WeRelate talk:Request List

There is an opportunity to have some programming changes made to WeRelate. 15 requests have been put forward (see the Project page). Dallan has assigned points to 14 of them. Dallan believes it will be possible to implement up to 10 points worth of work by fall 2017.

This page allows you to:

• Vote for changes
• Express your opposition to changes
• Express your opinion about options

DEADLINE: Sat. 29 Jul 2017

How to vote

Each WeRelate user is allowed to vote up to a total of 12 points for one or more requests. You can vote for the same request multiple times by voting 2, 3, 4 or more times the number of points it has been assigned. For example, if the request has been assigned 4 points, you can vote 4 points, 8 points or 12 points. Just remember that the total number of points you can vote across all requests is 12.

Requests will be prioritized based on the total number of points voted divided by the number of points Dallan assigned them. Final decisions on priorities may be influenced by other factors, such as opposition.

Vote by editing the section "I vote X points to make this change" and entering the number of points you are voting and your signature (using the signature icon).

How to oppose a change

If you are opposed to a request or to an additional option listed under a request, edit the appropriate section and add your signature. If the reason for your opposition has been discussed on the related suggestions page, do not repeat it here - simply refer to the relevant comments on the suggestions page. Please keep any other explanation brief.

Note that opposition is NOT about thinking that something is low priority. It is about believing that the change will decrease the usability of the site, or increase the risk of lower-quality data.

Additional options

Additional options are NOT considered part of the request. However, the developer may decide to implement one or more additional options if:

• they are easy to do at the same time as the request
• there is strong support for them
• there is no opposition to them

Also, the developer might make a technical choice knowing that an additional option is desired for future implementation.

Therefore, please indicate your support for or opposition to additional options to give the developer more information to guide choices.

Please do not use this as a springboard to make additional requests. If you think there has been an oversight in a request or more clarity is required, please mention it, but any new requests should be made through the Suggestions page. Thanks

Cemetery pages only on burial location (1 point)

I vote X points to make this change [29 July 2017]

1 point--DataAnalyst 02:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

1 point ----GayelKnott 03:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

1 point -----Susan Irish 02:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points --pkeegstra 19:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I vote 6 points to make this change--Colin Madge 12:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am opposed to this change

Merge MySource into Source [23 July 2017]

Removed from voting because I got my wires crossed about the requirement and described it incorrectly. This is currently being developed by a volunteer as an admin-only tool to update pages to point to a Source rather than to a MySource. This will not impact the ability to deliver other requests - we still anticipate that about 10 points worth of other work will be possible. If you voted for or wanted to vote for this request, please use your 2 points towards another request. My apologies for the confusion.--DataAnalyst 20:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sort by page title (4 points)

I vote X points to make this change [29 July 2017]

4 points--DataAnalyst 01:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

4 points --janiejac 15:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

4 points ----Susan Irish 03:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I particularly want additional option 1

I am opposed to additional option 1

I particularly want additional option 2 [17 July 2017]

--DataAnalyst 02:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I am opposed to additional option 2

I particularly want additional option 3

Filter “What links here” (1 point) [18 July 2017]

I vote X points to make this change [29 July 2017]

3 points --janiejac 15:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

1 point -- --GayelKnott 03:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points--Amelia 04:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

1 point --robert.shaw 21:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points--Goldenoldie 06:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I particularly want additional option 1 [29 July 2017]

Ability to select namespace is important! Currently results are a unusable hodgepodge of pages. --janiejac 15:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. --Goldenoldie 07:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. --GayelKnott 15:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I particularly want additional option 2 [19 July 2017]

Ability to select 'watched', 'unwatched' or 'watched and unwatched' would make finding what I want a whole lot easier!

Number of rows for “What links here” (0 points) [21 July 2017]

I vote to make this change (no points required) [29 July 2017]

0 points; add'l option #1 sounds good to me! --janiejac 15:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

0 points - set default to 500 rows ; no need for option 1. --cos1776 14:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

0 points -- --SkippyG 14:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

0 points --robert.shaw 21:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

0 points --Goldenoldie 07:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I am opposed to this change without additional option 1

Order facts and events (2 points) [18 July 2017]

I vote X points to make this change [28 July 2017]

2 points--DataAnalyst 02:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points --SkippyG 14:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points --janiejac 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

4 points -- --GayelKnott 03:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

4 points --robert.shaw 21:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I am opposed to exception 1

Reorder source citations (2 points) [21 July 2017]

NOTE that the points on this were changed from 1 to 2 on 21 Jul. The existing 3-point vote will be allowed to stand even though it is not a multiple of 2.

I vote X points to make this change [29 July 2017]

3 points --janiejac 15:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points --Goldenoldie 07:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I am opposed to this change [28 July 2017]

Already there are people that move their sources to the top. Prefer that sources were sorted automatically by their appearance on the page: first-reference-to-source-earlier above first-reference-to-source-later to avoid edit wars between people who think primary vs. secondary sources should go first. People that want to order the simplistic case of censuses merely need to create residence/census facts which are sorted by date which will cause censuses to sort. --Jrich 02:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what "move their sources to the top" means. The suggested census-grouping handling breaks down when other events intervene, e.g. marriage, property, education events. The numbering by order of appearance is conventional and thus meets expectations and is easy to use. It may be a bit less needed here than when footnotes are printed at the bottom of physical pages. --robert.shaw 19:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It means exactly what it says. After certain users are done with their edits, their added sources are the first in the list and the previous ones have been reordered to be below them (presumably by cutting and pasting the contents of the citation). Apparently the sources being placed at the top of the list are the ones the user was relying on, and doesn't appear to matter if the previous source was primary, etc. Given the links, the order of sources should be immaterial, and given the difficulty of reordering and the potential for creating dangling or incorrect references, this doesn't appear to be a desirable practice. Don't understand the need to reorder even census citations anyway if census/residence facts get sorted by date, but certainly don't want to facilitate people moving their sources to spot #1. It only creates yet another area where different people can disagree on cosmetic page format, and where people that try to get along end up being taken advantage of. So strong objection unless the ordering is determined by computer algorithm. --Jrich 21:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Description comment: Although not stated, it is natural to presume that the reordering of sources would change the numbers associated with the sources to follow the new physical order, and also include the corresponding renumbering of the references to the sources. The latter may be a bit more work than initially apparent, as the text in the "Personal History" text box can have source references which need to be updated just like references in the events. (See, for example, Person:Nehemiah Chandler (2).) Note also that this work should include revising the source removal code to update the source number references in the text as well as those in events. --robert.shaw 19:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, Robert. Thanks. I believe I have addressed all 3 concerns in the request now. Let me know if I misinterpreted - especially if I am not remembering the bug correctly. I am not sure if Dallan thought of all this when he assigned 1 point, but I will let him know of the change in case he wants to change the number of points.--DataAnalyst 00:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"references anywhere on the page" might be better wording, since [[#S1|cited source]] or something similar can occur in source citations and notes, and it not being obvious that those are included in "facts/events and in the narrative"? I believe neither {{cite}} nor <ref name="S1"/> work inside source or notes when you want to refer to an already cited source. --Jrich 00:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I have caught this now.--DataAnalyst 00:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been pondering Jrich's comment about users 'moving their sources to the top' and wondering why that would be since it would be so tedious to do this. As I pondered it dawned on me - I believe it is caused by the matching process during GEDCOM upload. I've noticed when there is a match to a person who already has several sources, and I am uploading a match with different sources, that I can click on the source boxes to add the new sources but there is really no way to know at that time in what order the new additional sources will be placed on the page. Some times the resulting page is a mixture of 'yours' and 'mine'. My sources that I am uploading are not in good order as my software won't sort them and they are listed as I find them. So that was the reason I want to be able to number sources in order to sort them properly by date or relevance. I can't think anyone is going to the extra work involved in moving sources just to get their sources listed first - it is probably the matching process during upload of GEDCOMs that is causing this. And yes, that problem needs to be addressed someway. --janiejac 09:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with GEDCOM uploads. It is an intentional rearrangement during a manual edit, ongoing and numerous examples. And yes, this appears to be done in spite of the tediousness of the process, which appears to carry some implications... Ultimately, arranging sources is a matter of personal style, and it is possible to imagine various philosophies for what is best, each with advantages. But it seems to be asking for edit wars to engage in this practice where the last editor gets their choice. The order should either be as entered, or determined by computer algorithm. --Jrich 13:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying Jrich, but I wonder which is the lesser of 2 evils - allowing easy rearranging via drag-and-drop, or having people manually rearrange sources and possibly corrupting data. I think you are right that the best solution would be to have the software automatically arrange the sources, but I think we'd still end up with people manually rearranging, say, birth sources. I am ambivalent about this change myself, but I'd rather see people dragging sources than cutting and pasting them - and it would sure make it easier to "fix" the order if you really wanted higher quality sources before lower quality ones (but possibly resulting in an edit war).--DataAnalyst 14:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Opposed.--Amelia 04:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Opposed. ----Susan Irish 03:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Opposed. ----SkippyG 02:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Opposed. Although this would allow cleanup of various kinds, I think we should have the software impose the standard ordering on all pages that are edited, i.e. number the sources in order of first appearance on the page. --robert.shaw 21:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I particularly want additional option 1

I am opposed to additional option 1

Format date field (3 points) [18 July 2017]

I vote X points to make this change [29 July 2017]

3 points--DataAnalyst 02:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

6 points--Jrich 02:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

3 points----Susan Irish 03:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I vote 3 points to make this change--Colin Madge 12:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

6 points --robert.shaw 21:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

3 points --Goldenoldie 07:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Opposed --pkeegstra 19:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I particularly want additional option 1 [19 July 2017]

It has to be trivial to change the date to red if it doesn't fit any rules and it indicates 1) something that needs attention, and 2) something the system won't be able to sort correctly. --Jrich 02:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I am opposed to additional option 1 [19 July 2017]

--DataAnalyst 02:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

no caps on qualifiers --janiejac 18:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Show all spouses in search results list (2 points) [19 July 2017]

I vote X points to make this change [29 July 2017]

2 points --GayelKnott 04:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points ----Susan Irish 03:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points --pkeegstra 19:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I vote 3 points to make this change--Colin Madge 12:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Research site speed (2 points) [30 July 2017]

Note: I think there are occasionally issues with site speed, and I hope that the level of service from AWS is being adjusted based on usage. So I assume those are due to use exceeding expectations which may be a good thing. Further there is (I think but don't know for sure) about a 30 second delay in some screens to foil/discourage automated spam bots of various kinds. Perhaps further donations could be garnered by offering to be on a list and bypass this wait? --Jrich 01:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I vote X points to do this research and provide answers [29 July 2017]

2 points--DataAnalyst 02:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points --SkippyG 15:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points - --GayelKnott 16:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points--Amelia 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points ----Susan Irish 03:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

8 points --cos1776 17:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

4 points --pkeegstra 19:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Improve edit conflict merge (6 points) [18 July 2017]

I vote X points to make this change [20 July 2017]

6 points - jrich

6 points --Amelia 04:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I particularly want alternative rule 1

I am opposed to alternative rule 1

Warnings tool (6 points)

I vote X points to make this change

I particularly want additional option 1

I particularly want additional option 2

I particularly want additional option 3

I particularly want additional option 4

I particularly want additional option 5

Red links tool (1 point)

I vote X points to make this change

I particularly want additional option 1

Switch to HTTPS (1 point)

I vote X points to make this change [29 July 2017]

8 points --SkippyG 00:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

2 points --GayelKnott 15:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

1 point --Goldenoldie 07:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

4 points --pkeegstra 19:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Copy source citations (2 points) [28 July 2017]

I vote X points to make this change [29 July 2017]

12 points --BobC 01:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

4 points --Goldenoldie 07:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

4 points --cos1776 17:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC) ; with a request to evaluate other solutions as well.

I am opposed to this change [26 July 2017]