Add links to your Space page on profiles [closed]

+11 votes
978 views
Uncover Your Roots: Enhance Your Ancestors' Legacy with Wikitree's Space Pages. Bring the Past to Life with Rich Histories of Places, Houses, and Historical Events. Add a Personal Touch by Linking Your Ancestors' Profiles to Relevant Pages and Share Their Stories with the World.

I usually add a link at the top of the page.  Like so:

''See also:'' [[Space:Johnson_County_Arkansas|Johnson County, Arkansas]]
closed with the note: I think we have exhausted discussion. Thank you everyone for your feedback.
in The Tree House by Jimmy Honey G2G6 Pilot (217k points)
closed by Jimmy Honey
"See Also" links go at the bottom of the page, after ==Sources==
<references/>
You're thinking of sources. Links can be anywhere in the biography. I add links to Wikipedia all the time, so you can explore more detail information on a subject.

For example, I might say something like "Henry abandoned his farm when the dust bowl began to make farming impossible." I might add a link to the word dust bowl, so the user can click on it and get more information on the subject.

I also use links when I mention another user, so that the user can click on the person's name and go to their profile page. Again, I might mention "Henry served under General George Washington" and add a link to allow users to click on General George's name and go to his profile.

Links are not limited to sources, and that is what I am trying to get people to think about. Links is the way we drive traffic to other pages. The more pages are accessed, the more likely they will show early in a search engine request, which brings more traffic to Wikitree.

Wouldn't it make more sense to reference the space page from the biography? As in Solomon's subsection on settled in Cayuga County... https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Woodworth-1688

Yes, you can, and I have done this before, but it depends on the emphasis you want to place on a link on where or how you use it.
It's helpful to link to free-space profiles that add relevant information value to a person's profile, but these links do not belong at the top of (nor above) the  Biography section. (There is WikiTree guidance on this topic.)

And we should be judicious about what we link to. Limit this to pages that have content that is truly relevant. Pages about a particular town should be mentioned at the top of the Category page for the town, and profiles of the people who loved in that town should be placed in that category. Additional links may be appropriate if the town is an important part of the person's life (maybe they were a  founder of the town, for example), and in-context links can be valuable, but the focus of a person's profile should be the person.

I reviewed the guidance and found nothing on the subject. I would refer you to Help:Adding Links (wikitree.com). on the usage of links. If I'm violating some rule on this page, please bring it to my attention.

The relevant guidance is in Help:Biographies. I'm not posting a link because I'm using my phone, and G2G does not have the technical capability for pasting links from my phone (this is a peculiarity of G2G).

Here is the link 

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

and you can use the BioCheck app to find profiles with style or source issues 

I looked by the biography recommendations, and it was silent on the issue, and referred you to the links page. You may be talking about the reference for proper order for section headings, and it gives an example of "see also: header for acknowledgments".

But we are not talking about text sections or headers. We are referring to links.  Most of this page is recommendations, the only required part is the section for

== Biography ==

== Sources ==

<references />

I would also refer you to the style page, where it says we don't usually use the word "forbidden" when talking about style rules. and that "there is wiggle room here, intentionally. Pioneers who experiment with new methods may discover ways of doing things that are ultimately adopted by the entire community."

Again, the only "required" part on the biography page is the part I mentioned above.  The rest of the page deals with recommendations and best practices. These are not requirements, they are just that recommendations and best practices.

I would say we need to lean in more to the pioneer spirit. I have read a lot of criticism where some users leave because of the strict interpretation of rules. Especially where it does not exist or is not stated implicitly.
There is supposed to be nothing above the Biography heading except for maintenance templates and project boxes. Yes, some profiles deviate from the standards, but your post here is (in effect) a recommendation that everyone should start being creative in disregard of the standards.
Is nothing I quoted from the biography page, style rules, or link page applicable? I find this hard to believe. Why was it put in there and written this way?
Help:Biographies shows "See Also" in its proper place.
I don't see any point in continuing this conversation if we can't agree on the meaning of terms. There is no way to reach a consensus.

"recommendation", "we do not forbid", "wiggle room is intentional", "to allow experimentation".

We all have different interpretations of the meaning of these words.
Thanks Ros, for the attempt at best answer, but Jimmy wants only his way, not the recommendations.

2 Answers

+8 votes
The https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Biographies#Proper_order section shows the order of items. See Also items are at the bottom of Sources section. It shows those few items that go above Biography Header.

 Links can be placed wherever 'else' in a profile, I think, but not above Biography header. That is not where people look for things. You are giving it less visibility above Biography Header.  If you are want someone to check out a space page, enclose it in a sentence in the bio or add to sources or See also,  There has been done recent discussions about placement order of items above Biography Header. If you want guidance on whether your idea of placing links above Biography is valid, that should probably be a title for a separate question.

Many people add links in profiles for locations, Wikipedia articles, etc but See Also is specified at end of Sources.
by Linda Peterson G2G6 Pilot (876k points)
I agree it shows the order, and these are recommendations or best practices. They are not rules.

"Here is the recommended order for text sections and other elements:"

Recommendations are not rules, they are guidance to help you, not hinder you. And again, we are talking about links, not sections.
There is a reason for styles & standards, recommendations and best practices. If we all start getting "creative" there is no uniformity to our profiles and it becomes the wild west, and every profile layout will look different. Do we want that? Maybe you do, but I don't. We need some consistency across the site. If you apply your "creativity" to other members profiles, there will be conflict.
I agree there is a reason for styles and standards. No one has proposed to eliminate them. To disregard them or make radical changes to the concept. At the same time, there are reasons why the styles say we do not forbid. We intentionally put wiggle room to allow users flexibility to try new things.

If there are no exceptions, and we do not want anyone to be creative or experimenting (as you say).  Then we need to remove the word recommendation and say the proper order is indicated below, and any other order is a violation of the rules and standards.

And then we need to modify the styles page to say that if a rule is stated as mandatory or required, the user must follow that rule. There are no exceptions, because this may cause conflict later if team members do not follow the rule. If a rule is stated as a recommendation or best practice, the user may experiment or collaborate with the community.

Otherwise, it will lead to conflict and people leaving the site (see https://www.gensoftreviews.com/?p=1247). You have your interpretations, and I respect that, but simultaneously you ignore the parts that you don't want to acknowledge that would allow differences you do not like or chose not to do.

Recommendations are not a way to say something is required. I have never encountered anyone, anywhere, who believed a recommendation was mandatory, before. To avoid conflict, we need clear, concise language for everyone.

Is anything I'm saying unreasonable?

Help:Biographies says:

  • If the narrative is particularly long, you can include a one or two paragraph summary. This should be above the Biography heading and should not have a subheader of its own.

What Jimmy is doing can be viewed as an enhancement within the spirit of that stylistic approach.

There is already refreshing diversity of style across different profiles developed by different people. As Jimmy says, the style rules acknowledge the value of pioneering ideas which may turn out beneficial to adopt widely. There are better ways of improving WikiTree appearance (for example, cleaning old GEDCOM cruft or adding biographies to empty orphaned profiles) than worrying about styles active members may like on profiles they manage.

It sounds like you ARE proposing for people to not follow the recommendations. There is a reason for the recommendations so people know where to look for sources and references in a profile.  

With a site like this, that is collaborative, we would be citing 90% of the profiles as being in violation if we were to do that.  A large portion of profiles are not sourced and they should be sourced.  The 'strong' recommendation and 'honor code' states that profiles will be sourced, so yes, it does lead to conflict when profiles are not sourced.

As far as Gensoftreviews, like any review site, will always have more negative than positive.  Have you looked at reviews for ancestry?  Everyone can always find fault with any website or software app. How many people post positive reviews for something they purchased or a site that they use?  Most people do not. 

Jim, Key word there is 'that YOU manage'
I'm telling people recommendations are suggestions. To your second point, I'm just the opposite. I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I'm offering suggestions.  

For your third point, I agree with you. But I want to be inclusive.
I don't understand what you mean by keyword.
Sourcing is crucial. Style is icing on the cake. Let's prioritise what's really important, and not sweat the small stuff. Overdoing that may demoralise enthusiastic contributors.
@Jim Richardson, I think that's an excellent way of looking at: in summary form, write a brief narrative; something like "Person X was very accomplished. Following are some profile pages that highlight their impact:"

* [[FSP 1| URL Widget|FSP Description)]

* etc.

Stylistically, standardize on a summary narrative, but don't use "See also:"
See Also is used for sources / sites that are not used within the biography, but may have other information about the person, so there are plenty of reasons for using See Also.

Ancestry / family trees are another example to be put into the See Also section.

Jim said 'active members may like on profiles they manage'  

If you want to do something on profiles that YOU manage that is one thing, but making a change to profiles that you do not manage is where you can cause conflicts. 

Linda, Porter is suggesting an alternative or compromise to Jimmy's use of "See also" above the Biography header, not eliminating it below the Sources header.
Linda wrote: "If you want to do something on profiles that YOU manage that is one thing..."

I agree. Jimmy is not suggesting changing profiles managed by others as far as I can see. He's mentioning a method he has developed for profiles he manages. Let's respect his choice to use that.
+1 vote
Let's please close this comment and move on.
by Jimmy Honey G2G6 Pilot (217k points)

Jimmy, if you wish you can close the question with the close link just below it. That will prevent further answers, but additional comments will still be possible. Nonetheless it helps to indicate your wishes. Hiding the whole question and thread is a possible but more extreme step.

Related questions

+10 votes
3 answers
322 views asked Feb 10, 2023 in The Tree House by Jimmy Honey G2G6 Pilot (217k points)
+7 votes
3 answers
369 views asked Jan 24, 2023 in The Tree House by Jimmy Honey G2G6 Pilot (217k points)
+10 votes
0 answers
222 views asked Feb 8, 2023 in The Tree House by Jimmy Honey G2G6 Pilot (217k points)

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...