Template talk:Kennedy family tree

Biography Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Genealogy Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Copy/paste from my talkpage, by SNUGGUMS:

One thing I should note, though, is that Charles Joseph Burke was the husband of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.'s sister Margaret Louise Kennedy instead of aunt Mary L. Kennedy, making him the uncle of Burke's children rather than cousin of them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, you write "Margaret Louise Kennedy", the tree says " Margaret M. Kennedy" ("M."). Change?

So this Burke will move some places within the 3rd generation row. Closer to Patrick Sr. Is this Burke branch, 4 kids, of any importance further in history? Any wikipages related? -DePiep (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.J. Kennedy had a sister named Margaret M. Kennedy as well as a daughter named Margaret Louise Kennedy. I am referring to P.J.'s daughter. See here for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specific bloodline:

• Patrick Kennedy m. Bridget Murphy

• Mary L. Kennedy
• Johanna K. Kennedy
• John Kennedy
• Margaret M. Kennedy
• Patrick Joseph (P.J.) Kennedy m. Mary Augusta Hickey

• Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr. (Joe)
• Francis Benedict Kennedy
• Mary Loretta Kennedy
• Margaret Louise Kennedy m. Charles Joseph Burke, Sr.

• Margaret Louise Burke
• Charles Joseph Burke, Jr.
• Thomas Francis Burke II

Hope it helps, DePiep. See the URL I gave above for more detail.

Thanks, this is clear. Will change later on. Will use spelling from that source. (btw I think that changing the name spelling is easy for an editor). -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I've made the changes in the sandbox, going live in a minute. Changed:

• Sources: the first and most complete source was http://thepeerage.com. (Take care: they sometimes use wikipedia as a source. Could become circular). Also, we have the wikipages per person. Impressive that we have over 50 person pages linked from this family tree.

Issues: I doubt some (semi-)formal suffixes like "II" and "Jr.". To be checked & sourced really (in person's article).

• In general: added common nicknames such as "Joe", since they are mentioned -in bold- on their wikipages. And of course, the reader as well as the family wants to tell Kennedy's apart.

Bolded main Kennedy line (names).

Removed wrongly constructed Burke branch (I did not introduce ;-) ). Names parked in the box below.

• gen Patrick Joseph 'P.J.' Kennedy (1858–1929):

Added parents of Rosemary Fitzg: John F. Fitzgerald (wikipage!) & Mary Josephine 'Josie' Hannon (1865–1964). I do not want crooked or crossing lines, so I there is no connecting line.

Not added: other spouses (parked in the box below).

• gen Joseph P. 'Joe' Kennedy, Sr. (1888–1969):

Added siblings of Joe (3) and spouses (2).

However, their offspring is not added (1+3 children, 1 spouse; Burke & Connell). These are cousins of JFK. If there is a reason (notable? wikipage?) we could add them.

-DePiep (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Rose Kennedy's parents should be added- they would instead belong in a Fitzgerald family tree. Also, looking into The Kennedys: America's Emerald Kings by Thomas Maier, I should add that the parents of Patrick Kennedy (P.J.'s father) are simply James and Maria Kennedy (her maiden name is unknown). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the name "Mary Johanna (?) F, #65268, b. circa 1800, d. circa 1860" at thepeerage. Note that her son was born in 1823.

Wikipage Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858) says "Patrick Kennedy was the youngest son of farmer James Kennedy (1770–1835) and his wife Maria (c. 1779 – February 16, 1835)." this source. But her name & dates are not in that source. And going by that she would have been be 44 years old when Patrick was born (must say, OTOH, born in 1800 implies being ca. 20 years younger than her husband, a bit strange too back then, I guess). So I have reason to doubt the wiki entry, and it is not sourced.

Has your source more on her, does it mention dob/dod?

Let's stay -for now- with the thepeerage site for her. Also, and this is happening on dozens of Kennedy pages, too less sources & too much nice stories are in there. May I suggest you change Patrick's page with including the source reference?

About Rose Fitzgeralds parents: strictly speaking you might be right. But this is a tree for the family, which includes (for example) JFK: it can describe his family, and his martial grandparents are part of his family too. Our selection of names included is more about relevance (to the notable Kennedys), not about completeness in the strickter sense. These parents IMO are quite relevant (and of course one has notability by themselves). -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about keeping Rose's parents here, due to her being the mother of the three major Kennedys (without whom this template would not have been created). Randy Kryn 21:05 21 October, 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I would not include Honey Fitz and Josie Fitzgerald is simply because they aren't exactly part of the Kennedy family, but that's just me. As for Patrick's mother, it says "Maria" died February 16, 1835. I'll look further for her birth year. The book also mentions Patrick having an elder sister named Mary and two older brothers, John and James Jr. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maria it is then. Added your source here and changed the tree box. Don't know where her "(b. 1770)" born "(1775–)" comes from, it was in the tree when I started this.

As for JFFitzg: for me it isn't absolute either. Funny note: so JFK is named after grandparent "John F. Fitzgerald". The pres's name then could have been read being "John F. Fitzgerald Kennedy", or "JFFK" for short. ;-). Nice name for an airport. -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VII generation (by this tree) starts with Katherine Eunice Schwarzenegger (b. 1989). Since she and her brother have a wikipage (notability), we can mention this family. But I don't think it necessary or useful to mention other persons in this generation. Some children of this generation are mentioned in wikipages though, on their parent's page. -DePiep (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even keep track of them all, so good idea. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If two of the Schwarzenegger children are mentioned then probably all of them should be (imagine the row at Christmas dinner over who's on the family tree). How many more children in this generation, is it an unmanageable lot? Thanks. Randy Kryn 20:30 21 October, 2014 (UTC)

Very likely unmanageable to include every single member of the generation. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all four Schwarzeneggers are in there, two linked (see bottom row, that is gen VII). But also two other grandchildren have a wikipage: John Schlossberg (JFK, Caroline) and Joseph P. Kennedy III (Bobby, JP II). (I learned this from that great {{navbox}}! ;-) ).

As for christmas diners: there could be a row over why these Kennedy grandchildren do not have their own wikipage. -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth scrapping them from the template entirely since there are only four articles total from the generation. Doesn't seem like much. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First I want to know what happens with the navbox at TfD, and the Big Three Brothers' navboxes. If the navbox is deleted, this tree gets a load of extra jobs to fulfill :-( -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, it feels redundant to have two templates for the family. If the tree should be kept, the navbox should be deleted, and vice versa. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this we disagree. The navbox is to navigate wikipages (bluelinks, topics), it is not part of the article itsel;f (for example, it will not be printed). The family tree is content of the article. -DePiep (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS. To illustrate my intention: Created {{Ted Kennedy/sandbox}}, a rough demo, that shows how we could merge the Robert + Family navboxes. Those close to Ted get his navbox, and far-away family members like II.Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858), get the bare but still complete {{Kennedy family}}. The family tree graph stays in article body. Minor improvements will come, but this way no TfD. (Could you explain which navbox this Patrick Kennedy otherwise would get? A bigger-than page tree graph?)-DePiep (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick could be included in either this or family navbox, maybe even the JFK, RFK, and Ted's navboxes. I don't see the point in having both a tree graph template AND a navbox template for the family at the same time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it required to spell out the middle names? Takes a lot of space, and who needs them? -DePiep (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The middle names may work on many of them, like 'Fitzgerald' for JFK to show that he was named after his Fitzgerald branch, and many are also known by their longer name. But on some an initial would probably do. Although the longer formal names make it seem classier, like fine wine in a ten-thousand dollar cut glass, so that's a consideration. Randy Kryn 11:53 21 October, 2014 (UTC)

Of course they are not required. In fact, I am quite sure the Manual of Style advises against them. They do not only take a lot of space - they are outright confusing. Why refer to Rosemary Kennedy as anything other than Rosemary Kennedy? Why not use Ted Kennedy's common name rather than the cumbersome and unfamiliar "Edward Moore 'Ted' Kennedy"? If the common name is good enough to be the title of the article about him, surely it's good enough to be used elsewhere. An unfamiliar reader is more likely to recognize the name "Ted Kennedy" than the name "Edward Moore 'Ted' Kennedy". The template does not need to be classy. It needs to be simple, concise, precise and easy to make use of. Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything in MoS that encourages or discourages such use. I've seen many articles/templates that use them as well as many that don't. Article titles aren't always used in such forms within written prose. From what I've seen, they're not so much "confusing" or "classy" as they are simply longer and more "official", so to speak. In genealogy pages outside of Wikipedia, though, I more often than not have seen full names used. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But full names are not used only here. I've found them used across Wikipedia articles about the Kennedy family for no apparent reason. It looks as if one person preferred it that way even though it's completely illogical. Should we start referring to Bill Clinton as "William Jefferson 'Bill' Clinton"? Yes, they are longer and more official, but longer is obviously not optimal and official is not necessary. As for the Manual of Style discouraging this practice, see WP:NOPIPE and WP:MOSBIO. Using full names in this template is detrimental. A casual reader will certainly not recognize "Edward Moore 'Ted' Kennedy" as the senator Ted Kennedy, and will likely fail to recognize "Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger" as the actor-turned-politician. After all, this must be another Schwarzenegger, 'cause why would we refer to the Schwarzenegger as anything other than Arnold Schwarzenegger? Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard-and-fast rule to use or not use, though. I somehow didn't find anything explicitly prohibiting/discouraging it in MoS links you provided (after all, it isn't using things like [[James Roosevelt I|businessman James Roosevelt I]]), and don't see what is "illogical" about addressing someone in full. In many (but not all) cases, I've noticed it is more formal. While not necessarily saying they should or shouldn't be used, I just wanted to point out that there are no absolute restrictions and both styles are frequently used without problems (including non-Kennedy pages). Apparently, article title ≠ title that has to be used. In particular, pages with DAB's at the end (such as Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858)) don't tend to display exact article title. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Surtsicna about common name: that is only about article titles. Elsewhere we are free to use a label in the wikilink to create a more are applicable name. This also means wer're not obliged to use the exact article name.

Since this is a family tree, the difference in names can be subtle. Did you see this family naming habit: Joseph Jr. is named after paternal grandpa, son #2 after the other grandpa, then more loosely grandma's names were used - not by coincidence. Some Ted Jr. has exactly the same names as the Sr. All that's what a family overview is supposed to show. The same for nicknames: if they exist, we better mention them too, helps with identification. Also, we mention a maiden name for these reasons. (So I'm leaving my original position in this). -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I really don't understand your position here. You suggested leaving out the middle names, but now seem to be in favour of retaining them. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You describe it right! My OP was from: "what to do with them?", and now I have learned about their function in a family tree. (As have nicknames and maiden names, birth dates, ...). So I do not want to get rid of them wholesale. -DePiep (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPIPE: "First of all, keep links as simple as possible. Avoid making links longer than necessary." Full names are absolutely not necessary. I've already explained how they hurt more than they help. Concision and precision should be valued more than anything else. I, for one, do not see the logic behind using a seldom heard name instead of one which readers will recognize instantly. Referring to Ted Kennedy as Edward Moore 'Ted' Kennedy is like referring to Elizabeth II as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary in British monarchs' family tree, if not worse. Finally, if you neither support nor oppose the middle names, you wouldn't mind if I removed them, would you? Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember it's not an absolute rule to use/not use (I somehow get the sense you are taking a dogmatic approach). If one doesn't automatically know a name when reading it, he/she could ask who it is and click to gain detail, which could potentially increase page views due to viewer curiosity. It's not as detrimental as you make it out to be. WP:NOPIPE doesn't say anything about full names, though it's understandable where you came from on MoS. I've seen roughly as many articles on Wikipedia that use full names in prose/boxes as I have those which don't, indicating both are fine to use. Unless I'm mistaken, DePiep seems to support inclusion of fuller names now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About as many articles that use full names as those that don't? Pardon my sincerity, but that's obviously not true, lest I say ludicrous. You cannot possibly claim to have seen "Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger" as much as "Arnold Schwarzenegger", "Jennifer Lynn Lopez" as much as "Jennifer Lopez", "Franz Joseph Haydn" as much as Joseph Haydn, "Marie-Antoinette Josèphe Jeanne" as much as Marie-Antoinette, etc. Anyway, we should not expect or force readers to click on a link to find out who it's about. Readers naturally find that frustrating, which is why we have a WP:Easter egg policy - don't make easter eggs out of links, i.e. "make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link". Surtsicna (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said force readers to do anything, only that it could lead to interest in reading an article. What I neglected to mention, though, is that running prose seems to use it more frequently than boxes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Surtsicna. Why on earth did you link to WP:NOPIPE at all? Did you read that single paragraph yourself? Really none of the four bullets there are about using link-pipe-label as we do here. None. (even your quote here is saying: "Don't link Patrick Joseph 'P. J.' Kennedy (1858–1929) but instead link Patrick Joseph 'P. J.' Kennedy (1858–1929)" -- which is what we do).

Further, I repeat that wikilinks here are in a family tree and so their piped label serve special purposes (I won't repeat these). In prose those "full names" may be shortened differently (so the Haydn example is rather useless for this tree). Also there is a huge difference between the article title and any "regular name" that is used.

All in all I want to reason from the tree situation the name is in. That's a family tree in this case. Since we have dozens of "Kennedy"s, I lean strongly on the differentiating name extras to make sense in recognition, for the reader. (For example, I also have put the family name in a separate line by using <br/> to support recognition in a horizontal glance). I think this falls in line with Snuggums. -DePiep (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the relevant part of WP:NOPIPE. In case you somehow missed it, I'll cite it again (though you may miss it again): "First of all, keep links as simple as possible. Avoid making links longer than necessary." These links are not "as simple as possible" and they are "longer than necessary". That much is indisputable. This is not an issue of shortening full names. This is about unnecessarily expanding plain names. No person in this tree, as far as I can see at least, shares both name and last name(s) with anyone else in the tree, so the middle names do absolutely nothing in that regard. If I understood you correctly, the purpose of the middle names is to illustrate that these people were named after certain relatives, right? Aren't people regularly named after relatives? How come it never occurred to anyone to use full names in British monarchs' family tree, Fox family (English aristocracy), Hitler family tree, etc? Full names hurt much more than they help, if they help at all. I have already explained why; it's a simple fact that they make names considerably less recognizable, thus directly reducing the template's utility and practicality. Surtsicna (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to say people are "regularly" named after relatives—particularly in full—as I would "common", and common ≠ regular. There are instances of people in this tree who share full names, examples being Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr. and son Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Jr. as well as Patrick Joseph (P. J.) Kennedy and great-grandson Patrick Joseph Kennedy II. There is also Patrick Kennedy (father of P. J.) and Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (first cousin of Patrick Joseph Kennedy II). Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And they are all properly disambiguated. We'd have Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., Patrick J. Kennedy, Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, etc. There is no ambiguity there. Spelling out middle names such as "Patrick" does nothing to disambiguate father from son; the suffixes do that in both the long and the short version. Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Surtsicna: "necessary" the quote says, again. And you think you are the one to decide what is necessary? (My example made clear what that quote means). And then you go back to square one repeating your earlier post. Instead, you could have responded to my point. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Surtsicna: "they are all properly disambiguated" 1. not this one. 2. Another wiki word not understood. They are not disambiguated (by someone/some action), they are not ambiguous in the first place (maybe someone changed a good article name into something else to prevent ambiguity -- that would have been bad).

Anyway, the family tree is not to "disambiguate" the names. For that, we could just mention the Wikidata code-id "Q9696" for JFK, that's very unique too. This page is to present the family tree to readers.

To curt a long story short: why don't you just propose which names to use? -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not decide what's necessary. The community did. The fact that the article about Arnold Schwarzenegger is titled Arnold Schwarzenegger clearly indicates that it is not necessary (=absolutely essential/required) to call him Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger. So, yes, the link Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger is longer than necessary. I suppose it was just necessary to spell it out like this. I am not sure which point of yours I have ignored.

You seem to have misunderstood me regarding disambiguation; I never said that the family tree should be a way of disambiguation. SNUGGUMS suggested that middle names are necessary for that reason, and I disagreed. You appear to disagree with SNUGGUMS in that regard too.

Finally, to cut the story short: I propose using names which are used as article titles (minus the parenthetical disambiguation, if there is one). Plain and simple. A reasonable exception might be women who changed last name upon marriage - we could list them under maiden names, but middle names are still pointless. If the article is titled Arnold Schwarzenegger, that means that the name "Arnold Schwarzenegger" is the best possible way to refer to the man known as "Arnold Schwarzenegger". Surtsicna (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using the exact article name per se is not required and not helpful to the reader (is what I said in various ways). It does not show family relations in there (e.g., the "F" in JFK). This is answer 1.

Another example where piped labels are useful is with Kathleen Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington and her husband William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington, because there too are reasons why the articles titles Kathleen Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington and William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington are not repeatedly shown as Kathleen Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington and William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington all over the place, because that would make the articles Kathleen Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington and husband William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington illegible.

Another illustration of an earlier note: I suspect that article title P. J. Kennedy was created to squeeze disambiguation into the article name, to make the article title itself different from Patrick Kennedys no 'PJ' in the lede here, only since this. This is bad practice. Correct would be: add a disambiguation term like " (1858–1929)". So article names are not by definition the most to the point names.

The thing called "tree" is exactly what the article title is about. Not individual leaves. It is you who keeps pointing to a detail to conclude about the whole. Interestingly, what you are looking for is quite near the definition of a navbox. Like {{this}} one. This is answer 2. -DePiep (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using middle names is not required and not helpful to the reader (is what I said and explained several times). Many know who Arnold Schwarzenegger is. Not as many (to say the least) would recognize Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger as that person. It's as absurd as referring to Bill Clinton as William Jefferson 'Bill' Clinton. A family tree does not illustrate relations between people through their names, but through lines and boxes. Nothing about "John Fitzgerald Kennedy" indicates his relationship to a Fitzgerald. The lines do, however, and they do so clearly enough, don't they?

Secondly, let's please not use the argumentum ad absurdum. Who suggested that we should never use piped links? What we absolutely never would/should do is link to Kathleen Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington and William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington four times in one sentence, like you did for a reason unknown to me. Neither of them is mentioned more than once in this template.

The "answer 2" is completely incoherent to me. How does it relate to the issue of reinventing the wheel, i.e. referring to Arnold Schwarzenegger as anything other than what people actually call him (i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger)? Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While not required to pipe, there is also no requirement to automatically remove them, either. Since there are no guidelines or policies giving requirements for either way, we shouldn't be so dogmatic in either stance. Referring to someone by a full name isn't necessarily "absurd" either, particularly when first introducing a subject. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a policy/guideline which requires the use of simple links wherever possible, didn't I? Of course, the lead sentence of the article Patrick Schwarzenegger should begin with "Patrick Arnold Shriver Schwarzenegger", but in all other instances we should use the common name, the name recognized by everyone who has ever heard of him. I honestly cannot grasp the fact that I have to explain something so obvious. Anyway, it appears that I'll have to start a wider discussion about this. I don't want to wake up one day to see Queen Victoria is no longer called "Victoria" but "Alexandrina Victoria" all over Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines you mentioned actually don't explicitly prohibit such use, it's really editor's choice rather than an absolute rule (which you seem to view it as). Simple as that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna, 23 October, 18:26: "Who suggested that we should never use piped links?" [1].

Surtsicna, 23 October, 09:25: "Finally, to cut the story short: I propose using names which are used as article titles (minus the parenthetical disambiguation, if there is one). Plain and simple." [2]

Enough said. -DePiep (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we treat this template as a navigational template, i.e. I suggest we remove all non-notable people. That will make the template much 'lighter'. It will be easier to track the descent and relations of the actually notable persons. After all, that's what the template should do - explain how notable people are connected to each other. For example, the one notable child of Patricia Kennedy Lawford would fit perfectly in the row containing his first cousins, i.e. among his own generation rather than hanging in the limbo between two generations, if we remove his three non-notable siblings and his aunt Jean's three non-notable children. Surtsicna (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to know how the inclusion of all cousins splits them onto two lines in the first place. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? Cousins in two lines? The generation of Kathleen H.(b. 1951), in 32 persons (no spouses while some are notable), takes four lines (one color). That's from Arabella (1956) to Rory (1968). -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough space to squeeze them all into one line. Surtsicna (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I disagree, but I am a bit too tired to write about that. In short: keep tree and navbox apart.

• "navigation" at wiki means navigate the website, not the encyclopedia. A navigation tool (such as a WP:navbox) is not part of the encyclopedia. The function of navigating between wikipages of notable members (sure that need exists) must be covered by ... {{Kennedy family}}. That should have, by definition, all & only the notable people + topics. Because only wikipages are allowed in, no redlinks or much unlinked text names. The discussion about notability is nicely done per individual page. I understand this question is not about navigation as in "navbox". -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• A family tree, on the other hand, is encyclopedic content and should describe the family for the reader. That's 'navigating' within the content. Leaving out non-notables (that would be: remove the nonlinked people then?) leaves the tree full of holes and amputated branches. I'm not saying the current version is ideal & not to be improved. But the stripping down would take away the essence. And btw I don't think we can cut it down that much, given that 48/62 names are linked.
• I think we better first

a. !Vote to Keep the {{Kennedy family}} navbox. After all, that is exactly doing what Surtsicna asks for.

b. revisit all those lists with Kennedy family names. For example in Template:Robert F. Kennedy (for me, that list does not give any overview, only helps when I know what I want to find). -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll change my vote on the Kennedy template page to Keep, per some good arguments here and elsewhere. The link to the family tree on that template, though, should maybe go on the 'Above' section, so it can be seen easily. The family listing on individuals templates usually covers immediate family (spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, siblings, grandparents) and gives an overview of their personal family. For example, JFK's children aren't listed on RFK's template, just his own lineage. And dogs. Dogs usually make the cut if they have a page of their own. And birds (with a personal page). Randy Kryn 23:00 21 October, 2014 (UTC)

DePiep, I think you misunderstood Surtsicna's comments. They were to treat this template as a navbox, said nothing about keeping the Template:Kennedy family navbox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you are right. I struck that part. My intention & reasons to keep the graph more complete stays. (I think by this I do not make Randy Kryn's response into nonsense). -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a family tree is indeed encyclopedic content and should thus focus on encyclopedically notable people. We cannot possibly aim to include all descendants of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr, let alone those of his siblings and cousins. If that is the aim, we are failing it already, i.e. there are already many "holes and amputated branches". None of the six grandchildren of Ted Kennedy are listed. None of Jean Ann Kennedy's grandchildren are listed. None of Patricia Helen Kennedy's grandchildren are listed. The only grandchildren of Eunice Kennedy Shriver listed are the children of her daughter Maria Shriver, though her other three children all have several children each. Including all these would simply be impossible. Where do you draw the line and for what reason? Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"a family tree is indeed encyclopedic content and should thus focus on encyclopedically notable people". No. A tree should focus on the tree. Also, because it is a tree, that does not force us to include everything. I find your reasonings a bit too simple in wordplay, and again you add a WP-link that you have not digested yourself.

About the people you mention not present (do you think you're the first one to mention that here?), are left out for reasons already mentioned on this page (and sure it's not that black/white as you seem to expect). Anyway, no structure changes to this tree before we know the outcome of the TfD. -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the tree is not focused on encyclopedically notable people, then it's not encyclopedic content. If I added my family tree, it would not be encyclopedic content. For example, Fox family (English aristocracy) tree includes only notable people. Please don't insult my intelligence. The link I gave explains notability and the importance of establishing it. If you can't see that, I'm afraid you should take a moment to digest it.

I do see that the issue of "amputated branches" has been mentioned, but curiousy ignored altogether here. It is admitted here that including every single descendant is impossible. Currently, the issue is not black and white but very oddly grey. You seem to have arbitrarily decided to include some descendants and exclude others on no apparent basis. Why is John Schlossberg excluded while Christopher Schwarzenegger is included? I have to wonder why Maria Shriver's non-notable children are in the template while Caroline Kennedy's non-notable children (+ one actually notable, the only living male descendant of John F. Kennedy) and Christopher Lawford's non-notable children (etc) are not. I also have to wonder if including so many non-public figures is so important that we have to put up with a messy layout, in which first cousins (members of a single generation) are listed in four different lines/rows. Surtsicna (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find your approach battling. I don't feel invited to spend time on answering. -DePiep (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section does may bnot follow talkpage habit of time sequence. Instead, individual entries may be improved (into a sinlge-place description).

-DePiep (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to collect, please expand. Names with wikipage or otherwise notable. A wikipage almost always mentions the Kennedy family. This section may change (to improve the overview)

Generation numbering

Generations are numbered in Roman numbers (I, ..., VII) counting from the top row. It is not formal, it is only used in this wp. Also in this tree (en-wiki), each generation has a specific background color.

Not yet classified per generation[edit]

Todo or unknown:

• Ellen Therea Kelley (b. 1935) - was in the tree template code, but not used. I don't know who this is.
• John Bernard Devine (b. 1920) - was in the tree template code, but not used. I don't know who this is.

0., I.[edit]

• From II. Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858):

I. James Kennedy was born .. to 0. John Kennedy (1738–1803) and 0. Bridget Shallow (1744–1774).

Looks like we could add a row in top ("gen. 0."). -DePiep (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

II. (Patrick, Ireland → US)[edit]

• From II. Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858):

II. Patrick had three older siblings:

   II. Mary Kennedy, who married James Molloy    II. John Kennedy II (1804–1864), who married Mary K. Gunnip (1816–1881)     II. James Kennedy, Jr. (1816–1881), who married Catherine Colfer[3] 

III. (PJ)[edit]

With spouses (Kane, Mahoney, Caulfield):

IV. (Sr. = Joe)[edit]

Spouses:Rose Fitzg, Connelly, CJ Burke. As of today, no known names missing are missing in this row (Rose's siblings maybe?).

V. (JFK)[edit]

Burke, Conolly children (cousins of JFK)

• Names below are not used in the current family tree (some names are, but are here for reference). I'll leave them here in case we decide to use them. Note: by this, I do not argue or propose to add them.

VI. (Caroline)[edit]

Spouses (4, 5 have a wikipage):

• Arnold Schwarzenegger b.1947. (m. Shriver)
• Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy 1966-1999 (m. JFK jr)
• Edwin Schlossberg b.1945 (m. Caroline Kennedy)
• Andrew Cuomo b.1957 (m./div. Kerry Kennedy 1959)
• Sheila Brewster Rauch (m./div. Joseph P. Kennedy II b.1952, son of Robert K); have notable son Joseph P. Kennedy III (b.1980)
• Cheryl Hines b.1965. m. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in 2014.

VII.[edit]

Generation VII. Four names are notable/have a wikipage.

• John Schlossberg (son of Caroline, b. 1993)
• Joseph P. Kennedy III born 1980. Son of Joseph P. Kennedy II born 1952. (Corrected the tree: change III into II for the b. 1952 Kennedy).
• Katherine Schwarzenegger
• Patrick Schwarzenegger

Most (or all) people in this generation are mentioned in their parents' wikipage.

I have created an image (png file) of the tree (see the documentation on how I did this).

[[:File:Kennedy family tree.png|right|150px|link=Kennedy family tree]]

However, it did not look good enough in the navbox {{Kennedy family}}, at 100px wide. Anyone wants to try in in a sidebar (width 250px or so)? -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to change the names we mention in Gen VII (latest), and some spouses in the Gen VI. To keep overview, some graphic additions are needed too. I define "notable" as people who have a wikipage. All names mention the Kennedy family on their own page. Please see Template:Kennedy family tree/sandbox.

• In: only those who are notable, = who have a wikipage (4)

Out: two non-notable Schwarzeneggers

• Their parents are in generation VI. The question is: should we mention all those parents too? Non-Kennedy spouses to add:

Add Arnold Schwarzenegger b.1947. (m. Shriver) notable and has notable children (already in)

Add Edwin Schlossberg b.1945 (m. Caroline Kennedy) notable and has notable child

Add Sheila Brewster Rauch (m./div. Joseph P. Kennedy II b.1952, son of Robert K); they have notable son Joseph P. Kennedy III (b.1980). not notable herself, but has notable child

• And there are notable spouses in gen VI., with no (notable) children:

Add Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy 1966-1999 (m. JFK jr) is notable, has no (notable) children

Add Andrew Cuomo b.1957 (m./div. Kerry Kennedy 1959) is notable, has they have no (notable) children

Add Cheryl Hines b.1965. m. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in 2014. Is notable; they have no (notable) children.

In other words: "include spouse only when: is notable and/or has notable child. Otherwise do not include". Example for not included spouse: Emily R. Black (no wikipage) m. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. They have children (no wikipages). Emily R. Black is not added to the tree.

• Graphic enhancements: With those VII. children added, there would be four relation lines that would create curly lines (spaghetti). I do not like that, and it is not helping. Instead, I have created clickable links (abbreviations).

I have not yet added those four extra spouses (Edwin Schlossberg etc.). Their marriage (dotted line is there), plus the clickable abbreviation, to children. (Takes a lot of time to add them, so I'll wait for what you all say. Just know that it can be done).

Questions

1. Shall we list just those four names in Generation VII.?

2. Shall we add those other notabele spouses and parent of notable child (Rauch, herself not notable)? (four five to add, Schwarzenegger stays)?

3. Is the graphic solution, linked abbreviations, an improvement and acceptable?

@SNUGGUMS, Randy Kryn, Kierzek, and Surtsicna: -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC) -reasoning refined/clarified. -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Added Cheryl Hines -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a spouse of a notable person is fine if spouse has no article but family member does. The rest should probably be kept out. I'm on the fence as to whether including Generation VII is worth it since there's only four people. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand this completely. As I read it, you don't agree on the spouses as listed? To be sure:

Reason 1 to add a spouse: is notable (has wikipage). Examples: Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy, Andrew Cuomo

Reason 2 to add a spouse: has notable child. Examples: Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy (mother of John Schlossberg), Sheila B. Rauch (mother of notable Joseph P. Kennedy III; no wikipage so we don't link her name).

One reason is enough (apply "reason 1 and/or 2"). Otherwise, when none of the two reasons applies: the spouse is not added. Example: Emily Ruth Black (no wikipage) was married to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (b.1952); they have children (no wikipages). Emily R. Black is not added to the tree.

Following this, there should be five six spouses in there, no more (the list A.Schwarzenegger – A.Cuomo, above). And it has consistency in reasoning — if I may say so myself ;-) . This criteria for inclusion can be added in a footnote. All happens in generation VI. Now, I read your reply as if reason 1 would be used opposite (actually, by you only Sheila B. Rauch would be added!?).

Would it help if I made a rough scheme with those spouses in, here?

- About mentioning the gen VII.: We can mention those four notable Kennedy's only and leave all others out (dozens are mentioned on their parents pages). After all, their Kennedy relationship is exisitng and used by themselves (no WP:BLP issue involved). Let's add a footnote for this. It's always better than the accidental four in there today (Schwarz'r's only). Definitely criteria change per generation. The JFK generation is complete, and Caroline's is intermediately complete. I'm fine with that. -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Cheryl Hines b.1965. m. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in 2014, so is added (proposed) for same reason 1: notable spouse. -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably what you'd call an inclusionist, so the more the merrier. Nice work. Randy Kryn 13:04 5 November, 2014 (UTC)

• Updated. I have put the sandbox to the live version. Mainly the VII gen now has the four notables. Todo: the famous spouses, needs a reshuffle of boxes. -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the delay, what I meant was that it is fine to include a non-notable spouse of a notable person (i.e. Mary Augusta Hickey having no article while P. J. Kennedy does), but not one of a non-notable person (i.e. P. J.'s siblings and spouses, which have no articles). Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, we should stress JFK and Robert in the graph. I don't know how. Because, it is also a tree so we should take care of the lineage I guess. -DePiep (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The level of inline citations in this family is totally inadequate. This template needs full citations for all the members of the tree. The easiest way to do this is to include the citations for each child that support the names of their parents and their spouses. If this is done then any position on the tree can be navigated up and down through the parents of the children on the tree and through the children's spouses.

At the moment articles exist for Patrick Kennedy and P. J. Kennedy. If these two articles were fully cited for all the members of the tree which they touch then fifteen members of the tree could be verified quite easily. BUT the article either do not mention the members of the tree or do do not have reliable sources to back up membership for most of them.

This is cited information in the articles:

• Patrick Kennedy
  • "Patrick Kennedy was the youngest son of farmer James Kennedy (1770–1840) and his wife Maria (c. 1779 – February 16, 1835)" with an incomplete citation (no page number).
  • Bridget Murphy (his wife) cited (But the table in the article of their children carry no citations at all)
• P. J. Kennedy
  • On November 23, 1887, he married Mary Augusta Hickey (December 6, 1857 – May 6, 1923) -- There is a full citation but it is to a review of a book not the book itself.

So of the 15 different people in the tree the only information that is actually supported with citatins is

James Kennedy (1770–1840)--+--Maria (c. 1779 – February 16, 1835                            |                      Patrick Kennedy 

and separate but with no citation supporting the family relationship between Patrick Kennedy and P. J. Kennedy

P. J. Kennedy-----Mary Augusta Hickey (December 6, 1857 – May 6, 1923) 

This means that only five of the members of 15 at the top of the tree can be verified and not even the relationship between Patrick Kennedy and P. J. Kennedy can be verified through reliable sources sources. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (and everyone else agrees). Now the tree template is a bit technical and complicated. But today it looks like SNUGGUMS is adding useful sources, and to me it looks fine in the article. A good road to go then? -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, multiple editors have tried to make the Big Three jump out, in this sea of 50 boxes. (That would be JFK, Robert, Ted). That might be good, let's consider that. Some considerations:

• We already have the first-Kennedy-per-generation, in the tree, marked bold (am I saying this right? Or is it: the JFK line?). In general, that's a common way to introduce generations.

• I assume we want just three highlighted. Sure, five would be too much already. Think of it for someone who glances at it, or who is looking for someone.

• How to show it? Just a big black box border would not fit IMO. Bold relation lines? Darker tone of box background color? We can also create a second, reduced tree (parental lines only, i.e. no uncles/aunts).

@SNUGGUMS and Randy Kryn: -DePiep (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main focus should be on the "Big Three" Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is what I'm asking. How then? Extremely big names? Red font color? I'm willing to try a lot of demos in the /sandbox. DePiep (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably through big text/bubbles Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does not inspire me (bubbles?). Do you have example pages? -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant boxes Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with your behaviour, SNUGGUMS, is that when I ask, you don't support anything, and when I do edit you reverse because "SNUGGUMS does not agree". Time and time again. (You did not even answer the prime question, do you realise?). I won't spend hours on a sandbox improvement idea to be thrown out by you this way. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the boxes containing text can be enlarged, I would do that. Otherwise, bolding their names only is fine and so is darker box background color. This won't be "thrown out" if done. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, some noteworthy spouses are omitted. This occurs in gen VII (orange). I propose to add two criteria:

• 1. The spouse h/hself is notable (per WP article)
• 2. Their child (gen. VII) is notable (per WP article)

That would add:

by rule 1: Edwin Schlossberg m. Caroline Kennedy

by rule 1: Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy m. John F. Kennedy Jr.

by rule 1: Cheryl Hines m. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

by rule 1: Andrew Cuomo m., div. Kerry Kennedy

by rule 2: Sheila Brewster Rauch m. Joseph P. Kennedy II → child Joseph Patrick Kennedy

Shriver m. Schwarzenegger is already present in the tree. Any opinions?

Let's keep out spouses that don't meet notability (see WP:BIO, especially WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:BIOFAMILY) for own articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OK for me (that's rule #3 then). Now the list above has spouses that do have a wiki page (=notable, right?; rule 1). So we do add them to the tree? -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS: I do not understand a word of your reply. Please reread, and then say what is your response to my original post. -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schlossberg, Bessette, Hines, and Cuomo should be added since they have their own pages. Rauch should not because she doesn't have her own article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Painting17: In addition to these spouses, Katherine Schwarzenegger (from gen. VI) has married Chris Pratt. -Painting17 (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm a newbie so maybe I'm missing something, but why is Rosemary not included among Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.'s children? I'd add her myself but I don't know how. Yesthatbruce (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]