Forum:Family trees - Keep or leave?
Family trees have been the center of discussion several times (at least in Special:Chat). I personally don't see any reason to keep these, as they add close to no information to an article. Because of that, I would like to know whether you would like to keep family trees around.16:01, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
Remove - As thread-starter.
16:01, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
God dammit Psi, I was going to make a thread about this. I propose that we only use family trees that have more than 5 entries. They really help for big families (e.g. Oil4 Talk 17:20, December 13, 2014 (UTC)) but they're useless for small families like
Agree with Oil18:29, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - I believe family trees serve an important function and removing them isn't the way to go. However, trees with 3 or less entries are a debatable case because plain text can relay such information equally well. I'd definitely eliminate any 2-entry trees, if such even exist. Still, Oil's threshold of 5 seems too high for me. 5-x Talk 18:53, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Determining whether a family tree is useful should be a matter of common sense. A family tree of mother, father and 3 children is much less interesting (and can easily be conveyed in a text paragraph) compared to a family tree of a father, child, uncle and his (the latter's) wife and father (as a random example). IP18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:04, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Oil - However if the small trees are kept, then the family info should be removed in relevant NPC's descriptions, as Billy/Martha/Milli Rehnison unnecessarily have both the family tree and family info in their descriptions (whereas Ted Rehnison just has the tree).20:30, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
Hmm - I've enjoyed family trees - they've taken me to interesting deceased NPC articles that had history behind them. Figuring out which trees should stay and which should go... That's messy. I can't see us coming to a logical consensus (What if there are 3 dead NPC siblings with interesting histories? They wouldn't fall into the suggested criteria). Why don't we either make the trees visually smaller, or give them a show/hide button? 21:40, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
- A show/hide button would be like shoving dirty laundry under the bed. It's not a good idea. MolMan 21:41, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't consider family trees "dirty laundry" though. It was just a suggestion so that they don't take up so much space. 22:15, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - But then I'm biased. Seriously though, I've taken three people and two generations as the minimum threshold (pleonasm...) when making the trees. The smallest trees may not be as useful as the larger ones (e.g. Remanis), but they certainly do no harm. I agree with Star that they can substitute any prose descriptions though. Ted Rehnison is fine, whereas Billy...yeah... Either way, the family trees show family relations, sometimes straightforward, sometimes complicated, at a glance, which is advantageous. Also, they look quite nice if I say so myself.07:20, December 15, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't edit the wiki very much, but I do use it...a lot. I've found them helpful and I do like the look of them. They often lead me to interesting places out of sheer curiosity, even when there have only been three people on them. I don't think they necessarily need to substitue the prose descriptions, either. Imagine how dull poor Billy's page would be if all he had was a tree, or a line and a half of copy. Plus, I'd imagine some people prefer to read the detailed description and others prefer the at-a-glance style of the trees, so both have merit. Leave them be. I like it the way it is.08:57, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
09:50, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
Closed - Family trees will not be removed. However, please exercise some judgment when making family trees over appropriateness of size. A two-person family tree (in any arrangement) would be very boring, for example. --LiquidTalk 06:58, December 25, 2014 (UTC)