Talk:Rodovid Rules

From Rodovid Engine

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] some little other things

  • Isolated records. I think they have to be allowed if they have:
    • a serious source
    • enough info to avoid ambiguity
  • We forgot about single records. Add 5.8.--Igor 12:52, 2 September 2010 (EEST)

(in fact french power-users create lots of isolated records, when they build a depouillement: recording complete Civil Registry in Rodovid. Lots of people are identified, but have no family links in such Civil Registry.)

  • Something about fictitious characters
  • I think other french admins would be happy to forbid mythological records in french localization. I desagree with that, but I may be the only one... I'm affraid it's in contradiction with general rules. What do you think about that? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 12:23, 2 September 2010 (EEST)
We talk about it yesterday with Yaroslav. De-facto we need to create Rodovid myth with all localizations. In this case it not useful, thus categorization and without connection to real persons - is a decision.--Igor 12:52, 2 September 2010 (EEST)
Authorization to connect mythical characters with historical people would provoke immediate dismissing of all french admins, including me! ;-) OK, I will explain that Mythical records are allowed, and that connexion with historical is HIGHLY STRICTLY STRONGLY FORBIDEN! OK? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 14:28, 2 September 2010 (EEST)

I see we still updating rules. Thus, let's go into force them from September 20th. It's enough time for translation and developing local rules.--Igor 12:52, 2 September 2010 (EEST)

Ahem. what about people with mythological names who were real and belong in the tree.. Or about whom legends and myths have been written but who were never the less real and belong in the tree.. or people who assume a name which is mythical and legendary when they assume a position of leadership or priestly honor but who were never the less real and belong in the tree? Just curious... because that leaves out a whole lot of people! And related issue Whose mythological system and body of literature are we going to ignore? Almoustine 16:03, 15 September 2010 (EEST)
Ok. How mythological name make influence to real tree? If it has just add comments about it or provide personal page. If this person lived, but it has parralel mythological tree - best way to have 2 trees real and mythological and provide 2 templates - this real person has mythological tree or this myth person has real equivalent ( like Harry Potter ). I think by templates we canresolve most problems. --Igor 16:27, 15 September 2010 (EEST)
I do agree, historic controversies have to be presented (just because they're historic). There's a way to do that: creating several versions for historically controversial trees. (not every controversial person, it's not enough) Each version has to be sourced, categorized tree of familly xxx according to yyy, and tagged as historically controversial. So then, readers can choose their path, they can jump from a version to another if they want. But Rodovid does't have to do that in place of each reader, who has the right to make his own opinion. That means that these trees need a beginning and an end. These milestones are easy to find: each time the nature of the source changes.
We had a big discussion in french RD with a tunisian user descending from the prophet. He was saying that presenting his tree was really strange: it makes no sense to mix Coran with colonial administration documents. It's just like mixing Shakespeare and Barbara Cartland. No? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 21:42, 15 September 2010 (EEST)
How is mixing Quranic reference with Colonial administration document strange? If the person has both to establish their veracity then great. Likewise if a biblical person can be identified through archaeological record the awesome. Or a Greek person identified in Hittite record... I am not sure how that is strange. Help me understand. Almoustine 23:16, 24 September 2010 (EEST)


Add 2.7. - we had such situation with Baya - Baya2.--Igor 13:13, 2 September 2010 (EEST)

I think we cannot eliminate mythological/legendary people until we can agree on a common definition of who and what a mythological person is. For example, there are several historical Hercules... some of whom can be identified in a valid lineage. I agree with eliminating fictional people like Frodo Baggins but what if someone really is named Frodo... or Harry Potter? Perhaps an interest category for these types of entries. So they can be reviewed... Also. We should be using a multidisciplinary approach (history, geography, genealogy, Science (DNA studies), Anthropology, comparative literature, and archaeology to build our trees and not just limit it to a single discipline.

For example the discovery of Hittite documents, treaties and other state records have put a time frame on the Fall of Troy. As a result there are quite a few mythological persons who can be reliably added to the human genealogy tree (now that we know when they were born and can cross reference against other reliable historical sources). So no. I am firmly against disconnecting trees from each other just because we are not happy with someone else's entry. We should welcome input by all. Will mistakes happen. Of course they will, can they be corrected, of course they will if we are all working together. I believe we should be working toward a greater understanding of what the evidences are and helping each other... not slamming each other at every opportunity, and holding grudges forever Almoustine 18:34, 3 September 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Historical controversies

Well, we have rules for general cases. This is a great progress.

Agree. I think if no new addings - September 5th will be date of adoption. September 20th - they'll go into force.--Igor 17:03, 3 September 2010 (EEST)

Next steps are:

  • Finishing the wording in all Rodovid languages, plus local rules... etc.
If no translation- link here.--Igor 17:03, 3 September 2010 (EEST)
  • Beginning to apply theses rules (we will have lots of editing conflicts... Big thing to do)
What do you mean? --Igor 17:03, 3 September 2010 (EEST)
► For instance 99% of trees going through 9th or 10th century records are controversial... No?
difficult to say - have no info. --Igor 23:21, 3 September 2010 (EEST)
  • Decide how to do with Historical controversies What shall be the Rodovid Method to present these controversies?

Let's take a simple (!) example: what about Jesus ? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 12:11, 3 September 2010 (EEST)

I think the only non-conflictable metod is:
  1. it MUST categorized like Jesus tree (Islamic), Jesus tree (Christian, Jesus tree (Judaism)...
  2. it must contain link to record of another version. We can provide template for this.
► I do agree, but that means there are several records for one person. No? (ha ha, this was one of my first idea;-) --Christophe Tesson - talk. 19:29, 3 September 2010 (EEST)
In fact yes, maybe we need rule for historical persons?--Igor 23:21, 3 September 2010 (EEST)
Maybe. But, Igor, we have to take care, we were 5, and now we are 2 in this discussion. Maybe we should wait something more collective.

In fact we need to create:

  1. Staff rules
► OK in my mind, it's not a big deal. You think it is?
I talk about some administrative moral code - it's like some ethic standards. --Igor 23:21, 3 September 2010 (EEST)
  1. Categorization rules (general)
► Right. We had a very large group-work about that in France (more than 2000 categories!). This is typically a french ridiculous habit: we put everything and everybody in categories, all day long!
I'll try to write something in english about that in coming days, or weeks. IMHO i'd prefer Categorization recommendations

instead or rules.

It's ok, cause we can establish only basic principles. --Igor 23:21, 3 September 2010 (EEST)
► ► I wrote Experiments in Rodovid.FR. We shoud try to share our experiments, I think, with short descriptions in english. This could hardly improve Rodovid.
I think each locale will have own experience due to historical and local features. Ukraine only in XX century had more than ten changes in administrative-territorial division, e.g. with changes of the city names etc. Thus we can't make simple system.
I started Geoportal now without special engine, but there are a lot of work before it. --Igor 12:46, 6 September 2010 (EEST)
  1. media rules

Also we need to make video lessons. At this time i do Russian version and plan to create second lesson for Ukrainian. For English I can create, but i need help in spelling etc.--Igor 23:21, 3 September 2010 (EEST)

► I saw your 1st lesson. Could you tell me what software you used, and how much time it toke to you?
freeware wink 2.0. it's frame-by-frame program. I don't remember - cause it was 1st time. If you understand program, maybe 2-3-4 hours.
I'll try this.
► And we forgot Source Rules... --Christophe Tesson - talk. 19:29, 3 September 2010 (EEST)
how to put sources? --Igor 23:21, 3 September 2010 (EEST)
Yes, and what is a source. In fact I ask me something: is a record controversial, each time that the nature of source is changing?

--Igor 17:11, 3 September 2010 (EEST)


Ok. we must announce rules. I think for base rules it's enough! --Igor 12:46, 6 September 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Premature

IMHO, these proposed english rules are premature, why should they are in any local rules? Are pharaohs, romans and habirus an english local speciality? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 16:12, 4 September 2010 (EEST)

It must be statement - clan rules for some historical places and periods can contain some special requirements (see Special clan rules).--Igor 16:22, 4 September 2010 (EEST)
  • 9.2.1.3 Clan name of Ancient Romans:
Names in Clan should represent the family gens and entered as plurals preceded with a prefix (i.e. gens.Claudi, gens.Aureli, etc). Females represent the end of line following which their children belong to the gens of their fathers.
  • 9.2.1.4 Clan name of Pharaohs:
A Dynastic affiliation should be entered in Clan which corresponds to the Dynasty in which they ruled. Female members should belong to the dynasty of their father's unless they are specifically acknowledged as the founder of a new dynasty.
  • 9.2.1.5 Habiru Confederation:
The political entities that formed the Habiru Confederation throughout the Levant concurrent with the reign of the 18th-22nd dynasties should be identified in clan name according to their political affiliation (i.e. Habiru Confederation - Asser, Habiru Confederation - Naphtali, Epherat & Minas) This is a patrilineal designation which ends at females following which their children carry the clan or surname of their father.
I think perhaps you can handle these ancient people's clan names however you want in the other localizations but in the English localization it helps to minimize confusion and aid record searching when they are entered according to the guidelines listed above.Almoustine 17:41, 4 September 2010 (EEST)
I'm OK, this kind of rule don't have to be in general rules. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 20:14, 4 September 2010 (EEST)

well if you are putting them in the rules for the other localizations then they should be in the rules for the English localization.Almoustine 03:07, 5 September 2010 (EEST)

[edit] First edition conflict

See: Controversies.

[edit] Re: access might be developed in future and will be sold by paid subscription

If this means that in future only access can be gained to Rodovid by users with a paid subscription, then possibly 90% of the Dutch administrators and users will remove their contributions and discontinue using Rodovid! --Fred Bergman 21:36, 12 September 2010 (EEST)

No. It means that if user want to close access to the part of his tree (not more than 100 years) he might pay for it. We open project. --Igor 21:49, 12 September 2010 (EEST)
I think I get it Igor. What you mean is this: should I want a part of my contributions not to be open to the general public, then I would have to pay for that privilege.That is what you mean, is it not?
Yes, cause idea of Rodovid - is to create public trees and to connect them.
Now it's only idea and fixed in rules only to prevent 'i didn't know my tree is public'... I have such "clients"...--Igor 00:41, 13 September 2010 (EEST)

You are probably thinking of data concerning living people.

Yes, it may gives an opportunity for users whose relatives not allows to publish such info to build tree here. --Igor 00:41, 13 September 2010 (EEST)

Leo

--Leo Bijl 00:31, 13 September 2010 (EEST)

OK, 1.1.2 was not clear for everybody, but now english wording seems more strange than in previous version. Could anybody help? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 10:38, 14 September 2010 (EEST)
I will take a look at the wording to make sure it is clear (as explained in this thread)Almoustine 16:03, 15 September 2010 (EEST)
Personal tools
Джерельна довідка за населеним пунктом