Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines

(First section)

OK, I've thrown up a page so we can have actual examples and detailed guidelines. This is mostly on my own hook, so comments and changes are very welcome. Choess 22:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea Choess. Phoe 23:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

S-jud

This was meant by me for judiciary or law offices, like Lord Advocate, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Chief Justice, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas ... Phoe 23:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that this tag was much needed, and is entirely appropriate for judges. However, I very unhappy about it being used for the Law Officers of the Crown, i.e. the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.

These posts combine several functions, including supervision of prosecutions, legal advice to the government, and chief government lawyer (or her deputy, in the case of the solicitor-general). However, as far as I understand it, the one role which they do not perform is a judicial one: the Attorney General may initiate a prosecution or may stop it (by entering a nolle prosequi, but I am not aware of any circumstances in which the law officers may perform the judicial function of issuing a judgment in either a civil or criminal case. There are some functions which might be characterised as quasi-judicial (such as the A-G's issuing of guidance wrt to Public Interest Immunity certificates), but I think that is stretching things a bit.

Given a straightforward choice between {{s-off}} and {{s-jud}}, I think that s-pol is a better fit for the law officers, because these are not judicial offices, but they are political appointments. However, I don't think that s-off is ideal, because while these offices are political appointments, they are not solely political offices: the A-G's duty to give honest and impartial legal advice to the government is supposed to override their political allegiances (see Peter Goldsmith, Baron Goldsmith#Controversy_over_legal_advice_on_the_Second_Gulf_War for a recent controversy over that point).

I suggest that the only solution is to create a new heading precisely for the law officers: {{s-lawoff}}. I suggest that it could also be used for District Attorneys in the United States, because although a DA is often elected (unlike the A-G), their functions are a subset of those of an A-G.

However, I am not a lawyer. It might be useful to ask someone with legal expertise to give their assessment of this issue. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have thought s-jud also for these offices, s-lawoff was created for. Two headings for this area of offices are too much, one should be enough - otherwise we will get the situation that we we divide everything up always more: the more we will have, the more it will become more confused.

I suggest to delete S-lawoff and keep S-jud (because it is more distributed), but rename Judicial Offices to Law Offices. ~~ Phoe _talk 15:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

PS.: Maybe I'm a little bit too strong influenced by the German system. Here we have three subdivisions: Judikative, all offices that speak for the law, also lawyers, attorneys, judges; Exekutive, all offices that act for the law, also mainly police and finally Legislative, all offices, that make the law, also politician. It is much easier then the British system :) Phoe 15:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PPS.: Perhaps we should also think about a show/hide function for succession boxes. Articles, that have one to ten succession boxes are still open and readable, but there are articles with more than eleven boxes and here it becomes difficult. We have a couple of colours (from the different headings) and sometimes the boxes are much larger than the whole text. These articles are ugly in my opinion. Phoe 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think BHG's point is that in England, the AG and SG are political appointments (from judicially trained politicians) rather than independent lawyers who are supposed to be outside the political system and may determine the law quite differently from the intentions of Parliament. She thinks there is merit in distinguishing between the political (eg A-G) and the lawyers (eg the Head of the Chancery Division). - Kittybrewster 15:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the differences , also I have had a discussion about this a month ago, but slowly we are inundated of headings. Phoe 15:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Phoe, one of the features of England and its language is that very few things are as logical as they are in Germany. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on preference or mood, but a certain fuzziness is part of the English way of doing things, and a lot of the terminology overlaps, sometimes with very subtle distinctions.

However, I take your point about the proliferation of headings: not a Good Thing. I'm tempted by the idea of combining the two headings, though I'd prefer to combine them in a new s-legal, with the text "Legal offices". My hesitancy is that while "legal office" is not an inaccurate description of a judicial post, it is an unusual one. Dumping that heading into the midst of the 270 articles using s-jud might upset quite a few editors. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I could absolutely live with that. If nobody has something against this, I will create the new header and replace s-jud and s-lawoff through it. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

S-ecc

This was meant by me for religious titles, posts or offices like Dean, Archdean, Bishop, Archbishop, Abbot, Cardinal ... Phoe 23:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, although I would think it has to be limited to the heads of specific dioceses, abbeys, etc., etc. — to go in a succession box, there needs to be a succession from one holder to another. Choess 23:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Deprecated and now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 4#Template:S-ecc. Bazj (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

S-par

Well done! This looks good :) A few points, though:

1. I have used italicised text in round brackets for the text such as (constituency abolished), but I notice you suggest square brackets, as in [constituency abolished]. I don't have any strong preference (other than a slight hesitation at making so many pages off-standard!), but just thought I'd ask why you preferred the square brackets? The only real downside of them I can see is that my little mind tends to think of them in wikipedia as a linking device, and in other contexts I use square brackets for inserted text. I'm not sure how speech reading software distinguishes betwteen the two, and I'd like to suggest leaving the choice to those with expertise in that area.
2. I have tended to list concurrent MPs in multi-member seats by surrounding that list with round brackets, like the example below, but I prefer your example without:

1. XHTML pedantry: the line-break tag should be <br /> (i.e. a space before the slash. I have amended the guidance page.
2. It may be personal preference, but I find succession boxes much easier to create and maintain if they are laid out with the fields on separate lines, as below. Not many other seem to agree, though :(

 {{succession box
   | title  = 
   | years  = 
   | before = 
   | after  = 
 }}

Hope this helps :) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. - Kittybrewster 23:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I thought by "brackets" you meant square brackets, rather than parentheses. I'll change that. Strictly speaking, I think the spaces in empty tags are a probably obsolete compatibility measure rather than a validation requirement, but they don't hurt. (It's been a while since I had to do SGML pedantry.) Succession boxes are a bit easier to deal with when laid out like that, but that also makes them very long, for individuals with a multitude of offices. I'm inclined to leave that to the personal taste of contributors. Choess 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, while I think this is already the case, I suggest we wikilink only the years pertaining to the individual (in the "years" parameter), not those in small type, etc., etc. That would (IMO) make the box a bit too "cluttered", and they're only another click away, since the simultaneous MPs are linked. Choess 02:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that would be unnecessary clutter. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Political and honorary offices

There's a lot to sort here. I created User:Choess/Offices, and Phoe has a sandbox diff somewhere, to deal with these questions: what is a political office (particularly in the UK, although there are things like Grand Master of France that we can box), and what is the distinction between a political and an honorary office? For instance, the lord-lieutenancy of counties originated in late Plantagenet and early Tudor times as a very functional office, responsible for raising troops, keeping the peace, and so forth, but nowadays the office is purely ceremonial. So likewise with the custodes rotulorum and vice-admirals of counties. As part of this project, we should start another page, WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Offices, and endeavour to maintain a list of such offices in various countries and the date at which we start to treat them as honorary. (This will be somewhat arbitrary, of course, but so be it.) Depending on detail/completeness, we might be able to spin off lists for individual countries as articles in and of themselves. If you're not already familiar with them, [1] and [2] have lengthy lists of British offices. (With a few odd exceptions: no Treasurer of the Chamber or Teller of the Exchequer [of Receipt].) Once this page is well on its way, it will be much easier to check if a particular individual's titles are all properly classified, instead of having to do them one by one.

We should also consider the status of "partisan" offices, that is, offices recognized within political parties (e.g., Majority and Minority Leaders of the US Senate, party chairmen, and so forth — in the UK, of course, the Government's partisans are in fact appointed to offices of state). In the original discussions surrounding the project, John Kenney argued cogently for separating them from political/government offices. I tend to agree, but I think we have to be careful not to get too carried away in creating more headings and increasing the number of bloaty pages where each succession box has a heading. Choess 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

General guidelines

Phoe made good points about accessibility in re. Parliamentary succession, and it seems that they would apply to succession boxes in general. Should we alter {{Incumbent succession box}} to comply and write into the general guidelines that the creation and abolition of offices and noble titles, their going into and out of commission, and so forth and so on, should be picked out with parentheses and italics?

We should also set a general order in which the headings and their associated boxes should appear on a page. Choess 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points? Me? I don't know where ... :-)

• I think we should have a uniform picture - (means: if we italicise (constituency abolished), we should do it on (new title), (new office), (post abolished) or (abeyant) ....and so on, too. It looks better.

• In the past the order was chronological and only peerage boxes had to be generally on the bottom. Now with the different headers we should reform that and sat a new standard (with each header on its place). How looks this:

Phoe 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Edited to remove the deleted s-ecc & s-pol and to use s-ach in place of s-awards. Bazj (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

When one doesn't know the successor's name

What should one fill in when one doesnt know the name of the predecessor / successor? - Kittybrewster 09:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer Unknown Phoe 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of {{Unknown}} which links to a category, indicating "attention required". - Kittybrewster 11:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Life peerages

Life peerages don't have a succession, yet they are often given succession boxes.. - Kittybrewster 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Remains. One User created them, however he had been convinced to do this not (with the same reason you have written). I'm currently going through all life peers and add their territorial designations, so I'll remove these boxes (where I find them) Phoe 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is no list of Life Peerages to check them against. - Kittybrewster 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There are various sources, I use ... normally I compare them with each other Phoe 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

MI5/MI6

These have been fully civilian services since the end of WWII. It is not appropriate to add s-mil to the headers for postwar officers as some have been doing. This seems to be an attempt to pigeonhole people into pigeonholes into which they do not fit. -- Necrothesp 14:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In which case were they s-mil until the end of WWII and thereafter s-other ? - Kittybrewster 17:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Until the end of WWII many officers were seconded from the military, yes. I think it's only appropriate to put an s-mil tag on if the officers in question were actually military officers (i.e. held a military rank). Since WWII most MI5/MI6 officers have effectively been civil servants (although not actually classed as civil servants, I believe; but certainly nothing to do with the armed forces). They're no more military than police officers are. I think another tag should probably be created for non-political government offices - there are plenty of them - and this would be the most appropriate tag for MI5/MI6 officers. -- Necrothesp 17:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of them? Examples? MI5 and MI6 are specifically listed on the guidelines under s-mil. - Kittybrewster 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All civil servants are non-political government offices. There isn't a tag for them at the moment, which seems to be a bit of a gap. As for MI5/MI6 officers being specifically listed as s-mil, why are you taking this to be an official policy? It's merely somebody's (incorrect, I'm afraid, in this case) opinion and has not been discussed here that I can see. Opinion is neither guideline nor policy.

How about an s-gov tag for these people? Lumping them all into s-other seems to be a bit strange when the police, military, judiciary etc have their own tags. -- Necrothesp 19:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Necrothesp, you're right, it is neither military nor politic, but the first more than the second (in my opinion). And you have also right, there are many cases with the same or a similar problem. I would welcome s-gov and would suggest to create a heading for posts in the TV, newspaper and radio area, too, probably s-med.

PS.: I don't like s-other :-), it is too non-specific. ~~ Phoe _talk 19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC) ~~

s-other was my invention, but I agree that it is not an ideal thing to use. I think it's best regarded as a sort of temporay marker, whose its purpose should be to help identify the need for other tags. A regular check on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:S-other should help identify the need for other tags, such as {{s-media}}. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Queries

• Roman_Abramovich - Kittybrewster 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Governor of Victoria - s-gov or s-off or s-hon ? - Kittybrewster 11:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I would take s-gov. ~~ Phoe _talk 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Extreme Makeover

The contents of this page have been substituted with a different version, developed mainly by The Duke of Waltham and Whaleyland in one of the former's subpages (User:The Duke of Waltham/SBS). The creators of the new page believe that it is clearer, more detailed, and more complete, and it includes guidelines for most categories of titles and offices. It remains on the honourable members of this noble WikiProject to provide their opinions and help us see whether this is true or false.

You are requested not to comment here on the guidelines outlined in this page but to do so in the main SBS talk page, at least for the time being, in order that the discussion ensuing may be centralised and thus more easily monitored. Waltham, The Duke of 08:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of headers changed

Apart from the improvement of the Guidelines page, many guidelines themselves have changed from their previous versions. It is important to note that the order of headers is one of them, and that the order given higher in this page is no longer valid. The current order can be found here. Waltham, The Duke of 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

What was the final decision as to whether or not fictional characters get succession boxes? Emperor001 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of postnominal letters

I disagree with the guideline that the postnominal "Bt" should be used for baronets. No-one else with postnominal letters (e.g. VC KT GCB KCMG CSI LVO OBE DSO AFC and bar QC MP DPhil BLitt MA (Oxon) FRSE ARA) is accorded them in succession boxes so why should baronets be any different? Opera hat (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Because Sir Opera Hat is a knight and Sir Opera Hat Bt is a baronet. Bazj (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So what? Bazj may be the eldest son of a Viscount and Jbaz may be a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (a far greater gulf than between a knight and a baronet), but we don't bother to indicate as much in a succession box. Opera hat (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Year range guidelines contravene WP:YEAR & WP:DASH

It has been brought to my attention by another editor that the guidelines here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization/Guidelines#B._Years_and_dates (point vii, a) advocate use of spaces in a year range, whereas WP:YEAR and WP:DASH are clear that spaces are not used in such situations. Can we please review this discrepancy. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember bringing this up a few years ago...let's see, User talk:The Duke of Waltham/Archive 3#Dashes for one half of the conversation and User talk:Choess/Archive4#Dates in succession boxes for the other half. To be honest, I generally haven't been inserting spaces in the succession boxes I create, and I'd support seeing our guidelines reconciled with WP:YEAR and WP:DASH. Choess (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That was then, and I have seen the light since. I have finally got to changing and streamlining the guideline; it's a long process, but the dates part is ready. Comments are welcome if anyone's watching. Waltham, The Duke of 00:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge

I've just edited the succession box on the article Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge and amn't sure how best to handle that three rows, all separated by headers, have the same successor (his son, Prince George, Duke of Cambridge). I've posted this to the article's Talk: page, where I would like to canvas opinion. Please make any suggestions there. Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC for use of succession boxes on songs and albums reaching #1 on music charts

There is a desperate need for guidelines regarding how succession boxes are being used on song and album articles for those that reached number one on one or more music charts, and a question of whether the boxes are needed at all. An RFC is currently taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. Some third party opinions are very much welcomed. For some examples of how these are being used at their extreme, see I Will Always Love You, Tik Tok and Need You Now. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Navy, Air Force

Why is it there is no template for posts held in these services? Only "Military". Eddaido (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are they necessary? In the context where I do the most work (pre-20th Century British figures) we've been using it for Sea Lords, Commanders-in-Chief of various naval stations, colonels of regiments, governors of fortifications, etc. Since a given person is generally not going to rise to posts worthy of a succession box in more than one service, it seems to work fine. Choess (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Choess and thanks for your response, somehow I have missed something important (meaning I don't understand your answer!). My second reason for writing this question was when I found an Admiral listed under the heading "Honorary Titles". My first puzzlement was over the choice of posts to be described as Honorary Titles, the classifier appears to have had an unattractive determination to belittle and then the next puzzle made me ask this question and here you seem to say naval posts and air force posts are to be regarded as if those people were soldiers. I do know these things are fully thought through, I am just stumbling/lost as I try to follow the logic of that thinking! Eddaido (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you find the example? That might help put us on the same page. The definition of which offices are classified as "honorary" can be a little fuzzy, but basically it's for posts where the duties are largely nominal or ceremonial, but which are considered prestigious (or in former days, perhaps even lucrative!) to hold. The Vice-Admiral of the United Kingdom would be an example; there are no particular duties associated with the post; it's bestowed as an honour on certain senior naval personnel. Regarding s-mil, my point was simply that the term "military" could be applied to soldiers, sailors, or aviators, and so offices held by any of those three could be placed under that heading without undue confusion. Does that help? Choess (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Succession template S-elc

Hello, I have taken the bold step of creating a template to match the {{S-off}} succession templates. The purpose of the template is to correctly announce -elects (i.e. president-elects etc.). Please have a look at {{S-elc}} and let me know what you think. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

{{S-culture}}

Can we get a more precise definition of "cultural institution"? There is an editor who claims that the presidency National Association of the Deaf (United States) is a "cultural office". This claim seems odd given the examples offered in this guideline (heads, curators, etc. of museums and theaters). -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Regarding Governor-General of the Philippines:

• s-gov ;or
• s-off

? User:User 50 05:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the official was appointed and his title was "governor-general" does not mean that s-gov automatically applies; if he had executive powers (and used them), and his post was therefore more than just ceremonial, s-off would be the correct choice. This seems to be the case here, although I suspect you understand the post's nature better than I do. Waltham, The Duke of 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Are succession boxes valid for Longevity "title" holders?

I recently removed a plethora of succession boxes from bios of persons who have been identified as the oldest living/ever person/man/woman in the world/country on the basis that there appears to be nothing in this guideline which covers this title. It has been claimed that Guinness World Records awards the title of World's Oldest Living person/man (by the presentation of a certificate) but this does not seem to me to fall into any category listed here. Would any editors experienced in this area care to comment? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There is now an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#RfC:_Should_longevity_biographies_have_succession_boxes. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Succession boxes for peers (etc.)

For example, William Whitelaw, 1st Viscount Whitelaw was created a viscount in 1983 and his title became extinct on his death. There is a succession box for his peerage in the article. Prince Andrew, Duke of York was created a duke in 1986 and there hasn't been a succession and any future succession to the dukedom is highly unlikely. There isn't a succession box for his peerage in the article.

Should a succession box be placed, when succession is or has been possible, whether it has actually happened or not, or only when succession has happened? (Should the box be removed from Whitelaw article or added to York article?)

• A succession box is a navigation aid. Having a succession box where the first and third columns are "new" and "extinct" is rather pointless. Furthermore in those cases we do not have an article on the title (unless it has bene used before). The placeholder for that article is a redirect to the bio-article on the one holder of the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Lines of succession to thrones

I suggest that we change to the guidelines that also lines of succession to thrones should be placed under s-other header with line parameter (instead of s-roy header). Using s-other seems to be de facto main practice already. --Editor FIN (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please give examples. I looked at Louis XV and found "S-roy|fr". "s-other" would appear to be for a sweep up category where more specific parameters do not fit. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Peterkingiron I meant that positions (like 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc.) in lines of succession should be placed under s-other with line parameter, titles of heirs apparent (like Dauphin of France for Louis XV or Prince of Wales for Prince Charles) can remain under s-roy. For example, if you look at the articles of Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince George of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, Duke of York and others, their positions in the line of succession are already under s-other with line parameter. I think that it's also logical that those are under s-other and not under s-roy, because having a place in a line of succession doesn't automatically mean that the individual himself or herself would be considered to belong to the royalty. --Editor FIN (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiple use of s-off

There is a dispute about the succession box on Christian Porter (see Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Succession box headers). Porter was a member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly and held ministerial offices there. He is now a member of the Australian House of Representatives and holds ministerial positions in that parliament. The dispute is between the people who believe that the ministerial positions need to be grouped with corresponding parliamentary positions,[3] and those who quote this guideline that "Each header should be used no more than once in a succession box...".[4] {{s-par}} supports parameters and is thus allowed to be used for each parliament, but the subordinate {{s-off}} does not have parameters and so looks the same both times it is used rather than linking separately to Cabinet of Western Australia and Cabinet of Australia for example.

There are and have been a number of people who have sat in more than one parliament and held offices in each of them. We need a way to be able to group or identify that the roles in one are completely separate from those in another. Any suggestions as to whether this needs a change of guideline, a change in template, or something we haven't thought of yet would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Question re-asked up a level at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#Multiple use of s-off. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on the lords= parameter for elected peers

There's a discussion over at the talkpage of {{S-ttl}} regarding whether the |lords= parameter is the best usage for peers who were elected after 1999, and who did not originally inherit their seat from their predecessor in the title, and thus have another predecessor in the House of Lords.

The problem with the current standard guideline is that the reader might get the impression that the current titleholder succeeded the previous titleholder in the House of Lords, which is not the case for elected peers.

Two examples follow below.

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Lord Carrington

Option 1 (current)

Option 2 (proposed alternative)

Lord de Mauley

Option 1 (current)

Option 2 (proposed alternative)

I propose Option 3, to remove the 'Lords parameter' without adding membership of the House of Lords separately to a succession box. Membership of the House can be mentioned in a biobraphy text and in a possible infobox, which would be informative enough.

It should be noticed that most members join the House by being created life peers and without directly succeeding or being later succeeded by anyone. In these cases, adding membership of the House to a succession box wouldn't be suitable. I think that it would be inconsistent to emphasize membership of the House of some peers by adding it to a succession box and thus kind of 'lower casing' membership of most peers by not making it as visible in biography articles.

Also, I would like to point out that there are about 800 members in the House of Lords (including 92 excepted hereditary peers) and members do not represent constituencies or other regions. Therefore, I think that it isn't very important information which peer has an excepted hereditary peer succeeded. It would be adecuate to mention the succession in an infobox or in a biography text. --Editor FIN (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Political Party Succession offices

I had requested that political party succession boxes be added to Joe Biden, but it was declined stating that there is no consensus or precedent for succession boxes for candidacies. Is this correct? If that's the case, then many articles run contrary to that. Here is the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on succession boxes on US presidential biographies (and the future of succession boxes)

An RfC is occurring at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Succession boxes for US Presidents that concerns the inclusion of succession boxes in articles about US presidents. The RfC's outcome may have implications for the future of succession boxes more generally. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the village pump. Thank you. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)