Proposal for Succession Navigation Boxes [closed]

Question

WikiTreers,

Here is a new proposal for Succession boxes:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Succession

For those who participated in the discussion a few weeks ago, we want to highlight two changes that were made as a result of that discussion:

1. Placement: The rule would be that Succession boxes always belong directly above the Biography headline, instead of having their placement determined by the project that manages it, as originally proposed. (The rationale is that this will be simpler and less likely to lead to conflicts, e.g. if one project wants their box at the bottom and another wants their box at the top but both belong on the same profile and are supposed to be in the same container. Also, code that's separate from the biography is easier for less experienced members to tune out.)
2. Color: The style would be full-width like Succession_box2 but grey like Succession_box instead of green. (This is a compromise in part to compensate for placing them above the Biography headline. Grey doesn't command your attention the way green does.)

See Benjamin Franklin's profile for an example.

We are posting two answers below. Please vote up your preference: Should we finalize this or go back to the drawing board?

If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions, please post them as a new answer. Comments at the top will be hidden or moved once read.

Thanks!

Chris and the WikiTree Team

P.S. Approving this will not mean that all the old Succession boxes will immediately need to be replaced. Those will be "deprecated" -- no longer supported or recommended -- but not deleted any time soon.

Comments

Update: {{Succession}} is now officially approved for usage.

Answer 1

Yes, I support this proposal, with minor comments or suggestions at most.

Comments

Just note that the content of https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Biographies#Proper_order and https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Navigation_Boxes will need to be clarified. Some may be confused since the placement differs from Easily Confused, although the placement makes sense.

---

I was originally going to add a comment to the No answer, based mostly on similar concerns to Ellen Smith and also concerns of my own that multiple boxes take up a lot of what is considered valuable space, in web design terms.  However I going to vote Yes and make a suggestion.

I would like to see that the instruction "No more than three is recommended, and it should never be more than five." applies to all boxes of any sort visible above the Biography heading not just Succession boxes. As an example, if there is a profile with a project box, and estimated date box, then there is preferably only 1 and a maximum of 3 succession boxes.

I'm guessing, but I think there would be very few profiles where having only 3 -5 boxes of any sort visible above the Biography heading would be an issue.  Also guessing that those profiles that currently do have more than 5 boxes above the Biography heading would be project managed, and it would be up to the project to decide which boxes are the most important to make up the 3-5 on the profile.

A couple of issues might be whether my guessing about numbers of profiles with less than 5 boxes or all types is correct, and also whether there is a way of monitoring how many boxes in total are above the Biography heading as in some form of Data Doctor suggestion.

---

Yes. With a minor caveat. For one of my areas of interest in the Scottish lowlands, I have used succession box on the Duchal Estate in Renfrewshire that starts in the 1500s and continues to modern times. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Porterfield-151 for the start of this succession. Note that the lands existed under that name before then; I just have not figured out exactly who John Lord Lyle was yet. This property was the subject of multiple well-documented court cases, played a role in the Covenanter movement (illegal conventicles, leading to a death sentence for landowner and the rather rare revocation of arms. The death sentence was later rescinded under William and Mary's rule, the arms were not). The lands have been in the hands of different families, though one family through sometimes distant cousins controlled these lands for a long time. Would these boxes be discouraged and/or flagged as suggestions such as succession box with no Project owner.  Anyhow, while its fascinating to me, here are my concerns in terms of the new guidelines. 
1. It may not meet this criteria "Great genealogical or biographical significance, and where navigating from one profile to another in succession is a common need for users."
2. It does not meet this criteria today, though I could work with the Scotland team on that front. "They should be created and managed by projects".  

---

Hi Marty,

As I think you recognize, your #1 and #2 go together. Since this wasn't clear for some of those voting "No" I clarified it on Help:Succession#Rules_for_Usage.

The decision about whether something merits a Succession box is made by the members of the project that creates and manages it. So, yes, you would need the Scotland Project to support your usage.

Cheers,

Chris

Answer 2

No, I do not support this proposal. (If you vote this up, please explain what changes you would like to see.)

Comments

I do not support the new proposal about succession boxes because it still contains the following wording, unchanged from before:

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 succession is a common need for users.

In the previous discussion, these conditions were described as subjective, unnecessary, needing more examples and explanation, and potentially leading to arguments, resentment, and removal of some existing succession boxes. In particular, see Christy's important comment.

While responses were made to some of these points back then, nothing has been added in the new proposal to modify or clarify the restrictions. Further discussion and work are needed to improve this aspect of the proposal before it goes ahead.

---

Agree with everything Jim said above about it still containing the statement about "great genealogical or biographical significance", which from the previous discussion clearly still needs clarification or to be removed altogether. This is my main reason for voting no.

Another important issues from the previous discussion is also still not addressed: Who manages succession boxes for things that don't have a corresponding project (successive owners of a family business, etc.)? Can WikiTreers just create these as necessary or do they need to get permission from someone (and if so, who)?

That being said, I'm very happy to see that the new template is user-friendly and I like the new look! 

A small nitpick: It doesn't seem like you can change the size of the image in the new template and it seems to only allow one image per succession box. So on the help page, "If an image is used, it should be a 75-pixel thumbnail." should be changed to something like "If an image is used, it will display as a 75-pixel thumbnail at the top of the succession box. Only one image is allowed; you cannot add separate images for each position in the succession box." I'm happy about these things, I just think the instructions could be a little clearer.

---

Why does the image display at the top of the box instead of beneath the text (which is way more important than any image used) - thus drawing attention away / distracting from the text?

---

I appreciate the color change and the smaller image size on navigation boxes for reducing their prominence, but I still don't like that they would appear on the top of the profile. 

Placement at the top of the profile presupposes that it is very important to be able to quickly identify and access the profiles for the person's predecessor and successor. That might be the case on a website about history and politics or maybe the histories of topics like Nobel Prizes and Olympic Games, but with the exception of hereditary offices, navigating to predecessors and successors is not important for genealogy. And I hasten to point out that en.Wikipedia, which is about history, politics, Nobel Prizes, Olympic Games, etc, decided some years ago to put succession boxes at the bottom of the article so they would not distract from salient information about the article's subject. Since the focus of WikiTree is family relationships, it should be more important for WikiTree to de-emphasize political/cultural succession boxes than it is for Wikipedia.

I point to Martin Van Buren, whose profile has 5 succession items (currently in the old green format). I think it's important to keep the project box of the US Presidents project at the topic of his profile to highlight his status as a U.S. President, but I don't see a benefit from having the most prominent element on his profile identify Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison as his predecessor and successor in that office, much less to prominently tell me about the less-known people who preceded him and succeeded him in offices like U.S. Secretary of State and Governor of New York.

If there is a desire to more prominently indicate a particular notable person's salient achievement (for example, as Governor of New York), perhaps we could have more templates similar to the US Presidents project box to put above the biography, while placing the succession details near the bottom of the page.

---

I'm almost there, but not quite. My concern is similar to some of those mentioned above. Who decides which profiles are worthy of succession boxes and which are not? "Successions with great genealogical or biographical significance" is way too vague of a phrase to be universally understood by 1 million plus members. My suggestion would be to require project approval before a succession box can be added.

Beyond that, I have no objection to the proposals on placement and color.

---

In my opinion, requiring project approval would go in the wrong direction, making the restrictions even tighter. I agree with Christy that these conditions seem unnecessary. What problem are they trying to solve? Unless I've missed something, no reason has been given to justify them. What is wrong with leaving it up to the good judgement of individual WikiTree members to exercise their creativity by adding succession boxes to groups of profiles they manage as they see fit?

If good reasons can be given or an existing problem is identified, I'd probably agree, but I don't think restrictions, particularly subjective ones, should be imposed without explanation.

---

@David, that is the proposed rule: that projects would decide. They are only given general guidance to be conservative. What meets the "great genealogical or biographical significance" standard is left to members to decide through their interactions in projects covering the region or time period.

Keep in mind, our default is to not recommend any templates because they add complexity. Succession boxes were never formally approved. Many members would rather we don't have them at all, or, like Ellen, that they be hidden at the bottom of profiles. We are seeking a compromise here. It isn't expected to make everyone happy ... or anyone happy in every way.

Answer 3

Will Editbot make the required changes to the template if/when this is implemented, or will the PMs have to do it manually?

Comments

Hi Jo,

I will point Ales here to answer this.

However, note that the old templates don't "have to be" updated any more than, say, citations have to be added for all facts, or grammatical mistakes have to be fixed.
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Style_FAQ#Is_it_forbidden_to_break_the_style_rules.3F

Chris

---

Thanks Chris