Question of the Week: What improvements would you like to see on WikiTree in 2024?

+38 votes
4.8k views

imageWhat improvements would you like to see on WikiTree in 2024? Is there anything you'd love to see in the WikiTree Browser Extension or Tree Apps? Tell us your wishlist!

Please tell us with an answer below. You could also answer on Facebook.

You might also be interested in this post about what the team is working on: "What is ahead for WikiTree in 2024?"

in The Tree House by Eowyn Walker G2G Astronaut (2.5m points)
edited by Chris Whitten
A feature where  Profile Managers can keep a living person's actual full name hidden, so that when a person profiled in WT dies, it would be easier to change from "Anonymous" to the actual name.

I've certainly wished for this many times!

My understanding is that the profile manager, in specifying that the person is still living, causes the full name of the profile person to be hidden from all except the profile manager and perhaps, the trusted list for the profile.
Allowing the Trusted List to view the full name of a living person does not render that profile to be anonymous. So some profile managers opt to only use "Anonymous" or "Living" as the name in living profiles.

 Futhermore, all biography text scattered around various profiles that currently use names like "Anonymous Smith" does not change to the full proper name when a person is finally marked as Deceased. In short, WT needs a better way for managers to deal with the inevitable deaths of their living profiles.

The descendants of my parents, from the profile of my father's father, before I logged in to Wikitree within this web browser on this computer (I have been working within Wikitree, on another computer before this session), are shown thus:

"

  1. [private great-granddaughter (unknown - unknown)]
  2. [private great-grandson (unknown - unknown)]
  1. [private great-great-granddaughter (2020s - unknown)]
  1. [private great-grandson (unknown - unknown)] m. [private spouse]
  1. [private great-granddaughter (unknown - unknown)]
  2. [private great-grandson (unknown - unknown)]
  1. [private great-grandson (1990s - unknown)]
  2. [private great-grandson (1990s - unknown)]
  1. [private great-granddaughter (unknown - unknown)]
  2. [private great-grandson (unknown - unknown)]
  1. [private grandson (1940s - unknown)] m. [private spouse]
  2. Phil Busby ancestors (1940s - 2010s) m. [private spouse]
  3. [private grandson (1950s - unknown)] m. [private spouse]
  4. [private granddaughter (1950s - unknown)] m. [private spouse]
  5. [private grandson (1950s - unknown)] m. [private spouse]
  6. Bret Busby ancestors (1950s - unknown) m. [private spouse]
  7. [private grandson (1960s - unknown)] m. [private spouse]

"

After logging in to Wikitree, the details od each of the living people, in addition to me (I am mostly living), are displayed. But, the details, other that what is displayed above, are not displayed, until I, as the profile manager for each, am logged in.

The formatting did not quite work, in my last previous post above - the great-grandchildren are not shown as being the children of their parents. But, my generation of my family, are those consecutively numbered 1-7, and, the displayed names, show the point that I was making.
If you want to see what I saw (with the correct formatting), before I logged in on that computer, right click on my name above; open the link in a new browser tab or browser window, click on the Ancestors button, click on my father's name, or, his father's name, to open the profile, then, in his profile, click on the Descendants button, and, view my generation of my family. The only name in my siblings, that should be displayed, is my second-eldest brother, who died ten years ago.
I would really like to see the Correct Nomenclature for the Colonies on the continent of Australia before 1901 when the Commonwealth of Australia came into being. At present the auto fill for Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia,  Queensland etc, is totally incorrect, because it does not align with the historical, political and geo-political facts around the evolution of Australia as a nation.

Alison, the Australia Project allows for various forms of location statements in our Guidelines for such.  Even if you disagree with them, those are what we, as a group, have agreed are acceptable.
As for the list in the location dropdown, those come from FamilySearch.

The drop down location list is from Family Search, and trying to get them to change anything takes an immense amount of time.

There is no requirement or recommendation to use the drop down list. As Melanie says the Australia Project has information about locations.
Bret and David; as the profile manager you can see information that others can't.

If you look at the right hand end of the line with person's name where it says public view, click on public view, that is what anyone who is not on the trusted list sees for living people.
M Ross - I do not know why you have addressed your comment to me - you seem to be telling me what I have already said.

What I had said, effectively, is what was requested " Dec 27, 2023 by David Chawes" is superfluous, because of what already exists, and I gave details and examples, to show that.
Could someone who can, please,separate the sub-thread about the location names, from the thread about displayed names of living people, into which thread, the sub-thread was incorrectly inserted?

I have received notification of the response by M Ross, to the sub-thread, and, whilst I have participated in the thread, into which, the sub-thread was incorrectly inserted, I have not participated in the sub-thread, prior to, and other than, this request to have the sub-thread removed from the thread, to which thread, the sub-thread is unrelated and irrelevant.

150 Answers

+6 votes
I would like to see a place in the Forums for General chat. Maybe just keep Politics and Religion to a minimal or completely out.
by Chris Wine G2G6 Mach 5 (54.4k points)

That's what the Weekend Chat is for.

+5 votes

hi happy new yearsmiley

I am being a bit picky as it is generally great but one thing I do find a bit annoying is in the profile text editor where proper nouns, spelling variants, etc. get underlined by red squiggly lines. This 'feature' gives me serious eye strain. I would prefer it if was a lot more tolerant or not there at all smiley

by David Moss G2G6 Pilot (118k points)

It may be your browser that's doing that, rather than WikiTree.

thanks. I am using google chrome with windows 10 which is what I use normally. I will try another browser.

I just tried using microsoft edge and it was much the same smiley

Look in the settings to see if there is a function to turn off spell-checking if it annoys you. In Firefox, there is a checkbox under General > Language and Appearance that says, "Check your spelling as you type". I would imagine that Edge and Chrome have something similar.

i just tried using norton secure browser and it was the same smiley

Thanks again. I think I have fixed it for me now thanks to your advice. It seems a strange thing to have as a browser default option though smiley

+4 votes
In addition to many of the above, I would like to be able to mark a spouse as Certain or Uncertain. Also, I have previously asked for functionality to filter search results by spouse name or marriage date/place. This would be useful when researching a commonly occuring name. Often I have a marriage record but do not know where the bride was born (and sometimes don't even know her maiden name). Also, I do not know her fate...eg did she remarry after the death of her husband etc
by Susan Stopford G2G6 Mach 4 (45.4k points)
+6 votes
The Search Help facility (for searching through the Help Facility for a topic, to interface with (to also search and return results from) the G2G questions and answers.

I have just used the Search Help facility, to find whether stillbirths should be entered, and, if so, how, and, it was not found in the Search Help facility, but, when I went to ask a question, in the G2G facility, I first searched the G2G facility, and, found a number of questions and responses.

Also, in that, when a person seeks to post a question in the G2G facility, perhaps, using parsing of the text of the question to be asked, and, comparing it to questions and answered in the G2G facility, the user could then be prompted (if any matches are found), with something like "these apparently related questions have already been asked - do any of the answers, answer your question?", so as to minimise duplication of questions.
by Bret Busby G2G6 (8.6k points)
+5 votes
This relates completely to entering stillbirths.

The first proposition, is to change the naming convention, from "Unnamed infant", to "Stillborn", so as to be both explicitly clear as to to what the name refers, and, consistent with naming conventions outside Wikitree.

The second, is to either create a new, dedicated form for entering stillbirths, with dedicated fields, including only the date and location of the stillbirth (and not a death date/location), and, for the gender, to have three options; male / female / not known (or not recorded), and thence, not having the consequently superfluous fields allocated to the record, of spouse and children, thence, not requiring the flags for those two fields, to be set to "No spouse", and "No children", and, not having the thence superfluous field "Current/Married Last Name";

else

the "Edit child of" form, for creating the record, be changed, to have a field labelled "Stillborn", for checking, which automatically, once checked, eliminates the death date and death location field, and automatically sets the "No spouse" and "No children" flags, and, for the Gender field, has a third option; "Not known / not recorded".

I think that even referring to, and entering a record for, a stillbirth, is not pleasant or easy, and, the simpler and better, the method of dealing with a stillbirth, can be made, the better for everyone concerned.

Whilst I understand that the Machiavellian nature of the legislatures of some countries, is so unpleasant as to have made (and it still exists in some prominent countries, as an act of evil by the legislatures) for a stillbirth to be a criminal offence (even, in some, at the felony level), to deliberately and maliciously aggravate the suffering of the parents, I think that Wikitree should help to ease the burden relating to stillbirths, by making the process of dealing with them, as least unpleasant and least difficult as possible.
by Bret Busby G2G6 (8.6k points)
+4 votes
Similar to the "Connection To Me" feature, but one that shows only blood relatives. That'd be pretty cool (if it's even possible?)
by Gaz Thomas G2G5 (5.0k points)

Hi Gaz. Wouldn't that be the Relationship Finder?

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:Relationship

Aah, it makes sense now what that is! Thanks so much! blush I love G2G for this kind of thing!

There's no explanation at the title of what it actually does and the output is formatted in the weirdest way. 

Because of the name 'Relationship Finder' and the answers I was getting, I had thought it was just a kinship name generator. ie. Bob is your fifth-cousin once removed, Mary is your aunty. (I didn't search for my aunty lol, just an example.)

In that case I'm gonna change my answer; Improve the Relationship Finder. Add a short explanation above where IDs are entered, and output an answer that resembles an upside-down carrot. The common ancestor being at the top and a branch coming down each side, their descendants appearing down the branch, terminating at the searched-for IDs.

+6 votes
I would like the possibility of hiding images and photos on the right side and only showing them in the biography section. I don't see any point in showing an image twice as it is now.
by Ole Selmer G2G6 Mach 4 (42.5k points)
Hi Ole. You can do this by uploading the image to a separate free-space page, and just using the {{image...}} template on the person profile, to get the image to appear within the text there. That way the image shows in the margin of the free-space page but not the margin of the person profile.
Thank you Jim

I know and have also started saving images on a free-space page, but I am a little worried, that the image doesn't have the ID of the person. When I am gone and somebody perhaps by mistake deletes the image the information will be lost.
Good point, Ole. Would it help to include links to the profiles which use the image in a comment on the image page?

That will do smiley Thank you Jim

+5 votes

Happy New Year, and thanks to the Wikitree team and community for all their great work last year. 

I have two bigger requests, perhaps not necessarily "technical feature requests".

1. DNA

The first one is more a broad wish to all the WikiTree Elves and users, than a specific feature request: Make more users put their DNA test kit data on WikiTree. How? 

a. Perhaps improve the user interface to make it more fun, more engaging, and/or more compelling for users wanting to put their kit data onto the site. 

b. Perhaps more community interaction, and more challenges centered around DNA, particularly mtDNA or yDNA. I see that the 16 x 16 challenge provides a point for users uploading their DNA kit, but perhaps there could be one point for yDNA, one for mtDNA and one for atDNA. Maybe some of the other challenges (e.g. for genealogic societies) can also pick this up, perhaps a DNA-a-Thon of sorts?

2. Relationship Types

As a hobby genealogist, I would like to manage more personal relationships (and their type) for the profiles on Wikitree, so that I can have an at-a-glance overview of a person's "fanclub". 

Currently, this is done through links in HTML-markup. I would like to manage more relationship types beyond the immediate biological family (parents, siblings, children), but also their adoptive parents, their neighbour that reported their death, their doctor, their pastor, their godparents, their marital and baptismal witnesses. 

This is to be differentiated from people with a non-personal relationship, i.e. people that were in the same location at the same time for a specific purpose or reason, e.g. colleagues, people on the same ship or in the same military unit. These examples, are currently realised through categorisation (e.g. people travelling on the same ship or in the same military unit), which is great.

This might require more database fields / tables and more reports/apps to leverage the information. A new type of sticker might be a workaround solution.

Thanks for reading and making this a great site and community,
Sven

by Sven Elbert G2G6 Mach 7 (74.3k points)
+4 votes
I would like to see an improvement to the accuracy of the CC7 count when connecting an existing (more distant) profile to a close relative. For example, I recently linked a spouse to my 5-degree cousin. The spouse was already in WikiTree (yay) and showed a 16-degree connection to me. After connecting her as spouse, she still shows as 16-degrees from me. If I had added her as a new (but duplicate) person, she would have been only 6-degrees from me and included in my CC7 count.
by Deborah Roesler G2G3 (3.5k points)
Hi Deborah. Just to check ... did you allow 24 hours for the Connection Finder data to be refreshed? Some things on WikiTree do not update immediately.
Where does she still show as 16 degrees from you? What are you looking at exactly?
At the very top of her profile, to the right of her name and just after the ID/Link/URL/Cite/Userid tools.
I've been having this issue with various ancestors for a while. I just linked the spouse 5th degree relative this morning. I will check it again tomorrow (after 24 hours) to see if it changes to the correct number of degrees. Here are the two profiles I'm looking at:

5th degree relationship: [[Nicholas-3784|Chester Arthur Nicholas (1888-1959)]]

His spouse, who should be 6th degree, but shows 16th degree: [[Mitchell-11750|Ethel Lovely (Mitchell) Nicholas (1894-)]]

The daily update must have happened. The second profile does show as degree 6 from you in the Connection Finder now:

https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:Connection&action=connect&person1Name=Mitchell-11750&person2Name=Gehlert-9&relation=0&ignoreIds=

Deborah: Click the number in the circle.
Thank you Ian Bacall - that worked!!! Even though the daily update had corrected the CC7 count in other places as others had mentioned, the number in the circle was still showing the old connection. But clicking the circle worked. Love it when something is so simple.

Back to my original suggestion - perhaps this would be an easy fix within WikiTree so the number in the circle will match the other records.

Huge thank you to all who commented and helped with this!
Clicking the number in the circle only works once. After that you have to refresh the whole web page.
+6 votes
For one-name studies, can the number of linked surnames be increased, at least to 5 or 6, and ideally more?  I understand that the limit at present is 3.  For the Beckett surname study, for example, the surnames that should be linked (and are, genetically) are Becket, Beckett, Bicket, Bickett, and Bichan (yes!).  All are currently in use, not just historically.
by David Bicket G2G1 (1.7k points)
+5 votes
Another additional wishlist item...

I think it would be good, if, when using the <ref> (source citation) </ref> in the Biography and the Notes parts of a profile, if a source citation is the source for more than one information item ( for example, birth date and location, military rank, statutory award (such as, in the english imperial awards system, an OBE), and marriage dates and spouses names, in addition to death date and location, on a death registration), being able to use two or more <ref>... </ref> citations for the same source, without the source citation being replicated for each instantiation of the citation of the source; instead, having a single instance of the source citation, in the Sources part of the profile, linked from each ,ref> ....</ref> statement that is linked to it, would make the source citations, tidier, and, more effective.

Some sources; some parish register registrations, and, some countries' statutory registrations, can be sources of multiple items of biographical information, and, make for useful sources to be cited, but, to have a source citation replicated for each item of information, is unfortunate and untidy.
by Bret Busby G2G6 (8.6k points)

Sorry if I'm missing the point Bret, but isn't this already achieved with

<ref name="xyz">...</ref>

then <name ref="xyz" /> <ref name="xyz" /> ? See

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

Hello, Jim.

You are not missing the point.

I had no idea that this method already existed, and, I believe that it pretty much does what I want, and, better and more efficiently than what I was seeking.

Thank you very much for the pointer. I think it is like the GOTO statement in FORTRAN, and, similarly, in HTML, where the HTML code for a web page has a place marker, and elsewhere in the page, multiple pointers can be placed, so a user can click on the pointer, and be directed to the place marker. I have probably not described the two analogies well, and, may be in error about the FORTRAN code, but, using a reference label for the source citation, with the reference label being able to be used multiple times in the same profile, serves the purpose that I sought.

We live and we learn (hopefully).

Thank you again.
That would be `<ref name="xyz" />` for the second one.
+7 votes
I would like to see a weekly HOW TO box on the WT Home page. It could give step-by-step instructions on a specific WT process with a link to its Help page.

It is hard to search for something when one doesn't know what it is called. And some Help pages tell "What it is" but not "How to do it."

Such as: How to add photos to G2G? How are points awarded and why? What are required headings on profiles? How to inline source? Merge process?  How to trim watchlist? What are Suggestions?

The list is endless.
by Eloine Chesnut G2G6 Mach 1 (16.6k points)
Really nice idea!
+5 votes

I would like something which looks simple regarding the Connection Finder, which is for me THE most important feature of WikiTree. I'm not sure I would have kept working on WT without it, beacuse it's my daily tool for projects like 100 Circles, Outer Rim and of course CC7 app.

Finding alternate paths is one of the coolest features of the CF, and I'm sure it's not well known and widely used. In the current state of the CF, you find alternate profiles by striking profile(s) off the path. I would like to be able to strike links instead. Why?

Because it's more intuitive. The path is made of links.

Because it would allow to find alternative paths between two adjacent profiles. How do you find alternate paths between two spouses before they were married? In the current state of the CF, you can't do that in one click. You have to strike off one of the spouses in a path which contains the two. It's doable, but not obvious.

by Bernard Vatant G2G6 Pilot (176k points)
+5 votes
Stop irrelevant sources.  Already 2024 I just looked at 10 new profiles with sources only being familiy trees or family records.   

I way to trap them till proper sources found, whilst may be still seeingthem greyed out?  Not totally part to the tree someone finds an accepted source?
by NG Hill G2G6 Mach 8 (88.2k points)
+5 votes

Should support direct linkage between profiles of unmarried co-parents. Not all parents are married couples, but WikiTree only allows direct linkage between profiles of co-parents for married couples. There should be a way to directly link unmarried co-parents to each other’s profiles. (Ancestry offers the options: Spouse, Partner, Friend, Single, Other, Unknown.)

by Kenneth Nellis G2G6 Mach 1 (12.7k points)

Hi Kenneth. Note that two people can already be linked as spouses on WikiTree provided they considered themselves married, even if they were not formally married. See this old G2G comment.

Thanx for that, but that doesn’t handle the general case where the parents never married, never intended to marry, no longer associate with each other. But they share genealogy with their child, so I think there should be a way to link them. The benefit of linking them as non-married shows explicitly that they are not married. In the current situation, showing unlinked parents of a person may encourage an overly helpful collaborator to link them, incorrectly, as married.

+5 votes
I think it'd be great to be able to use "colspan" and "rowspan" in tables.
by Gaz Thomas G2G5 (5.0k points)

You can.

{| 
|-
! Header 1 !! Header 2 !! Header 3
|-
| Cell 1|| colspan="2" | Cell 2-3 combined
|}


{| 
|-
! Header 1 !! Header 2
|-
| rowspan="2" | Cell 1-2 combined
| Cell 2
|-
| Cell 3
|}
Cheers heaps!! I'm going to have to play with the syntax I'm using because I can't get it to work on my transcription, but your examples do work.
+6 votes

I know I'm going to get criticised for this, but here we go:

I want more badges. Specifically, I want there to be more colours of "Generous Genealogist" badges that we can give to one another. Why? I think of giving those as sort of like a super-duper "thank you", when thanking someone just doesn't seem to be enough, compared to the help they've given you. 

Currently, there are three colours, and once they've been awarded to somebody, there's nothing more you can do for them except start one of those "Ferdinand Grubstake is a Wonderful WikiTreer!" threads, which I absolutely hate. (Please stop doing that to me, or any other introvert. Ever. It's not a reward for us, it's a punishment.) So give us more colours of badges, please. (There are more than three colours in the world. Even super-saturated colours. Just sayin'.)

What's the difference? Well, a badge goes on your profile, and even though anybody could scroll through all your badges, so they're sort of public, in reality, almost nobody ever does. (You know that old saying, "You'd worry a lot less about what other people think of you if you knew how rarely they did"? Yeah, it's like that.) The only people besides you who actually know how many (and which) badges you have without going and looking them up are probably not people you'd want to meet in real life. So badges are great for introverts, because even though they're supposed to be public, in practice, they're essentially private, so they're a great way to let somebody know that you really appreciate what they've done without making them go all red in the face. So do that for introverts.

Those "Ferdinand Grubstake is a Wonderful WikiTreer!" threads, on the other hand, cannot be avoided, because they'll show up in your G2G feed, and on your navigation home page, and on your profile, and on, and on, and ON!!! There are some things that annoy me more than people telling lies about me (like imputing virtues to me that I don't actually possess), but that list isn't very long. I'm just here to stalk dead people, not to get a fan club. Now, granted, there are people who clearly going around thinking, "The world needs more me!!!" so start those threads about them. They would probably love it.

I just know that some people will tell me that they're real genealogists and they don' need no steekin' badges. You should be here for the genealogy and not motivated by rewards, right? So fine. If you don't care about badges, then you shouldn't care whether they exist or not, should you? And it shouldn't matter to you whether you (or anybody else) has any, how many, or what kind. What skin are badges off your nose? Nobody (or nobody normal, anyway) goes around checking up on them anyway. It's almost like reading somebody else's mail, so don't get all huffed about it. You do what you like, let other people do what they like, and nobody gets hurt.

by Greg Slade G2G6 Pilot (695k points)

May I opt for the badge 'fan club of Greg' wink?

I agree completely about those awful "Wonderful WikiTreer" threads. Glad to hear I'm notthe only one finding them painful.
+4 votes
(sorry this is a bit late but I have been away for 2 weeks)

I would like a more automated way of transposing records from 'family search' to wikitree. A lot of time is spent copying and pasting birth, marriage, death, and particularly census record details with source citations. I need to do the process manually and slowly as sometimes valid sources are missings. Generally though (>90%) of the 'family search' records are fine. I think there is a potential role here for AI here that would make the process quicker and possibly reduce errors.
by David Moss G2G6 Pilot (118k points)
+4 votes

Incorporate the open-source Graphviz (graphviz.org) product into WikiTree so to display Relationship Finder results in graphical format (example).

by Kenneth Nellis G2G6 Mach 1 (12.7k points)
+5 votes
I think the primary image of a profile should be restricted to photos, not sources. Therefore, if an image is specified to be a source, the default option should not be to make it a primary image.
by Kenneth Nellis G2G6 Mach 1 (12.7k points)

Related questions

+28 votes
44 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...