Template talk:Chart top/Requested Comments 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The clear consensus below is that the default display for Template: ahnentafel top should be collapsed with a clear option for editors to display the template in an uncollapsed state, ie |collapsed=No. This option should be clearly stated in the template documentation. The result of this discussion in no-way established which display mode is preferable for a given article or whether or not, as one editor suggested, that the template is appropriate or inappropriate for a given article. Those are editorial decisions. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a Request for comments about a preferred collapsed-display default for ahnentafels (ancestry tables) using this template (Template: ahnentafel top) in conjunction with one of the primary ahnentafel templates (e.g., Template:ahnentafel6) and Template:ahnentafel bottom. 08:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Background

Technical set-up

Before 28 May 2010, all such templates were collapsed; a small bar would appear with a title such as "Ancestors of Queen Victoria" and a "[show]" link which the reader would have to click in order to see the contents.

Since then, the opposite has been true: all such ahnentafels have displayed fully open on first sight, with a "[hide]" link. Since 5 August 2010, a newly-added option has allowed editors to replicate the earlier collapsed or "Hide" default in an individual article by adding

|collapsed=yes

to

ahnentafel top

that is,

ahnentafel top|collapsed=yes

in the same way that alternative widths and alternative titles have been available as separate options (parameters). See Template:Ahnentafel top/doc.

Practical effects

According to the "What links here" tool, this template is currently used by more than 2,500 separate articles (mainly biographical). Some are relatively short with small ancestry tables (e.g. Albert the Bear), and probably benefit from displaying the whole ahnentafel on first sight. Others, such as Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert became so unmanageable with all their ahnentafels open simultaneously that most of them were taken out.

Depending on which default (collapsed or uncollapsed) is chosen for the basic template, many editors will need to add a "collapsed=" parameter to their "ahnentafel top" templates. If the present uncollapsed default remains, then many editors who want to hide the table on first sight will have to add |collapsed=yes, as has already been done for the restored ahnentafels in Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert. If the default is changed to collapsed, then many editors who prefer to show the whole ancestry table on first sight will have to add |collapsed=no.

In either case, the reader of many articles that haven't yet been so edited may see a less-perfect article (either too much space taken up by uncollapsed tables, or too little immediate information given by collapsed ones.)

Question

Before deciding to retain or change the uncollapsed default, we need to know what the overall effect would be. Under each alternative, how many editors would have to add a "collapsed=" parameter to their "Ahnentafel top" templates, and how many articles that weren't so edited would be less easy for the reader to use?

The purpose of this request is not to decide the best default on abstract principles. Unlike the normal Wikipedia consensus process, comments need not be directed at persuading other editors to your own point of view. But there is a general comments section at the beginning for overall questions such as collapsed or uncollapsed boxes' effects on readability, printability, accessibility, etc.

We don't expect to see anything like 2,500 answers, but a large enough response should give enough of a working sample to judge which default to choose.

Of the articles that you've worked on, please list those that you think would be improved or hurt by each alternative. If you think that the positive and negative effects in a particular article would be negligible or would largely cancel each other out, feel free to say that, too.

Please begin your comment with a # in order to permit a rough count, and sign it with ~~~~ (four tildes). Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments

Keep the present uncollapsed default, with a "collapse" option

1. Depends on the length of the table and suitability for article, so the option is good. I don't see much point in changing it if the option is available. —fetch·comms 04:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Change the default to collapsed, with an "uncollapsed" option

1. I think most tables were inserted on the expectations that they would appear collapsed. Article that would have benefitted from the earlier default: Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
2. I think so too. These tables might be cumbersome.--Dial (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
3. It was established a few months ago at WT:ACCESS that collapsible content is no longer an accessibility issue. Provided this is the case, I see collapsing by default as clearly beneficial in this instance. Utopia would be if users could set the default in their preferences, but that's probably beyond the remit of this RfC. --WFC-- 01:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
4. I support changing the default to collapsed. As a professional historian, I find ahnentafels a valuable visual tool to clarify information. However, in my role on WP, I often find that the graphics detract from the article overall. Additionally, the ahnentafels are not necessarily valuable to every user on WP. If they choose to view the chart, the option is available. Until then, I opt to support a collapsed default. Cindamuse (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
5. I agree. Wikipedia articles on individuals should be primarily biographical, not genealogical. In the case of many royals and nobles their ancestry is an important part of their notability, so the information should remain, but when shown in its expanded form it is not immediately relevant and can be distracting. Opera hat (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
6. I think this should be the best way to do this. The tables are way to large especially on stub pages where they can take up to more than half of the page; if it's hidden than people can look at it if they want or not. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Agree. I like collapsing sections in any case for material like this. Hobit (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
8. I may be a bit late to the ball, but I'd like to chime in anyway. I agree with Angus below that Ahnentafels don't belong at all, since they seem to confuse Wikipedia with a genealogical website. But if they have to exist, then they should most certainly be collapsed as a default. Since they are then footers, they should also be at the bottom of the article, not under a special "Ancestry" heading. Lampman (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Either choice, or another choice

• They should not be collapsed, that would be a bad thing. They should not be not collapsed as that would be the wrong thing. They should be removed. Failing removal, a bad thing is to be preferred to the wrong thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am late coming in, but I entirely agree with Angus. There are cases where a genealogical table of some sort is useful, but in most cases, they are included just because other articles have them, or because someone may be curious, or because they 'explain the context' but no one can every answer what context any specific table explains or why you have to show the ancestors for 5-generations just to explain it. In so doing, they are seemingly freed from the normal standards for reliable sourcing or relevance. My preference would be 1 (highest) remove most of them, unless they are accurately sourced, directly relevant and truly explanatory - of the 2000+ that exist (and ever growing) there may be a few dozen worth keeping, at most; very distant 2) compress them so they don't bloat the appearance of articles with such indiscriminate information, and astronomically distant 3) show them by default. Agricolae (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.