I would like to import the templates from Wikipedia to make charts, seen here. As this is quite a few templates, and I don't know if there are any issues with this, I'm throwing this out there for the community to chew on before I do this.
That being said, I don't think we wouldn't need all the templates Wikipedia is currently using for this, as our needs are smaller. I envision this would only be used on Familial connection pages, like Picard family, and Klingon house pages, as they are very similar. (And maybe Worf, since he is apparently related to everyone if you think about it.) Thoughts? - Archduk3:talk 02:56, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
- (Replying from my talk page) Good point about the links. I'm positive image maps are available for use here so if the request fails you could use those. (Though that might be an extension that we'd have to request...) There's also a problem that the templates in use by that template also have templates you'd have to bring over. How many pages would require this and does it offer more features than the current <ol> method? I don't know but overall I don't really see a problem with it. — Morder (talk) 03:08, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
- After thinking about it a while recall that Wikipedia's version has a lot of extra stuff that we won't ever need and might be easier just to design a table template that meets our needs rather than copying everything wikipedia has done without knowing exactly what it all does. — Morder (talk) 03:17, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] - We do have image maps, they're in use on the Starfleet casualties pages as well as a few others, I just think this would be easier to use, with a few tweaks to the template names. As for how many pages would use this, we can always find uses for this, and we could make more family pages, like the Kirk family page that I've been meaning to make. The main feature I'm going for here is the solid and dashed lines, which as far as I know we don't have in our current code. - Archduk3:talk 03:24, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
- After reviewing the template and how it's used I believe that copying the chart would be the easiest...just time consuming to make sure it all works properly - the lines portion of the chart could and probably should be merged into a single template to make it easier and fewer edits. — Morder (talk) 03:35, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
- Having had a look at the Picard family page, it looks as if the biggest family tree we could really create was just six persons big. Jean-Luc, his parents and brother, wife of his brother and their son. Everyone else in that list has a relationship so complicated ("from an alternate universe", "child of his imaginary wife") that we'd actually lose information if we put everyone in that simple tree.
- The same is probably true for all other places we might use this, and worse - often, we don't really have all the information necessary to create a proper tree. So, while I'm not saying "Don't do this!", I have to ask, at least... Do you really think the very restricted usability would be worth the hassle? -- Cid Highwind 09:40, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
I think the Kirk family tree as the largest one we would have, with four (nearly) full generations on it, or the Worf/House of Mogh "tree" with quite a few dashed connections. As for the alternate/imaginary branches, if the color coded boxes still work here, and they should, I don't think that will be nearly as big issue. I don't really mind bringing the templates over myself, I'm just not going to have a clue on how to merge them together, at least, or fix it if something really breaks. - Archduk3:talk 10:02, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
- The (full) Picard family would have 18 links, which does seem to beat out the rest so far. The full tree would only be used in the bg section of the article, since it contains unreferenced information (in green), but even with that information off it still leaves 15 links. The use of colored "boxes" makes the rest of the information easily readable, with a key (red=alternate/future, and blue=Nexus), and using the line options to supplement that would makes it even more so. I think being able to present this information like this, across all the family articles, without have to do extensive images maps (not to mention all the images would have to use the same style), is worth the effort. - Archduk3:talk 17:44, December 21, 2009 (UTC)