Talk:Dukes of Norfolk family tree
Image or chart edit
@Clifford Mill: Re. your recent reversion of the chart back to the image, fyi, I agree that this new version is much to be preferred. Per WP:TEXTASIMAGES, Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image...Images are not searchable, are slower to download, and are unlikely to be read as text by devices for the visually impaired
.
Equally, for an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, an image is almost impossible to do so. This particular page—one can hardly call it an article!—has been an aberration since its creation. For how we should be presenting family trees, I suggest French monarchs family tree, Family tree of the German monarchs, Family tree of the Danish royal family, etc.
Incidentally, although seeing yours and Daduxing's changes here drew my attention, this has been on my horizon for some time (see how long this has been sitting in my sandbox!), but I'm not very technically-minded, so kept putting it off. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Clifford Mill:. So your arguments are that the chart is (1)unnecessary and (2)unsourced.
(1) The chart is necessary because, as User:Serial Number 54129 pointed out, on wikipedia we prefer the text over the images. This improves the accessibility; making it easier to be edited; it is correcting the mistakes from the image, is adding more information and family links that are missing from the image version of the family tree. Keep it in mind that the chart is not identical with the image.
(2)Per WP:FACTS we don't need to cite everything. For this page the informations can be corroborated with the respective articles, where there are presented as common knowledge or cited.
Beside the chart I also kept the image as a consideration for the one who spent hours, maybe days, from his free time, doing a voluntary work for us to have this image. Not as someone who is ruining somebody else work at a snap-of-a-finger without a serious reason. --Daduxing (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)- Ironically, I see that the creator of this page, Mark J, probably—in his heart of hearts—agrees with us, this far into his long and noble career :) family tree pages such as this, this, this, this and this also suggest him not to be an aficionado of the image-based form. In fact; the Mowbray page seems to be an aberration of sorts; Mark J, any reason this page escaped your usual thorough creation? Not a critical question, purely out of interest. A slight anomaly, it seems you see! Happy Sunday! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 20:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I accept your arguments. Clifford Mill (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ironically, I see that the creator of this page, Mark J, probably—in his heart of hearts—agrees with us, this far into his long and noble career :) family tree pages such as this, this, this, this and this also suggest him not to be an aficionado of the image-based form. In fact; the Mowbray page seems to be an aberration of sorts; Mark J, any reason this page escaped your usual thorough creation? Not a critical question, purely out of interest. A slight anomaly, it seems you see! Happy Sunday! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 20:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Clifford Mill:. So your arguments are that the chart is (1)unnecessary and (2)unsourced.
How to edit
Excellent chart... and useful. I have been teaching myself how to do these, and made a family tree chart for the "Harrison Family of Virginia" article. I found it to be a trial and error process, and others told me that there wasn't much to do about that. So I am envious of how consistently this follows a grid. I would appreciate any pointers! PurpleChez (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)