[From reddit Gramps]Looking for articles mentioning Gramps software to improve the Wikipedia entry

Can anyone help save the Gramps wikipedia article?

copied from reddit:

It seems that the Wikipedia article on Gramps genealogy software (i.e. https://gramps-project.org/ ) has been nominated as an article for deletion (see the discussion here).

The reason for the deletion proposal is Wikipedia’s requirement for the subjects of articles to be “notable”. This requires:

  • Significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail
  • Reliable sources
  • Published sources which are not by those directly associated with the subject (see: Secondary sources

The challenges here are that:

  1. There aren’t a ton of articles on genealogy software in major magazines and newspapers, due to the niche focus,
  2. Much of genealogy discussion is on forums and blogs, which tend to be dismissed and,
  3. Because GRAMPS is a free and open-source software, published by a non-commercial project, it does not sponsor events, speakers, articles, webinars, etc… hence it probably has far less coverage due to the non-commercial nature and the lack of financial incentives for coverage.

So I’m appealing to fellow genealogy buffs here for any articles, presentations, videos, etc… that you may have which pertain to Gramps . These could even be emails from genealogy & historical societies to which you are a member. If you could reply with a citation and a link, or if it isn’t online, perhaps a screenshot on Imgur or another image hosting service.

Yes, the Gramps Project has a list of articles, however some of these are incorrectly dismissed as merely “blogs”, hence I’m trying to find other material, especially that which might not be included and/or easily found online.

Looking for articles mentioning GRAMPS software to improve the Wikipedia entry : Genealogy

There is a proposal to delete the Gramps article on Wikipedia, on the basis that it is not notable. This seems a bit ridiculous to me, so I’d like to hear if anyone has any actual evidence of how notable Gramps is.

Wikipedia editors might like to check out the article for deletion page.

Is Gramps notable? : gramps

1 Like

A reasonable counter might be to ask a GitHub admin to post the statistics on downloads. That is a more concrete (and one that is independent of our personal biases) demonstration of ‘notability’ than any OpEd article.

1 Like

I just read the Talk page and there is one pertinent and VERY accurate point.

After the first sentence, the Wikipedia Article on Gramps devolves into tech specs. Pure gobbledygook to most of humanity.

It needs a clear statement about why the software helps genealogists. Without falling into the trap of promotional crap insisting it is better (or different) from other tools.

1 Like

The thought occurred while adding another forum dedicated to Gramps to our Contact: unofficial Forums on the wiki… all these sites could be linked in the External links of the Wikipedia article as independent indicators of notability.

So, in a recent Developer maillist thread to the Translators, I sent an invite to note native language support forums dedicated to the topic of Gramps use.

What other forums are we missing from that list?

Two French newspapers articles about Gramps, if it can help:

Thanks for the links. I was excited to read there might be newspaper articles on Gramps. It seemed like might be something worth citing… with a byline of a known journalist.

But after visiting the pages, these seem like these are merely anonymously authored pages of a Product Catalog hosted by the newspaper publisher as a reader service. (Like the Thomas Registers for the 1990s or a Cyndi’s List.)

How about this? Featuring GRAMPS Features! Is It Really A Genealogy Program for All? - YouTube

Looking for articles in different languages you know seem like a good idea, I personally didnt find one noteworthy in Norwegian that says anything more than casually mentioning it.

1 Like

Not an article, but tomorrow is an Online Meeting (in German) about Gramps and other genealogical software hosted by an Austrian genealogical association (ÖFR):

There is also an entry about Gramps in the wiki of a German genealogical association (Verein für Computergenealogie):
https://genwiki.genealogy.net/GRAMPS

1 Like

The nomination for deletion was rejected. So today, another person renamed the page, broke the redirection and highjacked the original page.

The editor is a heavy contributor to Wikipedia… the change is something that should NOT be peremptorily ‘undone’. (And might even be complicated to undo properly.)

In the process of their changes, the Talk page link was broken for the redirect page
.

So I posted the following message to the editor’s Talk page

3 Likes

Gramps page redirect

A hasty and misdirected change

Clarityfiend recently renamed the "Gramps" page to "Gramps (software)" modified the ''redirect'' to Grandparent.

Although a rename may be appropriate (since the term ‘Gramps’ is more commonly used to refer to a Grandfather or old man in the English language than to the open source software tool), the redirect destination change was premature.

The Gramps page redirect modification created ambiguity, was incomplete, broke well over 100 Wikipedia article internal references and, in addition, broke external website references. Moreover, a proper disambiguation is more appropriate rather than a blind redirect.

Obvious breakages:

  • Gramps is only incorrectly neutered to ‘’‘Grandparent’’’. Instead, it is a gender-specific monosyllabic endearment for grandpa/grandfather. (Supports an indeterminate number generations of removal: i.e., equally applicable to an extant great-grandfather.) “Grams” is the gender-specific variant for grandma/grandmother. It is also used pejoratively to refer an ‘old’ man or a man out-of-step with current trends.
  • The Talk page for the original “Gramps” redirect still redirects to the “Gramps (software)” Talk
  • The ‘’‘Grandparent’’’ page as the destination for the redirect created additional ambiguity.
    It expanded the disambiguation selections at the beginning of the “Grandparent” page to “Several terms redirect here. For other uses, see Granddad (disambiguation), Grandfather (disambiguation), Grandmother (disambiguation), Grandma (disambiguation), Grandpa (disambiguation) and Gramps (disambiguation).”
  • A premature redirect destination change interferes with crawl error handling and prevents REDIRECT error reports from being resolved by automation.
  • A casual user’s normal “unexpected redirect” resolution is precluded. (The usual workflow is to: click the link in the “(Redirected from ____)” prepended notice to find the moved location of a recently updated page. The edited redirect page omits the new location of the old page.

Possible solutions:

  • The REDIRECT page should/could have the Gramps (disambiguation) contents… with proposal to convert to a REDIRECT at a specific future date. This would be compatible with preferences that prevent redirects after following external links.
  • The redirect created by the rename needs to be ‘‘left intact’’ for 30-90 days to allow external websites to run redirect reports. With accurate redirect targets, they will be more able to easily locate the new target URL resolve their internal links.
3 Likes

I dont know where you posted that other than here, but yes!

1 Like
1 Like

Just in case the cross-reference to the 167 affected pages suffers link rot:

Displaying 1-100 of 167 items referencing the original Gramps Wikipedia page.

Displaying 101-167 of 167 items referencing the original Gramps Wikipedia page.