G2G: Does anyone else find a correction to Uncertain Family a dumbing down?

Question

The category Unverified Parents was clear and meaningful, the term Uncertain Family is vague: does it refer to the family from whom the profile descends, or the family descending from the profile? I resent the attempt to bully contributors into retiring a useful specific category in favor of a category that is misleading.

Comments

In either case there should be bio text to explain the uncertainly so I don't really see the big deal

Answer 1

I haven't run across this term previously. It is a Research Note Box not a category.

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

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Uncertain_Family

For use when a person's current position in a family group is highly uncertain. If there are competing or disproven theories about the parents or spouse, also use {{Disputed Parents}} or {{Disputed Spouse}}. See Help:Uncertain_Parents for more usage instructions.

Did you have a correction, or suggestion to Uncertain Family. 

Comments

Clinton, as a follow up see the Template:Uncertain Family page for a practical "How To" guide on using these templates. It's not a dumbing down, but it addressed a real issue that we've had on WikiTree for some time.

---

Thanks for the best answer Eric!

---

Eric, I have no doubt that Uncertain Family addresses a real issue, but so did Unverified Parents. One should not replace the other because they address separate problems. It appears that I am encouraged to use Disputed Parents in future, even though that is not as accurate as Unverified Parents.

---

Well mistakes happen. It's just the nature of the collaborative process, and especially with a new guideline. Luckily it's a wiki and it's easily remedied.

---

In my experience it appears there are any number of projects in WT, perhaps the majority, which do not use the {{Disputed Parents}} or {{Disputed Spouse}} boxes probably because its another large yellow box taking space at the head of a profile. Puritan Great Migration, Quakers, Southern Colonies and Westward Ho (as examples) generally simply use Disputed Parentage: above the Biography followed by a short summary of the dispute and frequently stating to See Research Notes. While there is value in categorizing some profiles into maintenance categories, I don't see these issues as being maintenance but rather research and, for me, the box itself does not serve a purpose.

---

As mentioned, a number of these templates are new. So it's not surprising that they are not widely used yet.

Answer 2

It is 2023. Dumbing down is the way of the world. As far as unverified to uncertain, whatever. I can see uncertain pertaining to any profile w/o DNA in 5-10 years.

Comments

Your use of "whatever" proves my point. You might be comfortable accepting such a poor term, but I am not. If I were the member of a family with a grandparent whose identity is questionable, but my own parentage is not (and we have the DNA to prove it), suggesting that my parents might not have produced me or my siblings with Uncertain Family category is a far cry from not being certain about my grandparents. WikiTree is already stupidly difficult to use without additionally being simply stupid.

---

"WikiTree is already stupidly difficult to use without additionally being simple stupid."

Witty in every sense of the word.

Answer 3

I don't find it a "dumbing down" but rather a decent alternative that can be applied for more than just parents.

Unverified Parents as a research box did not add a maintenance category and was only used for parents. It had an open-ended parameter to explain the possible problems. This really belongs under the ==Research Notes== heading in the biography, where the problems can be fully explained.

 I like the replacement, the Uncertain Family, which points to the text below (the biography) and adds a maintenance category to the profile.

 I've been addressing this out of use template error via database Error 844: Out of use template.  https://www.softdata.si/wt/Err_20230423/844_1800-1899_6.htm

Comments

Exactly my point and why I do not like the replacement: the "deprecation" of Unverified Parents removes the note of uncertainty that applies only to claimed or suspected parents of the profile entry, while there may be far less uncertainty about (or more evidence supporting) a family descending from the profile entry using standard genealogical practices. Using a template such as Unverified Parents points the reader to Research Notes where the problems can be addressed re: the parentage. There might be numerous theories re: who the parents might be, and when combined with uncertain radio buttons, is more visually effective way to show that the profile needs more research that might lead to future links to another parent or set of parents or confirmation of those that might be linked. To restate: why should a useful template be "deprecated" and replaced with a template that does not describe the problem regarding the parentage of the profile, but questions the descent of the profile when that is not intended? It is the very definition of dumbing down, because it is not appropriate to any of the cases where I entered (and still wish to enter) the template Unverified Parents. I do not have enough time in life to worry about what is a "maintenance category" or whether to use Uncertain, Unverified or Disputed (practically synonymous in this context). I am concerned with the meaning and efficacy of Templates used to bring the reader's attention to what is and what is not (in my opinion) a problem at a profile entry. It appears that I should try to use Disputed Parents in future, even thought that is inaccurate compared to Unverified Parents. In many cases, there are no "disputes" because there is only one theory from a descendant or researcher.

---

I would advise you to change the the template on profiles you manage, in case you do not find the replacement sufficient. I've been working in that database error and I ran up against one of the profiles you manage this morning! (I'm also removing the deprecated {{Research Pending}} template so if you have any of those, it will also disappear.)

---

I have never used {{Research Pending}} but I am not clear on what you are saying: if it is that {{UnverifiedParents}} is now useable again, I thank you!

---

No, it is not usable again. It's deprecated and I've been replacing it with the {{Uncertain Family}}. I've been adding a ==Research Notes== section if the profile does not already have one, and using the default text from Unverified Parents as a research note. So, if you do not wish that to be the step taken on any profile  you manage, I suggest you edit it yourself, removing {{UnverifiedParents}} and replacing it with whatever you wish to use in its stead.

Example: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Larrabee-1773

---

I find this unacceptable and will once again have to reconsider whether I can continue with WikiTree, considering such an arbitrary decision of removing a useful template and having to transfer the language to the Research Notes.