Kiblers on WikiTree - annual report

Question

This report is part of a series from my project of tracking surnames from my immediate ancestors and those of my wife. In this report, I'm looking at people with the surname Kibler.

As of the beginning of the month, there were 539 profiles for people with a Last Name At Birth of Kibler listed on WikiTree. Of those, 24 had the {{Unsourced}} template applied, leaving 515 profiles (95.6%) at least supposedly sourced.

Also, 36 profiles were not connected to the main tree, leaving 503 profiles (93.3%) connected.

Out of all the deceased, non-fictional, people with Kibler as their Last Name At Birth listed on Wikipedia, none (0.0%) had profiles on WikiTree at the beginning of the month! But due to, oh, minutes of hard work and sweat, I can now report that 50% of the Kiblers from Wikipedia now have profiles on WikiTree, namely:

• Tom Kibler (Baseball player)

(It was a tough job, but someone had to do it. )

As it happens, there are no people with the surname Kibler listed on ThePeerage.com. That makes tracking Kiblers slightly easier.

Comments

Great work Greg!

Imagine if each of us took on a single surname from our own trees, followed your example and added the matching Wikipedia profiles to WikiTree, how greatly we could expand the Big Tree!

---

Yes, I have imagined that. It's an appealing thought. But people do what they want, and it's not my place to tell anybody but me what to do. (And, to be honest, even when I tell myself to do something, I usually don't do it. Then there's a big argument, and I get all mad, and it gets ugly, and then I sulk and won't speak to myself for days. )

---

In case anybody's interested, the oldest Kibler in our family tree is Louise Mary Kibler, who was born in Sheldon, New York on December 7, 1861. But the "brick wall" is her father, Jacob Kebler, who was born we-don't-know-where on August 12, 1835.

---

Greg, I just sent a DM to you about the Kibler line. Hope it helps!

Answer 1

As of Friday, there were 722 WikiTree profiles for people with Kibler as their Last Name At Birth. That's an increase of 51 profiles since the beginning of July last year.

I am introducing two more datasets this year. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission lists two war dead with a last name of Kibler. Thanks to a couple of Elves during last year's Secret Santa, both of those have WikiTree profiles (100%). The Veterans Legacy Memorial lists 227 veterans with a surname of Kibler. So far, I have found three with WikiTree profiles (1.3%). Wikipedia has entries for four Kiblers. Of those, there are two living people, leaving a net of two deceased notable Kiblers. Both of those have profiles on WikiTree (100%).

The percentage of all Kibler profiles on WikiTree that are connected to the main tree increased slightly from 92.1% to 92.4% since the beginning of last July. The percentage of Kibler profiles from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Veterans Legacy Memorial, Wikipedia, and our family tree that are connected to the main tree currently stand at 50%, 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively.

I am no longer going to put up charts showing connection status (except possibly for the surnames with the smallest number of profiles) because the number of profiles is so huge that even relatively large changes in the number of profiles at each connection status don't result in visible changes in the charts.

The percentage of profiles from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Veterans Legacy Memorial, and Wikipedia with links back to that person's entry on that other site stand at 100%, respectively.

The percentage of profiles for Kiblers from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Veterans Legacy Memorial, and Wikipedia and our family with images on them currently stand at 0%, 0%, 0% and 29.6%, respectively.

Comments

Of the 722 Kibler profiles on WikiTree, 21 are currently marked as unsourced, leaving an improbably high 701 profiles (97.1%) at least supposedly sourced. The percentage of Kibler profiles from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Veterans Legacy Memorial, Wikipedia, and our family trees with at least one primary source currently stand at 100%, 66.7%, 100%, and 100%, respectively.

The average sourcing level for profiles from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Veterans Legacy Memorial, Wikipedia, and our family trees currently stand at 2.5, 1.5, 1.0 and 2.7, respectively.

Among "tallied" profiles (those from  the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Veterans Legacy Memorial, Wikipedia, and our family trees), the number of profiles with no primary sources (level 0.5), one primary source (level 1), and with two primary sources (level 2) have each increased by one since last July. The number with three or more primary sources (level 3) has increased by two.

The percentage of all Kibler profiles on WikiTree which are partially sourced barely shows as a thin light orange line in the chart. For the tallied profiles, I depend on the counts in my spreadsheet, where I assign sourcing levels as I check the profiles. For WikiTree as a whole, I depend on WikiTree to get a count of profiles with the {{Unsourced}} template, and WikiTree+ (thank you, Aleš!) to get a count of profiles with the appropriate [[Category:Location,_Needs_More_Records]] category applied. But because both templates and categories are applied manually, there are a ton of profiles to which they should be applied, but haven't been yet. So that's why the tallied profiles show as a littler over 70% "fully sourced", while all profiles show as over 95% "fully sourced". (This is one big reason why I keep saying that such-and-such a percentage of profiles on WikiTree is "supposedly" sourced.) As the appropriate [[Category:Location,_Needs_More_Records]] categories and the {{Unsourced}} template get applied to more Kibler profiles where they're needed, both lines should get more visible. That might seem like going backwards, but it would actually be progress, because the numbers would more accurately reflect the state of Kibler profiles. (Of course, sourcing those profiles which are unsourced or partially sourced, but aren't marked that way, would be better still, but even if you can't find any sources, marking the profiles appropriately would alert Sourcerers to profiles where their efforts are needed.)

---

Answer 2

Sounds like you had fun -- you deserve a cookie!

Answer 3

As of today, there were 570 profiles for people with a Last Name At Birth of Kibler listed on WikiTree, for an increase of 32 profiles. Of those, 15 had the {{Unsourced}} template applied, leaving 555 profiles (97.4%) at least supposedly sourced. Also, 33 profiles were not connected to the main tree, leaving 537 profiles (94.2%) connected.

Answer 4

As of the beginning of this month, there were 603 profiles with Kibler as the Last Name At Birth listed on WikiTree. Of those, 15 had the {{Unsourced}} template applied, leaving 591 profiles (97.5%) at least supposedly sourced. Also, 41 profiles were not connected to the main tree, leaving 565 profiles (93.2%) connected. (This puts the Kiblers in fourth place, in terms of being connected to the main tree, out of the 31 surnames that I am currently tracking.)

Answer 5

As of the beginning of this month, there were 612 profiles for people with a Last Name At Birth of Kibler listed on WikiTree. That's a gain of 9 over the beginning of last month.

There are four people with Kibler as their last name at birth listed on Wikipedia. Two of them are alive (and long my they stay so), leaving two deceased notable Kiblers. Both of those now have profiles on WikiTree.

Of the 612 Kibler profiles on WikiTree, 24 had the {{Unsourced}} template applied, leaving 588 profiles (96.1%) at least supposedly sourced. This is down slightly over the beginning of last month, as while I was working through open Kibler profiles, trying to source them, I applied the {{Unsourced}} template to some profiles which don't have any sources, and for which I couldn't find any sources myself.

The sourcing level of the Kiblers from our Watchlist rose slightly over the course of the month. Those Kiblers now have an average of 2.5 primary sources (birth, christening, census, military, marriage, death, or burial records) each, up from 2.3 at the beginning of last month. (The goal is to have at least 3 primary sources on each profile.) The notable Kiblers from Wikipedia are steady at 1 primary source each.

Also, 42 profiles were not connected to the main tree, leaving 570 profiles (93.1%) connected. This is a net increase of one unconnected Kibler over the course of the month.

Answer 6

As of last Saturday, there were 655 WikiTree profiles for people with Kibler as their Last Name At Birth. That's an increase of 25 profiles since the beginning of January.

Wikipedia has entries for four Kiblers. Of those, two are living, leaving two deceased notable McNairs. Both of those (100%) have WikiTree profiles. (This will probably be the last time I post this chart, unless another Kibler gets added to Wikipedia.)

The percentage of connected Kibler profiles from Wikipedia and from our watchlists remained steady at 50% and 100%, respectively. The percent of all Kibler profiles on WikiTree that are connected to the main tree decreased slightly from 93.1% to 92.4%.

The number of Kibler profiles which are connected to the main tree increased by 21 since January, while the number of profiles not connected to the main tree but linked to at least one other profile increased by four, and the number of profiles not linked to any other profile remained the same.

Both Kibler profiles from WikiTree link back to that person's Wikipedia entry, and have since they were created, so I'm going to skip the chart, because straight lines are boring.

Currently, none of the Kibler profiles from Wikipedia (0%) and eight of the profiles from our watchlists (29.6%) have images on them.

Comments

Of the 655 Kibler profiles on WikiTree, 24 are currently marked as unsourced, leaving an improbably high 631 profiles (96.3%) at least supposedly sourced. Both Kiblers listed in Wikipedia and all the from our watchlists have at least one primary source (100%).

The sourcing level for Kiblers from Wikipedia remains at 1.0. The sourcing level for Kiblers from our watchlists increased from 2.5 to 2.7.

The number of "tallied" profiles (profiles from Wikipedia and our watchlists) with three or more primary sources (level 3) increased from 12 to 23 since last March. The number of profiles with two primary sources increased from zero to one. The number of profiles with one primary source decreased from six to five.

The percentage of "tallied" profiles and WikiTree as a whole which are partially sourced doesn't even show in the chart, because no Kibler profiles have the "Needs More Records" category applied. As they do, this line should become visible, and as the {{Unsourced}} template gets applies to more Kibler profiles where it's needed, the darker orange line should get thicker as well.)

Answer 7

As of July 3, there were 671 WikiTree profiles for people with Kibler as their Last Name At Birth. That's an increase of 16 profiles since the beginning of June. Wikipedia has entries for four Kiblers. Of those, there are two living people, leaving a net of two deceased notable Kiblers. Both of those (100%) have profiles for on WikiTree, and have had since February 2022, so I'm going to skip the chart this time.

The percentage of Kibler profiles from Wikipedia and from our family tree that are connected to the main tree have remained steady since February, 2022 at 50% and 100%, respectively. The percentage of all Kibler profiles on WikiTree that are connected decreased slightly from 92.4% to 92.1% due to the addition of new, unconnected profiles. The change isn't really visible in the chart, so I'm skipping it, too.

The number of Kibler profiles connected to the main tree has increased by 13 since the beginning of June. The number of profiles that are linked to at least one other profile but not connected to the main tree increased by three. The number of unlinked profiles remained steady at 17. Again, the changes aren't really visible in the chart.

The percentage of profiles from Wikipedia with links back to that person's Wikipedia article stand at 100%, and have since July 2021, so I'm skipping the chart, because straight lines are boring.

The percentage of profiles for Kiblers from Wikipedia and our family with images on them remain at 0% and 29.6%, respectively, as they have since June 2021. So again, no chart.

Comments

Of the 671 Kibler profiles on WikiTree, 23 are currently marked as unsourced, leaving an improbably high 648 profiles (96.6%) at least supposedly sourced. The percentage of Kibler profiles from Wikipedia and our family trees with at least one primary source both stand at 100%. Once again, the change is nearly invisible in the chart, so let's just take it as read, shall we?

The average sourcing level for Kibler profiles from Wikipedia and our family tree are unchanged at 1.0 and 2.7, respectively. No change, no chart.

Among "tallied" profiles (those from ThePeerage.com, Wikipedia, and our family tree), the number of profiles at each level has remained steady since last the beginning of June, but at least you can see a difference you can see a difference between one month of level numbers and the previous slow improvement.

The percentage of "tallied" profiles and WikiTree as a whole which are partially sourced barely shows as a thin light orange line. (As the appropriate "Needs More Records" category gets applied to more Kibler profiles, this line should get more visible, and as the {{Unsourced}} template gets applies to more Kibler profiles where it's needed, the darker orange line should get thicker as well.)

---