Template talk:Baggins

From Tolkien Gateway

In the last few days I inserted the Longfathers-Tree of Master Samwise in the Gamgee Family article and the Family Tree of the Tooks into the Took Family article. Before I undertook these two tasks I looked at all the Hobbit family articles and found the following for the Big Six:

  • Baggins Family: In Wiki code, has only names, requires a lot scrolling to the right to see all of it.
  • Boffin Family: In text format, has names/dates/notes, requires a little scrolling to see all of it.
  • Bolger Family: In Wiki code, has only names, marriages were set vertically to avoid scrolling.
  • Brandybuck Family: In Wiki code, has only names, marriages were set vertically to avoid scrolling.
  • Gamgee Family: Did not exist
  • Took Family: Did not exist

In both the Gamgee and Took trees I put in names and dates, and added Tolkien's notes from Appendix C in Wiki notation format. For the Took tree I also italicized the names of those who attended Bilbo's farewell party.

The perhaps controversial part was that I also avoided scrolling, as was done for the Bolger and Brandybuck families. This is a matter of design; some may feel that a flatter format, such as here for the Baggins family tree, is best because it keeps the generations in single, separate rows. Others may feel that avoiding scrolling is better (which is my preference) since you do not have to scroll back and forth. In both the Gamgee and Took trees I had to double up some generations and stack spouses to avoid scrolling; I think it is understandable as is but others may disagree. I will note that J.R.R. Tolkien had difficulties with these two trees and resorted to the some of the same tactics to squeeze everything in.

I figured that since the Gamgee and Took trees had not been done that no one would object to the design as long as the information was correct. Now though I would like to do the same for the Baggins and Boffin families. I know that it took a lot of work to create what is already here so before I change anything I thought I would ask if people objected. So, should I not touch these family trees or is it OK to modify them?

--Gamling 06:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the flatter format as I find it far more legible and I imagine that would apply to the majority of readers. Furthermore, you suggest a false dichotomy ("flat and scrolly" or "tall and none scrolly"): in fact in resolution of 1024x768 the Brandybuck family tree overflows outside of the content area, and in resolutions smaller than that (an increasing share of the market with smartphones) it goes right off the edge of the page, still requiring scrolling but in an uglier manner. I favour larger genealogies to be in the same style as the one in Pippin.
On a side issue, as I mentioned on your talk page, you're still not signing your posts properly (by using four tildes: ~~~~). For comparison, Wikipedia says this on the matter: "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)