Forum:CT:Succession boxes vs. Templates

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Succession boxes vs. Templates

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was: Keep and continue to use both succession boxes and succession templates. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:32, September 27, 2009 (UTC)


This question was raised at the last Mofference, where a consensus was not reached and it was decided to take this matter to CT. So I did. The question is: isn't it time to get rid of most (if not all) succession boxes, which are little more than Wikipedia artifacts that look boring next to our design? Oh, and they also create sourcing issues on some pages and are simply redundant in cases when we have nice, colored and easy to update templates to do the same. Actually, the proposal is to create new templates for all instances where succession boxes are currently used and the template is not yet present, and then use them instead. MauserComlink 15:27, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Use Templates, kill the boxes

  1. MauserComlink 15:27, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
  2. The usual templates look better, and you can put more links in them for the reader. For example, this only lists three dominant governments, while a template could list any dominant government that ever existed. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 19:19, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
  3. I've always disliked succession boxes. jSarek 18:54, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Keep boxes, remove Templates

Keep and use both

I don't really see the need for a regulation on this. Sometimes a succession box works great (character articles) sometimes templates are better (SW Insider). Whatever is deemed useful at the time should be used. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 06:21, September 12, 2009 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: blocked user -- Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:27, September 27, 2009 (UTC))
  1. Per Naru. Case in point; Quoreal for the succession box and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (comic series) for the template. Example, I don't believe you can source a specific template like the succession box was in Quoreal without substing it, but then what would be the point of using the template? NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 16:55, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Some templates such as {{GACOS}} and {{Chancellor}} are great for listing long strings in place of succession boxes. That said, we have had this discussion numerous times in the past and I believe that both are relevant. Sourcing succession boxes is one of the wonderful things which helps to validate any information in the article. Sourcing, after all, is a primary emphasis of our site to ensure accuracy and verification. Templates, such as {{RogueLeader}}, do not afford such luxury and can be incredibly crowded if expanded too much further. Sure, it could handle another line with a few more names, but much longer would be far more cumbersome than the succession boxes. Furthermore, the existing templates are only in place for primary positions and not "Random-Senator from Planetnamia" or "Rogue Ten." — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:03, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Both serve very distinct purposes, as Fiolli has explained. Neither one can replace the other, and there's no reason either one should. They're both valid and helpful aids in presenting information on Wookieepedia. Havac 02:12, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per Fiolli and Havac. Grunny (Talk) 10:01, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  5. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:44, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  6. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 12:56, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  7. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 15:59, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  8. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 01:31, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
  9. Jedi Kasra (talk) 18:14, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
  10. Well, I put it on the Mofference agenda in the first place, but started thinking about it again afterward and changed my position to "meh", which is why I didn't create this CT thread before. After further consideration and reading what others have to say, I have to agree with Fiolli and Havac. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 01:52, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Please do not create any new vote options. Thank you. MauserComlink 15:27, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

  • Looks like this is a fail to me. Which is weird, based on the Mofference log, I though this idea would have more supporters. MauserComlink 15:56, September 17, 2009 (UTC)