Template talk:Family Group Record Format

From WRG
Jump to: navigation, search


We currently have a Start a new page page which allows family outlines to be started with a template. I propose that we might need two templates - an advanced template for users who know what they're doing, and a beginners template. This easy to use template would add in just the basics and would help to get people up to speed without causing them to run away in fear of the advanced template. We could even 'tag' pages created with this method so more advanced users could go in later and bring them up to the more advanced level.

- Tim Doyle 08:05, 2 February 2006 (CST)



How much do you think we ought to link?

Should we link every occurrence of, for example, John1 Whitney's name to his family group record? Should we include at the bottom of his family group record links to every source we have that mentions his name, and not already listed in the References section?

Also, should we link every place name ("Isleworth"), unusual term ("propounded"), organization ("Merchant Taylors"), historic event ("King Philip's War"), and so on, to the Wikipedia entry for it?

On another related matter, how much of the text from a source should we include in the main narrative on a family group record, how much in a footnote, and how much omitted entirely?

It seems reasonable to do some of this, but not all. Where do we draw the lines?

Is our time better spent getting the family group sheets posted, like Andaleen is doing, and in reasonable shape with regard to sourcing, and leave some of the rest of this to others, or at least until later?

- Robert 10:42, 28 February 2006 (CST)

My thoughts on Links

I think there will be great value in linking each reference to an individual in source records to the appropriate family group record, where we can. If we do this, it will become very clear which references have been accounted for and which remain unaccounted for. This alone might spark additional research which could have huge implications to our knowledge of the families. We don't have to think of this as something that we have to get done right away for all source materials - it can happen over time. Imagine a day where our census indexes have links, and we can see which familes on those censuses have not yet been placed - very powerful!

There is no need to add a list of all of the pages which link to a family group record page - simply click the What links here link in the toolbox and that information is instantly provided.

As far as how much text to include on the pages, I think we should add as much information as needed to make the summary of that family interesting to read, providing a well-rounded sense of who they were, but without delving into all of the small details. It's a very gray area, to be sure. It's more than names and dates, but less than a thesis.

I think there's value in both approaches. Andaleen is doing a great job of getting family pages on the site. That helps us link in the Lineage lists and lets users find their information. At the same time, I greatly value the approach Robert is taking - reviewing each page thoroughly, adding citations, ensuring accuracy, and starting at the top of the tree where more people will find value. I think there's room for both approaches here. Different people have different skillsets.

As far as links to historical events, places, obscure terms, etc., I think where they help in the understanding of the subject being discussed that they should be allowed but not mandatory.

Good questions, Robert!

- Tim Doyle | Talk to me 09:21, 2 March 2006 (CST)

Personal tools