How could we use maintenance categories on WikiTree?

Question

This is something the Categorization and Profile Improvement Projects might be interested in.

What do you think of using categories to mark profiles that need some sort of improvement? Wikipedia uses these; they're called maintenance categories. I'm sure we all come across profiles sometimes that need a lot of work, but we don't have time to do it right now. Rather than just ignoring it, it could go into a category, so when we do have time, we have somewhere to look for profiles that could really benefit from our time. And this way, people who really enjoy one particular type of profile improvement could find profiles needing that type of work.

Some ideas we could have categories for: profiles with copied Wikipedia articles in them, profiles with tonnes of pending merges, profiles in need of fact checking, etc.

Thoughts?

Comments

I created Category:Maintenance Categories. Within that, there is now Category:Long Profiles in Need of Cleanup. I got it started by adding a few profiles from the top of the longest pages list. :)

---

Lianne, I just looked at the list and saw that I may be responsible for much of the problem.  Jacques and I have been merging and not cleaning up until we finish the merges.  That seemed to be the best way to accomplish the most.  Now that most of these profiles and almost "merged out," I'll starting cleaning them up.  ;>}

---

Don't worry, there were profiles like that before you and Jacques got started. :)

In some ways it is a good strategy; if you clean up before you finish merging, it'll just get messed up again. On the other hand, if you don't clean up along the way, you end up with some pretty terrifying profiles!

---

I try to clean up each profile after I've merged all the dupes of a given person. If I left them, I'd never get back to them. And if you thought they were ugly before merging, they're a nightmare after merging! ;-)

---

Suggestion Use a Category:Merge Cleanup for that type of merges.

They will be red for some time and easy to spot and sort as well.

Answer 1

Part of me thinks this is a great idea, but the part of me that knows that about all of my profiles could use quite a bit of maintenance thinks this is a terrible idea! ;)

Comments

lol! I know what you mean.

---

This is a great idea, Lianne!

We don't need to be ashamed that profiles need work. They all do.

---

To expand on my answer, I think that it is a great idea for the future, or for a group of profiles that are more "mature" in their state of completion. I'm not saying it shoudn't be implemented now, but I might not be ready to use them with the profiles on my watch list until a significant number of them start approaching a higher level of completeness. Until then, adding a maintenace tag is just adding extra noise to the profiles.

Now, the more I think about it, perhaps replacing some of the default text for new profiles with a "this is a stub" tag might be a good idea.

---

I hadn't even thought of marking profiles as stubs. Oh man, would that ever be a big category. :)

I know what you mean about it being more useful for well-developed profiles. I think HSA profiles in particular could really benefit from this. The projects are always so focused (with good reason) on merging duplicates, but it's important for us to clean them up, too, and maintenance categories could help us keep track.

Answer 2

I think this is a great idea - and was wanting to create several for my profiles that are in stages of being updated.  Some need to have sources entered and the biography expanded.  Some of my ancesters were founders of small West Virginia towns like Harrisville - and I haven't finished their profiles, still others need to have links put into the text to point to their siblings, parents etc. then some need categorys. . 

I was thinkning of a categories for:

1. Profiles - Sources Needed
2. Profiles - Link Needed
3. Profiles - Categorys
4. Profiles - researching
5. Profiles - Possible Duplicate

These are just a few that I was considering.

Terri 

Comments

I agree that Category:Unsourced Profiles would be a good one to have. I fear it would be a very big category! :)

I'm curious what you mean by link needed and categories. For categories, do you mean profiles that need to have categories added?

For possible duplicates, I'd be more inclined just to propose a merge or add an unmerged match, rather than use a category.

I'll create Category:Unsourced Profiles now. That's definitely a useful one.

---

When I stated links needed I was meaning the links that you can place within the profile for bouncing between profiles. Stating something like .. Jeff and Allen served in the Revolutionary war together and fought at ..... Since I would be using Jeff's profile I would like to put the link to take you to Allen's profile.  A profile link from one to another.

 

Yes - for category needed - that would be the profiles that should be added to a category - like Revolutionary War, War of 1812, or Preacher/Reverand or MD, muscian etc.

Terri

---

As long as we breath, as long as babies are born, as long as there exists documents not yet accounted for; there will be changes. Take three deep breaths, exhale slowly, and live in the moment.

 

The future belongs to those who build it. Who's building yours?

Answer 3

How about a "No Dates" category?  

Or an "Orphan Profiles" category? For profiles who have no relatives and no data.

Comments

I have been adding Signers of ... (the 4 major US Founding Documents) Categories to existing profiles or creating the basic profile with one source to all the American Founding Fathers.  In doing so and looking for duplicate profiles, I found several, possible a few hundred profiles that were just as you describe.  Basically just a name, possibly a link to a family member.  There was no way to tell if it was a duplicate because there was no uniquely identifiable information.  Orphan Profiles would be great.

---

I see Chris has already addressed this in another question asked by Terri Rick.

---

I see Chris has already addressed this in another question asked by Terri Rick.

Upon research, I searched Orphan Profiles in G2G, I see that this has come up a lot.  One distinction I think needs clarification is a difference between isolated single profiles that have data and dates an those that have virtually no information.  The first ones are indentifiable as individuals that can be researched and developed, the second one would require contacting the profile manager to learn who the person is an possibly dealing with an unresponisve PM.

---

Hi Michael,

Are you talking about the discussion: How about a maintenance category for "Orphan Profiles"? at http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/24046/how-about-a-maintenance-category-for-orphan-profiles?  The last comment on that discussion was on 19 August 2013, which is almost a year ago.  

Doesn't appear to have advanced any since that discussion, so airing it again might be a good idea.

Maybe we need to call them a different name so they are not confused with "orphaned profiles" such as "Dropped Leaves" defined as profiles having no linked relatives and no other identifying data.