What rules for Succession Boxes? [closed]

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

We need to establish style rules for Navigation Boxes.

These two Succession boxes have been in use for years, but neither was formally discussed:

• {{Succession_box}}
• {{Succession_box2}}

They are both used on thousands of profiles.

For examples of {{Succession box}}, see Windsor-1 or 122-124_Columbia_Heights.

For examples of {{Succession box2}}, see Mac_Donnchada-8 or Franklin-1.

We propose to deprecate these existing templates in favor of a new {{Succession}} template. It would essentially have the same styling as {{Succession box2}} but would use the new standardized container for Navigation Boxes. This container is full-width and in green, like on {{Easily Confused}}.

Here are some possible rules:

1. They may be used on either person profiles or free-space profiles.
2. On person profiles, they should only be used for successions with great genealogical or biographical significance, and where navigating from one profile to another in a succession is a common need.
3. They should be created and managed by projects.
4. They generally belong directly above the Biography headline, below any Research Note Boxes and Project Boxes (?) (This is different from the Easily Confused Navigation Box, which belongs at the very top.) However, the project managing them can specify that they belong lower down. The positioning should be consistently applied to all profiles in the succession.
5. The project managing the box can choose to include an image. If an image is used, it should be a 75-pixel thumbnail.
6. If multiple successions are included on a profile, they should appear in the same Succession Box. No more than three is recommended, and it should never be more than five.

What do you think? Would you propose changes to these rules, or additional rules?

Please reply with an answer below. Comments at the top will be moved or hidden once read.

Thanks!

Chris and the WikiTree Team

Comments

30 Oct 2023: Please see this new proposal: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1655772/proposal-for-succession-navigation-boxes

Answer 1

I fully support this change.

Answer 2

Support this idea - anything to make it easier!

Just some thoughts

• Will projects generally co-ordinate styles/templates so that completion is easy? eg. Prime Minister box for England will be the same for Barbados - just choose country from drop-down list maybe to get the right flag
• If not as above, who will create templates for countries without projects?

Answer 3

I prefer the style of {{Succession box}} over {{Succession box2}}, especially if an image is to be used. The difference can be seen on the profiles of Ed Koch (which has both) and David Dinkins:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Koch-4450

Comments

Many of the rest of us prefer box2 to the other one.  Maybe they should all be pink.

Answer 4

I hate them all anyway. The first takes up an awful lot of space to say very little so my preference would be for the second if they are really needed.

I can see they might have a use demonstrating that Wikitree has a profile for all these people and all those people but, honestly if I'm looking at the genealogy of JFK I don't really need a link to President Johnson and it should be in the bio anyway.

I'm very much a "Begin at the beginning and go right on until you come to the end and then stop" kind of writer, so if they truly are needed why can they not be placed at the right moment within the Biography?

My instinctive vote is to ban them.

Comments

I'm also not a fan for public office. If I need to know who succeeded President Kennedy I'll go to Wikipedia. I would also perhaps link to predecessors and successors if writing an extensive biography, but if no one's writing a biography it doesn't seem needed. Perhaps a very small one for the use of projects interested in officeholders?

I can see their use in hereditary titles, as they are concerned with family relationships—like us genealogists! Again, make them small. If an image is wanted, could it not be a sticker? Could they be collapsible? Is it time to switch to infoboxes as on this Wikipedia page for Ed Koch?

---

Koch has succession boxes at the bottom of the page.

---

I have used a succession box to connect the vicars of one or two parishes where I have been interested in who-wrote-what in the church records.

Answer 5

If this change is approved, will EditBot run to change all the Succession box and Succession box2 to {{Succession}}?

Answer 6

2. That's great. How you determine "great genealogical or biographical significance" is pretty subjective. It might need some examples of things that are/are not significant. Current use may include military commanders.

3. What is there to prevent them from being created by just anyone? How would these be found and directed to the applicable project? How would someone coordinate with the project to get a succession box added?

4. I would suggest that there should be one location specified for any succession box. This solves problems about coordinating with multiple projects with differing placement guidelines that apply to a single box on a single profile. It also makes it easier to describe where the box is added. It also makes it possible for software (such as Bio Check) to review profiles for the proper order of elements.

Comments

As Kay mentions, the newly added condition 2 is subjective:

2. On person profiles, they should only be used for successions with great genealogical or biographical significance, and where navigating from one profile to another in a succession is a common need.

Without a more detailed explanation of "significance" and "common need", this could perhaps lead to arguments which might be difficult to resolve. It does not seem to have a counterpart in the documentation of the two existing templates.

Is it intended that this would mean some existing succession box chains would have to be removed altogether, and not be replaced by the new template? If so, why?

---

Regarding point #2, I believe that #3 also has a role to play: "They should be created and managed by projects."

Therefore, it is the responsibility of projects to identify profiles that hold "genealogical or biographical significance" and are frequently accessed in succession.

For instance, let's consider the US Presidents Project, which focuses exclusively on profiles of U.S. Presidents. In this context, the project may determine that the Presidential Succession is both of great biographical significance and frequently necessitates navigation between profiles.

---

My question on whether and why some existing succession chains might be removed altogether by this change remains open, although perhaps Steven's reply to Maureen offers hope that this won't be necessary.

Answer 7

This is my personal view as a PC for the England Project Managed Profiles team.

I prefer colour scheme of Succession Box 1 as the green of SB2 makes it very like the "Easily Confused" box. Perhaps in retrospect the Easily Confused box should have been orange to denote a warning.

1.In what circumstances would the succession box need to be on a free space profile? The succession is from person to person.

2. This is a bit woolly, but generally agree.

3. Agree - if people have a succession box need, they can make their case to the appropriate Project.

4. Only above the Biography heading. Nowhere else. But perhaps the wonderful team at WikiTree Bee could add an option to put them at the bottom for those who hate succession boxes (much in the same way as those with an interest in categorisation can bring categories back to the top with WT Bee).

5. No view on this. But the England Project may start using images if the facilty was available.

6. The England Project's current record holder is George III https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hannover-17 with five. But who is going to police this? Or would the coding cut out at five instances of the SB ?

Jo, England Project Managed Profiles Team Coordinator

Comments

In response to #1: One of the examples given (122-124 Columbia Heights) is for a FSP about a building used as a religion's headquarters and it links to FSP's about the previous and succeeding locations used its headquarters. I could see this also being used for FSP's about places that changed names/had boundary changes (i.e. counties/parishes, universities, etc.).

---

I could see this also being used for FSP's about places that changed names/had boundary changes (i.e. counties/parishes, universities, etc.).

Succession boxes were very heavily used in location categories for a long time, until we adopted Category Templates. Notably, the CIB Location template was intentionally designed to incorporate succession parameters.

Given that most location categories are associated with corresponding free-space pages, there is a clear rationale for implementing the new {{Succession Box}} on these pages. This ensures consistency with category structures and maintains alignment across the platform.

Answer 8

I don't get the #3 succession box point that they should be managed by projects

Would that mean that if I decide to build profiles for a set of minor, very boring aristocrats, for example, which the England Project wouldn't care about in general, they would have to be managed under the EP if I want to use succession boxes?

Comments

No problem with that, they would have the standard EP Nobility SB. We have a shedload of Baronets who need a SB and it would be great if their PMs would stick the SB on their profiles!

---

My reading of the proposal is that it is the succession box, not the profile, that would be created and managed by the relevant Project. Once a succession box has been created for, say, Dukes of that imaginary place Serendip, it can be used on a number of profiles, with the details of the particular Dukes changing from profile to profile. There would be no need for the project to manage the profiles themselves.

In that example of Dukes, my understanding of Jo's response is that once a succession box has been created for English Dukes, it can be used, with appropriate adjustments for the different Dukedoms, for all English Dukes.

---

I just created succession boxes for a line of English baronets, using the standard box created by the England Project.  However, I am not a member of the England Project, so does that mean that in the future I would have to ask the Project to create the boxes?  And who would I ask?

---

Mary, the England Project created the Baronet Succession box. It is there for anyone to use in the way it is set up. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Baronetage_Categorisation_plan_March_2022#Succession_box

EDIT: to say it was set up beautifully, and I have added the category for the whole set of Lawson Baronets

---

Thanks, I understand now.  I confused the creating of the template box with the adding of the box to a profile.

---

However, it does say "...and managed by", so surely a Project would need to be its PM?

---

"Managed by” as I understand it refers to the succession box, which can be adapted to individual profiles, not to the profiles. I am sorry if I failed to explain that clearly enough in my earlier comment. When, in the original question Chris said "They should be created and managed by projects", ”they” referred to the succession boxes. To put it another way, Chris is suggesting that Projects should determine what succession boxes there are, and create them. Then, like the existing baronet succession box created by the England Project, members can use them for individual profiles, filling in the names etc.

---

Little did I know this morning, that seeing your reply, with link, would send me back to the baronet profiles I’ve done, to start cleaning them up and making them conform to the England Project’s guidelines.

I’ll be back at it tomorrow, too.

---

Michael is on the right track with his explanation. It's important to clarify that the templates themselves are not physically created by projects and do not have to be placed by a project. Instead, projects are responsible for designing the template's overall structure and usage guidelines. This includes decisions like whether it should include an image, where it should be placed on the profile, and other such design considerations.

Once the template design is established by the project(s), they then take on the role of managing that aspect. This entails determining which profiles should utilize the template and overseeing its usage. It's essential to note that this does not imply that the project must actively manage the individual profiles, be on the Trusted List, or have administrative control over them.

But Ros raises a valid point by highlighting the phrase "...and managed by." Whether or not a Project needs to be the Profile Manager depends on the specific guidelines set by that Project.

If a Project has established guidelines for the usage of a succession box but does not restrict who can use the template, then the Project's involvement with the profile may not be necessary.

On the other hand, if a Project has created guidelines for the usage of a succession box, especially in cases involving royal families that they actively manage, they may decide that the template should only be used by the Project itself (e.g., Managed Profiles Team).

This approach allows flexibility based on the Project's preferences and the nature of the profiles involved.

Answer 9

My Church of Ireland Project appears to not to conform to the proposed changes to the Succession Box.

Example: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Browne-3130 Most Rev Jemmett Browne

1. Currently used on person profiles

2. Would Church of Ireland Ministers be considered important enough to have succession boxes. Who decides ?

3. Why only projects have succession boxes. If topics have a reason for succession boxes, is there a reason why they should be excluded.

4. Placement. I agree that placement should  be consistent. In my case because of multiple successions I place them at the end of the biography to avoid them intruding on the biography.

5. Image is a good option.

6. Multiple successions can be varied. Different offices, changes in name or place of the office. To include them all in the same box would be nice if it would be possible to differentiate between the offices.

If the succession box rules change how does that affect my existing profiles ?

Comments

Would Church of Ireland Ministers be considered important enough to have succession boxes. Who decides ?

Why only projects have succession boxes. If topics have a reason for succession boxes, is there a reason why they should be excluded.

It's worth noting that the Church of Ireland project, even though it operates as a free-space project, is still a project. When we refer to "topics," we are discussing different classifications within the realm of projects. So, in essence, we are still addressing the same concept - that of a project.

On a side note, we generally encourage free-space pages to hook up with larger projects. Have you considered reaching out to Project:Ireland or Project:Religion? This project could integrate well with either of them. Such collaboration not only opens up the possibility of accessing additional resources and support but also facilitates a more coordinated and unified approach that may help alleviate any questions and/or concerns you have.

Answer 10

What is the benefit of succession boxes?

I see in some of the examples given, family relationships such as royalty, politicians such as presidents of the United States, inherited titles such as English and other countries nobility.

Who makes the decision about what position in a family, or politics, or military, or important people in various industries is justification for a qualification for a succession box?

Would a person who founded a metal manufacturing business ~1855 and then was succeeded by various generations of his grandsons, until the company became the world's largest steel fastener producer, would the founder qualify for a succession box ?

Do they have great genealogical or biographical significance? I'm sure their families thought so.

I'm sure the hundreds and then thousands of people who worked for them over 100 +years thought they were significant. It provided a way to support their families at the time and increase the chance that the families prospered in the future.

Would anyone be interested ?

Personally I think not, I'm interested because they are my family.

Comments

FWIW, I have created a number of succession boxes for the USBH project and the US Governors project.

• I agree with a lot of people above that #2 needs to be much more clearly defined if it is to be adopted and I'm not sure it's really necessary. Being of "great genealogical and biographical significance" is very subjective - like beauty, I think it's all in the eye of the beholder.
• I'm of mixed opinion about limiting succession boxes to 3-5 positions. On the one hand, politicians, for example, may have held a lot of different positions, particularly if they started in local politics and worked up to national office. So I think some limit or workaround is needed so you don't have to scroll really far to get to the actual biography. On the other hand, limiting it to five in these cases would break the chain of succession for the positions that get left out, which defeats the purpose of having the succession box in the first place for those left-out positions. At least among US politicians, this will be a pretty common occurrence. I'm wondering if in these cases a second, full succession box could be put at the bottom of the profile or on a FSP, so that all of the lines of succession continue unbroken. 
• Personally, I'd rather not have images in the succession box, particularly if the profile has more than one. I'd rather keep them as small and unobtrusive as possible. If people want them, I think it should be limited to one image for the top succession box. I'm thinking specifically of the seals used for a lot of US political offices like on Grover Cleveland's profile. Currently, they're usually at 85 or 95 pixels, but even at 75 pixels, they will take up a lot of space. And they're already so small that you can't make out the details very well.
• #4 and #6 are potentially in conflict. "...the project managing them can specify that they belong lower down. The positioning should be consistently applied to all profiles in the succession." may conflict with "If multiple successions are included on a profile, they should appear in the same Succession Box." For simplicity's sake, I'm in favor of just having one placement rule that applies to all succession boxes and not allowing projects to decide to place them somewhere else.
• Please make sure the new template is set up in a way that is simple to include more than one without having to use a million line breaks to get everything to line up (go to the edit view of Grover Cleveland's profile as an example). I'm hoping this is implied in the plan for a new box, but it's not clear if this is the case. 

---

Oops, meant to post that as my own answer, not a reply to yours, but I really agree with what you've said M.

---

@Christy - see my response here for potential help on #2 as presented.

---

@Steve - that helps some in obvious cases like US Presidents, but it doesn't address M Ross's use on successive owners of a family business described above. This seems very genealogically significant, but I can't think of any project that would manage such a case. In such cases not directly related to an existing project, do people need to get permission to use a succession box? If so, from who? We also don't have geographical projects for every country yet, so who will manage political/royal succession boxes for those countries? I'm inclined to say that #3 should be changed to something more like "Projects may institute formatting and use guidelines for succession boxes that are directly related to their project or commonly used by their project." This would allow more free, innovative use of succession boxes in cases where it's not likely to cause conflict and/or it's not directly related to an existing project.

I also think that the number of people who have asked for clarification on the meaning of "great genealogical and biographical significance"" indicates that clarification is indeed necessary if this is to remain one of the rules. I asked about it partly as a project coordinator who may be one of the people that would be making these decisions for my project in the future. At this point, I don't know what it means well enough to make a fair decision for any cases my project is asked to decide about. And I think that such a vague, subjective standard will inevitably lead to arguments and resentment when projects say someone's proposed use is not significant enough to allow or when different projects use different standards. Clear, transparent guidelines in these cases help prevent this kind of unnecessary conflict. As it stands, I think that #2 may be unnecessary in most, maybe all, cases. Are there specific uses that rule #2 is trying to prohibit? What problem is it trying to solve? As far as I can think of, the main thing that needs to be limited is not how "significant" a succession is, but rather the number of succession boxes on a single profile so that they don't take up too much space, causing readers to scroll really far to get to the actual biography. Dealing with that problem brings us back to my above comments/questions related to possible rule #6.

---

Thanks Christy. You have expressed these concerns much better than I did here.

Answer 11

Please define  great genealogical or biographical significance

Comments

Define what? There are examples in the original post so you can see what they look like.

---

Ek het na die voorbeelde gekyk maar die vertalingsprogram maak nie die definisie duidelik nie. Dit sal gaaf wees as 'n verduideliking van die frase soos aangedui gegee kan word. Die dubelle woorde "great" en "significance"  is onduidelik. Wat word daarmee bedoel? 'n Beskrywing sal meer van pas wees sodat dit duidelik sal wees.

---

@Louis, does this comment help any? Essentially, it pairs with #3 - so a project can define the great genealogical or biographical significance.

---

Maybe if you replaced great with notable, it might make more sense

---

Are profiles required to be notable to have a succession box?

I have not seen that anywhere.

Most notables are just notable they don't have successors.

I have a few notable ancestors, one described this way

"Part of the 38th (Welsh) Division during the First World War, Captain in the 15th Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Welsh Novelist, most known for his memoir, "Up to Mametz",

Well-known broadcaster: Founder-member of the Round Britain Quiz team, Career civil servant, rose to a senior post in the Inland Revenue, Vice chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, Awarded CBE, OBE, Croix de Guerre and MID"

How would he have a successor or a predecessor ?

---

I am not a linguist, as such for me to even try to explain the apparent complexities between American English and other English languages I perceive from your answer, with the horrors of Google translate thrown in, which if I might add, landed me in trouble more than once on WikiTree, would be like me trying to explain the meaning of the phrase "to table" to you.

Just trust me that the phrase as given needs to be defined in another way without the use of the word great, maybe by just dropping it and not using it at all.

---

I agree with your overall point, Louis, but the word "notable" wouldn't do as it would cause confusion with the particular meaning that word already has on WikiTree:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:Notables

---

Good point

---

Louis, apologies if I caused linguistic confusion. My first language is English English and after 50 years living in Canada there are still some word usages that I don't understand.

'To table' everyone sat down to table' to eat together?

Not the North American usage of delaying discussion of a topic.

Answer 12

I've only ever use Sucession box 2 on Australian State Premiers. I finished adding them to the Victorian Premiers but will not do the rest until this is decided. I'm happy to go back and make changes if necessary. I think I may have used the wrong size image on the single successions.

Answer 13

 I support the standardization to  " {{Succession}} "