Forum:CT Archive/Succession boxes

Succession Boxes
There has been a lot of commotion lately surrounding succession boxes. Besides acting as a breeding ground for fanon and misunderstanding (the Sith seem particularly prone to this), they are generally not very useful because we rarely have enough information to make them more than three persons deep. Can we take the stance of avoiding them entirely? --SparqMan 06:45, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, they can sometimes be nice. Perhaps can we have a policy of "avoiding them", in cases where there is not enough people for it to be useful (ie, a box going nowhere), and clamp down on speculation? QuentinGeorge 06:53, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I like them sometimes, too. (It's kinda pointless to have one totally empty though....ran across one or two of those lately.)  To me, "empty holes" (i.e. dead links) invite people to contribute that info, which is a good thing as long as it's legit info, not the fanon you mentioned.  WhiteBoy 07:00, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Succession boxes definitely should remain. And succession box fanon should be dealt with quickly, as well as any other fanon, to prevent it from spreading. - Sikon 09:37, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * What are we to do in cases of ambiguity? All of this "de facto title" stuff? --SparqMan 12:44, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I think dumping the succession boxes is a great idea. Their tendency to lead to dispute and to serve as a breeding ground for fanon outweigh any slight usefulness they might have.  jSarek 20:26, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I have spoken with SFH, the largest supporter of succession boxes, and he seems to agree that without complete information, their usefulness is greatly diminished. Without objection, I'm going to remove the succession boxes that are mostly with fan assumption, fanon or stretch connections. --SparqMan 18:04, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, I have a major objection. But thanks for assuming that I didn't and removing everything without waiting to see if anyone did. Kuralyov 23:37, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Kuralyov, I'd spoken with anyone who had weighed in so far. They're not a major change either way, so clearly if the community feels they should go back, we can reinsert them. Would you care to present your thoughts? --SparqMan 20:11, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to cast a tentative vote in favor of the succession boxes. I say tentative because, as we saw in the Galactic Emperor discussion, one fan's legitimate Emperor is another fan's pretender to the throne.  At the very least, we need to come to some sort of agreement about who counts and who doesn't. Thanos6 20:17, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Remember, on the Galactic Emperor page, it says the legitimacy of most other than Palpatine, Pestage, and Isard is disputed. I think Trioculus and the False Kadann should be considered usurpers after the "death" of Pestage, but since Trioculus had the Grand Moffs on his side, he does accquire a little more legitimacy. Thrawn, I admit, is much more ambigious, but lets face it, SparqMan, he had some role in the political leadership of the Empire, especially now that you're arguing that he wasn't Supreme Commander. i also consider Thrawn Emperor because there had to be a little ambition in him. It may not have been his priority, but there was some. But most importantly, I consider Thrawn Emperor for the reason that, otherwise, it legitimizes Del Rey's actions in retconing the entire EU, nay the entire Star Wars universe, into a prelude to the New Jedi Order (What arrogance!) Canor Jax should also be considered Emperor in my opinion, since he was the most organized of the Warlords after the final death of Palpatine. Nolyds and Carivus also, as they were chairmen of the Imperial Ruling Council. -- SFH 21:27, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)