Any input on standardizing Navigation Boxes for Adopted Child, Succession, and Disambiguation?

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

There is a discussion on changes to {{Adopted Child}} and there's a new idea for a {{Disambiguation}} box similar to what is used on Wikipedia.

This made us want to take a step back and think about styling and rules for Navigation Boxes in general. Unlike the other types of approved Profile Boxes -- Project Boxes, Research Note Boxes, and Profile Stickers -- we have never formally discussed and developed rules for Navigation Boxes.

Here is a very rough draft of a policy page: Help:Navigation_Boxes.

Regarding styling, our initial thought is to have them match Research Note Boxes, but in green instead of orange, similar to Succession box2.

We're not making a specific proposal for anything right now.

Our next steps would be to make specific proposals for the three types of Navigation Boxes -- Adopted Child, Disambiguation, and Succession -- and carefully discuss each one separately. Then we would come back to the general rules on Help:Navigation_Boxes and confirm what they have in common. Then we'd finalize the three templates.

This post is just intended to introduce the discussion in case anyone has initial input or would like to take the lead in developing one of the proposals. If so, or if you just have comments or questions, post an answer here. (Please post an answer instead of a comment. Comments at the top will be hidden or moved once read.)

Onward and upward, for our shared mission,

Chris and the WikiTree Team

Comments

Update 13 Oct 2023:

The proposal for an {{Easily Confused}} Navigation Box for disambiguation has been approved.

The proposal for {{Special Family Link}} from a few weeks ago has been closed. We are now considering a completely different approach regarding adoption. See New plan for biological/non-biological parents.

There is a new proposal for {{Succession}}.

Answer 1

Thanks very much for looking at this subject Chris. I'm hopeful that there won't necessarily be a "one size fits all" for these boxes.
I note your ??? mark on the possible placement of these standardized boxes. The current useage for (for example) Succession boxes is fluid. Some projects seem to place them below the project box, others place them above. (I've listed a few examples below for ideas of how some are used currently.) Personally, I think these are best just below the Project box if there is one.
I envision a Disambiguation box being just above the == Biography == header, as we want that information to be noticed, but not necessarily "in your face." I expect that many projects will find this one a very useful tool. The use of a green background I especially like, as I see that as a sign of "information" vs. the orange "warning."

For a Disambiguation box, my thought is that the output would allow for something like:
"Disambiguation: This profile for [[Smith-123 | John Smith (1618-1687)]] should not be confused with others of a similar name, location and timeframe, such as [[Smith-456 | John Smith (1623-1692)]], [[Smith-789 | John Smith (1623-1698)]] and [[Smith-012 | John Smith (1620-1648)]]"
It might also allow for a Space page link where a full discussion could be presented for known problems like: 
 "See: Disambiguation Thomas Lincoln for further information"

Examples of current Succession boxes of varying complexities and placements:

A simple one without a project box: Donald MacRaghnaill, Lord of the Isles 

A simple one with a project box: William, the Mormaer of Mar

A simple one with 2 navigation boxes, and one Project box: Henry Sinclair, Earl of Orkney 

A more complex set with 2 fairly simple boxes placed below the 2 project boxes: James IV, King of Scots and his grandson, James 5th & 1st  

An example where the succession box is placed above the project box: Benjamin Franklin

A complex example with multiple positions, and placed below the project box: US President James Monroe

Comments

I concur with Bobbie about placement; this would also follow a "from general to specific" principle -- the Project Box being more general, then Research Box (more specific), then Navigation (even more specific).

All that said, Disambiguation feels far more like a Research Box (where I would expect it to be) than, say, an Adoption Box or a Succession Box.

Answer 2

I know you are going to make specific proposals for three types of Navigation Boxes. I am hoping you might consider four.

There are quite a few of us that have discovered from DNA testing that the man listed on our birth certificate is not the our biological father. I would very much like a NPE Box (hopefully with a better name).

I worked on my paternal line for over 25 years and meticulously placed here on Wikitree, Then at age 72 I find out the man on my BC and that raised me my first 8 years, was not my bio dad. It would be nice if we could have a way to connect both "sides" of our lives.

Hopefully, someone else in a similar situation can better explain the need for this type of box With Respect - Nancy

Comments

I think that is a good suggestion Nancy. I think if we have an adopted child box it would make sense to have some type of NPE box as well, for situations not involving adoption.

NPE probably isn't the best term to use, because many people don't know what it stands for (non-paternity event, or not parent expected). Maybe something like:

{{Misattributed Parentage

|Presumed Father=[[WikiTree-3|John Doe]]

|Biological Father=[[WikiTree-3|James English]]

}}

displays as:

Anne Doe's paternity was misattributed

Presumed Father: John Doe

Biological Father: James English

and then the template parameters could also allow options for misattributed maternity or misattributed parentage (both parents)

---

Thank you for bringing this up, Nancy. We definitely need to create a new template for misattributed parentage since DNA is bringing these situations to light more and more every day.

---

Nancy, this could definitely be proposed in G2G after the discussion here has been formally proposed, and finalized.

---

Update: There is a new proposal for a {{Special Family Link}} nav box instead of {{Adopted Child}}.

Answer 3

It seems that Wikipedia has some similar problems with disambiguation, as there does not seem to be one specific format. i.e. (1) Mercury (element), Mercury (Planet) and (2) the template {{Other uses}}.

My notation of a disambiguation typically is the first thing, before the ==Biography==. This is to catch the attention of anyone who is thinking of editing the profile.  I also include a link to the other individual [[name-123|John name]]. I also state my reasons for such action, confusion on a family tree on ancestry.com or familysearch.org is incorrect.

Comments

(1) Mercury (element), Mercury (Planet)

We don't have this specific issue for profiles, since our pages are named with WikiTree IDs. We do have this issue in Categories; however, this is why we adhere to category name rules.

(2) the template {{Other uses}}

There is actually a large number of disambiguation templates on Wikipedia.

My notation of a disambiguation typically is the first thing, before the ==Biography==. This is to catch the attention of anyone who is thinking of editing the profile. 

The disambiguation template (not yet formalized) would combine the two - providing the Mercury (element), Mercury (Planet) type of distinction through the usage of a template. This would be better equated to Wikipedia's For-multi template. Example usage is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Peterson

{{for-multi|the U.S. Navy sailor and Medal of Honor recipient|Oscar V. Peterson|the American carver of fish decoys|Oscar W. Peterson}}

For the U.S. Navy sailor and Medal of Honor recipient, see Oscar V. Peterson. For the American carver of fish decoys, see Oscar W. Peterson.

Answer 4

There are a few things that I think should be addressed with succession boxes:

(1) For some career politicians who hold multiple positions throughout their career, should all positions be included in the succession box or only the top few positions? If only the top few positions, how many? For some of them, the box can get really big and unwieldy if all positions are included and it seems to take up too much space at the top of the profile. However, limiting it to only their top few positions would break the navigation flow for the lower offices that are not included. I suppose we could consider including some small number at the top of the profile and then come up with an alternate way of showing the rest of the navigation lower down - either a table with the relevant links or a second succession box or something.

(2) The succession box templates currently don't have a parameter for an icon/image. Icons for flags or official seals of the office are frequently used in succession boxes, at least for politicians in the US. If we want to continue using these icons, a parameter should be added to make them an official part of the template. However, including one for each office makes the succession boxes significantly larger for some career politicians. It might be good to make it a policy to only include an icon for the top position.

(3) It would be really nice if the succession box template could be made more user friendly for when a person held more than one position. Or make it a policy that you use separate boxes for each position, although I think it looks better when there's just one single box.

If it's possible, it would be nice to have the input be something like:

{{Succession box

|title1=

|years1=

|before1=

|after1=

|title2=

|years2=

|before2=

|after2=

}}

Examples related to these discussion topics: 

President Calvin Coolidge has three positions in his succession box but he also served in the Massachusetts Senate & House of Representatives and was a mayor. 

President Joe Biden has only his presidency in the succession box, but not his roles as vice president or senator. 

Queen Victoria has two separate succession boxes with no images/icons.

Comments

I have seen many profiles that have multiple Succession boxes, either because they had different offices, like State House, then Federal Senator, but other profiles have both offices in the same Succession box.

Same thing is seen when there was a break and they later resumed the same position.

---

Yes to a more user friend template for succession boxes! I avoid using them because they are so hard to navigate.

---

This would all be covered under the specific template proposals.

Answer 5

The issue of non-paternal events (NPE) was already brought up and that is something that not only affects the child but the parents themselves who, typically, are not married and potentially had little interaction beyond pro-creation, that said, being a mating couple is a significant biological relationship even when not sanctified by marriage. Whether it justifies a navigation box is a question to be considered.

Comments

To my mind marking a profile prominently with something that could recall outmoded stigma is not a good idea. A discrete note in the biography text is more than sufficient if the situation isn't already obvious.

---

My maternal grandmother and paternal grandfather were both NPE's - and they are long gone so to me it is water under the bridge. But there are closer NPE's like my girlfriend who found out she was not her father's daughter after her DNA test. So I think for some, being discrete is good.

---

Update: There is a new proposal for a {{Special Family Link}} nav box instead of {{Adopted Child}}.

Answer 6

Please consider the case of the 'relation' between slaves and their 'owners'.  I have  been working on the Slave Registers of the Cape Colony setup in 1816, running till 1834 and maybe a bit after abolition, documented in [[Space:Slave_Owners_and_Slaves_in_South_Africa]].

As a 'white' South African many of my ancestors were slave owners, but a small fraction of about a dozen were slaves themselves, and a small number were original first nations Khoi/San. Some of the ex-slaves became slave owners as well.

The Slave Registers of 1816 were set up after the British had (nearly) ended the trade of slaves over sea, but slavery itself was only ended in 1834(38).

The only way for new slaves to enter the Cape Colony was when they were born from slave women. The registry system did no more than registering these mother-child relationships, and giving the children a precise date of birth. The slave registers did not recognize fathers, and earlier slaves only had an 'approximate age', in stead of a birthday.

Abolitionists made use of this fact, and encouraged people to 'manumit' slaves directly, or in their wills, also to allow slaves to save up some money to buy their own freedom, of course at a low price. They specifically encouraged the manumission of women and little girls born in bondage. In 1828, they even set up a "Cape of Good Hope Philantropic for aiding deserving slaves and their children to purchase their freedom". The society explicitly tried to help women and girls, to prevent any new slaves from being created. This way, people could anonymously give money to free slaves, and the owners could anonymously give the philantropic society a good deal without influencing the 'market'.

This period when Abolition was still a war of ideas, that moved towards the end of slavery is full of good and bad 'players'. It reminds us a lot or the system changing energy transition of our times, with its market mechanisms and its greenwashing.

Now: how to make use of this information, and how to integrate it with the wikitree genealogies?

I've been adding lists of slaves to the slave owner bios, on the one hand to document slavery in those times in which abolition was still in progress. But also in the somewhat optimistic hope that these slaves may later be linked to their descendants.  I am sure this will be awkward for descendants of slave owners, and also descendants of the slaves. But I'm also sure that they are all interested in this part of their history and ancestry.

A further level of awkward history is the fact that most of these slaves had a 'career' by being sold from one 'owner' to another.

To finally come to a point: there are many kinds of 'awkward relationships' between slaves, their 'owners', from one 'owner' to the next and previous 'owner', and even to the Philantropic Society.  All 'slave careers' came to an end in 1834, after which slave owners received 'compensation', while the slaves themselves had to remain with their previous owners in a period of 'apprenticeship'.  Finally, the ex-slaves had the right to get married, and have surnames. Some of them took the surname of their previous owners, making a some kind of very awkward 'descendents'.

How can WikiTree support all these types of 'awkward relationships and links'? That is my question.

The talk about 'succession boxes' makes me think that some type of 'awkward box' or 'painful relationships box' could support these relationships.

Answer 7

I think a box for Disambiguation could also be used for categories to explain place names (e.g. same village name in different locations in the same country or region). Potentially even a Succession box might be very useful for higher-level historic categories.

A box for Disambiguation and Succession could also be used on Free Space Pages that talk about Historic places (particularly in the territory formerly known as the Holy Roman Empire (TTFKATHHR). This would help to better explain what other territory names a certain country can often be confused with. It would also help to define pre-decessor states and successor states (but it would have to be multiple predecessor / successor states)