This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article relates to genealogy. Is it really part of a Genetics project? If yes, why is the blurb on the talk page instead of the article page? Wgroleau ( talk) 17:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. I've removed the Genetics project tag. Dahliarose ( talk) 11:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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 has been added to the list of features but there is no explanation 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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 judgment call. Keith D ( talk) 09:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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) "Notable" is too subjective for Wikipedia. Redefining it to mean "having its own Wikipedia article" makes it non-vague (although that's a rather weird definition). Redefining it to mean "having an existing user base" leaves it just as vague and subjective as before. Exactly how many people form an "existing user base" ? Wgroleau ( talk) 17:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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, is well-established, and is under active development. 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, publicly.

(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)

While users of PhpGedView (including me) are understandably disappointed at the removal of their favorite, their arguments seem valid to me. Hard to restore all of them without reverting other changes. When I added PhpGedView a long time ago, I also added The Next Generation and I think I may have added GenMod at the same time. But that was ages ago, and I don't relish the idea of repeating a fight with Wiki's table codes. Wgroleau ( talk) 17:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me very confusing having web-based applications included in a section for family history software as they have completely different uses. Why not have a separate table for web-based applications? There seems to be a general consensus from the above discussions that some at least of these web-based applications are worthy of a mention. Dahliarose ( talk) 20:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent plan! 12.76.132.86 ( talk) 17:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should have actually looked at the applications they were deleting. Someone with absolutely no knowledge of a subject is able to make sweeping changes and leave everyone wondering what to do. I'd say revert this admin's changes as the unsigned vandalism it was. I do software development and a web app is just as much an application as a smart or local app. David ( talk) 18:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The "vandalism" was signed by an administrator, AlistairMcMillan, on October 8, and again on December 7. Why don't you take it to his talk page? 64.252.28.1 ( talk) 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He already did. I had forgotten all about this article. Thanks for reminding me ClintonDSims. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 18:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, which having its own article isn't directly criterion for inclusion in a list, having an article goes some way to proving notability. And notability is a requirement for being mentioned on Wikipedia. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 18:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If an administrator sent you an email it wouldn't be signed "admin". And you shouldn't be editing articles which mention products or services in which you are directly involved. Please read WP:COI. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 01:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here has COI in this case. I'm under the impression that these are all users - not developers. Also - comparing web apps to client apps are simple and valid. If someone chooses to distribute their application without having to lay files on client computers - a Web-based application may be the way to go. Most web apps are a step away from being client applications (and vice-versa). I'd press this issue harder if this page weren't in such disarray. The last thing I'd want is to be stuck with cleaning this up. David ( talk) 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove web applications from this list because I believe they are "less" than desktop apps. I removed them because comparing a web application and a desktop application like this is a joke. It wasn't even made clear in the article which ones were web-based and which were desktop based.

BTW You really think all the editors here are "users - not developers", even the single issue editor who claimed to have knowledge of an email that was allegedly received by the developers of phpgedview? The number of single issue anonymous editors on "Comparison of ... software" articles is astounding. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PHPGedView is open source - so there are many people on the mailings lists who do no actual development. Alas - I cannot say if that is the case or not here. I personally use GeneWeb and chose to edit it's page because I have knowledge about that specific product. I don't modify details of PHPGedView because I don't use it. I'm hoping the others involved are simply trying to share info on the products they are familiar with.

I disagree that comparing the two are a 'joke' because I've been in exactly that position. When choosing which application I would settle on, I compared both client and web apps - The method of delivery was much less a concern that features and completeness. It would have been nice if there was a place to get an unbiased comparison of the more popular apps. Many of the published reviews feel a bit too commercial... yep, pay for play. David ( talk) 23:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Genbox family history.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:PAF screen shot.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all the images from this article because of the following:

1. They are too small to see;
2. They are apples and oranges; some show a pedigree chart, some a data entry screen, some something else;
3. Readers can see better examples by going to the articles for the particular programs;
4. Because of the above, they add nothing to the article - they really don't allow the reader to do any meaningful comparison, which is the topic of this article;
5. There seems to be some copyright issues with some of the images.

12.76.144.136 ( talk) 21:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! User Gioto declared the addition of the product MacFamilyTree as spam (see history). Can someone shed some light on this? MacFamilyTree is one of the largest genealogy application on the mac with tens of thousands of users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MendelK ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi MendelK, Please see here MacFamilyTree as you can see the article was declared "Blatant advertising" (aka SPAM) and speedily deleted. If you have any questions please redirect to the those who deleted the article and please do not use my words out of context (eg do a bit of research please). I just had a quick look around the web about MacFamilyTree and you seem right, I suggest you write an article on your user page first and then transfer to the article space, making sure it does not read like an advert. gioto ( talk) 13:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gioto! Thanks for your fast answer. We're currently preparing an article for MacFamilyTree. Once the article is available, may I revert your undo to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MendelK ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to ask me!! If the article passes others eyes and they like it, then anything needed to support the article can be done. Hint:Make sure you have third party ref's etc ..Who is we? Are you the creator of the product? gioto ( talk) 14:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will do it! "We" are Synium Software from germany, I am the CEO. One of my employees is currently preparing the article and he is making sure that it is not an ad of some sort, just the history, feature set and a description. It's a pity that that no article about our product exists (it has an eleven year history by now) because we even offer wikipedia integration from within the application. Thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MendelK ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to keep in mind and read the following artcile Wikipedia:Spam ..14:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Before deleting my edit, please explain why my addition is considered a conflict of interest or spam? I have been a user of Ancestral Quest for several years, purchasing one of its earlier versions, and buying into each subsequent release since. I've been actively involved in genealogy for over 30 years, have used other software programs, and consider AQ one of the better ones on the market.

A few days ago I sent the people at AQ an email asking them why AQ is not included in Wikipedia's article "Comparison of Genealogy Software." A couple of days later I got a reply from Gaylon Findlay, president of AQ, that he added it, but it got removed because of a COI. So, I decided that because I'm merely a "user" of the program, and not having any COI, I should be able to add it myself. I thought that this was a wiki, and anyone could add or edit valid information!!!! Please explain. Bwayment ( talk) 19:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwayment ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In short we get people trying to spam Wikipedia to promote their products constantly. Having a brand new user account re-create content that was previously added by the company president, less than 24 hours after it was deleted is suspicious. People create multiple accounts to hide their identity so often we have a name for them ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppets). I left a message on Gaylon's talk page explaining how to go about getting this content into the article. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I can see how you came to the conclusion that it was added by the company president, and I now understand why you deleted it. Again, thanks for discussing this. Bwayment ( talk) 06:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have created an article on Ancestral Quest. I am not associated with the company, just a long time user. I did not feel the redirect to PAF was appropriate - as it is an independant software development tool. I added a number of references outside of the ancquest.com pages, and tried to highlight historical about the product.

Jerry Barrett

Defane ( talk) 01:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)