![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
This is the third archive of The Duke of Waltham's talk page. About half of its content consists of messages between the Duke and Whaleyland, which attempt to re-establishe SBS's good working order after the summer lull in activity. The specifics for the new title parameters of certain succession templates were also agreed here. Beginning in late October, however, this archive also contains messages from other editors, pointing to both Whaleyland's absence and to the now extensive connections of the Duke in the community, and indicating His Grace's ever improving status in Wikipedia. Here are stored all discussions beginning and ending in the time period from 1 September to 30 December 2007, the archive essentially covering the last four months of that year.
Archiving took place on 29 October, 16 December, and 23 December 2007, and on 6 February 2008.
Greetings, Darius. I bid you a good month. I should like to apologise for my unexpected delay (yours was entirely expected, I must say); I am just now coming out of a most unpleasant experience: house painting. The only fortunate thing about it is that it did not happen as a result of any fire.
I devoted much of the previous week to updating the succession boxes of the Postmasters General of the United States. All of them. Unluckily for me, many of them lasted little more than a few months on the job, and as a result there are more than seventy. And several were also chairmen of either the Republican or the Democratic National Committee, and in most occasions there were no succession lines for the latter. The only consolation is that all of them had succession boxes for the office of Postmaster General. (Even if all had Template:Succession box templates which I have had to update. All except for the grand finale: Benjamin Franklin himself. Nice box, but it still had a couple of deficiencies which I have graciously put right.)
In contrast to about half the Archbishops of York, where from a point backwards I had to create their boxes article by article (and it was not just the archbishopric; all of them had to be bishops before their translation to York). I stopped somewhere in the early nineteenth or late eighteenth century, I think—I intend to continue with that chain sometime in the future. This is an ancient title; centuries of work await me...
Back to the project of the week (the Postmasters). I have seen many interesting cases of succession boxes in the course of these days, some of which had me make some tough choices and have given me ideas about issues we ought to solve by clarifying some of the guidelines or even writing a couple of new ones. For instance, what ought our policy to be regarding military offices? All offices connected to the military (save political offices and regnal titles) are to be assigned to the s-mil header or are some of them exempted? I am asking this because I once encountered in my "mission" the office of Judge Advocate General of the United States Army and the few articles that exist about people who have held this office have no headers in their boxes. So, the dilemma is the following: Legal or military? I finally elected the latter thinking of the informal "rule" stated above (because it is in the military, which is a wholly separate branch), and that the "legal offices" category was created to mostly deal with people in the proper judicial system, the one tormenting civilians. This question is still open, though.
Other issues include the use of the alongside parameter, to which I had been rather oblivious until I started replacing it in Senators' boxes (not more than a dozen, though). I now realise the error of my ways, as the Regent parameter is for actual sharers of a position and not for senators serving on different terms. And it is not that important to note their years of coexistence either. But this parameter, much like the reason parameter in s-vac and the as parameters in s-bef and s-aft, and perhaps others that have escaped my attention, need to be described in the /doc page.
And I am in the pleasant position to announce that I have just taken care of it. I have performed various maintenance works on the page, leaving few paragraphs completely unchanged: I have corrected style mistakes (the dates in the example boxes were still linked, abbreviated, and without spaces between the years and the dashes!), brought the fairly complex and half-obsolete terminology in line with the one in the Guidelines page, and updated the text itself, adding information about some of the missing fields. I believe you will be satisfied with the result; it is the first actual large-scale maintenance of the rewritten page.
Another consequence of my bicentennial trip was the discovery of another special case. More specifically, the recreation of an office title under a slightly different name. In this case the as parameter could not be used because there was a gap of a few years and the s-aft template ought to be replaced by its vacancies counterpart. S-vac does not have an as parameter. I highly believe that it should have it, so that some of the more special cases can be more easily dealt with. Titles can change names while vacant as easily as when they are occupied.
And I have been thinking about other special cases too. Especially those incorporating s-vac. Like abeyances. Having both "Vacant" and "Title in abeyance" in the same cell looks quite redundant to me. As does the combination of "New title" and "New creation". And I then started thinking about your parameters idea under a different light altogether.
You see, when you first mentioned the idea I thought of parameters of a more compulsory nature. A scheme of "pick your parameter", if you like. I also thought of parameters creating supplementary text identical to that created by the reason parameter, but in this case automatically. Which two reasons were why I objected to this system on the grounds of simplicity. I mean, why put up a whole mechanism to do what can be done by typing a few normal words anyway? My epiphany is based upon two key-words: "optional" and "flexible".
We can put a couple of parameters in place that will substitute the main message. For example, {{s-new}} will display the usual "New title" message (with an optional reason field) while {{s-new|creation}} will display a message "New creation" instead of "New title", still enabling the optional reasoning (but often making it unnecessary and thus saving space). In the same way, {{s-vac}} will display "Vacant" without any further complications, while {{s-vac|abeyance}} will display a message "In abeyance" in place of "Vacant", which will remove all visual redundancies in the event of an abeyant title (as well as make the box smaller, as the abeyance will again be mentioned without an extra reason line). The parameters will do nothing that can be done in the reason field (thus eliminating redundant complexity) but will take up a new, very useful, and completely independent function. And inexperienced editors will not encounter any problems by using the unadorned s-new and s-vac templates (which will be their most usual forms anyway), for the parameters will be completely optional. (By the way, we should also take the opportunity of changing the appearance of s-new cells the way I have suggested. Also, note that I mention nothing about s-non; I believe we should add no parameters to s-non, given its different mechanics, and guidelines could help with its standardisation without automated one- or two-word tags. Although we might tackle the issue of bringing it into symmetry with s-new sometime in the future.)
I know this has mostly been your idea all along, but I think that it can work even better with this twist; I am already excited. I hope you shall forgive me for not having given more thought into your idea in its original iteration.
(Talking about technical changes, there is still the problem with custom-made headers in s-par. The faulty headers may not be visible but the problem is still there. I beg you to make haste and rectify this dangerous situations by enact the default tag "Assembly seats" option.)
Generally, my take on the general matter of templates is that we should ensure that all potential succession events can be dealt with in the most efficient, simple, and presentable manner. Succession lines are like pipes of different diameter: we must ensure there exist all the necessary pieces to connect them properly and without any leaks. The pieces must fit.
Anyway, apart from the templates, I have a full-fledged legislative agenda for this autumn. I have solutions to propose for matters ranging from title transitional boxes to approximate date abbreviations and from name-linking policies to chain termination standardisation guidelines. I also have ideas for the formats of orders of precedence and United States Senators and Representatives. But all in due course. This is not the time, with everybody still away, and this message is already overlong.
Indeed, summer is now over and it stands to reason to say that most editors have returned from their holidays. And even those who have not will do so in the following week or two. I require your permission to send out the "project renovated—need contributors—renew membership" messages to the members' talk pages. I believe two months are enough for all those interested to proceed with the renewal; you must have seen that I have set Halloween as the deadline.
What else? The SBS box is very good. I like its simplicity and functionality; good work, Darius. A small picture might look good at the top, I thought, but there might not be any picture suitable for a succession boxes infobox. Anyway, I have had to do two corrections: a typo and a redirect. About the latter, I believe it is better to direct editors to the proper Template:S-start page instead of the /doc page, which is only used for editing purposes and is not meant to be seen. I have already corrected all the intra-page links in /doc to take to the proper page instead of the /doc one.
Note: I have registered the Guidelines shortcut (WP:SBSGUIDE) in the relevant list.
The problem with infoboxes is that some of them are mostly used in long articles and the few short articles that use them look very ugly but have little prospect of growing much more. Maybe a policy of collapsible infoboxes or of infoboxes only showing the part of the dynasty relevant in each particular case would be more suitable.
SBS has been completely deserted lately. It is a little distressing, you know. In any case, whatever changes take place will not be seen until somebody returns, and this is why we are on committee mode anyway. Although I spend much time editing succession boxes, I also feel like doing some further meta work, and I believe my input can be useful elsewhere, too.
Do not think for a moment that I am abandoning SBS. But I am thinking of becoming a counsellor.
From the Council I shall be able to, amongst other things, help in the coordination of WikiProjects, so SBS will still have something to gain from my involvement there (after all, it has no "representatives" there at the moment). The Council is also an inter-project forum of discussion and many a useful cooperation can come as a result. In addition, I might make some Wikifriends there. Did you know SBS was the only WikiProject I participated in?
Listen, Darius, I am also saddened by the outcome of the WAF debate. But you can see that I have been keeping myself busy in Wikipedia, and we both know there are many things to do to develop SBS. (I have seen that you have also been keeping busy—I am the project's official Big Brother, after all, I see everything in SBS—and your deletion work is brilliant). It is your creation, after all, I am sure that you want to see it strong, healthy, respectable, efficient. I assure you that I will do my best to help this project grow, improve its templates and fine-tune its guidelines, attain a greater membership and start getting its tasks organised. My vision is to see a working project actively and effectively improving the tens of thousands of succession boxes out there and bringing them up to the standards that have so laboriously been agreed upon. I think this is your vision too. And maybe later, perhaps after some months, we shall have prepared our case well enough and have mustered sufficient support to bring fiction back. Policies are still being changed, and usually to the best; and when the conditions change in our favour, we shall be there. But until then, we shall be doing more than just bidding our time: we shall be improving Wikipedia in any other way we can.
Please do not lose sight of this target because of a disappointment.
I am waiting to hear what you have to say on all this. And good luck with your other pursuits, too. Waltham, The Duke of 18:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: Have you noticed the new s-scouts template? I saw it as I was refurbishing the /doc page. We shall need to take it into account later, after reviewing it first. Waltham, The Duke of
A summary of what you have proposed (to act as an easier checklist):
I will reply to some of these issues in a bit. Anything you want to add to this list, please feel free. Also, cross off anything when it is done (although some cannot be completed, I know). May the grace of the gods go with you.
–
Whale
y
land (
Talk •
Contributions )
19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. A couple of corrections/clarifications:
I have also corrected the links in my previous message. Three faulty links; this must be my personal record. I doubt it warrants a succession box, though. ;-)
So, I shall await the sound of hooves at my gates. The table will be set and we can discuss these issues over dinner. Waltham, The Duke of 08:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Some more updates (it has been a busy week, ugg!)
Okay, that is all for now. Too busy to do much more than I can. I am slowly hacking away at the list where I can help. The strength of the horde goes with you!
–
Whale
y
land (
Talk •
Contributions )
22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Generally, my idea is that we should try to limit as much as possible the cases in which the editors will be forced to use <small> and <br />. If we do not subject the inexperienced editors to such complex structures there will be less confusion (and thus fewer mistakes) and greater standardisation. All this we can manage through parameters, which can be easier remembered than the specific manually created formats—especially if they are presented in a way easily received and memorised. This may be achieved by creating a template-parameter cheatsheet, like the one that already exists for general editing. Think of it: a page listing all the parameters with brief descriptions. I do not know about you, but I find it would be hugely helpful. We cannot deny that the whole system's complexity has greatly increased during the last year, and most contributors will not want to start serious study of succession boxes just to make a few changes in some articles that interest them. They will probably either botch it up or not bother at all.
I do not need to stress that this is highly undesirable, now, do I?
May you always find empty roads in front of you on which to freely gallop, and welcoming inns for fine ale and a good night's sleep. Waltham, The Duke of 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: I have also devised the five pillars of succession box writing (guess where I was inspired from). I can tell you if you are interested. They could be included in the cheatsheet. Waltham, The Duke of
Update: Triumph! The U.S. Presidents are all done! Standardisation across the whole chain for the first time. I feel so tired... Waltham, The Duke of 16:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for the long delay. To put it simply, I am in the process of many things currently, including (but not limited to):
Regardless, my absence is anything but acceptable or helpful, and in my various researches (using Wikipedia as a portal) I have discovered two different succession series using old HTML templates, neither of which I have been able to touch yet.
Now, onto business. Firstly, I have broken our various conversations up into dated sections. I think it will make it easier to get to the sections which we are currently discussion, and it makes the edit option appear much more often. If you disagree, that is fine and I apologize for messing with your talk page. Perhaps one of the reasons I have been putting off a reply, though, is because of the length and mass of our conversations and how much time it generally takes to reply.
Now, onto your post on my page:
That should be all! May the force of the wind fill your sails in your constant journeys and may the gods of old raise you up in your times of trouble. Until again, I bid adieu.
–
Darius von Whaleyland,
Great Khan
of the Barbarian Horde
23:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not know that you were (and are) nearly as busy as what you describe. It is entirely understandable that you should limit your activities in Wikipedia; people do have a real life to think about, after all. I have said time and again that I do not enjoy being pressing, but you seem to know yourself that you are necessary here. The project is still struggling for survival and there are countless loose ends and numerous new issues that need to be taken care of.
Because of this, I shall attempt to present to you the various matters and proposals in point-to-point reports here in this very page every time you answer, so that you may make the most of your time when dealing with SBS business. I shall be including revisions of the SBS talk page activity, so it will probably be better if you start here for a debriefing.
As far as the retouching of my (recently archived) talk page is concerned, I accept your apology—discipline must be maintained, you know ;-). Actually, it was a good idea, but I disagree a little with the particulars. Dates are not really useful in archives, especially since they are already present in the signatures. On the contrary, thematic sections are very helpful in researching and organising one's talk page and archives.
So, onto business, you say? I could not agree more. I shall take your points in the order you have given them.
Extra-long message as usual, but it demonstrates in the most telling manner how many and how complex the succession box world's problems are. It is a society even worse than ours, cruel, merciless, corrupt. We must be two of Wikipedia's greatest masochists. But, hey, rulers must have hobbies, right? Waltham, The Duke of 07:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess my header proves that I am, in fact, American despite my many attempts to hide that fact. But it does show the urgency of the situation, or at least my attempt to make it seem urgent...or something.
Loose ends are something of life that I have probably left many of. A great example would be the book I have been off and on writing for the better part of six years now. Let's just say it is a huge loose end that could really use a giant rubber band to at least get it a bit more coherent. I still have been keeping up with the talk page where I can, but there has not been much progress, although it has been a newer member who has been helping there, which is good. More outgoing recruits would be good.
Thematic sections work too, I just wanted something that was more easy to track and had more frequent edit lines. Of course with your messages, we could probably use sub edit lines, but that is something I think we can deal with.
Onto the 12ish points:
I will have to finish this on Monday. A customer stole the remaining time and I will be out of town this weekend. Cheers!
–
Darius von Whaleyland,
Great Khan
of the Barbarian Horde
01:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, something like changing those I can do between customers. Still a busy day but I got a few converted yesterday. Let us see if we can get them all swapped on the same day. Oh, and I will finish my response from a few days ago, but as an aside, I did finish all the s-inc change over via the the discussion above (with the corrections you noted). I am still awaiting an admin to change if over, though. I am not sure what the delay is.
–
Darius von Whaleyland,
Great Khan
of the Barbarian Horde
20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, Darius. It is nice to see that you are back, even if with a somewhat reduced presence. I hope your external pursuits are going well, and that you do not neglect them for Wikipedia's sake (as I do ;-)).
Currently, I am finishing up the long process of updating and correcting the British Prime Ministers' succession boxes by adding the final touch: dates to their terms' years. I am about in the middle of this, but when I find time I shall finish it once and for all. What I really want to do when I have more time and Internet access, though, is to surf the mainspace for good examples to add to the Documentation page, which I am now renovating in phases. I believe that it is now becoming much simpler and more helpful; I should like to know what you think of the instructions section (which is now complete).
I am also maintaining the Cheatsheet, which must stay abreast of the recent parameter additions to the templates. I have noticed that there are a couple of parameters I did not know of, like the "heir-type" one (discovered while editing Elizabeth II's article—talk about a major undertaking there), and I need to start looking at the sources of the templates to make sure there are not too many of them. I do like the change of documentation templates, though; the green look is a great improvement in appearance, and also makes the pages look more professional. I suppose I ought to give you credit for this.
A last note: Choess has voted on the parliamentary headers issue, and now we have five votes supporting the removal of disambiguation dates and none against. Perhaps we could wait a few more days and then petition an administrator for the change. At long last, I must add. Choess, by the way, has still not renewed her membership. I do not feel well with removing her from the list, but the deadline is approaching as fast as Halloween does.
Anyway, these are the latest in SBS. Tune in for the next update, after your reply. Waltham, The Duke of 08:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a query really. The guidelines show the parliamentary succession boxes before the political offices. Was wondering why you've been reversing the order? Thanks Galloglass 05:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really sure you've gone about this the right way tbh. Probably would have been better to propose an amended order list to succeed the one by Phoe and agreed last year and then put it out for discussion on the talk page. Its probably still the best way to go now before amending any more major figures as big changes to page order often generate more heat than light if they are not well discussed first. Galloglass 13:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you are not a member of the cabal, and have an interest in Wikiproject co-ordination, might I inquire if your Most High, Noble and Potent Prince, His Grace Christopher, Duke of Waltham would be interested in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology? I must say the pay isn't great, but the work is hard. All the best Tim Vickers 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, Sir, I am afraid our differences in expertise prevent a happy outcome. I must admit with a heavy heart that I do not even know what a Succession Box is, my deplorable ignorance would only be a weight on your endeavors. All the best Tim Vickers 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As Your Grace commands. Tim Vickers 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As you've probably seen, I've been grinding away like a beaver in a coffee lake working on the listing and succession of Lord Lieutenants. I haven't had a lot of time to devote to the rules of succession boxes per se, but once I get the Lord Lieutenants dispensed with, I'm going to try to dash back into it. At least for the British history, which is probably the best documented in this regard, I'd like to try and develop our catalog and classification of the various offices we track by succession box — the distinction between political, court, honourary, etc. offices is sometimes elusive. Happy editing, Choess 12:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
All done. Regards, Craigy ( talk) 12:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Oh and mine's a double vodka and coke ;-) Craigy ( talk) 12:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Darn it, seems like those weren't the common symbols any computer would recognize. Thanks for the heads up, a bunch of people I asked said it was alright, but I guess it isn't. ✗iℎi✗( talk) 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads-up! I'd already realized when I started signing pages with that signature that it was frowned upon to transclude a signature template directly into a page -- since that point (which was probably about a year ago), I've used subst: when signing all pages. Most likely the signatures you discovered that appeared in "transcluded templates" were those that I inserted a long time ago. ;) — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I replied on my talk, but then it might be better to try to make something, so I have created for you User:The Duke of Waltham/Navbox tiny, and applied it to this page.
Feel free to tweak it, or to nuke it out of existence if it displeases you.
If you do decide to use it, one small catch: it takes a parameter. On pages which are categorised, it needs different spacing, so you need to add the "cat=yes" , as in {{User:The Duke of Waltham/Navbox tiny|cat=yes}}
Hope this helps. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot remember introducing my bad self to you. You may have caught me off guard here. :-D
Blissfully unaware of what your arguments could be like, I still believe that the removal of the dates was the best way to go. You can have a look at the closed discussion in SBS's archives, if you want; the offices are closed now (being a Sunday), but you can use spare key under the doormat.
As far as the box is concerned, I think I will just remove the Clone link if I find that I need to add some new subpage. The Duck will be disappointed, of course, but I might find something else to comfort him with (perhaps extend his user page a little).
And now on to something else. I have been pondering a review of the format for the succession boxes of Members of Parliament, and, if I am correct, this is something within your sphere of interests, to put it this way, so your opinion will be much appreciated.
I should begin a new section for this in your talk page, but in that chaotic environment it might get lost. It is counter-intuitive, I know, but this peaceful country station that barely escaped the Beeching Axe may be better for this than busy busy Waterloo.
Ahem. The previous format for MPs' succession boxes was developed when the templates were in a more primitive state than they are today*, and some new features can now be incorporated. I have already changed the format for the beginnings and endings of constituencies, using templates s-new and s-non. I believe it looks much tidier now, and even more accurate (you cannot be preceded by a "Constituency created", it just makes no sense).
(* I believe you are still using Template:Succession box and its family. For this, I have already crossed you off my Christmas present list, and I have petitioned the Commonwealth of Nations to take further action against you, now that they still remember how it is done.)
The next change I am thinking of is to improve the title cell. My philosophy on this (soon to be included in the relevant subpage of mine that I am planning) is to include as few and as relevant links as possible, preferably one. In my opinion, Member of Parliament for Sedgefield is much better than Member of Parliament for Sedgefield. Succession boxes are not supposed to link to general concepts, unless there is no article for a title (and all UK constituencies have, or should have, their own articles). And I don't like the black in the titles.
Finally, I am reconsidering the format for transitions to new parliaments. Although somewhat repetitive in terms of titles and fellow MPs, the separation of the titles for different parliaments is probably better for accuracy. It also looks more widespread. Therefore, it might be for the best to change the current guideline to reflect this format, even though it will lead to slightly longer and more repetitive boxes. But a new format using the new parameters will be devised to improve the connection between the two chains of each pair, should we go through with this.
So? What sayest thou? I should be glad to know your opinion on this most significant matter. Waltham, The Duke of 10:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Happy to do so for the time being, but be aware that the guideline requiring spacing contradicts WP:MOSDASH. I don't think I've been linking dates, with the exception of elections, but perhaps I goofed and linked 1874 instead of 1874 or something. Choess ( talk) 15:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest WP:ERRORS for next time? -- 74.13.130.156 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I hereby award to myself this barnstar:
![]() |
The Super Hidden Barnstar |
This user has found Penubag 's secret hidden sub page! Can you find it? Ver. 2.3 |
I have placed it here because I have yet to make a decision upon a suitable location in my userspace for more permanent exhibition. (I do not intend to create an "Awards" subpage yet; I would have no awards to populate it with!) Waltham, The Duke of 11:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent message. You were perhaps motivated by curiosity about whether I'd abandoned any interest in the broad questions I'd raised a few months ago at WT:SBS#Exceptions to standardization?.
No, I've not abandoned this project. Yes, this subject is still very much in my thoughts; but I don't expect to be able to give it much attention until after the first of the year. Tentatively, I'm wanting to engage in a process which results in consensus agreement that two succession box series should reasonably incorporate non-standard elements up through 1868. The two series are treated as a whole in at least two general articles, with appropriate links to the hundreds of stand-alone articles which can be readily understood as logical corollaries or sub-sets:
1. Japanese era name or nengō: As you can see in the following example, the non-standard feature is the additional name of the current era name or "nengō" in a standard succession box format which identifies and links to both the previous and the succeeding era names. This is a deviation from standard guidelines; but -- I would argue -- this is necessary because of the eratic and unpredictable ways in which era name changes are initiated by the emperor, the reasons for changing era names, and the timing. For example, consider the following, which already suggests too much complexity for a venue devoted to discussing standardization of Wikipedia's succession boxes:
Tenpō | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th | 11th | 12th | 13th | 14th | 15th |
Gregorian | 1830 | 1831 | 1832 | 1833 | 1834 | 1835 | 1836 | 1837 | 1838 | 1839 | 1840 | 1841 | 1842 | 1843 | 1844 |
Preceded by: |
Succeeded by: |
2.
List of Emperors of Japan: As you can see in the following example, the non-standard feature is the additional name of the current emperor and his reign dates in a standard succession box format which identifies and links to both Emperor Rokujō's predecessor and successor. This is a deviation from standard guidelines; but -- I would argue -- this is necessary because of the highly ideosyncratic aspects of Japanese imperial history. To explain more fully, I suspect that it will be necessary to distill a concise argument relying in large part on a synthesis of the following: (a)
Emperor of Japan; (b)
Cloistered rule; and from (c)
Daijō Tennō.
As something of a practice exercise, I've initiated the following (which, I'd guess, concerns a subject which likely interests you not at all) ...:
Thank your for your kind attention and feedback ... and thanks as well for your demonstrable patience with me as I work through this problem a bit too slowly.-- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies your Grace. I am now truly blessed to have such an exquisite signature gracing my page. I thank you a thousand times over. Farewell ~ Bella Swan 22:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, D B D 16:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Things are moving along at our page concerning hard spaces. You came along just at the right time. I hope you will stay involved, as we approach a crucial vote.
Best wishes to you.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
This is the third archive of The Duke of Waltham's talk page. About half of its content consists of messages between the Duke and Whaleyland, which attempt to re-establishe SBS's good working order after the summer lull in activity. The specifics for the new title parameters of certain succession templates were also agreed here. Beginning in late October, however, this archive also contains messages from other editors, pointing to both Whaleyland's absence and to the now extensive connections of the Duke in the community, and indicating His Grace's ever improving status in Wikipedia. Here are stored all discussions beginning and ending in the time period from 1 September to 30 December 2007, the archive essentially covering the last four months of that year.
Archiving took place on 29 October, 16 December, and 23 December 2007, and on 6 February 2008.
Greetings, Darius. I bid you a good month. I should like to apologise for my unexpected delay (yours was entirely expected, I must say); I am just now coming out of a most unpleasant experience: house painting. The only fortunate thing about it is that it did not happen as a result of any fire.
I devoted much of the previous week to updating the succession boxes of the Postmasters General of the United States. All of them. Unluckily for me, many of them lasted little more than a few months on the job, and as a result there are more than seventy. And several were also chairmen of either the Republican or the Democratic National Committee, and in most occasions there were no succession lines for the latter. The only consolation is that all of them had succession boxes for the office of Postmaster General. (Even if all had Template:Succession box templates which I have had to update. All except for the grand finale: Benjamin Franklin himself. Nice box, but it still had a couple of deficiencies which I have graciously put right.)
In contrast to about half the Archbishops of York, where from a point backwards I had to create their boxes article by article (and it was not just the archbishopric; all of them had to be bishops before their translation to York). I stopped somewhere in the early nineteenth or late eighteenth century, I think—I intend to continue with that chain sometime in the future. This is an ancient title; centuries of work await me...
Back to the project of the week (the Postmasters). I have seen many interesting cases of succession boxes in the course of these days, some of which had me make some tough choices and have given me ideas about issues we ought to solve by clarifying some of the guidelines or even writing a couple of new ones. For instance, what ought our policy to be regarding military offices? All offices connected to the military (save political offices and regnal titles) are to be assigned to the s-mil header or are some of them exempted? I am asking this because I once encountered in my "mission" the office of Judge Advocate General of the United States Army and the few articles that exist about people who have held this office have no headers in their boxes. So, the dilemma is the following: Legal or military? I finally elected the latter thinking of the informal "rule" stated above (because it is in the military, which is a wholly separate branch), and that the "legal offices" category was created to mostly deal with people in the proper judicial system, the one tormenting civilians. This question is still open, though.
Other issues include the use of the alongside parameter, to which I had been rather oblivious until I started replacing it in Senators' boxes (not more than a dozen, though). I now realise the error of my ways, as the Regent parameter is for actual sharers of a position and not for senators serving on different terms. And it is not that important to note their years of coexistence either. But this parameter, much like the reason parameter in s-vac and the as parameters in s-bef and s-aft, and perhaps others that have escaped my attention, need to be described in the /doc page.
And I am in the pleasant position to announce that I have just taken care of it. I have performed various maintenance works on the page, leaving few paragraphs completely unchanged: I have corrected style mistakes (the dates in the example boxes were still linked, abbreviated, and without spaces between the years and the dashes!), brought the fairly complex and half-obsolete terminology in line with the one in the Guidelines page, and updated the text itself, adding information about some of the missing fields. I believe you will be satisfied with the result; it is the first actual large-scale maintenance of the rewritten page.
Another consequence of my bicentennial trip was the discovery of another special case. More specifically, the recreation of an office title under a slightly different name. In this case the as parameter could not be used because there was a gap of a few years and the s-aft template ought to be replaced by its vacancies counterpart. S-vac does not have an as parameter. I highly believe that it should have it, so that some of the more special cases can be more easily dealt with. Titles can change names while vacant as easily as when they are occupied.
And I have been thinking about other special cases too. Especially those incorporating s-vac. Like abeyances. Having both "Vacant" and "Title in abeyance" in the same cell looks quite redundant to me. As does the combination of "New title" and "New creation". And I then started thinking about your parameters idea under a different light altogether.
You see, when you first mentioned the idea I thought of parameters of a more compulsory nature. A scheme of "pick your parameter", if you like. I also thought of parameters creating supplementary text identical to that created by the reason parameter, but in this case automatically. Which two reasons were why I objected to this system on the grounds of simplicity. I mean, why put up a whole mechanism to do what can be done by typing a few normal words anyway? My epiphany is based upon two key-words: "optional" and "flexible".
We can put a couple of parameters in place that will substitute the main message. For example, {{s-new}} will display the usual "New title" message (with an optional reason field) while {{s-new|creation}} will display a message "New creation" instead of "New title", still enabling the optional reasoning (but often making it unnecessary and thus saving space). In the same way, {{s-vac}} will display "Vacant" without any further complications, while {{s-vac|abeyance}} will display a message "In abeyance" in place of "Vacant", which will remove all visual redundancies in the event of an abeyant title (as well as make the box smaller, as the abeyance will again be mentioned without an extra reason line). The parameters will do nothing that can be done in the reason field (thus eliminating redundant complexity) but will take up a new, very useful, and completely independent function. And inexperienced editors will not encounter any problems by using the unadorned s-new and s-vac templates (which will be their most usual forms anyway), for the parameters will be completely optional. (By the way, we should also take the opportunity of changing the appearance of s-new cells the way I have suggested. Also, note that I mention nothing about s-non; I believe we should add no parameters to s-non, given its different mechanics, and guidelines could help with its standardisation without automated one- or two-word tags. Although we might tackle the issue of bringing it into symmetry with s-new sometime in the future.)
I know this has mostly been your idea all along, but I think that it can work even better with this twist; I am already excited. I hope you shall forgive me for not having given more thought into your idea in its original iteration.
(Talking about technical changes, there is still the problem with custom-made headers in s-par. The faulty headers may not be visible but the problem is still there. I beg you to make haste and rectify this dangerous situations by enact the default tag "Assembly seats" option.)
Generally, my take on the general matter of templates is that we should ensure that all potential succession events can be dealt with in the most efficient, simple, and presentable manner. Succession lines are like pipes of different diameter: we must ensure there exist all the necessary pieces to connect them properly and without any leaks. The pieces must fit.
Anyway, apart from the templates, I have a full-fledged legislative agenda for this autumn. I have solutions to propose for matters ranging from title transitional boxes to approximate date abbreviations and from name-linking policies to chain termination standardisation guidelines. I also have ideas for the formats of orders of precedence and United States Senators and Representatives. But all in due course. This is not the time, with everybody still away, and this message is already overlong.
Indeed, summer is now over and it stands to reason to say that most editors have returned from their holidays. And even those who have not will do so in the following week or two. I require your permission to send out the "project renovated—need contributors—renew membership" messages to the members' talk pages. I believe two months are enough for all those interested to proceed with the renewal; you must have seen that I have set Halloween as the deadline.
What else? The SBS box is very good. I like its simplicity and functionality; good work, Darius. A small picture might look good at the top, I thought, but there might not be any picture suitable for a succession boxes infobox. Anyway, I have had to do two corrections: a typo and a redirect. About the latter, I believe it is better to direct editors to the proper Template:S-start page instead of the /doc page, which is only used for editing purposes and is not meant to be seen. I have already corrected all the intra-page links in /doc to take to the proper page instead of the /doc one.
Note: I have registered the Guidelines shortcut (WP:SBSGUIDE) in the relevant list.
The problem with infoboxes is that some of them are mostly used in long articles and the few short articles that use them look very ugly but have little prospect of growing much more. Maybe a policy of collapsible infoboxes or of infoboxes only showing the part of the dynasty relevant in each particular case would be more suitable.
SBS has been completely deserted lately. It is a little distressing, you know. In any case, whatever changes take place will not be seen until somebody returns, and this is why we are on committee mode anyway. Although I spend much time editing succession boxes, I also feel like doing some further meta work, and I believe my input can be useful elsewhere, too.
Do not think for a moment that I am abandoning SBS. But I am thinking of becoming a counsellor.
From the Council I shall be able to, amongst other things, help in the coordination of WikiProjects, so SBS will still have something to gain from my involvement there (after all, it has no "representatives" there at the moment). The Council is also an inter-project forum of discussion and many a useful cooperation can come as a result. In addition, I might make some Wikifriends there. Did you know SBS was the only WikiProject I participated in?
Listen, Darius, I am also saddened by the outcome of the WAF debate. But you can see that I have been keeping myself busy in Wikipedia, and we both know there are many things to do to develop SBS. (I have seen that you have also been keeping busy—I am the project's official Big Brother, after all, I see everything in SBS—and your deletion work is brilliant). It is your creation, after all, I am sure that you want to see it strong, healthy, respectable, efficient. I assure you that I will do my best to help this project grow, improve its templates and fine-tune its guidelines, attain a greater membership and start getting its tasks organised. My vision is to see a working project actively and effectively improving the tens of thousands of succession boxes out there and bringing them up to the standards that have so laboriously been agreed upon. I think this is your vision too. And maybe later, perhaps after some months, we shall have prepared our case well enough and have mustered sufficient support to bring fiction back. Policies are still being changed, and usually to the best; and when the conditions change in our favour, we shall be there. But until then, we shall be doing more than just bidding our time: we shall be improving Wikipedia in any other way we can.
Please do not lose sight of this target because of a disappointment.
I am waiting to hear what you have to say on all this. And good luck with your other pursuits, too. Waltham, The Duke of 18:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: Have you noticed the new s-scouts template? I saw it as I was refurbishing the /doc page. We shall need to take it into account later, after reviewing it first. Waltham, The Duke of
A summary of what you have proposed (to act as an easier checklist):
I will reply to some of these issues in a bit. Anything you want to add to this list, please feel free. Also, cross off anything when it is done (although some cannot be completed, I know). May the grace of the gods go with you.
–
Whale
y
land (
Talk •
Contributions )
19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. A couple of corrections/clarifications:
I have also corrected the links in my previous message. Three faulty links; this must be my personal record. I doubt it warrants a succession box, though. ;-)
So, I shall await the sound of hooves at my gates. The table will be set and we can discuss these issues over dinner. Waltham, The Duke of 08:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Some more updates (it has been a busy week, ugg!)
Okay, that is all for now. Too busy to do much more than I can. I am slowly hacking away at the list where I can help. The strength of the horde goes with you!
–
Whale
y
land (
Talk •
Contributions )
22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Generally, my idea is that we should try to limit as much as possible the cases in which the editors will be forced to use <small> and <br />. If we do not subject the inexperienced editors to such complex structures there will be less confusion (and thus fewer mistakes) and greater standardisation. All this we can manage through parameters, which can be easier remembered than the specific manually created formats—especially if they are presented in a way easily received and memorised. This may be achieved by creating a template-parameter cheatsheet, like the one that already exists for general editing. Think of it: a page listing all the parameters with brief descriptions. I do not know about you, but I find it would be hugely helpful. We cannot deny that the whole system's complexity has greatly increased during the last year, and most contributors will not want to start serious study of succession boxes just to make a few changes in some articles that interest them. They will probably either botch it up or not bother at all.
I do not need to stress that this is highly undesirable, now, do I?
May you always find empty roads in front of you on which to freely gallop, and welcoming inns for fine ale and a good night's sleep. Waltham, The Duke of 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: I have also devised the five pillars of succession box writing (guess where I was inspired from). I can tell you if you are interested. They could be included in the cheatsheet. Waltham, The Duke of
Update: Triumph! The U.S. Presidents are all done! Standardisation across the whole chain for the first time. I feel so tired... Waltham, The Duke of 16:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for the long delay. To put it simply, I am in the process of many things currently, including (but not limited to):
Regardless, my absence is anything but acceptable or helpful, and in my various researches (using Wikipedia as a portal) I have discovered two different succession series using old HTML templates, neither of which I have been able to touch yet.
Now, onto business. Firstly, I have broken our various conversations up into dated sections. I think it will make it easier to get to the sections which we are currently discussion, and it makes the edit option appear much more often. If you disagree, that is fine and I apologize for messing with your talk page. Perhaps one of the reasons I have been putting off a reply, though, is because of the length and mass of our conversations and how much time it generally takes to reply.
Now, onto your post on my page:
That should be all! May the force of the wind fill your sails in your constant journeys and may the gods of old raise you up in your times of trouble. Until again, I bid adieu.
–
Darius von Whaleyland,
Great Khan
of the Barbarian Horde
23:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not know that you were (and are) nearly as busy as what you describe. It is entirely understandable that you should limit your activities in Wikipedia; people do have a real life to think about, after all. I have said time and again that I do not enjoy being pressing, but you seem to know yourself that you are necessary here. The project is still struggling for survival and there are countless loose ends and numerous new issues that need to be taken care of.
Because of this, I shall attempt to present to you the various matters and proposals in point-to-point reports here in this very page every time you answer, so that you may make the most of your time when dealing with SBS business. I shall be including revisions of the SBS talk page activity, so it will probably be better if you start here for a debriefing.
As far as the retouching of my (recently archived) talk page is concerned, I accept your apology—discipline must be maintained, you know ;-). Actually, it was a good idea, but I disagree a little with the particulars. Dates are not really useful in archives, especially since they are already present in the signatures. On the contrary, thematic sections are very helpful in researching and organising one's talk page and archives.
So, onto business, you say? I could not agree more. I shall take your points in the order you have given them.
Extra-long message as usual, but it demonstrates in the most telling manner how many and how complex the succession box world's problems are. It is a society even worse than ours, cruel, merciless, corrupt. We must be two of Wikipedia's greatest masochists. But, hey, rulers must have hobbies, right? Waltham, The Duke of 07:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess my header proves that I am, in fact, American despite my many attempts to hide that fact. But it does show the urgency of the situation, or at least my attempt to make it seem urgent...or something.
Loose ends are something of life that I have probably left many of. A great example would be the book I have been off and on writing for the better part of six years now. Let's just say it is a huge loose end that could really use a giant rubber band to at least get it a bit more coherent. I still have been keeping up with the talk page where I can, but there has not been much progress, although it has been a newer member who has been helping there, which is good. More outgoing recruits would be good.
Thematic sections work too, I just wanted something that was more easy to track and had more frequent edit lines. Of course with your messages, we could probably use sub edit lines, but that is something I think we can deal with.
Onto the 12ish points:
I will have to finish this on Monday. A customer stole the remaining time and I will be out of town this weekend. Cheers!
–
Darius von Whaleyland,
Great Khan
of the Barbarian Horde
01:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, something like changing those I can do between customers. Still a busy day but I got a few converted yesterday. Let us see if we can get them all swapped on the same day. Oh, and I will finish my response from a few days ago, but as an aside, I did finish all the s-inc change over via the the discussion above (with the corrections you noted). I am still awaiting an admin to change if over, though. I am not sure what the delay is.
–
Darius von Whaleyland,
Great Khan
of the Barbarian Horde
20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, Darius. It is nice to see that you are back, even if with a somewhat reduced presence. I hope your external pursuits are going well, and that you do not neglect them for Wikipedia's sake (as I do ;-)).
Currently, I am finishing up the long process of updating and correcting the British Prime Ministers' succession boxes by adding the final touch: dates to their terms' years. I am about in the middle of this, but when I find time I shall finish it once and for all. What I really want to do when I have more time and Internet access, though, is to surf the mainspace for good examples to add to the Documentation page, which I am now renovating in phases. I believe that it is now becoming much simpler and more helpful; I should like to know what you think of the instructions section (which is now complete).
I am also maintaining the Cheatsheet, which must stay abreast of the recent parameter additions to the templates. I have noticed that there are a couple of parameters I did not know of, like the "heir-type" one (discovered while editing Elizabeth II's article—talk about a major undertaking there), and I need to start looking at the sources of the templates to make sure there are not too many of them. I do like the change of documentation templates, though; the green look is a great improvement in appearance, and also makes the pages look more professional. I suppose I ought to give you credit for this.
A last note: Choess has voted on the parliamentary headers issue, and now we have five votes supporting the removal of disambiguation dates and none against. Perhaps we could wait a few more days and then petition an administrator for the change. At long last, I must add. Choess, by the way, has still not renewed her membership. I do not feel well with removing her from the list, but the deadline is approaching as fast as Halloween does.
Anyway, these are the latest in SBS. Tune in for the next update, after your reply. Waltham, The Duke of 08:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a query really. The guidelines show the parliamentary succession boxes before the political offices. Was wondering why you've been reversing the order? Thanks Galloglass 05:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really sure you've gone about this the right way tbh. Probably would have been better to propose an amended order list to succeed the one by Phoe and agreed last year and then put it out for discussion on the talk page. Its probably still the best way to go now before amending any more major figures as big changes to page order often generate more heat than light if they are not well discussed first. Galloglass 13:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you are not a member of the cabal, and have an interest in Wikiproject co-ordination, might I inquire if your Most High, Noble and Potent Prince, His Grace Christopher, Duke of Waltham would be interested in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology? I must say the pay isn't great, but the work is hard. All the best Tim Vickers 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, Sir, I am afraid our differences in expertise prevent a happy outcome. I must admit with a heavy heart that I do not even know what a Succession Box is, my deplorable ignorance would only be a weight on your endeavors. All the best Tim Vickers 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As Your Grace commands. Tim Vickers 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As you've probably seen, I've been grinding away like a beaver in a coffee lake working on the listing and succession of Lord Lieutenants. I haven't had a lot of time to devote to the rules of succession boxes per se, but once I get the Lord Lieutenants dispensed with, I'm going to try to dash back into it. At least for the British history, which is probably the best documented in this regard, I'd like to try and develop our catalog and classification of the various offices we track by succession box — the distinction between political, court, honourary, etc. offices is sometimes elusive. Happy editing, Choess 12:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
All done. Regards, Craigy ( talk) 12:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Oh and mine's a double vodka and coke ;-) Craigy ( talk) 12:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Darn it, seems like those weren't the common symbols any computer would recognize. Thanks for the heads up, a bunch of people I asked said it was alright, but I guess it isn't. ✗iℎi✗( talk) 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads-up! I'd already realized when I started signing pages with that signature that it was frowned upon to transclude a signature template directly into a page -- since that point (which was probably about a year ago), I've used subst: when signing all pages. Most likely the signatures you discovered that appeared in "transcluded templates" were those that I inserted a long time ago. ;) — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I replied on my talk, but then it might be better to try to make something, so I have created for you User:The Duke of Waltham/Navbox tiny, and applied it to this page.
Feel free to tweak it, or to nuke it out of existence if it displeases you.
If you do decide to use it, one small catch: it takes a parameter. On pages which are categorised, it needs different spacing, so you need to add the "cat=yes" , as in {{User:The Duke of Waltham/Navbox tiny|cat=yes}}
Hope this helps. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot remember introducing my bad self to you. You may have caught me off guard here. :-D
Blissfully unaware of what your arguments could be like, I still believe that the removal of the dates was the best way to go. You can have a look at the closed discussion in SBS's archives, if you want; the offices are closed now (being a Sunday), but you can use spare key under the doormat.
As far as the box is concerned, I think I will just remove the Clone link if I find that I need to add some new subpage. The Duck will be disappointed, of course, but I might find something else to comfort him with (perhaps extend his user page a little).
And now on to something else. I have been pondering a review of the format for the succession boxes of Members of Parliament, and, if I am correct, this is something within your sphere of interests, to put it this way, so your opinion will be much appreciated.
I should begin a new section for this in your talk page, but in that chaotic environment it might get lost. It is counter-intuitive, I know, but this peaceful country station that barely escaped the Beeching Axe may be better for this than busy busy Waterloo.
Ahem. The previous format for MPs' succession boxes was developed when the templates were in a more primitive state than they are today*, and some new features can now be incorporated. I have already changed the format for the beginnings and endings of constituencies, using templates s-new and s-non. I believe it looks much tidier now, and even more accurate (you cannot be preceded by a "Constituency created", it just makes no sense).
(* I believe you are still using Template:Succession box and its family. For this, I have already crossed you off my Christmas present list, and I have petitioned the Commonwealth of Nations to take further action against you, now that they still remember how it is done.)
The next change I am thinking of is to improve the title cell. My philosophy on this (soon to be included in the relevant subpage of mine that I am planning) is to include as few and as relevant links as possible, preferably one. In my opinion, Member of Parliament for Sedgefield is much better than Member of Parliament for Sedgefield. Succession boxes are not supposed to link to general concepts, unless there is no article for a title (and all UK constituencies have, or should have, their own articles). And I don't like the black in the titles.
Finally, I am reconsidering the format for transitions to new parliaments. Although somewhat repetitive in terms of titles and fellow MPs, the separation of the titles for different parliaments is probably better for accuracy. It also looks more widespread. Therefore, it might be for the best to change the current guideline to reflect this format, even though it will lead to slightly longer and more repetitive boxes. But a new format using the new parameters will be devised to improve the connection between the two chains of each pair, should we go through with this.
So? What sayest thou? I should be glad to know your opinion on this most significant matter. Waltham, The Duke of 10:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Happy to do so for the time being, but be aware that the guideline requiring spacing contradicts WP:MOSDASH. I don't think I've been linking dates, with the exception of elections, but perhaps I goofed and linked 1874 instead of 1874 or something. Choess ( talk) 15:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest WP:ERRORS for next time? -- 74.13.130.156 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I hereby award to myself this barnstar:
![]() |
The Super Hidden Barnstar |
This user has found Penubag 's secret hidden sub page! Can you find it? Ver. 2.3 |
I have placed it here because I have yet to make a decision upon a suitable location in my userspace for more permanent exhibition. (I do not intend to create an "Awards" subpage yet; I would have no awards to populate it with!) Waltham, The Duke of 11:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent message. You were perhaps motivated by curiosity about whether I'd abandoned any interest in the broad questions I'd raised a few months ago at WT:SBS#Exceptions to standardization?.
No, I've not abandoned this project. Yes, this subject is still very much in my thoughts; but I don't expect to be able to give it much attention until after the first of the year. Tentatively, I'm wanting to engage in a process which results in consensus agreement that two succession box series should reasonably incorporate non-standard elements up through 1868. The two series are treated as a whole in at least two general articles, with appropriate links to the hundreds of stand-alone articles which can be readily understood as logical corollaries or sub-sets:
1. Japanese era name or nengō: As you can see in the following example, the non-standard feature is the additional name of the current era name or "nengō" in a standard succession box format which identifies and links to both the previous and the succeeding era names. This is a deviation from standard guidelines; but -- I would argue -- this is necessary because of the eratic and unpredictable ways in which era name changes are initiated by the emperor, the reasons for changing era names, and the timing. For example, consider the following, which already suggests too much complexity for a venue devoted to discussing standardization of Wikipedia's succession boxes:
Tenpō | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th | 11th | 12th | 13th | 14th | 15th |
Gregorian | 1830 | 1831 | 1832 | 1833 | 1834 | 1835 | 1836 | 1837 | 1838 | 1839 | 1840 | 1841 | 1842 | 1843 | 1844 |
Preceded by: |
Succeeded by: |
2.
List of Emperors of Japan: As you can see in the following example, the non-standard feature is the additional name of the current emperor and his reign dates in a standard succession box format which identifies and links to both Emperor Rokujō's predecessor and successor. This is a deviation from standard guidelines; but -- I would argue -- this is necessary because of the highly ideosyncratic aspects of Japanese imperial history. To explain more fully, I suspect that it will be necessary to distill a concise argument relying in large part on a synthesis of the following: (a)
Emperor of Japan; (b)
Cloistered rule; and from (c)
Daijō Tennō.
As something of a practice exercise, I've initiated the following (which, I'd guess, concerns a subject which likely interests you not at all) ...:
Thank your for your kind attention and feedback ... and thanks as well for your demonstrable patience with me as I work through this problem a bit too slowly.-- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies your Grace. I am now truly blessed to have such an exquisite signature gracing my page. I thank you a thousand times over. Farewell ~ Bella Swan 22:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, D B D 16:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Things are moving along at our page concerning hard spaces. You came along just at the right time. I hope you will stay involved, as we approach a crucial vote.
Best wishes to you.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |