Talk:Rodovid Rules Alpha

From Rodovid Engine

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] This is a first proposal

We need:

  • democratic rules
  • but very simple rules, easy to translate.

Please comment! --Christophe Tesson - talk. 15:18, 19 June 2010 (EEST)

[edit] rules

[edit] Proposal for Rodovid Rules R alpha 1

[edit] Sources

Everything in Rodovid needs to be sourced.

we're not wikipedia. This rule might be applicable for articles and clan page--Igor 17:56, 19 June 2010 (EEST)
Why shouldn't we follow the example of Wikipedia? Isn't it a big success?
At least datas on notorious and/or historical persons have to be sourced. Recent and personal trees just interest the family, ok, but the difference between this two kind of trees is hard to determine. --Christophe Tesson - talk.
Wikipedia has own bugs and bureacracy. Also wikipedia - public based project, while Rodovid more private. We can provide rule as it's desireable to provide sources, but no strong restrictions. --Igor 12:07, 21 June 2010 (EEST)

I support the rule that every person record should have the source. In some cases this source can be very simple, like: "Private communication, Name Surname". Typical usecase is your mother telling you about your grand-father when all official papers are lost.--Alexandre 16:56, 28 July 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Original research

Original research is allowed for personal trees near to the present. (20th and 21st century) Original research is forbidden for notorious and/or historical people.

Original research applicable for own trees, for notorious and/or historical people it can be, but need to be sourced. --Igor 17:56, 19 June 2010 (EEST)
It's quite the same thing, we're almost Ok. Does it mean that admins can erase records about notorious and/or historical people without sources?
But original research can be controversial. This makes full trees ridiculous for any notorious people, and destroys any interest of Rodovid. --Christophe Tesson - talk.
There is no 100% garantee if three older 300-400 years. Thus, it's good to provide source, but it make no sense to provide restrictions. In vino research veritas --Igor 12:04, 21 June 2010 (EEST)

[edit] controversy or uncertainty about a family link

It is forbidden to create a family link via the family link tab when there is controversy or uncertainty about it.

if it controversy or uncertain some notification needed. --Igor 17:56, 19 June 2010 (EEST)
Of course. But it's not enough. Controversial records make notorious people trees ridiculous nowadays, in Rodovid. --Christophe Tesson - talk.

But it can be noticed via a web-link in the notes.

When there are several possible trees, it is forbidden to merge them, simply because it becomes unreadable.

i don't understand this. If there are similar parts in different trees they must be merged, ex. if there are original research or some historical persons.--Igor 17:56, 19 June 2010 (EEST)
It's needed to avoid persons with three mothers and four fathers. If you look for this, you'll find it in middle-age trees in rodovid. This becomes completely unreadable. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 19:51, 19 June 2010 (EEST)
In poligamic families it can be. --Igor 12:14, 21 June 2010 (EEST)
One person have one father and one mother, even in polygamous families, and rodovid software is able to show this case properly. No? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 14:44, 21 June 2010 (EEST)
I don't know if I understood correctly(my english is basic!), but a person can have 2 or 4 parents... because exists some cases of ADOPTION after biological parents die... and in the events BIRTH and ADOP already exists as to sign who is parents of each event... It's work well, only need some adjust in graphical tree, because now show a unique line with 2 fathers and 2 mothers close... Morais 04:42, 12 July 2010 (EEST)
It this case you make family:A+B+C+... BUT if any child present you need to check only one mother and father from this family. --Igor 17:14, 10 July 2010 (EEST)
Don't worry Morais! We all have a basic english! I think adoptive or biological parents can be noticed in notes field, depending on user choice. But only one father and only one mother is needed to make complex trees readable. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 10:49, 14 July 2010 (EEST)

In these cases, we need to create several records for the same person, and to draw several trees, each one in a special category:

  • Person:X according to Y in category Category:Tree X according to Y
  • Person:X according to Z in category Category:Tree X according to Z

Then it is forbidden to create family links between members of Category Y and members of Category Z

Mediawiki is powerful enough to create links between Person:X according to Y and Person:X according to Z

  • Main Rule: one person - one record.
  • If parents are controversial do not add any parents "as parents". Just add all controversial info in person notes. Categorization help also in this situation. --Baya 15:05, 21 June 2010 (EEST)
I was looking for these words for a long time! :-)) --Christophe Tesson - talk. 19:17, 21 June 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Users

It's strictly forbidden to write something in the name of any corporation, association, group, etc. Users are only allowed to write in their own name.

where? --Igor 17:56, 19 June 2010 (EEST)
Anywhere in Rodovid. There are persons and templates like this, in Rodovid nowadays. --Christophe Tesson - talk.
AD is restricted. But if i work on MLI i can put this info into my record. --Igor 17:15, 10 July 2010 (EEST)
AD ? MLI ? I don't know what it is. Anyway, you can cite associations or groups as sources, but I think a user should not be allowed to write in the name of a group, to guarantee autonomy of Rodovid. Otherwise, religions, sects, political or commercial groups could moisturize the data base. In fact, this happens right now. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 10:55, 14 July 2010 (EEST)
AD - advertisement. User can put such info only in user's name or it's own page. I don't agree with whole restriction. --Igor 18:48, 28 July 2010 (EEST)
MLI - Media Law Institute - i'm co-founder. --Igor 18:48, 28 July 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Connecting trees

It is forbidden to connect trees without sources, and without the permission of the first author.

[edit] Some additional rules:

  • Clan rule - all records are in singular or in plural. It based on language rules.
  • UPPERCASE and lowcase in records are restricted!
  • Place must be full based on historical structure (empire etc.)
  • No pages with link only for wikipedia allowed. If you create place page - please provide data interesting for researchers - date of founding, churches, archives so on.
    • If pages with links contains more useful? Imho it depends.... --Baya 15:16, 21 June 2010 (EEST)
  • english localization are international - all others must be written on language of localization.
    • if there no any localization with needed language, person can be added in any, but this person must be added in special category. for example (Category:Language XX). --Baya 15:16, 21 June 2010 (EEST)
  • no hate speech and discrimination allowed
  • no private information without permission allowed. records can be edited by moderators if they have documents numbers, adress, telephones so on.
    • documents numbers, adress, telephones so on be cleared by moderators. --Baya 15:16, 21 June 2010 (EEST)

--Igor 17:56, 19 June 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Proposal for Rodovid Rules: Release 2 ?

Well, gentlemen, my opinion is that we already have a 2nd version of these needed rules. Imho, we should replace the first proposal by this one. I propose we work that way: Release 1, Release 2, R3, R4 etc... And then a translation (at least english and russian). What is your opinion?

[edit] Main Rule

One person - one record. Through all localizations.

[edit] Controversy or uncertainty about a family link

If parents are controversial do not add any parents "as parents". Just add all controversial info in person notes. Categorization helps in this situation.

[edit] Users

It's strictly forbidden to write something in the name of any corporation, association, group, etc. Users are only allowed to write in their own name.

[edit] Connecting trees

It is forbidden to connect trees without sources, and without the permission of the first author.

It's applicable to historical trees or trees of public persons. If you find tree which is part of yours it's better to merge them. --Igor 17:17, 10 July 2010 (EEST)
  • Why? If your information is sourced? --Baya 17:16, 22 June 2010 (EEST)
  • Ok: If there is any problem, the link become controversial, then back to the rule 2
It is forbidden to connect trees without sources. --Christophe Tesson - talk.
I suggest this change: "Verifiable and reputable sources must be cited when connecting trees." Permission of the first author is not necessary. In the case of many of the connections I have made on Rodovid between royal trees, all of which are well documented on Wikipedia, thePeerage.com and other sources, it would be a roadblock to useful database consolidation. Wikiacc (≈) 08:25, 13 July 2010 (EEST)
OK, this sentence now seems to be written in english ;-) --Christophe Tesson - talk. 11:06, 14 July 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Sources and original research

Original research MUST be sourced.

I suggest this change: "All facts and connections must be sourced in all trees. Facts or connections based on original conjecture and not found in reputable sources are not permitted." The phrase "original research" is misleading, as it means something different here from what it means on Wikipedia. Wikiacc (≈) 08:27, 13 July 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Additional rules

  1. no hate speech or discrimination allowed
    I suggest removing the word discrimination. I fail to see how it's possible to discriminate on Rodovid in a manner that isn't already covered by offensive speech. Wikiacc (≈) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (EEST)
  2. Clan rule - Writing clan names is based on local language rules.
    This should not be taken to mean that "von", "d'", et al. should be included in clan names. They are not good for alphabetization. Wikiacc (≈) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (EEST)
  3. Place must be full based on historical boundaries and not modern political boundaries.
    I have changed this to be clearer. Wikiacc (≈) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (EEST)
  4. UPPERCASE and lowercase in records are restricted!
    Restricted or not permitted? This should be clearer. Wikiacc (≈) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (EEST)
  5. Pages wich contains only a link to wikipedia are not allowed. If you create a place page - please provide data interesting for researchers.
    For place pages, a link to wikipedia is useful. A place page that is only a link to wikipedia will still be useful for people viewing the tree. I object to this rule. Wikiacc (≈) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (EEST)
  6. english localization is international - all others must be written on language of localization.
    • Not so many but exists people who did not know English. Maybe this is very strong rule and special category will be enough? --Baya 17:16, 22 June 2010 (EEST)
      It means that you can't write on english in russian localization. Maybe we can define 2-3 languages more: en, fr, es, pt... --Igor 17:21, 10 July 2010 (EEST)
      Yes. Why should english localization have to bear this thing? And, nowadays, though english is the most spoken language, this localization is not very developped, beside russian, french or portuguese. It needs care! --Christophe Tesson - talk. 09:24, 24 June 2010 (EEST)
    • You can't write in English on the Russian localization, yes, but why should you be able to write in Russian on the English localization? I don't think we should have an international localization at all. Wikiacc (≈) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (EEST)
  7. if there no any localization with needed language, person can be added in any, but this person must be added in special category. for example (Category:Language XX).
    Even though it would disadvantage certain groups, I favor not allowing the use of other languages at all. It makes maintenance much more difficult the way that is suggested. I would rather that we have nobody entering anything in Hungarian than we have one Hungarian record on en linking to nonexistent Place: pages, one on fr, one on ru, etc. If the need is that bad, we might as well create a hu: localization.
  8. no private information without permission allowed. records can be edited by moderators if they have documents numbers, adress, telephones so on.
    should clarify: for living persons. Also, since the project is so young, we should assume that permission has been granted unless we learn otherwise. Wikiacc (≈) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (EEST)

--Christophe Tesson - talk. 10:50, 22 June 2010 (EEST)

I think we need to add also "common sense" rules which would limit the introduction of mythology and fantasies into normal historical Rodovid tree:

9. Each person should have no more than one mother and one father in the family link. In case of multiple candidates the most probable is choosen and all other candidates are indicated as links in the Notes and Comments. In case there is no agreement on the most probable father or mother no family link is given, all potential parents are indicated as links in Notes and Comments.
10. The maximum age of the person is 130 years. Only Administrator can grant the exception under strong arguments and sources.
11. The age of the mother at birth of the child should be 12-60 years. Only Administrator can grant the exception under strong arguments and sources (artificial implantations and other very rare cases).
12. The age of the father at birth of the child should be 12-100 years. Only Administrator can grant the exception under strong arguments and sources (medical banks and other very rare cases).
13. Each person should have the estimation of the date of the birth or death. It can be very approximate estimate, in the GEDCOM format there is special "EST" case for it. This estimation allows to check the rules 10-13.
14. The only exception of the rules 9-14 can be mythological persons, which do not have any relationship with historical persons and should be explicitly included in the cathegories "Mythology" or "XXXXX mythology".

These simple "common sense" rules will eliminate 99% of mythology and fantasy, so Rodovid members could concentrate the discussions only on the 1% remaining cases focusing on the reliability of the sources. --Alexandre 17:52, 28 July 2010 (EEST)

I think we need one more simple rule:

15. Each person should have the same mother and the same father in all language localizations.

Ideally, it should be forced by engine software, but i see that in practice some persons have different fathers in different localizations (English, French, Russian, Ukranian etc). Example at this discussion. --Alexandre 15:26, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Rules release Alpha 3

Well, there is no major disagreement. As Baya proposed it on his talk page, I think we should begin to apply Main Rules as an alpha version, and to look how it runs...

It seems that additional rules need more technical development.

I think we should begin this on July 20. We have to tell that to the 45 administrators. Could anybody help? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 11:05, 14 July 2010 (EEST)

[edit] What to do about possibly nonexistent people?

There is already a clear policy against entering characters in fiction in the real database.

But what about mythological, legendary and religious figures? There is no clear policy. It seems that an informal convention has come up to allow them but not connect them to real persons. But there is dispute so we should develop a concrete policy. Wikiacc (≈) 20:53, 23 July 2010 (EEST)

  1. Thanks for your patience, and your work clarifying the wording. It's kind of you to understand we can only write in globish, and not in good english!
  2. My opinion about mythological, legendary and religious figures is that the rule #2 (about controversial links) is enough to avoid connections between historical peoples and mythological figures. It allows to indicate that past genealogists used to create these kind of links (which is interesting) and it avoids intellectual confusion (peoples claiming that they descent from Heracles). --Christophe Tesson - talk. 11:45, 24 July 2010 (EEST)
You're welcome Christophe—and I must thank you for coming up with the rules in the first place. It is an important undertaking.
That is true. One of the implications of that rule is that current informal policy will become formal policy. Now all we must do is enforce it well enough. --Wikiacc (≈) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Igor's proposition (2010-07-29)

Igor, I'm embarrassed because you're a realy hard worker, and I do respect your work. I'm terribly sorry, but I don't understand your proposition.

It seems to be formal (though, OK in fact and in the end, rules need to be formal). But the first question is what shall we write in Rodovid? and not How shall we write it?, and the only thing I understand in your text is: How to write in Rodovid!

Maybe it's because of the language, but, because of Rodovid structure (a single database, and 17 translation) we do have to work with translations. If you're OK, because we didn't have major disagreements about release alpha 3 (maybe I'm wrong, in this case, let's talk), I would like to copy your text in this page and to revert Rodovid Rules to alpha 3 release.

Does anybody disagree?

And we do have a major problem now, I wrote a message to all 45 admins, to tell them to apply Rules alpha 3...

Anyway, we need a method to talk about all these things. A single page seems to be too short. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 22:59, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

Retrieved from "https://engine.rodovid.org/wk/Talk:Rodovid_Rules_Alpha"
Personal tools