Talk:Comparison of genealogy software

Linkfarm

The majority of the software listed here is not notable, having no wikipedia articles for themselves. Such software should be removed from this list per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. I think we have enough notable software listed that the article can be kept. --Ronz 18:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed 8 March 2007. --Ronz 15:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a linkfarm tag. I propose the Developer column be removed. That way we won't have a long list of external links which violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL. --Ronz 03:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. -- Ronz  19:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Chronology view

Chronology view has been added to the list of features but there is no explaination of what this is in the definition list. There needs to be a definition added for this feature.

Keith D 09:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed not sure what it actually refers to. Gioto 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Family.Show

I have added some information about the software Family.Show bacuase it's so easy to use that even my mother can use it. The SW is for free and can be installed at http://www.vertigo.com/familyshow.aspx I think that the company has developed the SW (payed by Microsoft) to show what you can do in the programming environment Windows Presentation Foundation.

umm, *coughSHILLcough*. seriously though, the only thing that this user has contributed is about family show, and it does seem a bit shillish.

I also think that we should have family.show there because it is a good programm and supports GEDCOM.--84.60.252.204 17:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Family.Show is more of a demo than a full fledge genealogy application. At this time I'd consider it still under development. How can you measure ease of use?? I think this column should be removed.--David 15:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing that column. I'd also suggest getting rid of family.show altogether. The IP that added family.show and the column in question hasn't edited anything since. And looking at the above website for family.show, the programmers themselves say that it was just the equivalent of a 'concept car', a programming exercise to test out new programming features - that it isn't a real product and as such has no support. While it may look nice, and be an interesting demonstration of new features, I don't think it really belongs in a comparison of finished products? Any objections or comments? sjwk (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Family.Show - --David (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Features

A number of genealogy programs have a beginner and advanced mode for use of the program. So should the "Easy of use 1-4" be relabeled to take this into account or just be relabled "Ease of Use" with out the number grade. Gioto (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ease of Use" should be removed. Exactly who determined it was easy to use? What criteria did they use? You might as well add a column that says 'Do I like this (Y/N)'. Leave marketing to the actual vendors - This should be a basic comparison only. --David (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

comparison

• Richard Wilson's Geneaology Software Comparison Page - looks to be an old page as it talks about TMG v5.
• Lou Kessler's Independent Comparisons of Genealogy Programs (keep in mind Lou is writting his own software program called Behold.

Gioto (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Added http://www.gensoftreviews.com/ to the links. gioto (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Research Guidance

Do we really need "Research Guidance" ? Should we look at removing easy of use? Gioto (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes as it is meaningless unless the same person rates each package, but even then it is a judgement call. Keith D (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable Software

Please do not add every genealogy related application you come across. This page should only compare notable applications with an existing user base. This is not the place to announce your new product or recruit users. WP:NOTDIR --David (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern Genealogy - web application currently in development - wikipedia page on track for speedy deletion - not notable - ok to delete? David (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat amazed that Genbox Family History has been removed from the list. I was involved in the AfD for Genbox (and currently trying to overturn the article's deletion), but it seems a little disingenuous to first delete the article on Genbox and then remove it from the comparison article too -- even if it has the most features of any of the compared application. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Web Application Removal

An edit on 15:42, 29 October 2008 removed web applications from the comparison. By who and on what grounds was this decision made? Is there another article that includes a comparison of web-based apps? For instance Phpgedview has a large user-base and is well established and under active development, and we'd like to understand why such applications were removed. Nathanhaigh (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The web applications were removed on October 8 by Alistair McMillan. He's an administrator. Why don't you ask him yourself?12.76.156.122 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Why don't you ask him yourself?" - what do you think this discussion is for? It is expected that he will respond here, publically.

(If there is such an article, it does not appear in a search for "PhpGedView" --Wes Groleau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.68.239 (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC) )

I couldn't agree more. It's appalling when whole sections are removed at one person's whim with no proper explanation, especially when the edit is by someone who 'claims' to be an admin of this site. There is nothing in the text that indicates this article should only relate to non-web based applications. In the 21st century surely we're not still limiting ourselves in that way? At the very least that 'admin' could have moved the web applications to a new specific article for them, although I totally fail to undestand why anyone would want to split similar applications like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.162.45 (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(One of the removed applications is the only genealogy software I use. It also was not completely removed--still appears in one reference. --Wgroleau)

What I do not understand is that an unnamed wiki adminstrator has written to the phpgedview project managers with the following

Dear author of genealogy software, please check that the information about your software in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software and in the specific Wikipedia page of your software are correct, complete and up-to-date.

On this basis I have (as the person who did the edits in the first place restored the delete that has been done.

wdm001 (talk)4 November 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

Sounds phony to me. What administrator wrote that to whom? Where's the proof?12.76.156.122 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote above was a direct copy from an email received by phpgedview developers, by email, from a wikipedia email account signed 'admin' - how much proof do you need? Do you have a comment on the actual issue?

Wikipedia is not an advertising forum for phpgedview or anyone else. Phpgedview was not singled out for deletion--all web applications were deleted. Seems fair to me. If you're going to restore phpgedview, you should also restore all the web applications that were removed, that is, if you're interested in something other than advertising space. Please sign your comments.12.76.133.40 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)