Listing children in the bio-is it redundant? [closed]

Question

I'm probably being petty but something that drives me crazy is profiles where the children are listed in the biography of the parents. 

i.e.

CHILDREN:

• Mary Ann Sweetman 1836–1929
• Thomas Robert Sweetman 1837–1876
• Male Sweetman 1838–1839 Died Young
• Isabella Mould Sweetman 1841–1911
• William David Sweetman 1842–1919
• Charles Owen Sweetman 1844–1896
• George Robinson Sweetman 1846–1890
• Charlotte Emma Sweetman 1847–1850
• Martha Ann Sweetman 1848–1898
• Emma Elizabeth Sweetman 1850–1851 Died Young
• Emma Elizabeth Sweetman 1851–1853 Died Young
• Charlotte Grace Sweetman 1853–1854
• Walter James Sweetman 1855–1934
• Benjamin Tolfrey Sweetman 1857–1935

If they're already known, the children are usually, or should be, linked to the family as children. Listing them this way is redundant and unnecessary as it adds no additional information.

If I'm just being picky, let me know as I have big shoulders. At least I get to vent...

Comments

This list does not seem completely redundant as it includes children that died young and who currently do not have their own profiles.  Thus, it is a more complete listing.  Also, if for some reason, none of the children had profiles yet, this list could be very useful information to other researchers.

---

I largely agree,  but the children in a family often are, or should be, part of the story and should have a place in the narrative. I cannot, for example, tell the story of either of my paternal grandparents without reference to their children.

---

A list of children is particularly useful with gateway ancestors, I tend to do them for such, including dob and any first marriage.  After all, we're about genealogy, so children of a marriage are particularly pertinent.

---

I agree with most everyone.  Most children are listed under the parents in the children fields, but I feel that a good narrative that has the child included in chrono order is nice.  I just agree with the main question, on profiles that just put ALL the children in a list anywhere in the narrative or in a big bold box in the narrative.  That list or box, is what already is listed in the children fields.  I am not a good one on follow through on doing some great narratives with children in chrono order, but whenever I put together any genealogy work for someone, that is how I normally do it.  The children are under the parents in the family group sheet, but in chrono order in a nice story narrative.

Answer 1

There is nothing wrong with a bit of redundancy.   The bio and the overall profile serve different purposes.  The profile provides information which is structured in a manner to support searching and other research types of activities.   The bio is a more narrative piece and should provide a more readable and comprehensive view of the person.  Listing the children in the bio provides a way of understanding who the person being profiled actually was.

I have seen bios turned into timelines.  I don't like that.  A chronological narrative is great, but a strict timeline is a rather cold and uncaring way of treating the life of an ancestor.  Hopefully, instead, we can use the bios to bring some sense of life back to people.

As others have mentioned, having the children listed in the bio also helps when we don't yet have profiles for all of the children, which can happen for many reasons.

Answer 2

I sometimes list children like that when I don't have good sources for them yet - but I may know their names. They should probably be in Research Notes not in Bio.

Answer 3

I always list the children, just as I link the parents. Sometimes I create links to them. The genealogical relationship is the most important one. Personally, I like to add the children’s birth sources which show parentage on the parents’ profiles as proof of the relationship.

Comments

This is why I include a list of children, to show the names and birth years plus whether there's a source to connect them to their parents.

It is useful to show the timing of the births. It can also show whether the family moved to another country during the years they were having children or if some children were born in a first marriage and some in a later one. You can learn a lot by adding these lists.

---

Good points Peggy.

Answer 4

I always list the children if I know who they are, although not in that format, and include a source for them in the parents’ bios. I list the parents on a child’s bio as well.    I often don’t have enough information or don’t want to create a profile for each one and that way I know they are recorded and sourced for anyone who does want to create them.  I do check to see if any have profiles already and connect them.

How can I know what profile someone will find first? That  way all the pertinent information is there at a glance.

Answer 5

I often add profiles because they are a relationship that is not my direct line.  For example the spouse of a cousin or more distant relative to me.  I want to try to write a complete profile for them so I always try to find the parents and that sometimes leads to the grandparents, siblings etc. of the person.  I don't want to add a profile for all the sibling of these families but they are mentioned in sources used in the profiles that I use.  Sometimes there are three or even more sources but not complete sources for birth, marriage, death of the child.

For that reason I list them in Research Notes and also indicate which sources mention them.  Having those connections is important for "genealogically proven'' profiles.  It is a good start for someone who wants to do a profile for these children. It also helps to determine if a profile a future member is making is likely from this family.  They almost always show the birth year and place of the child.  These lists may still remain after the profiles are completed and I don't see a problem with having the list which gives a quick look at the birth order and would show possible spaces where we may have missed a birth.  That said, if I plan to do profiles for the entire known family including all the children, I don't add the list.  I think it is another "personal choice" of the profile manager.

Answer 6

I add a list of the children plus birth and death dates if known. Later, I usually go back and create profiles for them but I leave the list. I think it is helpful to see at a glance who the children are with their dates. Before the profiles are created, it might keep the parents from being confused with another couple with a similar name - and it might keep those children from being added to the wrong parents.

Answer 7

I don’t usually list the children but I don’t mind seeing the information. Although the children are usually linked, it doesn’t show the dates and sometimes that adds to the biography seeing how many children that they lost during their early childhood. it also means you can see gaps which may mean there could be another birth registration to look for.

Answer 8

I often include the names, birth and death dates for all known children, especially if I don't intend to create profiles for all them. I may only be interested in 1 of the children, their families and descendants.

It gives other people somewhere to start if they are researching other branches of the family.

Answer 9

There are lots of good reasons for including a list of children in the other answers. I would like to add that a sourced child list will make your research more "future-proof". There are careless researchers about who will add a child to a family without adequate sources, based on incorrect assumptions. They seldom care to update the biography, however. The redundancy will make wrongly added children stand out from the rest, and thus leave a greater chance for the issue of being corrected.

This is basic information theory, really. Redundancy increases reliability, and will help to keep the message free from garbling.

Answer 10

There are very good specific reasons for listing children in the bio. Some of them would be to avoid confusion around different generations of people with the same name by providing context. In that way, it helps with comprehension. There are many times a child's name has been used multiple times by the parents when an older child has died (I am working on such a family right now.)

Some people really enjoy placing timelines in biographies and children are good points for that.

Also, in a practical way here on Wikitree, some people have limited time to spend on genealogy. They might only be working on their direct line and so leave that list for anyone to connect to later.

Answer 11

Also, a list of children is automatically generated when you use the WikiTree BEE extension's "autobio".  This can be helpful when you have absolutely no information on the person, and they are so far back that records are hard to come by/didn't exist.  Pads out that blank space currently there.

Comments

What is this WikiTree BEE extension's "autobio"?

---

Read this:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:WikiTree_BEE#Auto_Bio