Should a pedigree be posted on every name in the pedigree?

Question

I can understand someone posting a pedigree on the one person whose pedigree is traced, showing the source of the pedigree, but think it inappropriate to post it to everyone included in the pedigree listing.

Comments

Hi William,

Are you referring to this?

https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Anjou-46-1

 

---

Yes. My feeling is that it really clutters things up if posted to every person listed in the pedigree.  Listing the pedigree as a source for each person would be fine, but adding the picture of the pedigree to each person is overkill.

---

I can understand that :)

---

Found the book on archive.org, but it's one borrower at a time.

Really though, Grace Chetwood's descent from Charlemagne isn't a useful source for King John.  It's only on his profile because he's listed as one of the people in the picture.  His PM gets no say in this.

Answer 1

The image page says "People in this photo", not "profiles you want it to appear on".  People do what it says.

Comments

I see this phrase, on the left side under Edit Image Details, on the image's edit page:

People & Things in the Image:

I don't see your quoted phrase, RJ. Could you point to its location on the image page?

edit: removed extra spaces!

Answer 2

The problem is, that profile have individual biographies and require individual sources. So either you include the Pedigree source for each individual, or at least point from each profile to the one profile with the pedigree source. When entering Pedigrees into Wiki tree, I have chosen to not create profiles for people who have not had children, but have rather included their details with their parents or grandparents, because dead ends are probably more of a waste of space. Unless of course it is someone notable.

Comments

I respectfully disagree. Every person whom ever lived should have a profile. If we go by your suggestion, then I wouldn't be here on WikiTree and I don't consider those not having children a waste of space. They were someone's child, aunt, cousin etc.

---

Sorry, please don't misunderstand me, I'm talking of people who died a hundred years ago. The reason I am entering my family pedigree in, is to enable others to connect up into our tree. But entering lines in that died off isn't helpful for this process. I agree with you that people who don't have children aren't less valuable, which is why I include them in the biographies of the next generation up which does have downward connections. That way they aren't forgotten. And, I'm not saying they are a waste of space as a person, but space on WikiTree's hard drives. It also makes it easier to keep the number of profiles down, so that searching for your connections isn't constantly running into people who won't give you the connection that you are looking for. I'm sure you understand what I mean. Sorry for the confusion.

Answer 3

The issue here is not so much whether a pedigree should be posted, but rather, should the picture of a source be posted?

In this case, the person profile is part of a line of descent pictured in the photo of the pedigree.  Well and good, that is a source.  It may not be the best source, but it is a source.  Whether or not the pedigree picture is posted, the source certainly should be listed.\

One problem I've found with photos of sources is often you don't get complete information.  You see an important piece of information about John or George and you know it's on page 247 of some book because that shows up in the picture-- but no indication of what that source atually is or what book it came out of, or whether the author is well regarded or not.  The poster is saying, "see, it's true, I found it in a book."  Well, yes, but we want to know more!