Biography changes

Question

Recently I did some merge clean-ups. Using advice from G2G and "Help", I removed redundant information from the biographies because the information already showed in the statistic sections:

Birth date and place, Parents names, Spouse name

A profile I manage was cleaned-up yesterday and exactly the opposite was done - all the information available in the statistic section was added in the bio section. No additional sources were added.

I just want to know which is correct, the particular profile is not a concern to me, only the thought that I am working in one direction and other folks are working in another. Should I spend time cleaning if a profile will soon be recleaned in a way I thought was wrong?

Answer 1

Kristina, I would not remove the items you mentioned from the bio – birth date and place, parents names, spouse name. In the event something happens to disconnect this profile from parents or spouse, then no one would know who they belong to.

Also if you are adding sources for birth date, parents, spouse, marriage, etc., it is helpful to have that information in the bio so the source can be linked to it. For example if you are adding marriage source, you should really have a statement in the bio that says X married Y on such date and at this place to link the source to.

Comments

Ok, I will follow your advice, Shirley.

---

Shirley, thank you for that information.  When I have added sources, I have added one line above the source citation and link, with the key information provided, i.e. Birth so someone would know what this source was for.  Since the birth date, place and parents are already recorded in the profile, and birth identifies the information the source  provides, and often I attach a picture of the original birth record, it seems redundant to type out the same information in the bio.  I will do it if that's considered the proper style.

---

You might also consider that simply adding a line that says "Birth" with a link to a source is not exactly a good narrative bio. I do try at least to write a bit of narrative in the biography to explain where people were born, who was the family, where they moved to, something about the individual people involved.

I really don't see any harm in repeating the information that is listed in the data fields. And I would be interested to know where you are finding that the desired standard is to remove all duplication. What normally needs to be removed is verbiage left over from a gedcom import and/or combining of duplicate sources or information.

---

However Folks - - you can also "roll back" to a previous version if not satisfied, - and the changes are recorded in the changes page - - "just in case" - - - -        cheers - john.a

---

As long as it doesn't remove good, needed changes.

---

I wasn't the one who was removing or asking about removing duplicated information.  I was only asking about not having to add in to the biography information that was already represented in sources and profiles.  Perhaps I am raising the question because I am not a strong writer and editing biographies is not my favorite part about profiles.  So the "harm" for me is spending more time in an unpleasant task adding duplicate information, rather than spending time researching and adding additional new information.  

Answer 2

Contact the WikiTree member who made the changes and ask for the reason the change where made and for sources to validate the changes. Be nice and remind him of collaboration if he is not the profile manager.

See problems with a member: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Problems_with_Members

Comments

David, I wasn't thinking of this as a problem with a member, just my interpretation of what I thought I knew!

Based on Shirleyʻs thoughtful answer I was misinterpreting something.

---

Connections are especially vulnerable because they can be removed or changed from the other end without leaving anything in the log.