Template talk:Ahnentafel

Template-protected edit request on 24 June 2024

Please implement the "Simplifications, formatting improvements and error fix" that User:Lemondoge has made in the sandbox. Also add the fix that I added which makes this template leftaligned always, and only centered when set to align=center. The current template is leftaligned by default, but changes to centered when collapsible=yes. With the change in the sandbox it is always leftalignet unless align=center is set. Please see the diff in the sandbox for the changes. Tholme (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Deleting Ahnentafels from royal bios

I thought there was a consensus, to have these Ahnentafels deleted from royal bios. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, now I'm not certain if there's a consensus to delete or add. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is a clear consensus for deleting all Ahnentafels. When it comes specifically to royalty their family tree is almost always relevant to who they are, although 5 generations is sometimes considered too many. One concern with Ahnentafels compared to other family tree formats, is that they give equal weight to all ancestors. They ignore cousins, uncles, and aunts, while still including distant ancestors who might be relatively unknown and non-notable. Making a custom made family tree can seem difficult, but editors can use the talk page to discuss who should be in a family tree.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus that all article should have ahnentafeln or that no articles should have ahnentafeln. We dropped them from modern royal kids and medieval figures articles a decade ago and nobody misses them there. Whether an ahnentafel should be included depends on whether one is found in RS biographies of the subject; but about 99% of these will use a custom family tree instead. Surtsicna (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I've undone my mass deletions, per apparent lack of consensus in either direction. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Dark mode problems

In dark mode, I see on Miss Meyers#Pedigree that this template is generating white lines and text, but a black box which is not really visible on the dark grey background. -- Beland (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

What does it look like with boxstyle applied? DrKay (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

That makes black text on a light background of various colors, depending on the box. I assume that's what 's intended, though you can see for yourself if you just click the eyeglass icon next to your username at the top of the page. You can switch to dark mode, take a peek, and then switch back to light or automatic. I presume this fix should be applied to the template to deal with other similarly affected articles? -- Beland (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

For this particular article, the Ahnentafel template could alternatively be switched out to Template:Pedigree, which I believe is the more commonly used one for horses on this site. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Removal of Ahnentafels

Should all ancestral trees be removed? Linkie320 (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Those cited to a biography of the article subject might not need to be. Surtsicna (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

The short answer is no. There is only the normal Wikipedia rule: What we put in Wikipedia should be sourceable to a good publication and it should be relevant and notable. Family trees are often quite relevant, for example in articles about members of noble or royal families.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2026 (UTC)