Talk:Terry family

Table

In the table under the big family photo, are the people listed in the order given by the News? If not, why not list them from left to right, or alphabetically? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

They are indeed as listed in the source. But the list isn't precisely related to the picture (some listed family members who appeared in the show aren't in this particular shot) and we can't correlate the names of the family members to those in the photograph. Perhaps better to go for alphabetical order, do you think? Fine with me. Tim riley talk 17:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. Let's ponder further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoops! Too late! I have done the deed, but it can easily be reverted. You don't know, do you, how we can centre the table? It would look better centred, under the centred photograph?

OK, no problem. Probably better. Table formatting? Maybe Schrocat or one of your technical contacts? Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have perverted, rending further consideration. Tim riley talk 18:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that should read "...reverted pending..." Tim riley talk 18:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

I don't know if we need such a long list. Perhaps Tim riley can cull out some of the books about single individuals that are listed in their own articles, and leave in the ones that have lots of information about the family? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I left it pretty much as it was when I added the new stuff. In truth, I think "Further reading" lists are dubious in principle: if the books are worth reading, why haven't we used them in the article? Others disagree with that view, but for my own part I'd blitz the lot. Tim riley talk 18:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I would not blitz the lot. I've culled the list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And I've Wikified the residuum. Tim riley talk 12:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Family tree

I posted this with the size set to "upright=4", which looked fine on my wide-ish screen, but looking at it on a smaller screen I found it needed sideways scrolling. I've reduced to "upright=3.5" (same as the Drury Lane picture and table below), but is it still comfortably legible at that size? Opinions earnestly solicited. Tim riley talk 12:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's legible, but I did not mind scrolling left and right on my smaller screen (I have a wider one at work), so if you want to go back to 4, I don't think it would be a problem. You might also look at it on a cellphone, to see how it works for mobile readers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That's probably right. I am too old for smart-phones, but I shall enquire among the younger generation. Nonetheless I suspect there is no way such a big chart (or pic below) can appear legibly on even the largest smart-phone screen. I think I'll seek the views of techy-savvy sprogs such as Cassianto and SchroCat. – Tim riley talk 16:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The tree looks ok on a tablet sized screen and a mobile. The smart phone, I agree, has made things more difficult for the technophobes among us. Things in Tim's day were so much easier! Cassianto^talk 21:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto, I believe that you meant this link for Tim's day, and mine! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There are advantages in being 4,000 years old, you know! As Scribe to the Gods I can fiddle the books to send people here. Nonetheless, thank you to Cassianto for those technical insights. Tim riley talk 22:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've emailed Tim a screenshot of the table on a mobile: the image is small, but fits one screen width. Mobile users will be used to the overly small images, so it won't be too much of a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Received with thanks. Most reassuring. I think it's safe to leave it at its present setting, if nobody else demurs. Tim riley talk 09:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Florence Terry and Horace birth/death dates

An editor changed the dates for Florence Terry but did not cite a source; I have reverted this for now. Can anyone give definitive information, citing sources? Many sources on Google give 1855 as the birth year, and given the habit of Victorian actresses to fib about their ages, the earlier date is usually correct, so reliable sources are needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Florence Terry dates are now verified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The same editor added these dates and changes for Horace Terry: "Horace Charles Terry" (27 July 1887 – 15 Apr 1957) citing Terry, Horace C, http://www.wyandotte.net/departments/clerk/WyandotteDeathIndex.pdf at the Wyandotte Death Index, published by Downriver Genealogical Society. However, the source says that this person died in Michigan, so it is possible that this is not the Horace Terry that we are interested in. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Ssilvers that these additions need careful scrutiny and convincing citation. The sources on Horace known to me are so meagre that I have no reason to suppose the poor man didn't die in Michigan, but we need unequivocal evidence of it before committing the statement to Wikipedia. I also agree that it seems implausible that a Victorian actress would knock a year on to her age, and we need some WP:RS there too. Tim riley talk 21:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has now added the sources for Florence which were identical to mine. My initial source for both these, and the other dates in the template, is Ancestry.co.uk. As this is a subscription service, I'm not sure how well the weblinks work for non-registered users. Bikeroo (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Horace Terry

I have tracked Horace's life through "Ancestry" as follows:

Birth registered in the July 1887 quarter at St Giles, Bloomsbury. Source: England & Wales, FreeBMD Birth Index, 1837-1915

1891 census lists the family at 92 Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury:

Charles Terry, aged 38 Theatrical manager

Margaret Terry, aged 27 Typewriter

Minnie Terry, aged 9 Actress

Horace Terry, aged 3

Kate E Terry (Beatrice?), aged 6 Months

Source: 1891 census

In the 1901 census, Horace (aged 13) was a pupil at a school in Townsend Road, Harpenden run by a Maria Sibley. Source: 1901 census

He next crops up, arriving at Buffalo, New York, United States from Canada on 8 November 1910, although I can't confirm the details or source as I don't have full access to the US records on Ancestry.

On 28 August 1912, Horace Charles Terry born in London abt 1887 marries Ethel May Moore at York, Ontario, Canada. His parents are listed as Charles John Arthur Terry and Margaret Pratt. Source; Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1801-1928

His name appears in several other American records, but again I don't have full access rights. These include the 1930 and 1940 censuses when he was living at Wyandotte, Wayne, Michigan.

He became a citizen of the United States on 6 July 1930, when his date of birth was given as 28 July 1887. Source: U.S. Naturalization Records Indexes, 1794-1995

In 1942, he was registered for the World War II Draft (aged 55), when his date of birth was given as 27 July 1887, and his residence was Wyandotte. Source: U.S., World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942

He died on 15 April 1957 at Wyandotte, Wayne, Michigan. This is recorded in a few sources, but the most accessible was the one I used originally, which you "rejected" as dubious. Source; Wyandotte Death Index

I trust that you can now accept the veracity of my edits (remember WP:AGF). I have therefore restored my original edit. Bikeroo (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody rejected the source itself as dubious; the dubiety was simply whether that Horace Terry was our Horace Terry. You have now obliged by showing that he was. I think the biographical details you include above should be incorporated in the main text. Perhaps something on the lines of "He emigrated to the US, of which he became a citizen in 1930. He lived for many years at Wyandotte, Michigan, where he died, aged 69." Do we know if any of the sources say what his occupation was, by any chance? Tim riley talk 09:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realise that I CAN see the 1940 US census (but not that for 1930). This gives his occupation as "Service man: power plant", living at 892 Clinton Street, Wyandotte. Source: 1940 United States Federal Census. Bikeroo (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now incorporated this in the article. Bikeroo (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the sources. We assume good faith, but require references. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Tree Template

Now that I have completed the Terry family tree template, I will let you know my sources. Rather than go at this piecemeal, I will review my sources and try to get back here in the next day or so with a full explanation, other commitments permitting. Bikeroo (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to it. I've given the tree an initial tweak, to comply with the MoS on date ranges, and to alert readers to the fact that it is (deliberately and sensibly) incomplete. On the question of accessibility I have been told recently (but where?) that coloured boxes may give problems. I'm almost sure it was @SchroCat: who told me this, and am canvassing him yet again. Once the tree is satisfactory to all interested editors we could, I think, replace the jpeg one in the family article. Comments invited. Tim riley talk 11:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The relevant part of the MoS is WP:COLOUR, which is part of the WP:ACCESS guidelines. The guidelines state that we should "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information", as some will either not be able to distinguish between coloured and non-coloured information, while the computer readers for the blind will aso not distinsuish between the two. Hope this helps! - SchroCat (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Very much! Thank you SchroCat. Tim riley talk 15:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Does everyone think that having the dates in the template are helpful? It makes the template longer (and harder to view on one screen), and as noted above, some of the dates are disputed. Indeed, this new template seems very spread out, while the older one is more compact, and so it is easier to see the family relationships. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the need to accommodate all users, including those using machine readers. In the past, where I have added coloured cells to lists, I have accompanied the use of colour with a symbol such as an asterisk or dagger, but I'm not sure how that would work here. Unless it is clear that the use of colours is detrimental to users who are partially sighted, rather than inaccessible to them, I see no reason why something that is helpful to the vast majority of users should be taken away.

As for the dates, I also disagree entirely with the previous comment. The dates are useful in identifying the timescale when the subjects were alive and helps place them in context. The template is "spread out" because it contains a lot of information. I have no problem in viewing this on one screen of an Ipad or laptop. (No templates are accessible on a smartphone; presumably the software strips them off the article.) Removing the dates might make the template less tall but wouldn't change the width. It seems a shame to me that rather than acknowledge the hard work that went into creating the template, some users just want to pick holes. Perhaps there are some ownership issues here. Bikeroo (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Bikeroo, I'm sure you're wrong to think anyone is accusing you of WP:OWNERSHIP – we all want to get the thing right, and as I say above, once there is a consensus that the tree is up to standard it seems to me that it – or a version of it – can replace the jpeg I ran up for the article. A tree that can be edited by anyone is ipso facto more Wikipedian than one that can't. I am ignorant about the various problems (or "issues" as we all have to say nowadays) of accessibility, but would the use of a bold font or upper case do the job (retaining the shading too)?

On the question of dates, I think for the tree in the template attached to the articles on members of the family the dates are useful. For the tree shown in the main text of the Terry family article they are, I agree, probably better omitted, but we can accomplish that very easily. Is is within even my technical capacity. Tim riley talk 09:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The above thread has been copied to The Terry family tree template talk page. Bikeroo (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)