seen), by all means have a try. I have only just learned the basics about tables, and only because I wanted to make these two ones. Waltham, The Duke of 14:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objections, but my interest is confined to the NPO box. I think you wanted the demo table cell height changed, so I set height="30" for each row.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Approve: Despite my sudden wikibreak, I am trying desperately to keep up on this project right now. I like the new proposed scheme, although I would like s-rel to be a different color.  I would propose purplish but that seems to be pretty full right now.  Either way, I support the change.  We need a better structure for these templates right now.  They have so much conflict and overlap.  I definitely agree with the new color for s-npo.  Since scouting was the source of it, it makes sense to use their approved color for the entire header system. – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Approve -- Adding just that little amount of teal takes so much off from the eyestrain looking at S-Sports. (See examples above in S-Sports topic). Good job doing all this! Guroadrunner 06:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Approve. I am generally in favor of lighter and paler colors, and I think a few of the proposed colors could be improved further, but the new scheme is by and large an improvement on the old. Alkari (?), 25 January 2008, 03:18 UTC

Succession template Step does not conform to standard of S-start
"If you find a succession template not in this standard, please contact WT:SBS or Whaleyland." I already put this on Whaleyland's talk page, but have gotten no response yet so far. I just noticed that now it also says I can contact WT:SBS (which it didn't say earlier), so I'm just putting it here again: I think Template:Step should be included in the succession box standardization. Thanks. --the Wild Falcon (talk | log) 12:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Whaleyland has been somewhat busy lately. In any case, I have had a look at this template and realised that what is does is to create a small succession box of sorts near the top of the page. In addition, it is very scarcely used. Would it not be better simply to erase the template and introduce proper succession boxes at the affected pages' bottom? That is, unless there is a specific reason why it would be necessary to retain such a box near the pages' top.


 * This is one possible course of action. We are open to suggestions here, so anyone with a good idea is free to share it with us.


 * In any case, Wild Falcon, whatever the conclusion of this matter, thank you for reporting the template. This might have solved many future problems, knowing that the more articles a template is used in, the more difficult it is to change anything about it. Keep it up! Waltham, The Duke of 14:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually did respond to the notice but forgot to reply to the note. Either way, I attempted my speedy delete policy on it but it failed utterly due to the fact it already had a delete request done on it a few months back and the result was rework/reconsider.  I tried working with this template a little but it is not used with any article any more and I see no need to keep it.  I think we need to propose it for deletion.  It is a nuisance that need not exist, says I!  The Great Khan has spoken. – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Step is used only in several IBM PC articles. I would suggest that the succession be added to Infobox computer (which should be merged with Infobox Computer).  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm reopening this discussion (after nearly a year!) in hopes that this issue can actually be resolved. I agree with His Grace that standard succession boxes should be used in place of Step, and if there is no objection I will make this replacement and propose Step for deletion. How do others feel? Alkari (?), 2 September 2008, 22:11 UTC


 * I've recreated a version of Step in the format of the new succession template system. I hope you will find it all to be more amenable to use. Cwolfsheep (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) *EDIT: Forgot to add new template, its S-series.

Call to Arms
The main page has a link to an HTML succession box and I don't have time to fix it! Would someone start the conversion of the mid and late Ptolemaic rulers to the current succession box format? You can start with Ptolemy IV (actually Ptolemy V because he doesn't have a box at all. It ends with the second to last monarch. Thank you! –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  17:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Another I just found for the Gupta emperors. All of them need converting and proper dating! –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have converted all the succession boxes for the Gupta Emperors. Keep in mind, however, that there are a couple of discrepancies with the dates that cannot be easily fixed. Waltham, The Duke of 10:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see that progress has already begun on the Egyptian dynasts too.  Great news! –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  21:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Announcement – Project categories
I have moved SBS members from Category:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization to Category:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization members in order to conform to the instruction by User categories for discussion; the former category is now used for Project pages, most of which I have categorised there.

The category move was performed by changing the code of the SBS membership template (Template:User WP:SBS). I have categorised the new category under the old one and shall see that the old category is also appropriately categorised.

By the way, I have added (as you might have noticed) a "WikiProject" template in the main page. It is useful, it looks nice, and it is all the rage in the WikiProject world, I can tell you. Waltham, The Duke of 11:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Announcement – Cheatsheet
I have created a Cheatsheet, a page that lists all the succession templates with their parameters (headers have less coverage than the rest). This page is meant to be a simple and useful guide to new and old editors alike. More details about all the templates, of course, is given in the Documentation page–plans for its renovation and update are already under way.

The page in question has already been categorised, and its shortcut created and registered into the appropriate list. I have also included it in the SBS navigation template and have updated the Project's page directory accordingly. Waltham, The Duke of 11:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Do Dalai Lamas get succession boxes?
Trinley Gyatso, 12th Dalai Lama and the other Dalai Lamas do not have a colored box. I don't know if this is worthwhile for fixing? Guroadrunner 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe s-rel ? Any idea? Guroadrunner 14:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Try ; I'm not quite sure how the years work on this one:

Catholic titles succession boxes (or, I don't understand how this works on Pope Leo XIII)
Pope Leo XIII 's standardized boxes look like this:

Pope

or, alternatively, the code is: {{succession box | before=Filippo De Angelis|title=Camerlengo | years=1877–1878| after=Camillo Cardinal di Pietro} }

So folks, how do we get the upper box to fit under the bigger orange box? Carmelengo is a Catholic Church title, but this box on Pope Leo XIII is not found under the orange box, which uses the template " ".

It appears that creates its own header in orange and that it only handles two specific inputs: predecessor and successor. Is it possible to make a box, sort of like my much-loathed  ?

I know I had a beef with how new it all was, but now that I've gotten used to it, I am glad there is a place to introduce questions like this. Besides, my new beef is the "no free image" box. ;-) -- Guroadrunner 06:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Like this:

You can fill in the other titles as desired. This uses s-rel instead of pope. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am gaze at this template with an open mouth, in awe and wonder, marvelling at the utterly unfathomable stupidity of some people. Whose idea was it to cramp every single title Popes have ever had into a succession box that clones itself throughout the entire lineage, often without even giving the titles held by the Pope in question? I most certainly believe that steps must be taken to undo this. A proper succession box, like Gadget850's one above, should solve the problems; Popes' titles can be found in a very specific article, coincidentally titled "Pope". Waltham, The Duke of 13:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to make you cry, but Pope Benedict XVI is among other things, using s-hou and an image. And Pope John Paul II has a freaking Time Person of the Year succession box—when will people realize that it is *not* an award.  A quick survey shows that the successions are using different formats from one to the other.   --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear. We really need to start spreading the word: there are guidelines for this sort of things! Elected officials do not belong to any house, and images are not acceptable in succession boxes!
 * Quickly, deep breaths, deep breaths. Ahhhh... Now, where was I?
 * Well, I have corrected Benedict XVI's box, but there are about 250 Popes, most of whom I suspect are using the Pope template; these will be preferably replaced by proper boxes, but it is too much work and there are too few people. In any case, the classification of Person of the Year is a problem that I have often met while working on the U.S. Presidents' boxes. It is not an award, but it is not an honourary title either. So what on Earth is it? Unofficial titles like this one and "Oldest living U.S. president" are not supposed to be under s-hon, as these are formal titles that are simply not accompanied by any power. But can we really create a new header for unofficial titles? Waltham, The Duke of 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Since you are here, Gadget, can you please comment on the parliament headers discussion? We need to get done with this, and I believe the quorum is five people. Waltham, The Duke of 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: I have corrected the boxes for all the Popes of the twentieth century. I might continue backwards at a later date. Note that the order of the offices must be ascending chronological, thus the example above ought to have the two lines reversed. Waltham, The Duke of 12:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone started phasing out "step:" can it still be used?
As the creator of Template:Step, and having seen it evolve into a more useful form (thanks to the work of others), it would seem to me that we should be using it more, instead of snuffing it out like a candle. Can we come to a consensus on if it can be still used or not? Cwolfsheep 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Error report: s-pol didn't work
I put s-pol in a box area and it didn't work. I think it is because the box is not the right format??? I don't know why s-sports works for Giancarlo Fisichella, et. al. but it didn't work for this guy.

Article: Jusuf Habibie

Code: 

Guroadrunner 03:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be because template s-pol does not exist. I think you want s-off for political office. You should also use the new s- series of templates to build the boxes:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadget850 (talk • contribs) 22 October 2007

Clarification: there used to be a Template:S-pol, but it was used for police appointments and has now been superseded by Template:S-civ ("pol" parameter). Waltham, The Duke of 11:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Return to discussion: Updated header coloring scheme
The proposal for full header colouring scheme had its last vote/discussion one month ago. It had unanimous approval among those who posted a vote.

I move to forward this from preliminary phase to the next step, which in theory is actual changes and putting it to use? Guroadrunner 10:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the few people that have voted on the scheme supported the overall idea, but a couple of points have been raised. I should say that the next step is the concentration on the particulars of the scheme, and the approval of minor modifications to the colours that may need them in order that the scheme can be more welcome amongst the concerned parties.


 * Perhaps this discussion ought to be wider. I intend to post a couple of messages to this effect in the immediate future, unless anyone objects (and has a reason to). Waltham, The Duke of 11:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. Guroadrunner 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Announcement – November finds SBS with a member list six editors shorter
I hereby announce to the Honourable members that Wikipedia editors John Kenney, Mackensen, Stilltim, DLJessup, Adam Bishop, and Wjhonson have failed to renew their memberships before the deadline set more than two months ago expired, something which happened at 23:59 (UTC) on 31 October 2007 CE. (Happy Halloween, by the way.) As a result, their names have been stricken off the Great Roll of Members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization in accordance to the provisions of Section 3, paragraphs 2, 3, 5, and 8 of the Membership Renewal Act (WikiProjects and Work Groups) 2007. The remaining members are eleven and have either succeeded in renewing their membership or registered themselves after the commencement of the renewal process. It is hoped that the conclusion of the first membership renewal in the history of the WikiProject will improve communication and cooperation between the remaining members, something beneficial to the project and, ultimately, Wikipedia.

Seriously, though, every removed editor can return whenever they see fit, and we shall be glad to welcome them back whenever any one of them elects to act in such a manner.

...Even if only to tell me that I am a pompous git. ;-) Waltham, The Duke of 17:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

US Secretary of State
Would being appointed to the position of US Secretary of State be considered a political post or a diplomatic one? I would like to ensure I don't header too many boxes incorrectly. Thanks. Mikebar 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I could simply avoid answering to this, but I have decided to be brave. For once. United States Secretary of State qualifies as a political office, as do all other ministerial positions. This is because, even though the Secretary of State is concedered the most senior diplomatic officer, it is still first and foremost a position of political responsibility and is filled by a politician.
 * Generally, and having had a quick look at your contributions, I am sorry to say that there are a few guidelines which you seem to have missed. Small mistakes like these are not that bad, as both SBS's and Wikipedia's purpose is to eventually create perfect articles, and not to enforce a policy of being perfect in the first attempt. Still, I believe that you might want to make your edits as helpful to the improvement of succession boxes as possible. Therefore, I will draw your attention to the following:
 * Do not link dates unless in special cases (most importantly succession lines tracking parliamentary terms); see the Guidelines (Years and dates, vii.d). Date links are quite unnecessary (and are already present in the article), and they clutter the box. Also, leave spaces between the years and the connecting en-dashes, and always use the word "present" after the dash for incumbents.
 * Use headers carefully as far as their type, number, and order (not chronological) is concerned; see the Guidelines (Headers and parameters, general guidelines). Generally, most headers are used in limited categories of offices: diplomatic headers for specific diplomats, military headers for people in the military (and not politicians or agency officers connected to it), etc. See each individual header's section in the same page for more details on their usage. (Pay special attention to the s-ppo header, used for party political offices—it is generally much more underused than what would be appropriate.)
 * Use the features of the "s-start" template system to their full extent for special cases of succession, like chain beginnings and endings, and vacancies. The full, and very recently renovated, instructions and individual template analyses can be found in the Documentation page.
 * Bottom line: stick to the guidelines to the extent that you can and that you are willing to, and the rest will be taken care of by someone else at a later time. But to make your edits even more helpful, and to avoid mistakes that could potentially prove more serious than the rest, have at least one go at reading the Documentation page and the Guidelines page. Who knows, it might help more than you expect.
 * Please, do not misunderstand this (rather long) message. Your efforts are greatly valued. But I am sure that you would like yourself to be even more efficient, and to take those boxes to their final destination (perfection, or whatever is closest) one hour earlier.
 * By all means contact me in my talk page if you have any SBS-related questions, no matter what time it is. It's not like you are going to wake me up or anything. Waltham, The Duke of 11:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have studied the templates and I believe my later edits are better than earlier ones. Your comments are appreciated and I will try to follow standards as closely as I can. Mikebar 12:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

S-Rel - Pre-Schism Titles
(Transferred from Template talk:S-rel)

I'm not sure how best to deal with this, but there may be POV issues with the application of this template to historical figures. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church split in the 11th century; prior to this, they claim a common history. Less significantly, in England, the Church of England declared itself out of communion with Rome in the 1530s; prior to this, it claims the history of the Catholic church in England as its own. Chad of Mercia, though, is currently marked as holding (in the 9th century) the "Catholic Church titles" of Bishop of the Mercians and Lindsey People and Bishop of the Northumbrians. This attribution to the modern Roman Catholic Church of the shared histories of the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches could be viewed by some as somewhat controversial - while it is certainly what the Roman Catholic Church asserts, it is at least nominally disputed by the other churches, who would view their descent from the early church as just as valid.

Perhaps less significantly, the article, after various prolonged and inconclusive debates, seems to be settled at the moment at Roman Catholic Church, due to the contentious and sometimes ambiguous meanings of the term 'Catholic'. Shouldn't this template follow suit? TSP 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (Reply transferred from Template talk:S-rel and re-dated—sorry for the lack of originality, but my opinion has not changed, so what's the point of re-writing the same thing?)
 * You have a point, there, TSP. There is admittably an amount of ambiguity during certain historic periods. However, I should also like to draw your attention to the fact that the headers describe titles as opposed to individuals, something which should clear up at least some ambiguities, given that titles are long chains that can more easily be assigned to a specific religion (or branch thereof) from which they have originated or to which they were later closely connected.
 * On the Roman Catholic Church header, you have my support. The header ought to be precise and reflect Wikipedia's consensus on the name. But I am not the one to decide this. Basically, I believe you should bring both issues to WikiProject Succession Box Standardization's talk page. I am afraid these template talk pages are not much watched and few people answer posts here. Waltham, The Duke of 00:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 *  Ditto :-) 
 * I note that for most religions there are not specific denominational entries in here - there are, for example, simply 'Jewish titles', despite the existence of Reform Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, and so on. (There are entries for Shiite and Sunni Islam, but also one for Islam in general.)
 * To answer your specific issue - it is true that the template refers to titles rather than individuals; however, this doesn't remove the problem. For example, Paulinus of York is described as holding the Catholic Church titles of Bishop of York and Bishop of Rochester, both of which are now titles solely in the Church of England, which traces a continuous line of inheritance back to these individuals.  You could say that these were Roman Catholic Church titles until the English Reformation, after which they were Church of England titles (though that still leaves you in a bit of a grey area with people like Thomas Cranmer), but that would seem to explicitly deny the Church of England's claim to be the continuation of the Catholic church in England, which seems POV.  TSP 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. Run out of replies to transfer. I guess I will answer to this tomorrow; I'm kind of running out of time now. Waltham, The Duke of 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that I have forgotten about this little thing... Sorry about that. Anyway, we need to take things at face value here: whatever state of affairs is true in every different instance is the one we ought to take into account, and it is therefore not necessary to assign the same header to the entire chain. Nobody has ever said that it was. This is history: things change.
 * Furthermore, the headers provide general descriptions and are not supposed to be used to draw any kind of conclusions about the titles under them apart from the fact that there is a relationship. This relationship must be sufficiently clear, of course, but it is not required to be as exact, referenced, and unambiguous as the content of the boxes. After all, we use "Royal titles" headers for lines of succession, a usage that has been contested but upheld (not in a court; we have none of those here), exactly because this configuration serves our needs and is still close to reality.
 * And, well, as far as the grey periods are concerned, we shall just have to work like historians do: define some events as the conventional boundaries that separate different periods.
 * About the other issue: there should be headers available for various degrees of specialisation, with the most specialised ones used a) wherever it is possible to use them without compromising accuracy (not all cases are clear-cut), and b) whenever there are people that know that these headers are supposed to be used, and insert them into the boxes. The more general headers are used when the more specialised ones have not yet been used, or cannot be used at all. In other words, I do agree that specialised headers (not too specialised, though) ought to exist for large branches of religions.
 * It's your turn to answer now, and I will not blame you if you take your time. I most certainly have. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 00:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

More Deletions?
Well over a year ago I nominated some obsolete succession templates for deletion, and that all went well. Plenty have disappeared since then, but many (many many; I'm surprised at what's out there) remain. Obviously they should be unused, but are there any other criteria that should be met before something is deleted? Historical interest or novel coding perhaps?

In any case, I have some suggestions that are unused (several of these I have personally "orphaned"):

Template:Archbishop of Gniezno, Template:Archbishop of Kraków, Template:Arizona State University Basketball Coaches, Template:Assyrian king, Template:Bishop of Gniezno, Template:Bishop of Poznan, Template:DrawnTogether navigation, Template:Flemish Count, Template:Footer Prime Minister of Iran, Template:Michigan State University Basketball Coaches, Template:North Carolina State University Basketball Coaches, Template:President of Portugal, Template:Presidents of Nauru, Template:Primate of Poland 1, Template:Succession box double, Template:Succession box one to seven, Template:Succession two successors

Interestingly enough, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as what's out there...Ardric47 (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do a nomination for deletion or merge via the standard wikipedia process. The stakeholders and others can chime in and see if the deletionists can get them thrown out.  The category deletionists are the most active, they are merciless! Mikebar (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that in order to delete them, you must first ensure that they are not used anywhere in the mainspace. This is what we do in the Templates page: we remove templates from articles, substituting them with the correct S-start series ones, and then we nominate them for deletion. You cannot delete a template that is still used; all sorts of boxes can break. Waltham, The Duke of 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do understand that part; I was once rather active in deletion processes, and I have been doing exactly what you said about replacement. I just wanted to make sure we weren't missing any larger issues...in other words, being un-bold. I'm a bad Wikipedian. :p Ardric47 (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't you worry about that; by Wikipedia's standards, most Wikipedians are. (Evil grin)
 * In any case, the templates you have given here are indeed succession templates eligible for deletion (although two of them, Template:Succession box double and Template:Succession two successors, are actually redirects (the latter to a still heavily used template). Therefore, you can list them all under the "Templates under evaluation" section of the Templates page, in order to help better organise the deletion operation, and you can even list Template:Succession box one to seven (which is no longer used) under the "Deletion proposals" section if you are not willing to propose it for deletion yourself.
 * Now, if you have time, you can spend some of it removing Template:Succession box double (actually Template:Succession box two to two from boxes. I am doing that too, and it is a particularly educating experience. Waltham, The Duke of 09:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that was all of them. Removed!  Muahahaha.  The Great Khan has struck again. –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  01:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I was meaning to list them eventually...was there not even a deletion debate? :p Ardric47 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Creeping templatitis
I'd like to mention quickly that there are now some cases where a succession box is actually just redundant — some head of article infoboxes now include entry fields for a person's predecessor and successor in a sequential position, and some positions now have templates which list all of the prior occupants of a particular political position. This certainly doesn't entirely eliminate the need for succession boxes, but per the principle of reducing template creep, we shouldn't add succession boxes for positions where the same information is already given in the infobox or a dedicated template. Bearcat 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that succession boxes should not be used where extensive navigational boxes are present (like those for several awards, including the Nobel Prize). However, succession boxes list (or at least ought to) all of a subject's important titles, which means that if there is a succession box there shouldn't be missing titles just because they are present in the infobox. To take this even further, the infoboxes are at the top of each article, while succession boxes are at the very bottom, and there is often a lot of text between these two points. Their combined usage is only problematic in very short articles. Waltham, The Duke of 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Expanded numeral disambiguation criteria
This poll, having opened on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 CE (in the Gregorian Calendar), closed on Sunday, 16 December with a vote tally of 6 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral, resulting in the unanimous approval of the proposal. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. Waltham, The Duke of 22:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Adoption of banner for succession templates' talk pages
This poll, having opened on 11 December 2007, closed on 26 January 2008 with a vote tally of 6 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral, resulting in the unanimous approval of the proposal. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. Discussion has begun for the final form of the banner lower in this page. Waltham, The Duke of 14:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Motion: Closure of proposals
This poll, having opened on 11 December 2007, closed on 26 January 2008 with a vote tally of 6 in favour, 0 against, and 0 neutral, resulting in the unanimous approval of the motion. It has now been transferred to the closed proposals page for archiving purposes. Waltham, The Duke of 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Announcement – Main page, definition
Moderately important news: In the course of an extended update of the main page, I have rewritten the overview of the project, including the closest thing to a definition of succession boxes I could create. As the definition will be one of the most important elements of a Wikipedia guideline for succession boxes, if and when we manage to have one approved by the community (a little early to talk about that, but it is a long-term target), I should like to know whether you agree with this definition. It is the first paragraph of this section that I am talking about, although it will certainly do no harm to anyone to read and comment on the whole section. It is not that long, after all. Waltham, The Duke of 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
I wish a very Merry Christmas to everyone here, and I hope that, after some rest during the holidays, the project can progress even more thanks to its wonderful members. And, whatever your Christmas dinner consists of, may you enjoy it immensely! :-D Waltham, The Duke of 00:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On top of that, I wish you all a happy New Year! May 2008 bring health, wealth, prosperity, and success to me, and to SBS, and to Wikipedia, and to the entire world! But mostly to me! (Has another glass of champagne.) Cheers! Waltham, The Duke of 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I second this motion. Happy New Year to all!  It has been a long and good year for this project and I expect great things in the future, especially with the likes of the esteemed Duke of Waltham working with organizing the group toward its future goals.  For those wondering, I am not dead (yet) but have been very busy with personal goals of learning Latin and French, being accepted to a graduate school (either in the US or Great Britain), and many other lesser things.  I do not plan to resign from my work on Wikipedia any time soon, but as many of you know, Wikipedia can be tedious at times and I am taking a break.  I have proposals to come soon and more page cleanups to do in the near future, so look for me (first star on the right then straight on until morning).  I would never abandon this project; that is just not me.  Without further ado, I depart.  Farewell SBS, look for my coming. –  Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  05:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Ok, in trying to "do right", I have taken the advice in the article above, using dates like 1983 – 1985 where the dash is an ndash and spaces between the dash and the date. Now, there are people using AWB to replace all ndashes with - per some decision (recent example - see Revision history of James Buchanan).

If I edit sboxes, I'd like to make sure I'm doing it right - what is the latest? Thanks Mikebar (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Both are ndashes, just a different way of presenting them—HTML vs. unicode. You can get the unicode ndash by typing ALT 0150 or by using the symbol box below the edit box.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  12:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, this has been discussed before... Wait a minute.
 * (leaves to find excerpt; ambient music starts playing)
 * (returns, covered in dust and cobwebs)
 * Indeed; it came up 618 days ago. If you go to the 1st archive, 4th door to the left, you will see that the aforementioned edit is in accordance with what appears to be a preference for Unicode; HTML has generally been replaced by either Wiki-code or Unicode, depending on the circumstances. You can use whichever version you want for the en-dash, but it is very likely that the HTML dash will eventually be replaced by the Unicode one.
 * Hey, Ed, why don't you have a look in the polls above? We need more input here, and most editors are having a break... Ungrateful procrastinators. ;-) In any case, you seem to be interested. Waltham, The Duke of 15:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I have just had a look in Wikipedia's Bible of copy-editing, but it does not support any one dash code. I suggest, Mikebar, that you should contact the editor who has made the substitution, in the hopes that there actually is a decision upon which they are acting.
 * Who knows, perhaps the Cabal is behind this... Waltham, The Duke of 16:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agenda for the new year
All right, all right, five weeks are enough for a break. I officially declare the beginning of the new succession box year (Year III for SBS) and begin the legislative work with two simple and relatively uncontroversial proposals (as well as continue the discussion on the banner). I intend to submit another two next week, which will require a little more thought. Waltham, The Duke of 11:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Any notices regarding the progress of the discussions on this page shall be left under these sections. Please do not fear bureaucratising; it is just a very simple process that will rationalise business here and will help us avoid returning back to immobility, and I promise to take care of it personally. If there are disagreements, of course, I shall ignore them and do as I wish anyway seriously attempt to address them, and perhaps alter my grandiose plans accordingly. Obviously, you have a fortnight to file any such complaints before March's agenda comes out.
 * Well, it would appear that my agenda has been completely overturned, both by the situation here, and by the course of my exams (by the way, they have been a disaster). As a matter of fact, you don't even know the agenda. In an attempt to rationalise and smoothen the "legislative"—if I may freely use the term here—process, I have decided the following:
 * To archive more often, and more properly. As a result of the recent discussion regulating proposals, my proposal for the change of colours for headers fulfils the criteria for automatic failure, so I shall archive it (the comments have been replied to, after all, and I doubt any fresh ones will appear). It hurts, I know, but I must ensure that everybody here receives the same treatment. After all, it is not a really urgent matter; it can be brought up again in the future, when the more pressing concerns will have been properly dealt with.
 * To post the agenda (i.e. the line-up for proposals and other matters for discussion) in advance at the beginning of each month, and try to stick to it. This way, the honourable members can be informed of the upcoming issues and prepare for their examination (or simply avoid them entirely). It will also show to outsiders that we are busy. :-)
 * From your unofficial tyrant, have a nice evening (UTC). Waltham, The Duke of 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Standardisation of titles for medals and trophies
I shall go straight to the point: there are two ways of naming recipients of several kinds of awards in succession boxes: the first is by simply naming the award, as in the following example from the article of Benjamin Franklin:

The second follows the format "Recipient of the [medal/award (linked)]" or "Winner of the [trophy (linked)]", as in the following example from the article of Rudy Giuliani:

s-awards -> s-ach | aw   Bazj (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you will agree that we must choose between one of these two methods. In my opinion, the second one is the way to go, as the boxes are all supposed to refer to their subjects, which have to be identified (in this case with the "recipient" or "winner" description). The name of a medal is not equivalent to an office, the name of which always describes its holder ("secretary", for example, is a person). On the other hand, of course, there is the size issue to consider.

Discuss. Waltham, The Duke of 11:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to favor the second alternative, for the reason outlined by His Grace; it seems logical and sensible, even if it does result in somewhat longer strings of text. I am also of the opinion that the definite article in titles of awards should be lowercased and not linked (hence "Recipient of the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award", not "Recipient of The Ronald Reagan Freedom Award"). How do others feel about this, and is it something that should be added to the SBS guidelines? Alkari (?), 28 January 2008, 21:30 UTC
 * I favor the second alternative as well. Regarding the definite article, I wouldn't mind seeing it lower case, except maybe in those instances, if any, when the award name clearly contains the word "The", like in, for instance, The Ohio State University. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Regarding articles, I think that we should use whatever the official name of the award is. Ardric47 (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should use the official name of the award, and that ought to define the first letter of the definite article as well. And not all awards have long names; "Recipient of the Copley Medal" won't even fill the entire line (in most cases, of course; each monitor has a different opinion on this).
 * By the way, nice example, Mr Carter; I'd like to see who won The Ohio State University this year. (Evil grin) Waltham, The Duke of 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It would appear that there is an agreement, ladies and gentlemen. If there is no further comment to be made, I shall close this proposal within a few days, with the comment "proposal approved; note that care ought to be taken with the use of the definite article". Or something like that. Waltham, The Duke of 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well. I declare this discussion closed and this proposal approved. I shall archive it soon, as well as update the guidelines to reflect this consensus. Waltham, The Duke of 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Guideline encouraging universal linking of predecessors and successors
This is more or less standard practice, but it is not a guideline, and there are more exceptions than what could be described as "sorry, I forgot about this one". One of the chief purposes of succession boxes is to ease navigation by allowing readers to click their way from the beginning to the end of a chain. In order to make that feasible, it is necessary that all predecessors and successors should be linked.

This is the easy part; the tough one concerns missing links in the chain. Red links are unavoidable, as hardly every chain passes exclusively through existing articles. Some of these red links will eventually turn blue, as their subjects acquire their own cosy homes in Wikipedia; some of them, however, will never do (a basic problem, to be dealt with in the future). In any case, I find that it is inexcusable to remove red links just because they lead nowhere at the time (or not to add them for the same reasons). Apart from the lack of standardisation this practice generates, it creates more gaps in the chains than if all names were linked. I thus propose that we should adopt a guideline encouraging editors to link all predecessors and successors, regardless of whether the target articles exist or not.

We could also include a couple of tips to editors, helping them avoid erroneous linking practices. It is, of course, better to have a red link than to link to the wrong article. Therefore, a couple of suggestions could be along the lines of "avoid linking to disambiguation pages" and "if an article does not exist, link to its proper title according to the naming conventions; if you cannot, leave it unlinked and somebody else will do it instead".

Please discuss; as we shall need to shape this guideline (if, that is, we do agree with the principle), simple voting will not suffice. Waltham, The Duke of 11:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be forced or even pushed. If an article on that person is indeed created they will get the succession boxes and then they will most certainly be linked back and forth. Red links are jarring and ugly and I don't like them unless they are necessary. More often than not, a person with the knowledge is going to create the article eventually without even looking at a succession box. Even then, who is to say what name it is going to be created under (I speak from the experience of renaming royalty articles on a daily/weekly basis, titles are omitted, house names are sometimes used, variants of forenames are used, etc). I support waiting for the article first before making a link to it. Charles 04:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I tentatively support the linking. In doing it, we (ideally) create a uniform page title to be linked to. Perhaps we shouldn't need to create uniform titles...but in practice, I think that they are helpful. For example, see . Ardric47 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should depend on whether there is a reasonable expectation that the article will be created. There's no sense creating permanent red links.--Appraiser (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If an article cannot be expected to be created on its own, can't it be expected, however, to be created as a list entry? I mean, if one has held an office important enough to be tracked by a succession chain, shouldn't that person deserve coverage by at least a couple of paragraphs? The existence of succession boxes in such lists has not been discussed so far, from what I know, but one would think that there is no problem simply adding the (almost certainly one-line) box at the end of the entry, and before the next (Level One) heading.
 * We don't really know that a person fitting our tracking criteria will never be covered on Wikipedia. Waltham, The Duke of 00:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * List entries belong in lists, not as separate articles. That's why, at least for royalty, we have lists of monarchs, kings, etc as single articles. That's also why we shouldn't be expected to create a chain with the linking. Charles 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Moses E. Clapp has an article because he was a senator. He also was a state attorney general and has a succession box for that.  But his AG predecessor and successor will probably never have articles, because very little has been written about them. I think those names should be de-linked. That can always be reversed if someone does learn anything beyond their names and what years they served as AG.--Appraiser (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Perhaps I have used the wrong words. How do we call it when we have an article comprising sections too small for their own articles? Well, that. (Although I must note that the trend has been to turn those into stubs, so we are back to, as they say, "square one".) Waltham, The Duke of 00:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to support (red)linking for all but truly exceptional cases. The presence of redlinks is useful when creating new articles, to see what should be tied in to them. Omitting them means that if the article *is* created, the author has to hunt out all the appropriate succession boxes and add the links. Even if there's not enough material to furnish a standalone stub on that individual, it may be best to redirect the individual to the appropriate list article. I've been doing this for baronets, for instance (Sir Anthony Thomas Abdy, 3rd Baronet redirects to an anchor in Abdy Baronets and is appropriately categorized), and I think it's pretty useful. Plus if more material turns up, the redirects can always be expanded to an actual article. Choess (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more. By the way, such redirects to list articles would better be tagged with the appropriate template: R to list entry (as it turns out, I did use the correct name). Personally, I support red-linking for election dates as well, when the articles for the corresponding elections have not yet been created (most commonly seen for by-elections). However, this might prove even more controversial, which is why I have only made this proposal for the predecessors and successors' names. Waltham, The Duke of 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion usually ends when there is consensus on a matter. Is there a consensus here? I am not sure. Waltham, The Duke of 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I basically see three alternative possibilities here. One is to provide a link to a list of the holders of the title, office, whatever, the second is to create redirects to a list for each successor, and the other is to provide links to articles for each individual successor. I guess my favored choice would be to create the list of names and individual redirects to the specific name on the list if there is no extant separate article. There are now extant projects or work groups for every country and US state that currently exists, so the likelihood of someone at some point creating an article for most, if not each, name is probably fairly good. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. I do not quite agree with directly linking predecessors and successors to lists of holders, because I believe these lists ought to be linked to from the title cell. (Currently, there appear to be two main linking practices for the title cell, with some preferring to link to the article of the title and others to the list of the holders. This is not to be discussed here, but surely we cannot ignore the facts.) John Carter's plan also has the advantage that, although it is not guaranteed that upon the creation of an article all links will be corrected, anyone following the succession chain and ending up in the list of holders will probably see a blue link there leading to the new article, which will increase the possibilities of someone correcting the succession box's link to lead directly to that article. If, of course, we are talking about a list entry, upon its creation the redirect will be replaced by the article, instantly fixing all the links. Waltham, The Duke of 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do the honourable members have anything further to say on the matter? I don't want to invoke the "silence is consensus" principle, but if another few days pass without a comment I shall have no choice but to start a poll on the plan submitted by John Carter. Personally, I prefer discussion. Waltham, The Duke of 23:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that linking seems appropriate, although my personal caveat lies where the same person appears multiple time (e.g. at Michel-Édouard Méthot for an example). I am a big proponent of not linking more than needed, and I think linking a name only once makes it more easy to notice multiple appearance by the same name. That might just be me, though. Circeus (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Consorts
I think there should be a separate header for consorts. Currently, s-reg is being used on some consorts and some people who were consorts and sovereigns in their own right (such as Maria Theresa of Austria). Maria Theresa was Queen of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia and Slavonia, Archduchess of Austria and Duchess of Parma and Piacenza in her own right but Holy Roman Empress and Queen in Germany by marriage, as an example. Charles 01:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm dubious about the whole notion of succession boxes for consorts as such. Perhaps we should raise that issue. The "succession" of consorts is inherently discontinuous, although I suppose you could say that for the Principality of Wales etc. too. Choess (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We have articles listing consorts to various thrones and even the s-vac template with the "last" and "next" parameters. Discontinuous or not, they are just as useful as any monarch succession series and should be distinguished from them. Charles 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The current practice is to use s-reg for Queens and Empresses Regnant and s-roy for Queens and Empresses Consort; the former have royal powers, while the latter are simply royalty.
 * Perhaps this ought to be clarified in the Guidelines? (Gosh, the page needs a shorter shortcut.) Waltham, The Duke of 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the header should explicitly state the status of the titles. Simply "royalty" is fine for a title like Princess Royal or something like that, but consort titles with almost automatic succession (depending on if there is a spouse for the successor of the actual title holder) should be differentiated. Also, I think s-roy is flawed as is (it doesn't make sense in some cases with a generic "British royalty" applied to people in line of succession to the British throne who are not British or not royalty, etc). Charles 23:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well...
 * We had a discussion at the template's talk page last October. I stated my arguments there (yes, there), but you failed to answer. If you really wanted the matter solved, all you had to do was continue the discussion.
 * I asked at WikiProject Royalty as early as last June, and they told me it was all right. (The link is this.) If there is a disagreement between you and DBD, I am certainly not aware of it.
 * If you are still not satisfied, then we probably ought to have a big discussion about this here. However, and I beg you to forgive the delay, more serious matters need to be addressed first, and whatever decision is taken about the headers it can be implemented rather easily anyway. I have scheduled several header-related discussions for May—if this is not resolved otherwise, it can be taken care of then. Ample time for everyone to prepare their arguments, I trust. We have to set our priorities, you know... Waltham, The Duke of 16:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)