Talk:Comparison of genealogy software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

CHOICE - Test: Family tree software (Online 11/06)[edit] (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy Reviews[edit]

"Non-traditional" families[edit]

Could there be a criterion listing the programs' support for what for want of a better word I'll call non-traditional family structures, such as adoption, non-married couples, and same-sex marriages? - (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RootsMagic entry declared advertising[edit]

My name is Bruce Buzbee, president of RootsMagic, Inc. Our genealogy program RootsMagic is one of the best selling genealogy programs on the market, yet every time I try to create a page or add information to this comparison page, someone comes along and kills it.

I completely understand the requirements, yet our product information (which is no different than the pages or information on any of the other products listed) continues to be un-done as advertising.

The latest occurrence our updates to the comparison were undone, even though all we did was list the facts for the software exactly the way it was done for every other program. Can someone please explain why ours is considered advertising, while the others aren't. And before someone says it is because we don't have a page on Wikipedia, please keep in mind that the exact same thing happens every time we try to create a page, even though we have based the content on our page on the other products which also have pages.

Rootsmagic (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Because you shouldn't be adding content to Wikipedia about your own products. Please see WP:COI and WP:SPAM. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

More Genealogy Software wanted for comparison[edit]

Why are there so few programs listed? (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The list was cut back to those that had articles available on wiki. Keith D (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Saw your comment and noticed geditcom did not have a wiki article so I removed it Yes check.svg Done Jim Madson , What other genealogy programs that are notable, do you believe should be listed? Jim Madson —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not the original poster. However, I was looking around for information on Broderbund genealogy software when I came to the wiki. Apparently they used to make Family Tree Maker before selling it to, but now they make another piece of software called Lineage Family Tree (LFT). However, considering the fact that I can find very little information on the net about LFT outside of Broderbund sources, I'm not necessarily sure that they're big enough to be listed here. Davidfischer (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Genealogy Features vs. General Features[edit]

I think a table should be added that identifies general features that the genealogy software could have. Examples of general features are: search and replace text, spell check, find records, backup and restore, import and export, customize. I'm sure there are others people can think of. Does anyone else concur? Leeirons (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Both the tables miss an explanation of the features (column headings in the table). E.g. a SOURCE SURETY or CONFLICTING EVIDENCE feature needs explanation. Is this something bad, something good (is the feature relevant?), and if availalble to which extend does the feature improve the software? Zawuzln (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Greater Resolution for Features Table[edit]

The features in the Features table do not provide much differentiation between the software packages. There seems to be an overemphasis on charts, reports, and views. As a result, programs such a GenealogyJ appear to be very similar in features to programs such as Family Tree Maker and Legacy Family Tree. Features such as "standard source templates," "relationship calculator," and "source citation detailing" would provide better resolution to the differences between software packages. Any other opinions on this? Leeirons (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Free To Use vs. Free Software[edit]

Not quite sure what the difference is. Perhaps the columns should be Standard Edition and Deluxe Edition and the choices should be Purchase, Free, and None. Any other opinions. Leeirons (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Free To Use means it is distributed at no cost. Free Software means that the license gives the licensee (who receives the license, think user) certain freedoms (to copy, modify, distribute, and use without restriction).
BTW, I changed the entry for Family Tree Builder as it was listed as Free Software with a Proprietary license, but its Wikipaedia entry identifies it as Freeware and I didn't see anything in their website which contradicts that (no mention of the license type).
Jergas (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested updates on the Genealogy Software Template and this page[edit]

Please see Template_talk:Genealogy_software#The_case_for_Software_As_a_Service_restated for a discussion of changes affecting this page also.

Will also look into cleaning up the page to make more useful, as has been commented on in Dick Eastman's Newsletter comment area after he pointed out this page today. Specifically, features common to all tools can simply be listed in text above the charts. Or individual items like chart or report types, can be listed in the box under a single column for each piece of software. A visual, separate column is not so necessary especially if text can be used to show deeper meaning or differences. Will take this into consideration when reviewing the overall changes to the Genealogy Software page itself. At minimum, this page should reference back to that overview page to start with.
Randy (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

The external link:

Is a dead link because the author died in November 2010. Source:

I think therefore this link should be removed. It will never come back and even if it does, it will be hopelessly out of date and useless due to that fact alone (This is software comparison).

Conflicting evidence[edit]

What is the genealogical feature 'conflicting evidence' ...? Is it a 'plausibility check' to find input errors (e.g. person has married before birth date) ...? DiBase (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

These are two different things - conflicting evidence is the ability to record different information for the same event and to annotate commentary about the difference (eg World War II Service record indicates a person joined in 1939 and had a date of birth of 1920 but the same person's marriage certificate suggests they were born in 1923; commentary would then raise the inference that they likely lied about their age to enlist and whether the inference had been confirmed by other evidence). For software to be considered as supporting conflicting evidence, as a minimum it should allow both versions of the information to be recorded and the record(s) should have a flag field which denotes the status of the conflicting evidence (eg disputed, proved, disproved, unproven). AusTerrapin (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Genealogical features - consanguineous marriage in a family tree[edit]

I would like to see one more feature added to the Genealogical Features table - whether each program can accurately depict consanguineous marriages (for example, between cousins), and join the partners' ancestral lines into one at the point where they have a common ancestor. --Greenwoodtree 18:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Actually, this applies also to "double in-law" marriages (e.g. two brothers marrying two sisters), as in these cases also, two ancestral lines merge into one. --Greenwoodtree 11:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)