Format - opinions needed! [3 June 2012]
Can you let me know what formatting you prefer for this template. The current one (based on User:Parsa/DNA) can be seen "in action" at Person:William_Turvey_(1).
An older version can be seen at this history page.
Or is there another one you would prefer instead? Please comment! AndrewRT 18:51, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
- It's very nice, but you may want to change the link colors to something more visible, or change the background to a different shade. The blue links on the dark blue are a bit hard to see. My tables were the same color of course, but I didn't have embedded links. Also, the simple 12 loci tests are not very helpful for genealogical work. I have literally thousands of people on FTDNA who share my first 12 markers. The 25 marker tests, or better yet 37 markers, give you some reliable genealogical information. You may want to make the template larger, or make templates for those who have done 25, 37, and 67 marker tests. — Parsa 19:11, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
- Thanks. I was planning to do the 25, 37 etc. ones next, once the formatting of the 12 had been agreed and also once the #if: parser syntax was enabled. This way you could use a single template that would automatically select the right template based on how many fields had been populated. What do you think about using these templates on person: pages? AndrewRT 19:52, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
- I like the old version better because of the smaller size (and it is easier to read). The new version takes up too much real estate. I would expect to put it on person pages where the person is a well documented ancestor of the kit member. But if I am expecting to use it on quite a few pages, my next question might be 'will it be possible to paste in the numbers or will each number have to be entered manually?' I would hate to have to fill in 67 fields on quite of few person pages! That just might slow down the usage of the template. --Janiejac 01:04, 29 May 2012 (EDT)
- My only concern in the use of the template for your ancestors' person pages is that the DNA sequence is for the living person tested. Who knows when certain differentiating mutations occurred? I differ from closely related researchers by one or two alleles because somewhere along the line there was a genetic mutation. It's hard to say when that mutation occurred, or in whom. Heck, perhaps I have the mutation, and my father did not. — Parsa 01:23, 29 May 2012 (EDT)
- Hi Andrew, thanks for working on the template. I see that Janie prefers the old template; but I still think the vertical layout is too long, especially if one has 111 markers. The darker blue and blue links are a little hard on my old eyes. On your page example the template looks great. However, if one has a page with a number of events and already has a lengthy narrative, it would probably be best to add the DNA results and discussion as a linked article to the person page. Also how are we going to handle Ancestry results? I suggest that we adjust the Ancestry results to correlate with the Family Tree DNA ordering of markers and adjust the alleles as necessary with a notation. Link to YDNA testing comparison chart . Regarding adding the DNA results to the ancestor, that would depend on the results of the testing to date.--Beth 07:30, 29 May 2012 (EDT)
- I've been wondering for some time if and/or how to display DNA test results and I've been following this discussion. First I don't think presenting the haplotype in tabular form for a single individual is enlightening for most people. Looking at a string of Alleles doesn't tell you anything unless you have a photographic memory and an intimate knowledge of the haplogroup. For a comprehensive DNA project with a great presentation see the McGee project website at http://www.mymcgee.com/
- As I am sure you realize, the analysis and conclusions that can be drawn from DNA testing is a very complex subject and probably does not belong within WeRelate, Suffice it to show where DNA testing has been done, identify the Haplogroup and provide genetic links between individuals where they have been verified by test. If a surname DNA project exists for the family, provide a link to it. Most, if not all projects have the tables of allele values presented.--Scot 13:20, 29 May 2012 (EDT)
Many thanks all for your replies - given me lots to think about.
@Scot - the question about whether to include this information on werelate at all is key. In fact, it was the first question I asked on watercooler when I started thinking about adding the information here. I actually agree entirely that the numbers themselves are not meaningful to any ordinary reader who isn't already an expert on the field. I think the most useful information is the Haplotype - which is why I've included this at the top of the table and added it as an automatic category, so eventually you would be able to see in a single list all the people from the same Haplotype. I still think the raw numbers are useful to include as it enables other people to make the links direct on this website rather than going through something like ysearch - which is commercially owned and the information is copyrighted. Having said that, maybe I'm wrong on this one. If we do include the numbers themselves, I can certainly see this as an argument for having the numbers themselves in very small type (or even hidden with just the haplotype showing). The Haplotype could also be shown by linking the most distant known paternal ancestor to a Person: page detailing the Haplotype progenitor with all the research about that person (although I appreciate that's a whole new debate that will need to be had).
@Beth - Thanks for the feedback. I assume @Janiepac is referring to this horizontal one as the 'old' one rather than the older vertical one. Which do you prefer between @Janiepac's choice and the current version?
@Beth, I assume the FTDNA version has become the standard? In that case, I would suggest for other results we include the raw results and the 'translated' results. I would like to do this via a #if: function - do you know how we could prompt Dallan to do this much needed upgrade?
@Beth - personally I dislike the use of the article space at all although I notice that lots of DNA projects have gone down this route. I think it's messy. If it relates to an individual or a surname it would seem to me to be better on the person or surname page.
@Parsa - Absolutely, the DNA of a male line ancestor would not be identical to the DNA of the person who has been tested. That my was rationale for including in the template a field for someone to specify the relationship between the person whose page the template appears and the person that was tested. In certain circumstances - for instance, in the example half way down this page, David Tulloch b. 1790 could have two (slightly different) templates on his page due to two different descendent lines that have been tested. The information from the two tests combined gives very useful information about that David Tulloch's ancestry that aren't available from just the one test.
@Janiepac "'will it be possible to paste in the numbers or will each number have to be entered manually?" - at the moment yes you can just paste it in onto multiple pages. If the template is adopted we could also create some kind of automatic bot where you specify the pages you want it added to and it will do this for you.
Looking forward to continuing the discussion. To be honest, I'm likely to hold back doing a huge amount of more work on this until the #if: tag is implemented here because I think that's really where the use of a single template would come into its own.
AndrewRT 18:01, 3 June 2012 (EDT)