Template talk:Ahnentafel top

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Align parameter[edit]

I'd like to ask that a "align=left/center/right" parameter be added to this template. Sometimes a centered table isn't convenient, as in the article about Puyi where a right-side infobox takes a lot of space and pushed the Ahnentafel to its bottom. Capmo (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above request for an align parameter. — Parsa talk 20:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
done. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate design[edit]

The choice of the navbox design for a template which isn't actually a navbox is wholly inappropriate. Not only is it visually jarring, but it breaks with the expectations of users when confronted by something that looks like a navbox. This should be restyled to resemble a standard wikitable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is "Ahnentafel"?[edit]

It should be named something in English, on the English Wikipedia. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Even when the article on the subejct is located on en-WP at Ahnentafel? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ancestors of Valdemar[edit]

Hi, the here mentioned Eric I, Duke of Sønderjylland (with "page does not exist") has a wiki entry, to wit Eric I, Duke of Schleswig. So I suggest to correct the link.

Best wishes --Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Ahnentafel top has no links to any Eric and no pages link to Eric I, Duke of Sønderjylland except your link above. After some searching I found that Valdemar III of Denmark uses Template:Ahnentafel top and had a red link to Erich I, Duke of Sønderjylland with h in Erich. I have piped the link to Eric I, Duke of Schleswig.[1] Another time, please try to be accurate with page names and spelling so it's easier to find what you refer to. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pohick2, 27 May 2010[edit]

{{editprotected}} i have added Karoline Felizitas of Leiningen-Dagsburg, and Christian Karl Reinhard of Leiningen-Dachsburg-Falkenburg-Heidesheim. would you care to link to those articles? Pohick2 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Pohick2 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A misleading link may have lead you here. Can you link to a page where you want the links to appear? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please default to uncollapsed or let users do so[edit]

We had to remove the helpful ahnentafeln from all 9 spouses of Victoria's children in Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert because expanded, they made the page completely unusable. Collapsed, they provided a useful way to trace back 6 or 7 generations on both sides of one of Victoria's 85 grandchildren for someone who wanted to do so. (The remaining, necessary, ahnentafeln in that article for Victoria and Albert themselves still take up an inordinate amount of space that's a nuisance for the article's familiar readers and editors, but must be a positive deterrent to reading further for a new visitor.)

In individual articles about Victoria and her descendants, the uncollapsed tables often overshadow other important events and achievements quite unrelated to ancestry; again one often feels forced to remove a spouse's ahnentafel for this reason where a collapsed one might be quite helpful.

Is there way using the present ahnentafel-top to specify "hide" as the default, rather than "show"? If not, can we go back to the way this used to be (remember that this is used with every ahnentafel)? Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I created Template:ahnentafel-collapsed-top with a crude copy and paste from this template to meet the need. Please feel free to correct or refine any technical slips or omissions I may have made in the template or documentation. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Argh. Please don't fork templates on a whim like that. I've added the ability to pass collapsed=yes to this template to collapse it. This defaults to off, as changing the default should really get further discussion. Do you mind if the forked template is deleted? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a whim; it was a real problem, and I had no idea how soon a talk page on something this obscure would be seen. There was no discussion before the default was changed to "off" in May, so no one could warn what kinds of problems that might cause; it just happened. Since the template is protected, I couldn't reverse this unconsulted decision.
I'd suggest waiting a while before deleting Template:ahnentafel-collapsed-top, so that we can see "What links here" and replace it with the "yes" variant of this template. Otherwise, there will be (at best) redlinked templates leading a live template such as Template:ahnentafel6 and a live Template:ahnentafel bottom. I don't know who's used Template:ahnentafel-collapsed-top since its creation to restore or insert ahnentafeln; I think the main users have been User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy and myself, but there could be others. [If you're in a real hurry to delete my makeshift expedient, of course, you could do the substitutions yourself, as with a Moved Page.] Best regards, —— Shakescene (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've changed all the existing uses of Template:Ahnentafel-collapsed-top to this one, with the "collapsed=yes" option. Check "What links here" again before deleting the former in case someone uses it later (highly unlikely). That gets rid of one issue, but a couple more remain. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Who was the editor who changed the it to the uncollasped state that all the Template:Ahnentafel top are right now. They all used to be collapsed. I think there should be a discussion on changing this back to it original state instead.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment started[edit]

I've started a Request for Comments on the preferred collapsed/uncollapsed default at Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't this discussion gone long enough? Everyone support an uncollaspe option with the exception of one. Can someone change it? It's currently locked right now.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I just asked User:ThaddeusB, a previously-uninvolved and technically-adept administrator to close the discussion. He has a substantial backlog, but I'm sure this will be resolved in good time. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


Should this be listed under Collapse templates? RobinHood70 talk 23:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

New discussion[edit]

I find the collapsed state most inconvenient. I see I'm in the minority. Let's change the parameters of discussion. In football the two lines charge each other and get locked. If that were all there is to it football would never get anywhere and be of no interest. Or, from a military point of view, in WWI two unbreakable lines were locked in mortal combat. If the situation had remained that way Europe might be a dead zone like certain parts of the Ukraine. Fortunately for us those football fellows invented something called an end run. And, I hear, the true general retains a flexible frame of mind. Casualties that were tolerated in WWI are not longer acceptable in any way now. In the end run the ball vanishes from the locked lines and goes back to the quarterback, who runs around the line. So here is what I propose. Let's have a second ahnentafel top dedicated to being uncollapsed! The first one has been fixed so it is always collapsed (initially). Now there is some extraneous code in there. Take the code out, create a second version with a slightly different name and put the code in that one. Editors may then have their choice. The only difference would be the collapsed/uncollapsed feature. What do you say, pioneers? Are we like the stone or are we like the waters? Quarterbacks take your stations.Dave (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion above at #Please default to uncollapsed or let users do so. As a provisional expedient while the default was uncollapsed and before the whole RfC at Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1, I'd done much the same thing from the opposite end by creating Template:ahenentafel-collapsed-top, but that has since been deleted. You might drop a polite note at User talk:Thumperward to ask him why he "hates" such alternative templates ["Argh"]; he certainly has reasons but I've forgotten what they are. And even though I prefer the collapsed state for the small number of royal and noble articles I edit, I think there are others where the uncollapsed state is more useful, e.g. for a short-lived infant whose main importance was dynastic or political. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: clear[edit]

Request to replace |style="width:{{{width|auto}}};" on the first line with |style="width:{{{width|auto}}}; clear:{{{clear|both}}};"

This will allow the template to be placed next to a float without clearing the whole screen by adding the |clear=none parameter, for example. —Designate (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

good idea, but we should consider making 'none' the default. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
That's fine by me. Right now all navboxes have "both" as the default, so I assumed that would stay, but I see no problem using "none" instead. —Designate (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
done, with none as the default. will see if this causes any serious problems. Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


This set of templates completely fails to display on mobile, giving the impression of sections being completely empty in some cases. See for example Myles Ponsonby, 12th Earl of Bessborough. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be because it's built on {{navbox}}, one of whose classes has display:none on mobile. I think there is a semantic problem with this, in that a family tree is content, not meta-information, and therefore doesn't qualify as a navbox, so the argument that navboxes shouldn't display on mobile doesn't apply. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
yes, fixed. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)