Genealogy Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Now that I have completed the Terry family tree template, I will let you know my sources. Rather than go at this piecemeal, I will review my sources and try to get back here in the next day or so with a full explanation, other commitments permitting. Bikeroo (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it. I've given the tree an initial tweak, to comply with the MoS on date ranges, and to alert readers to the fact that it is (deliberately and sensibly) incomplete. On the question of accessibility I have been told recently (but where?) that coloured boxes may give problems. I'm almost sure it was @SchroCat: who told me this, and am canvassing him yet again. Once the tree is satisfactory to all interested editors we could, I think, replace the jpeg one in the family article. Comments invited. Tim riley talk 11:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of the MoS is WP:COLOUR, which is part of the WP:ACCESS guidelines. The guidelines state that we should "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information", as some will either not be able to distinguish between coloured and non-coloured information, while the computer readers for the blind will aso not distinsuish between the two. Hope this helps! - SchroCat (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very much! Thank you SchroCat. Tim riley talk 15:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does everyone think that having the dates in the template are helpful? It makes the template longer (and harder to view on one screen), and as noted above, some of the dates are disputed. Indeed, this new template seems very spread out, while the older one is more compact, and so it is easier to see the family relationships. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the need to accommodate all users, including those using machine readers. In the past, where I have added coloured cells to lists, I have accompanied the use of colour with a symbol such as an asterisk or dagger, but I'm not sure how that would work here. Unless it is clear that the use of colours is detrimental to users who are partially sighted, rather than inaccessible to them, I see no reason why something that is helpful to the vast majority of users should be taken away.

As for the dates, I also disagree entirely with the previous comment. The dates are useful in identifying the timescale when the subjects were alive and helps place them in context. The template is "spread out" because it contains a lot of information. I have no problem in viewing this on one screen of an Ipad or laptop. (No templates are accessible on a smartphone; presumably the software strips them off the article.) Removing the dates might make the template less tall but wouldn't change the width. It seems a shame to me that rather than acknowledge the hard work that went into creating the template, some users just want to pick holes. Perhaps there are some ownership issues here. Bikeroo (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bikeroo, I'm sure you're wrong to think anyone is accusing you of WP:OWNERSHIP – we all want to get the thing right, and as I say above, once there is a consensus that the tree is up to standard it seems to me that it – or a version of it – can replace the jpeg I ran up for the article. A tree that can be edited by anyone is ipso facto more Wikipedian than one that can't. I am ignorant about the various problems (or "issues" as we all have to say nowadays) of accessibility, but would the use of a bold font or upper case do the job (retaining the shading too)?

On the question of dates, I think for the tree in the template attached to the articles on members of the family the dates are useful. For the tree shown in the main text of the Terry family article they are, I agree, probably better omitted, but we can accomplish that very easily. Is is within even my technical capacity. Tim riley talk 09:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above thread has been copied from The Terry family talk page. Bikeroo (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An "unreferenced" banner has been added to this family tree (in March 2015). Is anyone able to add suitable references?— Rod ^talk 12:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:Family trees this should probably be converted to Ahnentafel eg Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury#Ancestors where I have added references.— Rod ^talk 15:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tim riley, have you seen this? Wasn't Bikeroo supposed to add the references? Have we abandoned this template? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this because it adds an unreferenced banner to Edward William Godwin which makes the article appear on the Bristol cleanup list which I'm working on. My additional comment was because of an interaction on Template:Coleridge family tree where I added references which was then changed with an edit summary of "references do not belong on navigation boxes". This lead to this interaction and now I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Family trees#References in family trees formatted as navboxes. - it would be great if others could participate, as I think the issues apply to many articles & templates.— Rod ^talk 19:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]