Why add sub headings in text about info already in profile data?

Question

On a profile there is data about birth, marriages, death, siblings, children.

On some profiles, users then create sub headings for

 === Marriages ===, === Siblings ===, === Children ===

Should this be encouraged, discouraged, or ignored?

It is good to also have that data in a biography where you can attach sources, but having sub sections without sources seems like a waste of time.

Comments

Sometimes it's from a gedcom import.  Sometimes it is the profile manager's preference.

---

Thanks Melanie, What caught my attention is when it is the preference of users for profiles they don't manage.

---

Oh, in that case - if someone adds such to profiles I manage, I remove them.
I would not add such to a profile I do not manage, unless it was already the "style" used in the biography.

---

I agree with you Peter, it's a waste of time and bandwidth and storage capacity just to replicate data that's already in the data section without adding any value.  I do understand the value of adding lists of siblings or children in a Bio when you have not yet profiled those people, but want to retain a record of the full family structure until you or someone else gets back to it.  I wouldn't be inclined to discourage that.

---

Thanks Dennis, I second your point about adding lists of siblings or children in a bio when they don't yet have profiles.

---

While I agree w/ you regarding redundancy, I think it best to ignore. Who is to say what is a waste of time if it brings pleasure to someone else. I Wiki b/c my fishing buddies are either dead or busy working. My wife thinks everything I do is a waste of time if it doesn't remove something from her honey-do list so she can add something else. The real question is, what's biting in the Bahamas?

---

Excellent points K! Thanks.

---

I believe it to be a good idea to add (and retain) a list of children, with their profile ID-#'s once they have profiles, in case of future detachment.  For the same reason I will edit in parent, or other related WT-ID#s when the person has a profile.

---

I do this as much for G2G as I do for connecting people to history. I learned a long time ago that people are more inclined to do things their way, for whatever reason, but mostly, just because.

---

@Melanie. "I believe it to be a good idea to add (and retain) a list of children, with their profile ID-#'s once they have profiles, in case of future detachment." Absolutely! 

---

I agree that lists of children (separated by spouse) are useful even after the children have their own profiles that are already linked. Presenting names in a list (preferably followed by birth and death dates) makes it easier to see each name than when they appear in an single line one after another. It also makes it easier to see the sequence of children. And for children who do not yet have profiles or are not yet linked, it is really helpful to see the names.

Answer 1

I agree with Jillaine, in that the data needs to be repeated, in some fashion, so that citations for that data can be shown. 

However, subheadings should only be used if the underlying subsection is large enough to warrant it. A sentence or two is usually not enough to warrant creating a subsection underneath the Biography. There needs to be enough substance, or complexity to make having subsections useful. Otherwise it's just more hierarchical organization for its own sake and it doesn't contribute to understanding, and actually reduces readability.

The problem is that it's difficult to create guidelines beyond what I just said. Each profile should be evaluated on its own. But personally, I am biased against creating subheadings unless it is really clear that having them actually helps with the narrative.

Comments

There is, or was, a help page that clearly delineated that section headers should be used generally only when the section is large enough with ‘large enough’ approximating a screenful or more (as screen sizes vary, that is still a  quantum open to interpretation). Apologies for not linking to that page but I am on the road …

---

Ditto, what Jillaine said ... of course.

Depending on your level of genealogy OCD, once you introduce a subheader to a section, you may find the need to continue adding subheaders to keep the information organized in a logical fashion.  

I don't add subheaders under the biography for birth, death, parentage or marriage. Recently on profiles I create or adopt and update, I have begun combining all of those claims in a subsection called "Genealogical Summary." (Somewhat my own take on "Genealogically Defined.")

Generally, I work to build a child list on the profile. I call that subsection, "Family."

If I have a will, I'll usually create a subsection appropriately named (Will, or maybe Probate).

I usually don't create subsections under "Research Notes." Rather, I use a bolded lead to distinguish between different topics.

Edited to add more explanation to "Genealogical Summary."

Answer 2

Until Wikitree supports citing sources for data fields, it's necessary to repeat the data in the narrative so that one can cite the sources for each piece of data.

Comments

True, but when a biography is only a sentence each for birth, marriage, and death, adding the == Birth == etc. subheaders doesn't contribute anything to readability or navigation.

---

Sharon, I *think* that the === Birth === etc headers that you're seeing are a now-obsolete formatting option from how WikiTree used to handle GEDCOM uploads.

More often than not, such profiles are either orphaned, or their profile managers abandoned the profiles long ago and are no longer active. (Not always, but often.)

When that's the case, and I happen upon such profiles, I will often reformat the bio to a much simpler narrative, without the headers.

Answer 3

I've seen this being done under Sources header, where the sources get repeated (or listed, depends if there are in-line citations or not), really detracts from the appearance of the finished product in my view.  

I've also seen where somebody is creating ALL the family, and on each sibling they add the list of siblings as well as marriages and children, (where applicable) with inline sources for all, which is an extreme repetition of data as when you have a dozen or more siblings, it's very long.  Using these same headers, although not repeating them.

Answer 4

I used subheadings in this profile:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Gavin-579

I felt there was complexity to the relationships that couldn't be adequately covered any other way. Things like:

* His father's first wife was his maternal aunt, so their child was both his half sister and his first cousin.

* His second wife had the same first and last name as his father's first wife but was no relation

* A child born to his first wife during the period they were married was acknowledged in court as someone else's child

You could figure out all out by viewing the profiles, but I felt it was helpful to have it documented and without headings/segments I was getting into a right wall of complex text.

...looking at the profile now, my fingers are itching to go back and switch to in-line sources. A project for this evening.

Answer 5

Ignored is the correct answer. One other thing that you seem to be missing the point on is Census data. Each to their own I guess but using sub-headings is my personal style and I won't have it interfered with. With regard to sub headings on profiles of which I am not the profile manager this will happen frequently where I have logged an entry from Find A Grave and then worked on it to provide more information and subsequently abandoned the profile when I have gone as far as I can go. What someone does with it when they later adopt it I could nor care less about. (Could care less for Americans)

You also miss the point that the bio is the synopsis of the data. It is the whole story and can quite reasonably contain siblings, children and definitely marriages. See Jillaine's answer and Melanie Paul's comment.

I think more importantly it is not against WikiTree style so hands off!

My computer system is set up to format genealogy information in the sub-heading style and frankly I don't see why I should change that just because you think it is irrelevant. It is not, to me.

ETA: Typos

Comments

There is another reason. Without any subheadings there is an extremely quick reference TOC.

Answer 6

I have done it on a handful of profiles.  It generally doesn't add value.  But it is worth doing if it provides clarity that otherwise isn't there.  For example, if a husband had multiple wives and you need to depict which children are from which wife...

Here is an example:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Cz%C5%82onka-8

Answer 7

Hi

If it is my preference NOT to have sub headings, why do Data Doctors or the like, change this.

I am sorry to say that it is very annoying. I like the way I have the information on a profile, it makes it easier for me to keep check on what I am still missing without scrolling down a long page to check it.

Comments

It might be helpful to give an example.

The rules only require 2 headings:

• == Biography ==
• == Sources ==

---

Thankyou for the clarification. My question is still, why do Data Doctors and the like, change to the info to show ===Military=== and not ==Military==?

---

Because == Military == is not an allowed level 2 header.

---

Melanie is correct. The rule is at

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

and says

The only == second level == headings should be Biography, Research Notes, Sources, and Acknowledgements. Any subsections should go below one of these.

---

This G2G discussion from last month might also be germane: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1826758/have-you-heard-about-content-rank?show=1826765#a1826765.

Answer 8

I use three types of emphasis:

* in-text bold on short profiles to emphasize a fact which could be missed in a quick read through.

* bold+underline for a heading on unusual information, such as family history, documents, heirs, or deeds.

 * subheadings in very long profiles that have large sections, such as military history or a rather wordy will.