Template talk:Succession box

Current syntax

{{start box}}

{{succession box |
  before=— |
  title=[[Minister of Defence]] |
  years=1940–1945 |
  after=[[Clement Attlee]]
}}

{{succession box |
  before=[[Neville Chamberlain]] |
  title=[[Conservative Party (UK)|Leader of the British Conservative Party]] |
  years=1940–1955 |
  after=[[Anthony Eden|Sir Anthony Eden]]
}}

...

{{end box}}

For when the office's titles changes mid-way through tenure

{{succession box |
  before=[[Harriet Harman]] |
  title=[[Secretary of State for Work and Pensions|Secretary of State for Social Security]]'''<br />''Later '''Sec. State Work and Pensions'' |
  years=1998&ndash;2002 |
  after=[[Andrew Smith]]
}}

Looks like this (with start and end):

For when the office's titles changes on hand-over

{{succession box |
  before=[[Stephen Byers]]'''<br /><small>''Sec. State Transport, Local<br/>Government and the Regions'''''</small> |
  title=[[Secretary of State for Transport]] |
  years=2002&ndash; |
  after=Current Incumbent
}}

Looks like this (with start and end):

or

{{succession box |
  before=[[Stephen Dorrell]] |
  title=[[Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport|Secretary of State for National Heritage]] |
  years=1995–1997 |
  after=[[Chris Smith (UK politician)|Chris Smith]]'''<br /><small>''Sec. State Culture, Media and Sport'''''</small>
}}

Looks like this (with start and end):

Blank for easy copying

{{start box}}
{{succession box |
  before=  |
  title=  |
  years= – |
  after= 
}}
{{end box}}

---

This template produces invalid HTML result

The template uses "id=toc" to assign style information to elements. That's incorrect approach. According to HTML specification, the id attribute must be unique for a given document (page). It must not appear more than once on the page. The template produces a copy of id=toc for every row. That should be fixed. The style information should be assigned through class="some_class_name" instead of id="toc".

See http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#adef-id

id = name [CS]
   This attribute assigns a name to an element. This name must be unique in a document.

--Gene s 08:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed; it took all of 5 seconds.

James F. (talk) 13:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's because it was not a good fix :-P

You assign the class to every row, when a clean solution would only asign the class to the table itself {{start box}} :-)

--Gene s 13:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oy veh. {{sofixit}}.

James F. (talk) 13:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was done before you posted your comment :-) --Gene s

Moved from Template talk:Succession

moved here, as it's more appropriate James F. (talk) 13:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I update the table with a prettier version (and appropriately update Template:preceded and Template:succeeded too, in place of prev/next in this example)?

Preceded by:	{{{office}}}	Succeeded by:
{{{prev}}}		{{{next}}}

--Gene s 13:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given that I suggested switching a fortnight ago, I'm happy with changing the box itself, but I don't think it looks so good with the differently-coloured "Preceded by:" and "Succeeded by:" bits...

James F. (talk) 13:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, also, I don't think it works too well on two lines, because it makes the spacing that bit larger...

James F. (talk) 13:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it copies the style of various geography templates. It has the same color and spacing as, for example, the Template:G8 or Template:Europe. --Gene s 14:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That it may be, but these are not set boxes like the ones you mentioned, but instead succession boxes, which, everywhere, seem to use the formatting as shown on Tony Blair, Winston Churchill, and several hundred other articles on British politicians...

James F. (talk) 17:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Everywhere" is a big stretch. As far as I can see, the majority of articles still uses the plain HTML table for succession boxes, or no succession at all. The succession box on Winston_Churchill page looks unreasonably verbose with "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" in every row.

I believe all navigation tables should have the same look. The geography navigation IMO looks prettier. It serves the same purpose as the succession navigation boxes. I don't see a reason why they should be formatted differently. The British politicians succession boxes use {{succession box}} templates. It would not be too hard to update that template to the same look as the geography navigation. --Gene s 05:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And another point regaring {{succession box}} on Winston_Churchill page. It bolds all text except years in office and padding (preceded/succeeded) which is useless in the first place. Bolding everything is wrong. Bolding should be used to emphesize a certain part of the text. When everything is bold (everything emphesized), then it's equivalent to nothing being emphesized. --Gene s 07:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And yet anothet point regaring {{succession box}}. The internal inter-cell vertical lines in that box are black, while horizontal lines and outer borders are gray. Why?

What's the reason for assigning style information through id (id=toc) instead of an explicit class declaration? Having two or more elements with the same id is invalid (see http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#adef-id This name must be unique in a document.). That page has multiple elements with the same id - the actual TOC and every row in the navigation box. That should be fixed. --Gene s 07:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

The current {{succession box}} can be easily converted to something like this for the joined box, like the one on Winston Churchill page

Preceded by		Succeeded by
aaa	bbb 1995-1998	ccc
eee	fff 1998-2000	ggg

By adding a variable for rowspan="N" it would work for complex cases too. The word office in the caption should be a template. --Gene s 14:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Argh.

I don't doubt that one could do what you want, I merely point out that it's absolutely awfully ugly. :-)

Years of office are important, but you seem to dislike these.

Also, I think I actually prefer saying "preceded by" each time.

James F. (talk) 16:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, clearly there are different opinions on what is considered ugly. I think the current table ain't grand either. Would you share anything more specific than that?

I made the table as a quick example. The actual template should be backwards compatible, thus the years in office must be present. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that such a minor detail can be skipped from the sample. Here you go, with the dates.

And I think that is redundant. It clutters the table with the obvious. What is the purpose of having the preceded/succeeded in every row? What does it achieve? Same goes for bolding all the text in the table.

By the way, what kind of monitor do you use to view this? Can it be some sort of LCD screen by any chance? --Gene s

I agree with James; I think the current style is quite decent and see no need for another change (hell, we haven't even updated all the old wikitax tables yet!) Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The style of this box is different from the styles of the other navigation boxes. As for the old style not being updated, that is really not a problem. One does not preclude the other. Templates are great because updating one automatically updates all the pages where it's used. --Gene s 05:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, your declaration that all geography templates use your personally-preferred style isn't wholly correct - see, for example, Hertfordshire and the like.

I wasn't responding to your table, but your comment, above, saying that you didn't like having years in the template. And not all the text is emboldened - indeed, that's the whole point, that the years and "preceded by" bits aren't.

As for what monitors I've looked at the different styles over the recent months, well, yes, LCDs feature - 3 Apple laptop LCDs, 2 Sun workstation CRTs, and my personal workstation's monitors - 2 Iiyama CRTs, 2 Iiyama LCDs, and 2 SGI LCDs. The colour saturation balance is off, IMO, and it looks much better unadorned with festoonery and the like about it.

I propose re-implementing Template:Succession with this one and startbox/endbox, for cleanliness and the vyed-for homogeneity.

James F. (talk) 16:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't move comments around. Your rearrangement of comments makes the sequance of responces less clear. If you don't like my responces inserted after your individual statements, just say so.

your declaration that all geography templates use your personally-preferred style isn't wholly correct - I never said all. It's not just a significant fraction of geography templates (world, Europe, EU, France, Russia, Switzerland, and probably more). There are a few others in this style, for example {{headgear}}. saying that you didn't like having years - please point me to that comment. I can't see it anywhere. I believe I never made such comment because I think years are useful.

As for LCD, I am using two different displays. One represents shades a lot better than the other. The templates look somewhat different on these screens. The template looks a lot better on the screen with better color reproduction. It also looks pretty good on a CRT screen. So, my suspicion was that you were using some sort of LCD with poor color reproduction, and consequently objected to the style.

I already described my objections to the current {{succession box}}: (a) the style is inconsistent with the majority of other navigation templates, (b) redundant preceded/succeeded in every row, (3) bolding of everything. I believe it's wrong to change the {{succession}} to the style which would incorporate these problems (compatibility should be considered too - see below). Can you actually state your objections to the style that I am advocating? Anything objective that can be addressed? Beyond it being "ugly"?

I propose re-implementing Template:Succession with this one and startbox/endbox, if we forget for a second that we have mot agreed on the style yet, then I'm sure you understand that the updated template must be backwards compatible. It would still have to be a single line {{succession|office=xxx|preceded=xxx|succeeded=xxx}}, because otherwise all the pages where this template is used would have to be updated. And that's a lot of work for no real gain.

--Gene s 10:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lot of work? Pah:
{{start box}}
{{succession box | before={{{preceded}}} | title={{{office}}} | after={{{succeeded}}} }}
{{end box}}
Obviously the template has to be backwards compatible - otherwise, we'd just delete it.
Mind you, fixing the pages linking to Template:Succession is no major problem either - I'm happy to do it (an hour, at most).
You still don't seem to actually understand what I'm saying - this is not like "the other navigation templates" - it's not a set-selection one, as you suggested, where there are dozens (all possible entries) listed, and one of them is highlighted, but a succession thing, which rather different in concept and, if anything, it is probably better that the two do not look wholly alike, as we are asking the reader to adopt a wholly different mental model to use them.
As for my re-formatting of your comment, it was to fix the mess created by interspersed comments - they work fine, but only if your comment is the last one in the discussion; any more, and it's unreadable to the nth degree. Policy comments on this, somewhere, I think, not to mention common practice.
James F. (talk) 02:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not create a Template:Start succession box and use that with Template:Succession box? This would make it easy to change the layout. If you want to change the layout of the table you edit the start template. The you just have to edit the templates if you want to change something. Jeltz 17:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

I'm rather unclear as to why the current setup need be changed at all. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I too like the current setup (Template:succession box; if that is what you refer to) but I was thinking of a way to make it more flexible if we for some reason would want to change the layout. Jeltz 21:41, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Lot of work? Pah: -- We obviously have some kind of communication problem. I said it would be a lot of work if it is not backwars-compatible. I did not say it would be a lot of work to make the tempate:succession from the templates start_box-end_box-succession_box. Now, what's the advantage of going through another layer of indirection by assembling the template:succession from the three templates?

You still don't seem to actually understand what I'm saying - this is not like "the other navigation templates" -- And you still don't seem to actually understand what I'm saying. This is still a navigation box. It serves the same purpose - navigation through a sequence of similar entries. The reason you give does not seem to be good enough to mandate a separate style. I believe Wiki should use the same visual style for all service elements. I don't insist on any particular style. I insist on a uniform style.

I would like to point out that you are avoiding the subject of objective criteria. You have not produced any objective reasons why the template:succession has to be updated at all. The only reason you gave is "ugly". That's NOT objective.

Policy comments on this, somewhere, I think, not to mention common practice. -- If you can produce a link to policy, please do so. Otherwise it is not a "common practice" but your POV. My POV is to answer specific statements one by one. That avoids the need to copy quoted text, like I have to do here. I am following your request as a gesture of good will, not because there is something objectively advantageous about it.

By the way, I am satisfied with the status quo. I don't mind making another multi-line template in the same common navigation style. Say, succession_start, succession_end and succession_row. That way you can go with your style, I can go with mine, and we let the community decide what works best.

--Gene s 08:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can't we first decide on a way to implement this so it can easily be changed and then think about the exact layout? Should succession or succession box be the template that we will use? My oppinion is that it can't be made backwards compatible and correct at the same time. It's not much job at all to add the "start box" and "end box". At least not this ealry. Stop thinking of backwards compatibility and think of designing something that's easy to change in the future. Jeltz 10:50, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

I am not sure there is a disagreement with what to implement. We need a simple one-liner like the current template:succession to adress the vast majority of simple cases, and we need a multiline box like the current template:start box/template:succession box/template:end box for complex cases. Within these sets any changes can be made backwars-compatible, that's really not a problem.

It's not much job at all to add the "start box" and "end box". At least not this ealry. True. The template:succession is used by about 50 pages: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:succession, the template:succession_box by about 250: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:succession_box. On the other hand, it's not just the one time job of converting one box to the other, it's also a simplicity of future use. The one-liner is easier to learn and understand (and for the wiki engine to render) than a more complex multiline syntax. The majority of succession_box uses is an overkill. The simple template:succession is enough for like 90% of cases. --Gene s 11:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree that it is simpler to use a one-liner if we can. My suggestion about having Succession using Succession_box (and PeerNavbox, for that matter) is that it will join up the formatting/layout for all of them, and so make it simpler in future if we want to change the style - no need to change it thrice. It was a very minor point and I now feel sorry for making it. :-)

But I still fundamentally disagree with you about "navigation through a sequence of similar entries" being a use of the general set-boxes. They are about browsing between, and nothing at all to do with a 'sequence', nor anything else that you would navigate through instead of about.

James F. (talk) 03:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why you deny the obvious. Are you saying the list of US Presidents is not a sequential list of similar entries? Then what is it? The {{succession}} is a tool for browsing through this list. Functionally it's not much different than, say {{JanuaryCalendar}}. Please explain your position.

You still avoid the question of objective criteria. Why do you believe the "plain" style with redundant succeeded/preceded is better than the standard blue-colored style? --Gene s 09:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well done, after a whole bloody week of this, you've finally managed to hit the nail on the head - the set-template of US Presidents is neither "sequential" nor a "list", but a box. This is not denial of the obvious (or, at least, certainly not by me), but a fundamental part of user-interface design.

If you really, seriously, cannot tell the functional difference between a set-selector and a sequential-selector, then, well, I am terribly sorry for you; it is rather a sad thing.

As to having the redundancy of "Succeeded by" &c., and the separate issue over whether these texts should be highlighted in some way, I'm not wholly wedded to the idea of the former, but am against the latter, on æsthetic grounds. Arguing that this last point is objective is really quite an odd line to take, IYAM.

James F. (talk) 23:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The list of US presidents is a list, not a "box". There is nothing inherently "boxy" about a list. You seem to believe that a navigation box with a long list of components and a navigation box with just two components are fundumentally different GUI concepts mandating different styles. I don't think so. They are essentially the same navigation boxes.

I suggest you keep such "witty" remarks to yourself. They are simply an indication of your failure to conduct a professional discussion.

The question of esthetic superiority is a purely subjective one. The "blue" style exists and widely used. Thus, there are people who find its esthetic value sufficient. Personally, I am not against any style. I am against the discordance of styles. And IYAM, using arguments like "really quite an odd line to take" is unproductive. Such arguments are meaningless. --Gene s 08:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you fail to see my point with the box of US Presidents, what about that of NATO countries, or EU ones (the geographical templates to which you alluded, seemingly many moons ago, above)? Are you suggesting that one would always progress from Algeria to Andorra (or somesuch otherwise pairing) when using such a template? Of course not! The box-selector is for selecting any one of the (possibly quite numerate) related items, whereas the sequence-selector is for picking from exactly two chronologically-proximal items. That is my point, and I would have thought it not only obvious but a matter of fact, and not something to be discussed at all, let alone for quite so long as this.

No, I don't fail to see your point. I understand your POV, I just disagree with it. The essential functionality is the same - navigation. You are saying there are different types of navigation, I am saying it's still navigation. Is the glass half full or half empty?

I would protest most vigorously my not "fail[ing] to conduct a professional discussion" with you (though, I must admit, this conversation does seem to be overly taxing on my reserves of patience); my comment was intended to cause you to pause and reflect on that which I was referring to, as you seem to not respond to some of my comments directly.

Yes, I wholly agree, æsthetic grounds are subjective; this is, in fact, somewhat of a tautology. My point was that, as I have repeatedly said that my complaint against the use of the blue highlighting in this context is based on subjective grounds, you then jumping in with it as a "question of objective criteria" is rather bemusing — the odd line to take is that you seemed to link my stated subjective comments with objective ones, which they are most obviously not.

Finally, my point is that I do not believe that it is discordant to not use every part of a style in a particular area, and, this being the opinion of the two others who have commented here save ourselves, it would probably be a far better waste of our respective times if we went and did something else, somewhere else, and leave things be as they are. :-)

James F. (talk) 09:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I don't mind dropping this matter for a while. Say a period of one month to cool off and to reflect.

As for the opinions of the other two people, I am not sure they agree with what you think they agree. I would rather see them speek for themselves, rather than to have their words interpreted. --Gene s 11:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added a translated version of the template:Succession to no.wiki and it goes pretty well, more people have been taking up the torch and most of the succession boxes is over to the new format. I belive the modular design is the best one, abeit more markup but in the long run you don't confuze people and end up with several boxes because people didn't understand that there was another template for multiple boxes. Having one template also helps with future updates. Profoss 22:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

oops, my mistake, i messed up the different nameing, what i ment was that we use Sucession box on no:. 22:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it would have been better if you waited a little while. People doesn't really seem to have made up their minds. I haven't really made up my mind yet, but it's not a big issue ot me. As logn as we decide on soemthing that is flexible and that people like. (If people alreayd have decide just ignore this.) Jeltz 00:04, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 April 2024

"Forth successors" s/b "Fourth successors" Chris the speller ^yack 16:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)