Jump to content

Talk:Ancestry.com/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

DNS poisoning problem belong in the article?

Hi. There is apparantly a DNS poisoning problem with the myfamily.com domain. This article goes into quite some detail about the issue, and a Google search turns up a number of people who have encountered it. Should this problem be mentioned in the article? Jkelly 22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


this is an old topic
the provo servers use an internet off site caching service for common icons and graphics to speed up their services and reduce local traffic
Hugh W —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hugh Watkins (talk • contribs).
The main issue (according to an email message I received when encountering this issue) is that many people are using an old version of BIND on their DNS servers. When I updated to the newest version the problem went away and has never recurred. It's really a non-issue. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the current (as of right now) links should remain as the article discusses all of the sites listed. I agree that other sites should not be there, but these links are central to the topic of the article itself. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, external links to the websites and official product websites mentioned in the article. --Ronz 03:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont waste your money with Ancestry.com.au convict data base

Information is available for free from many sources including archives office of NSW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katejl07 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 July 2007

Problems with African-American research

Many African Americans have trouble using these sites because they don't access slave records. Also surnames often changed from master to master. Many ex-slaves also changed their last names. Little legal documentation of their lineages exist as well. I don't have documentation to prove this, but I am sure that others out there know more than me on this.Dreammaker182 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

2008

Looks not so good:

http://familytreemaker.chesebro.info/ftm_2008_problems.shtml

http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2007/08/family-tree-mak.html

It has been available for a while, but no succes.Jack007 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed section

This section seemed really pointless, like it wasn't written with a neutral POV. So, i removed it. Any agree/disagree? --Duke33 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Subscriptions are automatically renewed unless canceled via the web or by phone, as described in site's Terms and Conditions.[1] As commonly happens with the terms of service on many Internet sites, most members do not pay attention to or read them and are therefore surprised when their subscriptions automatically renew. The automatic renewal system has caused controversy, as documented on the sites below.

More revision

The "Products & Services" section is in need of cleanup of some kind. I deleted a defunct product, but don't really have the skill (or time) to add new ones. And I'm not sure that trying to keep up with all of the brands a particular company has at any given moment is an appropriate function.--Harrinsl (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead links?

Most or all links to Ancestry.com or RootsWeb appear to be non-functional. --Auric (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

baptism connection

Shouldn't there be some section making the connection with the Mormons belief of baptism for the dead and the obsession (my word) with genealogies and the data stored in there mountain protected vault? Anyway regardless of that fact this page still reads like an advertisement. Moonraker0022 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Actually, I was wondering the same thing. This does read like an ad and I think that the any connection with Mormonism and their beliefs is pertinent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit 11 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is a private public company with no direct connection to the Mormon church. In fact, many of the owners of the company are not Mormons, and most of the customers of the company are not Mormons. There's no reason to include this information in this article as it's completely irrelevant. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well more important than if there is a connection or not, it is very much like an ad. Not sure how to fix it...Moonraker0022 (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I just edited the product section to remove the advertiness. I also reduced it significantly as it didn't need to be as long as it was. Keep in mind that an article about a company is not necessarily an ad, even if it discusses the products of the company. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A very corporate page

There is no section on criticism and noting silly awards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Companies,_corporations_and_economic_information/Notability_and_inclusion_guidelines#Special_note:_advertising_and_promotion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.99.251.121 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Pages on companies are not required to have a criticism section. Unless there has been significant reliable coverage of something negative, there is no need to include anything. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are faults with the transcription. Not just misprints here and there, but whole British registration districts covering tens of thousands of records have been wrongly recorded. Ancestry will not acknowledge the mistake. I would call that significant. 87.244.78.61 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
That may well be true, but unless it's covered in a major news source (or some other reliable source), it's not going to be placed in this article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


Privacy Issues

I had added this yesterday, and Nihonjoe is right that it may not warrant a paragraph, but I still think that it is an issue, and warrants a note. It is not just the privacy issue, but the company's rigid policy on removing that I think is noteworthy in a business dependent on user goodwill. I have added a few ancestry.com user blogs where the concern crops up (not mine--I posted my criticism on geneaology.com). I will openly admit that I had my own run-in (since 2004) with ancestry.com about removing a World Family Tree file, and experienced their rigid policy for myself. Privacy concerns caused by ancestry.com's policy belong but an entry like the Pinto in an article about Ford (even though all car companies build the occasional lemon). As the blogs are copyrighted by ancestry.com, it is probably not possible to cite them in the public article. I would be happy if someone could suggest how to condense my paragraph so it can fit the entry on ancestry.com.

Privacy concerns:

Once a family tree has been uploaded to one of the various websites of ancestry.com, the names, even if the tree is removed subsequently, remain in the index. Of concern is that the names and relationship of living people are not blocked out, only their personal data is, unlike in the LDS Ancestry File database where all data for living people is replaced with the word “Living.” For one part of the database, World Family Tree, easily uploaded through Family Tree Maker for Windows, and currently hosted on the genealogy.com site, company policy is even more rigid and prohibits removing or replacing trees from the master file from which trees can be downloaded, or sold as disks. Current versions of Family Tree Maker do advice to edit information, yet this was not that clear in the past, nor that easy to do for genealogists who were not that computer savvy. Since the firm relies on the goodwill of people who contribute their data for free, the lack of mechanism for removing such files, or fully hiding living people from its index, might sour the companies’ relationship with its fan base.

Privacy concerns expressed in user blogs (a small, small sample): http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/thread.aspx?m=10690&p=topics.ancestry.ancsite&sort=asc http://boards.ancestry.com/topics.ancestry.ancsite/10026/mb.ashx http://boards.ancestry.com/topics.rw.worldconnect/14090/mb.ashx

Thanks (Karpaten1 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

I think the primary issue around adding this to Wikipedia is whether these privacy issues have been covered by third-party reliable sources. A post to a WorldConnect message board doesn't constitute a reliable source, and for us to summarize the opinions of Ancestry.com users amounts to original research. If these issues have been addressed by reliable third parties, that makes it fair game for Wikipedia. Tim Pierce (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Note also: there is no issue whatsoever with citing copyrighted sources. Copyrighted material may not be copied directly into Wikipedia, but it can absolutely be used as a reference to verify a Wikipedia article. Tim Pierce (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Basically what Tim wrote. A message board is not a reliable source, and there haven't been any reliable third-party sources discussing this alleged issue. This issue isn't an issue, and unless there are some reliable sources to back it up, it shouldn't even be mentioned in the article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
No offense meant, Nihonjoe, but this isn't an "alleged issue" - it's the every day way that a.c does business. They do not make it clear to new members that it is their policy to retain all the info that a member adds to their own tree even after the tree has been deleted by that member. Years after I deleted my tree and left a.c, I still get spam telling me that they've found more info on specific ancestors that give by name.
Although it never happened to me, I know a woman who had an uphill battle with a.c to get them to remove the information that had become incorporated into their data cloud on her living 9 year old child. She wasn't even a member, so doesn't know how it got there. It took her months; no telling how far the info propagated in that time.
And it sounds like you've never tried to get them to cancel the e-news letters and spam ads. Like many before me, I finally gave up and just have them sent right to spam. Your statements make you sound like an apologist. Wordreader (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry.com S.à r.l.

Hello, Ancestry in Luxembourg supports Australia and China. Please read this. Why did you remove it from the intro???? Is it really necessary to provide direct links to every little thing for people because people won't click or attempt to read through anything past a home page.... Always the battle with English Wikipédians. soupir ! (Sigh !) ... I suppose you feel it is necessary to state that the China site is called Jiapu.com (in Pinyin translation). I can write it tradition and simplified Chinese if you feel this is more correct, or better you can go ahead and do it since you are the expert. It makes no difference to me. Tchao ! Charvex (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up : I decided to Undo your edit, and add second citation directly to the International page in the English language for you. Bien amicalement, Charvex (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Charvex, to answer your complaints and issues... You added the multiple links to every country website which I don't find attractive at all. See your own "Update company ifo (sic) with cited sources" edit. As for whether Ancestry.com Europe SARL covers all International sites, a copy of the same page you linked me to is found here. My basis for saying that it only covered Europe can be seen on the various European websites' terms and conditions pages. See UK Terms, DE Terms, IT Terms, FR Terms, and SE Terms. All these sites also have a message that they are operated by Ancestry.com Europe SARL in the bottom corner near the menu for other Ancestry websites. The Canada, Australia, and China sites do not have the same message, nor have their terms been updated to refer to Europe SARL. —GreenwoodKL (t, c) 00:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Those links to all of those sites, except French Canada, were there before I made my edit. It makes no diffrerence at all to me. Whatever you like. I elimated the links that someone else put there. --- But I don't understand why you eliminated Australia and China and Canada for that matter when in fact the Luxembourg Corporate site states they handled these sites. You are saying the notices on the local sites take precedence and that the corporate site is incorrect. I do not agree. Bien amicalement Charvex (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Charvex, As the European website terms state: "Following a period of significant growth in Europe, we have created Ancestry.com Europe, which will be responsible for our existing business in the region." (emphasis added) This statement leads me to believe that Ancestry.com Europe only oversees the European sites. Also, in the lower right corner of each country website is a menu of all the corporate and national websites. On the European sites, there is a subscript message under this menu that reads "Operated by Ancestry.com Europe S.à r.l." This line only appears on European sites. Lastly, the European corporate site you linked to is the same as on the US corporate site and lists all the main worldwide sites. —GreenwoodKL (t, c) 04:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Saw the request for third opinion, which I'm not able to give right now because I don't have time to look at websites you have cited more closely, but I do have a suggestion: As I understand the disagreement, it is about which websites are run by which Ancestry.com entity. It seems that the websites that you both are referring to may not be able to authoritatively answer question. You might look for some other source that better explains what the purpose of the European subsidiary is (e.g. an annual report, trade publications, etc.) (Also seems possible that answer isn't as clearcut as you both seem to believe.) Just a thought.--Sjsilverman (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Sjsilverman (and Charvex), I cannot find one authoritative source that outlines the structure of this new subsidiary. The subsidiary was only created 17 February. I can however list the secondary evidence that together I think point to the structure. In addition to the evidence listed above, namely that only the European sites have the tagline of "Operated by..." on their pages and only the European sites have modified their terms and conditions to mention the new European subsidiary, I have one more circumstantial piece of evidence that leads me to the conclusion: Ancestry.com Europe Press website. This website of press releases has categories/filters for the following Ancestry websites/countries: United Kingdom, Deutschland, France, Italia and Sverige. As for the suggestion to find another source, I would hope that the pending annual report of Ancestry in the US might outline the new subsidiary, but it has not posted on the SEC EDGAR system yet. —GreenwoodKL (t, c) 05:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
This dispute is just over whether Canada, China, and Australia are covered by "Ancestry.com Operations Inc." or by "Ancestry.com Europe S.à r.l." – is that correct? Unless a reliable source can be found that specifically says that, perhaps we should just go with what we know/can agree on and compromise with something like: "Under its subsidiaries, Ancestry.com operates foreign sites that provide access to services and records specific to other countries in the languages of those countries. These include several countries in Europe (covered by Ancestry.com Europe S.à r.l.) as well as Canada, Australia, and China." Also btw, the external links for each language/region seemed excessive to me per WP:EL.—WikiDao ☯ 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Versions

Most pages about computer software include a history of the various versions the program has gone through. I think this would be very helpful to understand the version you work with and it's features and lack thereof. This program in particular has been problematic for many genealogists - amateur and professional - and supposedly the latest version has been a real step in the wrong direction! Time to track it!--Don (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I gather you mean a version /release history like some of the programs have. The following links will be useful to build one [1], [2], [3],[4], [5], [6], (Changes in Family Tree Maker by version only cover FTM4 to FTM16), Re: (FTM-TECH) Would like list of FTM Versions, Official FTM Blog category, Technical Support for Family Tree Maker Versions 10 and Earlier, FTM software merry-go-round version history ftm 1 to 5, company history - Paul B
Is this finished? Narracan3824 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
This is wikipedia Narracan3824, which means you don't need permission to work on something. gioto (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Email List

(move table to main article)

Membership to this service is certainly not cheap. Could somebody with a subscription give me a hand, please? I'm working on a bio for a Christchurch mayor, and a whole lot of the Bishop family emigrated to New Zealand in one go; at least the passenger list shows the surname quite a few times. I'd probably make some inroads if I know who the mayor's siblings are and I wonder whether Charles Wellington Bishop is one of them. Please contact me via my talk page or by Wikimail. Schwede66 21:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've got another bio where I'm a bit perplexed. Lots of sources say that Gerard George Fitzgerald (1834–1904) was a brother of James FitzGerald (1818–1896; and there's no doubt that they are talking about this person, as they usually qualify this by referring to the former "auditor general"). What puzzles me is that it says in James FitzGerald's official biography that he "was the youngest son of Gerald FitzGerald"; he was some 16 years older than Gerard George! The other thing that makes research hard is that GG Fitzgerald was a very private person. Things like marriages or death were certainly not advertised in newspapers. His 1940 bio talks about his wife drowning in a shipping disaster, but that appears to have been his second marriage. I haven't found any other trace about his first wife (Jane Michie) than a link to the marriage certificate (assuming that the Gerard George Fitzgerald talked about is indeed him). Given that Fitzgerald was dealing with banks in Melbourne in the 1850s, I wouldn't be surprised if had a connection to Sir Archibald Michie. Any help much appreciated; please contact me via my talk page or by Wikimail. Schwede66 03:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Version 5.0

I found a boxed copy of "Family Tree Maker Deluxe 4-CD Set", Version 5.0, that was purchased on August 18, 1999. It was made by Broderbund Software with a copyright notice of 1998. The files on the install CD-ROM are dated September 17, 1998. The files on the data CD-ROMs are April 12, 1998. It supports Windows 95 and Windows 98. A footnote on the box states the previous version was "Family Tree Maker Deluxe Edition III". -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ancestry.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

FTM Box

Hi, can somenone please edit the FTM box - the software will be continued, see text and http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2016/02/02/good-news-for-users-of-family-tree-maker/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:114E:301:99FD:F350:3773:5D7B (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ancestry.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Taggert

Taggert --LoKiLeCh (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


No criticism or controversy?

Why is there no Criticism or Controversy section in this article? There are many, many consumer and ethics/privacy complaints about the Ancestry conglomerate on ratings sites like My Web Of Trust (mywot.com); something is just not right about the discrepancy between this article and all the criticism and dissatisfaction that is reported elsewhere. To me the article reads like a carefully-crafted advertisement. It probably should be flagged as such and monitored.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There was a "Controversy" section in this article some time ago, but it was removed in 2009 on the basis that there was very little concrete information there that might not apply equally well to almost any large company. If you have reliable sources for controversy that is specific to Ancestry.com, I encourage you to be bold and add it :-) —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Came to ask the same thing, I'll just leave this: Video: Who Do They Think They Are? – A Lighthearted Look at Today’s Genealogy Searches, Dick Eastman · April 28, 2015 . The video is by The Checkout — Preceding unsigned comment added by So-retro-it-hurts (talk • contribs) 03:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There was. Can I Get on the Mormon “Do Not Baptize” List?, Do the Mormons own Ancestry.com?, [8]
Baptizing holocaust victims. CaribDigita (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ancestry.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliance on primary sources

I quickly skimmed recent edits and noticed press releases and the like being added as the sole sources for some information. I may have overlooked other sources already there, and haven't looked to see if this is part of a larger problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy 2 - DNA

If anyone has any more information about Ancestry.com's DNA handling I, at least, personally, would appreciate it. That being said, perhaps the first paragraph should be separated so the DNA portion and the part about services being cancelled aren't one and the same. It makes it sound like the discontinued services/sites have something to do with the DNA issues.Mousenight (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

From the Genetic_testing article: Ancestry.com, a company providing DTC DNA tests for genealogy purposes, has reportedly allowed the warrantless search of their database by police investigating a murder.[32] The warrantless search led to a search warrant to force the gathering of a DNA sample from a New Orleans filmmaker; however he turned out not to be a match for the suspected killer.[33]

[cite 32] Ronald Bailey, " Ancestry.com Hands Over Client DNA Test Results to Cops Without a Warrant" Reason.com [cite 33] Jim Mustian, "New Orleans filmmaker cleared in cold-case murder; false positive highlights limitations of familial DNA searching" The New Orleans Advocate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Ancestry.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ancestry.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancestry.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

FTM

I'm guessing that a separate entry /content fork /article spinoff needs to be made for Family Tree Maker, now that Ancestry.com no longer owns or maintains the software. - CompliantDrone (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Why is this software still within the Ancestry page? Ancestry doesn't own it any more. --Pakaraki (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Split Family Tree Maker to separate article?

Since Ancestry no longer owns FTM, that content doesn't belong in this article, which means it should be WP:SPLIT to it's own article. --Pakaraki (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancestry.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of newspapers.com

I am astonished with the obsession with repeated removing any mention whatsoever of one of ancestry's biggest products ancestry's biggest products newspapers.com -- a product incidentally that is in partnership with wikipedia. Here's the latest removal edit.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancestry.com&type=revision&diff=833453516&oldid=833431353 Americasroof (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

1. Your addition sounded like an advertisement.
2. It was largely unsourced. It did not have proper secondary sources.
3. In regards to screaming about "obsessions with removing it..." It's ridiculous to suggest that there is some kind of conspiracy to remove it. It's a matter of adding good content, properly.

R9tgokunks ✡ 09:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. You removed third party references. You can flag the self references. But it is disngenous to remove all mention of a major component of the company.Americasroof (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
BTW you have removed it twice recently with different editors. The first time was just a mention that it exists at all. You should assume good faith. Americasroof (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
BTW It was one sentence sourced with a primary source, and the other not at all. There is nothing wrong with that.R9tgokunks ✡ 09:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You deleted a long standing entry with newspapers.com subhead (and target of redirect) on this Feb. 11 edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancestry.com&type=revision&diff=825055353&oldid=824353243 You deleted the revised newspapers.com subhead that also included a third party reference in this edit on March 31. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancestry.com&type=revision&diff=833453516&oldid=833431353 Currently the the only mention of newspapers.com on the article is in a box and a note that newspapers.com is offering free memberships to wikipedians (it is used in hundreds of articles). You should assume good faith. It should be a non-controversial fact that newspapers.com is a subsidiary of ancestry. If you disagree with the presentation you can flag the references. If you do not like the references you can put individual tags on them. Americasroof (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Question

Does it have a limit for add people? --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You must ask your question of Ancestry.com. They are pretty prompt with their responses. This page is for questions and issues concerning the Wikipedia article, not for general questions re: the services provided by the article's subject. Good luck. rags (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Rootsweb

Section 1.3 Rootsweb, last paragraph is somewhat ambiguous. It looks like 2 sentences might have been run together as one. I haven't fixed it, as I am unsure of the intention/information. rags (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Primary Sources way too numerous

We need to remove every Ancestry.com Blog post (blogs arent a source), and fill the article with secondary sources. The article is practically built on them, with only 5-10 secondary sources in it.

edit: I removed a few but it didn't fix much. R9tgokunks ✡ 17:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Press release which are identified as such are acceptable. You are even nuking third party references. Americasroof (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The sources I aim to remove are mentioned above. Please re-read the sentence. R9tgokunks ✡ 09:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Press releases as well as routine news coverage of announcements carry little or no weight on their own. Sections with only such sources should be considered for removal. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Not accepting subscriptions

Hello, all, I have been trying to subscribe to the site for over a week. Their credit card subscription page lacks an entry slot for the CVV (security code), yet rejects applications for lack of a security code. Three phone calls have gone unanswered. I have emailed them, but hold little hope for a helpful reply. They seem to be out of business.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We can't help you resolve your issue doing business with the subject. We require reliable sources for any additions to this article.- MrX 🖋 18:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Your information, as MrX says, is unencyclopedic, and though possibly of interest to some readers, would fall under WP's policy against original research (WP:OR). Thanks for understanding. Possibly a service such as GetHuman.com would be helpful. rags (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Terms and Conditions". 2005-09-21. Retrieved 2006-06-20.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancestry.com/Archive_1&oldid=1124416748"