Question of the Week: What's on your wishlist for 2021 WikiTree improvements?

+39 votes
3.7k views

500px-Question_of_the_Week-63.pngWhat's on your wishlist for 2021 WikiTree improvements?

Since this is the Question of the Week and not actual proposals, let's try to let people share their wishlist items without getting into too much discussion over them.

Thank you! :) 

in The Tree House by Eowyn Walker G2G Astronaut (1.7m points)
edited by Eowyn Walker
I'd like to see the persons age at death listed in addition to their birth and death date like they do on FAG.

I'd like to see a much better family tree viewing tool.  For example, the one on Ancestry.com is much more useful than WikiTree's.

In the advanced search area I'd like to be able to filter a search by the name of a spouse. I often know a person's spouse, but not their parents' names, or dates of birth or death. For example, when you have a marriage record on someone but nothing else.
I would like the location pull-down boxes for new person data to be widened to accommodate all the data in the field. What gets cut off from view is usually the date range for which a locality name is appropriate. Seems like a simple fix to improve accuracy.
I would like to see more tools to summarize data that we have input into WikiTree. For example, a table or graph of the number of ancestors/descendants/relatives who were born in each year, or each month. The ability to condition these tools on gender or geography.
I would like to be able to search by profile number in the search box. Also, I would like them to work with the makers of Legacy Family Tree Deluxe & get a feature like they have with FamilySearch & Find A Grave. On my profiles in Legacy Deluxe 9,there are 3 boxes at the bottom.1isfor whatever you want to put in it. I put the Wikitree profile number, The 2nd box is for the FamilySearch profile number &the 3rd box is for the Find A Grave memorial number. When I click on the boxes for the FamilySearch & Find A Grave numbers, it takes me to them. It is so much easier to find profiles to work with them or see if they have had anything added to them. I would like to be able to add the Wikitree profile numbers & click on them & have it take me there, too.
Agree!  A viewer that would allow dragging multiple layers instead of having to click on every 5 generations would be great.
Yes, it's not long enough for many locations especially with the date clarifiers.
I would love see a Mass dump of link up tree from family search, so People that have info from Family search Don't have to re-do trees and branches. also I would help fill in many gaps for people too.
I think that would defeat the advantage of using Wikitree. FamilySearch profiles have no profile managers or volunteers who check for accuracy & possible errors.  Just my opinion.
Isn't that what the GEDCOM files are?
I agree. I wish they would disable mass GEDCOM uploads, as I think it facilitates the propagation of unsourced "facts" that are accumulated through online trees.
When a new profile is created it often ‘hangs’ on another. This info is already in the header of the new profile.. eg ‘Add child of Peter’.

It would be useful if more information could be appended  to that line just whilst creating; for example ‘Add child of Peter Smith born Bartiébougou, Komondjari, Est, Burkina Faso on 3 Jan 1910 and died Birmingham 29 Aug 1930.

It is often the case that a date for the new person needs estimating at least initially, based on the information on the initiating profile.

Also a difficult to remember place of birth like the one above is challenging (for me) to remember and they are often the same as the initiating profile.

It would save jumping backwards and forwards during creation.

Thank you
This is a nit-picky request, but when I'm going down through a list from a Search, I look at the preview to see if it's the person I'm seeking. But the preview box then obscures the next person on the list so it's hard to click the next person. Could you shift the preview further away from the names on the list? I told you it was petty, but this is a frequent irritant.

Deborah, you can search by profile number (WikiTree ID - e.g. 'Darwin-15') in the family name search box now.  This feature was added quite recently, but it's not so obvious.  If the family name box is empty, it says in it 'Last Name or WikiTree ID' (you can see this by going to the WikiTree home page).  Usually though, you don't see this, because the box is pre-filled with a family name (often your own).

Dave, if you use Chrome, I've added this feature ("see the persons age at death listed in addition to their birth and death date like they do on FAG") to my Chrome extension, Auto WikiTree Tables +.  I had often thought that this would be a good idea, and then I realised that I could add it, so I did.  But you're right, this would be a good feature for the developers to add to the site.

Thank you. I wasn't aware of this feature.

Michael, do you use Chrome?  I've had this same problem myself - going back and forth between the profiles when I need to estimate a birth date - and after seeing your comment earlier, I added this to my Chrome extension (Auto WikiTree Tables +).  See what you think.  (It's in v.3.8 (available in about 12 hours from now (maybe sooner, maybe later))).

Yes, I was quite surprised to find that we can now search by WT ID.  I stumbled across it by accident a couple days ago after wishing it were possible many times.
Rick, just for reference, here's the announcement of that new feature: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1142903/new-first-name-variants-search-by-id-g2g-flagging (Scroll down and see what I said... I think I was right.)
Thank you Ian, I use an ipad so the more vanilla the solution the better. I can see you have put a lot of work into the extension.
Thanks Ian, I missed that announcement.  Glad it is improving!
I would like to see an easier way to mark a date or place as being just a wild guess. I understand why we have to put in some kind of date for everyone, but it's often the case that you have very little information at all on which to provide even a wild guess for a date. But there is no simple way to say that it is just a wild guess, so most of the time such a date just gets entered as "about" as though there is some evidence for it. Sure, you can talk about it in the biography, or put that marker in there, but that's another step that people often ignore. Why not add another option below "about/uncertain" to include 'wild guess' or some other similar language? "About" implies that you have some reason to believe that it is really "about" that time, but in reality you may be off by decades.

Bill, you can use the Estimated Date template.

WAY more difficult than it need be. Instead of making people learn how to use some arcane template and then remember or take the time to do it, wouldn't it be much simpler to add another checkbox to the date fields other than "about/uncertain?" This thread is about improvements we want to see, not about how to work around the site's shortcomings with a clunkier method.

Bill... Good point. smiley

Agreed smiley

Ian, I the same way regarding your explanation about the use of easier navigation.
This helps make my point that thing are not obvious or easy to find. I had no idea there was such a template.
Thanks Ian,

Took me a little self-educating to figure out how to do it but it works really well!

 - Dave
Agreed. Good suggestion.
This isn't a wish list item but rather a thank you to who ever added the "ID" "Link" and "URL" copy buttons to the profiles. Can't tell you how much easier that has made my documentations. Thank you!

A bit late sorry and quite a minor request, but it would be good to have a workaround to allow badges to be moved up and down on an iPad webkit browser in some way (not necessarily as smoothly as on a computer browser). See here.

What have y'all done to the Wiki Genealogy Feed Emails I receive?  All of the information is in small print and looks like a horrible run on sentence.  Can we go back to the way it was???
Have a way to check for words within profiles, such as indirect family names that are mentioned but may not have a profile yet.  Example:  Sibling name that has no profile but is mentioned within other profiles.

Also have an option to include the profile number (cator-80 for example) in trees, etc.
Donna, if you click on the "Search"-button in the "Find" -menu on the right top, the page opens to look for profiles. If you scroll down to the bottom, there is a field: "Search for any text". When you fill that field, the text you search for is looked for in any position of the profile, no matter if name field, data, location or in the biography text.
Knowing where all the Challenges are.  It would be nice if there was one location in addition to the others.  I might want to be in more than one challenge at same time regarding to a profile.

101 Answers

+56 votes
To be able to change the order of images on profiles.
by Alexis Nelson G2G6 Pilot (324k points)
I too would like to see that :-)
I love this idea.
Yes, and it has been flagged as 'to come' for some time.

"We plan to add a feature that enables you to sort photos in the future." https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Photos_FAQ#How_do_you_change_the_order_of_people_identified_in_a_photo.3F
Yes I totally agree.
+37 votes
I would like a better definition of an inactive manager. I see many Uploads from several years ago but the profile manager still exists. Could they color code the profile manager name to indicate if they are recently active or not or somewhere in between. That would help before you proceed with editing a profile or asking for an unresponsive manager.
by Gurney Thompson G2G6 Pilot (178k points)
For the record -- I did not (and would not) downvote your wish.  I think some kind of colour code might be helpful.
At the risk of going farther off track (but I don't think I am): All you have to do is click on the PM name, then click on their contributions, and you can see whether they are currently active or not.
Gurney, if you look at the contributions on the PM profile page, that will show if they are actively contributing to wikitree.  If they are not showing any contributions, ie no edits of any profiles, in the last year, then they are not very active currently.  I have sent Private messages to people that showed no contributions in the past year or so and have gotten replies 'sometimes', not often, so some people are just not actively updating wikitree, but they will respond to a message.
How about if someone doesn't add anything anywhere on the site within a year or two they are removed as being the profile manager anywhere?
Deleting the profiles just because the manager is absent or delinquent defeats the purpose of WikiTree.
No no, don't delete the profiles. Remove them as profile manager, which would allow other more interested parties to adopt them.
There are many threads about inactive managers and the many ideas about how to manage this problem. Perhaps this is not the place to rehash the topic.

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1135688/respectful-proposal-quickly-unresponsive-profile-managers?show=1135688#q1135688
Gurney I agree a better definition of what is an inactive PM needs to be developed and there needs to be a process to determine if the inactivity is temporary due to life circumstances or the profile should be made more easily available.  I think the devil as always is in those pesky details but maybe the wish is to develop  the definition more fully and a more systematic process for opening up profiles that should be open.
I definitely agree!
That would also be very good.  Some of us that are active may desire to take over a profile if the Project Manager has become inactive.  So would also like to know procedure to make that request.
+17 votes
Location tied to sources, not people
by Jonathan Crawford G2G6 Mach 5 (53.1k points)
Could you expand on this?
People dont only live in one place for BMD events, every census or agricultural census or military muster or tax document is related to a place. We should track locations that way, as opposed to how we currently only attach a couple of locations directly to the profile.
Jonathan, are you saying you think we should have 'more' location fields, other than just the BMD, ie for Census, Tax, Land Records, etc?  If Census is in a '4th' location that differs from the other 3, you think we should have that information in a location field?

You are only born in one place, your parents may reside in a different location than where you were born, but the records will definitely be in the location where you were born.  Same with other items.
I am saying each type of record has a place attached to it. You find the census records by country, state, county, township, street address,  etc. The immigration happens at a place, the passenger lists have a port of call, taxes are filed for a particular location,  land records are for a particular place.

People move all over (some more than others). We shouldnt have a few locations tied to the people at all, we should have the locations tied to the source documents.
All of the other locations can be added with categories.
Not with a date too though. If you logged the location with the date of the source, you could easily see where and when someone lived. Thats a big change, admittedly, but much more informative.
That is what the biography is for.  To me the dates and information at the top is like an 'index' to the person.  The time and effort for a system to maintain that doesn't make sense, based on who and what is making the changes and maintaining it for the money we pay!!  We have enough trouble with the dates and locations that are entered now, without adding more location fields.
Thats fine, Linda, my wish on the list doesn't have to be yours.
As a database manager I strongly believe that much more data needs to be fielded. Use GRAMPS as an example. Each source is fielded which includes a location. WT needs to move away from putting data in the free text profile body. WT then could develope a clean format to display this information. The GEDCOM import could also be improved to support fielding this data. Using rules to get around missing fields is not good data management. E.g. only having a Birth field and no Baptism field, where the only record was the Baptism. GRAMPS has a long list of record events that can be chosen.
I understand and agree.  Locations are related to where a person is at a particular event.  They are not consistent durng a person's life.  Location tracking can lead to migration path understanding.  Some changed locations are elective and others are forced.  The belief that a birth record will be where the person was born  is not correct in all cases.  I have many situations where the person was born in one country but the record today is found in another and not in the location where the birth took place because records were moved to more central regional centers. France / Germany / Poland and some other European countries fall into this category in some areas.
One of my suggestions might be a ban on acronyms. Not the foggiest what GRAMPS are.
One of my suggestions might be a ban on acronyms. Not the foggiest what GRAMPS are.

Acronyms and initialisms should be spelt out on first mention, then the initialism can be used.  (I'm agreeing with you.)

It appears GRAMPS is for a software program: Gramps - Wikipedia

There are some acronyms that most genealogists would recognize and really don't need to be spelled out -- "GEDCOM" instead of "GEnealogical Data COMmunication", for example.
Point taken but there are limits...
I had similar difficulties with acronyms/abbreviations... the result:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:WikiTree%20Abbreviations%20&%20Acronyms
+30 votes
Here is my wish list for changes:
1. that profiles where you are the profile manager or where you are on the trust list, changes that have been made on the profile since you last visited it, are marked with a color.
2. removing the middle name; in many cultures there is no middle name, because all first names are equal and the bearer decides which one to use. Either one field for all first names or one for the first name used as a "call" name and one field for the other first names. Both fields should be directly below or next to each other on the edit page.
3. additional data fields for baptism and burial dates and corresponding location fields.
4. revision of the place fields; many real administrative assignments are not listed, many appear more than once, and there are also some incorrect assignments.
5. since in many areas an unambiguous administrative assignment to the respective time is not possible or very difficult, adding an additional field for the present assignment.
by Dieter Lewerenz G2G6 Pilot (483k points)
No, because the order is the one written on the birth certificate.
So then find the birth certificate or baptism
I have them all and the have between one and seven forenames and you know never what the call name is, That can even change. If you follow your argumentation you will have up to 10 children of the same parents with the same first name.
Never heard of that. Would you show me an example.

Father: Christoph Römer, mother: Anne Marie Kaiser

Children:

  • Johann Michael * 1755
  • Johann Christoph * 1758
  • Johann Andreas * 1760
  • Anna Maria * 1763
  • Johann Martin * 1765
  • Johann David * 1772
Father: Andreas Kaiser, mother: Anna Margaretha Franke
Children:
  • Anna Justina *1732
  • Anna Marie * 1730
  • Anna Margaretha *1732
  • Sophia Catharina *1735
  • Anna Dorothea * 1739
  • Andreas * 1743
  • Anna Magdalena * 1747
And that every generation, sometimes also with three first names
So their second name is their call name?

I agree about getting rid of the middle name field. It is unecessary in some countries and incorrect in others.

I  mostly deal with British records. No records differenciate between the first and subsequent forenames (or given names). There is no legal concept of a middle name, 'a person can have only one given name'. https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law. Mine is Helen Mary, in everyday usage I use just Helen but on birth and marriage certs,  passport, academic certs etc my full given name is used.

Unlike elsewhere in Europe,  there is  certainly an understanding of the concept of a middle name; in some eras a family surname was used as a given name and in everyday usage  my second forename is used as a middle name but that's catered for by the use of preferred name.  

It might be or not, that is why the middle name is not the´right way and also not the preferred name, because you don't know it.
See your point. Maybe an extra field should be added, some people in some countries have middle names so it is nice to have it there.
Jen Martin and Jean Jacques n Jean PierreandMaryAnnmri. arecommon compoud names.dEE  gERMAN NAME IN wIKIPEDIA
+37 votes

 

My Wishlist for 2021:
I believe a huge improvement would be a
Comprehensive Simplified Thoroughly Indexed
Table of Contents.

I don't believe this would be a policy change. 
Just a very simplified
Alphabetical Table of Contents.

 

by Loretta Corbin G2G6 Pilot (129k points)
That's a very helpful page, Linda. It is very difficult to locate a number of the official help pages because so much information is scattered.
Linda,

That is a very helpful page! I bookmarked it. :)

Thank you for sharing!
Frequently I Google what I am looking for and include wikitree and it will usually find the space page, project, help page, etc that I was looking for.

Glad you guys like the page.  Quite a few people kept coming up with ideas on what to include and editing it.  It was a lot of people, started out as Data Doctors, to help people to avoid Suggestions, but it kept growing.

I have to agree. I spend far too much time searching for "how do I ..." and never finding an answer. Things like templets, stickers and categories that I know have to exist I usually find on a profile where I accidentally stumble across them and copy them down so I can use them in the future on the profiles I create.

I think this would be very helpful. As a relatively new Wikitreer, I have sometimes found it quite difficult to locate information. Wikitree learning is definitely spiral (from an educational designers point of view).
Loretta, sounds like a good idea!!  Perhaps you could start such a free space project (since it is your idea and you know how you would like it laid out) and maybe recruit a few other wikitreers who like the idea to help with various sections, like help or categories.  A 'simplified' list will be just the first page and is going to need links to other pages that will give more detail. Make it a Project with team members in charge of various sections so you have some control in organizing it.   (I started my own index of categories but haven't finished it.  It could be incorporated into your Project but probably needs oversight by the folks that manage categories.)   So WikiTree is all about collaboration; lets see if we can help Loretta get a Simplified Index!

Janie,

This rough and not complete by any stretch of the imagination. It is a combination of Free Space Pages (members helping members), Help pages, Category pages. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this (good, bad or indifferent)

Table of Contents

I think your Table of Contents is wonderful!!  It will probably only be added to when someone mentions being unable to find something.  I have put it on my links to remember cheat sheet!  And I need to explore it some more.  

I just found a new-to-me space page explaining purpose and layout of top-level categories: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Category_Tree_Level_1.  There are likely a whole series of explanatory pages like this.
Thank you Janie, I will add it to the page.
Thank you Edie!
+13 votes

Research checklist - Jamie, I see you have this in your Trello as a possible future item, something like this, maybe, except you were thinking an app?

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Research_Worksheet_Template

by Jonathan Crawford G2G6 Mach 5 (53.1k points)
+32 votes
When profiles are created for people with either date over 100 years ago, I wish that the default messages would not show or allow 'personal knowledge' or 'sources to be added later'.  It would make our tree so much healthier.
by Linda Peterson G2G6 Pilot (451k points)
When there are a number of Wikitreers (I am one) who personally knew people who were born in the late 1800s, and could legitimately say they had personal knowledge of the person, maybe 100 years is a bit soon.

My grandparents were born in the 1890s, and I knew them -- Grandma more than Granddad, but I still knew them.  My parents-in-law from the first time around were born more than 100 years ago, as well.  I sure knew them.  Any Wikitreer who was born in the 1930s and1940s will likely have personally known people born more than 100 years ago.

I dislike that as an only "source", so I understand the desire to see it go, but how can it when it can be legitimate.  Maybe figure out the birth decade of the oldest registered member, and go x years back from them -- making a presumption that they knew their grandparents?  But, then, what about those people who knew their great-grandparents?  My cousins kids' kids did - and those kids were born in the last 30 years.
Melanie, my oldest grandparents were born in 1889 (two of them), and I did know them.  But I wasn't present at their births, nor their deaths, nor the births of their children...

So how can my personal knowledge really be adequate to document their profiles?  Of course, I can write of them, and of my impressions.  But that isn't the kind of hard data that people need to document profiles.
The "personal knowledge" option already is restricted to people born 100 years ago (well, technically 102 years because of a hardcoded date, but that will be fixed at some point).

The tree option is available for post-1700 profiles.

The "sources added later" option was a request by some of the more active WikiTreers who didn't want to make up a quick source so they could save the profile before going to the edit screen to write a full bio. Also, since we require something in that box, without that option people that don't want to source would just put any random thing in there and the profile wouldn't be marked with the unsourced template. This option is the same thing as adding no source at all, so there isn't a reason to restrict that option by date. And if someone is abusing the option, that's what the Honor Code and problem with members process is for.
Jamie, I have seen the personal knowledge on plenty of profiles of people born in early 1800s and 1700s, so possibly that is a change that has been made at some time after some profiles were created.  G2G has had that comment many times.
There was a bug that would still let people use that option if they entered the date in a certain format, but it was fixed last year.
That seems nice of you that you wanted to be accomodating, but seems like it introduced a gap in the requirement for a source? Is that still in the code, and if so, Ill add a wishlist to take it out...
Sources are still required.
I would like to have the 'sources will be added later' removed completely.  I have yet to find someone on WT who has remembered they were going to add sources.
It should simply be the Unsourced template. That will list the profile in the Find menu and can hopefully be used in further searches.
I second what Ros said.  I appreciate that the intention of the shortlist of suggested sources ("Unsourced family tree handed down to" and "Source will be added by") is to make it easier for people new to genealogy or to WikiTree to make a start on their family tree, but I think it would be a lot better to direct them to a good help page on sourcing that has examples of the kind of sourcing we actually want them to use, instead of encouraging them to create profiles quickly that aren't properly sourced.

Personal knowledge is valid when it is explained.  By that I mean it has to contain how you know the person,  if you got the information in an interview or how you know it.   An example might be:  Joe was my Grandfather.  I lived with him for the first 6 years of my life.  I knew him and spoke with him at least weekly until he died in 1988.  That gives context and proves you are a real source.  Just saying personal information does not.  

Another example might be:   I met my 4th cousin when she came into town in 1990. We had emailed about genealogy for 2 years before that.  When we met we went over details for this person.  She had grown up with him as her first cousin and had many fond memories of him.  This is entered from notes I took at this meeting on May 6, 1990.   So a note like that may be left on a 3rd party profile but it also gives context.   The idea is that if you have personal knowledge it is valid as a source only if how you know it is explained.  

+22 votes

Since you asked--I would like to see the  new restrictive G2G rules relaxed.  Just as one example, it does not seem reasonable to say "don't criticize anyone."  There are plenty of times criticism is warranted.  We should be adult enough to deal with reasonable arguments.

 

In the spirit of Christmas, I ask that no one flag my post.

by Julie Kelts G2G6 Pilot (320k points)
If you want to criticize someone, it can be done as a private message.  It doesn't have to be done in G2G, which is supposed to be a 'friendly' area to help others
Often the issues are of general interest.  "Criticizing" one person privately doesn't accomplish the larger objective.
I think there needs to be a differentiation made between CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, and DESTRUCTIVE criticism.

As the rules are currently, neither is allowed, whereas constructive should be.
Melanie, I agree. I am always open to Constructive Criticism.
Many of us have given up on G2G because of the new restrictive rules.  Not that it matters, because there are always more people to take our place.  I dropped by for the first time in a couple of months, so I'm glad this is still being discussed.

I think you should never criticize a person on G2G.  But I think it should be perfectly reasonable - and even desirable - to be able to criticize the substance of a contribution, provided you supply a rationale supporting your critique.

I welcome all constructive criticism because I want to improve my techniques and learn more. We can all find nice and polite ways to suggest improvements to others. I also agree that we should not criticize people per se, just actions. Most of us are trying to do the best that we can.
+31 votes

When a profile is created for someone born > 150 years ago/died >100 years ago do not allow "unsourced family tree handed down.." as a source 

When a profile is created using "unsourced family tree...", add the Unsourced research notes box

When a profile is created do not allow something less than 10 characters as a source.

When a profile is created do not allow the manager name-#### or firstname lastname or firstname currentlastname as the source 

by Kay Knight G2G6 Pilot (382k points)
Absolutely! "Unsourced family tree handed down..." drives me crazy. I'm sure that a lot of people use that option just so that they don't get the unsourced template added and, if they really are just copying out an old tree they found in a drawer, it's pretty likely that the early ancestors will be dodgy.
A source that is greater than 10 characters is already required in the source box when you create a profile, otherwise, the box turns red and the "blank source" options pop up.

I use this as the default option when adding a profile.  I then use the research tools to add the initial sources.  I don't use "Sources will be added" option as that adds the "Unsourced Tag" to the profile, and I always forget to remove it after adding the sources. smiley

+27 votes
Adopting profiles:

Require Pre-1500 certification to adopt Pre-1500 profiles

Limit bulk adoptions to not more than 200 (or a reasonable number) of profiles at once, and no more than X in 48 hours

Limit adoptions to no more than 2 profiles if the PM has more than N suggestions for the profiles that they manage
by Kay Knight G2G6 Pilot (382k points)
I am pretty sure there is something in the pipeline about not allowing adoptions of the Pre-1500 and Pre-1700 unless certified.  

If suggestion list is over ## OR if Watchlist is over ##, shouldn't allow adoptions, create profiles with or without Gedcom!!  Unfortunately, they would probably just orphan the ones with suggestions so they can do more damage!!
People may be adopting profiles with existing suggestions in order to correct and improve.
Yes to the requirement to have pre-1500 certification before adopting pre-1500 profiles.
Yes, pleeeeeeeease! I have been asking for this for years now.
I adopted a lot of profiles that I am slowly working on.  By adopting them I feel that at least they are being watched and less issues happen with them.  If they are just sitting there in an orphaned state they are not getting looked at weekly even to determine if I am ready to work on this one yet?   I had 1 or maybe 2 suggestions before I adopted these. It jumped up to over 11,000 when I adopted them.  I have a little over 8,500 left.  I try to do some each week.  Some weeks I get more than 100 done.  All of them have ties to surnames in my lines.  After I fix them with decent sources or if I can't find decent sources I indicate where I researched them if they are not ited to my line but just share the surname I re-orphan them but in hopefully much better shape. If someone who is family to me contacts me I offer to turn them over to them.  If the concensus is that you think this is a bad practice I will go in and orphan all of them back.  But then who will be looking at them each week to determine which ones can be effectively worked on?   Some are on hold because of location questions.  Some are common names with not enough data to figure out which of many this one is.  I keep looking for clues to help that as I look at surrounding family.  There is a process to dealing with orphaned profiles and I don't think quantity limits are necessarily a good answer.
Laura, I think you should do what works for you. You're making the effort to improve profiles, and I don't think anyone has a right to tell you there's a limit to how many you can adopt, or whether you should adopt before editing.
Laura. Good point. How could we differentiate between someone like you doing excellent work for the tree and those who adopt many then never work on them or those who adopt many but have nothing more than "sources will be added" or the source "ancestry.com" on the profiles they have created? This could be really hard to figure out.
Another note on this topic, When I adopt a profile I make sure it is in open status after I adopt it.  I want other family to contact e to work on it because the ones I adopt have surnames in my family line so the hope is it will bring more family together.  Sometimes we find a like like he Phips family and sometimes not.  But when you have family even distant family collaborating it is better because each of us may have different family line stories to share.
+21 votes
I would like to be able to check off the certainty boxes for birth and death locations, plus parent certainty etc when a profile is created.

It gets forgotten and the number of profile completeness suggestions goes up and up and up!
by M Ross G2G6 Mach 9 (98.2k points)
Yes please. This seems so sensible I continue to be surprised that you can't do it.
+23 votes
I wish that anyone joining had to build their own tree back to the year 1800, or 4-5 generations, fully & properly sourced, before they could do anything else. And have a review board go over it and then they'd get a graduation sticker and could then move on.

I also wish for world peace.
by Bobbie Hall G2G6 Pilot (180k points)
I'd also want a lock that stops people from adding more profiles if they are manager on more than, say, 10 that are unsourced.

... and world peace.
And what happens when a member adopts profiles related to their own family because they are unsourced? With the intent to properly source those profiles, would this mean the PM cannot create the missing people that would connect the unsourced profiles to existing connected profiles?

Re: first answer, sounds like a lot of work for the review board volunteers
It's a wish list, pie-in-the-sky, not a demand. I'm fantasizing. If they have more than X unsourced profiles, they'd need to work on sourcing them before moving on.
Some Sources for the children and spouse can be entered into one profile before actually creating the other profiles. It would help to limit the volume of unsourced profiles that we have on wikitree.
Some people have brick walls that prevent them building their own family back that far. Should they be excluded from doing anything else?
I'm not making a formal proposal, Leandra. It's a desire for better profile development at an earlier stage in a new member's career on WikiTree, before they move on to pre-1800 or pre-1700 profiles without the skills to really help. The amount of time spent fixing mistakes and doing merges and mentor time involved is massive. Time that would be better spent writing new biographies and sourcing old profiles.
See the vary large discussion thread on this very interesting idea.
I partially agree with this HOWEVER this would be almost impossible for me if I hadn't had one grandfather from England for whom I could research beyond a few generations. My three other Brazilian grandparents from impoverished areas and hard to reach sources would make WikiTree and learning genealogy inaccessible if we adopted this as a hard rule. I do some research for them and then work on other trees for fun.

I do agree that sourcing as far as reasonable for a tree given online accessibility should be looked at further.
I also wish for this. Unfortunately, my wishes on what should be do not correspond to what is possible to do. I simply cannot get beyond my paternal great grandfather Ceruti with genealogical tools. We have a number of theories about why this is true. The Y-DNA offers some insights but not the answers we want on WikiTree.

Perhaps I should re-word my idea, that one should endeavor to create their tree back to 1800, sourcing and documenting as well as possible. If one's own tree can't be created due to lack of records, or the ability to access records, then another path could be created, such as one of the orphan trails. I certainly don't mean to say that one couldn't participate on WikiTree without their own tree being fully developed (I do have a brick wall post-1800), but that we need to find a way to have our newbies learn the ropes before they go too deep, and have to be dug out. 

I am in absolute agreement with your wishes!
+14 votes

Better reports and charts:

  • Report for an individual profile 
  • Comprehensive family group sheet
  • Ahnentafel report for as many generations as desired
    • Version with all children in each family
    • Version with ancestors only
  • Register (descendants) report for as many generations as desired.
  • Ancestry charts to the desired generation
    • Fan charts
by George Fulton G2G6 Pilot (346k points)
Have you seen Greg Clarke's fan chart app? https://apps.wikitree.com/apps/clarke11007/fan.php
I have. It is a good start, but needs some refinement and polish. Why, for example, when I am logged in, does it have “private” for some profiles that I am either manager of or on the trusted list (I realize they have an elevated privacy level). I can seen the details of those profiles anywhere else.

I’m wholeheartedly with George on all of his suggestions, and I asked for one of these a couple of years ago. My FTM program creates excellent descendant (and ancestor) reports, and I would love to be able to do this on WikiTree. Reason: my database is hopelessly out of date and therefore useless for creating accurate reports. FTM includes biographies, notes sources, etc. Oh, what a boon to me if we could do this with WikiTree!

Kudos to you, George, for your ideas!!

+11 votes

1a.) DNA Descendant view: I reported a bug in the DNA descendants view earlier this year, and found out that it had been previously identified in 2018.  I am bringing this up again in the hopes that other WikiTreers will be able to provide additional data points to resolve this long-standing issue.

1b.) I also note that X chromosome information is automatically included with Y and mtDNA information.  I think it would be a good idea to have them in separate widgets, as it could reduce the load times and page lengths that are required when analyzing across a number of generations.

2.) Relationship Finder: When I use the Ancestor Explorer app, I am able to see my 25 lines of descent from Abraham Martin and Marguerite Langlois.  Unfortunately, I can only see one of them when using the Relationship Finder tool.  While I am impressed with the app and use it regularly, it would be great if this particular feature were incorporated into the broader website so that more community members could quickly and easily identify such instances of consanguinity in their ancestry.

by Greg Lavoie G2G6 Pilot (283k points)
Re: 1a, we finally figured out what was going on so it should be fixed soon.
Thanks for the update, Jamie.  I look forward to seeing the fix sometime soon.
Re: 1b, X-DNA information is automatically included with auDNA information. Some have expressed concern that DNA information takes up too much vertical space and if X-DNA information has it’s on section then DNA would take up even more space.  One solution is to have the DNA information in a scrollable box - similar to how there is a scroll box when in the edit mode for a profile.

Re 1b, I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here.  I'm referring to the inclusion of both mtDNA and X chromosome descendants (for women with descendants) and both X and Y chromosome descendants (for men with descendants) in the DNA Descendants widget.  

For example, the DNA descendants view of my direct maternal ancestor, Marie Sedilot, includes a large number of mtDNA descendants and an even greater number possible X chromosome descendants.  I'd like to have the option to just show the mtDNA descendants, as including X chromosome information makes for longer load times and a longer, more cluttered, descendant list that isn't fully relevant to what I'm searching for.

+24 votes
The only item on my wishlist would be that WikiTree  becomes more sensitive to, and inclusive of, those cultures around the world that did not document their family history through written sources.
by Rosalie Neve G2G6 Mach 6 (63.9k points)
I'm sorry I'm late to this conversation, but what would you suggest? Is it the fact that WikiTree prefers written documentation?
Yes it is. And where this is understandable for those cultures that had written documentation it excludes those that did not.

As an Aboriginal Australian I know that what is written about my ancestors did not start in vital records until 1908 even though registration of births deaths and marriages in New South Wales started in 1856.

If it was not for the oral history of who belonged to who that my father passed on to me from his grandmother my huge family of her parents children's descendants may never have found each other (dna results of connection aside).

Instead of dismissing oral history I would like to see a process of validating it. Because it is rarely closed information - it is passed down through multiple lines, there needs to be a way of showing that the majority of the collective the information is about support it as their understanding of their family history that is sharable in a public forum.
First Nations Aussies aren't the only ones to have long, involved, heavily substantiated oral histories.  Pakistanis do, many Indians (sub-continent) do, just to name two "non western" cultures.  

I absolutely support Rosalie's wish.
Actually, oral histories are acceptable sources on WikiTree and often contain valuable information we wouldn't have otherwise. If you look at the help page below under second-hand information, WikiTree provides a format for sourcing oral histories or recollections. Instead of "Personal Recollections" you could title it "Oral History" and give whatever source info you have. I think that would be tremendous. I use this format for sourcing family history that my mother has given me. She is 103 years old and no longer able to recall these things with any certainty, so I want to document this valuable info that will soon no longer be available.

 https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources

Thank you for that link Edie ( I will check it out) smiley

+7 votes
I don’t like all the genealogy websites(offsite) updates lately I thought it was me It Might Be but the graphics and sticky buttons ugh! The color schemes hurt my eyes. I like a good app and a site that has all these buttons and clickable lists. I feel more organized with everything in front of me I don’t like to-do lists so that’s probably why. I use my time online for what I know I can complete that very day. I prioritize errors and almost completed profiles.
by Anonymous Zapata G2G6 Mach 2 (20.6k points)
+8 votes
Connection Finder

#1) I would like to see the "Alternative View: Generational Path" draw the parent box above the child (not below the child) and the child box below the parent (not above the parent). (Note: it's on the to do list)

#2) Also, I would like to see an Alternative View in table format listing the complete birth and death date and place. This way I can quickly see the migration path and check for  any illogical connections (an accuracy check).

Columns: Degree | Name | Relationship | Birth | Death
by Tommy Buch G2G6 Pilot (145k points)
+11 votes
Eowyn:  'Thank you' for asking.  I want a 'thank you' clickable spot on each contributor's profile, where I can write-in a short 'extra' thanks.  As an example:  Many times I will find a bit of daylight within a Comment on an ancestor profile, go to that person's WikiTree profile, and have no-quick-way while there to write a brief thanks.
by Anonymous Britain G2G6 Mach 2 (24.8k points)
You can always write a short comment on any profile page.
And I prefer to never be thanked.
+44 votes
Every year I ask Wiki-Santa for a "follow" button on profiles.  If you click it, the profile is added to your feed; un-click and it stops appearing in your feed.  This feature would greatly increase the signal-to-noise ratio of feeds.  There is no good reason why a person should be "trusted list" in order to do this.  My current feed is not ideal.  If you "follow" a term like "Smith" or "Norway", the profiles that end up in your feed linked to those terms are mostly noise.
by Michael Schell G2G6 Mach 2 (27.1k points)
I have been asking this for soooo long.

It is really a Privacy issue as it is.

Why should a person's email address be shown to another WikiTreer just because they want to follow a profile? Everyone on the trusted list can see everyone else's email address - so essentially a person can no longer control who sees their email address once they are added to the trusted list. Sure, visibility is confined to people on the trusted list, but that may be more visibility than some people want to have.

Top idea Michael - I asked for it too, as an early Christmas present laugh

Great suggestions Jo--far more fleshed-out than mine.  I am not a Wikitree programmer, but I am having trouble believing that there is a technical hurdle to implementing this, and I'd be pleased to be code-'splained by experts why my belief is mistaken.

oh.  I would really like to follow some of the profiles I've sourced, at least for a little while.  There is room after the "This page has been accessed x times."  Follow.  Then if it is a toggle, clicking it a second time would unFollow.  In the drop-down menus could be a spot to click to see all the profiles 'being followed,' as in FollowList.  Oh, but then how would WikiTree know it is me that wants the profile on my FollowList?  So how-about next to "Explain your changes:" on the edit view?  There is room for a green-dot Follow.  Then on the FollowList there could be a spot to click unFollow.

Michael, Thank you.  Yes, I want this, too.

Being able to easily follow a profile without having to get on the trusted list would make me very happy.  Right now, the only other option seems to be to follow a surname, which if it is reasonably common, results in an overload of unrelated matches.  A "Follow" button would be ideal.
+26 votes

As 2021 is going to be the Year of Accuracy, I’d like to see three things already discussed implemented. 

  1. When Unsourced family tree handed down to....is chosen as the source on Open profiles, the Unsourced template is automatically added.
  2. The pre-1700 (or ideally pre-1800) quiz is completely re-worked so it is fit for purpose.
  3. There is an extra step added to be pre-1700/1800 certified. A designated project member is to check previous contributions and decide if sourcing is adequate before this certification is granted. (I’d be more than happy to step up and do this role, even though the only project I belong to has few profiles in these time periods.)
by Fiona McMichael G2G6 Pilot (157k points)
Great points!

Related questions

+20 votes
36 answers
+23 votes
40 answers
+21 votes
23 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...