Can non-biological setting display on profile? [closed]

Question

I've just had my first encounter with a non-biological child-parent relationship, and I was surprised at the display result.

When a parent is marked "uncertain," the word "uncertain" appears on the profile page of the child.

But when a parent is marked non-biological, nothing appears on the child's profile. In fact, it's "plain" and conveys normal status.

How difficult would it be to add "non-biological" in small letters to the resulting profile display, similar to the way the "uncertain" appears?

I'm going to close this thread because Chris has a new proposal that would meet the needs behind my request:

Answer 1

Vote up (please don't use down votes) if you support this proposal.

Comments

Especially given recent G2G discussions about templating various forms of non-biological relationships, this proposal makes perfect sense to me.

Answer 2

Vote up (please don't use downvotes) if you do not support this proposal; please also add a comment and explain your objection. Thanks.

Comments

Jim, following the thread of the logic, wouldn't the existing "uncertain" option be similarly as insensitive as "non-biological"?

---

Melanie: one unkindness would be enough to avoid this. Convenience is a poor excuse for humiliating someone at the top of their profile.

Edison: That is not as bald or as bad. "Uncertain" is an indication that there are inadequate sources to be definite. There could be many reasons for that. It is different from an outright denial of paternity.

---

I have a cousin whose family trees elsewhere include a father - the man who was married to her mother, and who was the only male parent she knew her entire life.
Here on WT she has no father.  Would it be a kindness, or an unkindness to give her that father and mark him as non-biological, or is it a kindness or unkindness to leave her fatherless?

---

It sounds as if he acted as her father and the relationship was recognised as a parental one on both sides, similar to adoption. Therefore it would be a kindness to acknowledge it without showing a cold clinical "non-biological" at the top of the profile. It's possible to give a sensitive description in the biography. If you're not up for that, omit it. (I'm not saying the status can't be marked as non-biological on the edit tab, just that it shouldn't tactlessly be trumpeted on the display tab.)

I'm not sure why my vote is so heavily challenged here. People voting "yes" weren't even asked to give reasons, and only Edison has done so. That doesn't seem very symmetrical. Anyhow, I've made my point.

---

I'm ready for responses, Jim. I just felt that your response was suggesting something outside of the scope of my proposal. And the subsequent responses generated were then focused on your alternate proposal (get rid of non-biological entirely) and not on my initial proposal (change display of what happens when one selects an existing function).

---

I'm not making a proposal, or a request for technical change, Jillaine. I'm just voting no here.

If you read back you'll see that I merely answered a question you explicitly put to me, "what would I do" in a situation which was already different from your idea. (I also wouldn't use non-biological status on a profile I managed.) Otherwise my responses were focused on avoiding making the existing gaucherie more widespread.

---

I don't know if we could start showing that information -- most of the profiles with the non-biological marker are living people/members and they may have only felt comfortable choosing that option because it wasn't highlighted on their profile.

---

So what all of this is indicating to me is that non-biological is not an appropriate setting for long-ago or long-deceased ancestors / profiles. That in those cases, it is more appropriate to leave the non-biological parent disconnected so as to prevent inaccurate relationships and pedigrees from being displayed. And then explain it all in the biography.

---

If it is not appropriate to show it, why does it exist?

---

why does it exist?

Mostly to stop the DNA stuff from going on incorrect profiles. If the script sees a "non-biological" marker, it doesn't continue adding DNA info to the profiles in that line.

---