I do not understand what you are doing with my Phillips study.

+8 votes
425 views

Couldn't someone have politely (since this is the politest site on the web) included me in any discussion about this? Do I have to go back and re-link all my families? You may notice I've put a lot of work into this.

in Policy and Style by Cari Yocom G2G6 (9.3k points)
retagged by Lynda Crackett
I'm struggling to understand what you're arguing about, RJ. If it's that anyone should be able to create any categories they like, named whatever they like, and nested in whatever parent categories they like, that seems obviously wrong.

I agree, as do I think everyone else in this thread, that publicly useful, but mostly idiosyncratic, categories are totally fine. But minimal standards of naming and hierarchy creation should be used, so that the idiosyncratic categories don't collide with existing projects, and don't throw up database errors. A collaborative family tree necessitates community standards around dates, names, and formatting issues. Like Steven said, if any of this interests you, it'd be great if you joined the categorization project.

Natalie did a great job of minimal interference, to sort out a couple errors.

And, to be honest, if this idiosyncratic Phillips project is about a single small branch, the category should be named clearly to reflect that specificity.
The point about categories is that you can't have a "Category: Cheshire" that's a member of "Category: Counties of England" and another "Category: Cheshire" that's a member of "Category: Cheeses".  You can only have one "Category: Cheshire" on the whole system.

This immediately defeats what would otherwise be the main purpose of a hierarchy.  You have to have another internal hierarchy in the names, like "Category: Dunromin Cemetery, Stixville, Monroe County, Idaho".  But that's a whole separate issue.

It also means that names like "Category: Cheshire" are "scarce resources" that need to be managed.  And so it's duly decided that the county gets first dibs, and the cheese category will have to have a different name.

But this only applies to "significant" names and structures.  There's an infinite set of possible names and it's not practical or necessary to manage all of them.

Meanwhile, adding parents to categories doesn't achieve very much.  Categories are bottom-up -- membership is controlled at the member end.  This is a feature.  Lists of members (which includes so-called "Subcategories") are always a mess and always will be, because junk will keep getting added, and stuff that should be there will keep disappearing.  Trying to maintain member lists is just an endless chore that will never achieve a reliable result.  Member lists are only useful for purposes that they can achieve without relying on accurate maintenance.

And you can't effectively find pages by drilling down through parents, because you never know what might exist that might have its parent misspelled or missing.  Likewise, you can't really define project territory by category membership, for the same reasons.

How many * Name Study pages exist that aren't in the One Name Studies category, so they don't show up in the list?

Are they part of the Project?  The pagenames are the scarce resource here.  When you name a page, nobody else can use that name.  Adding a parent consumes nothing and interferes with nothing much.

Lists of members (which includes so-called "Subcategories") are always a mess and always will be, because junk will keep getting added, and stuff that should be there will keep disappearing.  Trying to maintain member lists is just an endless chore that will never achieve a reliable result.  Member lists are only useful for purposes that they can achieve without relying on accurate maintenance.

This is why projects exist. They are tasked with maintaining their categories and are working to make sure they stay informative. If we allowed any category to be added without the proper parents and naming convention, we are adding to the problem - not working to solve it.

And you can't effectively find pages by drilling down through parents, because you never know what might exist that might have its parent misspelled or missing.  Likewise, you can't really define project territory by category membership, for the same reasons.

This is exactly what the Categorization project is working on, hence this entire discussion...

How many * Name Study pages exist that aren't in the One Name Studies category, so they don't show up in the list?

There are currently 58, and that can be viewed on the Err 8103 page, which is an ongoing effort through collaboration with the ONS and Categorization Projects.

Your opinion is that categories cannot be managed, our opinion is that it can - and we are working towards that. Again, if you feel have input to the process or think you know of better ways, feel free to join the Categorization Project.

No I don't think anybody should be able to create any categories they like.  Some managed areas need to be defined.  But that still leaves loads of space.

I find it worrying that a harmless Category: Phillips Family Study can suddenly be renamed Category: Van_Tine-9 Phillips Family Study, when it wasn't contravening any rules the way it was.

As I understand it, the Help pages are rules, project policies are not.  But it wasn't contravening any policies either.

Parentage is irrelevant - it isn't fixed by renaming.

Renaming categories has a cost - you lose access to the edit history and previous versions of the text.  Your work is being really deleted from the system, in a way that doesn't happen with other renames.

Please remember Natalie's comment above, which states why it had to be changed.  Not because it wasn't worded right, but because:

 [[Category:Phillips Name Study]] and [[Category:Phillips Family Study]] were categorized as each other's parent categories in some way, which is known as a cycle, so that neither was part of the heirarchy. I put one under the other, but the "top" one still didn't have a parent. I gave it a parent of a personal category.

The parentage loops aside, I disagree that "Category: Phillips Family Study" is a harmless category name. First of all, it's not an accurate name. As you said, it was meant for only a small subgroup of all people named "Phillips". So, it's confusing for anyone else who happens to stumble across it.

Second of all, the category is similar enough in name and intent to legitimate, project "real estate" that it's liable to cause confusion. As with every other edit or addition we make to Wikitree, we need to check that it's not going to cause problems (like, duplicate profiles).

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

I'd refer you to point 1 of the Honor Code-> collaboration, and point 2-> accuracy. Clearly Cari didn't do anything wrong (point 3), and no one has said anything negative about her work. But the quicker we can find areas that need improvement (like creating clearer, more accurate category names that will encourage collaboration, not lead to duplicated effort, and messy confusion) the better.

Please see the following, some already linked throughout this thread:

These cover all of the topics within this discussion.
We have to remember that the system doesn't actually have subcategories as such.

What it calls "subcategories" are just member pages of category type.

This means any category page can be a member of a personal category.  It doesn't need to be renamed as a personal page.

A personal category is just a personal collection of stuff.  Nothing says it has to be your own stuff.

This means any category page can be a member of a personal category.  It doesn't need to be renamed as a personal page.

See Help:Personal Categories

There is no limit on the amount of subcategories you can make and there are no naming restrictions other than starting the new subcategory with your WikiTree ID.

That's if you're creating new personal subcategories.

3 Answers

+6 votes
Hi Cari,

If you could provide more detail,  someone may be able to help you with this...... even if they weren't the one to un-link your profiles.

What's incredibly helpful would be to know which profiles you're concerned about.  (If there are a multitude...... provide at least the best examples.)

Get back soon.
by Peggy McReynolds G2G6 Pilot (442k points)
+11 votes

Hi Cari, 

I wonder if it may be a result of the recent changes to One Name Studies. There is some information about the changes in this post, with links back to discussions prior to the changes: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/648113/changes-coming-studies-project-surname-spotlight-challenge?show=648113#q648113

by Lynda Crackett G2G6 Pilot (630k points)

Lynda, appears the question may be about the following category being renamed: Phillips_Family_Study.

It appears that Phillips is not a registered name study, and the category naming is inconsistent with approved structures. It appears that the categories are simply being renamed to Personal Category format and linked through personal categories.

Yes the category came up in a cycle orphan category error I was working on, so since it was not an official name study, I made it a personal category.
That's right, Steven.  The changes Cari is talking about are not the ones in the link Lynda provided, which are changes in creating new Studies and adding redirects to variants.  I am also going through all the incorrectly-named Studies and *have* to communicate with each PM, because the correction often contains a merge.  I didn't pick up on the Phillips Family Study because it was not linked into the One Name Studies Project!  

These changes are to the *categories*, not the Studies themselves. I think it's EditBot who will be making these changes - and EditBot doesn't contact the PM first.  It's a computer script.
OK. I just assumed it was all connected to the standardisation of name studies, but I see I was wrong. Apologies if my response has added to the confusion. Hide it if it will make clarification easier.
+2 votes
There have been a number of changes made by people to some name study projects without the courtesy of contacting the pms of the studies first. It happened to me as well. This public "debate" right here would not have developed if simple courtesy had been used.

I kept my own debate in the realm of private conversations, but I do not blame Cari for bringing it up here. The way these changes are being made without first involving the pms is RUDE, and goes against the principals of collaboration that is supposed to be the prime directive of WikiTree. It does not matter that Cari's project wasn't what is deemed a proper One Name Study in the least, she should have been contacted before anyone started making changes to her work.
by John Beardsley G2G6 Mach 3 (38.0k points)

Related questions

+12 votes
4 answers
+9 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
2 answers
169 views asked Feb 23, 2018 in The Tree House by Sarah Mason G2G6 Mach 4 (48.2k points)
+2 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
2 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...