|
|
Notes [15 February 2014]
- The report "View" link may not show all of the user's Person/Family pages (ie, not all trees are displayed). A way around this is to go to the User Page, click Edit, then Show Preview. You don't actually need to create the User page, but previewing it will show all the user's trees and the number of pages associated. Also note, the word 'people' on the User page includes more than just Person pages. --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll check this page periodically and delete the trees that people request to delete. (I'm currently the only user who can delete another user's tree.) Thank-you everyone for reviewing them.--Dallan 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Goals / Guidelines
GEDCOMs uploaded in the early days of WeRelate were not subject to the same review/edits that exist in WeRelate today. As a result, some of these GEDCOMs were of questionable quality and lacking in sources. The primary purpose of this review is to determine which of these old GEDCOMs are of such poor quality that they should be removed entirely (which Dallan can do). The secondary purpose is to improve the quality of any GEDCOM that should be kept.
Deleting a Tree [4 August 2016]
A GEDCOM should be entirely removed if:
- It is of low quality AND
- Removing it will not have an excessive impact on other trees
Both of these criteria are somewhat subjective. A tree is of low quality if some or all of the following are true:
- It has few if any dates.
- A significant percentage of the names are “unknown” or “living”.
- It has impossible family relationships (e.g., a person is their own grandchild, or a person was born before their parents were born).
- It has few if any sources, or the sources are virtually worthless (e.g., “my GEDCOM file”).
When a tree is deleted, it is possible that pages in other trees will become disconnected. This is why there is a “deletion impact” link beside each tree. If the impact list is short, and you believe the tree should be removed, watch the pages that you think need to be kept in order to retain the integrity of other trees, and then request that the tree be removed. (Pages watched by multiple people are not deleted when a GEDCOM is removed.)
To request that a tree be deleted, add a note beside it on the Project Page to say “deletion recommended”. Then also add the name of the tree to the Remove section of the Talk Page. Give some explanation for why you think the tree should be deleted.
NOTE: Many old GEDCOMs of low quality have a significant deletion impact, and it may be easier to selectively delete and/or fix the problems rather than remove the entire GEDCOM. If this is the case, recommend that the tree be kept (and why) and then note the types of issues that should be fixed. You can also mark individual pages for delete by adding the “speedy delete” template.
Keeping a Tree
If you think a tree should be kept – because it is of sufficient quality and/or the impact of deleting it is too large – make this recommendation and briefly indicate why.
Improving Quality [5 August 2016]
Old GEDCOMs are good candidates for any volunteer wishing to improve the quality of WeRelate data. Improvement can include:
- Correcting impossible situations, such as a person born before his/her mother, or a person who is his/her own grandchild, or a person who married after death.
- Filling in missing information. For example:
- Add dates and places where these are missing.
- Find names for “unknowns”.
- Many pages named “living” are actually for people who are deceased. Find the information and update the page accordingly.
- Removing living individuals. If a person qualifies as living by WeRelate standards (born within the last 110 years and no death information available), add the “speedy delete” template and indicate that the person is (potentially) living.
- Fixing the name if the parts of the name have been placed in the wrong fields (e.g., if the middle initial was I or V, it was sometimes put in the suffix field; and the occasional middle name and surname have been flipped when there was a suffix).
- Adding sources.
- Improving the esthetics of the page by fixing place names, changing upper case to mixed case, etc.
Once you are done with a tree, indicate this so that others can choose other trees to improve. If you only made certain types of improvements (e.g., deleted living individuals), indicate what work is still outstanding – maybe someone else will focus on adding sources.
Hint: When looking at a tree, restrict the Namespace to Person pages, and sort by Page Title. Restricting the namespace causes facets to appear on the left. This will allow you to:
- Choose a tree that focuses on a geography you are comfortable researching.
- Focus on persons without a birth year – some of these may be living individuals, but even if not, it is good to have the birth year added.
Sorting by page title allows you to keep track of where you are if you choose to walk through the entire tree page by page.
You might also choose to Watch pages you have edited. This will prevent someone else (other than an Admin) from deleting your work. (If you get an email that a page has been subsequently updated by someone else, you can always stop watching the page to prevent further emails – and maybe this will be an indication that your hard work was appreciated.)
Question about Deleting a Tree [19 August 2014]
May I ask for some clarification about what exactly happens when a tree is deleted? Are all the pages created by that user and associated with that tree deleted or only the ones for which the creator has remained the only watcher?
- For example - Suppose a user uploads a tree containing a Family page with 4 children and in the months (ok... years) that follow, other users work on some of those children, so that now 3 out of the 4 children's Person pages are being watched by multiple users, but the Family page is still only watched by the original uploader. Then the original uploader's tree gets deleted. What is left? Would it be 3 orphaned Person pages for the children with no connecting Family page, parents or 4th sibling - or would all of the pages disappear, including the ones that now have multiple watchers?
Likewise, what about Place or Source pages created by the user and connected to their tree? Do those disappear as well or only Person, Family and MySource pages?
Thanks, --Cos1776 20:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can only partially answer your question - the pages watched by multiple people do not disappear. I think there is a rule about families, but I don't know it. That's why "deletion impact" exists - it shows which pages would "lose" people. At some point is does change families others are watching, so that's why I'll cite overlap or lack thereof as a reason for retention/deletion respectively.--Amelia 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Analysis [15 February 2014]
Keep [6 May 2017]
- Bobsmythe, Bware752, Bwhaley, Califgmom, and Carlton843 all have tens to hundreds of person pages with no birth year. Some of these individuals are living, and the pages should be deleted.--DataAnalyst 12:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Biebuyck has several pages for Living persons, which should be updated (if they have died) or deleted.--DataAnalyst 12:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Angel - not great, but names, places and at least some sources. Small percentage of livings. Not worth wholesale deletion.--Amelia 18:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- User:Barak4u - 1200 pages, over half of which overlap. Of the remaining, divided between well-filled-out European trees, and early, empty, Norwegians. I marked a lot of them speedy delete, wholesale deletion seems overkill.--Amelia 04:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- All pages for potentially living individuals have been removed. There is a lot of unsupported ancient genealogy (some with a significant number of watchers) which should be improved or deleted in a general cleanup of unsupported ancient genealogy.--DataAnalyst 16:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Remove [12 May 2017]
User:Nicksayers -- no overlap, less than a third have places, most of the rest are living or nearly so, and there are whole orphaned families with no details (i.e., parents and a dozen kids, no dates/places/descendants).--Amelia 05:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not marked as "deletion recommended" on the main page. Delete?--Dallan 05:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like there are less than 250 pages left in this GEDCOM. There are just enough people from the UK with dates or places that might be able to be sourced as more UK records come online. I am willing to examine these remaining pages and delete where appropriate.--Susan Irish 07:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Expanding the end date of this project [4 August 2014]
The tapering off of bad trees seems to happen around 2010 or so. I wasn't on this site then, but I am guessing around that time GEDCOMs became more closely monitored. It seems then that we should expand the scope of this project - I would add trees uploaded in 2009 and 2010 with no edits after 2010. Is this doable or desirable?--Daniel Maxwell 18:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of some later GEDCOMs not included in the Old GEDCOMs project [24 October 2014]
Since no one replied to my request for comment on updating the date of old gedcoms to be scrutinized, I found a bad, newer one from 2010 I want to nominate for deletion - User:Semir, who hasnt logged in for four years. Tree is around 1000 people and I have not found a single one with a date, it's all low quality and it needs to go.--Daniel Maxwell 13:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Daniel ! I found a place for this person ---> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostro%C5%BEac_%28Cazin%29, but this record has no link to others persons, and no date ! Ok, the cause of death is given ...
- and an other cause of death and an other place for Person:Meho Klièiæ (2) ---> but I did'nt find "Klièiæi" on Wikipedia
- and for Person:Mujaga Klièiæ (2), the same place, a cause of death and a death date --> 1995
- Person:Husein Klièiæ (1) ---> 1908-1975
- Person:Fehim Klièiæ (2) ---> 1939-1994
- Person:Zlatka Kapiæ (1) ---> 1936-2006
- Person:Sulte Bajriæ (1) ---> death date : 1966
- Person:Rašid Klièiæ (1) ---> birth date : 1934 and dead (burial place given)
- Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, but out of an 800 person tree that is far too few. The tree isn't worth saving as it has no places, connections, sources, few dates, etc. Many of them are probably living. Daniel Maxwell 10:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete is always a (bad ...) method ! But in this case, we can determine the living persons. I do it. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 11:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- It isnt even possible to determine the when and where of those people because almost no places are given. Some of the names appear to be of a Middle Eastern Muslim background, which are difficult to verify online. I wouldn't waste my time with that tree. It has no connections.Daniel Maxwell 11:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- OK ... but the WeRelate project is to display serious data AND to encourage/motive new contributors, from Europe, and why not from ex-Yugoslavia or Serbien, etc ... If visitors try to find some surnames and find nothing, they go away and contribute to Facebook, Geni, etc. We have to do the maximum to obtain new contributors (without loosing quality). Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 11:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I will put the template "speedy delete" on the records of living people. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 11:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Cleanup the cleanup page [4 March 2016]
This project page is very slow to edit, due to the size. I plan to create an Old GEDCOMs Archive page and move over all the trees that have been addressed (decided to keep and cleanup has been completed, or decided to delete and the delete has been completed). I'll copy over the corresponding talk notes as well. This will likely take me several weeks. If anyone has an objection or suggestion, please let me know. Thanks.--DataAnalyst 14:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
|
|
