User talk:The Duke of Waltham/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is the second archive of The Duke of Waltham's talk page. A very brief exchange with Choess aside, this page archives the Duke's long discussions with Whaleyland concerning WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Many issues regarding the project were resolved here, as SBS's members were basically absent during the summer, and some information on the progress of the debate about succession boxes in fiction articles can also be found here. The Guidelines page and the project's main page were finalised within this time period, and the reform and cleanup of succession templates began then. This archive covers all discussions beginning from 27 June to 16 August 2007, the last of them ending on 29 August.

All archiving here took place on 30 September 2007.

H. Cartwright

User:Louis88

Your grace, I can't take it anymore. Louis88 has reverted multiple edits including all the time-consuming reversals of the templates I attempted to remove. All his pages he is creating is to "show the emerging history of the French state" or some crap like that, but in reality it is just showing how redundant he can really be. He is arguing that regnal titles and royal titles can be different, when they are identical! Furthermore, he continues to add office titles in a time when royalty still mostly implied official power. While I know that there is a vagueness that develops during the 19th century, surely we do not need to know in two separate succession lines that Napoleon II was both head of state and royalty for the same exact period of time. We must propose rules concerning listing office titles and royal titles for the same individual. I argue that until 1918, it is implied, if only honorarily so. Please, we must fight this menace who fights for his redundancy!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 05:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to worry, Mr Whaley, just calm down and focus on one thing at a time. I remind you which our current goal is: to finish our guidelines. Without them, we have nothing concrete to use in a discussion with Louis88.

In any case, I have sent him a message, and I hope he will at least stop the strange edits he has been making to succession boxes. I know nothing about the pages he might be creating, and it is not my concern either.

And I would like to stress that Louis88 was not the only person to be confused by your sudden discontinuation of the usage of the "Regnal titles" header. Regnal titles are different from the other royal titles, there is no use denying that. Now if you two cannot make sense out of each other's posts, this is just sad.

I have not had time to study the history of the French royalty; I only know about the English monarchs and their line's history is simple enough. We will just have to develop some solid guidelines on which we will be able to build afterwards—do things like adding exceptions and conventions for European monarchies, for Popes, and for whatever else we will want.

I think this is one of those times when you need to let the criminal do one more crime just to have enough proof to put them in jail. Let Louis88 alone for now; if you cannot persuade him, you will not get anything out of it. On the contrary, you are just losing time on edits that are going to be reversed and you are slowing down our collective progress, thus giving him even more time to edit in an unacceptable way. Just focus on our task, Mr Whaley, and we will all benefit from this. Waltham, The Duke of 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

After a long period of inactivity, I'm trying to get myself up to speed with what's happening in succession boxes again. I'm still digesting the project talk, but one of the things I think we should be trying to do is make the start and end templates "symmetrical"; that is, s-new and s-non should have the same parameters and function in the same way (which should also resemble s-vac). This would make them more general; right now, s-new always says "New Title", so it's really only useful for nobility, but we should be able to use it for new parliamentary seats or offices being created and so forth. This would lay the groundwork to make the succession templates into a kind of microformat; in theory a crawler could scrape out the contents of a start box and determine which ones had passed to a person from a predecessor, which had been created and first occupied by him or her, which had previously existed but were vacant, and so forth. Do you think that sounds like a useful direction? Choess 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Choess. It is nice to see that not every member of this forum has moved it into their subconscious.

One thing you must understand about me is that I am not very familiar with technical issues; most changes to templates have been made by Whaleyland, and lately by BrownHairedGirl (who has now protected most templates). I would be delighted to offer ideas on what could be done to eliminate problems that have to do with style or format, but I am in no position to suggest technical changes of any kind as long as they are more complex than the way we enter succession boxes into articles.

As far as the s-new and s-non symmetry is concerned, I believe that it is something desirable, though by no means essential. That goes to say, "New title" is a necessary general label which makes giving the reason for a title's creation optional—and really, titles are not always created as a result of serious or well-thought (or even easily describable) reason. On the other hand, there is always a reason for the termination of a title, which is not something to be taken lightly, and thus the s-non template requires a reason or will simply not work.

Let us not forget, by the way, that "New title" is a label that is suitable for all new titles (it does not say e.g. "New creation", which is indeed only appropriate for peerages; all titles are new when they are created), while a choice for a terminating general label is not an easy one (something I believe can be ascertained in SBS's talk pages).

Note that I do not like the current format of s-new, but I do not object to its concept. In any case, I would be glad to hear any ideas that you might have on this (or any other) matter. I might myself attempt to come up with something now that my having completed my finals endows me with an abundance of free time, but my efforts are primarily directed to finalising the project's guidelines. At least this has priority over tinkering with templates already working; in other words, this is not an emergency.

To address your other concern now. Most activity that has taken place in SBS for the last three months has mostly been between Whaleyland and myself, and the discussions can be found in my archive. We have already taken care of Template:S-start/doc and are working on the final details of the draft version of the /Guidelines subpage, which is currently located here. You will be surprised by the progress that has been made on this page. Still, any input would be greatly appreciated. Waltham, The Duke of 12:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC), updated 22:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

s-hno

A speedy end to a useless template. S-hno has been put up for speedy deletion for the reasons discussed. I have spent the last two days replacing every template instance with s-hou, until, of course, I discovered that some of the pages were actually using it to track a literary cycle, and not a royal house or dynasty at all. It was at that point that I decided something I thought up long time ago...a header for literary series/cycles. Thus, Template:s-lit and all the glory that goes with it. I figured in the midst of chaos, I may as well add another header. But since this was not covered by any of our previous headers, I determined the addition of it would not hurt anything or really add any conflict. I hope that was a good move but I wanted to finish off s-hno once and for all, and the only way to do so was to replace these instances with something better. Regarding all your recent posts on WT:SBS, I will get to them shortly. I had training today at work and decided removing s-hno was my first priority.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 04:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All-right, s-hno is almost gone. May I please have the new instructions for s-hou now so that I can update Template:S-start/doc?

As far as the new header is concerned, I find it a fine idea (although I have never been a great fan of very large fonts). Generally speaking, I think we should all get to terms with the fact that there are many things we have no headers for, and that these are going to be created some time or another.

Your next priority should be, in my humble (or not) opinion, that the wider templates are enacted; a simple change that has no other luggage and after which we can move on to something else.

And please do read those messages because their volume keeps increasing and flooding your incoming tray—maybe you should start printing them and reading them before you go to bed. These are all matters that need some answers.

Well, at least you are here. I had started getting worried with nobody else to talk to—Choess' return has saved me from insanity. I have all this energy and ideas and I do not know what to do with them. Waltham, The Duke of 16:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

s-hno is gone. I gave it up to a speedy deletion in case anyone wanted to read it anywhere. The new header I can make smaller...I was actually just keeping it consistent-looking with s-hou which has an enlarged house header (and the pages were using that as the series header). I will propose the wider templates on the official page. I will read the messages tomorrow afternoon and respond. I really have planned to, and I have read them all. Finding time to respond to them all has been harder and I wanted to get some guidelines page editing done. I am here, and my Apple training is going well so I don't have to focus on that every minute of next week (although I will maybe be busy most of July 4th. America's independence from you day, ya know.). Cheers!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 07:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have indeed produced a lot of material to be read... What can I say, I like listening to my own voice (or reading my own words), I guess... :D

Anyway, it's better late than never. I am waiting for the wider templates with impatience, by the way.

Well, I wish you a happy "independence" day, United Settlements of America! Waltham, The Duke of 11:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Updates done!

After far too many excruciating days of labor at reformatting and editing the guidelines page, I believe it is done in regards to my updates to it. I am not sure if I like the order of the headers but other than that, it looks good. I did so many saves on the page it made me sick and I left almost no update notes because they were so random and sporadic. Regardless, I am done for now and added a number of updates that seemed to fit in line with some of the proposals and decisions we have made. I hope it all looks good. I need a nap.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Magnificent work, Mr Whaley. I can hardly express my joy and relief now that the efforts of more than two months are coming to fruition. The page is not only very clear and helpful (which is something difficult, considering the number and complexity of guidelines), but it also makes it very easy for one to find whatever they are looking for. I have updated the order of headers and added several clarifying notes below; that way the list can be clear and concise, while at the same time no explanations are missing.

There are only a few issues of style and format to be resolved, not concerning the draft itself but rather the guidelines in it. Please read my questions and comments in the talk page of the draft and reply to them. A couple of remaining problems are to be dealt with after the page is publicised, as agreed.

I have also visited your sandbox; it seems that it is almost ready to use now. Personally, I find it very good and I applaud your work. A couple of suggestions:

• Convert "Direct Ancestry" to "Direct ancestry" (minor style and compatibility issue)
• Make sure that the references will not disappear with the rest of the box; try using the "Family information" box in a proper succession box to see if it works well with it.

Irrelevant comment: a new television series called "The Tudors" is currently broadcast in Greece, and Henry VIII is the main character. A fine production; we're still in the first marriage, though. Waltham, The Duke of 09:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I heard about "The Tudors" but I have still not seen it. I think it is on a paid channel here, and I don't currently get cable. Nonetheless, I will read some reviews and see if it will merit a purchase of the series in the future. Regarding the suggestions, I was actually using the (thankfully not blocked) s-fam template, the official one, for that demo. I fixed the "a" in ancestry but I am keeping the s-ref so it disappears with the rest of it. It doesn't really need to appear if you can't see the rest. Either way, the template is nearly impossible to deal with so I am shelving it again for a while. FrankB has been helping me with it but he is out right now. I am still having massive problems with the marriages and children templates and I really just am sick of template work at the moment. I began adding succession boxes to the Prince of Transylvania series yesterday, which I discovered had none and/or were inconsistent. I even added a new mainspace page, something I haven't done in a long while. I am glad, though, that this project page is nearly done. Please inform me of the last things needed for it, and I will be happy to help. I still have quite a bit of time at work, especially later during the week. Cheers!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have some time this morning and so I have improved some of the later succession boxes of the series (Austrian Empire Princes of Transylvania). I mostly like changing the internals of succession boxes and not researching dates and titles that I know nothing of (it is more time consuming too), but if I have to I will do that as well.

Anyway, I shall leave you to your new task, but I would appreciate it if you should keep an eye in the forum's talk pages (watching them helps a lot; I have dedicated my watchlist almost entirely to SBS-related pages). If we are to finish with the draft, we need to address a few concerns as quickly as possible.

1. In the draft /Guidelines page I have changed the Baronets section to reflect the WT:SBS consensus (and WP:PEER guideline). Now, what I would like you to do is answer a few of the questions I have made about the draft page; I will repeat them here for your convenience:
   1. If political offices of Parliament are to remain in "Political offices", why does the introduction to the s-par section mention "parliament titles" in general? Is the section not supposed to be discussing parliamentary seats alone? That is why I have changed the section's title from "offices" to "seats" in the first place. Unless you really intend to put parliamentary offices under this header instead of s-off and s-gov...
   2. Should we write any guidelines for the use of s-vac? Some titles create obligatorily continuous succession chains and "vacant" should be written in succession boxes in every occasion that a (long enough) vacancy occurs; other titles are only occasionally filled and thus the succession chains are not constant, so "vacant" should not be used in their succession boxes. How are we to say (to editors) which is which?
      The titles of Queen Mother and Prince of Wales qualify, I believe, as an example of the latter; it is not easy to tell when a vacancy occurs since these are titles for which it is perfectly normal to be vacant for many years.
   3. I thought we categorised peerage titles by seniority? That is the WikiProject Peerage guideline, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. Titles of nobility have nothing to do with offices, and the senior title is always the most important, giving its holder their name and precedence, as well as "representing" other subsidiary titles (titles for which in most cases no succession line should exist).
2. As far as the s-fam template is concerned, I remember it much more... organised. Your sandbox looks like your latest experiment has blown up (in your face). The good thing about this template, however (always think positive), is that it is still a private venture; you can take your time, ask people for advice, try new things... Nobody is pressing you, there are no deadlines to meet, nobody is forcing your hand. It is the best thing under the circumstances.
3. Finally, I think it might be a good idea to create some kind of SBS Collaboration of the Month when we finish with the re-organisation of the Project and its templates. The first such collaboration could be to start checking all featured biographies for missing/old/inaccurate succession boxes; you will be surprised by the number of FA's without decent succession boxes. After that, we could just start checking all succession chains passing from those biographies. I know many members have their own pet projects, but other editors new to the project might feel lost and not know what to do (which is the very feeling I had when I first came here).

Waltham, The Duke of 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for some clean up. I am working on a side project on HRE pages right now but then plan to get back to the Princes. Their pages require a little research, especially since some of them don't exist. But I plan to reach the Austrian period sometime this week or early next week. Okay, onto questions:

1. Guidelines stuff:
   1. Originally I thought we could place legislative offices under a blank s-par parameter but that was an idea from a while ago. Right now it is just a place holder (rather like "la" really) and probably can go. I still think we need a default parameter of some sort for s-par, although I can't really think what would be a good one.
   2. We had some problem some time ago concerning s-vac regarding (I think) the Duke of Cornwall title, which went in and out of useage for a long time. Multiple incarnations of a title, that was the issue. No one really knew if it should count as a vacant or an extinct title. You know more about peerage stuff than me so you probably could make a guideline for that issue. Regarding long vacancies, I think things like queen mother don't deserve succession lists once they are no longer consorts. Consorts even probably shouldn't have them but it is there to appease people. I think s-vac can remain without guidelines for now until something major comes up where we have to devise guidelines. I really just don't know what kind of issues we could define without a huge argument breaking out.
   3. Perhaps I was wrong about peerage titles. If I was, place the exception under the peerage header and leave the main header alone since that still fits for most titles. If seniority comes before even dates of conferment, then that needs to be corrected and I apologize for the fix up. WP:Peerage guidelines should remain consistent on our pages. They are the more senior project.
2. Actually it was not the project that exploded, it was the prompt template at the top. It went boom. Luckily I got it under control now and have posted a part of it on the main project talk page. I still have all the same problems as before regarding the s-chi and s-mar templates, but the overlord of them all seems to be mostly completed.
3. A collaboration project of any sort may be a good idea. Ever since you noted it, I have also been going to the feature articles of the day and looking for things. I don't always correct minor errors, but I have found some larger ones I worked with. Either way, it may be a good thing to get new members to work in the group.

Hope all is going well. The project seems to be running a lot better than its earlier days. I created a new subpage for failed proposals. I will probably follow it up with one for passed proposals. This is just to get our project talk page and the s-start talk page cleaned up a bit. Anyway, back to cleaning up the HRE pages. Cheers!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1. On guidelines:
   1. So, we stick to the agreed upon scheme for parliaments, namely: s-par for seats–s-off for political offices–s-gov for non-political offices? I need you to confirm this in order that I may change the section's introduction.
   2. I will have to do some research about that; since "Prince of Wales" is a title that is recreated each time, it is not easy to say when it is "extinct".
   3. I have changed the guidelines for the order of hereditary titles at large; I have distributed the individualised guidelines throughout the relevant sections. I have added no section to the Baronets, however, as I am not sure whether one actually can hold more than one baronetcies. I do need to contact the Baronetcies WikiProjects; I shall do that in the morning (my time zone is UTC+3 during the summer, by the way, so it is 01:30 here; I believe yours is UTC-7).
2. I shall think of s-mar-s-chi no longer; do as you wish with it, and when it is ready I shall give my opinion. It will be a fine addition when done, but its lack will thankfully not affect the project much.
3. About the collaboration, I will have to think of a few ideas for the next months, but this one should be enough for the rest of July and the whole of August, especially now that we have so few members.

I am hitting the sack now; I need some rest for my first driving lesson tomorrow. Please answer the above as soon as possible, so that I can make the final corrections to the draft. Waltham, The Duke of 22:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, sorry about not getting back. I keep checking but then forgetting to reply. Plus I have all the new people to work with on the main talk page. All coming up with complaints elsewhere that I have to redirect to the talk page. We need to work out some way to forward all the talk pages to ours. Ugg.

• Stick to the original scheme for s-par and s-off and s-gov; it makes the most sense to me.
• We have time to work out extinct titles. It has always been a confusing topic to me since so many "extinct" titles seem to come back.
• Wow, 10 hour difference. Where are you located right now because Britain doesn't get a three hour time shift, at least I didn't think they did? Distribute the orders as you wish. I just wanted to make sure we established a written order somewhere.
• I got the hidable table done but FrankB has not been able to help me yet on getting s-chi and s-mar working. I may break into the s-hou template and see how those confusing parameters interact more and see what I can use from that for s-chi and s-mar. Currently, though, I have been avoiding them like the plague.
• I have been following your advice and updating all the mainpage links that have suc boxes that I know about. Catherine of Russia and Peter of Russia both are victims of me. hehe

I will check your talk page for guidelines now so you won't be angry at me anymore :(
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• On the /Guidelines draft:
  • I have changed the start of the s-par section of the draft to reflect the proper usage of the template. I believe that all the information in the draft is now correct, and that we shall only need to fill in some missing guidelines in the (near) future, as well as add a few more examples.
  • The page has been magnificently organised, mostly thanks to your diligent efforts. It will be very easy to find any guideline now, both from the table of contents and with the usage of the numbers (though instead of the cruder "III.B.i.c.7" (for the links of parliamentary terms' dates) I would rather something more elegant and informative in references, like "Offices i.c.7").
    There is one more issue, however, and that is the order of the sections under "Offices", to which you have objected, if I remember correctly. I find no reason to radically change the order (unless you would like it to faithfully follow the proper order of headers in succession boxes), although some alterations could be made. Basically, the current order does follow the proper order, except for: honorary titles, which are right after political and government offices (and rightly so, in my opinion, as we need to show their connection); parliamentary seats, which are first (something with which I also agree, as they are constitute the most complex category in terms of guidelines and parameters and are distinct in nature from the other categories of offices); and religious titles. I think we could move religious titles after legal offices and diplomatic posts and settle it there. What do you say?
  • Seeing that the conversation in WT:SBS about Baronets' issues has essentially come to a halt, I have decided to be bold and have thus added a section about disambiguation with numerals for baronets (Titles B.ii). There is not a clear consensus in its favour, but I believe people will like it more when they see the finished guideline. Besides, it is only reasonable that we should proceed in this way, seeing that not only it imitates the corresponding convention for peers but it is also current practice of WikiProject Peerage.
  • I would like to clear one thing: If we are to stop using links in years (apart from s-par, of course, and the newly-discovered—on my part—and very interesting case of fictional dates, for which we might also want to write a guideline), are we also to stop using links in day and month dates? I am asking, because they seem to be popular for allowing the application of date preferences. I myself have no problem with having no links, but others might.
• When we start dealing with the /Offices page, it might be a good time to discuss which titles we can include and which we cannot. Information like "Date abolished" (or extinct) will be there, and so it might be better to examine specific titles in the talk page of /Offices. I am saying this because there are many special cases of titles for which guidelines will need to be devised, and a great list of titles will be the one thing that will help us locate exceptions and deal with them. It will also be a great means of controlling the editing process. All in all, we could say that the /Offices page is our next high mountain to climb.
• And a bit of trivia: you seem to have read my user page rather cursorily. If you study it more carefully, you shall see that I am as much an Englishman as I am an aristocrat. The way this whole account has been set up is part of an elaborate act that extends beyond Wikipedia and which has started from my sarcastic personality in a forum. I continue to humorously pretend in order to amuse both myself and the people I interact with through the Internet, as well as play with my Anglophilic sentiments and some of my "ambitions". Don't tell anybody, but I actually come from, and live in, Greece. And there you have the solution to the ten-hour time difference problem. ;)

Anyway, Mr Whaley, I am sorry for my ill manners in your talk page, but I believe you can understand my difficult position, as I understand yours. I was not trying to reprimand you, but just to attract your attention again. We have made too much progress to stop now. So much, in fact, that when you answer this message and I address the changes that might be connected to it, I shall be able to officially request your permission to publicise our bill and finally make it a Law of Wikipedia (so to speak), replacing the current white paper. I am so excited! Waltham, The Duke of 12:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Publishing this would be good, partly because I will enjoy much more working with a massive incumbent list-type format, partially because I am a very linear thinking and the office page will be a lot more linear and research oriented design. Regardless, you require my input and ye, the Greek that you now appear to be, deserve it. Following are my responses:

• I agree with your reasons for organizing the guidelines page as you suggest and give full permission for you to do it as you stated. I only wanted to make the ambiguity between header order and header listing as minor as possible. Putting s-par at the top makes since and s-hon does need to be where it currently resides. s-rel could be moved to its proper place, though.
• Go with your initiative, it has helped in a lot of things with this project. If worst comes to worst, we can change it. I moved a few proposals and reworded them to the bottom of the talk screen, but no one has commented still.
• Fictional dates are quite fun, I use them for Star Wars and LOTR. Either way, I think linked dates should end completely. I have not been linking links I have written and the dates really should be redundant with the header links. And, unlike the wikilinked before and after fields which provided a continuity, the dates really have no need to be double wikilinked within a single page. And in nearly all cases I have seen, they are triple linked or more throughout the page. No, I think wikilinked dates should end, even in the s-hou, probably.

Its been a while since I read any of the BS on your user page (no offense intended) but all I learned was that you are as full of it as I am. I have been running around on the web for years as first Kuat of KDY (from Kuat of Kuat and Kuat Drive Yards in the Star Wars universe) and then Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde. I had kept my outward personality pretty respectable on wikipedia until you came around, at which point I decided to go with my alter-ego. It is interesting to learn you are not British, though. For some reason I was always under that impression. I guess we both pretend to be something we are not. lol. Well, all is well. I am already beginning to document the beginning and end dates for regnal titles, just in case we decided to note those on the office page. Keep up the good work. I will keep monitoring the boards and provided a friendly face to this project-monster we have created (muahahaha!). Cheers!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr Whaley, I have very little time in my disposal, so I shall come straight to the point: I have finished with the various remaining tasks in the draft and I hereby invite you to read it all and tell me if there is anything you are not content with. If there is not, I shall receive your answer as a permission to post the page.

I shall discuss the rest of your points when I have more time. Waltham, The Duke of 10:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read almost the entire page again and despite my general scrutiny, I found nothing wrong with it and give you full approval for placement on the guidelines page. Make sure to announce it on the project talk page, so people can see it. Thank you for all the work on the guidelines, your perfectionism is just what this project needed. I am currently removing all instances of s-cite currently in use so I can propose its speedy deletion. It is almost all Norman and Plantagenet kings of England, so not too hard plus it gives me a chance to put headers on the succession boxes. Cheers!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

/Guidelines done; it's the turn of the main page now!

After months of hard (?) labour, our toil has finally been rewarded. We have produced a Guidelines pages to behold, one that will hugely contribute to the standardisation of succession boxes all over Wikipedia. The page has been moved to its proper location and it is ready to suffer the fate of everything that is public in this website: endless scrutiny. In any case, I should say that we deserve a break from the legislating process. That is, we can invest our free time in the handling of SBS's day-to-day business, as well as do some editing. I have myself started editing the succession boxes for Scotland Yard Commissioners.

However, you ought to know (if you do not already) that my access to the Internet is somewhat limited, and therefore it is my preference to see the outstanding messages when I am on-line, write answers when off-line, and then post them when I am on-line again. Thus, my editing is limited. On the other hand, this arrangement presents much fewer problems when I plan the development of the project itself, and this is why I shall continue in this field. My subpage you are so familiar with has already been updated with my proposal for the project's main page. I hope you shall like it; if things go well, it shall take little time to become the official façade of SBS and then it will be the turn of the /Offices subpage. Thankfully, we need not hurry (too much) with the latter.

By the way, I have taken the liberty to add a lead section to the project's talk page. I hope it has improved the page's appearance and, to an extent, usability. I have noticed the new archive too. I agree with the thought (the page had reached monumental dimensions), but not with its application (archive page titles are supposed to be standardised, are they not?).

So, this is more or less what I had to say on the most important matters so far. I shall not apologise for my small day delay in answering anything; I believe you expected me to devote my entire weekend to reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, or at least you were supposed to. A wonderful piece of work, the last instalment is, the perfect end to a wonderful series of novels. On the other hand, upon returning to Wikipedia and the magic world of the Internet, I discovered that all succession boxes from Harry-Potter related articles had been removed. My dismay evolved into extreme annoyance when I found out about the WAF guidelines that limit our creativity so much, and I am sure you share my feelings of resentment and disappointment about our inability to add succession boxes to any articles regarding fictional persons or entities. However, I have no choice but to grudgingly accept the current state of things. That is, these people do have a point and I suppose that we must acknowledge that.

There is also your message in User talk:The Duke of Waltham/SBS which I noticed several days ago but I had no time to answer. Given the change of subject in the subpage (and thus the opening of a new section in the talk page), I find it more prudent to reply here to whatever points need an answer:

• I have an idea about s-new (a new idea). Why not change it so that the reason for the creation of the title is in large, bold lettering instead of the "New title" label? With careful manipulation, the cell should look exactly like a proper s-bef cell, but writing "New title" instead of "Preceded by" and writing the reason for the title's creation instead of the predecessor's name. I believe it should look better than it does now in addition to highlighting the real information, as does the normal predecessor cell.
  If there is no reason information available, of course, it should just read "New title" in the usual bold lettering.
  By the way, would it not be better if the new "As:..." label was italicised but not bolded? All this bolding seems redundant and abolishes the very reason why we use bolding: to make something stand out from the rest.
• WikiProject Baronetcies do not seem to deal with succession boxes (or style issues in general); they mostly appear to be interested in article content. It would thus seem that we need to do business with WikiProject Peerage if we are to settle these issues. In any case, I have corrected the orders of titles in all Hereditary titles sections except for the one for Baronets, where I have not added an order (pending a reply from WikiProject Baronetcies about whether or not one can hold more than one baronetcies—personally, I do not expect that anyone actually can).
  • Update: one can hold more than one baronetcies. The order ought to be ascending chronological (of granting). I shall update the /Guidelines page (not draft any more!) whenever I have the chance.
• When I said "watching a page" I meant "by using your watchlist." It is most useful, especially if you have a fast Internet connection (unlike mine). It saves you a lot of trouble, really.

In any case, Whaleyland, what you have said in your previous post about pretending has given me food for thought. You know, pretending over the Internet is not necessarily bad, at least in the sense that we mean it. My point is, since all this anonymity and inability to get to know the other people here can be considered, in many cases, as drawbacks, why not at least take advantage of the anonymity that is so wide-spread and have some fun? If we cannot play with alternate personalities here, were are we supposed to do it? At work?! I think not.

I believe that the two basic reasons why I have misled you as far as my identity is concerned are the following:

• My deep interest in England, heraldry, and titles, as well as my carefully created user page. I am also very proud of my signature, and though I doubt it has enhanced the illusion that I am English, it does "force" Wikipedians to refer to me using one of the forms of address fit for a Duke.
• My—forgive my lack of seemly modesty (in the words of Albus Dumbledore)—very good knowledge and consistently good usage of the English language (especially when compared to the majority of people whose mother tongue is not English), and more specifically of the British variant, as well as the formal, pompous tone and scholarly expressions I enjoy using.

In other words, I have done some practice in this whole "aristocrat" thing. ;-) Waltham, The Duke of 10:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: Do you keep using the Royalty headers (s-roy) instead of the "Regnal titles" (s-reg|) header? Why? The guidelines we have written we are supposed to follow!
PS2: It seems that there exist separate documentation pages in s-par and s-roy. Although I would not give favourable advise for their creation, I shall not object to them. However, there is a different, much more important problem: s-roy gives the ability to one to create customisable headers by typing anything one desires! I do not know who wishes to democratise the headers in such a manner, but this feature can create a most serious problem; we must strangle this fledgling heresy in its cradle before it spreads! I see that this option is no longer part of the documentation, but this does not really mean that it is unavailable, does it? It must be disabled at the first opportunity.
PS3: You have yet to disclose how you wish to be styled. If you are supposed to be of noble descent, at least do a proper job.

First things first, I am staging a mutiny, at least in sorts. While I agree with the reasons behind WP:WAF's banning of succession boxes in fictional pages, I completely disagree with the practice. Therefore, I am creating a solution...something from my original s-fic concept but now modified to better suit the reasons WAF states we cannot have succession boxes for fictional individuals. Go to Template:s-fic when it is active and see what I have created. Oh, and the succession boxes will not be missing from the Potter pages for long.

Regarding the PSs: PS – I have been re-replacing a number of instances of s-roy back to (or to) s-reg due to reasons you outlined a few weeks ago. So I if you saw me use s-roy anywhere, it was either a mistake or a proper usage. I have not used an s-roy in a number of days, though, that much I know. PS2 – I am aware that s-roy allows for creation of any header and I was the one to remove that focus from the instruction page, but I know what mayhem it may cause. I will contact FrankB and hopefully we can find a solution to the problem, perhaps a merge of the old style and the new (to still try and make the pipes unneccessary, thus appeasing missing admin). PS3 – My title is generally not so formal...I am a barbarian warlord after all. But generally among friends I would go by Darius, and officially I would be titled Great Khan. As my userpage shows, I have multiple nicknames due to a slow progression and phase out from the old, Star Wars based name to the newer universal name.

I have been thinking of solutions to the s-new problem and yours sounds wonderful. Basically it would be making s-new a merger of s-bef and s-non. That sounds great and I will get to work immediately on getting it to work correctly. Regarding the as parameter, I used the dominant style already in use which was bold and italicized. I gave the proposal a vote and everyone said sure without any problems. We could put another vote through to make it not bold, but right now we are having enough problems getting people to vote on simple colors. If it weren't so hard to change two of those colors, I would just change them to the mostly-approved colors myself but I think an admin may get cranky if we have less than five supports. Sounds like baronetcies are under control but I am glad you cleared up that problem. My barbarian brain still only somewhat even understands that strange British baronetcy system. My watchlist is flooded with edits because I like using it as a friendly reminder of pages I've edited and want to check up on. I should probably clean it up sometime, but its not really a priority right now.

I love the annonymous nature of the internet but it has occasionally confused me. My identity has been traceable for years due to various pages that used my alias and real name in different parts. Right now I am actually closer to splitting the two than I have been in years, but I don't really see a need. If people need to contact me or find me, I am not hiding anything. Yet at the same time, I love my online persona of Darius Von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde (a merging of Darius I of Persia and my last name, Whaley, with a distinct German feel, which I backtrace to Roman origins of Germania thus making the title of Great Khan of the Barbarian horde even more specific).

One last thing, would you vote on some of the proposals on the talk page. I saw you reply to one but some of the others are just shy of a consensus. My general rule is that it takes five to get an admin to change it and we have four votes in a number of the proposals. I may have a few more out later today too. On that same note, I voted for yours (changing it to a proposal) and agree entirely. Such a worthless descriptor at the top of those titles. Oh, and I didn't create the archive page, only the compeleted proposal page. I am not sure who is managing our talk page archives, probably an admin who is organized. But I do believe they should be organized in a certain way. Perhaps I will deal with that later too. In the mean time, I plan to create my s-fic template, test it, and release it, and then try to convert as many instances of s-ecc as I can to a more specific religion in s-rel. That way I can finally get rid of that old header template (I got rid of a number of the older ones over the last few days, see the template deleted list).

Alright, cheers, peace, and all. The Great Khan has spoken!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I shall call you Darius in our private talk pages, if you do not mind, and Whaleyland in the presence of the other honourable project members, administrators, His Majesty King Jimbo, etc. We do not want all these finding out about our terrible alliance...

Mwahahahahahahaha! (Goes on for about a minute)

So. A mutiny, you say you are staging. You can count me in, of course. I believe you will be interested in reading my little (relative term) essay in WT:WAF. I just hope someone will read it.

And I am waiting to see what happens with s-fic. I have a couple of ideas myself but I need to see if anything will happen with the WAF guideline first.

Anyway, I suppose I can start reverting the multitudes of s-roys now (by the way, I have already contacted Louis88; now that we have full guidelines, we can finally accept this misguided sheep back into the flock). First, however, I shall need to finish what I have started: the Archbishops of York and the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis (finishing with the former will also relieve you from some of the work that the s-ecc leftovers entail, and maybe I will also take up the Archbishops of Canterbury as well).

About the nicknames... I believe I know what you mean. After some time, I have managed to "standardise" my own nickname and I am now known as "the Duke of Waltham" in Wikipedia, in the forum I visit several times per week, and in MuggleNet, where five out of my six winning captions in the site's Crazy Caption Contest are in this name. By the way, have you even heard of CCC? It is incredibly funny.

Seeing that your previous nickname has fallen from your graces, so to speak, I have a proposition to make: would you like to move your account? It is possible, though something I had no knowledge of when I created my current (second) account. Bureaucrats can move accounts, but they cannot merge them.

Anyhow, I do not object to the "as" parameter being in bold, I was just surprised to see it bolded after I first saw it unbolded (probably my impression, or my stupid computer's fault).

On the other hand, I am happy that you like my s-new proposal. There have been calls for symmetry between the aforementioned template and s-non ever since these twins were born, and since we cannot assimilate them (I think I am right in saying that the "New title" label is essential), we can at least attempt a stylistic compromise. Besides, I have always been against dressing identical twins with the same clothes.

What is left, what is left...? Oh, yes, the proposals. I intend to comment on as many as I can, but I may disappoint you in some. That is, I have my own colours to propose instead of voting for the already existing proposals, and so consensus may take a little longer there. But I know you will not mind; your patience is legendary (as everything else about you).

In any case, Darius, it is so nice to be able to have these simple, ordinary, small matters to think about instead of huge guidelines pages. I had almost forgotten the feeling. I still have the main page draft I would like you to review, but this is far from long, complex, or, most importantly, urgent.

And this, my dear fellow, brings us to the end of this morning's briefing. See you around! Waltham, The Duke of 09:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Royalist decrees

The mutiny continues, mostly successfully despite the defiant behavior of the policy group members who, for some reason I do not understand, back the complete destruction of succession boxes wholeheartedly. Personally, I think if this proposal passes, thus empowering the policy group more, the entire existence of succession boxes on pages such as List of legendary kings of Britain may be at risk, since most of those lists are based on the conclusions of a small number of writers, historical or not. I don't even get still what their problem is. Why are infoboxes better? For some lists, they are huge, cluttered, and disorganized, and most importantly, not in any helpful order. Hrumph. That is all for now concerning fictional pages and their various boxes.

I am doing the meticulous task of removing all instances of s-nob from current use and have removed it from all reference pages. My work after that will shift to s-ecc, switching all of those to more specific headers, although I should probably move it off reference lists as well so new users don't use it.

Have you noticed the pretty little instruction pages such as the one on Template:s-reg. I believe it has been User:Zyxw creating them, although his userpage is very scant of information. I personally like them. I mean, check out Template:s-par, he listed EVERYTHING using a pretty sweet little option of listing the template properly and then listing the parameters and even some notes beside the template. I am trying to add default options to all the pages (even s-par although I hope it isn't widely used) while still keeping the open pipe option available for templates that were created a while ago. The only problem this is creating is that most of the templates can have editable parameters, although I am suppressing any mention of that option. I plan on going to FrankB and asking once more if he knows of any way to deny the open parameter while still allowing the template to accept both the no pipe and open pipe parameters (thus appeasing old templates and wily admins such as the brunette one).

No I have not heard of the Crazy Caption Contest but I also don't go onto Muggle.net much, despite my love of the Harry Potter series. Speaking of which, I wonder if it will ever get a universe title, like Star Wars. I never really know what to call it except "Harry Potter series". I mean, it needs something like "Middle Earth" to fully encapsulate everything in the series, even if most of it is in HP's perspective. Oh, did you hear about the proposed HP Encyclopedia Rowling is making? I am a genealogy whore and she said she plans to put completed genealogies in it. I hope she clears up the wholes she left in her Black family tree and shows the family connections between Potter - Peverell - Gaunt families. That would be so awesome. She already has released some additional information about what happened after the end of the seventh year (not counting the epilogue).

I would like to move my account, actually, and someone once told me how, but I then they disappeared and I lost the information somehow. I never really actively pursue the fix to this problem, but I know it is possible. If you know who to talk to or how to do it, that would be great. I just don't want to lose my talk pages and user history. Those things may be necessary if I ever apply to be an admin again (last time I tried I didn't have enough consistent up time; these days, though, I am on it every weekday).

For the s-new and s-non proposals, do you mean to add some parameter options such as New title, New office, and New position or what are you all looking into. I was thinking for s-non keeping the entire template customizable but also having some preset options such as Title extinct, Merged in crown and others just to make the template more standard across the pages. In many cases, it needs the unique parameters, but in others I think a standard parameter could be nice to allow consistency.

I will check out your proposal soon, I promise. I am trying to do too much at once on Wikipedia and I have yet to find which thing I enjoy the most. Maybe someday.

Until again, your grace, I am Darius. May the strength of the horde go with ye!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The WAF talk page does not seem to be frequented much; can you tell me where exactly I should focus my mutinous efforts? So far I have only located your template's request for deletion, where you must have noticed that I have supported your position.

The problem with succession boxes is that there is no Wikipedia guideline regulating them, something which the opponents of these most useful navigational aids are persistently using in order to justify their deletionist views. Ah, well, most people are thankfully less narrow-minded than them.

Good job on removing s-nobs, Darius. The templates that have been discarded from our system ought to vanish without trace; no references, no explanations. Only the most dogged salvaging efforts of bored WikiHistorians with too much free time for their own good must be able to uncover these succession box rejects.

As far as the beautiful little (and extremely helpful) template documentation pages are concerned, I have indeed noticed their creation and improvement, and have even corrected a few examples so that they use our templates instead of Template:Succession box. For us non-administrators, especially, they are life-saving, as we can now edit them at will; only s-roy has not yet been protected. You know, I do not want to sound like a broken record, but the watchlist has hugely assisted me so far. Since most of my Wikipedia work is centred around SBS, I have dedicated my watchlist to it and (sit down please) I have added every single succession box template page (and documentation page) to it; virtually every major edit that affects our project I can keep track of with relative ease.

I have also checked up Zyxw, and their user page is indeed rather uninformative. I think I also had a look at their contributions, but if I saw something interesting in there I have forgotten about it (bloody selective memory...). I need to check it again later.

About the editable parameters... I see that you have been experimenting in a subpage of yours about that; it is quite worrying to be able to create a header reading "Whatever" in so simple a manner. Suppressing this knowledge is all we can do for the time being, and, even though it feels half like censorship and half like Stalinist propaganda, our hands are nevertheless forced. It is like hiding the knowledge of an impending catastrophe in order to avert mass panic. In any case, I have also noticed that most headers that previously did not work without a pipe can now, something which the documentation pages show clearly enough (I need to be on the lookout; when the process is finished, I will have to update the /Guidelines page). This should appease She Who Must Not Be Named (who has not really left Wikipedia for long, but has been absorbed by British parliamentary matters).

Talking about Harry Potter, the Harry Potter universe has, for some time now, been called "Potterverse". If you visit sites like MuggleNet often enough, listening to MuggleCast or reading the editorials, you get to become familiar with such terms (I suppose you can deduce the meaning of Vapormort and Quirrellmort?). The Crazy Caption Contest, now, is a weekly contest where a picture from one of the films is shown and funny captions are submitted; the best ones are selected and shown each week. I am telling you, it is extremely funny to read them, and it is a very creative task writing them. I have had seven captions selected so far, including one this week, and there are full archives; you can start right from the beginning, reading captions several years old. The Caption Contest may be found here.

I have also heard about the encyclopaedia, and I would be delighted to have such a book in my possession, as any fan should probably be. For the time being, though, I am content with the wave of information that comes in the form of interviews and chat events. JKR really wants to say it all after all these years of secrecy and veiled hints!

About your account: you can submit your request at Wikipedia:Changing username. There is nothing to worry about as far as talk pages or page histories are concerned; if your request is accepted, the bureaucrats shall make a clean job and all your edits shall be credited to your new username, while the talk pages and subpages shall move and their histories follow suit. All that shall be left from the previous username shall be the signatures' links; since you have been using "Whaleyland" for months, no great confusion should arise from the name change either.

I do not know about s-non formats; the template should be customisable due to the practically innumerable different reasons that could lead to the end of a title. We could add some parameters, but it might just confuse things more; maybe a few well-written guidelines should do the trick. And if you think symmetry between s-new and s-non is important, the latter could have a label like "Title ended" to mirror the "New title" one.

Oh, before I forget: there is an issue with Template:F1 race report. It seems that you have edited the template without prior discussion with WikiProject F1 and this has upset some of its members. Maybe we ought to be more co-operative with other WikiProjects when it comes to editing their templates, or we risk isolating ourselves.

So, Darius, this ends today's morning briefing in Waltham Hall. May the Unicorn keep you and the Horde safe wherever you go, until your path leads you through my ancestral home's gates once again. Waltham, The Duke of 07:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: So, you are sure you don't want to move the conversation to your talk page? Waltham, The Duke of

Apparently getting a guideline changes is rather hard work, although on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion there is a link to guidelines and policy changes which we may want to pursue. That could help our cause some. I have just been debating currently on the deletion board since apparently no one cares in the policy talk page. And I have also noticed that is really is only that EV person that is fighting the cause and she seems to be the WAF leader of sorts. The group is also proposing the deletion of Kuat Drive Yards, my namesake, and so I am trying to rally the Star Wars project group to save their pages.

Regarding s-nob, I will keep a note of it in the deleted templates list, just so we know if it ever gets activated again. I still have about 80 pages to change over and then I will propose its deletion.

Yeah, I really like the new doc pages. I am thinking we may be able to use those pages as cross-links to the s-start doc page, thus making it so they are completely synced because they use the same page. And regarding the broken record, I monitor so many pages that sometimes my watchlist is overcrowded, but I edit other pages too and those ones I have been monitoring a bit more than before. On a similar note, I prefer using your page to talk just because I like keeping it all on one page.

I have been working on changing all the "switch" pages to use the default parameter option, something I worked out with FrankB to get the pages to understand both pipe and pipe-less templates. Once all the pages are done, I am thinking we should remove references to the pipe version just to make things easier for the new editors. Unfortunately, the open parameter is a result of this appeasement and thus I am still working with FrankB to get it so it does not allow open parameters (see "whatever").

I will check out crazy captions and whatnot. It sounds fun and I used to do that with another site years ago, but I think they stopped the contests.

Username will change shortly. Or at least I hope.

Originally I believe s-non defaulted to "Title extinct" much like s-new writes "New title" but I got mixed feelings and didn't like the restrictiveness as much so I converted it to an open template that has since been used for basically anything that cannot be ascribed to one of the other templates. In all actuality, I don't entirely like s-new just because it is restrictive, hence why I suggested adding in optional parameters to make both those templates default to certain options. Either way we would still have to leave the open parameter, but it may help in standardizing some problems.

I already apologized for the change. I was not aware that a project was claiming ownership of the template when I edited it. Apparently one of the templates had an edit request while the other was under a different authority which I affected. Although I am part of a project, I always forget that some templates (see s-gaa) may be under another project's jurisdiction. Not that this doesn't mean we should be in charge of their s-boxes but we should probably work together, I agree. I have never been good at checking what is controlled by whom on wikipedia. Perhaps I should work on that.

Thus completes my diplomatic journey to your lands. I hope the eternal hills of *cough*Greece*cough* remain just that. Au revoir!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 20:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I went to your homeland last summer and loved the islands, although the capital seemed a bit hot and somewhat sprawled, much like my own land.

P.P.S. Apparently changing my name is not an option because I stupidly created User:Whaleyland and then even more stupidly edited two pages with it before I realised I was on the wrong account. I use Whaleyland for my username nearly everywhere else. Either way, I can't replace an account that has edited something due to copyright laws. Thus, I remain KuatofKDY technically.

Darius, my dear friend,

• That Uvula person seems to be a very staunch supporter of the strictly out-of-universe point of view. To quell that movement we shall need to remove the head of the serpent with one swift strike. EVula must get out of the way.
  Seriously, though, a great problem has started emerging. If persuasion does not work, a straw poll or something similar shall have to be held.

• The doc pages are very good indeed, and all of them now include a link to the S-start/doc page in a "See also" section. I understand that the latter page must include more or less the same information as the individual template pages in order to achieve a good synchronisation. If it was something else that you meant, though, I have missed it.

• I shall discuss the pipes in headers subject in the next section.

• The Caption Contest is fun, I assure you. I have another question, though: the other contest you say you once participated in... Was it related to Star Wars by any chance? ;-)

• You mean add parameters in s-new to produce "template phrases"? I mean, write, for instance {{s-new|ntl}} and produce "New title", write {{s-new|cre}} and produce "Title created", etc.? It might work, but I believe it might work much better in s-non than in s-new. This is my personal opinion, we shall have to bring this to the Project before we do anything anyway.

• You should indeed work on cooperating with other Wikipedians and WikiProjects; earning enemies does not further either the SBS's goals or those of Wikipedia itself. It is perhaps unfortunate, but a person must have a good opinion of you in order to take your ideas seriously. And working together on something is not only politer but it also shows that you value other peoples' opinion and that you do not dispute their jurisdiction.

• As far as your account is concerned, you may do what I have done: abandon your old account and start using the new one. If it is done well enough, there should be no problem of any kind; I can dispense advice on this subject if it is needed.

So long, Darius, and may the Illustrious Barbaric Horde never be bereft of good spoils! Waltham, The Duke of 08:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: Rest assured, I would never want to live in Athens. It is one of the European metropolises with the least green, and the few forests around the city are burned every summer to make way for illegal development. The size of the city, the traffic problems, its high temperatures and polluted air, it all makes it a rather hostile environment. And about half of Greece's population resides in the metropolitan area... Waltham, The Duke of

I have been trying to determine how to change the WAF policy for about a week and a half now. Of course it is a weekend now and I have no time on weekends for wikying, perhaps a shame, perhaps not. Either way, we won the vote to keep Template:s-fic and we have indeed won ON THE WAF DISCUSSION BOARD! for allowing succession boxes. What more is needed? Not that I want to make enemies, but this EVula person certainly is on my most disliked wikipedians list.

What I meant was that, once all the pages have /doc pages (which I am sure they will all have soon), we could actually just link {{Template:s-whatever/doc}} in their proper order on s-start/doc and use them, thus killing the problem of linking them all. Alternately, we could make them all collapsible so the page looks clean but still uses all the /doc pages (located centrally on one page).

Yes, I remember now that it was on TheForce.net. I used to write something weekly on it. I loved that stuff. I forgot to go on (darnit!) but I will try to remember and go next week. I am going to work on some information for a book I am writing after I am done with this post.

Yes, since s-non is so versatile, it would be the best candidate for adding parameters. Since the parameters are more controlled now, adding parameters to anything is not too hard or too detrimental since the basic function works still too. But yes, s-non would be the best, although I think s-new would be good to add a few too like "Title created" and "New title", if nothing else, just to make the template still make sense.

I will work better at getting along. I really enjoy other users opinions, but I don't like how some people are so aggressive that they seem to stalk you to other projects or just attack everything you edit once they find one qualm (see the brunette admin).

I may abandon my account except I was thinking of running as admin when the next elections come around. They probably wouldn't like me abandoning my account, even if I could place redirects everywhere important. Plus, I have nearly all the s- templates as subpages of mine (editable versions) and I would want those deleted if I moved.

I had one more thing to say but I forgot it, sadly. I am glad to hear that you are not an Athenian but from another Grecian location. The isles and coasts are beautiful and the skies so blue. May the grace of the gods be upon you, your excellence!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am very happy that we have prevailed in the fight to preserve s-fic (opens expensive champaigne), but it seems that not everyone recognises the WAF victory, less so EVula. On a sidenote, I cannot understand how we keep stumbling onto Irish administrators; it seems almost metaphysical.

• Since these pages only concern the headers, it would probably be a good idea to link the pages (except for the "See also" section, of course). Making them collapsible seems like a necessity to me, given the size of each.

• I have already sent in nine entries for the next picture; the results should come out on Tuesday. If one of them is selected (I believe five of them have great chances), I will have managed to create a four-week string of successes. Mind you that I haven't yet seen Movie 5, and the I read the Department of Mysteries scene has been largely modified.

• Although it is no problem on the programmer's side, I shall insist that it might be overly complicated for the editors. Do not forget one fundamental difference: these are short labels with no wikification or other complications at all. "New title" or "Title extinct" can be very easily typed by anyone, with exactly as many guidelines as shall be needed to teach the editors which parameters to use. Mind you that I do not downright oppose the "parameters in s-new and s-non" idea—I just mildly disapprove of it.

• Maybe she gets easily panicked. Or she thought that halting everything would create no problems as long as we did not go forward with what she perceived as damaging actions. I do not know, and I shall probably never know. In any case, be civil, sensible, and considerate, and your points will be taken seriously. If we behave ourselves, we will always be able to eventually prove that we are more worth being heard than any overly aggressive Wikipedian.

• So, "Abandon ship!" will not be heard at your userpage. If this is how things are, then there is nothing else that can be done. Since it is only your account's name that is different, there should not be any problem with your desired identity.
  Unless, of course, you start considering "User:Darius von Whaleyland" as an account name. But three accounts may be too much...

• I live in Pieria, the land of the Muses, between mountain and sea. My hometown is Katerini, and it is a nice place to live, although it can always do with a couple of some many improvements.

This is the end of this morning's briefing. My butler will escort you to your horse; it has been well tended in my stables. A fine animal, it is, which I would have definitely tried to buy if I did not know how much you love it. Until we meet again, may the gallop of the Unicorn follow you wherever you go. Waltham, The Duke of 10:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the dominance of the Irish is legendary. But either way, the victory here, as well as on WT:WAF page makes me think that the policy is in need of change and I have requested assistance in changing that policy here.

• I put links on the /Template page for all the /docs but I was thinking we will probably be making /docs for all the various templates eventually, even the main ones, just to make them consistent, give them interlinks to the start page, and organize them better. I also will be going through all the /doc pages to make sure they all have the PROPER format in the example, because yesterday I found one of the other formats. On that same note, I am going to take all the old succession box (and x by x) templates onto our template page so we can monitor them better and begin the removal process of some of them (or all eventually).

• Aw, the fifth movie is soo good. Much better than the last ones. And if you get a chance to watch the IMAX 3D version, all the better. While I don't generally like 3D, this was really good.

• Alright, then I won't worry about it for now. The idea can wait until some of my other projects get done anyway. I am going to begin working with s-ecc and s-awards and am still awaiting the proposal for s-nob to be finished with so I can undermine it anyway and delete it (for some reason, some people like to keep worthless redirects even when I tell them that I will make sure it doesn't get recreated). I have also agreed to help remove s-roy instances by going through all the pages it is used on and removing it. If you could do this too, that would help. Actually, removing instances of s-ecc' work too, and you said you were doing that. Either way, those are the only templates currently in use that really need work.

• I am beginning to wonder how our project could get upgraded to guideline status. I know it is possible and it would be interesting to know if we qualify. It would definitely make it easier for us to be heard, although probably harder for anything to pass.

• Just a bit.

• lol. What great land couldn't. I personally come from the San Lorenzo Valley which is very beautiful and has a perfect climate. I live in San Diego, CA right now, but I probably won't be past the next year.

Ah, you took care of my steed! I was not sure if you saw that I brought him. He was actually a gift for me, once a fine race horse, but now retired and servicing me. Note that I use no saddle or carriage. He never liked either much so I appease him. He loves cabbages too, although I can't stand them. Regardless, au revoir, your grace, until again!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

All is going well, I hope? Ah, too much work, and time is at a premium!

• I have post a comment there in order to assuage one of the main concerns, and I am waiting more of them to answer to; the basic objections are more or less the same, so it should not be hard. We have had enough practice already, hearing the same arguments over and over again...

• Clear, helpful, consistent, unlocked doc pages for all the templates, good. Transcribing those to the S-start/doc page, very good. After all, the aforementioned page may look good, but the solution applied on the Headers section is only temporary. I mean, we cannot possibly want to oblige ourselves to mainain it for eternity, and every parameter change will entail that very demand. No, no, it is a thousand times better to do the links. Decentralised mainenance tailored to the very needs of each specific template and, at the same time, to those of the project itself.

• About the template evaluation, seeing all those cabinet boxes I remember the cabinet succession boxes that used to exist and I cannot but wonder: what has become of them? In any case, I have had a look at various articles about senior politicians of Canada and realised that there might be a relative lack of standardisation but there are also many useful ideas. The problem is that we have more serious problems to solve now, so I can do little more than noting those ideas down. Before I forget them.

• IMAX? 3D? What is this? Alien technology? Never heard of it.
  In any case, it is a (relatively) small town here so the only cinema closes for about two months every summer; Order of the Phoenix will be shown here on 23 August. Which is probably the day I will be examined on my driving skills... Probably a coincidence, though, since Apparation lessons only begin in Half-Blood Prince.

• Yeah, sorry about that. I edit, but just a little; I have many pet projects outside Wikipedia and I tend to spend much time there as well. I will try to fix more of the s-roy redundancies; I have already done so for the Kings of Greece.

• There is a "legal" gap about succession boxes in Wikipedia, so I suppose that it is possible. However:
  • We must have solved all of our major issues and finalised our guidelines about the most important aspects of succession boxes.
  • The project must be organised and have a significant number of contributors. I would suggest that you should take a few minutes off to edit the main page draft so that we can put it in place and present a more respectable image; then I can start sending messages to the other relevant WikiProjects in order to establish ties of cooperation.

• Well, I have likewise been away from my homeland for the greater part of the past year; I study in Serres and usually come home every second weekend. Since the end of June, however, the school has been closed and I have been uninterruptedly living in Katerini; I shall stay until the end of August.

End of briefing, Darius, and may the wind of inspiration always be at your side! Waltham, The Duke of 07:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An Idea (or many of them)

Sorry for the multiple headers but they are two separate issues. This is something we could maybe do but I wanted to run it by you before a full proposal. Do you think we could use parameters to merge s-new and s-inc into s-bef and s-aft? Just add a parameter that basically makes it so you can type {{s-bef|new}} and it will make the new template and {{s-aft|inc}} and it will make the inc template? Just an idea. I think it would be pretty easy to do also.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Another idea, completely unrelated. Should we create a template or option for s-ttl that allows the title to span all three columns, thus allowing us to include succession-less titles in the list. This may be good for those hereditary peers that were granted the title and then it went extinct when they died. I am finding a lot of those while removing instances of s-nob. It would be really easy to implement, I would just add a col="{{{col}}}" parameter into the code beside the "row" option so you could type col=3 and it would span all three and negate a predecessor and successor.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another: Template:s-gaa needs to be merged with Template:s-sports, possibly demanding s-sports to be broken into parameters which would be relatively easy to do. I don't want that template to spread too much since it is a bit redundant. What do you say?
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, new header. I have no problem with it, but I was surprised to see it here. I mean, I usually prepare my long briefings when off-line and when I posted the one in the above section I saw that I there was more to answer to. I suppose mail never stops coming in...

• I am quite uncertain about your merger idea. I mean, s-new and s-non are easy to use and I am afraid merging them into s-bef and s-aft respectively would change this, in addition to complicating the whole template system. We should have unexperienced contributors in mind, Darius.
• I am afraid I will have to pop the inspiration bubble that is hovering over your head, Darius. If we keep complicating the template system in this way, everyone shall end up very confused and the succession box opposition shall have a new weapon in their hands. I believe the current templates work very well and both what is written and what is shown in the page are perfectly understood by everyone. In addition, the current system is much more flexible.
  I know that you like creating templates, but you really ought not to direct your creative energy into something that might do damage. Sorry. :(
• Your view of s-gaa is, in my opinion, correct. We should actively try and limit header sprawl, especially for headers that are bound to be used in no more than a handful of articles. "Gaelic Games" (of which I have never heard before) can easily be converted into a "Sporting positions" parameter, and it can set the precedent for the creation of other similar parameters. Right now, as a matter of fact, it is used in so few articles that the substitution in succession boxes can be made manually as soon as the templates are changed. In short, I support your proposition and I am waiting to see how it works out.
• And I shall add another idea of mine here: re-organise the SBS archives. I have already moved "Archive 1" to "Archive 2" (my first move ever!), but I should probably have left the redirect as it was before I attempted to move "Archive: 2006" to "Archive 1". I have had to go to Requested moves to get the job done; I believe there should be no problem. I shall update the links at the archive box when everything is in place, so keep in mind that until then the situation will be a little funny.
• By the way, I have noticed your cheerful little note in s-edu. Knowing that some administrators are not viewing favourably the inclusion of educational titles in s-aca, we might actually need s-edu. In such an event, we will just have to make sure that the header reads "Educational offices" and the colour matches that of s-culture. In any case, hold your horses and do not list s-edu for deletion (yet).

I believe that is all, Darius. The Great Khan's answer is impatiently expected, as always. Waltham, The Duke of 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: Wow, that was fast. Not only did Stemonitis move the page within minutes after my request was made, but he also automated the archive box in WT:SBS, bless him. There is not much for me to do about this matter any more, actually. Just one question: do we really want the new box? On one hand, it is much easier to maintain, especially if we keep writing archivable material at this rate (I am already thinking of a new archive page); on the other hand, the dates are no longer visible. It is a matter of priorities, really. What say you? Waltham, The Duke of 11:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I need new headers because I hate rifling through all the text just to get to the end, hence new headers. Anyway, about the three proposals, they are all things that just came to me as I was editing yesterday, hence why I just wanted to ask instead of officially propose anything. I wasn't ever really certain about merging. Since we have made the templates so much more diverse, I was thinking of merging them and then keeping the old template as a redirect, something like {{s-bef|new}} as the internal code on the s-new template. Obviously it would force some change, but I just was thinking and getting opinions. I actually am rather sick of making templates and am now just trying to simplify things that already exist.

Concerning the canon fodder, you are quite right about making a succession box NOT have a succession becoming fodder for all s-box haters out there. On that same note, I am going to start removing all instances of created/extinct titles when they appear on the same article. Some people seem to think that a succession only requires one individual. Unfortunately for you, many of them are baronetcies. Either way, they need to go so I will be certain to either convert them to s-vac pages or remove the template entirely.

I will see what I can do with Template:s-gaa without offending them too much (see F1 race report). I think that since it is a new idea for them, it won't be too much of a loss. Do you think we should implement parameters into s-sports to meet the more specific demands of the other projects or just keep them as Sporting positions for now?

I moved s-edu back to the keep list for now and reorganized the /Templates page a bit, adding some that I found on a "Template:s-" search on google. Some people from other groups are using our "s-" style to do info and navboxes, but there isn't much we can do about those except ignore them. We don't have a monopoly on "s-", although I wish we did. Speaking of s-edu, what problems are coming up? I thought that s-aca covers anything s-edu would.

An organization of the archives is fine with me, but I'd rather not be the one to do it. I am fine organizing the completed proposals page, but working with the archives is a bit out of my spectrum of knowledge. If you need me to do it, though, that's fine. And regarding the dates, I think it is fine to skip them. I find myself reorganizing some of the sections anyway when we are close to consensus but need it to be more in the forefront for people to notice a proposal.

Alright, that is all. Adieu!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am a getting a little gruff from a User:Brendandh concerning removal of images from succession boxes. Mind you, the succession boxes he is complaining about are also oddly and inappropriately organized and worded, but that is extra. I also am splitting the duchy of Hamilton (Scot peer) with Brandon (British peer). This may further anger him. I am not trying to get the guy mad, but as a warning he may come after me with a hatchet for pushing rules and regs on him.

Resolved. I converted them all and he was contented.

Note 2: I got the open parameter problem fixed, I think. I tested it at User:KuatofKDY/Template:S-reg and it seems to work, resulting in "Regnal titles" when anything other than a parameter is entered. I will try it with s-roy as soon as I finish with the Hamilton/Brandon line.

I have some requests up. I've found no problem with the code so I am implementing it AND removing references to the open pipe version in the doc pages. Check out the new templates I found in use (and am deleting) on the template page. I found them two nights ago and finished all the redirects this afternoon. Most had only a few. I took care of s-gaa too, although I would like to unlock that template so we can work with it again. I think most of the headers we could get unlocked for a little while to add parameters and such, if any admin would let us. Maybe I would have to sign a digi-document stating I will not try to merge and create new header templates. Maybe not...
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Darius.

• From what the pals over at Bot Requests have said, you cannot redirect to a parameter, so implementing a merger of s-new and s-bef would render the old "Template:S-new" unusable. Plus, leaving the s-new separate will make its editing easier, and, as I have told you, having some easy pieces of code in the succession box template system makes it more user-friendly and encourages its use. It is a pleasant break from lines like the complex title field to have some as simple as {{s-inc}}; changing this would not only abolish this simplicity but would make the creation of succession boxes more difficult than is necessary. Parameters should only be used where that is essential—be the exception instead of the rule.

• I strongly suggest that we discuss the possibility of wide-spread succession box removal with the WikiProjects affected first; the harm caused by such an action could be much more than its gains if things are done in a rush. Personally, I am against the deletion, not only for reasons of standardization (if all titles of nobility normally have succession boxes, why should we discriminate in this case?) and because it is against one of the basic purposes of succession boxes (which is to summarise a person's titles), but also because I do not believe we should make such large-scale changes because a few people are jumping to conclusions. We have detailed guidelines, and people who are interested in creating succession boxes are bound to find them sooner or later.

• I really do not know about the s-sports - s-gaa issue. On one hand, I am against adding parameters in too many headers. On the other hand, I think there might be more examples in the future of headers like s-gaa, something we should actively try to prevent. I suppose we could add this parameter for now, and think well about adding others when that is necessary.

• You should not worry about the use of "s-..." in other infoboxes; we do have a full list of our templates, and I do not believe we shall run out of names any time soon. After all, we have created most of the headers/other templates we need. About s-edu, I shall show you this message, which does raise an issue about how relevant academic and educational offices are to each other. It seems to me that "academic" has more to do with university positions, as opposed to "educational", which has to do with education at large.

• There is no need to do anything about the archives at the moment. I shall take care of the next archive when I find that it is necessary, unless someone gets ahead of me, of course. You can tick that one off your list, anyway.

• It is definitely essential to remove images from succession boxes, but I must also remind you that we do not have formed a definite policy for peerage headers yet. It should be discussed with WikiProject Peerage, but I would like to have the main project page finished before we start interacting with other WikiProjects. Really, do you think it is ready for posting? I believe there should be no problem with it. If there are any minor issues we can solve them afterwards.

• Impressive work, Darius, it seems that our problems with the open headers have finally been solved. About s-gaa, I see that it has already been deleted, but not added to s-sports. I do not understand what you are saying about "unlocking the template"; would a simple editprotect request work as usual?
  In any case, we cannot bind ourselves in any way as far as the templates are concerned; SBS has continuous and evolving needs.

So, I think this is it for now. See you around! Waltham, The Duke of 08:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: I forgot to close a "nowiki" tag as I was adding my answer in the previous section and it made this section's header disappear! It took me almost fifteen minutes to find out...! Waltham, The Duke of

My friend, it is nice to see you again. For a moment I thought you had fled like many of the usual voters at the project page. But you didn't and I feel bad for even thinking you had. Life goes on as usual here at the project.

• Okay, I had mostly dropped the s-new and s-inc concern anyway. I think my next project after fixing s-ecc and s-awards (I think s-records will take me about 20 minutes) will be getting rid of some of the most preposterous of the "succession box x by x" templates. While I am fine with keeping the standard one, the others really need to go. They are confusing and often don't even work right.

• I wasn't going to go NOW to remove all those boxes, especially since most are under slightly different conditions of being multiple incarnations of old titles, which we need to work out still. But that is why I was asking about making a 3-span ttl ability, so that titles that are titles of nobility can be listed even when they are not successive. We have a bit of a contradiction here in saying that titles MUST be successive, but we should keep all peers even if they are not.

• I only worry about other templates using s- when they fall under our header rules or something similar. Otherwise I figure they can just do their own thing. However, when I find one that does fit our rules and guidelines, I take it in immediately, assess it for viability, and remove it after redirecting if redundant (see all the recent additions to the deleted list).

• I only remove images if I have time to remove them all at once (ignore the Portuguese royal family, I have removed all of those twice now and will try again next week). That is why I did it with the dukes of hamilton. I figured the leader wanted consistency over anything else, thus I did it all quickly to appease him. He seemed happy enough. I even standardized some templates he had skipped. But I will watch out next time to avoid such repercussions.

• I worked extra hard yesterday to clean up rogue templates, add the new open parameter blocker, and add document page links to the /templates page. It is all working now and...

• I have successfully changed s-sport into a parameter template. I think that it is alright to use parameters and have them available on templates as long as the default is there and works and requires no pipe. The last instances of She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named's complaints I think are solved. I added s-gaa as the first parameter option on the new list for s-sports. I just ran out of time to propose the change last night so had to wait for this morning. Unfortunately, I was not able to get the gentleman's background color request working.

I believe that is all for now. I will get back to you when you get back to me, or something like that. Cheers!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have been insulted by your insinuations, Darius, but I have gotten used to being evil—for too long, perhaps.

• Not only these succession boxes you are speaking of are often problematic, but they also lack flexibility. Any combination between multiple lines and incumbents requires a separate template, and there are no title start and end options like our s-new and s-non parameters. Do away with them as you can, dear fellow!

• About the removal of single-person succession lines:
  • I was only trying to make sure you would not act earlier than it would be prudent. Do not forget that there have been some instances of rather rash actions in everyone's record, and impatience is a vice that unfortunately characterises most Wikipedians.
  • We are the "standardisation" project, right? The problem can practically disappear by means of standardisation. That is, titles and succession lines need to be standardised, and therefore peerage and beronetcy succession lines must be added to all existing articles; not doing so would confuse matters further. Besides, I do not believe anyone has actually complained about them, have they?

• A "template car wash" of sorts, you seem to be operating. Well, standardisation is both an aspect of and a prerequisite for general compatibility between templates. Keep it up.

• Slow planning, quick execution is a much better strategy than "quick planning and slow execution" (although it would be preferable to have them both done as quickly as possible :)). Standardisation must always exist, and too many succession chains under construction/renovation are undesirable, in the same way that a city in which there are always many constructions sites will never be very pretty.

• I did not expect it to work... Same templates with differently coloured headers? (shakes head)
  In any case, it is nice to see that the danger of unsupervised super-flexible headers has finally been banished beyond this plane of existence. A clean job has been made, and we now have but to remove empty pipes whenever we find them (and we are going to find a lot of them). I shall also remove the "This template does not work without a pipe" notices from the /Guidelines page.
  Talking about which, I believe we shall need to create a shortcut for it as well. It is too important not to have it, and its title is even longer than that of the project itself.

Answers for answers, and questions to be followed by other questions. Have a nice weekend! Waltham, The Duke of 10:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• They will be added to the /Templates page so we can monitor their deletion progress.
• Single-person s-box
  • Yes, I will halt removal for now. I have other far more pressing problems. Currently I am only removing things such as non-successive awards that are finding entirely new succession box formats, thus causing problems. Generally I am leaving the current templates in tact.
  • Actually one person did, but then they kinda canceled it out later when they discovered it was a reincarnated title.
• Wow, this is becoming sparkling clean.
• I always try to replace a whole series at once, but sometimes other things get in the way. I at least try to make it past the halfway point, and I also go from the present to the past since that gets rid of the current uses and people are less likely to go to the pages further back in time to establish an argument for keeping a style.
• I have removed the notice from all the /doc pages and have removed references to expired templates on the start/doc page, but yes, the guidelines page should be updated too. If you could get that one, that would be great. Also, make sure to remove any expired templates from that page as well. Just cross them with the /Templates page if you need to. And yes, a shortcut would be good; perhaps a shortcut for all the project subpages even.

Sorry for the impersonal nature of this reply. Since it is all business talk anyway, I wasn't too concerned, but my real work is suddenly getting busy and I need to go. Cheers!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of time is understandable. I should know.

• Indeed, it is the best way to cope with it. Though I do not always edit that systematically; I started editing the boxes for the Australian Prime Ministers, did the last five or so, and then jumped to the first one and continued for about ten of them. I think I will finish the job tomorrow.
  • Update: I have finished with the Australian Prime Ministers. I am looking for stray s-roys now, but it is rather hard to find them once the most obvious ones have already disappeared.

• I hope you are not being sarcastic; shortcuts should be used sparingly and we have two already.
  So, since you agree, I shall make a proposal tomorrow. I think I have a few ideas...

• I have already fixed some of the out-of-date statements in the /Guidelines page, but I will finish with it tomorrow. It would make it much easier if I knew what achievements exactly s-ach proper refers to.

Have a nice day... at work. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 10:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

New Apple Computer released...lots of people, not enough air...need to breathe... Needless to day that my last week was hell and all my free time I devoted to working on a ScummVM complete edition that I've envisioned for some time. I have done little Wikiing but will slowly resume. But I think I may stick to some simpler things for a while and step back from administering. I will still help you, of course, but I am sick of fighting people into convincing them to drop their "only used on three article" templates for the standards. I could be ruthless, but I am tired and need a break from it.

• Good work with the Austrian PMs and Project:s-roy. I will work on that shortly because it is more in my league.
• Yeah, too many shortcuts are bad (see the surviving s-nob). We can keep them few, although we may need/want one for s-start/doc sometime.
• s-ach refers to awards, records, and achievements. I removed s-record finally so s-ach fits everything now (except some nobel prize winners, although I think s-other is entirely inappropriate for that award).

My weeks are building up to another school year, but I will try to enjoy work and school and all. A short wiki break may have helped me relax a little, at least. But still, too many customers.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick Request

Can you vote to delete Template:s-nob here. It got caught up in procedure and I forgot to ask you to vote. It may be too late, but if it is still up, please vote. Thank you!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 20:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have voted. And commented on other voters' votes. I tend to do that. A lot. Waltham, The Duke of 09:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone appears to be away...

...on holidays. The whole bloody project is deserted; half the votings have been cut short. We really do seem to need a few Aussies and Kiwis to help around here...

Anyway, I thought it was high time I should create a new section, seeing the length the others have already reached. There is not much to answer to, right now, anyway.

• I hate to put any pressure on you, given that you are so busy at the time, but you still have not answered to my points in the first of the two sections above (minus the Signposts). Most of these hardly need any answering, but some of them do. Please answer in this section.

• Australian, not Austrian, and I have done nothing on s-roy yet because I cannot find examples that have not already been corrected. But you cannot say I have not tried. ;-)
  The curious thing about Australian politicians in general is that most of their boxes seem to have no headers at all but the "Parliament of Australia" one at the top, which is almost always used despite most of those politicians not having succession lines for their federal parliamentary seats. It is like they use it to say "He's Australian, all right". I have added parliamentary seat succession lines for all prime ministers that did not have them, but the problem is a widespread one.

• I think it is unnecessary to propose any shortcut in the project's talk page; nobody is there to answer. I think we will just have to revert to committee mode again, at least until someone does return. I believe that, especially in contrast to the name of /Guidelines page, that of the /doc page (Template:S-start/doc) is particularly short and does not really need a shortcut. Especially if you just type "Template:S-start" and then click on the link for the /doc page (it is right at the top).
  For the /Guidelines page I propose that we pick one shortcut from the second line and perhaps one more from the first (that can be more easily remembered by project members); I prefer the full word "GUIDE" in the shortcuts but if you think it makes it too long we can use something like "GUI" or even a simple "G".
  • One of the following three in relation to the project: WP:SBSGUIDE, WP:SBSGUI, WP:SBSG
  • One from one of the following three pairs for general use: WP:SUCGUIDE/WP:SUCGUI, WP:BOXGUIDE/WP:BOXGUI, WP:SUCBOXGUIDE/WP:SUCBOXGUI (personally, I prefer the second, full version; in case it is confused with other infoboxes, however, we could use something like WP:SBOXGUIDE—new idea, and I like it as much)

• Two things:
  • Why not move all Nobel awards (including the Peace one) to "Awards" and get it over with?
  • I understand what s-ach is supposed to be used for; I have yet to understand what exactly "Achievements" refers to, though. What kind of achievements are to be given succession chains? I am thinking of people who have climbed Everest or circumnavigated the globe.

• And some extra points:
  • The discussion at the Village Pump has already been archived, without any significant results. The succession box discussion at that Canadian project has also stalled.
  • I have decided to post the main project page, since it seems to be in order. I may be mistaken, but it looked like you did not object to its general format of content. Further corrections can be done on the page itself at its proper location. My subpage will now display my idea for the re-organisation of the /Offices subpage.

I am eagerly waiting for your answer, and await the time of abundance to return to this project. Waltham, The Duke of 08:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition: I have forgotten one thing: I fixed the succession box for Al Gore the other day, and took the chance the apply my proposals for American politicians' succession boxes on it. I insist that you should go and see it; it is the perfect sample, including political offices, seats in both the House and Senate, presidency and vice-presidency nominations, and a place in the order of precedence! Please tell me what you think of it. Waltham, The Duke of 10:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where everyone else has gone but I have been working on other projects lately, although I have not completely abandoned wikipedia. I just grew tired of arguing so decided that my wiki contributions for the past week and a half should only be known fixes.

Let me see what questions I have left unanswered:

• I will work on transcribing pages sometime soon. Right now I am just trying to catch up.
• I am putting off the Canada ministry problems right now. The template will be easy enough to standardize. It is their mass-production of headers that needs to be worked on. However, I didn't want to get into another debate while I am still recovering from the last one, so I decided to hold off.
• IMAX is an ultra-projection technology that uses a beautiful sound system and a huge screen to generally depict documentaries. However, since Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, it has been used occasionally for movies as well. Watching the movie in 3D on the big screen with super-loud sound was awesome. I doubt you will ever get a chance to watch that movie in IMAX, but if you ever get a chance when you are in the US sometime, check it out. Even a documentary would be cool to watch at the size the film is in.
• I will look up some more of the s-roy cases. It seems to be that a lot of the problems have been corrected. Although strangely, I found an HTML straggler from the early days of the project yesterday. It was hiding in the Dukes of Anjou.
• We need to work on both the number of contributors in the project and the appearance of the project. I was thinking we could even use cool colored graphics and stuff for the project page, although only some of the projects go for flashy. Regardless, I will check out (and unastricks) my name from the project page.
• Well I will be in SD for another year at least, and hopefully still working where I am. But I hope your return travels go well. Make sure to tell me when you leave so I know not to message you for a few days.

People seem to think that headers are a succession box in themselves. Hopefully this practice ends soon because it could be damaging.

WP:SBSGUIDE wins my vote and WP:BOXGUIDE or WP:SBOXGUIDE (either works for me).

Good point, Nobel winners will begin the move. Please remove the reference on the guidelines page, if you will. And s-ach I think should just be for what you described: strange successions of achievements that otherwise have earned no award or won a record (or from a time before records were well documented).

I stopped the Canadian debate myself because it was just too much for the moment. Village Pump stall gets me mad and makes me wonder if I can just delete the clause on WP:WAF. I may do it just to see what happens. Seriously, what happens when you delete a policy? Technically I all they can really do is revert it and bring up a discussion, which is exactly what I want. Hmm...

I like it. It works well too. On a side note, I fixed all the Kings and Queens of Portugal and removed their images. So I think that is the last major case of images in succession boxes.

I am glad to be back in business with you and I will follow through with what I say, although I do not know how long it will take. Cheers and a good many more!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I should advise you to use the {{disputedtag}} instead of removing the whole chunk from the policy; you can expect Them to use the POINT on you. On the other hand, desperate measures may be necessary in situations like this. It is not like the discussion in the talk page was not in our favour, after all...

To other business:

• I have restructured the Distinctions section in the /Guidelines page; I hope it looks good. Unfortunately, I have not been able to write anything more than a single sentence in the Achievements part—as it turns out, climbing Everest is not eligible for a succession chain when more than two thousand people have been up there. I have also corrected a couple of indenting mistakes in the page (consistency above all...) and fixed the issue with the Nobel prize. Finally, I have taken care of the first shortcut (and added the box in the page) but I am torn as far as the second one is concerned. I say that we work with the one we have at the moment (we need it more than any one else, anyway) and when the project is populated we can subject the second to the commonality's vote.

• It is a funny feeling to discover those ancient boxes. A brief surprise, followed by mingled repulsion, wonder, and curiosity. Fortunately or not, it is a rare event nowadays.

• About the project main page...
  • I had added asterisks to all names at the list so that one could uncheck them after it were posted; even my own asterisk I had intended to remove after the move, so that my edit as page maintenance worker would be distinct from my edit as a project member. But it matters little. I shall remove the asterisk from my name as well, check for updates that might be necessary, and post the thing as soon as possible.
  • As far as the graphics are concerned, I would propose that the first thing that needs to be done is to create a nice little box that will be posted on the top right of the page and list all the important pages, like all decent and organised projects do. For one thing, it will solve the problem of quick access to these pages via links after these will be transferred lower in the page in the new version. In addition, it will be able to be used on many project-related pages and clearly demarkate the project's "territory", "jurisdiction", or whatever other term you prefer.

• You have yet to tell me what you think of the Al Gore succession box; I am eager to hear your opinion. By the way, when I edited it I realised that the parameters for the two Houses of the United States Congress had not been fixed. I have put up a request in Template talk:S-par to get this last issue done with.

• I find it unlikely that I will cross the pond any time soon (or that I will visit a cinema if I do go there, for that matter), but I am sure I will enjoy it immensely if and when that happens. Still, we ought to not complain; we still have the luxury or air-conditioned theatres with comfortable seats, large screens and Dolby Surround systems. Why complain?

You know, when I leave there will be no need to withhold your messages; I often log in to check my mail, have a look at my watchlist, and copy the incoming messages into my USB flash disk, so that I can later read them at my leisure and type an answer in my laptop. That way I can keep business moving with minimal Internet access. Anyway, glad to see you again! Waltham, The Duke of 10:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (Updates done at 19:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC).)

As you have discovered, a new debate has spawned but the detractors are the first to vote with—unfortuntely–logical reasons for declining succession boxes in fictional pages. It is becoming clear to me that this policy will not probably change in the near future.

• Thank you for doing the updates to the guide page. I think one shortcut is fine for now, especially since the project is going the opposite direction for being populated currently. I do hope people return in the next few weeks. Most US schools will have begun by the first week of September.

• I like the graphic box idea. I have seen that on many pages and entirely agree. If I get a chance, I may work on it a little bit later. Today is not as busy as yesterday so I may just have time. Post the page when you are able, although it will undoubtedly need more edits before we should go more public.

• I did actually say what I felt of Al Gore's page, but I didn't note that the praise regarded that, thus I state: I like the box and it is very complete. It is a fine example of an article, too. (see any Bourbon French kings or Napoleonic emperors for counter examples).

• Yes, I noted that problem too and agree that it needs to be fixed. I am not sure why Tim4Christ or whoever did the last edit neglected the two major branches.

• Seriously, see an IMAX movie, although you may never want to see the movie in normal theaters again. Anyway, if you ever do come to the US and find yourself in San Diego, give a message and I am sure my roommates and I could make room for you. Not that you plan to visit anytime soon, but the offer stands. I have been trying to get over to the other side of the Pond again for about a year now, with no luck.  ::sigh:: I still claim Wales as my homeland despite the fact that only on my maternal side am I Welsh.

Messages will continue! Good huntings and movings, your grace, until again!
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PS – I checked all the s-other pages and there was only one that was a Nobel Prize winner and that was Jimmy Carter (whom I believe I already corrected). I guess that problem is solved.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically, they have crushed us (and we are only two at the moment...). The problem is that they are too centered on the drawbacks of succession boxes in fictional articles and do not give due weight to their advantages. And what the hell is "cruft"?

• I have replaced the main project page with the draft; whatever edits that may be necessary can now be performed directly there. The only problematic page now is the /Offices one, and I have already put up an example for one section in my /SBS subpage.

• In my opinion, a graphic box would be most helpful if it listed the important pages first (those that were present in the main page list anyway) and them listed the most basic templates. A third part could make mention of some tasks that need to be done or something of the sort. As we have no departments or work groups, the box will be rather small (which is perhaps for the better).

• Oh, you have indeed... Maybe that is why I initially forgot to include the part about it in my response. My memory sure works in mysterious ways... Anyway, I intend to use that box as a base for the future U.S. Congress guidelines. I am already using this standard in the U.S. presidents' boxes, which I am renovating.
  And I have seen examples of the articles you are referring to; their dynasty infoboxes are longer than the articles themselves...!

• No fuss; I have had it fixed already. The only problem is that we shall have to find and replace the existing headers. They cannot be that many, can they?

• I doubt that you shall be still dwelling in San Diego if and when I manage to visit the United Settlements. But I appreciate your gesture all the same, and you can be certain that the same courtesy will be extended to you should you decide to visit my homeland (we know where that is...) any time in the future.

I continue to serve, Darius. May you be inspired with creativity and perseverance in your further quests. Waltham, The Duke of 09:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noted that we were crushed and subsequently forgotten in the debate. I am rather over it and, while I do not actually enjoy going to wookiepedia nor find any of the Tolkien sites even near complete yet, guess that I have no choice at the moment and must wait for the long haul until the tides change again. In all actuality, I don't see why this website cannot also integrate fandom and "cruft". Just because they are not "official encyclopedic entries" does not mean they cannot have some in-universe references within it. I personally go to pages such as Luke Skywalker to read the in-universe info, not the out of universe jargon that is completely irrelevant to the Star Wars universe.

• I am glad you uploaded the page. It seems better for it, although none of the members seem to have noticed. Considering even I have been gone lately, maybe people have just been bureaucracied out. I know I have. I have occasionally been going through the old succession box templates and deleting them after transferring the pages one by one to a more regular format (see the /Templates page deletion list, it is LONG!). But that is getting a little old and I am currently working on Middle Earthan genealogy off wikipedia.

• I still plan to get to that box sometime soon, but I am going to wait a little longer. It shouldn't take long but my internet has been rather flakey and I like doing testing which the flakeyness is especially effecting.

• Yes, the infoboxes are monsters. I am thinking of just removing one of the pretender lists and proposing its deletion. It is becoming really rediculous. There should be a rule that states infoboxes, images, and the like cannot be longer than the article itself. Succession boxes I think are clear from that since they BELONG at the bottom of the article, unlike the crap at the bottom of Napoleon's page.

• I found and replaced all the headers. I only found two instances of both. Pretty simple to undo, really.

Well, that is all. Sorry for the delay but school started this week too and Mondays are hell anyway so today has been the first free-ish day so far. Maybe Friday will prove more fruitful. Your presence is always enjoyed, your grace. Adieu.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)