Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Gubernatorial Lines of Succession

I'd like to add a header for the lines of succession to governorships, currently you have to use the other header which makes the box itself crowded because you have to include the office, spot in line and current position.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide an example? I am not sure I understand why a new header is needed here; the purpose of headers is to group rows in succession boxes, not to give a title to every single row. Elected governorships are one of the very titles for which {{s-off}} was created. If some boxes have over-large sections under this header, it is possible that some rows have been miscategorised. I have been thinking that a review of {{s-gov}} usage might be useful; the "Government offices" header seems rather underused to me. To put it this way, I cannot remember the last time I have seen it in a box.

PS: I find your signature quite interesting. Very... meta. Waltham, The Duke of 06:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Overlap with Template:Infobox officeholder

Hi. I've started a thread about the overlap, at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Overlap with Succession Boxes (location chosen arbitrarily out of here and there). I'd greatly value your input there. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Creation of additional parameters for s-bef and s-aft

Dear colleagues,

I have been increasingly aware of the issue of customisation of the s-start templates. Thanks to their flexibility and adjustability, and as a result of the great extent and variety of their use, said templates are called to fulfil incredibly diverse needs, and host an extensive range of data types. Inevitably, the existing parameters will fail to fully cover some of the uses to which the succession templates are applied, and HTML tags will be placed within existing fields to provide additional functions.

The problem is that the widespread direct usage of such tags—the most common of which are <br> (for line breaks) and <small> (for small font)—defeats the purpose of standardisation and makes the editing of succession boxes less user-friendly. For these two reasons I find it important that we should try and limit their usage as much as possible. The available options are few: the main weapon in our arsenal is the provision of suitable parameters which will eliminate the need to use bare HTML tags. We cannot anticipate all needs, and indeed, I do not believe that we ought to (again, standardisation is a concern, and burdening templates with too many types of parameters is also something to be avoided), but we can certainly try and satisfy the demand for certain popular and useful functions currently not covered by our template scheme. In general, I find that we had better aim for general parameters that can fulfil multiple roles in different environments and can therefore produce the best results with the least possible complexity. With such parameters, we could also ensure more extensive consistency with regards to the formatting of data in succession boxes, and therefore combine greater simplicity and practicability with a uniform design.

For the first step of this process, I propose tackling the proliferation of <br> tags in templates {{s-bef}} and {{s-aft}}. As things stand, these templates only have one parameter each for predecessors/successors, a situation which necessitates the use of the aforementioned tags for multiple names (for example, in British parliamentary constituencies represented by two MPs). I find this situation unacceptable and recommend adding three numbered parameters to each template, for a total of three names on either end of a succession line. More specifically:

• The usual code for a "preceded by" box with two names is {{s-bef|before=[[John Doe]]<br>[[Richard Roe]]}}. In my proposal, this would change to {{s-bef|before1=[[John Doe]]|before2=[[Richard Roe]]}} . A "before3" parameter would also be available to editors, but nothing more than that; it is so rare to see a genuine succession chain with four or more predecessors or successors that, in my opinion, such a parameter could be counter-productive through its mere existence. The "before" parameter would be retained, for backwards compatibility and for use in the majority of boxes where only one name is needed; "before" and "before1" would ideally have identical effects and could be used interchangeably.
• For {{s-aft}} I envisage the same changes, namely the addition of parameters "after1" (interchangeable with "after"), "after2" and "after3".

Is there agreement with this proposal? And if so, is there anyone willing to apply it to the two templates in question? Waltham, The Duke of 14:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We amended the "alongside" parameter to "with" and created the possibility of "with", "with2", "with3", etc. (NB not currently "with1"). Alteration as suggested would be appropriate, but it is important that "before" should continue to work, even if "before1" exists as an alternative. Likewise all "after" items. It might be useful to make "with1" work in the same way as "with" for "s-ttl" at the same time. I think the "with" items go up to at least 9; before and after should match. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not find the sequence "before"–"before2"–"before3" objectionable, and I can even see advantages in using the fewest parameters necessary; I merely suggested that, if possible, we might have a "before1" parameter to play the same part as "before" and thus reduce confusion where more than one parameters would be used. However, I now realise that this would enable an editor to use both "before" and "before1" in the same box, which might cause problems. I think editors will easily make sense of the aforementioned sequence, so I am withdrawing support from the idea of creating "before1" and "after1" parameters.

Regarding the "with" parameters, I knew nothing about them until now; I must have missed the conversation because I wasn't very active in the project in 2009, and I haven't seen the parameters in use anywhere in the mainspace. Honestly, I find it hard to justify the co-existence of the "with" and the "regent" parameters, and having both sets seems highly redundant to me. The only meaningful difference between them is the font size... And even within each set, the numbers are dizzying: I can kind of understand the 8 "regent" parameters, but the 15 "with" ones? Where have more than ten (or even six) been needed, and how much can we allow a box to grow with all these lines?

(Regarding your question, Peterkingiron: even if we keep all these parameters, we don't have to match their number with the "before" and "after" ones. In a two-seat constituency, for example, a long-serving MP may see up to, say, five MPs pass from the other seat, but his predecessors and successors will still be just two.) Waltham, The Duke of 00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not objecting in principle to your proposal; indeed I support the principle. The main reason for retaining "before", rather than substituting "before1", is that it will be unnecessary to amend 1000s of existing boxes already using the parameter. Before the introduction of "with" the "alongside" parameter was little used, probably because it sounded too American to British ears. Instead some complex syntax was being manually inserted to acheive the same result but prefixed with "With". I regard the change which an admin made in introducing "with", "with2", etc. as highly successful and a lot of boxes on MPs have been converted to that format. I consider that the before and after parameters should go up to at least 4, because the City of London had 4 MPs. We do not have succession boxes for Lords of Treasury, Lords of Admiralty, etc, so that I would not welcome before5 or higher. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have forgotten to reply... I've certainly broken the nice pattern of the dates. Anyway, I understand that you support the principle of my proposal, and I thank you for it. I also understand the importance of retaining "before" and "after" as parameters; although my original proposal entailed the addition of alternatives (no substitution), I have realised that this would only confuse things and offer little benefit.

Regarding "alongside", I agree that it may sound too American, but it was not intended for any particular British use anyway: I believe it was created for the U.S. Senate, where it seems to have been considered desirable to mention the other senator in a box even though the two seats were clearly separate. My objection is not with using "with" parameters (after all, I am very well aware of the convention for MPs), but with having both the "with" and the "regent" sets of parameters, which create pretty much the same result, with the exception of a few minor formatting differences. It just seems terribly redundant to me, and I hope we can find some way to merge these two systems (possibly by removing the more specialised, at least in name, "regent" in favour of the more general and intuitive "with", adding the years functionality to the latter and making a couple of formatting changes). Then we could have one system for all uses and no confusion or overlap (which are both bad for standardisation).

I take your point about using four rather than three parameters; I only proposed three because I had not encountered examples requiring more predecessors/successors. Four is just fine. Waltham, The Duke of 14:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also see <br> and <small> tag used in {{s-bef}} and {{s-aft}} for information such as Acting... maybe there should be a parameter for that too? Or a parameter to add etc info (but that may leave the door open for excessive information) Tvtr (tlk–cntrbtn) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This can probably be dealt with by the use of the "as" parameter, possibly extended. I would certainly caution against excessive complexity. I suspec twe have a consensus need an Admin to implement it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that excessive complexity would be counter-productive, though I cannot say I have thought of a simple solution to the problem so far. I used to wonder whether it would make sense to list in a succession box both the acting office-holder and the next "proper" office-holder, but I am now inclined to consider this a bad idea; apart from the increased complexity, it would cause all sorts of problems with border-line cases (the question of when an office-holder is "active" is not always clear-cut).

In light of the above, the simplest solution might well be to make no changes to the templates but simply encourage the usage of the "as" parameter for such cases. If we go down this road, care should be taken to ensure that the succession box for the active office-holder would also include "Active" in the title cell, and make use of the "as" parameter in the predecessor/successor cells to show that the other holders were not also active. Use of the "as" parameter essentially means re-directing the succession line by changing the office's title, even if this only happens for a single link of the chain; as I am aware of offices with many active holders, this might not be the simplest solution after all... (sigh) Waltham, The Duke of 16:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• Yes to adding {{s-bef | before2 = |before3= }}, {{s-after | after2 = | after3 = }}. This is a logical extension of what we did with the {{s-ttl | with= | with2=}} parameters, and it should be done for the same reasons: simplifying markup. Like Peter, I do want before4= and after4=; however I woukd not oppose before5= and after5=, because they coukd be used in the five-seat constituencies in Ireland.
• No to {{s-bef | before1 = }} and {{s-aft | after1 = }}, because that would cause confusiuon as to the purpose of them: is with1 a synonym of with, or an extra? The un-numbered with is implicitly "No. 1", and having both causes confusion.
• We must retain full backward-compatibility. There are so may thousands of succession boxes out there that breaking it would require a horrendous number of fixes.
• The "with" and "regent" parameters may look the same, but are used in very different contexts. Asking editors to label other MPs as "regents" is too bizarre a stretch, so I would oppose removing the "with" params. I have never used he "regents" params myself, and don't know how widely they are used, so I can't comment on the need for them
• The number of "with" params was set deliberately high to allow for very long-serving MPs. I recall using one which was over ten, and only the other day encountered one which went up 9. In any case, extra ones casuse no harm; it's much better to have lots of headroom.
• As an admin, I am happy to implement any consensus reached here. However, while I think that 3 of us who have posted here so far are v close to agreement, I'd feel happier with a slightly wider consensus. Could you grace perhaps drop a note at WT:PEER? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me do my part here. One of the useful things about succession boxes is that the data is, at least theoretically, subject to semantic extraction (so someday you could feed a list of officeholders to a bot and have it automatically check the succession boxes). With that in mind:

• I agree about extending to before2, before3, etc. but not changing before (and so, mutatis mutandis for after). It would work like with, with2, etc. as we have now.
• Also agree that there's a significant difference in semantics, if not in formatting, between "with" and "regents".
• We do need ridiculously high numbers of parameters for some of these boxes—between constituencies of 4 and 5 MPs and the occasional long-lived MP who saw a large number of others come and go, the "with" parameters really do get run up. For before and after, you shouldn't need more than 4 or 5 though. (I know I've seen 4—Weymouth and Melcombe Regis or London—and BHG is reporting 5.)
• These proposals generally seem quite sound. Bear in mind the Pareto principle; there will always be some weird case which needs a bit of special markup tucked into it, so it's best to focus on getting the most widely-used things inline. I echo Peter in calling the introduction of "with" a great success in this regard. Choess (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have finally got to read that old discussion on the introduction of the "with" parameters and, along with the comments above, I am fully convinced of the desirability, and indeed necessity, of the "with" set of parameters. I congratulate all editors involved for this success, and I also wish to thank those who have offered input here. With this matter only one step away from its happy conclusion, it is now time to decide upon the future of another parameter: "creation". Waltham, The Duke of 03:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To be implemented

The discussion above seems to indicate agreement to create new parameters before2=...before5=, and after2=...after5=

This proposal was first discussed six months ago, and since His Grace notified WT:PEER on 24 November, I will implement the change on 1 December (i.e. 7 days after the notification) ... unless there are any objections in the meantime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! before2=...before5=, and after2=...after5=now implemented on {{s-bef}}, {{s-aft}}, and {{succession box}}. (And thanks again to His Grace for the gentle nudge)

The templates were protected, so had to be done by an admin, but would somebody else like to update the relevant doc pages? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just updated the documentation at Template:Succession box/doc, for {{succession box}}. (Yes, I know it's deprecated, but it is still widely used).

Maybe this will be useful as a basis for updating the other bits of documentation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Header for conductors

I have realised that many (most? all?) succession boxes for music directors (conductors) lack headers. Do people here think that {{s-culture}} ("Cultural offices") is suitable for such titles, and if not, what would be? Waltham, The Duke of 15:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Chart succession header

With the (over) use of succession boxes for songs and albums that reached number one on particular charts, could a new parameter for the {{s-prec}} template be created in order for it to say something like Chart precession and succession. Because the boxes can take up so much room sometimes on a song or album article, it would be great to have the ability to collapse them using a header such as this. Personally, I'd prefer not to use succession boxes for chart-topping songs and albums, but if they're going to exist, this might be a good idea. This would allow it to separate itself from award-winning songs that would use the {{s-ach|aw}} template. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, is there any way to discourage their use in these types of articles altogether. It's really gotten out of hand in many articles. Listing every country and chart in which the song/album reached number one adds nothing to the article itself and takes away from the subject article by introducing links to these other unrelated articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

To reply to your original question (with the customary delay), we do not have any collapsible headers for succession boxes; that is, none of the headers used within succession boxes can be collapsed, but a succession box as a whole can be placed within a special template. This is a practice which this project has not yet considered, but I have just noticed that Template:Navboxes can be used for this purpose, and that its documentation actually includes a succession box in its examples. I have just updated the succession box at Elizabeth II and it looks like a good prototype for this method.

Regarding music and charts, I confess that I know little about the subject, although I have noticed the widespread usage of succession boxes in such articles. Could you please provide some examples where the practice has gone to extremes? Our guidelines need much tightening and updating, but I'm sure there is (or ought to be) something on referencing in there. Succession boxes, like the rest of articles, must contain reliable information, and perhaps this will prove to be the key. Waltham, The Duke of 23:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The page I really noticed it as an eyesore basically is on Recovery (Eminem album). It's too large, it's hard to read, provides information on unrelated topics (ie. the previous and succeeding number ones) which don't aid in the understanding of the article. Having it collapsible would be great, but I think the elimination of these boxes is a better idea because of how they are used and the information they are supposed to provide. I have brought this up for discussion at the MOS for record charts talk page to see what kind of input I can get there. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Assemblymen

Various articles use various titles/methods of displaying district number when describing a member of a United States state legislator (see Rebecca Cohn, Kevin_de_León, Joe Coto, etc.). Any sort of already established guideline on how these assemblymen/state senators should be labeled (i.e. Assemblyman/woman/member) and how their district should be attached. Unrelated, is there any general rule on dates, so far as when to use years and when to use actual days? Thanks in advance. AP1787 (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: "Subtitle" parameter

As has been noted before, it is rather silly to have two parameters to do precisely the same thing. I am referring, of course, to parameters "creation" and "dynasty" of template s-ttl, which produce a line of italicised text below the bold title. My proposal is simple: replace these two parameters with a single "subtitle" parameter (same formatting), which can be used for both original purposes, as well as potentially new ones. (I have been thinking of territorial designations for baronetcies, which I have long thought would look better italicised; apart from the HTML, they require us to use apostrophes in the years field, a need which would now end.) With the new parameter, we could deprecate the old ones and preferably have a bot massively replace all their instances. An error message could also be displayed, at least for a while, on pages where the old parameters were used, to educate those not aware of the change. I realise there is no absolute necessity to eradicate "creation" and "dynasty", but I feel that the number of parameters in s-ttl has increased so much lately that it would be a good idea to reduce it a bit for a change. Three parameters are a more complex situation than one, after all. Waltham, The Duke of 03:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Offices sub-page

Does anyone remember this? An ambitious project, no? (Especially if one considers what is missing from the list.) I believe it is plain to all that SBS lacks the resources to keep such a record. I also think that, in case of doubt, it is easy to bring up on this talk page the occasional question about specific offices, and that the need for this catalogue has always been exaggerated. I propose that we should dispose of it. I have already kept it out of the WikiProject's navbox due to its unfinished status, so it is not exactly something people would notice, or miss. Waltham, The Duke of 03:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple title-holders in a single article

What's the best thing to do about this, especially when not all holders have sections within the article, but are still mentioned there and so serve as redirect targets?

For example, look at Lady Sarah Chatto. It shows that Samuel Chatto is next in the line of succession to the British Throne. However, Samuel doesn't have his own article - he just redirects to Sarah. As does the next after him, Arthur. Consequently, the succession boxes give no path forward to the 19th in line.

I'm bringing this up here rather than there as there may be other cases, and so this may help to establish a standard for wherever the phenomenon occurs. -- Smjg (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

To me the situation seems simple: if a subject has neither an article nor a dedicated section in a list article, then there be no succession box for that subject; it just makes no sense to include in an article a succession box about another person. True, this means that there will be missing links in the succession chain (both literally and figuratively), but that is the unfortunate effect of reality—non-notable people often hold notable offices or titles—and it happens often enough.

I do mind the circular link in your example, so it might be a good idea to replace the redirect with a link back to the same page (which would appear black and unclickable but not prompt passers-by to add a missing link, thereby re-creating the original situation), though it would have to be updated upon the creation of an article for that person if and when they are deemed notable. For the gap in the chain, the only solution at the moment is to click on the title link and by-pass the lacuna via the list of title holders. I have pondered a solution to this, but a succession box which would mention both the previous/next holder and the previous/next existing article would be larger and more complex, it would include a self-reference, and it would need updates to reflect the creation or deletion of articles. I do not know whether this conundrum can be successfully resolved.

By the way, I thought mentioning the exact position in the order of succession was discouraged; every time someone is born or married into the succession line, hundreds of numbers change. Or is it left only for the first few positions? I can see the case for that, though I consider the lack of standardisation far from ideal. Waltham, The Duke of 12:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Whydosomeeditorsappeartohaveagreatdislikeofwhitespacewhencreatingsuccessionboxes

Whydosomeeditorsappeartohaveagreatdislikeofwhitespacewhencreatingsuccessionboxes?

OK, that was hard to read ... so here it is, with whitespace

Why do some editors appear to have a great dislike of whitespace when creating succession boxes?

Easier to read, isn't it?

Tthe same applies to succession boxes. String them all together with no spaces or line breaks and they become an impenetrable mass of characters. Space them out properly, in the way that computer programmers do, and they become much more legible.

Example of the same boxes with and without whitespace

Succession box with no whitespace {{s-bef|before=[[William Elliot (MP)|William Elliot]]<br />[[George Ponsonby]]}} {{s-ttl|title=[[Member of Parliament]] for [[Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)|Peterborough]]<br /><small>with [[William Elliot (MP)|William Elliot]] 1816–1819<br />[[James Scarlett, 1st Baron Abinger|Sir James Scarlett]] 1819</small>|years=1816–1819}} {{s-aft|after=[[James Scarlett, 1st Baron Abinger|Sir James Scarlett]]<br />[[Sir Robert Heron, 2nd Baronet|Sir Robert Heron]]}} {{s-bef|before=[[Thomas Brand, 20th Baron Dacre|Thomas Brand]]<br />[[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]]}} {{s-ttl|title=[[Member of Parliament]] for [[Hertfordshire (UK Parliament constituency)|Hertfordshire]]<br /><small>with [[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]]</small>|years=1819–[[United Kingdom general election, 1826|1826]]}} {{s-aft|after=[[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]]<br />[[Nicolson Calvert]]}} {{s-bef|before=[[George Canning]]<br />[[William Henry John Scott]]}} Same box with whitespace {{s-bef | before = [[William Elliot (MP)|William Elliot]] | before2 = [[George Ponsonby]] }} {{s-ttl | title = [[Member of Parliament]] for [[Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)|Peterborough]] | years = 1816 – 1819 | with = [[William Elliot (MP)|William Elliot]] 1816–1819 | with2 = [[James Scarlett, 1st Baron Abinger|Sir James Scarlett]] 1819 }} {{s-aft | after = [[James Scarlett, 1st Baron Abinger|Sir James Scarlett]] | after2 = [[William Elliot (MP)|William Elliot]] }} {{s-bef | before = [[Thomas Brand, 20th Baron Dacre|Thomas Brand]] | before2 = [[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]] }} {{s-ttl | title = [[Member of Parliament]] for [[Hertfordshire (UK Parliament constituency)|Hertfordshire]] | years = 1819 – [[United Kingdom general election, 1826|1826]] | with = [[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]] }} {{s-aft | after = [[Sir John Saunders Sebright, 7th Baronet|Sir John Saunders Sebright]] | after2 = [[Nicolson Calvert]] }}

The example above is an extract from the long list of boxes in William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne. Having noticed a glitch in the list of MPs for Peterborough, I went to correct Melbourne's article to the succession box, and was confronted by this wall f unspaced characters. It was nearly illegible, so as well as making the correction I reformatted the boxes to use more whitespace ... and the result is much more legible

Please can we add something on this the the documentation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am happy with the unspaced format. The case you objected to was evidently created before "before2" and "after2" were adopted. I tend to update such boxes when I find them, though not necessarily with the line breaks (whitespace), but to eliminate the "break" instructions, which are now an obsolete form of syntax. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that some whitespace is better than the completely unspaced form, but I don't think we should mandate a specific format. In the absence of a Wikipedia IDE, I do find it rather time-consuming to line up each parameter on its own line when composing a succession box; I tend to go with a single space around each parameter for compromise between typing speed and legibility. Choess (talk)

The timing of this post is interesting; I have been thinking lately, for the first time, of changing my long-standing preference for no spacing in succession boxes. Considering that I have always liked to introduce empty lines between elements such as headings, images, hatnotes and text in order to ensure greater legibility in the edit window (as well as change ==Heading== to == Heading ==, etc.), my space-less succession boxes strike something of a dissonant chord. Even so, I feel uncomfortable with mandating any particular spacing style; my own new preference is for a space before every pipe, to allow parameters to change lines if necessary (but avoid stray pipes or equal signs at the end of lines). Indeed, with the new HTML-circumventing parameters, this style will look even better than it used to. Clear as it may be, the style in which every parameter has its own line seems a bit like a waste of space to me—especially for those editors with wide monitors—and creates the need for much additional scrolling.

There is also what one might call the "compensation spacing style", where not only every pipe and equal sign is flanked by spaces, but most template names are followed by numerous spaces to ensure that all templates' first pipes are aligned. In short, it is BrownHairedGirl's second example above, but without the line breaks; one sees this style a lot in infoboxes. So, if on one end of the spectrum we have the space-less boxes, my newly preferred "spaces only between parameters" style is next, the "spaces flanking pipes and equal signs only" style occupies the middle, compensation spacing follows, and the spacious "each parameter its own line" style forms the other end.

And before I start over-analysing (if I haven't already), let us get to my suggestions. Firstly, eliminate any totally space-less examples from our documentation system (including the individual template pages). Secondly... I suppose we could add a general recommendation somewhere on clear writing and perhaps encouraging some spacing, but without promoting a specific style. Most Wikipedians have their own spacing habits, anyway, and I find it important to avoid instruction creep. Funny, I know, coming from the author of the guidelines, but I assure you that was a different Wikipedian back in 2007, and the guidelines are currently under review. Waltham, The Duke of 19:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

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

There is currently an RFC 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 they are being used at their extreme, see I Will Always Love You, Tik Tok and Need You Now. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)