Change the wording of the Research Pending template?

+11 votes
146 views

The Research Pending Template currently reads:

Research Pending This profile was adopted and needs research.Please cite sources/corrections on bulletin board 

This wording makes sense for profiles with privacy levels other than Open. 

For Open privacy profiles, citations are usually added to the biography section.  Would it be possible to change the wording, so that it applies to all privacy levels?

Something like: This profile was adopted and needs research. Please cite any sources/corrections.

Opinions?  Are there any problems or concerns with such a change?  Would it be helpful?

in Policy and Style by Cynthia B G2G6 Pilot (128k points)

If wording is going to be thought about anyway, could the wording for the Unverified Parents Template also be reviewed. It currently reads:

NOTICE
The parents listed for this individual are speculative and may not be based on sound genealogical research. Sources to prove or disprove this ancestry are needed. Please contact the Profile Manager or leave information on the bulletin board. 

On abandoned profiles, there is no Profile Manager to contact. Since those profiles have to be open, the sources can be added directly to the biography section.

Hmm... I didn't even know the template existed. (the research pending one)
I like your suggested wording for the Research Pending template, Cynthia. Not to mention that there isn't even a "bulletin board" so that could confuse people.

I would greatly prefer people add a source to the profile, than add it as a comment to the profile. I suppose for PPP profiles, there may be some reluctance to add to the bio, and then using the comment box might be more appropriate.

I have occasionally had people add 'less than quality' sources to a bio, but that is a whole different issue.
As for "Unverified Parents," it seems to me that this template is used primarily in situations where there are serious issues with (or controversy about) the connected parents. For example, I recall this template being used on a profile for a "questionable Gateway ancestor" when there were no valid sources identified for the parents (but those parents had been widely documented in old books, on the Internet, and in at least one very recent self-published book of family-history puffery) and an article by a noted genealogist had noted an absence of evidence for those parents. (The parents weren't removed right away out of courtesy to contributors who were confident their information about the parents was good.) In cases like that, even when the profile is Open, the advice to post a bulletin board message and/or contact a profile manager seems to be entirely appropriate, since discussion of the new sources would be needed.

And the template does have an option for providing additional details at the end.

this template is used primarily in situations where there are serious issues with (or controversy about) the connected parents

If that's the case, then I'm using that template all wrong. I've been adding it to profiles which completely lack sources for the parents/child relationship. I thought the wording in the first two sentences fit that situation.

It was, in my mind, a way to help avoid the perpetuation of parent/child relationships that have no substantiation.

Interesting! I guess I read "The parents listed for this individual are speculative and may not be based on sound genealogical research" as a polite way to say something like: "The parents listed for this individual are attached to this person in 19th century publications and/or thousands of online family trees, but sound genealogical research has not yet identified any basis for the connection other than hopeful speculation."
I kind of read it as "Aunt Myrtle said that her fifth cousin twice removed's husband's parents were John and Jane but I don't count that as a source so I won't cite anything."

1 Answer

+7 votes
I created that template many moons ago when so many profiles could not be edited. I like the new wording, Cynthia, and will adjust it if no one has any objections.
by Maggie N. G2G6 Pilot (876k points)
Maggie, that would be terrific!

Thank you!
Thank you, Maggie.  Very much appreciated!

Related questions

+23 votes
2 answers
+10 votes
2 answers
259 views asked Apr 12, 2019 in Policy and Style by SJ Baty G2G Astronaut (1.1m points)
+29 votes
7 answers
+21 votes
5 answers
+9 votes
0 answers
209 views asked Oct 23, 2016 in Policy and Style by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (478k points)
+19 votes
4 answers
0 votes
0 answers
98 views asked Apr 11, 2020 in Policy and Style by W Robertson G2G6 Mach 8 (80.1k points)

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...