This template is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility 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.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles
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
I think we need a good expantion, no Indian, Vietnamese,Very little American or other Asian dynasties for that fact. What about Africa? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I help in the Oceanian areas? I did Hawaii, Samoa, Tonga, Tahiti, Huahine and Bora Bora.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we change this too another more specific title because its all about royalty? Unless we can put family trees of presidents, communist leaders, dictators, Roman senators, the Kong family of China, untitled knights and lords, media stars, animals, and other important families that are not royal.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99 The links you added for Bosnia are just articles about dynasties, not family tree articles. There are hundreds of articles about dynasties that happen to feature a family tree, but they don't belong on this template since it is specifically for family trees in themselves. ★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave Bosnian families aside, they can be removed from Temp. with the one hit of the "delete" button, the question is why do you bring back the Subic and Frankopan families, who were not ruling dynasties, and why do you persistently mixing families with states, and why do you mess with items arranged in alphabetical order? ౪ Santa ౪99° 20:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alphabetical order was the only positive change, but I felt it was better to just start over with the last old version and discuss it here on the talk page.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
