This is a suggestion how a table with a graphical chart for a persons ancestors could be made. Theres probably thing or details I didnt think about and would therefore be glad to get som ideas and suggestions from anyone interested in genealogy. Dan Koehl 14:30 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I'm not particularly interested in genealogy, but I have a practical observation. The table as you proposed it is quite wide and interferes with my quickbar (which I have placed on the right side). Maybe the table could be vertically oriented instead of horizontally? Dhum Dhum 14:36 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Aha, well another variety could of course be to go only three generations back if the table is too wide. Horizontal is, I believe the standard for such tables. Dan Koehl

Dhum Dhum, what browser are you using? The table displays fine for me at any width and regardless of the quickbar position. It should, too, since the table cell widths are relative. For the record, I'm using Mozilla 1.2.1. ---Eloquence

Eloquence, I'm using Internet Explorer 6.0. I have an explorer bar placed on the left (I don't know if that has anything to do with it). The column width is much wider than it should be, I think; eg. the first column is about 3.5 to 4 times wider than the word in it (proband). Do you know anything I could do to solve the problem, because the same thing happens with some other articles (I can't remember which ones though). Dhum Dhum 19:25 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

I'm using IE 6.0 also, and it's a mess. Tables really need to be limited to 7 to 75% in order to fit on the page. I edited it down to 70% and now it fits. -- Zoe

What is the purpose of this--are we actually going to have the genealogy of, well, everyone? Wikipedia isn't set up for that. Or is this only for famous people? If so, shouldn't we get clear first on whether there really is a need for genealogical tables like this for famous people?

Just trying to put first things first, Larry Sanger

Eyes wide open. Look at the preformatted mess at Medici to get an idea of where we might want to use such a table. --mav

This is not teh best way to do it. Thsi assumes that peole only marry 1 person and have 1 child. I supposed the best way to do it is bring in Image Maps to wikipedia and make images of teh family tree.

Y'all may wanna check out Family Tree of the Greek Gods, just to see how somebody else has done so. Tokerboy 20:41 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Not the best tree that, altough i know why they ahev doen it liek taht small fiel size etc. Its nto the easiet to read eitehr. - fonzy

I am sorry:

1. I was asked (by someone) about the genealogy for the Swedish king Magnus I of Sweden Some sort of graphical chart is the normal way to show this, since its easier to understand.
2. I asked at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birger_Jarl if this was OK.
3. I also asked (at ) asked:"Regarding Magnus I genealogy: I do have it, and will also develop this on the Swedish pages aswell on the english. Is there any standard of how to present genealogy on the english wikipedia?"
4. I then had this answer: Hi Dan, Regarding Magnus I genealogy, there haven't been a general format for presenting family trees and members. Since each person people has a unique genealogy, you can try adding it as an attribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography that collects all information of a person In the meantime you can derive your own format. kt2 18:49 Dec 8 2002 (UTC)
5. Which I did.
6. Like I wrote, this is a table for ancestors. People extremely seldom has more than one father or more than one mother, in fact ususally, they can only have 1 of both, which fits into the table above. Its not a tree, its an ancestry table.
7. On the page for king Eric_XIV_of_Sweden you can actually see a one generation tree. (But not his ancestors. My idea was to make a subpage showing four generations of ancestors, linked, to their "true" pages. Splendid?
8. For some odd, strange reason, people who are interested in such families are mostly concearned about their genealogy.
9. Image maps, as all images, takes more time to download than the text above.
10. I just did what I was asked for, it took some time, and I suppose it was waisted, if it is judged from a level where the difference between a tree and an ancestry table is not fully clear...
11. If I broke any rule, regarding what Wikipedia was not set up for, I ask for forgivness, where can I read about what Wikiepdia was not set up for?
12. I can assure you, that the crazy people enjoying writing about for example the family of Medici is in general also interested in the genealogy...
13. The word proband might be in an actual case be changed into, for example Magnus I of Sweden, why theres no meaning to make that one more narrow, it probably looks better if the "boxes" are symmetrical.
14. The words supposed to be written in the boxes are ment to be written horizontal, (like those word) why I think a horizontal table, (as a matter of fact, my screen is also horizontal) is better. A chinese table of ancestors (if its true they write from above and downwards?) would probably fit good into a vertical table. Imagine 8 persons in the 4th generation in a vertical table?
15. About size, I used percent and not pixels, how can you have a problem see a table which is 100%? Is it because of the fram layout? (Here my knowledge in general "puter-question" is too limited, maybe someone else can explain it?)
16. Give it some time, and think if its really so bad. It was just something I was asked for, I didnt mean to breake any rules!

Dan Koehl 21:49 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

--- Hi, Dan, I think one problem is that tables are so hard to construct, and there's no way to link graphics (like the one I just uploaded to the page) to pages. And most people wouldn't understand an "Ahnenreihe", which could easily be linked (like this):

1 Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
2 George VI of the United Kingdom. 
3 Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon. 
4 George V of the United Kingdom. 
5 Mary of Teck. 
6 Claude George Bowes-Lyon. 
7 Nina Cecelia Cavendish-Bentinck
8 Edward VII of the United Kingdom. 
9 Alexandra of Denmark. 
10 Francis of Teck
11 Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. 
12 Claude Bowes-Lyon. 
13 Frances Dora Smith. 
14 Charles William Cavendish-Bentinck. 
15 Caroline Louisa Burnaby

I also suspect that people in general feel that 4 generations of anyone's ancestors would be 'genealogical overload', because most of these people wouldn't merit encyclopedia articles on their own.

Oddly enough, you CAN read about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not <G>. I think the best solution may be an "ad hoc" graphic showing specific ancestors only where such a link is of interest (for example, the various monarchs descended from Queen Victoria), the problem being that you can't use it to "link" to a page.

Also, don't think you have anything to apologize about! You're being collaborative and contributing to the Wikipedia, which is a distinction of late! -- Someone else 00:05 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, I really felt strange for a while, putting work and time, since I was asked on this projekt, and after this getting reprimands.

The ancestry pic looks nice, no doubt. Apart from that you need some work in a graphical program, and some way to solve the imagemapping (is is possible here) so each person is "clickable" I see no disadvantages. Except the width, since some persons had problems with the screens size.

Since you are interested in the topic, dont you think its a shame not to use the possibilities here? Its like inventing a wheel, and dragging home your food on it, turned flat, used a sledge...

But I dont know. Kings and queens for me are merely genealogical material, since that was the attribute of their kind. Not describing their genealogy is for me logical if you also complain when someone mention the intruments on a page of musician, the books from a writer, and the horses from a rider. I just saw the possibility to add such a page, nad I suppose u agree with me, othervise u wouldnt had pasted that ancetry of Gustav Vasa.

I tried to start bringing order to the confused things written about Swedish kings here, and now understand how much more easy it is not to clear things out since this is for most people much more difficult to withtsand than being confused. It better if theres errors on a page than really absolute explanations?

But I have the feeling that Someone else could explain what I failed. I am now trying to get enlightened why genealogy is so stupid when people are describing dynasties...

Its like the fil of Amadeus, where the ruler looks sharply on the artist and says, maybe theres too many tunes? Haha, Cherioh, Dan Koehl 00:29 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

Dan, I don't think it were reprimands, it's just that things are a bit rougher here in the English part of the 'pedia. In the German Wp people often make comments starting like "It's a nice idea, but ...", or "Maybe it would be better if ...". People also try to be constructive here, but in a straighter way :-) --Kurt Jansson 07:14 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

I agree with Kurt. I too have needed some time to get used to the way English Wikipedia users "address" one another. (That's why I didn't have a user page in the beginning; I just read and contributed anonymously). Sometimes it's downright rude and uncalled for, but that was not really the case here, was it? Now about your idea. Like I said above, geneology is not a subject I'm particularly interested in. However, I do think it deserves a place in Wikipedia. I'm sure you have valid reasons to think so too. So, defend yourself, and explain why you think it's a good idea. Critisism comes in two forms: positive and negative. The positive is nice, but the negative forces you to think, and hopefully come up with something even better. I'm convinced that your idea is a good one. It just needs some tinkering to make it better and usable in Wikipedia. Dhum Dhum 07:46 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)