Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genealogy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a suggestion how a table with a graphical chart for a persons ancestors could be made. Theres probably thing or details I didnt think about and would therefore be glad to get som ideas and suggestions from anyone interested in genealogy. Dan Koehl 14:30 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
Hi Dan, I'm not particularly interested in genealogy, but I have a practical observation. The table as you proposed it is quite wide and interferes with my quickbar (which I have placed on the right side). Maybe the table could be vertically oriented instead of horizontally? Dhum Dhum 14:36 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
- Aha, well another variety could of course be to go only three generations back if the table is too wide. Horizontal is, I believe the standard for such tables. Dan Koehl
- Dhum Dhum, what browser are you using? The table displays fine for me at any width and regardless of the quickbar position. It should, too, since the table cell widths are relative. For the record, I'm using Mozilla 1.2.1. ---Eloquence
-
- Eloquence, I'm using Internet Explorer 6.0. I have an explorer bar placed on the left (I don't know if that has anything to do with it). The column width is much wider than it should be, I think; eg. the first column is about 3.5 to 4 times wider than the word in it (proband). Do you know anything I could do to solve the problem, because the same thing happens with some other articles (I can't remember which ones though). Dhum Dhum 19:25 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm using IE 6.0 also, and it's a mess. Tables really need to be limited to 7 to 75% in order to fit on the page. I edited it down to 70% and now it fits. -- Zoe
-
What is the purpose of this--are we actually going to have the genealogy of, well, everyone? Wikipedia isn't set up for that. Or is this only for famous people? If so, shouldn't we get clear first on whether there really is a need for genealogical tables like this for famous people?
Just trying to put first things first, Larry Sanger
Eyes wide open. Look at the preformatted mess at Medici to get an idea of where we might want to use such a table. --mav
This is not the best way to do it. Thsi assumes that peole only marry 1 person and have 1 child. I supposed the best way to do it is bring in Image Maps to wikipedia and make images of teh family tree.
Y'all may wanna check out Family Tree of the Greek Gods, just to see how somebody else has done so. Tokerboy 20:41 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
Not the best tree that, altough i know why they ahev doen it liek taht small fiel size etc. Its nto the easiet to read eitehr. - fonzy
- I am sorry:
- I was asked (by someone) about the genealogy for the Swedish king Magnus I of Sweden Some sort of graphical chart is the normal way to show this, since its easier to understand.
- I asked at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birger_Jarl if this was OK.
- I also asked (at ) asked:"Regarding Magnus I genealogy: I do have it, and will also develop this on the Swedish pages aswell on the english. Is there any standard of how to present genealogy on the english wikipedia?"
- I then had this answer: Hi Dan, Regarding Magnus I genealogy, there haven't been a general format for presenting family trees and members. Since each person people has a unique genealogy, you can try adding it as an attribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography that collects all information of a person In the meantime you can derive your own format. kt2 18:49 Dec 8 2002 (UTC)
- Which I did.
- Like I wrote, this is a table for ancestors. People extremely seldom has more than one father or more than one mother, in fact ususally, they can only have 1 of both, which fits into the table above. Its not a tree, its an ancestry table.
- On the page for king Eric_XIV_of_Sweden you can actually see a one generation tree. (But not his ancestors. My idea was to make a subpage showing four generations of ancestors, linked, to their "true" pages. Splendid?
- For some odd, strange reason, people who are interested in such families are mostly concearned about their genealogy.
- Image maps, as all images, takes more time to download than the text above.
- I just did what I was asked for, it took some time, and I suppose it was waisted, if it is judged from a level where the difference between a tree and an ancestry table is not fully clear...
- If I broke any rule, regarding what Wikipedia was not set up for, I ask for forgivness, where can I read about what Wikiepdia was not set up for?
- I can assure you, that the crazy people enjoying writing about for example the family of Medici is in general also interested in the genealogy...
- The word proband might be in an actual case be changed into, for example Magnus I of Sweden, why theres no meaning to make that one more narrow, it probably looks better if the "boxes" are symmetrical.
- The words supposed to be written in the boxes are ment to be written horizontal, (like those word) why I think a horizontal table, (as a matter of fact, my screen is also horizontal) is better. A chinese table of ancestors (if its true they write from above and downwards?) would probably fit good into a vertical table. Imagine 8 persons in the 4th generation in a vertical table?
- About size, I used percent and not pixels, how can you have a problem see a table which is 100%? Is it because of the fram layout? (Here my knowledge in general "puter-question" is too limited, maybe someone else can explain it?)
- Give it some time, and think if its really so bad. It was just something I was asked for, I didnt mean to breake any rules!
Dan Koehl 21:49 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
--- Hi, Dan, I think one problem is that tables are so hard to construct, and there's no way to link graphics (like the one I just uploaded to the page) to pages. And most people wouldn't understand an "Ahnenreihe", which could easily be linked (like this):
1 Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. 2 George VI of the United Kingdom. 3 Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon. 4 George V of the United Kingdom. 5 Mary of Teck. 6 Claude George Bowes-Lyon. 7 Nina Cecelia Cavendish-Bentinck 8 Edward VII of the United Kingdom. 9 Alexandra of Denmark. 10 Francis of Teck 11 Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. 12 Claude Bowes-Lyon. 13 Frances Dora Smith. 14 Charles William Cavendish-Bentinck. 15 Caroline Louisa Burnaby
I also suspect that people in general feel that 4 generations of anyone's ancestors would be 'genealogical overload', because most of these people wouldn't merit encyclopedia articles on their own.
Oddly enough, you CAN read about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not <G>. I think the best solution may be an "ad hoc" graphic showing specific ancestors only where such a link is of interest (for example, the various monarchs descended from Queen Victoria), the problem being that you can't use it to "link" to a page.
Also, don't think you have anything to apologize about! You're being collaborative and contributing to the Wikipedia, which is a distinction of late! -- Someone else 00:05 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words, I really felt strange for a while, putting work and time, since I was asked on this projekt, and after this getting reprimands.
The ancestry pic looks nice, no doubt. Apart from that you need some work in a graphical program, and some way to solve the imagemapping (is is possible here) so each person is "clickable" I see no disadvantages. Except the width, since some persons had problems with the screens size.
Since you are interested in the topic, dont you think its a shame not to use the possibilities here? Its like inventing a wheel, and dragging home your food on it, turned flat, used a sledge...
But I dont know. Kings and queens for me are merely genealogical material, since that was the attribute of their kind. Not describing their genealogy is for me logical if you also complain when someone mention the intruments on a page of musician, the books from a writer, and the horses from a rider. I just saw the possibility to add such a page, nad I suppose u agree with me, othervise u wouldnt had pasted that ancetry of Gustav Vasa.
I tried to start bringing order to the confused things written about Swedish kings here, and now understand how much more easy it is not to clear things out since this is for most people much more difficult to withtsand than being confused. It better if theres errors on a page than really absolute explanations?
But I have the feeling that Someone else could explain what I failed. I am now trying to get enlightened why genealogy is so stupid when people are describing dynasties...
Its like the fil of Amadeus, where the ruler looks sharply on the artist and says, maybe theres too many tunes? Haha, Cherioh, Dan Koehl 00:29 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
- Dan, I don't think it were reprimands, it's just that things are a bit rougher here in the English part of the 'pedia. In the German Wp people often make comments starting like "It's a nice idea, but ...", or "Maybe it would be better if ...". People also try to be constructive here, but in a straighter way :-) --Kurt Jansson 07:14 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
- I agree with Kurt. I too have needed some time to get used to the way English Wikipedia users "address" one another. (That's why I didn't have a user page in the beginning; I just read and contributed anonymously). Sometimes it's downright rude and uncalled for, but that was not really the case here, was it? Now about your idea. Like I said above, geneology is not a subject I'm particularly interested in. However, I do think it deserves a place in Wikipedia. I'm sure you have valid reasons to think so too. So, defend yourself, and explain why you think it's a good idea. Critisism comes in two forms: positive and negative. The positive is nice, but the negative forces you to think, and hopefully come up with something even better. I'm convinced that your idea is a good one. It just needs some tinkering to make it better and usable in Wikipedia. Dhum Dhum 07:46 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
- I suppose you are both right. The thing was, I was so naive that I waited more technical critic, like changes of the concept, but not a redlight for the idea, this took the breath out of me since I had been asked to do something, and I started to wonder what the use of a page for monarchs was, if they were not supposed to be connected. The whole idea with the wiki? This seems more to be Wicked? If every king in the monarchy list had a bypage showing the ancestors, less errors would be made. I am still convinced that this is a good idea, but its sort of difficult to fight for it, when its said that theres no need. And meanwhile the genealogy on some pages are wrong. Sorry i cant defend me more I think.. But thanks again :) Dan Koehl 09:15 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
I do like the idea of family trees being added showing the connections to ppl i just think image m,aps would be nicer and you would have more info. I know image maps are not yet implemeted. But they wold help the periodic tabke project (already discussed, also maps of the world etc. -fonzy
Hi Dan, i definitely think genealogy pages are useful in cases of famous dynasties. As for "non-famous" people being listed in such a table, well, we have extensive articles about characters of the animated series The Powerpuff Girls, so I see no reason not to include this data. The key criterion for everything we put into Wikipedia should IMHO be whether it is verifiable information. If someone puts their own familiy history into Wikipedia, this is not acceptable content because it is not verifiable to a reasonable extent. This was clearly Larry's main concern above -- Wikipedians can get a little carried away at times.
As for the technical implementation, I would love Wikipedia to eventually get a <tree> tag or something like that, which would generate graphical trees with image maps on the fly, but right now we have to work with HTML tables as it's the only thing we have.--Eloquence
- Hmm, seems theres some hope for constructive discussion. Just so settle one thing, so we all know what we are refering to, theres a big difference between a descendant tree, and an ancestry table. Please see http://www.koehl.nu/koehlk/sida0/h______1.htm for a normal Gedcom file converted into HTML page by a programme. For an ancestry table theres no need to vaste Kilobytes on pictures... Dan Koehl
A family tree is far, far more intresting than an ancestry table. For 1 main reason that you can get far more information from it. -fonzy
- Well maybe, for me its two ends of a banana, locking a little different. As for history though, the explanation why a king was a king, was not because of his descendants but his ancestors. The invasion of England and the battle of Hastings 1066 is much more logical if you know the ancestors of William the Conqueror or, the invasion of Byzans by "the Turks". (Who in fact was directly descendants to the last emperor) But I agree, descendant can be interesting also. I like bananas in general. -Dan
PS Fonzie, I also just want to put to your attention that every person has ancestors, but some doesnt even have any descendants...= No tree. Dan Koehl 02:29 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
Daniel de Rauglaudre has made some free software for genealogy (see GeneWeb), but it's written in some obscure programming language called Objective Caml, so I don't know who'd be able to understand it! But I think it would be nice if we could nick his family-tree-generating code and somehow build it into the Wikipedia. Or maybe not, since Wikipedia is not a genealogical database... Hmm... Sould we start up a new wiki genealogical database, called GeneWiki, or something? ;) -- Oliver P. 22:16 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)
I have just posted a variation of the ancestor chart. Having read all of the above, I occupy the middle ground. I agree that Wikipedia is not the forum for the genealogy of the "great unwashed". Ancestor charts, in whatever format, and descendant trees, like the Greek Gods, are all part of a larger study of genealogy. They are needed for the kings and queens and such, and worked examples of some occasional mere mortal helps explain the process.
Where Wikipedia can be of real assistence is to explain WHY one engages in genealogy, HOW one goes about collecting and storing the data and WHAT it should all look like in the end. Lists of online genealogical resources will most likely be added in the future. I should add that I AM one of the people interested in this field, and will probably contribute in the future. - Gaz 11:50 4 Mar 2003 UTC
Looking back on this page again made me reflect about the confusion of ancestry chart and descendant tree again. One way to avoid this confusion would be to show them. The topic and question whether genalogies should be exhibited on Wikipedia is a little bit weird, becuase they already are, but in a way which might be more difficult for "non-genealogists" to understand. Most of the royal families are covered by the wikipedia, because of what they were famous for. Ancestry charts would explain why and how they were famous.
Since I´m also into biology I use the standard tables for animal species, showing their systematics. This is just the same thing. SameSameButDifferent! Dan Koehl 02:29 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
When I first started wikipedia a month or so ago, the potential for sharing genealogical came into the forefront of my mind. However, while mulling it over, I've become concerned about personal security. Do I really want my name, birthday, and parents and their birthdays on the internet. Such information could fall into the wrong hands. Maybe 20th and 21st century information should be left out of the public access? Help me out here with this concern i've voiced. Have you thought about it too? Kingturtle 08:10 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
- I think there is a widespread view among Wikipedians that an encyclopedia is not about building a database for personal genealogies. There are already plenty of sites on the net for that. On Wikipedia genealogy is most useful for understanding the relationships of various royal families, and some other famous families. The genealogy project is a tool rather than an end in itself.
- I understand your concerns, and attitudes in the genealogical community are very much divided on this to the point where people at the other end of the scale consider your views as paranoid. They sometimes see giving this information as the only way of correctly tracing families. However, irrelevance will be a stronger argument against having this data on Wikipedia than fear. ☮ Eclecticology 19:28 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
-
- Do there exist now wiki-communities for personal genealogy? Can you point me in such a direction?
Contents |
[edit] Another place for genealogy
I came to Wikipedia and looked up genealogy because that is an interest of mine. The contributions that I have made to my family's history are stored online at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wtd2/index.html (if that doesn't work try it without the "l" on the html.)
That "index page" is an html table that I created to organize my ancestral web pages. The idea behind my researching was first and foremost to collect and post to the Internet the many photos that I had inherited of my parents, grandparents, etc. This rapidly spread because for each person, including my wife and I, a page with an image was created; each such page had links both up to the person's parents, and down to their children. The main assumption is that "family" means parents + children. Single people who die without issue have no lineage! They do get a web page with their picture, but no links to children.
www.rootsweb.com is the "main page" for the organization that provides the free space for storing these images and the web pages.
I would love to hear discussion about these ideas.
Ancient907
[edit] Is this project dead?
I have encountered the following situation. There is an organization for the descendents of X (a 17-th century person whose name I will supply if requested - not anybody famous) who have a data base of such descendents they claim has over 100,000 names. I haven't tried to verify that. The organization appears to me to be not very computer savvy - but they do have a web page up and running. The problem is that the web page is hard to use and not very informative.
The reason for looking at a Wiki is that each of these 100,000 names should, at least in theory, support a little biographic data. The best way to accumulate the biographic data is a Wiki where descendents can retell family stories.
The situation here is the reverse of an ancestor data base and is, in some ways easier. It is a natural for a hierarchal data base. For example, in file system terms: Suppose the ancestor is Thomas and there are children Thomas, John, Sally and James. The mothers need to mentioned in the supporting text. But they are not descendents. So "Thomas" is a directory and within that directory is a file named, say, "biog" and four sub-directories Thomas\Thomas, Thomas\John, Thomas\Sally and Thomas\James. Each sub-directory has its "biog" file and more sub-sub-directories for children. And so on. Modern operating systems can easily handle 100,00 directories. But one might well want to short out the complete file system and create a virtual one for these files. A design detail.
Within the biog files I would want wiki space for user annotations. But I believe the skeleton, personal names and dates should not be accessable for easy edit by the casual user.
Anybody have such a thing up and running? If so, please post me a reference to it here.
And now, conversely, ancestor data bases. The problem here is people wanting to prepare simple charts. Balderdash. This is the hyperlink age. Consider a person in a genalogical context. Not only does a person have a biog, in the sense I used above, a person has links. There is one links to a father and one to a mother. There is a none-to-many links to "marriages". Each marriage has two links to the persons "married" and none-to-many links to children. And every child has a back link to the "marriage" of their parents. This is NOT going to fit gracefully onto a flat piece of paper.
You trace your ancestors by going back up the child link to the marriage that produced you, then along the two marriage links to your parents, then up the child links to each parent's parent's "marriage" and so on. This is only one way to use the data base and, because each person has exactly two ancestoral parents, ones ancestors can be number neatly with binary number. This is the problem the project started discussing. As before the only part I would expose to the wiki is the biography information.
So what I need is a simple little wiki to embed in a more elaborate data structure. How does such a situation fit in with Wikipedia and the rest of the WikiWorld?
Kleinecke 02/24/05
- Genealogy Wiki? I have started building a genealogy database using a wiki, here: http://marchildon.net/genealogie/ Each person has its page, with links to the parents, spouse, and children. Only one of the two parents needs to list the children.
- I hope to host more than my own familly's genealogy with help from others, but I don't think I'll be very successful with the wiki as it is. I have written a small parser for extracting the information with the intent of moving this data, eventually, to a web site with a better data entry interface, better navigation, and reporting.
- I am currently looking for such a site, which would have to be non-commercial and highly-collaborative. Until then, I'll continue entering data in the wiki I mentionned above, keep reading on genealogy data modeling, and keep thinking of what the web interface should look like.
- Also worth mentioning are http://www.wikitree.org and http://rodovid.org, which are both using MediaWiki, and seem to be competing with each other.
- --Elecnix 02:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cross-reference?
Forgive the question, as I am a newbie, but isn't WikiGenealogy sort of the point of Wikipeople?
Buck 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Query
I'm not finding a guide for presenting family trees anywhere, and I'm wondering if there's been any discussion on the topic, or just suggestions if there haven't. In particular, I've been adding names to Family tree of Genghis Khan (which should probably be renamed), and it looks rather hideous. Hopefully someone can help out. siafu 19:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
