Template talk:Obama family

complex
Holy crap who did this, it seems so complex.... Is there a better way to represent family trees?128.61.127.144 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some articles use images (eg see Udall family) -- however at least Wiki-charting (eg see Lincoln family tree) offers "updatability." $\sim$ Justmeherenow     13:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't get carried away
I removed all the "distant relations." They (and their pictures) just didn't seem relevant to the main article. I also think that they ought to be included/excluded from the main article page, rather than through a template. That simply makes the joint editing more accessible to more editors. Please use the talk page there. Smallbones (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Tvoz / talk 04:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugly
This template looks terrible. Is it even really necessary? ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   15:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, here's (click link) yet another family tree charting for the combined Obama-Robinson family, if people like its layout better. (Note that (A) the top part of it runs horizontally; then, when we scroll down, we see (B) the bottom part repeates its information, running vertically and with various background colors added. So this new Template:Family tree chart offers two possibilities to choose from.)   Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply …  23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the current one better. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the other ones (Pee Tern's) much harder to follow, much more confusing than yours. All genealogical charts I've seen anywhere, including my own family's (which is large, as I have 25 first cousins alone, and all from single marriages), have been with the ancestors on top and the descendants cascading downward and widening (what you're calling vertical). We have a problem here because we can't expand width-wise as one would with folded out paper, but I think people are used to seeing it the way I described. Perhaps what is needed is a separate chart for the progeny of Barack Sr and his other wives, but I'm not sure if that would help either. I think you did a great job, but I don't know how useful any rendition of the chart is, after all is said and done, given its complexity. But then I always opt for words over images, so I may not be the best judge. Tvoz / talk 00:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it just needs to be a little bit smaller, maybe take away the birthplaces? I got a little carried away earlier. It doesn't look that bad. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   00:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, n/p. Hmm: fwiw, Julius Caesar's family tree is laid out very elegantly, from a spatial perspective. (Should Barack's deserve any less?!)   Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply …  00:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure he'd appreciate the comparison.  Obama, that is. Tvoz / talk 02:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this version? It's smaller and more readable. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   01:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll agree it's more simple (...and elegant).   Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply …  01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind. (I don't even know much about that chart stuff). Do you think this version should be used?~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   02:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since each link goes to the anchor in the article, where the deleted information is provided, anyway: yes.   Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply …  02:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway we could make the whole thing fit on the page? ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   02:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some background
I had two motivations for having a go at a new family tree chart approach.

The first was that the current ones, and, apparently are very poor when accessibility is taken into account. Unless the editor keeps all the generations lined up in rows it makes no sense at all to a screen reader. Indeed, while Julius Caesar's family tree I agree looks very good, I suspect it would be mostly gobbledygoop via a screen reader. Please see Wikipedia talk:Accessibility

The second was to allow editors to not have to worry about the all the minutia required to construct a family tree. The Julius Caesar's family tree looks like it took a lot of clever layout work to do. I wanted to allow the editor mainly about the family structure and relationships, and not have to worry abut the types of lines and connections, etc.

My current template as per User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Family tree chart/doc is still under development, so while any feedback is welcomed, please be aware that it is not yet stable. Also, it currently allows only 10 children per parent relationship and only allows each primary parent to have only two other spouses, but both of these are easily scalable to larger numbers. I am currently adding HTML background to further enhance its accessibility, for example for screen readers. Note that the horizontal and vertical layouts are separate instantiations of the the template, my examples use the same data but with the direction parameters set differently, for testing purposes. Boxing of people's names can be turned on or off too.

So, if the details of the current under development presentation are not to your taste, but you are open to the possiblities of the new approach, please offer your comments at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility.

Cheers. Peet Ern (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, are we going to change it? ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   05:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm game. Though I suggest maybe you consider including dates -- (xxxx--xxxx) or (born xxxx) -- to indicate when an individual lived, which are still living.   Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply …  19:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be changed to the smaller version, but with the dates added back. As long as no more than 3 text lines per box, it is reasonable. --GregU (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with the smaller version with dates. It might be handy if the extra info in the previous version appeared as a tooltip when you hover over the date, but that probably goes against some guideline... I am also working on ways to make diagrams like this more accessible, by the way, looking into a different approach than Peet. --GregU (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks nice. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   01:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Image in header
I know there's a history of putting images in headers, but the image in this case is kind of clunky. Typically the images used in headers of navigational templates are iconic things like flags or logos... inconspicuous symbols like that. In this case the image being used is oriented vertically and doubles the height of the collapsed navbox. TheCoffee (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be removed. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * undefined   Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply …  07:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Recursively substituting the templates
This template was causing the Barack Obama article to load incredibly slowly. I've recursively substituted the templates it uses. While this makes the wikicode a bit more difficult to read, it makes page load much better for logged-in users. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)