Please don't "sneak" in Data Doctor Changes [closed]

Question

So, a change was made to one of my profiles. NOT a big deal. But I think we need a reminder that we need to comment on the changes we make to other's profiles, not slide them under the rug ;- )

The comment says that a misspelling in the Death location was changed. (US to USA). Examination of the change shows that Formatting changes were made. Nothing was changed that I object to - however, the comment should have given me notice that Notes and References were moved around.

ok, done whining!

Comments

I don't know what "DD" is.

---

@ Lincoln - DD = Data Doctor.

---

Thank you Melanie Paul.

Answer 1

Jana, Thanks for your comments and that you contacted me, personally.  As I explained in my note, I definitely wasn't trying to do anything sneaky.  I also agree that I should add "Formatting" to the change list which will help explain I made some changes. This is a good suggestion for me and I appreciate that. This is why WikiTree is such a great place -- for continual feedback and all of us learning.

As Kathie Forbes said, the <references /> line being moved fixes potential errors.  The reason I was on the profile was because of the Data Doctor 638 suggestion.

I added notes on the birth place (while not changing that information) so that anyone looking at the profile will see that there is more information.  Specifically, counties in Georgia were not formed until 1777.  Prior to that time, parishes were used as locations (from 1734).

Answer 2

I don‘t see any “sneaky” change.  The  <references/>  line must be directly under ==Sources== to work correctly, so that error was also fixed.

Comments

Adding to what Kathie has said - while it might be optimal to explain every single change made, there's only so much "room" (character limitation) to note what was done, so Data Doctors frequently need to choose which change is the one used.

---

I agree. I understand wanting a comment, but needing to have even tiny detail, like moving a ref tag, listed is a bit much. You can see everything they did on the change log anyway.

---

Kathie, the <references /> (please note that it ends with space, slash, greater-than-sign) tag is not required to be directly under the ==Sources== heading to work correctly.  It will work correctly as long as it is below all citations that have been entered enclosed in <ref> … </ref> tag sets.

The way it works is that wherever the <references /> tag is placed is the position on the view page where all source citations that were enclosed in <ref> …</ref> tag sets above it in the text area will be displayed.  Because the page is compiled for display in "top down" fashion, if there are any <ref>...citation...</ref> tag sets below the <references /> tag then they will not be displayed.

As a result, it is good advice to say that the <references /> tag should be the last thing on the page to ensure that all tagged citations will be displayed.  For a reason I cannot fathom, WikiTree has specified that the <references /> tag is to be placed immediately below the ==Sources== heading.  This has caused a few thousand profile I had created prior to the implementation of that wording to be non-compliant, because my preference has been to keep all citations in one place in order to improve readability and work efficiency of the edit page and the most logical place, to my thinking, is immediately below the ==Sources== heading, with the <references /> tag below the last citation.  I have since changed my style to place all the citations in a location that is not in violation of WikiTree policy, although significantly less efficient for me to work, but I have not taken the time and trouble to revisit the myriad profiles I developed to bring them into compliance with the rule that was implemented after they were created.

---

I 100% agree with you, Gaile. Keeping all (sometimes lenghty and/or numerous) citations in one place to avoid cluttering the bio in edit mode is my favourite method too. And I also do not go through the little rewarding process of fixing to abide by that insignificant "rule".

---

I haven't seen a DD error code for having text between ==Sources== and <references />. Although the explanation of codes states that <references /> should be immediately below ==Sources==, there doesn't appear to be a code for it.
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:Data_Doctors#.3C.2FReferences.3E_Tags_and_Inline_Citations_.3Cref.3E_Suggestions

---

This is a case where "suggested" comment can just have the "formatting" checked.

If the person doing the change is a Data Doctor they should put something in the comment box -- if they are not a DD then they don't have to as it is only "suggested."

And there was a statement made about a year ago that the references tag be "directly under the sources heading.

Then all references when properly done in line will show as numbered "footnotes" (no heading needed) after which the general list of sources will follow.

Too many "managers" just dump a bunch of sources w/ citations on their profiles and never use them to as references to specific statements in a biography.

Answer 3

There is the Changes-Tab, where you can see what was changed.

Comments

i get that. i'm just saying say "formatting" too, since that was done. notes were added/moved. wasn't just the reference tag. but clearly i spazzed ;- )

and i said it wasn't a biggie.

---

It may be that the DBE being addressed was the spelling issue, therefore that was the recorded reason so to match the DBE being corrected.

Only the person doing the change knows why they listed only one reason.  Have you asked them?

Answer 4

Hi Jana,  if you go to ‘my wikitree’ and scroll down to suggestions a list of all your outstanding suggestions will appear. They are updated weekly. If you have any you are not sure how to fix, there is often a video, or ask here in G2g others are only too happy to help.