Talk:Genealogy software/Archive 1

Webpage Export
I think it's important to add information about HTML/Flash content export.

Inclusion
I wish to discuss the criteria by which software is eligible for inclusion or exclusion from this topic. What are the rules for inclusion please?

I wrote Precision Genealogical Tools (PGT) because I wasn't able to find software on the market that did what I wanted. Genealogy is arguably outgrowing the current GED structure to the extent that it is inhibiting development of software which is more appropriate for this era. (Another interesting topic for discussion). PGT arguably has several innovative features built into it which will hopefully move the study of genealogy forward. By excluding software from this article there is the danger of limiting choice.

If anyone wishes to discuss this, please post here or you can email me privately at ken@precisiongenealogicaltools.co.uk

Ken, You already appear on Cyndi's List and you are well represented in google and a number of other genealogy list so their is no danager to you. The idea of this article is not to list every piece of software as this page is not about comparison and maybe no links to commercial software should not appear in this article. Note that some of the most popular genealogy software have not been listed. I agree that the GEDCOM 5.5 standard is as you suggest. Have you had a look at the Gentech proposal [] [] I encourage you to continue with your unique software and thankyou for your input into this artical. Jrinaldi 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

- From Ken Moorhouse, 16th April 2006 08:00 BST

So you are using your ability to hit the censor button rather than wishing to have a sensible discussion about this.

You already appear on Cyndi's List and you are well represented in google and a number of other genealogy list so their is no danager to you. Danger?? I am interested in furthering Research into Genealogy. What exactly do you think my agenda is? These other programs also appear on Cyndi's List and are well represented in Google. I repeat my question: What exactly are the criteria by which software is eligible for inclusion or exclusion from this topic. What are the rules for inclusion please? You are adopting a Censorship approach which is against the spirit of WikiPedia.

The idea of this article is not to list every piece of software as this page is not about comparison and maybe no links to commercial software should not appear in this article. Double negative. What do you mean by "no links to commercial software should not appear"?? From your stance it would appear that "no links to commercial software should appear". If this is the case then why are all these commercial programs listed?

OK Let's go through the list:-

Brother's Keeper Commercial program

Family Tree Legends Commercial program

Family Tree Maker Commercial program

Genopro Commercial Program

Legacy Family Tree (Free version) Commercial program

LifeLines Non-commercial, but no longer developed

Personal Ancestral File(Register to Download) Free Program

WinFamily Commercial Program

Note that some of the most popular genealogy software have not been listed. Yes, you've decided to censor those too. This is Censorship you are applying here. Can you tell us what your agenda is, please? What is your personal interest in what does and does not appear here?

I agree that the GEDCOM 5.5 standard is as you suggest. What do you mean by "Is as you suggest"? Do you mean flawed? Are you agreeing with me?

Have you had a look at the Gentech proposal I encourage you to continue with your unique software and thankyou for your input into this artical. I was aware of 1, not aware of 2. 1 seems to have not progressed.

- From Ken Moorhouse, 16th April 2006 11:10 BST

My Suggestion to Resolve this conflict

Let's look at a typical Wiki page, selected completely at random:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_word_processors

If you look at this link you will see that there is a comprehensive list of Word Processors, some of which I have never heard of, some commercial, some non-commercial. Why don't we agree that you reinstate all the Links you deleted in this section, but put them under similar categories to that which is used in the Word Processing section? Or is the Word Processing section going to undergo a similar exercise?

Jrinaldi 15:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Ken, firstly I apologize and understand your concerns, I was trying to clean up the article and bring it more in line with other similar program stubs. Either spliting this article in to both a "list of Genealogy software" where just historical and current could be listed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_software and a seperate "Comparison of Genealogy Software" for the more current and active programs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_comparison allowing us to compare features. Also within these list and comparison pages there may a seperate sections for data entry programs and data manipulation utilities for genealogy programs as well as tools to visualize and printout genealogies.

Moorhouselondon 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I wasn't trying to make life difficult for you. You are obviously interested in the subject. Do you see your role here as that of coordinating a rewrite of the whole topic?

Do you think this is better listed under Lists of Software? I have no bias either way. I can see you are probably concerned that such a list should not be allowed to grow to Cyndi's List proportions!

Comparison of software however, will probably be quite difficult using a single comparison table as there will be a group of software that will fit the standard model of such software - which will emulate and improve on the features of PAF. PAF being a kind of benchmark. Then there is software which tries to break away from the PAF method of recording which may not fit well into the comparison table. Or you might have a Macintosh user who isn't interested in anything which doesn't run on a Mac. The comparison table would thus be very wide and "sparsely populated". The danger here being that the original objective of Comparison is likely to end up confusing the prospective user. Having tick boxes for Birth? Marriage? Death? Census? Monumental Inscriptions? Electoral Registers? Poll Books? Photos? Geographical Coverage? Religion? etc., might be good, but there will be differences of opinion over whether, for example, GED can store Census entries (yes it can, but only in the form of 'notes').

I personally think a succinct paragraph be written for each program would be more beneficial, but this would presumably be a multi-author effort which needs to be in a consistent, neutral, writing style.

Moorhouselondon 08:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) I have just written an email to everyone (I hope!) on the Windows list asking them for their input.

Daubnet 12:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC) I would love to see a list of criteria to be (re-)included in the Genealogy Section. Our product "Ages!" was on the list up until Apr-14. I did not put it there, obviously someone thought it belonged there. It was then removed with the "Removed Trialware..." comment, which is blatantly wrong in connection with out product. It is shareware, and as such has a functional limit - yes - but: It can be used freely as viewing application, and as such could be seen as freeware viewing app as well.

I believe that non-shareware, shareware and freeware belong on that list. If non-shareware didn't belong there: Go ahead and remove FTM. If shareware didn't belong there: Remove some more. If freeware didn't belong: Remove PAF. In essence: Do not judge my a products sales channel.

I will not edit the article, as I feel I should stay away from editing that article. It would feel like bad marketing if I did. So, please: Whoever set up that list, or whoever felt like removing unwanted entries: Make up a list of criteria - then take an unbiased view onto the available products. Then - and only then - change the list.

Patricklambe 09:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Although I have no axe to grind as I'm not a genealogy software developer, the list does seem somewhat arbitrary in that I'm somewhat surprised not to see TMG in any genealogy software list. However, the problem is always going to be a dificult one in that there are rafts of garbage genealogy software out there which obviously aren't worth listing, but who takes the decision as to what's worth listing and what isn't. So we're back to either going for a (very large) exhaustive list, most of which is unmaintained and/or buggy or going for a more targetted list that is one (or a few) people's opinions, there's no winning really.

Moorhouselondon 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC) TMG was actually on the list before it got hacked about with. I have written to the developers about this.

Web-based section
When I look in this section each of the websites listed allow you to mainly add your family tree via a GEDCOM file online. The only links that looks out of place here are WeRelate.org - which even states that it is a "Verticle search engine for genealogy. WeRelate.org also includes millions of wiki pages on sources, places, and names." is this link spam? And the "A Free Cherokee Indian Genealogy Resource " should this be moved to another page. Should someone these remove this links? I was going to but after reading everything above I'm a little hesitant to do anything with out talking about it. This article really needs to be improved by someone who is more in to the different genealogy software around? Gioto 11:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On further reflection I believe that the "Web-based" section should be merged into the List of general genealogy databases, because all other sections are actually software that can installed and controlled by the end user. This is actually very difficult to decide as the article states at the top "Genealogy software is computer software used to collect, store, sort, and visualize genealogical data. At a minimum, genealogy software tends to collect the following information:"! Are the links in the Web-based section genealogy software that allow collecting etc? Gioto 12:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm developing an application tentatively called Exodus, which is based on Web technology (Linux / Apache / PostgreSQL / PHP), but at least initially intended as personal software running in a protected environment. Where would that kind of software fit in here?

Even if my project is still in a very early stage, I have at least a running application. Try to install and fiddle with eg. the GeneaPro software which is linked from the article. That project seems to have been comatose for several years. leifbk 10:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

more webbased gedcom links
See Eastmans review of phpgedview Gioto 03:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Links
The external links section of this article is a bit out of control. Someone at teh spam project has suggested "drop[ping] the bomb" on this article, by which I assume they mean just delete all of the links and let peopel argue which ones to put back. In the interest of consensus, I thought it best to address the issue here and ask if anyone has any suggestions how to fix this article, other than the above "bomb dropping" approach, which I would be happy to do if I don't hear any other alternatives. --Selket 08:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Move the links to Comparison of genealogy software. Den fjättrade ankan 16:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for offending anyone with my unilateral suggestion. Once or twice before I'd see someone ask on an unmaintained page about a bunch of SPAM links, but nothing came of it, so I would usually just remove them all. Since this page has active users behind it, I didn't realize how this would come off sounding at a distance. Since you are actively talking about this, don't worry, I'll leave the links alone and not "drop [] bomb[s]" on anyone.  68.39.174.238 01:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I probably should have looked here first to see why External Links were missing. I added them today to link to an article.  If you feel this is better suited in another section please feel free to move it until the External Links decision is finalized. --Dkaufman1 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the policy and guidelines, this article is considered a linkfarm and all the external links to software sites should be removed, if the article itself is worth keeping at all. --Ronz 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I get it. With all the sites being linked in the article External links were not really needed. Is there suggested methodology or format for a software category article to follow?--Dkaufman1 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there is enough worthwhile content that an AfD is overkill. The only remedy I have is either to do a mass-removal of external links, leaving the article specific to notable software that already have articles.  We could also expand the External links section to contain links that have more thorough lists of software.  I'd prefer other opinions before proceeding. --Ronz 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ronz - how about these articles as examples:

[List of Spreadsheets] [List of Graphics Editors] [List of Linux Audio Software] Does that work?--Dkaufman1 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of the three, only the audio software list contains external links to software. I'm proposing that such links not be allowed. --Ronz 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the external links. --Ronz 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This link does not seem appropriate: "Genealogy Software made easy and for a group. An article in a Chicago area newspaper about easy to use, no cost online group collaboration software for building a family tree." I think it should be removed. Dkaufman1 has promoted his blog in the same way in the Ethnography article. Everyguy 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it, considering that it was about software that is not currently listed, and that it's an extremely short review. Yes, it would probably be better if Dkaufman1 was not adding links to his blog per WP:COI and WP:SPAM. --Ronz 04:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can certainly understand both of you wishing to keep blogging removed from Wikipedia, as the sheer range of writing might be counter-productive. At the same time, my syndicated articles appear in print as I have previously mentioned.


 * According to Ronz's previous links/discussion, they are acceptable by Wikipedia standards. My column is a syndicated column that appears in 4 editions of a Chicago newspaper, with a readership over 200K.  I don't actively promote a single print edition, due to my status as being syndicated.  I also don't know another way to link to the articles other than their official home.


 * I can fully appreciate the article depth you might be looking for in every external link published on Wikipedia, though I can disagree that length is what makes an article useful.


 * Finally in reference to this specific article, I didn't want to seem petty, so I didn't add back in/revert this edit nor did I add the software I wrote about to the main body. I respect your expertise in managing WP far longer than I have been writing.  It is a great resource.  I will inform you I often click on the external links when doing research for articles to find additional information that is not listed in the WP source.  I look forward to your reply, and not just a "linking" to WP standards yet again.--Dkaufman1 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I indicated that I was fine with an external link in Ethnography to a specific article you wrote. I don't think your articles should be accepted as external links in general, given you're not a noted authority on the subjects you write about, that you're self-publishing, and that the articles do not contain the depth of information that would usually supplement encyclopedia articles.  You should be suggesting inclusion of the links on talk pages rather than introduce them yourself per WP:COI and WP:SPAM. --Ronz 16:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I spent some time reading the COI and SPAM documents. I know you referenced them a few times now in our recent touchpoints, but honestly I had skimmed them.  Re-reading carefully, the biggest complaint about my articles, is that as a non-expert it makes sense that they are carefully discussed prior to inclusion.  And also that I write more broadly appealing columns and often don't dig deep into the subject matter.  I actually agree with you on both points.  In a newspaper column I only have so much room and most readers are referred to the full WP article and other links.  My writing is to inform, the uninformed, not to provide in depth education.  But I have had many readers thank me for the WP link and further reading.  As well as readers from WP comment that they appreciate the easy-to-read and understand "executive summary" of a complex topic. I will henceforth follow this method of "request for inclusion" on a talk/discussion page.  It will certainly give me a chance to better explain my case.  Please look for those.  And I appreciate the replies and discussion to better educate me.--Dkaufman1 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To me it seems that removing the link on this page was the correct thing to do because it was essentially a review of the software in question. I think this is inappropriate because: 1) A review is an expression of the writer's opinion and the result of his or her original research. 2) If links to reviews were to become an accepted part of Wikipedia, then promoters or detractors of every piece of software could claim rights to link to numerous reviews, both for and against. I think this would lead to a terrible proliferation of reviews, start conflicts about which reviews to include and not include, and move Wikipedia away from its goal to become a trustworthy and useful encyclopedia. The issue is not whether the articles in the links are good or bad, useful or not, but whether they serve the overall goals of this project. --Everyguy 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Great points and thanks to you and Ronz I really do feel a bit more comfortable with posting future pieces on the discussion page for review and letting the experts there decide if they are article worthy. I still do believe that my point about: "My writing is to inform, the uninformed, not to provide in depth education. But I have had many readers thank me for the WP link and further reading.  As well as readers from WP comment that they appreciate the easy-to-read and understand 'executive summary' of a complex topic."I am not 100% sure if that supports the overall project, but again I will be respectful in the future.  Thanks again for politely educating me.  You both probably were beating your head against the wall in some cases.  --Dkaufman1 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused with the "possible spam" banner still on this page. The only external link left is to Worldconnect. It isn't genealogy software but a location for publishing the output from genealogy software. I don't see external links to any software, so why the spam banner? --Casner 15:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag after removing an overlooked external link. --Ronz 15:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

SmartGenealogy
I have added this program as so far it is the only one I have found that can convert a spreadsheet to a GEDCOM file and is a free program. Any one know of any others? Gioto 02:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of this page
So far from being a definitive source for information about genealogy software, this page appears to be banal and virtually useless.

If is to be developed, I suggest there needs to be some further discussion about what information should appear here. No-one is going to take the trouble to add to it, if they know their contributions are likely to be simply swept away.

The recent purge of the programs listed leaves mostly the best-known and best-advertised, without any advice to the reader about why they have been selected, and without any help to the reader to find a more informative site, where he can find out about the scores of programs which are not deemed suitable for mention here.

All links to external sites where the reader could find out more about individual programs seem to have been expunged as spam. Meanwhile the wiki page for iFamilyForTiger, linked from this page, is (at 12th June 2007) a blatant plug for that program. Paravane 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting list
The Eleven Essential Features of Sound Genealogy Software by Geneapro 1. Unicode Support 2. Graphical Pedigree Tree. 3. Integration 4. Generate Reports. 5. Customize Reports. 6. Custom Data Fields. 7. Compile Statistics. 8. More Than Ancestry. 9. Easy Navigation 10. Auto-Completion 11. Low System Impact. Should we incorparate some of this? Especially #1 I would like to know how many genealogy programs are actually capable of unicode for example? see also: "The Benefits of Unicode in Genealogy"

Another question I would add is: 12 Is the genealogy program portable?(eg USB Key)

Gioto (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it's possible to achieve a consensus about what features a good genealogy program should incorporate. In that case, we'd probably have just one program that everybody would use. I for one found that there was no ready-made program that suited my needs, so I built my own from standard Open Source components ie. Linux / Apache / Postgres / PHP. In some aspects it's clearly sub-standard according to the bullet list above, while in others it stomps all over the commercial programs.


 * Your bullet list above also has a clear bias towards one commercial program; it's more than probable that they wouldn't include features in their list that might indicate a weak spot in that program.


 * One of my primary concerns about genealogy programs is how they handle documentation. "Genealogy" without proper documentation is just worthless gossip. I can't see anything in the list above that cover this aspect. Another concern is that the data model should be very flexible, and accomodate all kinds of conflicting data, as well as discussions of the evidence. Still another one is how the program handles naming schemes other than the prevailing Anglo-American use of "surnames", for instance patronyms. leifbk (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Leifbk, Take a close look, the list is not by me! And I agree with you about not being able to achieve a concensus. From the list I only agree that a genealogy programs today should handle unicode. I am not impressed by a lot of the "Graphical Pedigree Tree's" as I like to hand draw and emblelish my own (scrapbook style). I also would add one about having a portable genealogy application on my usb key with me which a lot of the programs don't seem to handle. Documenting sources in a way that I am happy with, seems to be difficult in many genealogy programs. I am sad that Geneapro stopped it seemed like the right way forward. Gioto (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gioto, I didn't mean to imply that it was "your" list. I actually visited the site, but I wasn't impressed either. For instance, their idea of "integration" is how the program interfaces with a commercial office suite that I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. leifbk (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)