User talk:TAnthony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuvola apps kedit.png

CLICK HERE to leave me a new message; Sign your posts by adding four tildes at the end.



You made this edit to Template:Harry Potter family tree at 14:00, 21 April 2015 and others like it shortly afterwards with the comment "Undo/Unexplained mass changes to family tree templates, no response on talk page" yet there is no question about the edit on Template talk:Harry Potter family tree, and you placed a question on my talk page at 13:57, 21 April 2015. Do you really think that giving someone 3 minutes to respond to a question is reasonable? -- PBS (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone else actually asked you about it on April 19, and other editors have begun reverting you in the same manner. In any case, family tree templates for fictional characters are treated as navigation templates, which are for navigation and don't need citations. If you are challenging this practice, you should start a discussion before you tag every such template on Wikipedia. If there has been some discussion on this topic, you should have noted it when making such sweeping changes.— TAnthonyTalk 15:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I responded to that person so you were incorrect to say "Undo/Unexplained mass changes to family tree templates, no response on talk page". If you had waited for me to make another edit before you started to revert my changes I would have pointed you to Template talk:Nerva–Antonine family tree, Template talk:Kennedy family tree, and in response to user "— Maile"'s similar question on my talk page: Template talk:Houston family tree -- PBS (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Once you have had a chance to read those posting please explain why you think that templates:
  1. Ought not to be directly editable from within a page.
  2. Are immune from the WP:V policy specifically WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN
  3. why translucence templates such as Template:Buchanan family tree exist when they are only used in one article in this case Buchanan family. It seems like a level of complexity that is unneeded as it make it difficult for inexperienced editors to make changes to the tree.
-- PBS (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
So you are invoking WP:CHALLENGE against every family tree template, real or fictional? This is an interesting new application of that policy which I admit I've never seen. I think that and your navbox change (an interesting one I'm not totally against) should be discussed if you're going to implement them so widely in this manner, whether you are correct or not. I appreciate your attention to detail but certainly the fact that the information is easily verifiable in the linked biographical articles is enough? In practice most templates don't incorporate citations for simple readability. You are confirming these are navigation templates and yet insisting on citations. I'm not sure why, though I suppose your argument makes more sense in context of real-world biographical articles. But fictional characters, across the board?? Be serious. And the spirit of WP:CHALLENGE is the likelihood of real challenge when corroborating material is not easily available. You're really challenging JFK's parents in a tree that appears in all related articles? — TAnthonyTalk 16:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to be pedantic over whether they are navigation templates or not, because they often use navigation boxes. If the function of a tree was solely for navigation then instead of a tree a simple alphabetic list would suffice. See for example {{Norse paganism topics}}, but a family tree like an ancestor tree arranges the information in such a way that the tree is itself conveying information, and it conveys information that is often not available in any Wikipedia article (for example great-grandparents of). Indeed there is a strong argument that these trees breaks WP:SYN -- not an accusation on can lay against an alphabetic list like {{World War II city bombing}}. However let us put WP:SYN to one side as many people like to create trees and providing they are properly sourced they do little harm if they are collapsed. A problem is that they frequently generated by using easily accessible genealogical websites of dubious quality which is a good reason to insist on their being verified against reliable sources (see this recent WP:RS/N discussion).
If you read Template talk:Kennedy family tree you will see that in fact most of the early Kennedy family tree is not supported by citations in the articles (I explain what is and is not cited in the articles on the template talk page --if they were then I would have copied the citations over to the family tree). If you look at FAs that contain trees such as Charles II of England#Ancestry you will see that it is fully cited. If you look compare Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland (April 2014) with Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland (April 2015), like all text the second tree can be trusted to be reliable in a way that the first one can not because the reader can easily check the sources. Over the last couple of hours I have been adding citations to Template:Houston family tree, before and after, which tree will be more useful for readers? Which sections of the tree are more likely to be correct? A trick question because unless you are an expert on the Houston family you can not know if the sections without citations are correct without a lot more research.
As for non-fiction family trees and fiction ones, I do not see any difference with a family tree for Thor (at the moment there is just a navigation template Template:Norse paganism topics, but if it is turned into a family tree of Norse gods ...) and Thor (Marvel Comics) Template:Thor family tree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) other than it is usually it is a dam sight easier to source trees about fictional characters. But for readers the affect is the same, for non-fiction and fiction, family trees with citations are more trustworthy than those without. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, you're convincing me; I often use FA articles to prove a point and it looks like you've given me a taste of my own medicine. I'm actually big on citations (I will add three where one would suffice) but something about this felt wrong, probably because I tend to use trees as much for navigation as I do "standard" navboxes. But you make a very good point (among others) that by definition the tree presents information above and beyond what the equivalent navbox would. So I can get on board.— TAnthonyTalk 21:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the changes made to Wolek family, Buchanan family, Riley family, Lord family and Cramer family. They are related to this discussion. Two other things of note: 1) One doesn't usually redirect a template page to an article. The template page should be deleted. 2) In alot of cases, usually more complex the template, one doesn't simply copy the template into the article. The template contains "template programming" that isn't necessary in the article. The family templates contained if, switch and program variables. Program variables are those with three brackets, ie {{{width|100%}}}. Bgwhite (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all I kind of figured this discussion was over since no one else was chiming in. But I never included the OLTL trees in my responses to PBS because I had not realized that they were only in use in the family articles until he/she pointed that out. I'm very familiar with the editor who created them and OLTL-related articles and was being bold because, frankly, they don't need to be standalone templates. I really don't think that has anything to do with any ongoing discussion on family tree formats or referencing.— TAnthonyTalk 12:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I only saw these articles later because you edited these pages a few hours before you last message in this discussion. As PBS stated, he sees no difference in non-fiction and fiction family trees. He mentions one of these trees above ("why translucence templates such as Template:Buchanan family tree exist...) Fiction family trees were mentioned above. All the trees mentioned above were also stand-alone templates. Just because you didn't mention them doesn't make these trees different or not related to the discussion. I think, but not sure, that from PBS' question above he also doesn't see putting the templates into the articles as a good idea.
My main reason for the message was to point out how you did it wrong... Templates should not be redirected to articles and you left in template programming in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes I tagged the category for deletion but redirected the actual templates because I thought perhaps their creator, FrickFrack (who is not super active lately), might appear and have some justification for recreating them. Thank you though, I was indeed sloppy in that I ignored the template programming, I should have noticed that.
I sort of misspoke above: I do now agree that these OLTL trees should be cited, and my next step after moving them into the articles was to cite the The Soap Opera Encyclopedia, which I have readily available. But I interpreted from PBS' comments asking "why they exist" that he believed they should not be standalone templates. I agree, as I hadn't realized until then that they we each only used in one article. To that end I was being bold and merging them.
As far as the discussion itself, I was challenging PBS and now I'm not, so assuming I either tag the trees as unreferenced or reference them, the discussion is over and I'm cooperating no matter where I put them. Right? — TAnthonyTalk 21:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sooo, I'm not really sure why you reverted everything rather than just clean up the template programming, but if you really love them as standalone templates I don't care enough to argue about it.— TAnthonyTalk 22:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes I do think that if there is only one use of the template the content should be moved into article space. The problem we have Bgwhite is that we can not simply copy the content into article space and delete the template with its history as that would breach Wikiepdia copyright restrictions. Usually the way that two articles are merged is go copy the text across and then leave a redirect behind. The reason for leaving a redirect behind is in part to satisfy Wikipedia copyright restrictions (see WP:RUD). So how do you suggest that we tackle that problem, if "Templates should not be redirected to articles"? -- PBS (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether to put the template in the article or let be stand alone, I leave that decision to you. You know more about this than I do and defer to your judgement.
You are correct about the copyright reasons. However you and TAnthony didn't do one crucial step to satisfy copyright, you didn't give attribution. In the edit summary of the destination article, it needs to have that it was merged from [[Template:Foo]]. Otherwise, it is not known where to find the past edit history.
What I've seen done was to do a history merge. This was a few year ago when I tried copying a template into an article and got my hand slapped. Best to ask at the technical pump or wherever... as soon as you have one rule down, two more have been changed around here.
When TAnthony does copy the template over, tell me and I can get rid off all the template programming crap. Then you know what to remove from the rest of the copied templates. Bgwhite (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have redone the Buchanan family tree as an example using {{chart top}} in place of the template header. We can use this as a working example for this discussion. -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, I started writing the above before you posted this. Looks perfect, but the attribution is not in the edit history. Bgwhite (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@PBS:, would {{chart top}} help with the display issue at List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#House Stark where the Template:Family tree of Rickard Stark is being pushed past the image? I'm not sure how to test/implement it with the current template language. — TAnthonyTalk 23:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you still want me to look at List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#House Stark as it does not seem to be a problem to me? If you still think it is, then try placing the shield on the left and setting the width of the tree's box to about width=70% -- PBS (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
If you look at List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#House Arryn and List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#House Lannister, there is a little too much space (at least the way I'm viewing the page) because there is not a lot of opening text. But it's not a huge deal. I just thought, if {{chart top}} would close the gap with all else being the same, then great. Otherwise it's fine, and I don't want to move the images (I already reduced their size a bit). Thanks, — TAnthonyTalk 02:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
See List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#House Arryn. As a temporary measure I have wrapped the template {{chart top}} around the template containing the tree, it and it appear to work just fine set to a width of 70%. You have several choices. You can copy the tree to the article location and then change the links to link to that section. Or you could modify the template to use {{chart top}} the problem with that is you lose the ability to edit it from within the article. Or there my be another solution which I am not able to see at the moment. -- PBS (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks I'll take a look.— TAnthonyTalk 14:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look at this edit Template:Chart/start/doc and Template:chart/doc now documents a recent change to chart/start that allows you to pass "center" in as a parameter. This does away with the need for the now deprecated <center> that some user who like to keep up to date with technical changes loose sleep over its use with these templates. -- PBS (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I noticed your edit and made the change in the other templates in the same category as the one you updated.— TAnthonyTalk 02:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite I have re-copied the content of Template:Lord family tree into the Lord family, and attributed the copy. I have used a soft link in the template. I understand why you thought a hard link was not appropriate, so I am hoping that we can have the same affect of keeping the history intact in the template while allowing the text to be in the article. Is that acceptable for you? -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

PBS Yes, look good. Bgwhite (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)