| abstract
| - So I think someone mentioned above we used to display foster family relations on trees. I'm wondering if we want to try to do that again. I'm pondering the different options on doing this, but I do believe it is possible for every character with a foster relation. So, what does everyone think?Stealthf🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤ 06:11, May 30, 2017 (UTC) Would it be a whole different tree or will it be added on the orginal tree? 02:21, June 4, 2017 (UTC) That's part of this discussion.Stealthf🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤ 02:41, June 4, 2017 (UTC) It would be more reasonable to make to separate trees, since there's situations were there's only one foster parent and it would be a little weird to have a stray boxes (the ones with the names in it) floating around, if you get what I'm saying. 02:45, June 4, 2017 (UTC) I'm alright with it, but it does need to have already been cited on their articles first. Like, Lilyheart is Violetpaw's foster mother when she came to ThunderClan initially, but Snowbush wasn't their foster father, since there's nothing stating that nor did we see it in the books. I did test family trees of Thunderstar foster family. A separate tree does seem to be best. (especially since I cannot figure out how to do those special dotted line that Brokenstar once had on Runningnose's tree :/) It'll be good if we are doing separate foster trees to put the different trees under different subheadings, like "====Genetic Tree====" and "====Foster Tree===="Stealthf🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤ 06:48, June 6, 2017 (UTC) Anymore comments?Stealthf🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤ 02:00, June 16, 2017 (UTC) I like those. =O The only question I have is this: will it be indicated somewhere on the template's page itself that the lines on certain boxes represent a fostered connection, not a direct blood connection? Like with Thunderstar, Acorn Fur, and Lightning Tail, for example. I really tried hard to find a line, but the family tree template only supports the solid and dashed lines we already use. I went through every key on my keyboard and there is only two dotted lines keys that we could use, but those aren't enough to make a basic tree. We could do the mate lines, but we can also try the Template Chart, which is literally almost the same except you swap out 'familytree' with 'chart'. There is also some changes when it comes to keys for lines, but these are really uncommon lines we use.Stealthf🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤ 21:59, June 20, 2017 (UTC) What does everyone want to do? Do the normal family tree lines, or have those trees switch to chart template (which is practically the same as the family tree template) and use the dotted lines for foster links.Stealthf🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤ 03:32, July 1, 2017 (UTC) I'm cool with using the chart template - I've used it before, and it's pretty easy to work with so why not :) Anymore comments?Stealthf🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤ 03:58, July 13, 2017 (UTC) I would agree that the charart template is easy to work with and should be used in this situation. I really like this idea. However, I think if we’re going to use it and use the chart template to do the dashed lines for foster relations (which I support, for sure), I think we should put the foster relations on the same tree as the genetic relations and differentiate them with the solid vs. dashed lines. Most genetic families only have one or two foster relations in them, so the foster tree would just be the exact same tree with a very slight modification, which would be really repetitive and unnecessary imo. 17:52, July 18, 2017 (UTC) I'm not 100% sure on that either. I mean, I did a test with Thunderstar and it could just become too difficult and messy. It'll just be easier to make foster trees.Stealthf🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤ 07:03, July 20, 2017 (UTC) Honestly, including foster siblings and/or parents in a tree is really cluttery and messy, given how large some of the trees are. I don't think it's a bad idea, but I also don't think anything would really benefit from this. We have them in the kin section, that should honestly be good enough 18:21, 7/25/2017 Honestly, I have to agree with Winter. I see what you mean about the trees getting too cluttery if you add foster relations to them (most are already really crowded anyway), but at the same time I still think having a whole new tree to represent one or two foster relationships seems unnecessary. Honestly, since the foster relationships are in the kin section, I don't think they really need to be represented on the trees. 16:08, August 2, 2017 (UTC) Anymore comments?Stealthf🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤ 01:58, August 12, 2017 (UTC) I think it would be a good idea for having foster family trees. Even though everything is so cluttered, there can always be a separated link or add some space more below the real family tree. C o s m o s n e s s 🐾#cat lady 02:13, August 12, 2017 (UTC) Anymore comments?Stealthf🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤ 05:54, September 3, 2017 (UTC) I also think it would be a good idea to have separate foster family trees. I have recently been playing around with family trees on my userpage and it gets really cluttered really fast, so I don't think having foster and genetic family in the same tree is a good idea. -- 15:40, September 10, 2017 (UTC) Yes, but it doesn't seem worth it to create whole, separate family trees for the purpose of displaying one foster relationship or something... and if you tried to show more than that, you'd end up having to recreate the genetic tree and it would end up just as cluttered. Honestly, we already have foster relationships listed in the kin section, and that should be sufficient. 15:53, September 10, 2017 (UTC) Have we decided what we're doing with this?
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)