Talk:List of genealogy databases

message: It is not an unreasonable proposal.  I would counterpropose that all of the database references be added to an appropriate 'requested articles' page prior to deletion of the page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a new section on an existing page for this purpose; see Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_Sciences_and_Philosophy#Genealogy_resources.  --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding proposed deletion

message: List of genealogy portals --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An additional page that should go

message: Why the "(external link)" addition instead of normal wiki syntax using piped link? I'd be inclined to standardise unless there's a good reason for the current format, which probably takes longer to create and edit. Robin Patterson 04:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List format

message: It might be useful to change the text to reflect that this is a pay service that is available through membership in some libraries. I would also suggest that the comment about the frequent updates of this Social Security Death Index (SSDI) database, while helpful, should be altered, relocated below to the death databases, or removed entirely since 1) the comment is internally linked to an article that directs the user to the Rootsweb SSDI search engine, and 2) the average home user of Wiki will not be able to access the specified database without calling a business, filing an application, and paying a membership fee. Pat 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  America's GenealogyBank 

message: Given that wikipedia is nota an indiscriminate list of links, should this perhaps instead be merged to teh wikibook for genealogy, in an 'Online resources' section? ThuranX 22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: An IP is trying to group all Ancestry.com related companies into a single section at the top, giving it preferential advertising space, instead of leaving it alphabetical. This strikes me as a violation of WP:ADVERT, and WP:SPAM. This is NOT a proper edit, but an attempt to get, or give, free advertising. ThuranX 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  list revision 

message: This list sets out to be of databases "not specifically restricted to a particular place", but many of the items (and not just in the contradictory "Geographically Specific Sites" section) are US-specific.  The list needs a lot of tidying.  PamD 07:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise 

message: I propose removing all external links per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK.  Further, all entries that do not have their own article should be removed, because no other list inclusion criteria has been stated.  See WP:LIST --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not propose a merge with redirect to the Portals, which you're also cleaning up? There's a better place, I think for the sites with articles, and so on? Or is there a subtle significant difference I'm missing? OR, would it be better to merge to here? I've long wonderd about this as a linkfarm, but given how MUCH spamming hits Genealogy and famiyl History, i've been glad there's at least one page they can leave wikipedia thinking they've 'won', after i remove links from the other two, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there's much more cleaning up that needs to be done. --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I Propose that all sources be brought to one page and only list the top 10 sites:
Having looked over many of these links - some have refrained from adding main titles due to the lack of information about them or worse was trying not to advertise other companies.  As to Ancestry & its quirky extras sites - they should be parked permanently on the portal page alone.  And this includes Cyndi's List, USGenWeb, WorldGenWeb and others.
Zenheart (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is only possible if we have an agreed upon reliable source for the "top 10 sites". --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WHich presents all sorts of trouble. I think the standard originally proposed by Ronz, that any site listed have an article here which establishes some level of notability, is a reasonable one. Most of the national archives would qualify, as would 'volunteer' sites like Cyndi's and JewishGen, and possibly afrogeneas, but the hundred thousand linkfarm sites that spam to here for redirect hits profiteering would be dropped. I'd further note that ... genealogybank? I think it is, has a lot of IP spammers... I think an employee, or multiples, are spamming it here. We should be vigilant on that. ThuranX (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkfarm

message: To the editors of this page I would like to point to this short discussion: User_talk:DrFleischman#COI:_A_bit_of_help.
To summarize, while I was still a relatively unexperienced editor I added my own genealogy database to this list. The entry has since survived several rounds of cleaning, since it is supported by a WP:RS.
Nevertheless, in the light of the fact that the entry was added by myself, I would like to invite all editors to review the entry. As for my own future contributions to this page, I will limit myself to just contributing to this Talk page.
Apologies for any inconvenience, Lklundin (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  GEDCOMP: COI issue 

message: Are there any tools to easy make genealogical tree like this Copy & Paste Excel-to-Wiki Converter ?--Kaiyr (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tools 

message: It seems to me that a very important -- perhaps the most important -- distinguishing feature of these online databases is whether they basically manage separate family trees for each user/subscriber (e.g. Ancestry) or are a "single world tree" project like WikiTree. Some, like FamilySearch and Geni are hybrid and have elements of both. Can a column for this basic distinguishing feature be added to the table? I'm happy to add it myself, if no-one objects. AlatarK (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single vs Individual Trees 

message: External links need purging from this page again.  I also intend to remove all the entries that don't have a Wikipedia article, or in-page proof of notability.  That's pretty much all the redlinks - citing their own websites counts for nothing towards notability. SpinningSpark 20:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links