WeRelate talk:Support

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 20:45, 6 December 2010 (edit)
Jlanoux (Talk | contribs)
(City Directories)
← Previous diff
Current revision (08:56, 28 January 2015) (edit)
Goldenoldie (Talk | contribs)
(Category Indexing)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Help]] [[Category:Help]]
-==Description [15 July 2010]==+Old topics have been archived: [[WeRelate talk:Support/2011|2011]] [[WeRelate talk:Support/2012|2012]] [[WeRelate talk:Support/2013|2013]]
 +[[WeRelate talk:Support/2014|2014]]
-This page is for answering new user questions. 
-===If you have a question===+== GEDCOM import - More than 24 hours for review [23 January 2015] ==
-1) Bookmark this page for later, otherwise known as 'Add to Favorites'.<br>+Didn't note the time when I uploaded my Gedcom but its got to be more than 48 hours ago. This is poor, especially when the purpose of this exercise is to compare WeRelate to Wikitree before making a choice. The people at Wikitree are very responsive.--[[User:Innesaj|Innesaj]] 14:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
-2) If you have a basic question that you think all users should know, and you have not already done so, go to the [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Main_Page Home] page (link at the top of this page) and view the Tours & Tutorials.<br>+I still new to this site. I think I done everything right but I am still waiting for more than 24 hours for Admin review of my gedcom. Can some advise me what may or maynot have done wrong?--[[User:Myfamilytree|Myfamilytree]] 15:31, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
-3) Search for an already existing answer to your question (unless you need someone else to search for it for you sometime). Be sure to try synonyms for key words like Help, Forum, '[[WeRelate talk:Watercooler|Watercooler]]', FAQ, query, or town, city, village, community, neighborhood, or map, chart, location, place, .... Whoever wrote an answer might have been thinking of a similar but different situation or application. <br>+----
 +Hello,
-4) If you fail to find a good answer, click on the '[http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=WeRelate_talk:Support&action=edit&section=new Add topic]' link to the left. Your question will be added as a new topic at the bottom of this page. You'll receive an email when someone edits this page and (hopefully) answers your question. +WeRelate relies on people volunteering their time and effort to ensure a degree off quality in the genealogy you find here. This means that sometimes it takes longer then we would like for gedcom reviews to occur but there are positives to this. One of the greatest things about this site is that on werelate you are truly collaborating with others and not just duplicsting the same people as you share information.--[[User:JeffreyRLehrer|JeffreyRLehrer]] 16:10, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
-If you have follow-on questions after receiving an answer, scroll down to your question and click on the '''edit section''' link on the right side of the page. Post your follow-on questions at the bottom of the section and save the page.+Perhaps the admins could think of something that could be done to manage this situation - perhaps agreeing some kind of target "service level" or messaging people if the delay is over, say, a day, to say "please be patient, we are busy and have x GEDCOMs above you in the queue" [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 17:35, 30 May 2013 (EDT)
-Once your question has been answered, click on the '''Unwatch''' link that will appear above to stop being notified when other users edit this page.+::It could be noted that Rakirkwood has now waited for a week for his first import to be reviewed. I've waited less than 24 hours, so I'm not complaining for myself, but it doesn't look hopeful. ;-) Maybe more Admins are needed? --[[User:Regebro|Lennart]] 12:24, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:::Additional volunteers are always welcome! I would like to note the date on the GEDCOM review page is the date the user uploaded their file, not the date it was submitted for admin review. Users generally take some time reviewing their file and processing Family Matches before submitting it for upload. WeRelate does strive to process GEDCOM files within 24 hours, but, since this site is volunteer based, that can take a bit longer in some instances. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 12:33, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
-If you have a comment or a suggestion for a new feature instead of a question, please post it to the [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler|Watercooler]].+::::Aha. That looked like a big import as well, so maybe things aren't as bad as they looked. That's good to hear. --[[User:Regebro|Lennart]] 12:40, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
-You may want to review the [[Help:Contents|Main Help Page]] and [[Help:FAQ|Frequently Asked Questions Page]] for general WeRelate issues. You may also want to review the [[Portal:Community|WeRelate Community Portal]] to find out what's happening at WeRelate, read and participate in ongoing discussions, join a WeRelate project, make announcements, invite collaborators, ask questions, and learn what tasks need to be done.+----
- +
-:OLD questions have been archived at [[WeRelate talk:Support/2009]] and [[WeRelate talk:Support/2010]].+
- +
-:NEW questions? Please select "<font color=blue>Add topic</font>" from the menu within the top left block of this page.+
- +
-== Image Behavior [1 August 2010] ==+
- +
-I really like the way that referencing an image causes a thumbnail to show up in the reference section. I also very much like the fact that if the image is associated with a reference it is not displayed in the image section. However, it would appear that whatever is suppressing the referenced images is also suppressing all images. See [[Person:Charles Black (11)]]. While all of the referenced images are handled properly, none of the dozen or so photos is shown anymore. Is this an error, or is there a new way to do this?--[[User:Srblac|srblac]] 13:18, 10 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:According to the section in the [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler|Watercooler]] pertaining to the [[WeRelate_talk:Watercooler#Footnotes.2C_Sources.2C_Images.2C_and_Notes_.5B7_June_2010.5D|"'''New look for WeRelate'''"]] Dallan says to use the "<nowiki><show_sources_images_notes/></nowiki>" tag to display sources, images, and notes at a specific location on a page, but I tried adding it to your page above and it did not seem to show up on the edited version. Since there still may be some adjustments and refinements in the new page features, hopefully Dallan or another user will be better able to assist. I have the same situation on one of the pages I am actively working on. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 17:28, 10 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-::I played around with it some more. If I had it open in edit mode, added an image reference to a source and then hit "Show preview" the page displayed as desired, the image gallery was displayed and the image thumbnail called out in the reference. I could do this repeatedly, adding images to source references, hitting "show preview" and the page would update appropriately. However, once I hit "save" the images gallery disappeared and I could not get it back.--[[User:Srblac|srblac]] 22:00, 12 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:::I too played with the [[Person:Amalia Schlichting (1)|person page]] I was working on and having like trouble with some more, but not getting the images to show I created an image gallery manually (e.g. ''<nowiki><gallery> <br> [[Image:<first image>|Caption]] <br> [[Image:<second image>|Caption]] <br> ... </gallery></nowiki>'') so the images would be visible outside the mini-thumbnail source references until a fix is made. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 06:19, 13 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-::::This is definitely a bug. I'll try to fix it later today. Thank-you for reporting it.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 09:41, 22 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:::::Fixed finally. [[Person:Charles Black (11)|Nice page]] by the way.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 19:14, 25 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-It now works just like I hoped it would! Thanks for the fix and thanks for the compliment.+
- +
-== This file is larger than the maximum allowable size for a GEDCOM [10 July 2010] ==+
- +
-When I tried to upload my GEDCOM, I got the error message: "This file is larger than the maximum allowable size for a GEDCOM" There are fewer than 8,000 people in my data which is not all that large. It was created in The Master Genealogist and has always uploaded okay to Ancestry.com and other sites. So, is there an easy solution? Or what did I do wrong?--[[User:PBVB|PBVB]] 16:29, 10 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:You didn't do anything wrong, the limit is by design. When you upload here, unlike Ancestry.com, your pages are community pages that (preferably) reference common source and place pages, and there is only one page per person. Therefore, when you upload, you need to go through the process of matching people in your file to existing pages, matching places, and matching sources. This is a detailed process that would be overwhelming with a gedcom that large, and in truth, any gedcom over several hundred people. For that reason, we strongly recommend that you start by hand editing a few pages that interest you, then upload your information in smaller chunks. For more information on the gedcom process, see [[Help:Before you import your GEDCOM]].--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 16:43, 10 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Appears that double year dates are being incorrectly interpreted [25 July 2010] ==+
- +
-In trying some GEDCOM imports, it seems that the processor is incorrectly interpreting dates. A date like Jan 1675/76 (an old style Julian date) should be considered equivalent to Jan 1676, but it seems to be treated as if it was Jan 1675. This shows up in cases where there is a birth in Dec 1675, and then a baptism in Jan 1675/76, a warning is emitted for an event occurs before birth, when the events are actually in a very realistic order.--[[User:Richard Damon|Richard_Damon]] 23:19, 11 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:Yes, you are right. I believe it also ignores the qualifier such as AFT, BEF, etc. Fixing this is on the To Do List: [[WeRelate:ToDo List#Person/Family pages 3]], bullet 10. There is also a request in the queue to convert all input dates into a standard format. I am not sure when or how these will get implemented. If there are serious issues caused by this, you might post examples here or on [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler]] but, I think you've encountered about the biggest issue this causes. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 09:35, 12 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-::I addressed the qualifier issues (aft, bef, etc) a few weeks ago, but I didn't take into account that 1675/76 should be interpreted as 1676. I'll fix that today or tomorrow. (Since the warnings have already been calculated for your GEDCOM they won't go away, but you can ignore them). Thank-you for letting me know.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 09:41, 22 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:::OS/NS dates should be interpreted correctly now, and before/after dates are now handled better during GEDCOM uploads.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 19:14, 25 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Printing [25 July 2010] ==+
- +
-When I try to print out a page (File Print Preview) - the new format prints with the "more" expanding into the user page messing it up. Is there some way to fix this, or another way to print? see [[Person:Wiley Pollard (1)]] +
- +
-Thanks, Pam--[[User:Txbluebell6|Txbluebell6]] 21:10, 12 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:I'll fix this today or tomorrow. Thank-you for letting me know.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 09:41, 22 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-::This is fixed now. The menus should no longer appear on printed pages.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 19:14, 25 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Place outline? [22 July 2010] ==+
- +
-Is there a way to make a place outline as is typical of WikiMapia, is stead of just a vague pointer to the centroid or possibly a misleading or ambiguous street address?<BR>--[[User:Wikid|Wikid]] 14:48, 15 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:That's a really cool idea. Currently no. Would you want to assign the outline to a place in general (in which case we might need to also store a year-range for which the outline was valid?), or to a particular event on a person/family page? Please add your suggestion to the [[WeRelate:ToDo List]].--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 09:41, 22 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Preventing wrap in text box [6 September 2010] ==+
- +
-I have a lot of transcripts that need to go into the text box of a MySource. My problem is that the lines are automatically wrapping - destroying readability of form entries. Is there any way to prevent this short of having to add a break at the end of every line? Code, pre and nowiki tags don't work.+
-Example page: [[MySource:Jlanoux/Funeral File of Anna Parish Woody]] --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 21:01, 24 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:I just changed the pre tags to code (lowercase). It seems to work well for me. What do you think?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 19:38, 25 July 2010 (EDT)+
-::Ok, I see what you're talking about. Lines that start with spaces are still not formatted correctly, even with the code tags. The problem is that mediawiki formats lines that start with spaces as pre, instead of code, and because a lot of imported notes start with spaces, we want to wrap pre tags. The trick is to use '''both''' code and nowiki tags. That does the trick. +
- +
-::There will be a better solution for this eventually, where we can just use pre tags and have them do the right thing, but we have to wait until people migrate from IE7 to IE8 because the solution doesn't work in IE7. In the meantime go ahead and use both code and nowiki tags, because that will always work.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 19:46, 25 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:::This is great. Thanks for fixing the page. Now I can go to town creating more pages. I wasn't getting any messages from WR and just now realized that with all the playing around with email changes, all of the notification boxes had gotten unchecked. I was wondering why it was so quiet. I guess I better go check my watch list. --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 20:28, 30 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-::::For anyone who's interested, the MySource page for Anna's funeral home file (noted above) is now more or less complete, with full transcript and images of all items in the file, formatted for readability. This page makes a good example of how source pages on WeRelate could (can) be used as full-blown repositories of the complete details of a source, for the use of all. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:20px;">[[User:Mksmith|Mike]]</font><font color="purple" size="2.5" face="papyrus"><sup>[[User Talk:Mksmith|Talk]]</sup> </font> 08:01, 4 September 2010 (EDT)+
-:::::Mike, I think this is an excellent example showing the use of MySource pages. I added this as a featured page on the [[Portal:MySource]].--[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 14:57, 6 September 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Warnings [27 July 2010] ==+
- +
-I have a small gedcom waiting for review with 9 warnings "child born less than nine months apart". This is kind of difficult to correct because each family has only one child! I won't proceed with the review until somebody can explain the warnings. It is my only gedcom at the moment - name: Farrall Leslie.+
-My own software has the same criteria and nothing showed when I ran it.--[[User:HLJ411|HLJ411]] 21:47, 26 July 2010 (EDT)+
-:Not sure if this may be the cause, but I noticed you did not review, edit and save the person entries first and then the family entries next, etc. I think the GEDCOM upload function is designed to have the uploader go through the tabs one at a time in the order presented. I know you can bounce around and between the tabs when presented with information that may change previously edited informaiton, but try going through the process in the order presented. I think the warnings are advisory as a reminder to review the information uploaded in your file rather than mandatory (or on the other end of the scale, perfunctory), so reviewing them one-by-one might clear up those notices. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 08:15, 27 July 2010 (EDT)+
-::Thank-you for letting me know about this problem! It was introduced a couple of days ago when I tried to improve how approximate dates are handled. I've fixed the bug and removed the warnings. (FWIW, you're encouraged to go through the tabs in the order they appear, but it's ok to jump around if you want.)--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 14:19, 27 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Person Page for Julie Nixon [28 July 2010] ==+
- +
-[[Person:Julie Nixon (1)|Julie Nixon]], daughter of Pres. Nixon, has a Person page, which shows her as having died in 1995. She, of course, is still living. I tried to delete the incorrect death info, but got the error message that living people cannot have a Person page. Should this page be deleted or should it be redone as the other "Living Nixon" pages? Also, I just noticed that there is a Person page for Tricia Nixon. -- [[User:Ajcrow|Amy]] 09:58, 28 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:There are person pages for living presidents and their wives under the notable people/Wikipedia exception (basically it's silly to worry about their privacy when their birthdate/place/parents are splashed everywhere, and the benefit of being able to link to them outweighs). Technically the same policy applies to [[wikipedia:Julie Nixon Eisenhower|Julie]], particularly given her husband. The way to fix is to put a question mark or note in the death date [[Person:Barack Obama (2)|like this]].--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 10:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Husband's data not showing up on family page [31 July 2010] ==+
- +
-Can anyone tell why Francis Nixon's info isn't appearing on his [[Family:Francis Nixon and Hannah Milhous (1)|Family page with Hannah Milhous]]? He has a Person page and the Family page has the correct link. -- [[User:Ajcrow|Amy]] 10:50, 28 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:There's a lag on updating (sometimes?) where the family page isn't necessarily changed when the person page changes, or vice versa, but at any rate, I fixed it by just making a minor edit on the person page.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 11:04, 28 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-::What Amelia did is the right thing to do. There was a bug in early versions of the merge function so that if you merged someone who had birth/death information into someone who did not, the birth/death information wasn't copied over into the family pages. This bug has been fixed, but I need to write a program to review all of the pages and copy information that didn't get copied over. Until this program is written, updating the birth/death information on person page causes it to be copied.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:01, 31 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Duplicate [28 July 2010] ==+
- +
-There are two duplicate pages for Marcus Joseph Wright. He was married twice. His first wife was Martha Spencer Elcan. I managed to fix the Family page so it shows two wives. There was another Person page showing him married to Pauline Womack. I am not sure how to change someone else's page. I put in a person page for him with info. Can these two pages be merged now or should I have used the other person page and put in all the info? Thanks.--[[User:Suzyq|Suzyq]] 16:48, 28 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:Yes, you can merge. In the end, there should be one page for Marcus, one for each of his wives, and one family page for each couple. It looks like if you go to [[Family:Marcus Wright and Pauline Womack (1)|this page]] and use the more -> compare husbands link, you can merge the Marcus pages and everything will be as it should be.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 23:17, 28 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Attaching brothers without parents [29 July 2010] ==+
- +
-I have Lionel Elcan and his relatives listed. He has a brother and a wife whom I would like to add to Lionel. Should I show a father as Unknown Elcan and Unknown Unknown mother and then add the brother as a child on their family page? Thanks.--[[User:Suzyq|Suzyq]] 23:21, 29 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:You can create a family page Unknown Elcan and Unknown, and add the brother to that page. Don't create pages for the unknown parents.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 23:48, 29 July 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Suggestion for Naming [12 August 2010] ==+
- +
-I think it would be a good idea to add a new category to the name section. You could call it Familiar Name, Nickname, etc. I have a lot of people with the same name. Most of them were called by a nickname or a different name. I have been using Alternate Name. That is the only place it fits.+
- +
-Please pass along my suggestion. Thanks.--[[User:Suzyq|Suzyq]] 01:01, 2 August 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:I've added it to [[WeRelate:ToDo List|the todo list]].--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:14, 4 August 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-Dallan, I think we also need a "suffix" field for the main person-name entry. If you have '''John Smith Jr.''', you have to stick the "Jr." at the end of either the forename or the surname field. The latter messes up searching & sorting (by effectively changing the surname) and the former gives you weird listings like ""John Jr. Smith." --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:20px;">[[User:Mksmith|Mike]]</font><font color="purple" size="2.5" face="papyrus"><sup>[[User Talk:Mksmith|Talk]]</sup> </font> 10:36, 12 August 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-::Alt name is appropriate for nicknames. For common nicknames it isn't necessary to make a separate name. Just check the Given Name page for that entry and make sure the nickname is listed as an alternate. Then search will find your page no matter what version someone enters. William, Will, Bill, Billy, Etc. See [[Givenname:William]] for this example. To find a given name page, go to search and select Given Name as the Namespace in the dropdown.+
-::The Title suffix field is where Sr and Jr should go. It's already there. --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 12:07, 12 August 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Counties that don't exist [18 August 2010] ==+
- +
-I can't remember if we decided this: for records for places that have changed, how do we title the page? As a specific example, should 1850 census records for counties now in West Virginia (formed 1860s) be titled using Virginia or West Virginia? --[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 00:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:I was going to add some info on use of "historic" type placename, but will wait for an answer to your question from someone else. I remember the discussion also, but can't find where. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 12:41, 4 August 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-You may want to review the discussions at [[Help talk:Naming conventions]] and [[WeRelate_talk:Source_renaming_project#Census_pages_.5B20_August_2009.5D]]. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 1400, 4 August 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:The county pages should be titled under West Virginia, with also-located-in links to Virginia.+
- +
-:However, for a major change like Virginia to West Virginia, maybe we should make an exception and add additional county pages under Virginia with see-also links to the corresponding counties in West Virginia? I could go either way on this. I personally don't think a few additional place pages will hurt; we just don't want to go crazy.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:14, 4 August 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-::As so many of the folks I will be uploading were born, lived & died in West Virginia, I'll watch to see what happens with this. On my desktop, I have handled it in two ways (I know, sigh, I'm not consistent). One is Edward Jackson b 'Harrison, (W)Virginia' and the other is Edward Jackson b 'Harrison, Virginia (now West Virginia)'. I've been wondering how that will pan out during GEDCOM upload. Somehow, I would like to see WeRelate indicate some way that the person was born before the area became the State of West Virginia (1863). OTOH, wouldn't that complicate the category 'Jackson in Place'? --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 15:33, 6 August 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-Hi, one suggestion -- I got around this by using: Red River, Texas, United States|Red River, Republic of Texas in the field... which shows "Republic of Texas in the description... but lists Red River County.. See person page John Richey (9). He died during the Republic of Texas, but we don't have the Republic of Texas as a place in WeRelate... This would be hard to upload in a Gedcom, but could be fixed after uploading...+
- +
-Thanks, Pam+
- +
-:I've done a lot of work in Red River County and I haven't worried about the "Republic" thing at all, frankly. Republic or state, it's still Texas. On the other hand, Red River was the "mother country" for all or part of more than 20 present-day counties, so early events in what is now (say) Hopkins County will be found in the early '''Red River''' records. You can get around this -- and without messing up the system -- by using a pipe to say anything you please, i.e., "Red River, Texas, United States|Old Red River (now Hopkins) County, Republic of Texas". Or whatever. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:20px;">[[User:Mksmith|Mike]]</font><font color="purple" size="2.5" face="papyrus"><sup>[[User Talk:Mksmith|Talk]]</sup> </font> 10:42, 12 August 2010 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I apologize, my question was unclear. I had assumed that we had one rule for ''place'' pages, that they should be named based on the current location of the place. If the place had changed names or moved counties or states, that was covered by the located in/see also fields. I don't think there should be two pages for those places, it just duplicates information and effort (although some pages have already been created for Virginia versions of West Virginia counties; it's another question how hard to enforce this rule). +I am curious about a specific lineage. How can I find out who the contributors are so as to collaborate with them?--[[User:Pjceditor|Pjceditor]] 14:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- +:Select History in the left-hand panel and you will see all the user names who added or edited a page. Select a user link, then select their Talk page and leave a note there.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
-And we can easily use pipes with alternate names, and the system is supposed to recognize by virtue of the above entries for old places, for person/family pages.+
- +
-What I'm asking is what we do for ''source'' pages that regard only records from a prior named version of a place. (i.e. 1850 Hampshire Co, VA (now WV) census records). Based on the fact that place pages are "smart" about dual names, it would seem that they would still link up correctly if we use the "old name" - which seems more likely the one that people would search under. But that is not entirely consistent with the source pages rule, so naming them the other way would also make sense. I don't see this question dealt with at any of the links above.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 21:37, 7 August 2010 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I think in this case Source pages have to be handled differently than Place pages. There was no 1850 census for Monongalia County, West Virginia as WV wasn't a state yet. If we're trying to encourage accuracy in citations, we should be accurate in the Source pages we create. The Source page, IMO, should be ''Monongalia, Virginia, United States. 1850 U.S. Census Population Schedule''. On a related note, I have a problem with the categories for censuses being, for example, 1850 Ohio census or 1850 Virginia census. That, to me, implies a state census for that state, rather than the Federal census taken in that state. But that's probably best left for another discussion. -- [[User:Ajcrow|Amy]] 11:29, 8 August 2010 (EDT)+Did my GEDCOM 'fall thru the cracks'? It's been 4-5 weeks.--[[User:Diane Hosler|Diane Hosler]] 19:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 +:It looks like it did fall through the cracks. I'll follow up on this. Thank-you for letting me know. I apologize for the wait.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 22:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
-:I agree that Source pages should be handled differently than Place pages -- the historical place should be used in the title. Would you mind adding this to [[Help:Source page titles]]?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:28, 18 August 2010 (EDT) 
-  
-:Note re state censuses: I think that was initially agreed, but we made a change because it looked like a lot of gedcoms were coming in using a state-specific format, so it was decided to allow people to create them. If that justification turns out to not ultimately be true, we should revisit ... somewhere... --[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 13:09, 8 August 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-::I'm referring to the names of the categories, such as ''Category:1900 Ohio census''. I think the name of the category is very misleading, as it is *not* an "Ohio census." It is a Federal census taken in Ohio. Ohio, like many other states, had no state census and it is somewhat confusing to see something purporting to be a list of pages referring to a state census. For states like Iowa that did have state censuses, it is confusing to see something like ''Category:1880 Iowa census'', as there wasn't an Iowa state census in 1880. What would be clearer (and more accurate) would be to have the categories named ''Category:1900 U.S. Census - Ohio''. This should not affect anything regarding GEDCOM imports. --[[User:Ajcrow|Amy]] 13:26, 8 August 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-:::Oh, sorry, you did say that. I don't actually think that's confusing, but if someone wants to go through the 400 so-named categories and change them, I'm not going to fuss about it. I could argue that the lack of capital letter indicates generically a census taken in a state in that year (i.e. the Iowa state census category would be "1885 Iowa census"; if there were an 1880 Iowa state census, it would go in the "1880 Iowa census" category along with the federal ) and the nature of the census is quite clear from the page titles in the category. But, you're right, it's also a philosophical question about the purpose of categories for another day.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 14:17, 8 August 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-::::Let's revisit categories in the Fall.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:28, 18 August 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-== Place page - 2 questions [18 August 2010] == 
- 
-I'm building a place page [[Place:Northbank, King and Queen, Virginia, United States]] for a plantation estate. These were extensive and served as towns in the very rural areas. I'll have several more of these to create so I want to learn some things. 
-*Question 1: I'm stuck by the blank for "Type". I don't like to see Unknown there, but I don't know what the choices are as there is no drop-down. The Help page does not mention the use of the various fields.  
-*Question 2: I know how to use the GoogleMap link to give a link to a location on GoogleMap, but the Place pages have an actual insert showing the map. Is this something available to put on other pages (Person, Family)? How would it be done. When used sparingly, I can see this would be helpful. 
-**Subquestion: the inserts on the Place pages are often not helpful as they are the wrong scale. Can these be changed by a user? 
-Thanks --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 13:28, 6 August 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-:As I hinted at up on the previous topic, I've used the term "Historic" as the ''Type'' for these historic locations that no longer exist that are referenced by era documents and sources. A couple of my examples include [[Place:Reinholdsville (historic), Lancaster, Pennsylvania, United States]] and [[Place:Fort Decatur (historic), Macon, Alabama, United States]] (actually an historic military fort). The term ''"historic"'' in the actual placename title may be redundant, but I'd seen it deliniated that manner in other previous examples I researched and wanted to be consistent. These were known locations at the time of my subject's life and are recorded in written period references as such, so I thought it important they contain their unique designated historic placenames for historical consistency and future research context. I believe the ''Type'' field is free-form, so you have more freedom to apply your own description to it. The term, "Settlement," also comes to mind as one that I've seen on colonial references.  
- 
-:Regarding your particular example, Wikipedia identifies Northbank as an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_King_and_Queen_County,_Virginia Historic Place] within [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_Queen_County,_Virginia King and Queen County, Virginia] (as a landmark on the National Register), and more specifically located within the unincorporated community of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton,_VA Walkerton]. Whether or not that is justification enough for or entitles it to its own placename space at WeRelate, I'm not sure. For vital statistical purposes on person and family pages, you could just as easily use "[[Place:Walkerton, King and Queen, Virginia, United States]]" in the ''Place'' field and reference the "Northbank Plantation" in the ''Description'' field.  
- 
-::Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not asking for justification. In rural areas the plantations were the population centers, not towns. And K&Q is the most rural county around. I need the page as it is because I have a lot of information about the place and a lot of people to link to it. But, after years as a database administrator, the idea that users are making up their own "Types" gives me nightmares. We have to have a standard list. After looking around, I went with "Inhabited place". The K&Q page is full of those - illustrating how few real towns exist. --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 19:24, 6 August 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-:Can't answer your second two question. Hopefully, others will provide their own opinion and expertise to both. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 17:18, 6 August 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-::"Type" doesn't link to anything, so I've been thinking that free-text is ok. But it is used to group contained places on the containing place page, so maybe I should come up with a drop-down list... 
- 
-::As for the map question, there's a [[:Template:Googlemap]] to create a ''link'' to a google map, but there isn't a way right now to add your own google map to a page. It's a good idea; I'll add a <nowiki><map></nowiki> tag to the todo list.  
- 
-::Regarding the zoom on place maps, you can change the zoom level by pressing the +/- buttons, but I assume that you want a way to set the default zoom for a particular place page? Note that you can't get too specific on the zoom; you'd get to choose from whatever levels the +/- buttons give you; you couldn't choose a zoom in between.  
- 
-::Is there a place page where the default zoom isn't good? Maybe tweaking the algorithm that determines the default zoom level would solve the problem?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:45, 18 August 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-== Adding a new Family member to the list [15 August 2010] == 
- 
- How do I add to a list that some one has already made ?--[[User:Whitetinydog|Whitetinydog]] 15:10, 15 August 2010 (EDT) 
-::Can you point us to an example? If the list is on an article page, you can edit the page to add to it. If it is a list of children on the Family page, you can edit that page. I guess, in general, the answer is edit the page. 
-:: If you give us an example, we can give you more detail. --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 15:17, 15 August 2010 (EDT) 
---- ----
-If you want to add a child to a family: Let me use two of your pages as an example. This is assuming [[Person:Sterling Chatterton (1)]] is the child of [[Family:Chester Chatterton and Bessie Messersmith (1)]]+I am having problems opening the ged file I downloaded. I need a copy on my desktop for making corrections, as I am informed there are too many errors too complete my work on your site. Where will I receive an answer to this question.--[[User:Bob3453|Bob3453]] 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
-#Go to the Family page and click Edit.+
-#Under Children, type the title of the child's page. In this case it would be "Sterling Chatterton (1)". Note that the namespace "Person:" is not needed since it is understood that a child will point to a Person page.+
-#Save the page+
-You could also do this another way.+
-#Go to the Child's page, click Edit, and go to the Parents and Siblings family group page section.+
-#Enter the Parent's Family page title. In this case: "Chester Chatterton and Bessie Messersmith (1)". As above, the namespace is not needed. If you wait a few seconds, the system will list all pages that match the page title (or portion of it) that you typed in, which is a good way of checking your work, since if nothing is shown, you must have typed something wrong.+
-#Save the page. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 15:23, 15 August 2010 (EDT)+
---[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 16:15, 15 August 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== How to please [8 October 2010] ==+
- +
----- +
-I have been away from we relate for almost a year and was searching on Google and found a link to my information that I entered so long ago. I was so pleasantly surprised but when I went to the link it looked very different and I could not tell how someone would contact me if they found a relative in common with me. Could someone explain this to me?--[[User:LutheranChickadee|LutheranChickadee]] 21:56, 16 August 2010 (EDT)--[[User:DFree|DFree]] 22:24, 16 August 2010 (EDT)+
---- ----
-It seems to me that the answer is no different than a year ago, despite the new look. Watchers still get notified of changes, even to the Talk page. Users can use the My Relate->Network function to see who is watching pages in common with themselves, and while only a short list of watchers is shown by default, the "show all" item under watchers will show the complete watcher list like it used to be. There are the same options for contacting users, though to get all persons interested in a page, it is probably more efficient to place questions and discussions on the Talk page for persons, families, or for users. Logs still work the same, showing who made what change. Outside of the ''format'' of the page, the process hasn't changed. So this makes me think I am misunderstanding the question. Is there a specific example and/or more specific phrasing of the concern? --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 23:12, 16 August 2010 (EDT)+I'm trying to review my newly-uploaded DURGEE 4G .This replaced my previous DURGEE LTD, but when I try to review the new one I get a message that you can't locate my old one (I deleted at your request)--[[User:WAJoyce|WAJoyce]] 19:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
-== Printing [7 September 2010] == 
-2 weeks ago I was able to print a person profile. It was very streamlined. Everything was lined up on he left side of the page. Parents, Siblings, Spouse and Children Facts and Events & notes. Now when I print it looks just like the screen image, way too spread out. What am I doing wrong. Thanks.--[[User:Cats3333|Cats3333]] 16:30, 26 August 2010 (EDT) 
-:Printing changed recently. Someone reported an issue with printing, and I noticed that printed pages were not using any styles, so I changed the system to use the screen-oriented styles for printing. 
-:I don't want to go back to no styles at all, but I'm ok with left-justifying the family boxes. It would be really easy to 
-# left-justify ''all'' family boxes (parents and spouses) one underneath another, above the facts+events section, '''or''' 
-# put family boxes adjacent to each other, so the parents infobox would be left-justified, and the spouse infobox would be to the right of it (with additional spouse infoboxes further to the right), with the facts+events section underneath. 
-:Preferences?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 20:49, 30 August 2010 (EDT) 
-----+== FHL microfilm [2 January 2015] ==
-I really like the left-justify style with everything lined with person, parents, siblings, spouse and children, and facts and events all in a line. It is so much easier to decifer.--[[User:Cats3333|Cats3333]] 08:45, 4 September 2010 (EDT)+
-:Try printing now. The family boxes are left-aligned.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:48, 7 September 2010 (EDT)+Is there a way to put in microfilm as part of the citation? I use quite a bit from Salt Lake.
-== A2A - now Source:Scotland. Access to Archives [31 August 2010] ==+Lee Martin--[[User:Fastwarhorse|Fastwarhorse]] 18:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
-Hello Support, for some reason the WeRelate Agent has changed/renamed the Source:A2A and it is now named "Source:Scotland. Access to Archives". It is a UK website source for the Archives in London, etc so it is more than Scotland. I am curious how that happened. Any clue? Thanks Debbie Freeman --[[User:DFree|DFree]] 20:16, 30 August 2010 (EDT)+:You should cite the Source page for the source you used. The FHL microfilm number is usually on the Source page automatically, or you can add it there if you wish to. It does not need to go in the citation itself, as these are cites for where anyone might find the information (independent of the repository), as opposed to where you personally found it.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 19:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
-:This happened last Fall during the ''great source rename'' :-) when we renamed all of the sources to follow our "standard" page title format. This source was listed as a "government/church records" source, and the page title format for government/church records is "place. source title field". So it was renamed to [[Source:Scotland. Access to Archives]] since Scotland was the first place listed. Another (similar/same?) source is [[Source:United Kingdom. National Archives: Access to Archives (A2A)]]. +:You can include a large amount of text in the "Volume/Pages" field of the Citation. I don't know what the limit is. Just add the specific FHL number for your citation, eg. [[Family:John Brown and Sarah Dentlesbeck (1)|here]]. [[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 03:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
-:Feel free to rename these sources using the source page title format described in [[Help:Source page titles]]. You may also want to merge these two sources together?.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 20:49, 30 August 2010 (EDT)+== Deaneries in the Church of Norway [2 January 2015] ==
-::Hello Dallan, Thank you for pointing out this other Source. It is the same source. I will use that one. I will double check. I am pretty sure that I was the only user for the Source:A2A so I can delete it tomorrow. Thanks, Debbie Freeman --[[User:DFree|DFree]] 21:15, 30 August 2010 (EDT)+A bit of clean-up is required in the place hierarchy of Norway. I am in the process of sorting out the former and current municipalities in my own county [[Place:Møre og Romsdal, Norway|Møre og Romsdal]], and moving smaller places into their correct jurisdictions. This is, although a bit confusing at times, not very complicated, as all the administrative units are included in the place categorization and the smaller units are mostly just inhabited places.
 +Ecclesiastical units are also important in genealogy, and it is my opinion that the dioceses and parishes should be included in the place hierarchy (and of course, be placed within their correct "civil" places by using "also located in..." or "see also..."). The Church of Norway does, however, operate with three administrative levels, with the ''prosti'' or deanery between the diocese and the parish. This is, as I understand, also the case with the Church of England.
 +There is, as far as I have found, no suitable place categorization for this type of unit.I suppose I could use a general term, like community or something like that, but I would think that could cause some confusion. How does the community propose I solve this problem?
 +--[[User:Kaffilars|Kaffilars]] 12:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
-== Problem w numbered list - specify start value [7 September 2010] ==+----
 +You can always put more than one type of place in the Type box. I do this all the time in working with places in England. In England "civil" or "state" or "political" registration provides a better geographical description than "church" or "ecclesiastical" data after 1837, but sometimes it is easier to depend on the ecclesiastical sources even after that date.
-Need some technical help. I'm not a html or wiki wizard, but can usually copy an example.+Data on ecclesiastical sources tends to be scarce and dioceses cover too much territory to be very helpful in pinpointing where an event took place, particularly baptisms, marriages and burials. Ownership of land and wills, however, may be better described using the broader descriptions before 1837. I am not familiar with the place of deaneries and have not come across much reference to them.
-:I am trying to create this [[User:Wswoody/Ahnentafel|Ahnentafel page]] indexing a user's ancestors by surname line to give him easy access to WeRelate. Things were going well until I decided that instead of simply using # to number the lists 1, 2, 3, it would be more informative to start with the generation number for each surname.+
-:According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:List|list help] on Wikipedia all that is needed is to insert <nowiki>#<li value="9"></nowiki> to set the starting number to 9, for example. This does work to create the desired numbers, but the WeRelate system is inserting an unwanted item 1 at the top of the list. Is there any way to prevent this? --[[User:Wswoody|Wswoody]] 15:35, 7 September 2010 (EDT) Whoops! forgot to change id. This is [[User:jlanoux|Judy]]+
-::It doesn't work probably because we're using an older version of the Wikipedia software right now. Until we get onto the latest version you can use raw HTML tags to accomplish what you want. I edited the first list in [[User:Wswoody/Ahnentafel|your Ahnentafel page]] as an example.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:55, 7 September 2010 (EDT)+
-:::That seems to do what I need. Thanks. --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 17:02, 7 September 2010 (EDT)+
-== uploading a PDF that contains images [17 September 2010] ==+The type "community" tends to be used for a monastery or an early North American religious community that settled in one specific place.
-Hello,+Regards, --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
-How do you upload a PDF that contains microfilmed images? I have a PDf that contains a civil war service record for a person in my tree. I can't figure out how to do this.+
-Thank- You+
-diyahnih--[[User:Diyahnih|Diyahnih]] 07:10, 17 September 2010 (EDT)+
-:You can upload a pdf from the Add Image page. The pdf will not be readable on the Person page, but you can include a link to it so a person can download the pdf and view on their computer. Use a Media tag. Here's an example:+
- <nowiki>[[Media:Highly_Selected_General_Bibliography.pdf|Highly Selected General Bibliography]]</nowiki> <br>+
-will display as: [[Media:Highly_Selected_General_Bibliography.pdf|Highly Selected General Bibliography]] <br>+
-This is a good way to handle multipage documents as they aren't usually readable on screen anyway. --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 12:58, 17 September 2010 (EDT)+
-== confusing terminology [24 September 2010] ==+In England, at least in Lincolnshire, I have found that parishes usually share a name with the village where the church is located. I just use that village for the place. An exception is the civil parishes within [[Place:Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England|Lincoln]] for which I created individual pages to use with the census records. I don't see much value in creating ecclesiastical units when the records can be traced back to certain churches. (I don't know how Norway compares to this.) —[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 04:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
-I'm confused. I searched for a page I thought was an article (since I wrote it) titled Surname:Jackson. The system couldn't find it an article named Surname:Jackson or Jackson Surname. So I tried searching the category and it went to the Category:Jackson surname. Clicking on that, at the top of that page it says "There are xx articles in Category:Jackson Surname" and right at the very top of the list is my article I was searching for. Now why couldn't the search engine find my article? Why did I have to go to the category to find the article? --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 15:36, 22 September 2010 (EDT)+== Little problem with a link and/or given name with 2 words [8 January 2015] ==
-:Perhaps other experts can be of further assistance, but I will try to offer a couple ideas and workarounds. When you created a surname page such as you did with your [[Surname:Jackson]] page, even though you used the Article creation environment, it saved it in the Surname namespace. So if you went to [[Special:Specialpages|Special Pages]] and clicked on the [[Special:Browse|Browse Pages]], if you left in the default "(Main)" namespace and looked up "Jackson" all it would find are the true articles relating to the name Jackson, identifing many of your Jackson Surname-in-Place pages. Whereas if you changed the namespace to "Surname" and then typed in "Jackson" you would have the Jackson surname page available as one of the pages to pick from. And if you used the [[Special:Search|Search WeRelate]] selection, you would also need to designate "Surname" in the namespace block to be immediately directed to your [[Surname:Jackson]] page. I would think you should also have been able to easily get to the Jackson surname page from a link to the catgegory repeated multiple times within your own [[User:Janiejac|User Page]]. You can add a direct link to the page for future use should you feel the desire. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 19:01, 22 September 2010 (EDT)+Hello ! Begin December 2013 I had a problem with this record [[Person:Edmond Bouchon (1)]]. I tried some times to find an explanation. But also now I can not understand the exact cause of this bug. I find interessant to have 2 givennames. "Jean Baptiste" is a very common givenname in France. I know, one solution is to write "JeanBaptiste" or "Jean-Baptiste", but when we refer exactly to the original records ... I can also use the special field "alt name", but ... I have put a "stupid" link from Edmond Bouchon to Jean Baptiste Guidé, only for testing. The real link is to Louis Éloy Pascal. Using only one given name seems to me a bad thing. Persons with "Louis" or "Jean" as first (not always official) givenname are so many. And the automatic number, which is added by WeRelate, don't make a quickly differenciation. Thanks for your help and "ideas" ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 07:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
-::No further assistance that I can think of - you nailed it :-) --[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:33, 24 September 2010 (EDT)+:There some chance the problem is with the accents, not with the compound names.
 +:When I click on the broken link, I get an empty page with this url: www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Louis_%C3%89loy_Pascal_%281%29
 +:When I search and select a page, I get the right page with this url: www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Louis%C2%A0%C3%89loy_Pascal_%281%29
 +:Reagrding Jean, same problem in other languages, i.e., German with Johan.
 +:The page title is a different entity than the name, i.e., <nowiki>[[Person:Jean Guide (16)|Jean Baptiste Guidé]]</nowiki>. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 15:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 +::Thanks, [[User:Jrich|Jrich]] ! But the problem is not caused by the "french" accent on the letter "e" --> é, è, ê, or also à, ù. I tested this possible interpretation of the bug more as one time since December 2013. And now, one more time ... see what I added here [[Person:Edmond Bouchon (1)]] --> The link with "Jean Baptiste Guidé" is red, but for "Eugène Guidé" it's OK. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 08:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 +:::It's now OK ... I had forgotten, to obtain the space between the 2 words (given name) I tipped "alt-255". Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 08:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 +::::Strikes me as a bad idea to type in a visually indistinguishable character that most people, as you yourself did, would think is a space, so you can get around a rule built into the software. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 05:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
-== Pedigree-Charts covering people from several trees [16 October 2010] ==+:Peuvez-vous décriver le problème en français? Je ne parle pas bien, mais je crois que peut-être je peux mieux comprendre en français, et puis, je peux traduire à anglais pour les autres. --[[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 +::I thought he explained it well in English, much better than I could do in French. He used an escape sequence to enter a non-breaking space so the system would recognize Jean[space]Baptiste as a single word, and then couldn't build a link to it because what looked like a normal space, wasn't. Spaces are normally converted to underscore by URL rules, but the normal rules didn't work right when a non-breaking space was involved. The problem is that everybody else is going to make that same error. American readers are going to have even a harder time, at least based on my personal experience, because I don't even know how to enter those special characters even if I realized they were needed. In colonial USA, the town clerks entered the early records having middle names with a dash, i.e., Jean-Baptiste Guidé, which would at least be visibly obvious to subsequent readers of the page. I suggest either following the rules, or use a more visible separator than a non-breaking space. After middle names became common, the dash was dropped by town clerks, based on the assumption that the surname was the same as the father's. Now that assumption is no longer valid. So modern interpretations sometimes don't agree with what the ancient writer thought was unmistakably clear. There is a lesson in there somewhere. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 04:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 +::: Thanks, Jrich - that makes a lot more sense. So, the problem is in trying to create the page title with both names? It seems like we could potentially modify the page title creation code to accept non-breaking spaces, but I agree that that seems like a non-intuitive solution. I don't know how much work would be involved, but maybe it would be possible to create a check box that would force the page title to use all middle names, or to create a way to manually edit/enter the title of the page? --[[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 04:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
-I have my data uploaded in different trees. When I select for a pedigree-chart only people of one tree are reflected, although the connections (child => parents) are defined, but the parents are in another tree. When I make the pedigree-chart within the other tree, only persons from that one tree are reflected. In my opinion the idea of WeRelate should be that all connected persons should come together. Klaas --[[User:Ekjansen|Ekjansen]] 03:50, 27 September 2010 (EDT)+== Merge process [17 January 2015] ==
-:Klaas, when viewing your pedigree chart, are you using the Family Tree Explorer (FTE)? I think Dallan can speak better to how FTE works, as I never used it myself. I can see, however, that only the pedigree from one tree is viewable that way. Instead, if you go to a person and click on More, Pedigree-Map you should be able to see a chart that spans multiple trees. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 05:18, 27 September 2010 (EDT)+
-::Jennifer, I am not using the FTE (this is not my thing) I look for the Pedigree-Map and there it shows only persons from one tree. Klaas --[[User:Ekjansen|Ekjansen]] 05:50, 27 September 2010 (EDT)+
-:::The Pedigree-Map ''should'' show all ancestors regardless of what personal tree they are in. I can click on any other user's person and view their pedigree, even though they are not in any of my personal trees. Can you give an example of one of your pages where this is happening so I can take a look?--[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 05:56, 27 September 2010 (EDT)+
-Pedigree of Hendrik Jansen [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ShowPedigree&pagetitle=Person:Hendrik_Jansen_(6)]+Forgive me if this is a well-trodden topic, but I am fairly new here. As I have been working on my family tree I keep running into duplicate people (I suspect most of the date back to the "drive-by GEDCOM" era I've heard about). I've gone through [[Help:Merging pages]] and all that makes sense. Most of the duplicates I have run into were pretty obvious duplicates, but there are some cases where it is ambiguous. In one case I tried starting a discussion on the talk page, in others I just put a note on the page itself. But keeping track of these is tricky.
-and the pedigree of his father Evert Jansen: [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ShowPedigree&pagetitle=Person:Evert_Jansen_(2)] --[[User:Ekjansen|Ekjansen]] 06:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)+
-:This is definitely one for Dallan to answer, as it looks like a system bug to me. I can see that you connected Evert to his parents in [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person%3AEvert_Jansen_%282%29&diff=15211232&oldid=15199269 this edit]. I thought it may be an issue with the system not recognizing this, so I made a null-edit on that page in an attempt to refresh it. That didn't help either. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 06:43, 27 September 2010 (EDT)+
-::The pedigree-maps are supposed to work the way you mention -- include people even if they're in different trees. I just looked at these two pages, and it appears that both pedigrees reference both people & trees now. Is it working now for you as well?+
-::This is especially odd because the pedigree-maps don't do a lot of caching, so I'm a bit stumped trying to figure out what went wrong.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 23:25, 1 October 2010 (EDT)+
-::Could it just be, that it takes quite some time to build up the references? I'll have my holydays now and will look in 10 days again. --[[User:Ekjansen|Klaas (Ekjansen)]] 02:16, 2 October 2010 (EDT)+
-:::It shouldn't; it reads the database directly to create the pedigrees. Let me know when you get back, and have great holidays!--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 09:47, 2 October 2010 (EDT)+
-::Dallan, I can see where the pedigree in Klaas' example is now displaying correctly. I have had the same problem occur myself. I can't put my finger on a previous example, but perhaps you can replicate it. If you were to edit [[Person:Jan Van Der Veen (3)]] and add [[Family:Rienk Van Der Veen and Trijntje Leijstra (1)]] as his parents, you may be able to see it. Right now the pedigree for [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ShowPedigree&pagetitle=Person:Rienk_Van_Der_Veen_%282%29 Rienk] shows no grandparents. Ideally, they should display after you make the above edit. Well, hopefully this works - a bit like bringing your car in to the shop, it will never make the noise for the mechanic! --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 10:40, 2 October 2010 (EDT)+
-:::I know what you mean about the car and the mechanic. I edited [[Person:Jan Van Der Veen (3)]] and added [[Family:Rienk Van Der Veen and Trijntje Leijstra (1)]] as his parents. I then forced a browser refresh for the pedigree for [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ShowPedigree&pagetitle=Person:Rienk_Van_Der_Veen_%282%29 Rienk] and it showed his grandparents. You know -- that may be the issue: the browser has cached the previous version of the page. If that's the case, hitting refresh on the browser might solve the problem.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:02, 2 October 2010 (EDT)+
-::::Thanks for trying to replicate this. I did think about browser cache when Klaas brought this up. The thing is, I had never looked at his example page before, so it wasn't in cache for me. When I notice this happening again, I'll post another example here.--[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 17:45, 2 October 2010 (EDT)+
-:::::Thanks.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:09, 2 October 2010 (EDT)+
-*The problem is not solved yet: the pedigree-chart of Hendrik Jansen [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ShowPedigree&pagetitle=Person:Hendrik_Jansen_%286%29] stops with Geert de Lange [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ShowPedigree&pagetitle=Person:Geert_De_Lange_%282%29] and Franke Ten Hoor [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ShowPedigree&pagetitle=Person:Franke_Ten_Hoor_%282%29], but their ancestry is also in WeRelate. The only problem I see is that they are in different trees. --[[User:Ekjansen|Klaas (Ekjansen)]] 06:40, 12 October 2010 (EDT)+
-:Ok, I finally see what's going on. The problem is that although Geert's parents appear on her Person page: [[Person:Geert De Lange (2)]], they didn't get copied to her family page: [[Family:Geert De Lange and Berendtje De Lange (1)]], where they should appear in small print above her name. The fact that they didn't get copied to her family page is a bug. The bug shows up in the pedigree, because the pedigree reads her parents from her family page instead of her person page. I've logged the bug and will work on it -- thanks for being persistent. Until it gets fixed, the workaround is to edit her person page and remove her parents (and save the page), then re-edit her person page and re-add her parents. This should cause them to be copied to her family page.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 14:11, 16 October 2010 (EDT)+I am thinking that it would be useful to have a template we could place on a suspected duplicate page, in other words, a standard mechanism for marking these suspected duplicates and initiating discussion on fixing them. I found [[Template:Merge]] but it seems unused and I think it needs work. Are there any objections to me fixing up that template (or creating a new one) so that it can be used to mark any suspected merge candidates? Then, perhaps, this could be added to the aforementioned merge instructions as another tool available for dealing with these ambiguous cases. I am willing to do the work on this assuming nobody has objections.
- +
-== Searching for Sources [15 October 2010] ==+
- +
-Is there a preferred way to search for a Source? If I go Search, Sources, enter Victoria, Australia in the Title box, select Vital records in the Subject box and then Search I get 176 sources. Mixed in with those souces I'm looking for (at about number 60 & 61) are sources for Canada, Mexico, Phillipines, South Africa and all of the Australian states without any obvious ways to refine the search. Also, if I want to find the same source that I used a few months ago, I need to go though this process to re-find it and hopefully select the correct one (there can be lots of similar sources). If the sources had a number I could make a note of it to speed things up. I have been trying to do re-directs on a few of these similar sources to make things a bit easier for others (fortunately there are not many other links to these sources yet). If I try adding the word Births after Australia, I then end up with 3655 sources. Cheers Ken.--[[User:Kenamoore|Kenamoore]] 22:10, 4 October 2010 (EDT)+
 +++thanks --[[User:Trentf|Trentf]] 20:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-The source title field has an autocomplete feature. Once you set the namespace to Source, anything you type in the title field will try to match sources whose page title starts with the same string. A list of such matches appears in a popup and you can select it from that list (there is a limit somewhere around 75-100, to how many titles will show up in the popup list). It is case sensitive, so it has to be exact. Once you find a source, you usually can remember the title and figure out the minimum string necessary to bring back a short list containing that source.+Years ago, we had a [[WeRelate:Duplicate review|merge project]] and volunteers merged thousands of pages. As far as I know, no one has been checking for duplicate pages except the ones they are personally interested in. Most of us just merge duplicate pages when appropriate. If someone objects, they can restore the pages or ask me to do it for them.
-For geographic sources, like most vital records and most church records, the title of the page starts with the place name. So type in enough of the place name to be unique, pause for a couple of seconds, and then you will get all the titles that start with that place name. For books, the title is last name, first name of the main author, then the title, so usually typing in the author's name is sufficient to get a list including the desired title.+There are still a few duplicates, but they should be relatively rare. Although another merge project may be in order, it's not something I can take on right now. If you would like to organize it and make it happen, that would be great. Feel free to bring it up on the [[WeRelate_talk:Watercooler|watercooler]].--[[User:Solveig|sq]] 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
-If you go to the find/add screen to do your search, possibly because you can't figure out how to get the autocomplete to suggest the desired title, be aware that the search is an OR (union) of the criteria as opposed to what I think is most intuitive, namely, an AND (intersection) of the criteria. So if you know something concretely, it is almost better to type in that criteria ''only'' and do an exact match. For example, put Victoria, Australia in the place field and nothing else. Less is more usually, in terms of getting a focused result. Adding more search criteria will usually result in more results returned. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 22:49, 4 October 2010 (EDT)+: I'm sure the merge project from years ago got all the low-hanging fruit. I've seen nothing to indicate there are any widespread problems requiring another such effort. The ones I'm finding are pretty obscure (usually due to sparse data and/or wild variations in names). I have already merged several. But sometimes I'm not quite sure if they are duplicates; more research is needed to be sure. So all I'm saying is that having a standard template to mark such suspected duplicates would make my life easier, and maybe it would be useful to others. Is it ok if I create such a template and try it out? Or should I just "be bold" and do so? --[[User:Trentf|Trentf]] 01:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 +::To put my 2 cents worth in, I'd say go for it. I sometimes just add a note and a link to the page but a template would be good (especially if it is reasonably aesthetic - there have been complaints about ones that were too glaring).
 +::BTW: There is a [http://www.werelate.org/duplicates/families.html duplicates report] for ongoing monitoring and resolving of potential duplicates (and there are people periodically checking and resolving these), but it focuses solely on family pages (much easier for automation to identify potential duplicates without too many false-positives). I believe this is the same report used by the merge project, and that there has been no automated reporting of potential duplicate individuals.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 02:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 +:::The key to resolving duplicates is research. The information on many pages, if unsourced, is of marginal quality, so assuming duplicates based strictly on that is risky. The problem with the project to remove duplicates was that few people did research - they guessed, and guessing can make a marginally recognizable page bear no resemblance to any reality. Be bold, but always err on the side of being correct. When in doubt, do nothing. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 03:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but the autocomplete feature does not seem to work for me in either the Search, Source, Title field or the Place field, however I have seen it work in other fields so I know what you mean. Could you please try it?+I've done an initial round of work on the template and related things, and marked a couple sets of pages as possible duplicates. You can see what I've done at [[Template:Dup]]. Let me know what you think (perhaps on that talk page?) --[[User:Trentf|Trentf]] 01:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
-Also, when the source titles are very similar it is almost impossible to remember which one to use several months later. Regards Ken--[[User:Kenamoore|Kenamoore]] 23:40, 4 October 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Further to this, there is a difference when entering the Search WeRelate screen from Search (on the top menu bar), Sources, compared with entering the find/add page screen from Editing Person, Source Citations, Title field, find/add >>+
-The find/add page screen works as you described, however the Search WeRelate screen does not. Regards Ken--[[User:Kenamoore|Kenamoore]] 07:08, 5 October 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:I use autocomplete all the time so it works for me just fine, for Source titles, and place names. I use firefox. I don't know, and can't guess, to what extent its operation may be affected by which browser you use or the preferences you have set?+
- +
-:I was merely trying to describe how I use autocomplete, as I find it very useful/functional in specifying sources. As always, it may not fit your preferred work style as well. It wasn't meant to be an overview of all the search screens.+
-:However, to your points, the search box in the top menu bar search merely sticks the words into the Keyword field, so this is behaves little differently. That search box is specifically designed to provide a quick search capability, and so doesn't offer all the same control the others do, though I am pretty sure it is built on the same search capability.+== Place page for a forest ... [18 January 2015] ==
-:I believe the regular Search->Source screen does work the same as the find/add search. I picked a source I am familiar with to pretend I was searching for something specific. Using Search->Source, I search for author Willis and I get 547 results. I search for author Willis and title Portland, and I get 916 results. (Only some subset of sources matching author Willis could have Portland in the title, but the result set didn't get smaller, it got bigger. So the only answer is that now it matches the original 547 having author Willis, plus those additional sources that don't have author Willis but do have Portland in the title, i.e., a union.) I tried to add a source citation, and used the find/add function, trying the same two sets of criteria, and I get the same two result counts. It appears to give the identical functionality to me. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 09:27, 5 October 2010 (EDT)+I am working on [[Transcript:Herbert H White World War I Diary|this page]], and I created this : [[Place:Forêt de Mormal, Nord, France]]. I know the place pages are for towns, villages, ... and cimeteries. Is this new page correct or must we delete it ? Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 14:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 +:This help page gives no information : http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:Place_pages#What_kinds_of_places_can_I_create_pages_for.3F - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 15:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-I use IE8 so I would have thought it should work fine. As I said before, the Search-> Source screen does not provide autocomplete in the "Place" field whereas the find/add search screen does provide autocomplete in the "Place" field. The search which you described did not utilize the Place field.+Why don't you insert the name of a nearby town next to the name of the forest and leave the forest name in the ordinary font? If you put the insert in single square brackets [...], everyone will understand it is not part of the actual transcription.
-Is there any good reason why each individual source does not have an individual identifier such as a number? I have seen a case where 2 sources have virtually identical titles except that one has an additional comma. It would be helpful in future when discussing with others which souces to redirect, combine or delete.+Having looked over the page in question, may I suggest that you omit the bold font from placenames. They are jumping out of the text excessively.
-No one seems to be making any attempt to fix up all of those similar sources, which do not have any links to them nor anyone watching them. Multiple entries seem to have been created by people from the Family History Centres.--[[User:Kenamoore|Kenamoore]] 20:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)+Keep up the good work. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 19:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
-:Source searching is a known problem right now :-(. Better searching is the next feature to be launched, at which time the search criteria will be AND'ed instead of OR'ed, and sources will be ranked based upon how many people have linked to them or are watching them. You're right that the Search screen doesn't have auto-complete on the Place field, while the Find/Add screen does have auto-complete on the place field. That will get fixed as well. In the meantime, the source auto-complete on Person & Family pages is your best option unfortunately.+== Categories [25 January 2015] ==
-:BTW, the reason that there are similar sources is when the website was first launched several years ago, I gathered existing sources from the Family History Library Catalog, Ancestry, and a number of genealogy websites. In hindsight this was probably a mistake. Cleaning up and merging those sources turned out to be a ''huge'' job. A lot of people put a lot of effort into a [[WeRelate:Source renaming project|source renaming project]] last year, and the sources are much better now because of it, but as you've pointed out, there is still more work that could be done, and some people are continuing to clean them up.+I have problems with my very poor english. It's for me not easy to write and understand the answers of other contributors. (see above). I'm sorry !... And Google Translate is catastrophic ! I wish to create new categories. I saw [[Help talk:Categories]] and [[WeRelate talk:Categories project]] ... and [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Categories this] but I found no effective help. The search tool (browse) is good for names and places, but very bad for other datas. I think we can use categories to quickly find some informations ---> example : [[:Category:Filles du roi]]. What do you think about creation of categories facilitating the search "cause of death". (I began such a work on ... Rodovid, but this site became stupid, incompetent and "dictatorial" since 2010.) My options for sub-categories... would be : Killed at war / Holocaust / Drowned / fall (from a horse, from a roof) / by storm (lighting) / crushed by a wall or a house / explosion in a mine / died in childbirth ... Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
-:I like the idea of bringing sources that you've used before to the top of the list. It won't happen right away, but I'll think about how this could be implemented in the future. One thing that you can do right now that will help: Watch the sources that you tend to reuse, and check "Show only Watched" in the search form.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:29, 6 October 2010 (EDT)+:Yeah, Google Translate can be catastrophic! I wonder what value there would be in adding those categories? I don't know how you are searching, but if for example I wanted to know how many of the people I am watching have died of "dropsy", I can do a "Person" search for "Watched only" with keyword "dropsy", and it returns a list of four people. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 18:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
-----+::I agree with user Moverton that you can get the same results without creating a complex set of categories that could soon get out of control. Using a structured set of keywords on your pages would achieve the same result. I would suggest that instead of Killed at war, you consider "Killed in Action," "Died of wounds" and possibly "Died of illness." You could also include key words such as WWI, WWII, etc. However, your suggested Category of "Filles du roi" could prove of broader interest, but how do we get the word out?
-Thanks for this Dallan - I'm sure we all appreciate your time & efforts in trying to get everything just right and know that we can't get everything fixed immeadiately - I'm sure we can live with minor issues for now.+:: PS - you handle English way better than I would with my high school French from many years ago. Keep up the good work. - Rick----[[User:RGMoffat|RGMoffat]] 06:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
-Has there been any discussion on giving every individual source say a 9 digit identification number? It can be very difficult trying to identify a particular source - especially when the titles are very similar - when discussing it with someone else.+:::Hello, [[User:Moverton|Moverton]] and Rick. Thank you very much for your time and opinions. But I don't agree with you. I tested the browse tool before I posted my request. And I did again after you answered, [[User:Moverton|Moverton]]. The result is not what you describe and hope, I am sorry ! Rick, no ... creating some categories is clearly not a complexification and such a "set" of classification has no reason to "get out of control". Putting some structured keywords on '''<u>my</u> pages''' don't allow what I search. I will explain why, in details. Be patient ! Rick, I don't understand what you mean with "''...how do we get the word out?''". Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 08:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 +::::[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] ! 1) WeRelate is a collaborative site, and the datas have to be reached by everyone. A browse tool working only on the (very limited) watch pages of one contributor is interessant but very poor for a '''collective work/project'''. 2) For your example : "dropsy" --->
 +::::a) I work about french famillies, villages and registers. Using also the informations I find in the acts, I never type "dropsy" (not a french word).
 +::::b) Trying your method to find who died of "dropsy" ("Person" search for "Watched and unwatched" + "Exact match only" with keyword "dropsy") it returns ... [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Search?sort=score&ns=Person&watch=wu&a=&st=&g=&s=&p=&bd=&br=0&bp=&dd=&dr=0&dp=&fg=&fs=&mg=&ms=&sg=&ss=&hg=&hs=&wg=&ws=&md=&mr=0&mp=&pn=&li=&su=&sa=&t=&k=dropsy&rows=200&ecp=e this] ... I can naturally develop and explain why the result is not my ... "hope/waiting". Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 +:::::[[User:Moverton|Moverton]], 2 first arguments as proof that your method is not ... the best.
 +:::::1) the request returns persons who died not of "dropsy" ! It gives also records where this word appears in the text ---> example : [[Person:DeForest Severance (1)]] did not die of dropsy, but his sister [[Person:Emily Severance (2)]]
 +:::::2) Dropsy is also a surname ! Your method does not "remove" of the result all these records. ---> examples : [[Person:Lambert Dropsy (1)]] and surname given in a note : [[Person:Jean Bouillot (8)]]. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 11:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 +::::::An other example for the absolute necessity (for me) to work with (and use) categories : How do you can (now, without categories) obtain a list of all persons died in the different nazi concentration camps ? ---> [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Search?sort=score&ns=Person&watch=wu&a=&st=&g=&s=&p=&bd=&br=0&bp=&dd=&dr=0&dp=&fg=&fs=&mg=&ms=&sg=&ss=&hg=&hs=&wg=&ws=&md=&mr=0&mp=&pn=&li=&su=&sa=&t=&k=extermination+camp&rows=20&ecp=c so, with "extermination camp"], 16 items ... + [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Search?sort=score&ns=Person&watch=wu&a=&st=&g=&s=&p=&bd=&br=0&bp=&dd=&dr=0&dp=&fg=&fs=&mg=&ms=&sg=&ss=&hg=&hs=&wg=&ws=&md=&mr=0&mp=&pn=&li=&su=&sa=&t=&k=concentration+camp&rows=20&ecp=c with "concentration camp"], 58 items ... + [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Search?sort=score&ns=Person&watch=wu&a=&st=&g=&s=&p=&bd=&br=0&bp=&dd=&dr=0&dp=&fg=&fs=&mg=&ms=&sg=&ss=&hg=&hs=&wg=&ws=&md=&mr=0&mp=&pn=&li=&su=&sa=&t=&k=shoah&rows=20&ecp=c with "shoah"], 31 items ... + [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Search?sort=score&ns=Person&watch=wu&a=&st=&g=&s=&p=&bd=&br=0&bp=&dd=&dr=0&dp=&fg=&fs=&mg=&ms=&sg=&ss=&hg=&hs=&wg=&ws=&md=&mr=0&mp=&pn=&li=&su=&sa=&t=&k=holocaust&rows=20&ecp=c with "holocaust"], 146 items. Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 14:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 +:::::::And now, what is returned with filter [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Search?sort=score&ns=Person&watch=wu&a=&st=&g=&s=&p=&bd=&br=0&bp=&dd=&dr=0&dp=&fg=&fs=&mg=&ms=&sg=&ss=&hg=&hs=&wg=&ws=&md=&mr=0&mp=&pn=&li=&su=&sa=&t=&k=holocaust&rows=20&ecp=c "drowned"] ? ---> first comment : why does it appear [[Person:Living Drown (1)]] ? and a long list of members of a family [[Person:John Drown (1)]]
 +:::::::This record [[Person:William Taylor (1)]] does not contain the word "drowned" but "drowning" ... fine ! We have to initiate a next request with filter "drowning", and I alert here to search with words in other languages (so, for me french, "noyé" + "noyade")
 +::::::: What do you think of this result [[Person:Germain Doucet (2)]] ? ---> this person did not died in water, only the word "drowned" appears in the long (narrative ?) text and it concerns another person.
 +::::::: idem [[Person:Mahonri Fish (1)]] and [[Person:Eleanor Garner (2)]]
 +::::::: Another pitiful example : [[Person:Susan Coffeen (1)]] ... '''Organisation by categories seems to me the best and the only solution !''' - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 15:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
-Another possibility - could we have favourites? I am effectively doing this by watching sources. Cheers - Ken--[[User:Kenamoore|Kenamoore]] 19:23, 6 October 2010 (EDT) 
----- 
-I Watch the sources that I use regularly. They check Watched box in the Search screen.  
-Some people just keep a User page with a list of their regular sources. --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 19:54, 6 October 2010 (EDT) 
---- ----
-Yes, that's how I manage it. I tend to use the same 50-60 sources over and over, and I can't always remember what they're all called (some are similar to each other, same county and so on), so I keep a list of them in a plain text file. When I'm doing a bunch of info-adding that needs to be sourced, I just open that file and copy/paste. That also reminds me of whether I've actually used a source before, or whether it's a new one for me. It's rather kludgy, but it works. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:20px;">[[User:Mksmith|Mike]]</font><font color="purple" size="2.5" face="papyrus"><sup>[[User Talk:Mksmith|Talk]]</sup> </font> 10:20, 7 October 2010 (EDT)+I am not fond of categories. The problem is that most categories cross the line between family history versus history and/or demographics, so creates problems that this website doesn't have any protocols or features to support. Further, too many categories end up reflecting personal interests, which doesn't scale well in collaborative environment.
-:I'd rather not add a 9-digit number to every source page title. But if two sources have confusingly-similar page titles (the same except for punctuation, etc.) and you want to distinguish them, I think it would be ok for you to rename those two pages and add the publication-year in parentheses to the end of the page titles. That's been done before when it's been necessary to distinguish between two different editions of a book.+From a genealogy standpoint, I see little use for Categories. A person researching their family are primarily interested in their descendants. So other people that served in the same military unit, or died of the same cause, or occupied the same town office, are usually not of interest in their genealogical research. Finding such a category may occupy a minute of idle browsing, and then probably be of no further use or interest. Certainly, discovering such a category is unlikely to cause somebody to go out and thoroughly research the other members of that category. Now that grouping is certainly of historical interest (very useful to a person researching a book on that subject, for example) but probably not of genealogical interest to individual readers who are only descended from that single member...
-:For now, watching the sources or writing them down is the best way to have a list of favorites. In the future, I like the idea of keeping track of the sources you've linked-to in the past and moving these sources to the top of the auto-complete drop-down (assuming they match what you've entered so far). Similarly for places.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 10:28, 7 October 2010 (EDT)+Categories tend to get over-used until they become pointless. There is traditional categories like Filles du Roi, or Mayflower Descendants, but without some discipline, this quickly becomes ridiculous: founder of this town (founder or early settler?), passenger on that ship (all 3 of them), left-handed fence viewers, etc. It is hard not to find some justification for this or that grouping, but the question is, who else finds it truly significant? Such types of categories ought to be defined by, and recognized by, significant outside groups to avoid the creeping micro-categories that tend to come into being.
-::As others suggested, I've created some user pages for my "links I want to remember" at various times, tho I find after I go through the effort to make them, I end up not using them very often. Anyway, I recall some discussion about a possible "favorites" list at some point early on; I think Dallan felt it would be duplicative of other bookmarks managers. And, when the autocomplete works, it's like a really focused bookmarks list - very effective.+There are all sorts of questions one has that probably could be at least partially answered by categories if they were set up appropriately: is seven marriages the most? who are all the people that lived to be 105? who are all the people from my town who died in World War II? But is that what we are here to answer? Doesn't this type of question require codification and software help? Not to mention this is adding another item requiring proof and documentation (on what authority do you know he died of dropsy?), and we don't even do a good job proving dates, yet.
-::I too have experienced a recent failure in the autocomplete function in some, but not all fields. I haven't yet worked out what could be causing it, but based on the fact the feature works for other weRelate users with the same browser as I use (either Chrome or Explorer) I'm assuming it's something in my settings. I'll let you know if I figure out what it is...+Categories seem to be good ways of grouping pages, but the cost is that they can become intrusive and arbitrary. Good categories need clear definitions where anybody can tell who belongs based on provable fact without needing to consult the creator of the category. Forbidding categories for personal collections seems like the only real guideline we have, but many current uses seem to be exactly that. And of course, categories tend to lead to banners, decorating select pages like a tapestry, loudly calling attention to the thing that is important to the banner-maker, while distracting from all the other important facets of a person's life.
-:::The autocomplete is triggered once by a change to the field. Sometimes if I do something that causes focus to leave the field (click on a different field, perhaps a popup steals the focus), I mess up the sequence of events that would normally trigger autocomplete. Or I accidentally dismiss it and want it back. In that case, I merely delete the last letter I typed and retype it, and it triggers the autocomplete afresh. Don't know if something like that is all that is needed, or if you are experiencing a bigger problem? --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 12:49, 8 October 2010 (EDT)+A link in the narrative to an article would serve essentially the same function as a category, providing a place to give more information on the subject, and the What Links Here would give a list of associated pages. So one suggestion would be, for example, instead of creating a category for Dropsy, every time you write the word dropsy, use <nowiki>[[Article on Dropsy|dropsy]]</nowiki>. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 17:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 +:P.S., I meant Mayflower Passenger, above, a relatively non-controversial category. As opposed to Mayflower Descendant, which is often a contentious issue. An interesting angle though. Beyond the propriety of marking Mayflower Descendants, it may be that it would be annoying to others, whose pages don't/can't get so marked? - jrich
-::::No, there is something else that was going awry. Not sure what it is yet, as I haven't been back to a project that would involve updating citations via autocomplete in a bit. But I'm going to try it again soon, and see if I can figure it out. This was an abrupt change, where I was adding info to numerous citations and suddenly was unable to "copy" from my prior entry into the field. It did not affect the actual citation source title field; that one still did autocomplete. However, some of the other fields, like Volume/Pages and Date, stopped autocompleting. I recently (after this issue arose) updated to IE8; I will test and see if it happens still. However, I generally use Chrome when I'm working in WeRelate.--[[User:Kennebec1|Brenda (kennebec1)]] 14:00, 14 October 2010 (EDT)+::[[User:Jrich|Jrich]], thank you for your argumentation I share only partially (but I don't understand some details ... because my bad level in english). In the next hours I will try to explain my different analysis, experience and "need".
 +::I am very surprised that other contributors do not come on this page to give their opinion and share their experiences and methods.
 +::I tried again to find some "rules" and concerned talk pages. Nothing ! ... only [[WeRelate:Categories project]] and [[WeRelate:Category index]], both pages <u>not modified since 2012</u>. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 07:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 +:::[[User:Jrich|Jrich]], you wrote :
 +:::1) "''most categories cross the line between family history versus history and/or demographics, so creates problems ''" ---> what do you mean exactly ? Can you give examples ?
 +:::: you mentioned cause of death. these categories are not due to people being related, it is demographics. The people have little connection except the coincidence of cause of death.
 +:::: we have categories for presidents of the United States, for example. These people are not necessarily related. Few users of WeRelate are related to more than 1 or 2. The interest in this group is purely because of historical significance. It has no genealogical basis.
 +:::2) "'' too many categories end up reflecting personal interests, which doesn't scale well in collaborative environment.''" ---> What is for you the limit of a maximum of categories ? And what is your criterion for this "maximum" ? For me, the "secret" ist only the logical and (if possible) perfect hierarchy to organize the categories (and naturally with their good chosen "names".
 +:::: some pages are people with millions of descendants. If a large number of people create their own category, these pages could belong to thousands of categories. There has to be some universal importance to justify bothering all the other readers of the page with a category. In general on this website, any manifestation of personal, as opposed to universal, interests, is an imposition on other readers.
 +:::3) In the same sentence, you seem oppose "personal interests / collaborative environment". A site as WeRelate is only a tool allowing to work (collect, browse, display, organize ...) the datas/informations we can find in the original documents/registers. I think, each visitor or contributor of the site is always free to use only some parts of the browse possiblities or more, and why not the complete list of categories (the only crtierion being the quality of the navigation and hierarchisation, without duplicates and redundances).
 +::::See above. Also, how often do people really use this navigation, and could they not do it other ways? Do I use the Presidents category to find George Washington's page? (no) How often do I jump from George Washington's page directly to Abraham Lincoln? (never) In my personal experience at WeRelate, I find myself going to categories almost always to maintain the category itself, not because the category is useful, i.e., to make sure the new page is displayed in proper sorted order,e tc. I almost never find it easier to use a category than a properly targeted search.
 +:::The rest of my (long) argumentation I will give and develop tomorrow ! Be patient ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 +::::Sorry, I wish I could write in French, but it is decades since I did anything. No chance to practice, and not as good as your English in my best days. Good job with your English! --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 19:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
-:::::The autocomplete for the Volume/Pages and Date fields within a source citation is provided by your browser using previous responses, not by WeRelate. So it probably did have something to do with changing/updating browsers. WeRelate can only do autocomplete for fields where the entry is looked up to see if it exists, i.e., fields that correspond to a namespace, like Place, Source, Family (in spouse or parents field of Person page), etc. Because WeRelate takes over the autocomplete on these, the browser is unable to. But fields where WeRelate has no stored set of answers to use in anticipating your input, it does nothing, allowing your browser to offer you a list of previous input values if you have your set preferences set right. (On Firefox go to Tools->Privacy, and either remember history, of use custom settings for history, see the details in the Help.) Both types of autocomplete are great aids in manual entry of pages. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 15:13, 14 October 2010 (EDT)+For what it's worth, although I like categories generally, and create them often (I think they are useful labels, and enjoy finding unexpected connections as I work on a category), I think cause of death is not a good category. A category that will have millions of people in it at build-out is not useful. The navigation and filtering for categories just isn't up to it. Really, dozens is about the limit -- meaning cause of death would only be useable if only a very small group of users do it, and only to those users, which is the exact opposite of the community purpose.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 05:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-::::::Thank you! It was my guess that it had to be something with my browser/autocomplete function, but because it looks and works the same as the werelate autocomplete, I wasn't sure. I'm going to go mess with my browser settings now... --[[User:Kennebec1|Brenda (kennebec1)]] 19:43, 15 October 2010 (EDT)+----
 +I recently started adding Categories to English Places within WeRelate--and found that the Sources that go with each Place are still there. This means that if you inspect a parish's category you find the list of sources from the Family Search Library Catalog that goes with it. Much of this data will now be hiding online in FamilySearch--no need to visit a Family Research Center.
-::Finally, there are definitely more duplicate sources out there despite our massive source review project last year; if you have time, feel free to fix them. If you don't have time, is there a way such issues could be flagged for review? I'd be happy to review problem sources; I've been working for the past year reviewing Maine-related sources and updating and de-duping them (though I've only gotten to M, so I've got a ways to go yet).--[[User:Kennebec1|Brenda (kennebec1)]] 12:14, 7 October 2010 (EDT)+In addition to giving each parish its own category, I am giving it further categories based on the higher levels of government in which it was grouped. At the end of the day a category titled, for instance, <nowiki>[[Category:Cheltenham (hundred), Gloucestershire, England|Cheltenham Hundred]]</nowiki> will list all the parishes originally in the Cheltenham hundred--an area fairly large but much smaller than just Gloucestershire. Registration District areas (used in censuses and bmd's since 1837) and rural and urban districts (20th-century areas) can be used to pinpoint an even more locallized group of places.
-== Can't access Matthew Winans' person page [7 October 2010] ==+Pin-pointing a place in relation to neighbouring places is easier in parts of the world where a four-tier description is used, but when there is only a three-tier description available, using categories can be helpful. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 10:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-A few days back I was transfering a 3-page descendancy to '''Matthew Winans (1)''', so that I could then distribute part of said descendancy to other pages & eventually eliminate the descendancy altogether. Something happened and now I cannot access the page at all. I even used my niece's user name & password which helped yesterday. Now neither my nor my niece's user name & password allow me access. Instead the program freezes & I have to Ctrl Alt Del to get out. I'm here at the library as always. '''Help !''' I don't mind starting all over again creating Matthew, but I'd rather not have Matthew Winans (1) floating out there in lala land.--[[User:Neal Gardner|Neal Gardner]] 10:23, 5 October 2010 (EDT)+----
 +I skimmed through the arguments presented here after being asked to come and share my opinion.
 +* on the topic of "few people commenting": Though WeRelate has ''significant'' traffic, only a small % of people who contribute do so to the "back end", including these discussions. Personally, I do not contribute much to, let alone visit, either the front or back end of WeRelate these days.
 +* on the main topic: categories like [[:Category:U.S._Presidents]] and [[:Category:Filles du roi]] do straddle a line between genealogy and historical information. The problem with categories like this is that they tend to undermine a formerly emerging relationship between Wikipedia and WeRelate. First, there tends to be a mirroring of some Wikipedia categories here. Second, it will be attractive to some editing here to create categories for groups which are not considered 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense as there are less editorial controls here than there. My opinion is along the lines expressed by other long time editors, that categories are useful but they can grow wild and tend not to service the underlying genealogy mission of the site.
 +* more on the main topic: I see that there is an article at [[King's Daughters (filles du roi)]] and that it contains a list of people. In general, one needs to consider the pros and cons of a list versus a category. For a group of things where the content is static and will not change, a list is often superior as it can be better managed editorially; categories provide a good way to manage a dynamic group where the members could change over time or the inclusion criteria could change. In the present case, the list is the way to go, I think. There are two ways, then of identifying "affiliated" people - one by consulting the list and a second by consulting 'what links here' on the person's page. I don't think there has been a drive to create link-interpreting tools beyond those used for ancestry where the links interpreted are parent-child; however, the same principles used to generate the pedigrees could be used to generate graphical or computable representations of links between people using, for instance, bridging articles like [[King's Daughters (filles du roi)]]. Just a thought for future development.
-Now I can not access person page for Matthew Winans' mother, Rebecca Connant (1) either. I need some intervention, I don't want to lose a handful of ancestors. '''Help, help, help !'''--[[User:Neal Gardner|Neal Gardner]] 11:37, 5 October 2010 (EDT)+Hope this helps. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
-:Neal, I can access [[Person:Matthew Winans (1)]] and [[Person:Rebecca Connett (1)]] using both Firefox and Chrome. Internet Explorer is having a problem with it though. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 11:43, 5 October 2010 (EDT)+
-:I edited your [[Person:Rebecca Connett (1)]] page as a test. See if you can view it now using IE. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 11:55, 5 October 2010 (EDT)+
-Got into Rebecca Connant (1) and was able to edit and get out. Have to leave library, but will try Matthew when I get back. Thanks a whole bunch. Thought a fungus was taking over..{:>)--[[User:Neal Gardner|Neal Gardner]] 12:13, 5 October 2010 (EDT)+== CRACKING BRICKWALL [27 January 2015] ==
-:Glad it worked! I'll edit the Matthew page too. This time I'll put the descendancy in a note field, instead of a source field (since that's the more appropriate place for it).+
-:This will provide a clue for Dallan though as to why the page was so unliked by IE.--[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 12:17, 5 October 2010 (EDT)+
-Thanks Jennifer. Everything back to normal. Didn't realize temporarily using Bio section was vulnerable. --[[User:Neal Gardner|Neal Gardner]] 14:58, 5 October 2010 (EDT)+investigating the David Dial brickwall. If I find ancestry, do I just edit the profile or post the info here for the profile originator to handle?--[[User:SHIVES|SHIVES]] 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
-:I don't think it is the "Bio" (Personal History) section that is the problem per se. I started up IE (normally use Firefox) and didn't have a problem even with the older revisions. But I did note that a warning was displayed: "WARNING: This page is 48 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb." --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 16:23, 5 October 2010 (EDT)+
-::I haven't seen a browser actually crash on a page for a long time. The indentation in the descendancy tree causes the text to be rendered inside an HTML "pre" tag. I've changed (again) how pre tags are styled. The default styling is to never wrap lines of text; in WeRelate, "pre" tags now wrap lines of text when they get too long. I reverted [[Person:Matthew Winans (1)]] to what it used to be and looked at it in IE7, IE8, Chrome, and Firefox. It now looks good in all of them.+:Always add what you have, citing your sources, and quoting from them where possible.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 05:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-::Changing the styling of pre tags may have negative consequences on other pages. If anyone notices indented text not being rendered well elsewhere, would you please bring it to my attention?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 10:19, 7 October 2010 (EDT)+:Yes, as the person who created the David Dial page (and as a direct descendant), I'm very interested! Please edit the page, or if you prefer, add your research to the talk page for David Dial, and others can verify it before adding it. -[[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
-== Where's Wiki Help? [11 October 2010] == 
- 
-The WR help pages sometimes refer one to Wikipedia help for more extensive how-to information. This seems appropriate as it saves reinventing the wheel by rewriting help here. But I have problems when using the Wikipedia help to try to do things on WeRelate. The answer seems to always be "because we are using an older version of Mediawiki". I'd like to save a day or two of frustration by using the appropriate documentation. Is there a site that has the help appropriate for our version of Mediawiki? --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 13:11, 9 October 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-:You can look at old versions of wikipedia (and many other websites) by going to [http://archive.org Archive.org]. Enter the URL you want to see a previous version of in the "Wayback machine". The version you want is from July 2006. Yes, it's been awhile. :-(. This is not a perfect solution, but will have to do until I upgrade to the latest version next year.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 11 October 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-::Thanks. I have no previous wiki experience, but I'd like to learn a few new tricks every now and then. I had no idea where to get information. Off to explore the past (appropriate for a genealogist) --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 18:39, 11 October 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-== Formatting an Article [21 October 2010] == 
- 
-I'm having trouble formatting an article so that it is readable see [[Journal of Harriett M Rendell September 1869]]. In the text box I keep entering Carriage Return [Enter] to make a space between lines and to seperate text but these spaces don't appear when I preview. I have tried looking at the featured page on Wiiliam H. Smith to see if I could get any ideas without luck. What am I doing wrong? Also, is setting up an article the preferred way to present this journal? Cheers - Ken--[[User:Kenamoore|Kenamoore]] 07:27, 20 October 2010 (EDT) 
-:I wonder if this is a "negative consequence" that Dallan referred to [[WeRelate_talk:Support#Can.27t_access_Matthew_Winans.27_person_page_.5B7_October_2010.5D|above here]] when he said "Changing the styling of pre tags may have negative consequences on other pages. If anyone notices indented text not being rendered well elsewhere, would you please bring it to my attention?" Your text works on person pages but not articles, so this may be an unintended result of Dallan's restyling.--[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 07:34, 20 October 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-::Hmmm. That's very strange. I went immediately to take a look at [[The Problem of William H. Smith|The Problem of William H. Smith]], which is an article referenced on the William H. Smith Person page, and it still looks the way it ought to. However, the difference may be that almost everything of any substance -- and certainly anything that long -- that I post has first been written offline, either as a memo in TMG or as a Word doc, and then copy/pasted into the text box in WeRelate. Perhaps that means the imported text isn't quite as "bare" as I had thought, and that codes for "hard return" are being imported -- I don't know. 
- 
-::As far as using a article to present this sort of lengthy info, I think that's a very good way to handle it. Either in an article or as a source page, actually. I've been doing that with cemetery transcriptions and military muster rolls. Other people can then easily link to the material and it also keeps the Person page from becoming unwieldy in lengthy. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:20px;">[[User:Mksmith|Mike]]</font><font color="purple" size="2.5" face="papyrus"><sup>[[User Talk:Mksmith|Talk]]</sup> </font> 08:29, 20 October 2010 (EDT) 
- 
-Something about having the center tag covering two lines was screwing it up. I formatted the two lines separately and now the rest of the returns show up.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 11:12, 20 October 2010 (EDT) 
-:Thanks, Amelia. I wouldn't have thought that made a difference, since the wiki defaults (I thought) to wrapping lines practically indefinitely. The tags shouldn't care about how long the lines are, and the browser will simply split them wherever necessary. (I've done that on regular web pages, though it sometimes comes out looking a bit sloppy.) --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:20px;">[[User:Mksmith|Mike]]</font><font color="purple" size="2.5" face="papyrus"><sup>[[User Talk:Mksmith|Talk]]</sup> </font> 20:45, 21 October 2010 (EDT) 
---- ----
-Thanks for your help, it now looks great, amazing how little things can make a lot of difference. Regards--[[User:Kenamoore|Kenamoore]] 19:51, 20 October 2010 (EDT)+The Scottish surname DALZIEL is pronounced DIE ALL. Colonial Virginia and Tennessee were settled largely by the Scots. Variations in spelling for your David's surname include DYAL and DEAL [various renderings of Dalziel] I wander through the settlements of Augusta County VA and Greene County TN with my own Scots bygones--the McGregors, McKenzies, Douglas, Campbells. I've seen Dyals etc in passing. I hope I can help. It may take a while.--[[User:SHIVES|SHIVES]] 14:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
-----+
-That's an interesting journal, Ken. I love reading old letters and diaries, even if I'm not connected to anyone in them. Now, of course, you need to research some of the other passengers mentioned in the journal, make up pages for them, and link to those pages from the journal. . . . :-) --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:20px;">[[User:Mksmith|Mike]]</font><font color="purple" size="2.5" face="papyrus"><sup>[[User Talk:Mksmith|Talk]]</sup> </font> 20:45, 21 October 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Source Data??? [1 November 2010] ==+
- +
-How can I find out the source data for a given entry. Is there any way to tell if there is a verifiable for a specific individual or lineage. I know a lot of the entries are what people have been told or surmised but a lot of us need the documented proof in order to join a variety of organizations such as: the DAR, the SAR, the DUV, etc.--[[User:Mcguirepv|Mcguirepv]] 16:03, 1 November 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-:It depends upon the page. Some pages have extensive source citations and, unfortunately, there are some pages that have few, if any, sources listed. The great thing about a wiki environment like WeRelate is that if you see something that's undocumented and you have documentation, you can add the source even if you didn't create that page. --[[User:Ajcrow|Amy (Ajcrow)]] 16:08, 1 November 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-::Hello, You can also locate the Watchers on the Person Pages or Family pages in WeRelate by clicking on their User page and leave them a note on their WeRelate User Talk page and ask about sources for Person: John Doe or Family: John & Jane Doe too. We do and are trying to encourage WeRelate Users to add sourcing, it is a step hill so far though. Also another idea you could do outside of WeRelate is contact the organization you wish to join and order the ancestors latest "record copy" or whatever that organization calls it thru that child's name. Good Luck, Debbie Freeman --[[User:DFree|DFree]] 16:25, 1 November 2010 (EDT)+
- +
-== Problems with werelate or my pc ? [10 November 2010] ==+
- +
- +
-Hello+
- +
-Is there a problem with the my Relate section today+
-The screen looks like this:+
- +
-* &lt;home&gt; +
-* &lt;add&gt;▼+
-* &lt;myrelate&gt;▼+
-* &lt;admin&gt;▼+
- +
-Also I have uploaded a new Gedcom this morning and this is nowhere to be found yet, normally it is there within minutes (Spoeltman file)--[[User:Kalishoek|Kalishoek]] 05:15, 9 November 2010 (EST)+
-:With respect to your gedcom upload, there was a large file being processed and your file was in queue. It is visible now.+
-The problem with display is usually transient - I see it at times too. Often reloading the page will clear it up. If it persists, please tell us what browser and version you are using. --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 10:22, 9 November 2010 (EST)+
-::Every once in awhile when the system gets overloaded you'll see this. It's a known bug. Reloading should fix the problem.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:08, 10 November 2010 (EST)+
- +
-== Source - Add Page - returns blank page [27 November 2010] ==+
- +
-I have been adding sources successfully but now when I attempt to add a new source a blank page is returned. More specifically I'm attempting to create source pages for newspapers. After clicking "add page" a blank web page is displayed and the new source page is never created. The problem has been occurring for the past few days in both Firefox and Internet Explorer. Is there a limit to the number of sources one can add? Is anybody else having this problem? Any help would greatly be appreciated. Thank you.--[[User:Joe|Joe]] 12:30, 11 November 2010 (EST)+
- +
-:I've had something similar happen every so often. I recently discovered I needed to adjust popup settings, open links in new page/tab or not, and "autofill" settings to get WeRelate to work optimally. If you've recently had a browser auto upgrade, you might check your settings and test a few alternatives to see if you still have the same issue. I'm sorry I can't be more specific as to what I changed; this isn't the same issue I recently had, so I'm not sure what I did will help you. But what you're experiencing sounds like a browser settings and/or a memory/WeRelate is busy now type of issue. There aren't limits on the number of sources you can add, so you should be ok there! --[[User:Kennebec1|Brenda (kennebec1)]] 16:39, 12 November 2010 (EST)+
- +
-::I was entering my master source list into WeRelate and when I got to my newspaper sources (about the 200th source) I couldn't enter any more sources. No changes to my system, just entering source after source until I no longer could. Entered a source one minute and the next minute a blank page. Which is why I thought it might be an administrative block of some sort. I do appreciate the feedback and tried your suggestions to no avail. Maybe it is time for me to take a break. Thanks again. --[[User:Joe|Joe]] 10:12, 15 November 2010 (EST)+
- +
-:::Joe, what happens if you "refresh" the page? And have you tried to clean out your browser cache? I've asked some other more tech-savvy adminst to take a look at your question as well. Hopefully we'll come up with an answer.--[[User:Kennebec1|Brenda (kennebec1)]] 14:08, 17 November 2010 (EST)+
- +
-::::I'm noticing that this is only happening with adding sources of type Newspaper. Not much help, but hopefully it's a clue for Dallan. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 14:12, 17 November 2010 (EST)+
- +
-:::I tried adding a newspaper and got a blank page as well. I think it must be something in the programming for this type of source. Joe, will you try adding a source of a different type? Thanks.--[[User:Kennebec1|Brenda (kennebec1)]] 11:45, 18 November 2010 (EST)+
- +
-::::That's a bug; thank-you for reporting it. It's fixed now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:52, 28 November 2010 (EST)+
- +
-== Source titles for encyclopedic references [19 November 2010] ==+
- +
-What is WR's rule for titling source pages that are multi-volume, multi-authored books? One example is [[Source:Schöffer, I. Biografisch Woordenboek Van Nederland]]. It appears to have been published from 1979-2008 with multiple authors. The authors listed on the source page are collaborators/editors. Can we remove the author from the title and title this [[Source:Biografisch Woordenboek Van Nederland]]? --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 09:42, 19 November 2010 (EST)+
- +
-:I believe that is what we did when we encountered these cases. Then in the Source page text we included details of each volume giving pub date and editor/compiler and topics whenever we could find the information. You can even add a suggested citation for each volume if you wish as these things do confuse novices. --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 18:55, 19 November 2010 (EST)+
- +
-== Ellisisland.org [26 November 2010] ==+
- +
-I'm looking for suggestions on consolidating our various sources/repositories for the http://www.ellisisland.org website. We currently have:+
-#[[Source:Ellis Island, New York, United States. Immigration-Records.com]]+
-#[[Source:New York City, New York, United States. Ellis Island]]+
-#[[Source:Ellis Island Records]]+
-#[[Source:Ellis Island, New York, United States. Ellis Island Passenger Arrivals : American Family Immigration History Center]]+
-#[[Repository:Ellis Island Passenger Arrivals : American Family Immigration History Center]]+
- +
-I'm wondering what the correct source title should be and which of the above should be deleted. Thanks, --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 07:25, 26 November 2010 (EST)+
-:Perhaps the source should be [[Source:New York, New York, United States. Passenger and Crew Lists of Vessels Arriving at New York, NY, 1897-1957]] and the repository ''The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation''. I'm not sure that any of the above items are really useful. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 13:26, 26 November 2010 (EST)+
-::I agree with Jennifer. That page has the actual title of the source. The other pages are not necessary at all and should be redirected, IMHO. -- [[User:Ajcrow|Amy (Ajcrow)]] 14:22, 26 November 2010 (EST)+== Category Indexing [28 January 2015] ==
-:::Thank you Amy. I created a repository page for [[Repository:Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation]] and deleted the above pages. There was nothing that linked to them and deleting them ensures they don't show up in the drop-down box. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 16:27, 26 November 2010 (EST)+
-== City Directories [6 December 2010] ==+I wonder if someone could tell me why, in <nowiki>Category:Thornbury Registration District, Gloucestershire, England</nowiki>, is <nowiki>Place:Thornbury Registration District, Gloucestershire, England</nowiki> placed under "P" and <nowiki>Place:Almondsbury, Gloucestershire, England</nowiki> is placed under "T"?
-What is the policy for citing City Directories? Does each year have its own source page, or are they considered a serial publication? What is the proper format for the title? Thanks, --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 14:11, 1 December 2010 (EST)+This often happens in category lists. I could understand if all places and persons went under "P", but sometimes, as in this case, there doesn't seem to be any logic to the alphabetical designation at all. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 09:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
-:I found some limited discussion about city directories as they related to the source renaming. We still seem to have a great variety of titles, from [[Source:Polk's Directory, Seattle, Washington, 1899-1900]] to [[Source:Westbrook, Cumberland, Maine, United States. Westbrook (Maine) City Directory, 1909-1910]].+
-:It seems that since these are geographically oriented items, they should follow the Place. Title rule. I also think that having (Maine) in the example above is redundant. There are also a variety of publishers for City Directories, so I chose to include that information in the title: [[Source:Grand Rapids, Kent, Michigan, United States. R.L. Polk & Co.'s Grand Rapids City Directory]]. I also grouped all years from the same publisher in one source, and omitted any dates in the page title. Am I on the right track here? --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 13:28, 6 December 2010 (EST)+: I think this is because of the way the category is linked in the Almondsbury page: <nowiki>[[Category:Thornbury Registration District, Gloucestershire, England|Thornbury]]</nowiki>. The part after the pipe is the sort key. See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Categories#Sort_key I would hazard to guess that should be changed to Almondsbury. --[[User:Trentf|Trentf]] 02:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
-::Since many of the directory sources were imported from Ancestry and Family Search, you will find a variety of formats in the catalog. Directories should be treated as Serial as you proposed. The year of issue is part of the citation added by the user, but not the source title. However, there should be a separate source for different publishers. The text box on the source page could contain some useful information about which issues are available at various resources. This is one source where having catalog pages could be of great use. The few directories that I have found already had source pages so I used those (pre-redesign.) If I were to add one now, I would do it as you describe. --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 15:45, 6 December 2010 (EST)+Aaah. You didn't give me the right answer, but you pointed me towards it. Thanks. There shouldn't be a pipe or anything beyond it in a Category. I had copied and pasted from another part of the page in preparing the Category list. It's all straight now. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 08:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Current revision

Old topics have been archived: 2011 2012 2013 2014


Topics


GEDCOM import - More than 24 hours for review [23 January 2015]

Didn't note the time when I uploaded my Gedcom but its got to be more than 48 hours ago. This is poor, especially when the purpose of this exercise is to compare WeRelate to Wikitree before making a choice. The people at Wikitree are very responsive.--Innesaj 14:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I still new to this site. I think I done everything right but I am still waiting for more than 24 hours for Admin review of my gedcom. Can some advise me what may or maynot have done wrong?--Myfamilytree 15:31, 10 May 2013 (EDT)


Hello,

WeRelate relies on people volunteering their time and effort to ensure a degree off quality in the genealogy you find here. This means that sometimes it takes longer then we would like for gedcom reviews to occur but there are positives to this. One of the greatest things about this site is that on werelate you are truly collaborating with others and not just duplicsting the same people as you share information.--JeffreyRLehrer 16:10, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

Perhaps the admins could think of something that could be done to manage this situation - perhaps agreeing some kind of target "service level" or messaging people if the delay is over, say, a day, to say "please be patient, we are busy and have x GEDCOMs above you in the queue" AndrewRT 17:35, 30 May 2013 (EDT)

It could be noted that Rakirkwood has now waited for a week for his first import to be reviewed. I've waited less than 24 hours, so I'm not complaining for myself, but it doesn't look hopeful. ;-) Maybe more Admins are needed? --Lennart 12:24, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
Additional volunteers are always welcome! I would like to note the date on the GEDCOM review page is the date the user uploaded their file, not the date it was submitted for admin review. Users generally take some time reviewing their file and processing Family Matches before submitting it for upload. WeRelate does strive to process GEDCOM files within 24 hours, but, since this site is volunteer based, that can take a bit longer in some instances. --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:33, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
Aha. That looked like a big import as well, so maybe things aren't as bad as they looked. That's good to hear. --Lennart 12:40, 7 September 2013 (EDT)


I am curious about a specific lineage. How can I find out who the contributors are so as to collaborate with them?--Pjceditor 14:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Select History in the left-hand panel and you will see all the user names who added or edited a page. Select a user link, then select their Talk page and leave a note there.--DataAnalyst 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Did my GEDCOM 'fall thru the cracks'? It's been 4-5 weeks.--Diane Hosler 19:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it did fall through the cracks. I'll follow up on this. Thank-you for letting me know. I apologize for the wait.--Dallan 22:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am having problems opening the ged file I downloaded. I need a copy on my desktop for making corrections, as I am informed there are too many errors too complete my work on your site. Where will I receive an answer to this question.--Bob3453 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


I'm trying to review my newly-uploaded DURGEE 4G .This replaced my previous DURGEE LTD, but when I try to review the new one I get a message that you can't locate my old one (I deleted at your request)--WAJoyce 19:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)




FHL microfilm [2 January 2015]

Is there a way to put in microfilm as part of the citation? I use quite a bit from Salt Lake.

Lee Martin--Fastwarhorse 18:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You should cite the Source page for the source you used. The FHL microfilm number is usually on the Source page automatically, or you can add it there if you wish to. It does not need to go in the citation itself, as these are cites for where anyone might find the information (independent of the repository), as opposed to where you personally found it.--Amelia 19:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
You can include a large amount of text in the "Volume/Pages" field of the Citation. I don't know what the limit is. Just add the specific FHL number for your citation, eg. here. —Moverton 03:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Deaneries in the Church of Norway [2 January 2015]

A bit of clean-up is required in the place hierarchy of Norway. I am in the process of sorting out the former and current municipalities in my own county Møre og Romsdal, and moving smaller places into their correct jurisdictions. This is, although a bit confusing at times, not very complicated, as all the administrative units are included in the place categorization and the smaller units are mostly just inhabited places. Ecclesiastical units are also important in genealogy, and it is my opinion that the dioceses and parishes should be included in the place hierarchy (and of course, be placed within their correct "civil" places by using "also located in..." or "see also..."). The Church of Norway does, however, operate with three administrative levels, with the prosti or deanery between the diocese and the parish. This is, as I understand, also the case with the Church of England. There is, as far as I have found, no suitable place categorization for this type of unit.I suppose I could use a general term, like community or something like that, but I would think that could cause some confusion. How does the community propose I solve this problem? --Kaffilars 12:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


You can always put more than one type of place in the Type box. I do this all the time in working with places in England. In England "civil" or "state" or "political" registration provides a better geographical description than "church" or "ecclesiastical" data after 1837, but sometimes it is easier to depend on the ecclesiastical sources even after that date.

Data on ecclesiastical sources tends to be scarce and dioceses cover too much territory to be very helpful in pinpointing where an event took place, particularly baptisms, marriages and burials. Ownership of land and wills, however, may be better described using the broader descriptions before 1837. I am not familiar with the place of deaneries and have not come across much reference to them.

The type "community" tends to be used for a monastery or an early North American religious community that settled in one specific place.

Regards, --Goldenoldie 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In England, at least in Lincolnshire, I have found that parishes usually share a name with the village where the church is located. I just use that village for the place. An exception is the civil parishes within Lincoln for which I created individual pages to use with the census records. I don't see much value in creating ecclesiastical units when the records can be traced back to certain churches. (I don't know how Norway compares to this.) —Moverton 04:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Little problem with a link and/or given name with 2 words [8 January 2015]

Hello ! Begin December 2013 I had a problem with this record Person:Edmond Bouchon (1). I tried some times to find an explanation. But also now I can not understand the exact cause of this bug. I find interessant to have 2 givennames. "Jean Baptiste" is a very common givenname in France. I know, one solution is to write "JeanBaptiste" or "Jean-Baptiste", but when we refer exactly to the original records ... I can also use the special field "alt name", but ... I have put a "stupid" link from Edmond Bouchon to Jean Baptiste Guidé, only for testing. The real link is to Louis Éloy Pascal. Using only one given name seems to me a bad thing. Persons with "Louis" or "Jean" as first (not always official) givenname are so many. And the automatic number, which is added by WeRelate, don't make a quickly differenciation. Thanks for your help and "ideas" ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 07:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There some chance the problem is with the accents, not with the compound names.
When I click on the broken link, I get an empty page with this url: www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Louis_%C3%89loy_Pascal_%281%29
When I search and select a page, I get the right page with this url: www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Louis%C2%A0%C3%89loy_Pascal_%281%29
Reagrding Jean, same problem in other languages, i.e., German with Johan.
The page title is a different entity than the name, i.e., [[Person:Jean Guide (16)|Jean Baptiste Guidé]]. --Jrich 15:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jrich ! But the problem is not caused by the "french" accent on the letter "e" --> é, è, ê, or also à, ù. I tested this possible interpretation of the bug more as one time since December 2013. And now, one more time ... see what I added here Person:Edmond Bouchon (1) --> The link with "Jean Baptiste Guidé" is red, but for "Eugène Guidé" it's OK. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It's now OK ... I had forgotten, to obtain the space between the 2 words (given name) I tipped "alt-255". Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Strikes me as a bad idea to type in a visually indistinguishable character that most people, as you yourself did, would think is a space, so you can get around a rule built into the software. --Jrich 05:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Peuvez-vous décriver le problème en français? Je ne parle pas bien, mais je crois que peut-être je peux mieux comprendre en français, et puis, je peux traduire à anglais pour les autres. --Jdfoote1 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought he explained it well in English, much better than I could do in French. He used an escape sequence to enter a non-breaking space so the system would recognize Jean[space]Baptiste as a single word, and then couldn't build a link to it because what looked like a normal space, wasn't. Spaces are normally converted to underscore by URL rules, but the normal rules didn't work right when a non-breaking space was involved. The problem is that everybody else is going to make that same error. American readers are going to have even a harder time, at least based on my personal experience, because I don't even know how to enter those special characters even if I realized they were needed. In colonial USA, the town clerks entered the early records having middle names with a dash, i.e., Jean-Baptiste Guidé, which would at least be visibly obvious to subsequent readers of the page. I suggest either following the rules, or use a more visible separator than a non-breaking space. After middle names became common, the dash was dropped by town clerks, based on the assumption that the surname was the same as the father's. Now that assumption is no longer valid. So modern interpretations sometimes don't agree with what the ancient writer thought was unmistakably clear. There is a lesson in there somewhere. --Jrich 04:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jrich - that makes a lot more sense. So, the problem is in trying to create the page title with both names? It seems like we could potentially modify the page title creation code to accept non-breaking spaces, but I agree that that seems like a non-intuitive solution. I don't know how much work would be involved, but maybe it would be possible to create a check box that would force the page title to use all middle names, or to create a way to manually edit/enter the title of the page? --Jdfoote1 04:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge process [17 January 2015]

Forgive me if this is a well-trodden topic, but I am fairly new here. As I have been working on my family tree I keep running into duplicate people (I suspect most of the date back to the "drive-by GEDCOM" era I've heard about). I've gone through Help:Merging pages and all that makes sense. Most of the duplicates I have run into were pretty obvious duplicates, but there are some cases where it is ambiguous. In one case I tried starting a discussion on the talk page, in others I just put a note on the page itself. But keeping track of these is tricky.

I am thinking that it would be useful to have a template we could place on a suspected duplicate page, in other words, a standard mechanism for marking these suspected duplicates and initiating discussion on fixing them. I found Template:Merge but it seems unused and I think it needs work. Are there any objections to me fixing up that template (or creating a new one) so that it can be used to mark any suspected merge candidates? Then, perhaps, this could be added to the aforementioned merge instructions as another tool available for dealing with these ambiguous cases. I am willing to do the work on this assuming nobody has objections.

++thanks --Trentf 20:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Years ago, we had a merge project and volunteers merged thousands of pages. As far as I know, no one has been checking for duplicate pages except the ones they are personally interested in. Most of us just merge duplicate pages when appropriate. If someone objects, they can restore the pages or ask me to do it for them.

There are still a few duplicates, but they should be relatively rare. Although another merge project may be in order, it's not something I can take on right now. If you would like to organize it and make it happen, that would be great. Feel free to bring it up on the watercooler.--sq 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure the merge project from years ago got all the low-hanging fruit. I've seen nothing to indicate there are any widespread problems requiring another such effort. The ones I'm finding are pretty obscure (usually due to sparse data and/or wild variations in names). I have already merged several. But sometimes I'm not quite sure if they are duplicates; more research is needed to be sure. So all I'm saying is that having a standard template to mark such suspected duplicates would make my life easier, and maybe it would be useful to others. Is it ok if I create such a template and try it out? Or should I just "be bold" and do so? --Trentf 01:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
To put my 2 cents worth in, I'd say go for it. I sometimes just add a note and a link to the page but a template would be good (especially if it is reasonably aesthetic - there have been complaints about ones that were too glaring).
BTW: There is a duplicates report for ongoing monitoring and resolving of potential duplicates (and there are people periodically checking and resolving these), but it focuses solely on family pages (much easier for automation to identify potential duplicates without too many false-positives). I believe this is the same report used by the merge project, and that there has been no automated reporting of potential duplicate individuals.--DataAnalyst 02:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The key to resolving duplicates is research. The information on many pages, if unsourced, is of marginal quality, so assuming duplicates based strictly on that is risky. The problem with the project to remove duplicates was that few people did research - they guessed, and guessing can make a marginally recognizable page bear no resemblance to any reality. Be bold, but always err on the side of being correct. When in doubt, do nothing. --Jrich 03:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done an initial round of work on the template and related things, and marked a couple sets of pages as possible duplicates. You can see what I've done at Template:Dup. Let me know what you think (perhaps on that talk page?) --Trentf 01:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Place page for a forest ... [18 January 2015]

I am working on this page, and I created this : Place:Forêt de Mormal, Nord, France. I know the place pages are for towns, villages, ... and cimeteries. Is this new page correct or must we delete it ? Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This help page gives no information : http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:Place_pages#What_kinds_of_places_can_I_create_pages_for.3F - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 15:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you insert the name of a nearby town next to the name of the forest and leave the forest name in the ordinary font? If you put the insert in single square brackets [...], everyone will understand it is not part of the actual transcription.

Having looked over the page in question, may I suggest that you omit the bold font from placenames. They are jumping out of the text excessively.

Keep up the good work. --Goldenoldie 19:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Categories [25 January 2015]

I have problems with my very poor english. It's for me not easy to write and understand the answers of other contributors. (see above). I'm sorry !... And Google Translate is catastrophic ! I wish to create new categories. I saw Help talk:Categories and WeRelate talk:Categories project ... and this but I found no effective help. The search tool (browse) is good for names and places, but very bad for other datas. I think we can use categories to quickly find some informations ---> example : Category:Filles du roi. What do you think about creation of categories facilitating the search "cause of death". (I began such a work on ... Rodovid, but this site became stupid, incompetent and "dictatorial" since 2010.) My options for sub-categories... would be : Killed at war / Holocaust / Drowned / fall (from a horse, from a roof) / by storm (lighting) / crushed by a wall or a house / explosion in a mine / died in childbirth ... Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Google Translate can be catastrophic! I wonder what value there would be in adding those categories? I don't know how you are searching, but if for example I wanted to know how many of the people I am watching have died of "dropsy", I can do a "Person" search for "Watched only" with keyword "dropsy", and it returns a list of four people. -Moverton 18:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with user Moverton that you can get the same results without creating a complex set of categories that could soon get out of control. Using a structured set of keywords on your pages would achieve the same result. I would suggest that instead of Killed at war, you consider "Killed in Action," "Died of wounds" and possibly "Died of illness." You could also include key words such as WWI, WWII, etc. However, your suggested Category of "Filles du roi" could prove of broader interest, but how do we get the word out?
PS - you handle English way better than I would with my high school French from many years ago. Keep up the good work. - Rick----RGMoffat 06:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Moverton and Rick. Thank you very much for your time and opinions. But I don't agree with you. I tested the browse tool before I posted my request. And I did again after you answered, Moverton. The result is not what you describe and hope, I am sorry ! Rick, no ... creating some categories is clearly not a complexification and such a "set" of classification has no reason to "get out of control". Putting some structured keywords on my pages don't allow what I search. I will explain why, in details. Be patient ! Rick, I don't understand what you mean with "...how do we get the word out?". Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Moverton ! 1) WeRelate is a collaborative site, and the datas have to be reached by everyone. A browse tool working only on the (very limited) watch pages of one contributor is interessant but very poor for a collective work/project. 2) For your example : "dropsy" --->
a) I work about french famillies, villages and registers. Using also the informations I find in the acts, I never type "dropsy" (not a french word).
b) Trying your method to find who died of "dropsy" ("Person" search for "Watched and unwatched" + "Exact match only" with keyword "dropsy") it returns ... this ... I can naturally develop and explain why the result is not my ... "hope/waiting". Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Moverton, 2 first arguments as proof that your method is not ... the best.
1) the request returns persons who died not of "dropsy" ! It gives also records where this word appears in the text ---> example : Person:DeForest Severance (1) did not die of dropsy, but his sister Person:Emily Severance (2)
2) Dropsy is also a surname ! Your method does not "remove" of the result all these records. ---> examples : Person:Lambert Dropsy (1) and surname given in a note : Person:Jean Bouillot (8). Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 11:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
An other example for the absolute necessity (for me) to work with (and use) categories : How do you can (now, without categories) obtain a list of all persons died in the different nazi concentration camps ? ---> so, with "extermination camp", 16 items ... + with "concentration camp", 58 items ... + with "shoah", 31 items ... + with "holocaust", 146 items. Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
And now, what is returned with filter "drowned" ? ---> first comment : why does it appear Person:Living Drown (1) ? and a long list of members of a family Person:John Drown (1)
This record Person:William Taylor (1) does not contain the word "drowned" but "drowning" ... fine ! We have to initiate a next request with filter "drowning", and I alert here to search with words in other languages (so, for me french, "noyé" + "noyade")
What do you think of this result Person:Germain Doucet (2) ? ---> this person did not died in water, only the word "drowned" appears in the long (narrative ?) text and it concerns another person.
idem Person:Mahonri Fish (1) and Person:Eleanor Garner (2)
Another pitiful example : Person:Susan Coffeen (1) ... Organisation by categories seems to me the best and the only solution ! - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 15:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not fond of categories. The problem is that most categories cross the line between family history versus history and/or demographics, so creates problems that this website doesn't have any protocols or features to support. Further, too many categories end up reflecting personal interests, which doesn't scale well in collaborative environment.

From a genealogy standpoint, I see little use for Categories. A person researching their family are primarily interested in their descendants. So other people that served in the same military unit, or died of the same cause, or occupied the same town office, are usually not of interest in their genealogical research. Finding such a category may occupy a minute of idle browsing, and then probably be of no further use or interest. Certainly, discovering such a category is unlikely to cause somebody to go out and thoroughly research the other members of that category. Now that grouping is certainly of historical interest (very useful to a person researching a book on that subject, for example) but probably not of genealogical interest to individual readers who are only descended from that single member...

Categories tend to get over-used until they become pointless. There is traditional categories like Filles du Roi, or Mayflower Descendants, but without some discipline, this quickly becomes ridiculous: founder of this town (founder or early settler?), passenger on that ship (all 3 of them), left-handed fence viewers, etc. It is hard not to find some justification for this or that grouping, but the question is, who else finds it truly significant? Such types of categories ought to be defined by, and recognized by, significant outside groups to avoid the creeping micro-categories that tend to come into being.

There are all sorts of questions one has that probably could be at least partially answered by categories if they were set up appropriately: is seven marriages the most? who are all the people that lived to be 105? who are all the people from my town who died in World War II? But is that what we are here to answer? Doesn't this type of question require codification and software help? Not to mention this is adding another item requiring proof and documentation (on what authority do you know he died of dropsy?), and we don't even do a good job proving dates, yet.

Categories seem to be good ways of grouping pages, but the cost is that they can become intrusive and arbitrary. Good categories need clear definitions where anybody can tell who belongs based on provable fact without needing to consult the creator of the category. Forbidding categories for personal collections seems like the only real guideline we have, but many current uses seem to be exactly that. And of course, categories tend to lead to banners, decorating select pages like a tapestry, loudly calling attention to the thing that is important to the banner-maker, while distracting from all the other important facets of a person's life.

A link in the narrative to an article would serve essentially the same function as a category, providing a place to give more information on the subject, and the What Links Here would give a list of associated pages. So one suggestion would be, for example, instead of creating a category for Dropsy, every time you write the word dropsy, use [[Article on Dropsy|dropsy]]. --Jrich 17:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S., I meant Mayflower Passenger, above, a relatively non-controversial category. As opposed to Mayflower Descendant, which is often a contentious issue. An interesting angle though. Beyond the propriety of marking Mayflower Descendants, it may be that it would be annoying to others, whose pages don't/can't get so marked? - jrich
Jrich, thank you for your argumentation I share only partially (but I don't understand some details ... because my bad level in english). In the next hours I will try to explain my different analysis, experience and "need".
I am very surprised that other contributors do not come on this page to give their opinion and share their experiences and methods.
I tried again to find some "rules" and concerned talk pages. Nothing ! ... only WeRelate:Categories project and WeRelate:Category index, both pages not modified since 2012. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 07:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Jrich, you wrote :
1) "most categories cross the line between family history versus history and/or demographics, so creates problems " ---> what do you mean exactly ? Can you give examples ?
you mentioned cause of death. these categories are not due to people being related, it is demographics. The people have little connection except the coincidence of cause of death.
we have categories for presidents of the United States, for example. These people are not necessarily related. Few users of WeRelate are related to more than 1 or 2. The interest in this group is purely because of historical significance. It has no genealogical basis.
2) " too many categories end up reflecting personal interests, which doesn't scale well in collaborative environment." ---> What is for you the limit of a maximum of categories ? And what is your criterion for this "maximum" ? For me, the "secret" ist only the logical and (if possible) perfect hierarchy to organize the categories (and naturally with their good chosen "names".
some pages are people with millions of descendants. If a large number of people create their own category, these pages could belong to thousands of categories. There has to be some universal importance to justify bothering all the other readers of the page with a category. In general on this website, any manifestation of personal, as opposed to universal, interests, is an imposition on other readers.
3) In the same sentence, you seem oppose "personal interests / collaborative environment". A site as WeRelate is only a tool allowing to work (collect, browse, display, organize ...) the datas/informations we can find in the original documents/registers. I think, each visitor or contributor of the site is always free to use only some parts of the browse possiblities or more, and why not the complete list of categories (the only crtierion being the quality of the navigation and hierarchisation, without duplicates and redundances).
See above. Also, how often do people really use this navigation, and could they not do it other ways? Do I use the Presidents category to find George Washington's page? (no) How often do I jump from George Washington's page directly to Abraham Lincoln? (never) In my personal experience at WeRelate, I find myself going to categories almost always to maintain the category itself, not because the category is useful, i.e., to make sure the new page is displayed in proper sorted order,e tc. I almost never find it easier to use a category than a properly targeted search.
The rest of my (long) argumentation I will give and develop tomorrow ! Be patient ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I wish I could write in French, but it is decades since I did anything. No chance to practice, and not as good as your English in my best days. Good job with your English! --Jrich 19:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, although I like categories generally, and create them often (I think they are useful labels, and enjoy finding unexpected connections as I work on a category), I think cause of death is not a good category. A category that will have millions of people in it at build-out is not useful. The navigation and filtering for categories just isn't up to it. Really, dozens is about the limit -- meaning cause of death would only be useable if only a very small group of users do it, and only to those users, which is the exact opposite of the community purpose.--Amelia 05:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


I recently started adding Categories to English Places within WeRelate--and found that the Sources that go with each Place are still there. This means that if you inspect a parish's category you find the list of sources from the Family Search Library Catalog that goes with it. Much of this data will now be hiding online in FamilySearch--no need to visit a Family Research Center.

In addition to giving each parish its own category, I am giving it further categories based on the higher levels of government in which it was grouped. At the end of the day a category titled, for instance, [[Category:Cheltenham (hundred), Gloucestershire, England|Cheltenham Hundred]] will list all the parishes originally in the Cheltenham hundred--an area fairly large but much smaller than just Gloucestershire. Registration District areas (used in censuses and bmd's since 1837) and rural and urban districts (20th-century areas) can be used to pinpoint an even more locallized group of places.

Pin-pointing a place in relation to neighbouring places is easier in parts of the world where a four-tier description is used, but when there is only a three-tier description available, using categories can be helpful. --Goldenoldie 10:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


I skimmed through the arguments presented here after being asked to come and share my opinion.

  • on the topic of "few people commenting": Though WeRelate has significant traffic, only a small % of people who contribute do so to the "back end", including these discussions. Personally, I do not contribute much to, let alone visit, either the front or back end of WeRelate these days.
  • on the main topic: categories like Category:U.S._Presidents and Category:Filles du roi do straddle a line between genealogy and historical information. The problem with categories like this is that they tend to undermine a formerly emerging relationship between Wikipedia and WeRelate. First, there tends to be a mirroring of some Wikipedia categories here. Second, it will be attractive to some editing here to create categories for groups which are not considered 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense as there are less editorial controls here than there. My opinion is along the lines expressed by other long time editors, that categories are useful but they can grow wild and tend not to service the underlying genealogy mission of the site.
  • more on the main topic: I see that there is an article at King's Daughters (filles du roi) and that it contains a list of people. In general, one needs to consider the pros and cons of a list versus a category. For a group of things where the content is static and will not change, a list is often superior as it can be better managed editorially; categories provide a good way to manage a dynamic group where the members could change over time or the inclusion criteria could change. In the present case, the list is the way to go, I think. There are two ways, then of identifying "affiliated" people - one by consulting the list and a second by consulting 'what links here' on the person's page. I don't think there has been a drive to create link-interpreting tools beyond those used for ancestry where the links interpreted are parent-child; however, the same principles used to generate the pedigrees could be used to generate graphical or computable representations of links between people using, for instance, bridging articles like King's Daughters (filles du roi). Just a thought for future development.

Hope this helps. --ceyockey 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


CRACKING BRICKWALL [27 January 2015]

investigating the David Dial brickwall. If I find ancestry, do I just edit the profile or post the info here for the profile originator to handle?--SHIVES 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Always add what you have, citing your sources, and quoting from them where possible.--Amelia 05:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as the person who created the David Dial page (and as a direct descendant), I'm very interested! Please edit the page, or if you prefer, add your research to the talk page for David Dial, and others can verify it before adding it. -Jdfoote1 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Scottish surname DALZIEL is pronounced DIE ALL. Colonial Virginia and Tennessee were settled largely by the Scots. Variations in spelling for your David's surname include DYAL and DEAL [various renderings of Dalziel] I wander through the settlements of Augusta County VA and Greene County TN with my own Scots bygones--the McGregors, McKenzies, Douglas, Campbells. I've seen Dyals etc in passing. I hope I can help. It may take a while.--SHIVES 14:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Category Indexing [28 January 2015]

I wonder if someone could tell me why, in Category:Thornbury Registration District, Gloucestershire, England, is Place:Thornbury Registration District, Gloucestershire, England placed under "P" and Place:Almondsbury, Gloucestershire, England is placed under "T"?

This often happens in category lists. I could understand if all places and persons went under "P", but sometimes, as in this case, there doesn't seem to be any logic to the alphabetical designation at all. --Goldenoldie 09:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is because of the way the category is linked in the Almondsbury page: [[Category:Thornbury Registration District, Gloucestershire, England|Thornbury]]. The part after the pipe is the sort key. See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Categories#Sort_key I would hazard to guess that should be changed to Almondsbury. --Trentf 02:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Aaah. You didn't give me the right answer, but you pointed me towards it. Thanks. There shouldn't be a pipe or anything beyond it in a Category. I had copied and pasted from another part of the page in preparing the Category list. It's all straight now. --Goldenoldie 08:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)