Genealogy Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Biography Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. PPEMES (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created an article on the Sedgwick family is anyone is interested in reviewing and copy editing.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: I am not fond of this style of article - a two-sentence introduction and then a large, completely unreferenced family tree with a whole lot of people in it we are only learning about for the first time, followed by a list of 'connected people' mostly without an explanation of the connection, and again entirely unreferenced. I would suggest that if the family is worthy of an article at all, the article should describe the family in detail, over time, and that a tree is intended to make the relationships in the text more clear, not as a substitution for text that describes the people, and the whole thing must be referenced. If one cannot write a fully-referenced article about the family, maybe it is not notable, as a family (even if the family had a lot of notable members, that does not automatically make it a notable family). I also question the focus - it describes it like it is about all of the Sedgwicks descended from the immigrant, and yet only one line of descendants are followed down to the 19th century in the tree, and then we see a major expansion. It looks to me like it is really about the family of Thomas, who descends from the immigrant, rather than about the family of the immigrant, who was ancestor of Thomas' line plus a whole lot of other lines not covered. Agricolae (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed. Please see: Template talk:Family tree. PPEMES (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a really interesting project from Heritage Connector - a coalition of cultural institutions in the UK. One of them was showing the residences of 3,141 people who were accused of being witches in Scotland. Another was plotting the sites of....I forget but it was where people had resided. And all this was done with Wikidata using nifty visualizations done with other programs familiar to digital humanists. So that got me to thinking: One could take a graveyard (or portion thereof) make items for all the residents. Then one could do things like indicate who are family members, indicate average dates of death, span of deaths, etc. One could do all sorts of interesting things with the data. Of course it would take a while to input all that information. As far as I know there's no WikiProject Genealogy on Wikidata, but the possibilities can be amazing. The project dealing with witches can be found at: http://witches.is.ed.ac.uk/. I strongly encourage members to play around with the visualization and think of what could be done with a small graveyard. - kosboot (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created Template:Lineage + Module:Lineage (originally it:template:discendenza) as a simpliest alternative to Template:Tree chart. Can someone verify the doc subpage? Thanks. --M.casanova (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice! I love the clean-looking output. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]