Should these style rules for Research Note Boxes be made official WikiTree policy? [closed]

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

I'd like to move ahead with making the rules on Research Note Boxes official so that we can proceed to standardize their appearance, improve the help pages, and make better use of them.

The draft was discussed previously here in G2G. There wasn't much in the way of debate on that post. Most of the input concerns things that we could do after the basic rules are in place, including:

• Improve the design (see input from G. Bartomeo and Ellen Smith).
• Create some new ones, e.g. {{Speculative Parents}} to replace the deprecated {{Unverified Parents}}.
• Rename some of them according to the new standards, e.g. change {{DateGuess}} to {{Date Guess}}.
• Add functionality, e.g. with variables/switches such as: {{Date Guess|birth}} / {{Date Guess|death}} / {{Date Guess|marriage}}.
• Consider a new category of template that is not a Research Note because they don't describe research to be done. The research has met some standard and the information cannot be verified. For example, {{Questionable}} isn't a Research Note Box if the person "most assuredly didn't exist" (quote from Ellen). There could be a new template, e.g. {{Mythological Person}} that is not classified as a Research Note Box.

If you have any objections to the proposed policy on Research Note Boxes at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Research_Note_Boxes please post here now. Otherwise I will close this in a few days. Thanks!

Onward and upward,

Chris

Comments

Looks very good to me Chris.

Mags

---

{{Questionable}} seems more tactful than {{Mythological}}.  Otherwise why not just say {{Total Garbage}}.

---

RJ? I am so biting my toungue here... { {Total BS} }

---

Ok, this has motivated me to better understand Templates.  I just went through the tutorial for the first time.  I finally opened that door.

---

Can we have an image with {{Mythological}} showing a pie in the sky?  Maybe just a cloud would be more tactful.

---

Looks good to me, Chris.

---

Looks fine to me! And while we're on the subject (kinda) I would like to add something else. I make a bunch of "contributions" on WikiTree and according to the error report, I make my share of silly typos. The button for reference tags has cut out <ref> </ref> errors (thanks!) and I'd like to see buttons for templates {{ }}, bio and source headers == == and categories [[ ]] please.

---

I like the term "Questionable" better than "Mythological." Not only is the current term less offensive to people who believe in a person's existence and will be shocked to be told otherwise, but most of the "probably never existed" people I have dealt with are not myths, but rather are either fabrications by fraudulent genealogists or people erroneously "created" (and propagated in many family trees) due to somebody's misinterpretation of records.

Some other possible terms (to distinguish the "didn't exist" category from "Questionable") are "Dubious" or "Doubtful" or "Nonexistent" (to be described as shorthand for "probably did not exist") or maybe "Not Real." ADDED: Consistent with the proposed terminology "Dispute Existence," maybe "Probably Nonexistent" would be appropriate.

And perhaps "Mythological" should be a separate template from "Probably Nonexistent."

---

OK, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Research_Note_Boxes is now official.

I'm going to be closing this discussion shortly and opening a new one (or two) with some questions about applying the new policy, and some draft designs for their appearance.

---

Here's the next stage of the discussion: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/336728/what-think-these-designs-applications-research-note-boxes

Answer 1

In the example on the referenced page, is Unsourced now a Research Note Box? Maybe it's just me, but it is confusing when things appear the same, but are called different things, i.e., templates vs. research note box. Unsourced and DateGuess both appear the same, yet have (possibly) different functionality...?

Comments

Hi S. Yes, {{Unsourced}} would be considered a Research Note Box.

I'm not sure if I follow you on your other comments. Research Note Boxes are a proposed category of approved usage of templates. {{Unsourced}} and {{Date Guess}} should be distinct and separate.

---

Thanks, Chris. I didn't realize that Unsourced would be a research note box.

It's the terminology that gets confusing, between research note boxes, templates, project boxes, categories, etc. It seems to me that things seem more complex than they need to, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Answer 2

Fairly new to WikiTree and just found this topic. I'm still in a learning curve for the software so if mention something that has already been covered just let me know.

I've been researching for 40 years. I've taken and taught classes on a wide range of topics related to Genealogy.

I really like the idea of the Research Note Boxes and the rules as I read them seemed to provide a good basis for their use.

I would also suggest that there be a template for a research note specific to documentation/sources.  I'm thinking specifically of things such as known transcription errors in published works that can be tagged to the person adding that research note.

This may be going beyond the scope of what was intended here but it would be nice to be able to share the information in such a way that others would be able to see it.

Comments

Hi Sharon,

Welcome to WikiTree. I like the idea of highlighting known transcription errors. That seems like a perfect use of a Research Note Box, if it's something other community members would use.

Chris

---

Thanks for the Welcome! I've already learned a lot from exploring WikiTree.

This is just something that I have run into a lot. When I started researching I worked primarily in original records. It was years later that I started looking at published. Too much info is left out.

I am very excited about the Research Notes. Communicating and sharing knowledge is so important.

---

And not just transcription errors; it could/should be extended to known errors in popular sources. Many know of the errors in Burke's Peerage, but some of those errors originated in earlier works. As an example, Dorothy Bulbeck married first Sir John Jenyns, and second John Latch. Many 18/19C books have it the other way around.

Answer 3

Chris, it looks like you're saying that Research Note Box templates are only those that point out where research is needed & can be done. So that templates that point out situations that can NOT be solved by further research should be of a different type. Sounds great.

Comments

I have a possible entry for the different type, that can't be solved with further research. Two situations I personally know of in official records: one where a birth was recorded for the same person (verified!) with two different dates, and one where (in the official records, mind!) the birth date is AFTER the death date (George Linch). The multiple birth date issue occurs for several people across a swath of time in the 1890's in the location that I know of.