What do you think about adding another parameter to the Unsourced template? [closed]

Question

What do you think about adding another parameter to the Unsourced template?

The Bio Check app has been identifying profiles as "Maybe" where the only source is as follows:

Unsourced family tree handed down to [[Surname-XX | Name]].

I'm thinking it would be helpful to identify these profiles by adding the following parameter to the Unsourced template as follows:

• {{Unsourced | Family Tree}}
• {{Unsourced | parameter 1 | Family Tree}}
• {{Unsourced | parameter 1 | parameter 2 | Family Tree}}

Do you think this is a good idea?

Comments

If unsourced family tree has been used as the source, you can add it to an unsourced maintenance category to flag it as needing a better source.

Why do you need to know that an unsourced profile has a family tree as its source, as opposed to a FindAGrave memorial or the many other derived sources that may be used? All such profiles would potentially be improved by sourcing with a primary record. I say potentially because sometimes they contain errors.

---

I don’t need to know, but the WikiTree team might want to know (by a quantitative number) how many of the profiles have been created with a source of this type.

---

I'd be very surprised if they couldn't already tell how often that box is checked when a profile is created.

Answer 1

What would be the added value for you?

Currently those profiles are found via the menu entry (Find>Unsourced) or via the table generated by WikiTree+

Where would you expect these types of profiles to be shown? And what to do with them?

There are also stickers with needs=Birth. Those are used by some projects to find profiles that need more sources as well.

Comments

The added value is that you would know exactly how many Unsourced profiles are unsourced by handed down family trees and they would be able to be identified as such.

Answer 2

Since that template creates a category, I'm not going to be a fan of this. Yesterday, I had to fix several Unsourced template entries with misspelled names like "Emgland" and others that had things like "Maryland, USA" instead of simply "Maryland." The parameter is supposed to put the profile into the already existing category, but many users don't check this, creating red categories. It's not intentional, but it does create work for categorization project members. Adding another parameter would, I'm sure, increase that work.

Comments

As the baddie I only came across this from experience in sorting sources. As a newby there is so much to pick up. There is a lot already for the newby but what bits to concentrate on. ?  I would do it differently if starting again. Regarding the question I agree to no new “sectors”. Focus on getting it right that means buddy training? . I will watch my spelling!

Remember new folk don’t have your track record of knowledge as it relates to wikitree.

Regards

Answer 3

I don't see value in this. Use of the optional parameters for location is much more beneficial.

Also, per the sources FAQ, unsourced family tree handed down to X does not qualify for the unsourced tag.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources_FAQ#When_should_the_Unsourced_Research_Note_Box_be_used.3F

Comments

Thanks Kay.  This discussion is now closed.

---

It is enough for a pre-1700 profile, though, which needs more than a family tree source.