WeRelate talk:Support

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 20:45, 6 December 2010 (edit)
Jlanoux (Talk | contribs)
(City Directories)
← Previous diff
Current revision (20:26, 3 February 2016) (edit)
Moverton (Talk | contribs)
(Vermont Vital Records)
 
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-==Description [15 July 2010]==+Old topics have been archived: [[WeRelate talk:Support/2011|2011]] [[WeRelate talk:Support/2012|2012]] [[WeRelate talk:Support/2013|2013]]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 [27 December 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]].+----
 +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)
-:NEW questions? Please select "<font color=blue>Add topic</font>" from the menu within the top left block of this page.+----
 +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)
-== Image Behavior [1 August 2010] ==+----
 +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)
-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)+----
 +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)
-: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)+----
 +Can someone please review the Gedcom for my Robson tree that I submitted October 4?
-::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 removed all the sources because I was not sure that they were in the correct format. But if they look acceptable, please feel free to include them.
-:::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)+Keith--[[User:Uhj090|Uhj090]] 14:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
-::::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)+----
 +Is there a method to learn if an uploaded Gedcom has been reviewed by an Administrator - or is in a queue? It has been about 3 days since I finished my review. I'm not in a particular hurry but from reading earlier messages in this link it appears that on occasion an upload will be lost.
-:::::Fixed finally. [[Person:Charles Black (11)|Nice page]] by the way.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 19:14, 25 July 2010 (EDT)+Thanks,
 +Ron--[[User:Rchallberg|Ron]] 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 +----
 +Hi, I went through the gedcom list and I don't see your username. Are you registered as Rchallberg or under a different username. If Rchallberg is your username, my guess is the gedcom wasn't uploaded. Please resubmit and I will process it tonight. Thanks, --[[User:Solveig|sq]] 21:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
-It now works just like I hoped it would! Thanks for the fix and thanks for the compliment.+----
 +In response to the most recent message, my user name is Rchallberg. However, my Gedcom was accepted after my query so it may not have appeared in the Gedcom pending list. Thanks.--[[User:Rchallberg|Ron]] 23:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 +----
 +Really this is not very good. There are two gedcoms listed as waiting for review and they have been there a week, I have offered last week to help as a reviewer but had no answer to the offer either. Typically this is the time of year when a lot of people start or restart genealogy research, not getting things reviewed for weeks is going to put a lot of people off.
-== This file is larger than the maximum allowable size for a GEDCOM [10 July 2010] ==+I love that werelate is so low key and relaxed but it may be so laid back that it might be comatose.[[User:Rmg|Rmg]] 09:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
-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)+== FHL microfilm [2 January 2015] ==
-: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)+Is there a way to put in microfilm as part of the citation? I use quite a bit from Salt Lake.
-== Appears that double year dates are being incorrectly interpreted [25 July 2010] ==+Lee Martin--[[User:Fastwarhorse|Fastwarhorse]] 18:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
-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)+: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)
-: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)+: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)
-::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)+== Deaneries in the Church of Norway [2 January 2015] ==
-:::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)+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)
-== Printing [25 July 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.
-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)]] +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.
-Thanks, Pam--[[User:Txbluebell6|Txbluebell6]] 21:10, 12 July 2010 (EDT)+The type "community" tends to be used for a monastery or an early North American religious community that settled in one specific place.
-:I'll fix this today or tomorrow. Thank-you for letting me know.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 09:41, 22 July 2010 (EDT)+Regards, --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
-::This is fixed now. The menus should no longer appear on printed pages.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 19:14, 25 July 2010 (EDT)+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)
-== Place outline? [22 July 2010] ==+== Little problem with a link and/or given name with 2 words [8 January 2015] ==
-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)+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)
 +: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)
-: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)+: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)
-== Preventing wrap in text box [6 September 2010] ==+== Merge process [17 January 2015] ==
-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.+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.
-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)+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.
-::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)+++thanks --[[User:Trentf|Trentf]] 20:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 +----
 +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.
-:::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)+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)
-::::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)+: 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)
-:::::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)+::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)
-== Warnings [27 July 2010] ==+----
 +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)
-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.+== Place page for a forest ... [18 January 2015] ==
-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] ==+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)
-[[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)+----
 +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.
-: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)+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.
-== Husband's data not showing up on family page [31 July 2010] ==+Keep up the good work. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 19:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
-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)+== Categories [25 January 2015] ==
-: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)+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)
-::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)+: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)
-== Duplicate [28 July 2010] ==+::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----[[User:RGMoffat|RGMoffat]] 06:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
-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)+:::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)
-: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)+----
 +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.
-== Attaching brothers without parents [29 July 2010] ==+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...
-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)+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.
-: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)+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.
-== Suggestion for Naming [12 August 2010] ==+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.
-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.+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
-Please pass along my suggestion. Thanks.--[[User:Suzyq|Suzyq]] 01:01, 2 August 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)
-:I've added it to [[WeRelate:ToDo List|the todo list]].--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:14, 4 August 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)
-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)+----
 +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.
-::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.+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.
-::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] ==+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)
-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 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.
-: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)+Hope this helps. --[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
-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)+== CRACKING BRICKWALL [28 January 2015] ==
-:The county pages should be titled under West Virginia, with also-located-in links to Virginia.+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)
-: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)+:Always add what you have, citing your sources, and quoting from them where possible.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 05:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
-::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)+: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)
-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...+----
 +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)
-Thanks, Pam+:Sounds great - I look forward to seeing what you find. Thanks so much! --[[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 16:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
-: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)+== Category Indexing [28 January 2015] ==
-----+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"?
-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). + 
 +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 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)
 + 
 +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)
 + 
 +== GEDCOM denial [7 February 2015] ==
 + 
 +Hi-- I submitted my DURGEE 4G gedcom a few weeks ago, and your reviewer "Solvieg" did NOT follow-up on my detailed query about what I might do to revise it. (attached below). If I re-submitted, I fear it would also be denied for the same reasons.
 + There's nothing I can do about, for example, George (Fielding) Durgee's adoptive father being "too young" to be a natural father (when women died in childbirth the baby was given to a relative or neighbor, with no formal adoption records); Ellen Maley being "too old" to be a mother (I have copy of her baptismal record, and don't know who else the mother might have been); siblings who, probably unknowingly, told Social Security that their births were less than 9 months apart; folks unlucky to have died in deep winter with a foot of snow and frozen ground in the graveyard forcing burial to wait for spring, etc.
 + I'm NOT in this game to share with "cousins", as most in my generation are already dead. My daughter is childless and my son, being missionary in the jungles of Bolivia, believes the only thing important is how you live your life after being "saved". Rather, I'm hoping that great and great-great nephews or nieces will someday wonder... QUERY TO SOLVIEG BELOW:
 + 
 + 
 +If you look closely, most of the delayed burials are for folks that died in the winter and interment had to wait for the ground to un-freeze; some are folks that died far away and the body had to be shipped. Other post-death items are for legal estate settlements.
 + 
 +The event that happened before Uncle Ralph's birth was his family's arrival from Italy. Maybe not directly related to his birth, but I think it's significant.
 + 
 +If you'd like to talk in person, my home phone no. is 360-754-8625.--WAJoyce 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +I'm trying to understand you--
 + 
 +You want me to submit a NEW GEDCOM because the other one has too many errors.
 + 
 +To do this, I need to 1) copy my current database so I can work there without disturbing the original
 + 
 +2) strip out the offending dates; should I leave off just the date of an offending delayed burial, or cut out the cemetery also?
 + 
 +3) would it help to delete all the LIVING people?
 + 
 +4) create a revised GEDCOM from the copied database and submit it
 + 
 +5) would I need to repeat all the People, Places etc. edits that I've already done?
 + 
 +PLEASE REPLY It would be a shame for all my People/Places editing work to be wiped out.--WAJoyce 22:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)--[[User:WAJoyce|WAJoyce]] 18:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Size [15 March 2015] ==
 + 
 +I have since 2 hours a problem with the size of the characters on the pages of the site ! ... it's now too little ! But no problem with other sites (wiki or not). Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 10:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 +:It's OK. I was/am "stupid" ! Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 02:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== George w Robinson 1800-1839 [27 March 2015] ==
 + 
 +Anyone know who is parents were and where and when they came from?--[[User:Patricia gross|Patricia gross]] 00:05, 15 March 2015 (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.+: If anyone does know, they would have posted it to his page [[Person_talk:George_Robinson_%2838%29]] http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person_talk:George_Robinson_%2838%29. His page is like a wikipedia article, if you want to post theories or see what the discussion of the investigation is, go to his talk page rather than general help for the whole site. Talk pages are an awesome place to try to figure things out and keep track of what people have learned over the years. --[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 01:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
-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)+:: Indeed, the talk page is the ideal place to leave notes so that they will be seen by other people interested in the person, e.g. other Australians interested in George Robinson. But it's probably not such a good way of getting the attention of people who would not normally notice that page, like the Colonial New England experts here at WR. (Which for sure doesn't include me.) The sustainable way to get the attention of a wide spectrum of WR contributors is probably to write the topic up as a [[Brickwalls/brickwall-home|brick wall]]. (I'm using sustainable in the sense that posting brick walls here is not sustainable; if everyone did so the page would quickly become unmanageably large.) --[[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]] 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-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) 
-: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)+== Preparing Family Tree Maker for import ==
- +I want to get my Family Tree Maker file ready to export to GEDCOM and then import into WeRelate. Are there any guidelines or cheatsheets on how to edit my '''sources''' in Family Tree Maker so they will import as smoothly as possible? (I'm a new user here.) I already am reading [[Help:Source page titles]]. [[User:Khqs|Khqs]] 22:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
-: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)+== GEDCOM listing [19 March 2015] ==
-:::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)+The day after I uploaded my last GEDCOM, Jan. 30, my computer crashed. While most everything was saved, that was not. Is there a way to get the names that were in the Jan. 30 GEDCOM or the names added to my Bury family tree Feb. 1?--[[User:Diane Hosler|Diane Hosler]] 17:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
-::::Let's revisit categories in the Fall.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:28, 18 August 2010 (EDT)+== When the source is self or another person? [27 March 2015] ==
-== Place page - 2 questions [18 August 2010] ==+Hi,
 +I am at the reviewing stage. Please tell me the best way to describe sources like "I was there" or "my cousin John". I have myself described as "daughter", "granddaughter" "niece" etc and by name. As I am alive, I won't be featured, so giving my name, or a cousin's name, seems futile. What makes sense and keeps it orderly?--[[User:Helen-HWMT|Helen-HWMT]] 09:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
-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.+:What I personally have done, and others may have other ideas: if it is your own personal knowledge, make it "citation only" and write e.g. "Personal knowledge <nowiki>[[User:Helen-HWMT|Helen-HWMT]]</nowiki>". If it's someone else and that person hasn't given explicit permission to name them, I have at times written "Personal communication from X" where X is the relationship between the informant and the person described on the page. e.g. info from my father concerning my grandmother on her page "Personal communication from son" or maybe <nowiki>"Personal communication from son to [[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]]"</nowiki>. If you are working from a document, create a MySource for it; if you hold the copyright, e.g. by inheritance, feel free to transcribe the entire document onto the MySource page (or, if it is lengthy, a Transcripts page). --[[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]] 11:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
-*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. +== Will junk places and sources delete when I delete GEDCOM? [28 March 2015] ==
-: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. +Thank you for your instructive answer to "When the source is self or another person? [27 March 2015]" I've stored this answer safely.
-::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)+Now I have found a worse problem! I have heaps of junk sources such as variant wordings of the same thing, and lists like "FreeBMD; census; cemetery records" and there doesn't seem to be any way to delete them. Excluding them results in them being marked excluded on peoples' pages which isn't nice.
-: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)+Also -- worse -- most of the items on my Places list are not places at all but occupations -- and I can't delete them!
-::"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...+I can see I need to delete this GEDCOM and start all over again, BUT my questions are:
-::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. +Will deleting the current GEDCOM result in this junk info getting deleted, or will it remain in the system ready to contaminate my new tree or GEDCOM?
-::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. +Will I have to name the new tree differently in order to get free of it?
-::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)+Also, how do you add parents to a person? And how can I re-unite a dislodged person to their parents and brother?--[[User:Helen-HWMT|Helen-HWMT]] 12:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
-== Adding a new Family member to the list [15 August 2010] ==+:If you think you want to resubmit your GEDCOM anyways, my advice would be to wait on that until you have created pages for an entire family you know well using the manual process. (But please choose a family none of whom are living, maybe one set of great-grandparents.) We have [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:Contents#Video_tutorials training videos] to help you with that. One of the things you will learn is that adding new parents for a person and adding a person to existing parents is essentially the same straightforward process. --[[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]] 13:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +:: Looking at your talk page [[User talk:Helen-HWMT]], it appears that your GEDCOM has not been accepted into the database yet, so no pages have been created, and there is nothing to delete. If you are in the reviewing stage, you should be able to just walk away from it at this point, and it will be bumped out of the queue. You could then make a copy of your tree (new name) in whatever software you are using, clean it up, and resubmit. As to your question about attaching parents, are you asking about a page that already exists here or something in your GEDCOM? --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 14:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Rename place page [11 April 2015] ==
 + 
 +Hi,
 + 
 +I want to get a place page renamed.
 + 
 +A while back the Place:Dabo, Moselle, France was named Dabo, Moselle, Lorraine, France and when a French user modified it I happily left it.
 + 
 +However twice now an additional page has been created for Dabo, Lorraine, France. So I would like change it to the full Dabo, Moselle, Lorraine, France but I can't because it has subordinates--[[User:JeffreyRLehrer|JeffreyRLehrer]] 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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)]]+Could [[Place:Dabo, Lorraine, France]] be enabled as a redirect to [[Place:Dabo, Moselle, France]]? would this solve the problem at hand?--[[User:Ceyockey|ceyockey]] 00:29, 11 April 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] ==+----
 +Well I put a link in but not a redirect, and then added speedy delete but a redirect could work.--[[User:JeffreyRLehrer|JeffreyRLehrer]] 03:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
----- +== Accessing existing GEDCOM files [12 April 2015] ==
-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)+ 
 +I have an existing GEDCOM file at WeRelate.org and it was unfortunately lost over the last couple of years due to some extenuating circumstances. Is there any way that the file can be retrieved so that I can recreate my research files? I had an old account but have no idea how to access it. the email address was pelark@gmail.com on that account. Any help would be appreciated.
 +thanks
 +Phil Larkin--[[User:Pel152991|Pel152991]] 05:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Family Page Events copied to the children's Person Pages [21 April 2015] ==
 + 
 +This may have been asked before. If so, my apologies as I did not find it. I have just entered the 1911 Census of Canada as an event on a family page. It shows up on both the husband and wife person pages. As there were 3 children in the family noted in the census, I was hoping that this event would also show up on their person pages without having to enter the info separately. Is there a way to make this happen?--[[User:Gsirwin|Gsirwin]] 20:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-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)+StickyNotes on the side of your screen are a boon in these situations. Once you have the info as you want it for one person in WR, copy it to a StickyNote (remembering to copy the reference and note boxes as well), open the edit screen for child 1, paste it in the appropriate boxes, check it, save it, and on to the next.
 + 
 +It is often suggested that you keep more than one copy of WR pinned on your browser. I work with three most of the time. Pinned bookmarks to your favourite sources also help.
 + 
 +/cheers --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 20:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== How in the world do I navitage [24 April 2015] ==
 + 
 +I can't find my gedcom file..Where is it?
 +This site is so very confusing. I get a message and cant respond. There isn't a response space
 +Crazy--[[User:MaritaG|Riti]] 03:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +:Regret to see that you seem to be experiencing navigation problems. From what I can see, it doesn't seem that you successfully uploaded your GEDCOM file. Are you looking for your GEDCOM file you created on your own computer or one you uploaded to WeRelate? Normally once uploaded here, it should only take minutes for you to access it and start working on it. Can you tell me how many people you intended to load with your file? --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 19:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Gender box stuck on "unknown" [14 May 2015] ==
 + 
 +I am currently editing the placenames for the family of [[Person:Johannes Boeg (2)|Johannes Boeg]], contributed in 2007. I notice that all of the family are marked Gender:unknown. In addition to removing a lot of red-lined places in and around London, England, I would be glad to adjust the gender for those with common given names, but the multiple-choice box will not move off "unknown". What's the problem here? --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 15:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +:I had no problems. Changed all his children. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 15:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +Thanks. I was also having a problem with my anti-virus software and had to get support in to clear a glitch. This may have been what was causing the problem in WR. Now to attack more of the Boeg tree and its poor geographical knowledge.... --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 19:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Bug in Tree Management [17 May 2015] ==
 + 
 +It appears that there is a bug in tree management through FTE. I am pruning my Default tree, and I used FTE to remove a number of people from my tree, but when I went into View mode on that tree (which invokes SpecialSearch by keyword), they still showed up. When I used the Tree link (at the left) the checkbox for the Default tree was '''not''' checked. It appears that FTE is removing pages from the tree but not removing the keyword that causes the page to show up in the "view tree" function. I can't tell (without doing a controlled experiment) if this is 100% of the time or only some of the time.
 + 
 +My workaround is to check the tree box in the Tree link and select Update (that is, put the page back into the tree) and then uncheck the tree box in the Tree link and select Update (to take the page out again). That means that using FTE to remove a person from my tree tripled my effort. I'm lucky I quit using it after only a few families :) --[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 13:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +For an example (until I get around to fixing it in the next month or so), see [[Person:William Castle (3)]]. He shows up on SpecialSearch with keyword +Tree:"DataAnalyst/Default", but only in my Stewart tree according to the Tree link on the left.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 13:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +Further note: I don't think this is just a matter of the FTE updates waiting for re-indexing (at least I hope re-indexing is not turned off). At least 3 weeks have passed since I did the FTE updates and the pages are still showing up in the SpecialSearch by keyword.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 13:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Downloading and using Image Revisions [2 June 2015] ==
-== Printing [7 September 2010] ==+Yesterday I uploaded a map which I am using in several Place: pages which I am currently working on. All went fine on the upload and I proceeded to add the map to a number of pages. Part way through I came upon some information that proved the boundaries on the map were wrong. I corrected the map and uploaded it again with the same title. This appears to be the purpose of the instruction "Upload a new version of this file" on the second page of the upload procedure.
-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)+The revised map is now on the Image page, but none of the Place: pages associated with it have changed. Even after "deleting all revisions of this file" and uploading the revised map again, the Place: pages are still using the old map. And, even if I delete the mention of the image on one of the Place:pages, save the text, and re-edit adding the image, it is the old image that shows up.
-: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 know I could alter the name of the image and do the replacing on each page myself, but that is not what the instructions infer. The image in question is <nowiki>[[Image:Tandridge_District_before_1974.png]]</nowiki>. Comments, please. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 09:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 +------------------
 +In the half hour since I started to write this message (including time-off to answer non-genealogical questions from immediate family members), the revised image is now finding its way to the Place: pages. Why wouldn't this be an immediate update like an ordinary edit or a "#redirect" is? --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 09:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 +:My first guess would be browser caching issues. My second guess would be that the site itself implements a level of caching, and that somehow is not flushed even after deleting the reference on a page and recreating it. Maybe next weekend I'll test on the sandbox and see if I can duplicate it. --[[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]] 10:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
-: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+== Browse feature [15 June 2015] ==
-# 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)+
 +I'm puzzled as to how and when the Browse feature works. See example: [[Person:Iva_Jackson_%289%29|Iva Jackson]]. The browse feature picks up most of the places on her page but does not pick up 'Clinton' County which is mentioned twice. It appears that browse has dropped that county info and that causes me wonder how often that happens???--[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 00:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 +:It appears to only use the specific places mentioned. Since you aren't linking to Clinton Co. directly, it won't include that. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 02:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 +::Sorry, I still don't 'get it'. Her residence is '''Harlan''' Twp, '''Warren''' Co., Ohio and the system offers to browse '''both Harlan and Warren.''' She died in '''Blanchester''', '''Clinton''' Co., Ohio and the system offers to browse Blanchester but doesn't browse Clinton Co. So I can't figure why it is not offering the ability to browse Clinton Co. --[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 03:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 +:::She was born in Warren Co., and that is the reason Warren is included. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 16:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 +::::So if I edit her location of death to be just Clinton Co. (leaving out Blanchester) then Clinton will show up to browse? Bummer! Leaving out info to get the browse feature '''just doesn't seem right'''!! Wonder if this a bug or by design?? It certainly is limiting! Thanks for trying to help me understand even tho I don't like the answer. --[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 18:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 +:::::The system offers to browse Warren County because that is listed as her birth and marriage location, but Warren County being offered has nothing to do with the residence. The residence only causes Harlan, the first part of the place, to be offered. The burial location adds the cemetery (only, not the town it is in) to the browse list, the death adds Blanchester, thus accounting for the 4 browse options offered. It appears to be working consistently, making me think it is working as designed. When you select browse Blanchester, which might be assumed to normally be of more interest than browsing all of Clinton county, it does a special search, and the search criteria are displayed. If you want to browse the whole county, simply delete Blanchester from the search criteria "<s>Blanchester,</s> Clinton, Ohio, United States", and hit enter to get what you appear to want. The search that results does include Iva Jackson even though no place on her page gives Clinton Co. explicitly, only places inside Clinton Co. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-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)+Ah! That does the trick! '''Thank you both''' for helping me understand how to get what I wanted! --[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 21:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
-:Try printing now. The family boxes are left-aligned.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:48, 7 September 2010 (EDT)+== Do you have information on the British Virgin Islands or only America [29 June 2015] ==
-== A2A - now Source:Scotland. Access to Archives [31 August 2010] ==+--[[User:Alice harewood|Alice harewood]] 01:15, 29 June 2015 (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 might be the Christopher Columbus of WeRelate. You can start here to browse place and source pages: [[:Category:British Virgin Islands]]. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 16:13, 29 June 2015 (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)]]. +== Can't edit Sources: "Links to other websites are not allowed" [29 June 2015] ==
-: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)+Any changes I try to make to a Source page will show up nicely in Preview, but when I try to save them I get a bold message at the top of the Edit page stating '''Links to other websites are not allowed''' and the changes are not saved.
-::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)+First saw this when I attempted to add ''Ancestry.com'' as a new Repository and the URL of the item in its card catalog, but I get the same error even when I remove the Ancestry info and even when I don't touch the Repository. The Sources I have tried to edit all have prior Repository listings with URLs in them. (I haven't tried removing the existing Repositories because I wouldn't be able to add them back and then we'd be losing information.)
-== Problem w numbered list - specify start value [7 September 2010] ==+Is this expected behavior? User error? A bug?
-Need some technical help. I'm not a html or wiki wizard, but can usually copy an example.+--[[User:Bsktcase|Bsktcase]] 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
-: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] ==+:Please provide the link to the page you are working on where you notice this linking issue. One of us can take a look at it and hopefully provide more helpful information.
 +:Ancestry.com already has it's own Repository Page at [[Repository:Ancestry.com]]. --[[User:BobC|BobC]] 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
-Hello,+== ref name vs cite [5 July 2015] ==
-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] ==+Somewhere (cannot currently find it) on this site is format information about using 'ref name' rather than 'cite' for connecting text to references. However, when I used the ref name procedure, it did not connect correctly to my S1, S2 or S3 sources in the Personal History section of Person:Elmer Irwin (4). Can you kindly advise.--[[User:Gsirwin|Gsirwin]] 19:33, 5 July 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)+Sorry, solved the problem - was missing an operator.
-: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)+== East European geography knowledge needed [15 July 2015] ==
-::No further assistance that I can think of - you nailed it :-) --[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:33, 24 September 2010 (EDT)+
-== Pedigree-Charts covering people from several trees [16 October 2010] ==+Could someone who has knowledge of the geography of Eastern Europe make corrections for the birth and baptismal places for [[Person:Christina Weber (6)|Christina Weber]] and her family? The birthplace is linking to a hamlet in Devon, England and the baptismal place to a Wittenberg in the USA until I took out the link.
-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)+I just came across her when tidying up Culm Davy, Devon. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 20:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
-: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)]+== New User Name [5 August 2015] ==
-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)+May I change my user name? Thanks!--[[User:FranklySpeaking|Frank]] 23:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
-== Searching for Sources [15 October 2010] ==+== Login not working [8 August 2015] ==
-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)+this is a test--[[User:KayS|KayS]] 00:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 +== creating cemetery place pages [14 September 2015] ==
 +
 +I tried to create a cemetery page here: [[Place:Bethany Cumberland Presbyterian Cemetery, Coushatta, Red River, Louisiana, United States]]. It didn't turn out as I hoped. I don't know how to state lat/long correctly and the category isn't right. If somebody can fix this, I'll follow your example for the next pages I need to create. Thanks! --[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 02:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 +:It looks fine now. I created the county-wide cemetery supercategory. --[[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]] 09:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 +::Thanks! Whatever you did helped. I just added 5 more. --[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 17:00, 11 August 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.+I may have messed up this cemetery page when I created it. There are two cemeteries with the same name, one across the road from the other. I put them both on the same page. Find-a-Grave labels them Low Gap Cemetery I and II. [[Place:Low Gap Church Cemetery, Knob Fork, Wetzel, West Virginia, United States]] I'm tired of messing with it. I can't finish my GEDCOM upload for lack of cemetery pages. Maybe another day. . . --[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 00:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
-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.+: I created your 2nd cemetery page for you [[Place:Low Gap Cemetery II, Wetzel, West Virginia, United States|here]] and moved the relevant info from the 1st page over. I also added Red Flags to alert readers to the 2 different cemeteries. Cemetery pages shouldn't cause stress :) Please just ask if you are unsure how to do it. Best Wishes - --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 20:32, 14 September 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)+== Guest Book [11 August 2015] ==
 + 
 +Is there a way to add a "guestbook" for visitors to sign--on my front page?--[[User:Cleonard|Cleonard]] 16:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +Is there as guest book--or a "sign-in" that can be added to my front page?
 +Colleen--[[User:Cleonard|Cleonard]] 01:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +: Every page, including your User page, has a Talk page attached (see upper left corner) on which anyone with an account can leave messages pertaining to that specific page. It is very helpful to be able to discuss specific individuals and families directly on their page. I suppose you could create a section heading called "Guestbook" for yourself on your User Talk page if you wanted to. There might be someone here who has done something similar to that in the past, but I have not seen it. People usually just use the subject of the message as their heading and then anyone who wants to can join the conversation. hth --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 02:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +Re: previous entry inquiry re Guestbook-or guest log-in. This site would be seen by many whom aren't members or have an account.
 +I would still like to add it to my front page (Herbert Edward Scarborough)--if someone can talk me through it. (I haven't added anything in a long time)
 +Colleen--[[User:Cleonard|Cleonard]] 15:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +:I will just point out that for anyone to add a comment or perform any other type of edit, they are required to be signed in. So someone who is just passing through without having an account wouldn't be able to "sign" a guestbook. You can add your guestbook to your primary User page by using it like a template:
 +::<nowiki>{{:User talk:Cleonard/Guestbook}}</nowiki>
 +:You could also add a link to it:
 +::<nowiki>[http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cleonard/Guestbook&action=edit&section=new Sign my guestbook!]</nowiki>
 +:You would just need to create the Guestbook page before you do all of that. I don't know if there is a fancier way of doing it. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 23:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Worcestershire, England--sources for two places mixed up [18 August 2015] ==
 + 
 +I'm not sure who is on the panel of administrators for sources, so I have decided to put this problem here.
 + 
 +There are two places named Churchill in Worcestershire. Until today they were [[Place:Churchill (near Kidderminster), Worcestershire, England|Churchill (near Kidderminster)]] and [[Place:Churchill (near Spetchley), Worcestershire, England|Churchill (near Spetchley)]]. The first was in Halfshire Hundred and the second was in Oswaldslow Hundred. I have found references to Churchill (near Kidderminster) being called Churchill-in-Halfshire in earlier times.
 + 
 +Churchill (near Kidderminster) has been renamed [[Place:Churchill and Blakedown, Worcestershire, England|Churchill and Blakedown]] because the two places merged into one civil parish in 1888. When I went to adjust the places on the Sources pages I found one source that appears to be pointing to both places.
 +<br>The title is
 +<br>"Source:Churchill (near Kidderminster), Worcestershire, England. Marriages at Churchill-in-Halfshire, 1564-1812",
 +<br>but the citation reads
 +<br>Citation: Church of England. Parish Church of Churchill (near Spetchley, Worcestershire), and W. P. W. (William Phillimore Watts) Phillimore. Marriages at Churchill-in-Halfshire, 1564-1812.
 + 
 +Churchill (near Spetchley) is not Churchill-in-Halfshire. I am not sure which Churchill is covered in the source. Is there someone who can check this out in some way, perhaps with an old LDS library catalogue? I cannot travel and our nearest LDS library is in the middle of London.--[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 13:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +:For now I'd go with the assumption that the WR place field was filled by an automated process and the place referenced in the text is authentic. But it should be double-checked. (I looked at the references in case anyone had actually cited it, but noone has.) --[[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]] 13:32, 16 August 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?+Right. I shall re-point the source to Churchill (near Spetchley) and make a note at the bottom that the source may refer to Churchill (near Kidderminster). Amongst the Churchill (near Kidderminster) sources is a similarly named one with a longer span--this might just be a hint.
-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)+ 
 +Thanks. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 13:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +:Your logic left me a little befuddled on this one. ;) Normally I would assume the TITLE of the work was correct and not change it to fit the place referenced. With a quick check on the Internet I was able to find the source:
 +::https://archive.org/stream/worcestershirepa02phil#page/n9/mode/2up
 +:The title and page references on the FamilySearch catalog page match what you will find in that book. Instead of renaming the page, you should have just corrected the place. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 07:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== won't save changes when I click on "save page" [22 August 2015] ==
 + 
 +I have tried to edit and to send messages to others on WeRelate, and it shows the preview just fine, but after I click on "Save Page" the same page reappears and if I try to go to another web address or location in WeRelate, it says if I leave that page I will lose my changes. If I go out and come back in the changes were not saved.--[[User:Thurm|Thurm]] 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 +:Obviously it saved this message, so your user id seems to be working. So it presumably a warning message that needs to be cleared. Frequently, things like dates and genders are not set to valid values, and the system won't let you save, and there is a warning message near the top of the page that alerts you to the problem. Which sometimes is not visible if you scrolled to the bottom to press the Save key. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 16:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 +::Replying to: getting message: "Links to other *** are not allowed." on [[Person talk:George Teater (1)]]. There are probably some characters in the posting that the software doesn't like. I can't really guess what you were trying to type in. I'd suggest you try saving things without any URLs or links. Then try inserting the link in a separate save if the first step works. If that doesn't work, try dumbing down your posting more and more until you can get the save to work. You can also try the "preview" button before saving.
 +::Links to websites are surrounded by single brackets as in <nowiki>[http://books.google.com]</nowiki>, which gives [http://books.google.com]. Not sure if URLs that don't start with http or https work. Vaguely seem to recall having problems with an ftp URL once. You can add display text after a space <nowiki>[http://books.google.com Google Books]</nowiki>, which gives [http://books.google.com Google Books].
 +::Interwiki lines are surrounded by double brackets, as in <nowiki>[[Person talk:George Teater (1)]]</nowiki>, which gives [[Person talk:George Teater (1)]]. Because page names can have spaces, in this type of link, the display test comes after a pipe, <nowiki>[[Person talk:George Teater (1)|The page!]]</nowiki>, which gives [[Person talk:George Teater (1)|The page!]]. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 19:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-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 >>+I did remove all websites, and even the word website, but still got the message. Are you saying that a web address IS allowed if in brackets?
-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 wanted to send: In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote (1855) on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings. The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater". I could not reference my source because I got the message "Links to other websites are not allowed." This was followed by the list of names. Then I had a second reference: Another listing of the signers "A comparison of Signatory Lists for the Call to Rev. Cummings" compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator . I had removed the webaddress for that comparison.--[[User:Thurm|Thurm]] 19:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 +:The string <nowiki>[https://books.google.com/books?id=wz4VAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22George%20Feator%22&pg=PA117 click on this link]</nowiki> uses Google features to turn to page 117 (pg=PA117) of that book (id=wz4VAAAAYAAJ) and highlight George Feator's name (dq="George Feator", spaces replaced by hex code %20, quotes by hex code %22), i.e., [https://books.google.com/books?id=wz4VAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22George%20Feator%22&pg=PA117 click on this link]. You can't pull in the actual image, only provide a link to it. If you click on the icon with a chain link in it while viewing a google book page, it will pop up a window and the top field is a link that you can copy and paste so that someone can come back to the same view you have, or you can put the URL together by hand by combining the various features as I indicated. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 20:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-: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 limited my post to "In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855" and it still gave me the no links to websites warning.--[[User:Thurm|Thurm]] 20:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-: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.+----
 +Your message with the GoogleBooks link is beautiful, but I only half understand it and could never create such a link myself. Are you saying that I should be able to put that link into my posting to enable others to see my source?--[[User:Thurm|Thurm]] 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 +:If you are confused by the syntax, just use the chain-link icon on the Google Books page to generate your URL for you. Do it once you have gotten Google books to display the page and text you want. You can copy and paste that URL that is generated by Google using control-C and control-V and just put brackets on each end. It will be ugly, but don't worry about it, it should work.
-: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.+:Try posting your stuff to this page, and I'll take a look at it. If it fails to save, add the characters <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> at the front and </nowiki> at the end (notice the extra slash in the ending one) and then save again. Then I can see what you are trying to type in. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-: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)+The following did save to your page. It is the version without websites.--[[User:Thurm|Thurm]] 18:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855 on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings.
 + 
 +The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater".
 +George Blackburn,
 +William Blackburn,
 +John Vance,
 +John Casey,
 +Benjamin Logan,
 +Robert Edmondson,
 +Thomas Berry,
 +Robert Trimble,
 +Wm. McGaughey,
 +David Dryden,
 +Wm. McNabb,
 +John Davis,
 +Halbert McClure,
 +Arthur Blackburn,
 +Nathl. Davis,
 +Saml. Evans,
 +Wm. Kennedy,
 +Andrew McFerran,
 +Saml. Hendry,
 +John Patterson,
 +James Gilmore,
 +John Lowrey,
 +Wm. Christian,
 +Andrew Colvill,
 +Robert Craig,
 +Joseph Black
 +Jonathan Douglass,
 +William Berry,
 +John Cusick,
 +James Piper,
 +James Harrold,
 +Samuel Newell,
 +David Wilson,
 +David Craig,
 +Robert Gamble,
 +Andrew Martin
 +Augustus Webb,
 +Samuel Brigg,
 +Wesley White,
 +James Dorchester,
 +James Fulkerson,
 +Stephen Jordan,
 +Alex. Laughlin,
 +James Inglish,
 +Richard Moore,
 +Thomas Ramsey,
 +Saml. Wilson,
 +Joseph Vance,
 +William Young,
 +William Davidson,
 +James Young,
 +John Sharp,
 +John Long,
 +Robert Topp,
 +John Hunt,
 +Thomas Bailey,
 +David Gattgood,
 +Alexr. Breckenridge,
 +George Clark,
 +James Molden,
 +William Blanton,
 +Chrisr. Acklin,
 +James Craig,
 +Joseph Gamble,
 +John McNabb,
 +Chrisr. Funkhouser,
 +John Funkhouser,
 +John Funkhouser, Jr.
 +John Sharp,
 +John Berry,
 +James Montgomery,
 +Samuel Huston,
 +Henry Creswell,
 +George Adams,
 +George Buchanan,
 +James Dysart,
 +William Miller,
 +Andrew Leeper,
 +David Snodgrass,
 +Danl. McCormick,
 +Francis Kincannon,
 +Joseph Snodgrass,
 +James Thompson,
 +Robert Denniston,
 +William Edmiston,
 +Saml. Edmiston,
 +Andrew Kincannon,
 +John Kelley,
 +John Robinson,
 +James Kincannon,
 +Margaret Edmiston,
 +John Edmiston,
 +John Boyd,
 +Robert Kirkham,
 +Martin Pruitt,
 +Nicholas Brobston,
 +Andrew Miller,
 +Alexander McNutt,
 +William Pruitt,
 +John McCutchon,
 +James Berry,
 +James Trimble,
 + 
 +117
 + 
 +THE CAMPBELLS OF HOLSTON.
 + 
 + 
 +•William Berry,
 +•Moses Buchanan,
 +•David Carson,
 +•Samuel Buchanan,
 +•William Bates,
 +•William McMillin,
 +•John Kennedy,
 +•Robert Lamb,
 +•Thos. Rafferty,
 +•Thomas Baker,
 +•John Groce,
 +•Robert Buchanan,
 +•Thomas Evans,
 +•William Marlor,
 +•William Edmiston,
 +•Thos. Edmiston,
 +•John Beaty,
 +•David Beaty,
 +•George Feater,
 +•Michl. Halyacre,
 +•Stephen Cawood,
 +•James Garvill,
 +•Rob. Buchanan, Jr.
 +•Edward Jamison,
 +•Richard Heggons,
 +•John Lester,
 +•Hugh Johnson,
 +•Edward Pharis,
 +•Joseph Lester,
 +•Saml. White,
 +•William Lester,
 +•William Page,
 +•Samuel Buchanan, Jr.
 +•Thomas Montgomery,
 +•Samuel Bell,
 +•John Campbell.
 + 
 +Another listing of the signers "A comparison of Signatory Lists for the Call to Rev. Cummings" compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator. --[[User:Thurm|Thurm]] 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +Here is the version with websites:
 +In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855 on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings. This is found at http://www.roanetnhistory.org/foote-virginia2.php?loc=Foote-Sketches-Virginia-Second&pgid=116 .
 + 
 +The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater".
 + 
 +George Blackburn,
 +William Blackburn,
 +John Vance,
 +John Casey,
 +Benjamin Logan,
 +Robert Edmondson,
 +Thomas Berry,
 +Robert Trimble,
 +Wm. McGaughey,
 +David Dryden,
 +Wm. McNabb,
 +John Davis,
 +Halbert McClure,
 +Arthur Blackburn,
 +Nathl. Davis,
 +Saml. Evans,
 +Wm. Kennedy,
 +Andrew McFerran,
 +Saml. Hendry,
 +John Patterson,
 +James Gilmore,
 +John Lowrey,
 +Wm. Christian,
 +Andrew Colvill,
 +Robert Craig,
 +Joseph Black
 +Jonathan Douglass,
 +William Berry,
 +John Cusick,
 +James Piper,
 +James Harrold,
 +Samuel Newell,
 +David Wilson,
 +David Craig,
 +Robert Gamble,
 +Andrew Martin
 +Augustus Webb,
 +Samuel Brigg,
 +Wesley White,
 +James Dorchester,
 +James Fulkerson,
 +Stephen Jordan,
 +Alex. Laughlin,
 +James Inglish,
 +Richard Moore,
 +Thomas Ramsey,
 +Saml. Wilson,
 +Joseph Vance,
 +William Young,
 +William Davidson,
 +James Young,
 +John Sharp,
 +John Long,
 +Robert Topp,
 +John Hunt,
 +Thomas Bailey,
 +David Gattgood,
 +Alexr. Breckenridge,
 +George Clark,
 +James Molden,
 +William Blanton,
 +Chrisr. Acklin,
 +James Craig,
 +Joseph Gamble,
 +John McNabb,
 +Chrisr. Funkhouser,
 +John Funkhouser,
 +John Funkhouser, Jr.
 +John Sharp,
 +John Berry,
 +James Montgomery,
 +Samuel Huston,
 +Henry Creswell,
 +George Adams,
 +George Buchanan,
 +James Dysart,
 +William Miller,
 +Andrew Leeper,
 +David Snodgrass,
 +Danl. McCormick,
 +Francis Kincannon,
 +Joseph Snodgrass,
 +James Thompson,
 +Robert Denniston,
 +William Edmiston,
 +Saml. Edmiston,
 +Andrew Kincannon,
 +John Kelley,
 +John Robinson,
 +James Kincannon,
 +Margaret Edmiston,
 +John Edmiston,
 +John Boyd,
 +Robert Kirkham,
 +Martin Pruitt,
 +Nicholas Brobston,
 +Andrew Miller,
 +Alexander McNutt,
 +William Pruitt,
 +John McCutchon,
 +James Berry,
 +James Trimble,
 + 
 +117
 + 
 +THE CAMPBELLS OF HOLSTON.
 + 
 + 
 +•William Berry,
 +•Moses Buchanan,
 +•David Carson,
 +•Samuel Buchanan,
 +•William Bates,
 +•William McMillin,
 +•John Kennedy,
 +•Robert Lamb,
 +•Thos. Rafferty,
 +•Thomas Baker,
 +•John Groce,
 +•Robert Buchanan,
 +•Thomas Evans,
 +•William Marlor,
 +•William Edmiston,
 +•Thos. Edmiston,
 +•John Beaty,
 +•David Beaty,
 +•George Feater,
 +•Michl. Halyacre,
 +•Stephen Cawood,
 +•James Garvill,
 +•Rob. Buchanan, Jr.
 +•Edward Jamison,
 +•Richard Heggons,
 +•John Lester,
 +•Hugh Johnson,
 +•Edward Pharis,
 +•Joseph Lester,
 +•Saml. White,
 +•William Lester,
 +•William Page,
 +•Samuel Buchanan, Jr.
 +•Thomas Montgomery,
 +•Samuel Bell,
 +•John Campbell.
 + 
 +Another listing of the signers at http://www.werelate.org/wiki/A_comparison_of_Signatory_Lists_for_the_Call_to_Rev._Cummings compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator. --[[User:Thurm|Thurm]] 18:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +Even that version did save to your page. Neither would save to http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person_talk:George_Teater_%281%29 --[[User:Thurm|Thurm]] 18:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +:I was able to save your text to the page. I removed it after I was done.
 +:However, I do think there is something messed up on that page, probably near the section that says "Translate this page" which has a bunch of weird characters that might be sequences that cause funny things to happen. Twice in the process I basically froze. Somebody familiar with the content should edit the page to remove all the bad formatting, etc., that is, and often does, show up when things are simply cut and pasted instead of prepared with WeRelate in mind.
 +:That said, while I am not familiar with this region or whatever issue is being discussed, I can tell you that it is clear that any argument about the call to Rev. Cummings is going to need a scan of the original handwritten document to be authoritative. Your link to a website transcribing a book that in turn is a transcription (maybe) of the original is not going to convince anyone. For example, your cited website's spelling of Feater is different that the actual book that uses [https://books.google.com/books?id=r3kFAAAAQAAJ&dq=%22George%20Feator%22&pg=PA117 Feator], and it seems, may be unique in using that spelling. Anybody that has read colonial documents will tell you that T's and F's can be hard to distinguish, and colonial e's are written like cirley-ques that look like a modern o that isn't quite closed with a loop in the tail, so any argument over spelling would require a scan of the original. (Though colonial spelling was phonetic, and either spelling could suggest the same person.) Further Google searches brought back multiple sites all giving different orders, and some appeared to go across columns then down, others appeared to go down, then across, or something like that, so again, any argument based on order is going to need a scan of the original. One might even surmise that the original is in one order, and if it was recorded in record books by the clerk, the recorded copy could conceivably be in a different order. Analysis of source provenance and access to the original is the only way to resolve such questions. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 20:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== no confirmation email for new account [24 August 2015] ==
 + 
 +A cousin tried setting up a new account yesterday and has not yet received a confirmation email that will allow her to activate the account. She could not sign in. Are you aware of any issues (something not working, or emails from WeRelate getting blocked) or should I ask her to try again? Thanks--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 00:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Sourcing and Citations [28 August 2015] ==
 + 
 +Hi all,
 + 
 +I recently uploaded a GEDCOM and volunteers have been kind enough to start transforming my "notes" into proper sources (since I never expected to be sharing the information outside the family, I took the easy route in my database of using my notes field for both the transcribing of information and the sources themselves - which worked for me since sometimes I had two sources for different data elements in one sentence/field.)
 + 
 +As I've started adding people individually to certain families, I find myself really unsure about how to input this information properly. First -- I'm a bit unclear on the difference between a citation and a source (the My Source, I get.)
 + 
 +Say I'm putting in someone's birth information from a town's vital records -- in my database, I'd put the whole thing in the notes field (e.g., Morris, Elisabeth, d. Edward and Elisabeth, Feb. 12, 1683-4. - Vital Records Of Roxbury Massachusetts To The End Of The Year 1849, Published By The Essex Institute Salem, Mass. 1925 [found on] http://dunhamwilcox.net/ma/roxbury_b8.htm) Split up properly, would this be a Citation or a Source? Is the presence of the transcription of the original information what makes the difference, or is it something else. What if I have information (such as a will) for which I don't have a legitimate source (perhaps it's from someone's personal website that no longer exists) -- would that just go in a notes field?
 + 
 +I'm sure professors from my past are howling that I've forgotten proper bibliographic format (although, when I went to college, computerized versions weren't yet a thing, so it's been a while!)
 + 
 +I think I have a lot of good research that I would love to share with anyone who is interested but I DON'T want to be "that person" who causes sighs and groans by causing extra work for people. I uploaded only a tiny portion of what I have and would like to share more and upload another GEDCOM sometime soon but don't know if I should go back into my system and fix all the sources there before I do more (which could mean I never get to upload any more) -- or if transforming my notes to sources isn't that hard for people who know what they're doing.
 + 
 +Also. I don't think it's come up in anything I uploaded yet (I'm not sure.) But is there a limit to how much information should be in a profile? For example, I have transcribed entire wills, inventories, and petitions relating to my ancestors. Should that appear in the notes for that person? Or is there a separate place where all wills, etc. are "filed"? Or do you not want them at all? (I know they're long, but I find them fascinating.)
 + 
 +If I do put them in, should they be in a particular format? (To save paper for the one time I tried to print out all the information on my direct line, I formatted the inventories (for example) so that they would appear in a paragraph format instead of a list. (I killed two printers and went through WAY too many ink cartridges -- I'll never do THAT again!))
 + 
 +In any case, if someone could give me some guidance, I'd appreciate it!
 + 
 +Lynda--[[User:TheTrefryTree|TheTrefryTree]] 20:44, 28 August 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.+I assume you are talking about the "Citation only" option. The only time I use that is if I don't know the original source (such as with a will). If you don't want to hassle with searching for the correct Source, you could just use the Citation option as long as your citation is good enough for someone else to later do the association. But searching for the correct Source can of course help a person get to know the sources in this database, and it gets easier over time as you may use the same sources often. As to the wills specifically, I use a Citation when I don't know where it came from. For example, [[Person:John Carraway (10)|here]] I found an image of the will and later found a reference that said it was only available by contacting the N.C. State Archives. I only abstract information from the wills, but others copy the entire thing, and it is up to individual preference. There is no one right way to do it. You can put the text of the will either in the Text of the Citation, or as a separate section in the Personal History box. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
-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.+----
 +The advantage of determining the correct source page to specify is that it makes the citation less ambiguous. I have seen scholarly articles that refer to sources so carelessly that the description matched two or more sources. Read a few source pages to get an idea of how linking to a source page can help. For example, [[Source:NEHGR|NEHGR]] has a table of links to where copies of the magazine can be found online. Some have commentary on the source, or hints on how to use it most effectively, or lists of repositories where it may be found. However the WeRelate source system is not strictly about being bibliographically correct. So for example, many different vital records sources tend to be covered by one source page, on the assumption that various iterations are as good as any other (which is sometimes not true, and undoubtedly violates some bibliography conventions).
-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)+As far as wills, etc., there are no rules, and plenty of pages have full wills, plenty have only abstracts. Both approaches have pluses and minuses. Consider the reader and consider that perhaps 90^ are only looking at the page to see if they are interested, while maybe 10% are interested and want to read everything they can get their hands on. So the best compromise is probably to put an abstract with a link to somewhere they can find the whole will. If the whole will doesn't exist in a freely-available linkable location, then creating a Transcript page or a MySource page may be appropriate. If a complete transcript is placed on a page, it should probably be done in a way that clearly identifies it, and makes it easy to skip, such as putting it in a section by itself with a descriptive heading in the narrative part of the page. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 02:58, 29 August 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.+== Confused over how to do correct citation for info from familysearch.org [13 September 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.+For the first time, I have used some info found on familysearch.org. I tried my usual citation routine for linking to the Source page only to meet total confusion! There are a bunch of assorted familysearch pages making no sense, and the best one said on it that familysearch was NOT a source but a repository, and that one should use a separate source page for each collection within the repository -- or something like that. I have no idea how to find out what collection - or whatever - my info is in. Help please.--[[User:Helen-HWMT|Helen-HWMT]] 22:35, 12 September 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)+----
 +There are two different methods I use for citation:
 + 
 +1. Cite the FamilySearch '''collection''' directly. Each collection should have its own source here on WeRelate. For example, the collection "Kentucky Births and Christenings, 1839-1960" is [[Source:Kentucky, United States. Kentucky Births and Christenings, 1839-1960]]. That collection can be used as the source, and any additional information added to the citation as necessary.
 + 
 +2. Cite the FamilySearch collection indirectly (my usual preference). Using that previous Kentucky collection for an example, the entry I found for [[Person:Robert Tolle (1)]] had a film number (216816) which I used to search for the appropriate source on WeRelate (having multiple items on that film, I chose the one for Barren county). Then in my citation I specified the reference comes from the collection (and provided a link), and I mentioned that I haven't viewed the original source to verify the information. If my local genealogy library has the film, I try to verify it.
 + 
 +Hopefully this helps. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 06:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Place Completion on Custom Events [15 November 2015] ==
 + 
 +It looks like the recent changes to place completion have an issue. I'm seeing place completion for custom events just spinning, and never returning any matches. Place completion is working fine in the predefined event slots. So the obvious workaround is to construct the place in a predefined spot and use cut & paste to move it to the custom event slot. (Behind some firewalls I used to see place completion just spinning for all event slots, but this is happening on my static IP so I don't think it's anything to do with firewalls.) --[[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]] 10:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +: Does anyone know what exactly the change is and why it was made? I am experiencing not only the problem mentioned above, but a significant slowdown in return time for everything WR-related. It has been a big frustration for me for a few days now, but I thought it might be on my end, since no one else was mentioning it. I've tried the usual fixes on this end to no avail. Is anyone else experiencing this slowdown? --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 16:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-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.+Similar experience. ie. Previously, when creating 9 or 10 children for a set of parents, after entering a birthplace for the 1st child, WR would "remember" the birthplace for the 2nd child. Now I have to enter most of the birth location, or all of it. Has the hierarchy changed ? Or do the AKA locations affect the sort ?--[[User:Neal Gardner|SkippyG]] 17:57, 29 October 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.+:It looks like place autocomplete was broken for additional events when it was changed to improve place sorting a few days ago. I'm out of town right now but will look into it when I return on Tuesday. I'll look at why previous places aren't being remembered. I have no idea why the site would be slow overall. Response time is good for me as I type this.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 +::Certain activities seem slower than others to me. One is when you go to add a page, you get the screen that says Enter What You Know, and it seems like it takes a long time before the next screen listing possible matches, even if other websites (like checking my email while I wait) still respond normally. Not all activities seems slow. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 02:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +:::Not sure why it listing possible matches would be slow right now. I just did a few possible matches and results came back generally within 1-3 seconds. Once every five minutes new/edited pages are added to the index, which can result in a 5-10 second delay, but that's been the behavior for over a year. Last week search, match, and add-page would have been slow because all 10 million pages had to be re-indexed to prepare for some new search facets going in next week, which was putting extra load on the search engine, but the re-indexing finished last Saturday.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 04:56, 30 October 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. +Just tried to add a Josiah Chaffee, after entering his bro, Stephen. After citing Josiah's death, the SEARCH feature gave me only his bro, Stephen as an optional match. Result: I couldn't add Josiah at all. Earlier today, all the numbers disappeared on my Dashboard and just came back about 3 hours ago. --[[User:Neal Gardner|SkippyG]] 23:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
-Some people just keep a User page with a list of their regular sources. --[[User:Jlanoux|Judy (jlanoux)]] 19:54, 6 October 2010 (EDT)+:Sorry, I don't understand. You added Stephen successfully, then attempted to add Josiah. When you added Josiah you got Stephen as an optional match. How did this prevent you from adding Josiah? Couldn't you just have pressed the "Add Page" button to add a new person named Josiah? Or do you mean that you were trying to link to the existing person named Josiah Chaffee and he didn't show up in the search results like you expected? I just clicked on "Add", then "Person", then entered "Josiah Chaffee" with a death date of "1800" and got six Josiah Chaffee's on the search results page. Did you not see the Josiah Chaffee you were looking for?
 +:My dashboard has two numbers on it: the number of pages in my watchlist and the number of contributions in the last 90 days. Are these the numbers that were missing for you?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 03:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +Sorry for the confusing explanation. After entering info for Josiah Chaffe, the system only gave me Stephen Chaffee as a possible "match" and wouldn't allow me to add him (Josiah); no add button was visible. Ten minutes after posting here, I was able to add Josiah.
 +And.. the totals for contribs, watchlist, disappeared for about 5-6 hours on my Dashboard.
 +:That's odd. I haven't seen that before. Please let me know if it continues.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 22:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
---- ----
-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)+::Place completion for custom events on the person page seems to be fixed. I still see the problem on custom events on the family page. And also from time to time I still seem to have queries taking substantially longer than the norm. --[[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]] 16:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 +----
 +I am also noting a slowdown, and what seems to be a pattern. Every once in a while, a page will come up with the wrong labels - e.g., Discussion instead of Talk. When that happens, the page is incredibly slow. My husband suggested the alternate labels might be the result of load-switching to a server that doesn't have the latest version of the software. I used to notice the alternate labels infrequently and assumed it had something to do with maintenance/upgrades being underway. Now it happens every 3-4 pages. Has the server configuration changed recently?
 +:There's just one server, but it looks like it's been being hit pretty hard lately by a Russian bot. I've denied access to the bot. Hopefully that will reduce the load.
-: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.+BTW: While I am still deciding whether the loss of seeing the type of place in the place name completion change is a significant issue, I feel the new dropdown is a vast improvement over the previous method. Congrats on a significant improvement to usability of the site.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 15:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 +:Today I noticed Norton, Bristol, Plymouth Colony showing up in the drop-down list when I type Norton, Bristol. There is no place page called this. Technically, there was no such place, as Norton was so named in 1710 and Plymouth Colony disappeared in 1691. ??? --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 23:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. and even though I picked Norton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States for the previous edit, on the next edit the fictitous Norton, Bristol, Plymouth Colony refuses to surrender its place at the top of the drop-down list. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 04:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 +::The problem is [[Place:Bristol, Massachusetts, United States]] is also-located-in Plymouth Colony, and Norton is located in Bristol. Norton wasn't part of Bristol until 1710, and although Bristol was only located in Plymoth Colony until 1685, the drop-down doesn't take dates into account. That's something that could be added in the future.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 22:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 +:If we use place names as they are named in 1900, should the place page for Plymouth Colony be deleted? It should never be needed. And why does it insist on being on top even after another place has been used in a previous edit? --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 22:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
-: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)+:::Place pages themselves are titled according to 1900, but we allow places that didn't exist in 1900 to be added as separate pages. This way someone can enter "Bristol, Plymouth Colony" if that's the place appearing on the record. I don't know why Norton, Bristol, Plymouth Colony insists on being the first entry even after another place as been used in a previous edit. It shouldn't. I just tried entering "Norton, Bristol" in a place field. The plymouth colony entry came up first and the Massachusetts entry came up second. I then selected the Massachusetts entry. Next I went to another place field and entered "Norton, Bristol" again. This time the Massachusetts entry that I just selected came up first as expected. If this isn't happening for you, you can try clearing your browser's "Local Storage". For chrome, go to chrome://settings/cookies#cont and search for www.werelate.org. Then click on "Local Storage" and click "Remove". That should reset your preferences for previously-selected places.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 03:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
-::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.+::::I have been working on a family from Norton over the past couple of days. The ordering started working some time after I posted my last message.
 +::::: I'm glad to hear that--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 07:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
-::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...+::::Can I suggest that if a place name that never existed is being generated perhaps something is wrong: either allowing the place page to exist, or the algorithm? I had no notion of the 1900 rule prior to working on WeRelate, but have really come to appreciate the wisdom in its separation of date from place and the way it allows consistent predictable naming, instead of to each their own style, not to mention simplifying the rather involved side-issue of proving/justifying the name one chooses to use and arguments over that. Recognizing that the best answer is undoubtedly GIS coordinates but how often is such precision available? --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 06:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
-:::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)+::::: I agree the algorithm could be improved beyond what it is today. I'll have to work on that someday.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 07:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 +:::::: Personally, I think place pages for pre-1900 names should be deleted. [Specific example, removed, not correct.] If you keep these names, or encourage them, people will misuse them. The users who have made similar errors include some of the more knowledgeable users on this site. You do not want to encourage the use of historical names because few people take the time to do it right by actually researching the place they are naming for the year in question. Instead they simply take any answer that doesn't say United States for dates before 1776 whether or not that name is accurate. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 04:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 +----
 +Other people have told me that they have to record the place as it appears in the record, so if the record lists a place that existed only pre-1900, then to make them happy it seems that we need to include the pre-1900 place. How could we satisfy them if we removed the pre-1900 places?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
-::::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)+::Several answers to this. (As an side observation, if people were getting the name correct, by accurately identifying or copying the record, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.)
 +::The first point is that the record should be cited in a source, because part of collaboration is verification, which requires identifying sources, and so the place to put exactly what the record says is in the source citation. After all you may have several sources that give a location, and if they specify it differently (in New England, Indian place names are frequently found in colonial records, not to mention phonetic spelling, so where do you draw the line about copying the record exactly), what are you going to do then? So the need to transmit what sources say accurately is handled entirely and better by source citations, leaving the place field free to transmit physical location in a way that can be understood by software.
 +::The second point is that what needs to be defined with some definitiveness is what the Place fields are supposed to be specifying. I would say you are specifying a physical spot on the planet, not a government entity's name. It needs to be somewhat isolated from stylistic differences that any add-on software that may exist or be added, saying mapping software, places the dot in the expected place on a map.
 +::The third point is that a significant justification for having place pages at all, instead of simply using free-form names, is to document the meaning, description, and history of a place name in a centralized place, which one would think obviates the need to duplicate that effort on individual person and family pages. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 15:09, 10 November 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)+:I have a suggestion I will write up, hopefully tomorrow, since it's a holiday, to look at the system newly adopted by "gramps" which would allow us to get away from the "1900 Rule". It's obviously not something that will be implemented in a year or two. (For one thing, we should wait for them to prove its efficacy.) But it would allow the time-dependent hierarchy to be construed by local experts. --[[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]] 12:13, 10 November 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)+::[[WeRelate:Suggestions/Adopt a Flexible Place Page System like Gramps 4]] --[[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]] 20:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 +:::Even if someday a new place system is added (and there is much complexity and much work to implement anything more functional than the 1900 rule that probably suggest this might not be worth the effort), places that are input today need to follow the 1900 rule, so that at that potential point in the future where a change is made, the meaning of the place name is understood, and we do not damage the chance of being able to automatically convert those place names to whatever new system may be selected. As opposed to requiring a massive human conversion effort, such as has happened in the past for sources, which would probably fail anyway because people do not post the sources (deeds describing property owned, etc.) that justify their choice of place names. For example, if one wanted to enter the West Precinct of Watertown, Mass., prior to its incorporation in 1713, one should enter Weston, because any conversion of [[Place:Weston, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States]] will be based on its 1900 boundaries which include the West Precinct of Watertown, while using the seemingly more historically accurate [[Place:Watertown, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States]] will result in getting converted to the East Precinct, based on the 1900 definition of Watertown, which is not what is desired. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 03:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 +------
 +The new place completion software seems to be spinning on selecting Ohio, United States. For all of today, I have had to enter at least the first 2 words in order to get a list. I've used Ohio a lot in the last few weeks and this is a new problem. Dallan - can you get this checked into? Thanks--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 23:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 +: Can you do me a favor? I'd like you to clear the local storage for WeRelate to see if that fixes the problem. If it does, then I know where the problem is and I can fix it. You can do this with Chrome by entering chrome://settings/cookies in the URL bar. Then search for werelate, click on www.werelate.org, click on Local Storage, then click on Remove. After that, please try completing Ohio again and let me know if it works better. If Chrome isn't your browser let me know what your browser is and I'll find instructions to clear local storage. Thanks.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 +::I'm using IE 11. Thanks--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 14:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 +:::I don't know if you did something, but it seems to be working now. I did not do anything on my end, other than take a break for a while and come back to editing.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 00:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 +::::Hmm, I didn't do anything. Please let me know if it crops up again.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
-::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)+== Spam-bot user or some such [8 November 2015] ==
-== Can't access Matthew Winans' person page [7 October 2010] ==+I stumbled across a page by User:LucasN11794 ([http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=LucasN11794 contributions]) that seemed really odd. There are five such pages; they seem to be something like mechanical translations into English of stuff about soccer (football) and not all that coherent. There are some web site mentions. The user page was replaced several times with radically different "bio"s. I would guess the pages should be removed and the user blocked. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 08:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 +:P.S. From the same mid-October period I found these additional soccer-spambot users: [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Ellis99E4003] [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Celinda9027] [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Rex93I831872630] [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=ChristianCisnero]
 +:A bit earlier there is a user doing what might be a prototype bot test with one "Psychic" page: [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=JeffersonBurdeki]. ---[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 08:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 +::Thanks for the heads-up. I deleted the contributions and blocked the users.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 07:00, 8 November 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)+== Image rotations [21 November 2015] ==
-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)+Is it possible to rotate an image? The image I downloaded rotated.--[[User:Diane Hosler|Diane Hosler]] 19:47, 18 November 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)+:Easiest way is to use a picture-editing program on your desktop to rotate the image. You could try Windows Photo Viewer for example.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
-: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)+----
-: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).+I did that, but when I uploaded it (twice) it flipped back...it's on the family page for Daniel Bury.--[[User:Diane Hosler|Diane Hosler]] 04:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
-: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)+:Diane, it looks like the program used to rotate the picture didn't actually rotate it but instead marked it in a way that means approximately "If you understand this, rotate the image one quarter turn clockwise." The problem with that method is that only some programs understand that special mark; the others will show it in the standard way.
-: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)+:On many versions of Windows, this can be corrected this way: double-clicking on the image file will bring it up in "Windows Photo Viewer" showing the wrong orientation. One can then click on the right-pointing round arrow button at the bottom and then close the viewer. This should fix it so that double-clicking it again shows it right-side up in the viewer and it will be right for uploading. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
-::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.+----
 +Thank you - I did that and thought it worked - but somethings wrong.--[[User:Diane Hosler|Diane Hosler]] 03:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 +:I just visited [[Family:Daniel Bury and Magdalena Lifelsperger (1)]] but it looks like the image is no longer there. Did you remove it? the previous revision of this page appears to have the image with the correct rotation. If you re-add the image to the family it may look ok now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 03:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 +::Dallan, from histories it looks to me like at 19:58 she deleted it [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Bury_family.jpg], which propagated a corresponding reference deletion to the Family page. She then added the same image (right side up) at 20:01 [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Bury_family.jpg&action=history] and almost immediately the image was added to [[Person:Daniel Bury (1)]], which propagated a "<Persn title=" entry (whatever that is) to the [[:Image:Bury family.jpg]] page. The state I'm now looking at is that [[Person:Daniel Bury (1)]] has the image in its gallery, and the Family: page does not. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 06:30, 21 November 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)+----
 +That is what I did. (I am using Windows 10.) Now, it is in the right rotation, but it flickers when I put the curser on it. I will wait til you tell me it's okay to move to the family page. Or, I can rescan and start over.--[[User:Diane Hosler|Diane Hosler]] 14:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 +:Diane, the flickering you see is due to a defect in the software used by WeRelate and is not because the image is bad or anything you did. I will make a new topic below for this problem. If it bothers you, I think you will find that the flickering will not occur sometimes, mainly depending on how you move your cursor into the thumbnail picture: try moving the cursor into the thumbnail from all four directions: from above, from the left, etc. Another thing that may affect its occurrence is changing the size of your browser window.
 +:You should be able to add the image to the Family: page now and have it all work (except flickering sometimes). --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 20:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
-== Where's Wiki Help? [11 October 2010] ==+----
 +It doesn't bother me so we have this glitch resolved! Thanks Alot!!--[[User:Diane Hosler|Diane Hosler]] 20:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
-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)+== Bug: Flickering/jittery image when hovering [29 November 2015] ==
-: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)+In some situations the image that pops up when hovering over a thumbnail on a Person page flickers more or less continuously, as encountered by [[User:Diane Hosler|Diane Hosler]] above. The flickering seems to be due to repeated re-displays of the popup image, and consumes lots of cpu time while the hover-flicker continues. This happens on both Chrome and IE 11. Whether the flicker happens is not all that predictable, but in a particular arrangement in which it occurs, it is repeatable. It is dependent on the point from which the cursor enters the rectangle of the thumbnail; entering at some places will repeatedly show it, while entering from other places will never show it. It seems to also be dependent on the size of the browser window, maybe with a tendency to be more frequent with smaller window widths. It may also depend on the size of the image file attempted to be displayed. With wider windows the "Bury family.jpg" image on [[Person:Daniel Bury (1)]] tends to show it, but other images on that and on other pages also can show it. Seems like an issue with the javascript size calculations and some test thereof. Maybe it's some lower level erroneously giving an exception or returning "image doesn't fit" status (but after display) and an upper level continuously retrying the same display. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 21:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 +:I just tried it, and the image flickers when my cursor enters the thumbnail from the top. As I slide the cursor down the thumbnail, the larger version of the image has to move to get out of the way of the cursor, causing it to flicker. Is this what you're talking about?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 04:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
-::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)+::The repositioning of the larger image as you move the cursor isn't what I mean. There are cases where you put the cursor somewhere over the thumbnail and leave it unmoving there, and the larger image will continuously flicker, re-displaying at I'd guess say twenty times every second. On my machine it's slightly unstable image, overall about half-transparent, with irregular features like horizontal bands rolling through the image like an old TV with a weak signal. I think both Diane and I are on Windows; it may be that the Mac's API doesn't deliver events to the browser while the cursor is stable (I once toyed a bit with classic Mac programs), but that browsers on Windows somehow have to deal with repeated events or polling of cursor position so that an unmoving cursor still has program activity behind it. Oh, I notice now that while in this mode, the cursor icon is being continually switched between plain arrowhead and the link-available hand-with-index-finger icons so that you can see both as if they were both concurrently displayed with half-transparency (but of course they're actually being switched quickly). --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 06:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 +::Further observation: the problem happens when the code is trying to display the larger image in a way that partially (or wholly) overlaps the associated thumbnail. This is a valid larger-image position in some situations where there is not enough room for the two images to be shown without overlap. The problem occurs when the code puts up the initial version of the larger image with an overlap which includes the current position of the hovering cursor (which it really shouldn't do). It looks like it's looping, putting up the image, discovering that the cursor "now" is within the bounds of the larger image, so it takes down the image, and starts over again. Since it will redisplay the larger image in a bad spot (conflicting with the cursor position), it will continually detect the conflict again, and loop indefinitely. There is room on the screen for the larger image to fit without conflict with the cursor (although maybe requiring overlap with the thumbnail as a whole), but the code is positioning the larger image badly. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 06:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 +::I haven't been able to reproduce it on the mac; I'll try to reproduce it on Windows.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
-== Formatting an Article [21 October 2010] ==+== XML tags visible [6 January 2016] ==
-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 have noticed some XML tags on certain pages. Suspect they shouldn't be visible?
-: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.+Clicked add link for nonexistent person: the message at the top reads
-::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)+<nowiki>You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.
 + 
 +<edithelptext></nowiki>
 + 
 +I thought there has been another one as well that I encountered a couple of time, but cannot recreate it. I though it might have had a tag "addpage...", but take that with a grain of salt. If I run across it again, I will add it to this posting. --[[user:Jrich|Jrich]] 17:04, 26 November 2015
 +:This happens occasionally when the server is under high load. I'm trying to figure out why this happens occasionally.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +::addpersonpageend is the tag I was trying to recall. The other thing that happens is that the add page adds a page but never jumps to it. This has happened a couple of times. I press the "add page" button, get the black text that says Please Wait, and then the Please Wait goes away, as if I never pushed the add page button. I never get a chance to edit the page I added. As a specific instance, today I created Sarah Loring (7) who died as an infant, then created her sister Sarah who was born later. I had this problem when I added the second Sarah. So I selected add page again, and I was given page Sarah Loring (9). Out of curiosity, I visited Sarah Loring (8). It is a non-existent page apparently skipped. I can't tell if it is high load but maybe the logs can help you determine when these events happened and see if the load was high when this happened too? --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 22:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
-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)+I get these HML tags too. And sometimes I have to save a Place page a second time because the type of place hasn't registered. (That is, I've typed the place type in, no typos, and the standard error message re omitting a place type comes up.)
 + 
 +These quirks have all happened since the software update at the beginning of November (end of October?). --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 19:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 +:I'm still monitoring this but haven't been able to identify any problems yet.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 06:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +It's still happening on about one in five place saves. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 07:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Gedcom place matching [12 December 2015]==
 +When adding a gedcom file most of the places I have are detailed to specific building so do not get matched. When I try to match them by selecting one of my unmatched places I get a popup instructing me to check the details in thebottom screen then click find/add. There is no find option only add.
 + 
 +I could add anew village as a place under a town but the next place I had was a different street in the same village and all I could do was add a duplicate place so I left it as it was.[[User:Rmg|Rmg]] 13:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +----------------
 +Hi! and welcome to ''WeRelate''
 + 
 +Our placename database is very large and covers the whole world, but it cannot cover every street in every village. Placenames include the village or township or parish, the county (depending on what part of the world the village is in), the state or province, and the country.
 + 
 +When you reach the edit screen for one of your people you will see that the area which lists the basic biographic details of birth, baptism, death and burial includes three boxes for your gedcom data. The first one is for the date, the second for the placename, and the third is entitled "description". The description box is for your extra details--such as the street address. Try cutting and pasting the street address part of an address into the description box and then seeing if the village comes up blue rather than red in the placename box. If that doesn't work, wipe out your entry in the placename box and rewrite it up to the first comma. At that point there should be a suggestion or more in yellow directly below the box you are working on. If not, start with the second part of your placename and see if if comes up. If you are lucky the second time, remember to add the place you dropped to the street address in the description box. Still unlucky? It may be a typo. We all do it.
 + 
 +Take a look at the FAQ list in the Places section of Help, or send a specific example to my Talk page. Regards, --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 16:15, 10 December 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)+I understand perfectly that you do not want every address in the places database but I think ypu missunderstand my problem.
 + 
 +When reviewing a gedcom before import you can link sources to existing ones where the naming convention is slightly different and it not automatically matched. For places many are matched automatically but where I have more detailed information then no match is suggested. Yhe instructions inform me that I can link to an existing place or add a new one. In most cases I do not want to add a new place linking to an existing one is sufficient but there is no 'link' button on the page so I cannot link them before import.[[User:Rmg|Rmg]] 08:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +:So the help page says:
 +::*Click on a place that does not have a matched page.
 +::*Make sure that the name of the place is correct in the form that appears in the bottom pane, and click on the Next button.
 +::*Click on the Select button to select the matching place from the list of places shown, or click on the Add button to add a new place.
 + 
 +:So you would click '''Next''' and see what you get.
 +:If scrolling down you see the right place (like the town), there will be a '''Select''' button to the left of it. Click that and it will add that place into the corresponding "Matched Page" field, and you're set.
 +:If nothing, or nothing reasonable, is returned (e.g. "Your search did not match any documents" is displayed) then you should modify the search data that was filled in, probably in your cases usually by deleting details. For instance, if you have "123 Main St, Anytown" you might change the "Place name" field in the search box to just "Anytown". You might need to adjust the contents of the "Located in" field as well, maybe sometimes moving a name from there over to the "Place name" field. Then you can click '''Search''' again. Hopefully a good result appears and you can click its '''Select''' button. You might have to try searches on several name variations until you find the right entry. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 22:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 +----
 +The help popup actually days 'First, make sure that the name of the place is correct in the form below and click Find/Add,' it does not say next. If I ignore the instructions and click next then I can link my places to yours. [[User:Rmg|Rmg]] 08:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +:Sorry that discrepancy stymied you. Apparently the button had previously been labeled "'''Find/Add'''" before being changed to the more appropriate "'''Next'''". Yesterday I updated the help page text to correct the same mismatch, but I cannot fix the pop-up text because it does not reside in the wiki but is elsewhere. I'll add a separate topic so that it can (someday) be fixed. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Bug: Gedcom import popup has misleading text [12 December 2015] ==
 + 
 +User:Rmg (above) ran into this: In the Flash import-review utility, the popup "Tip" box, which appears when on the "Places" tab you click on a line without a matched Place: page, refers to "Find/Add" as the thing (button) to click. The button is actually now labeled "Next" and not "Find/Add" so this can keep and has kept users from successfully linking Place: pages. This needs to be fixed. Also, the same label-mismatch problem exists on the "Sources" tab. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 19:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 + 
 +== Problem linking downloaded images to required pages [1 January 2016] ==
 + 
 +I have just downloaded a series of images (maps) to use with a group of placepages. The first one I used linked perfectly (see [[Place:Odsey Hundred, Hertfordshire, England|Odsey Hundred]]), but the rest of the series (see <nowiki>[[Category:Hundreds of Hertfordshire]]</nowiki>) results in a red description of the image instead of the image itself. I have worked by copying and pasting, and there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the title, but I do notice that on the image page the link box is in a different position and a notice at the bottom states "Links: There are no pages that link to this file."
 + 
 +What have I done wrong? By the way, Happy New Year, everyone. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 11:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 + 
 +: I may be wrong but it seems some image names have an underscore in them and others do not, like Image:Hitchin_Hundred,_Hertfordshire.svg.png . It seems the ones with the underscore are the ones not displaying.[[User:Rmg|Rmg]] 12:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
-== Source Data??? [1 November 2010] ==+Hurray. I have now got all of them working except Hitchin and Pirton. I have changed all the image filenames so as to remove the .svg part. I wondered about the underscores, too, but the image files all have underscores. Since I am using copy and paste in all entries I can't see why this would be significant. I shall have another go with Hitchin later. BTW, there is no reason why the change from Hitchin to Hitchin and Pirton should matter. I named Edwinstree Hundred as Edwintree in the image upload name (a typo) and it came through. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 12:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
-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)+Hitchin and Pirton now re-downloaded, uploaded, and in its proper spot. Problem over for now. But I wish someone would rewrite the Image Upload screens with simpler vocabulary for those of us not exactly familiar with the process. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 13:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
-: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)+== Change Account Name [10 January 2016] ==
-::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)+I'd like to change my account name from FranklySpeaking to Frank Hawkins. Appreciate anything you can do to facilitate the change...
-== Problems with werelate or my pc ? [10 November 2010] ==+"Your user page needs to have the same name as your account name. If you want to rename your account, please leave a message on Support"--[[User:FranklySpeaking|Frank]] 16:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 +== GEDCOM issue? [15 January 2016] ==
-Hello+I know there is occasionally an issue with the information on a Family page being out of sync with a person page. This one seems pretty specific, with little activity, so didn't know if it might shed any light on the more general issue.
-Is there a problem with the my Relate section today+[[Person:Ebenezer Wilson (1)]] existed, added by "gedcom upload" 2007 with no parents or birthdate, name spelled Ebenezer Wilson (one L).
-The screen looks like this:+
-* &lt;home&gt; +In 2012, a GEDCOM update that touched this page was performed. There are two changes listed in the history on that date. The one marked "Add data from gedcom" appears to have only resorted the order of the HTML tags, but made no change to data. The second change marked "Propagate changes to Family:James Willson and Molly Rich (1)" added parents, but no birthdate or other changes I assume both those changes were part of the GEDCOM process.
-* &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] ==+The family page did not exist prior to the GEDCOM upload, but was created by it. Currently, the family page for the parents, [[Family:James Willson and Molly Rich (1)]], links to this page described above, but the displayed data on the Family page shows the name spelled Ebenezer Willson, born 21 Oct 1793 in ", Shoreham, Vt" (this is the piped name, which is blue, and it links to Place:Shoreham, Addison, Vermont, United States). This is different than what is shown on the Person page.
-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)+The history of Ebenezer's page seems to indicate that his page ''never'' contained those values, so one would assume, the discrepant data on the Family page is not left over from an old version of the Person page. So I assume the family page got them from a staged page for Ebenezer Willson that was in the 2012 GEDCOM. Was the upload abandoned after the Family page was updated but before the Person page was updated? Does/did the system get confused trying to merge an existing person while creating the family page (e.g., assumes the family page is all new and bypasses some consistency checks that would have ensured the data got propagate one way or the other)? Did the user mishandle the merge step which compares the existing data to the new data? --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 21:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
-: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)+:There's another thing out of sync as well. Ebenezer's parentage does not show on [[Family:Ebenezer Wilson and Abigail Watts (1)|his own family page]]. The fix for that is well-known, to disconnect him from that page and reconnect him. I wonder if that would resolve both issues. --[[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]] 11:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
-::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)+::I assumed editing would fix the page, but haven't because the relatively simple history of the page seemed to focus on a possible cause more than some of the other cases I've seen and I wanted to leave it so it could be analyzed by people who know the software and maybe have access to logs I am unaware of. I am not sure it is the same as other cases or not, it could be the user simply abandoned their upload for all I know. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 14:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
-:::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)+== Auto complete, etc. [22 January 2016] ==
-::::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)+Auto complete for places and sources not working for me. Also, on the top tool bar, 'Home' works, not much else besides 'Support'.--[[User:Neal Gardner|SkippyG]] 18:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 +After 3 restarts, problem went away.
-:::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)+:It might be a browser cache problem, but if it is working now there is not a lot to do. If it happens again clearing the cache might help, if not report back and let us know what browser and version you have. If it is anything windows based then I cannot help further but someone else can. -[[User:Rmg|Rmg]] 08:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
-::::That's a bug; thank-you for reporting it. It's fixed now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:52, 28 November 2010 (EST)+== [22 January 2016] ==
-== Source titles for encyclopedic references [19 November 2010] ==+This morning I renamed Place:St. John-Barford, Oxfordshire, England to Place:Barford St. John, Oxfordshire, England. Later I discovered that Person:Henry Milton (1) (1504-1558) and some other members of his family had been born and died in "St. John, Oxfordshire, England" (contributor gave no sources) and this place has now been linked in our database to Place:Barford St. John, Oxfordshire, England.
-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)+There are quite a few places with St. John in the title in Oxfordshire and there is no entry in the History for "St. John, Oxfordshire, England" to be renamed Place:St. John-Barford, Oxfordshire, England. How come "St. John, Oxfordshire, England" didn't get entered in red?--[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 14:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
-: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)+== User Name... how do I adjust it? [23 January 2016] ==
-== Ellisisland.org [26 November 2010] ==+New user... my user name did not come out as I typed it and would like to adjust it before I attach a tree to your site.
 +I don't want to build a whole tree here to a user name that is not what I want.
 +How do I do this or do I have to delete it and create a new user name?
 +Thanks for your help.--[[User:Patricia ann|Patricia ann]] 14:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
-I'm looking for suggestions on consolidating our various sources/repositories for the http://www.ellisisland.org website. We currently have:+:I made a guess that you wanted it to be Patricia Ann, if this is not correct than let me know what name you would like. - [[User:Rmg|Rhian]] 15:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
-#[[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)+== Vermont Vital Records [3 February 2016] ==
-: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)+Hi All,
-:::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)+I've discovered Vital Records for Vermont, county by county, town by town here [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-8999-LF5Y?mode=g&i=54&owc=collection%2F1987653%2Fwaypoints&wc=32ZB-GPX%3A324710801%2C325275901%2C325275902%3Fcc%3D1987653&cc=1987653] I don't see anything in WR that takes me to this site. This is part of Family Search, titled "Vermont, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1732 - 2005" I've not created a source and am hesitant to "screw it up". Could someone take a look and guide me through it, or start the creation process ? The vitals have great indexes, and include the original pages for all the towns in Vermont. Thanks for any advise/assistance..--[[User:Neal Gardner|SkippyG]] 21:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
-== City Directories [6 December 2010] ==+:It's an artificial heading to group together filmed records of towns in Vermont. Every town is different, in terms of how it was organized, who created it, etc. The sources are already created in most cases as a government record type of source for the individual towns. If the film in the collection being viewed has a film number on one of the images you can probably use that to find the WR source that refers to the same film number under usage tips. [e.g., [https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-27951-14419-50?cc=1987653 image 1] of the film linked to above is 29205, which is found on [[Source:Wardsboro, Windham, Vermont, United States. Records of Births, Marriages, and Deaths, 1782-1883]].] Some have indexes some don't. Some have only town meetings, some have meetings and vitals in the same book, etc. The same thing is true for Massachusetts vitals, and probably more records are coming on line as time passes since the Family History Library seems to making more and more of its film collection available online. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 23:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
-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)+::[https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11763-26737-74?cc=1784223] (from Job Ramsdell) is not from the same source given above. It belongs to [[Source:Vermont, United States. Vital Records, 1760-1954]] describing the index cards Vermont town clerks were required to fill out by law in early 1900s based on town records and gravestones. This is much like the old genealogies that use to publish the certified letters from town clerks giving birth records. But it is inherently not the original record, so while easier to find since indexed by familysearch, slightly less desirable as a source. The source named above describes the film of the actual book of Wardsboro town records. It is specific to Wardsboro whereas the index cards cover all of Vermont. The Wardsboro book should have been the original information that the index card was made from (presumably, source provenance on these films is not always clear, sometimes only copies of records are filmed, the originals being too brittle). In this case, the original for the death of Job Ramsdell, from the Wardsboro Records of Births, etc., is [https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-28198-11873-4?cc=1987653 here].
-: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)+::The image number is not real useful since you have to be able to figure out how to get to the film before image number is much help. This is especially so if the film it corresponds to is identified wrong, as may happen since the source system at WeRelate is not easy to use. Better to give an actual link, found in the information tab at the bottom of the screen as part of the information in the sample citation. This should take a reader right to the image of the page desired even if the source get named wrong, etc. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 01:37, 28 January 2016 (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)+:::One thing about this online source is that if you go to image #1, you will see a film number for that group of images. That would be 540135 in J.R.'s example, corresponding to [[Source:Vermont, United States. General Index to Vital Records of Vermont, 1871-1908]]. There are different ways of recording these in the references. For an example of what a reference for one of these index cards might look like, see ref #1 on [[Person:Newman Scarlett (1)|this page]]. At least that is how I chose to record it. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 01:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 +::::Something is underspecified in your posting. If I go to Skippy's original link, go to image 1, I get film 29205. I am not sure which image 1 you mean since it is accompanied by no link to follow. The familysearch website has been rebuilt a couple of times, but the way it currently works, the URL in the browser's navigation bar does not get updated, you have to go to the information tab as you view the image to get the correct URL for the image you are looking at. Clearly, a death in 1870 would probably not be expected to be found in a source titled General index to vital records of Vermont, 1871-1908. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 03:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 +::::Follow-up after playing around: Still don't know where 540135 comes from. (Yes, it is a film number but what link discussed above had an image 1 that gives that film number?) If I go to source page [[Source:Vermont, United States. General Index to Vital Records of Vermont, 1871-1908]], and then click on the repository link to see the FHC catalog entry, it says "Vermont, Vital Records, 1760-1954 are available online, click here.", suggesting it is just a portion of the bigger work. On Newman Scarlett's [https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1-17908-86077-64?cc=1784223 birth record], image 1 gives film 27680. This is [[Source:General index to vital records of Vermont, early to 1870]], which, like the 1871-1908 collection, is a subset of the Vermont Vital Records 1760-1954. I suppose you could cite the early to 1870 for Newman Scarlett's birth in 1799, but citing the encompassing collection would seem the most intuitive of all since this is the title of the collection displayed on the screen when you look at the film images. In either event, including a link to the specific image in the citation would seem to be a helpful aid for readers, and fairly trivial to do, being a simple cut and paste. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 06:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 +:::::Not sure what was wrong with my browser yesterday, clearly something, as the Job Ramsdell link now gives image 1 as film 540135. So sorry to have added some confusion to a complex issue.
 +::::::Some people, and apparently things, don't like working on Friday. ;)
 +:::::There are significant principles about source citation involved here. The ones I place emphasis on is making it as easy as possible for a reader to verify your findings and, hopefully, see why you reached your conclusion, and if they disagree, to know exactly the nature of the data that must be explained away. For that reason I find the citation on Newman Scarlett's page less than desirable for two major reasons: 1) no indication that they can find the object online, it looks like the person citing it read it off a film (except possibly the reference to image numbers, which is unlikely unless somebody is counting-i.e., online viewer) leading to the conclusion the reader must order a film to see what they are up against, and 2) it gives no indication of what the record said, thereby implying whatever the page currently says came from that source even though the page may have been changed by a subsequent edit. Having found many stupid errors, I have developed a deep seated desire to see if the record says June or Jun (which could be a misreading of Jan); if the record says the death belongs to Jane Doe or widow Doe; etc. So usually, I personally try to provide an abstract or transcript, as I think most useful, so the reader knows the nature of the information found there. And that way, if some thoughtless GEDCOM upload wipes out the birth or death date, it does not end up looking like the cited source supports the new date.
 +:::::Regarding how I would cite this, one deficiency is that I rarely bother to specify an image number, or film number. I assume familysearch.org is not likely to remove or change the location of this image, so if I provide the URL which takes you to the image, I expect that will always work. Weird things always happen, and it would provide redundancy to give a film number, and the page number in the filmed object so if somebody had to revert to film, they could still find things. It is just that this redundancy probably takes 2 or 3 times as long as providing a URL of the image, and if I think it is important enough to go to that much trouble, I would probably take the little extra time to find the record in the actual town records (Wardsboro, in the case above) rather than work so hard citing an index, which is inherently a copy, anyway. But I recognize that providing redundancy location information in addition to the URL of the image is probably a good idea.
 +:::::My opinion is that these sources should all be merged into Vermont Vital Records 1760-1954. Many of the Family History Catalog titles are inaccurate and arbitrary anyway, especially as regards date range (e.g., above, the 1870 death date of Job Ramsdell found in a subcollection for 1871-1908?) This particular collection was probably hard to use on film (the 1871-1908 subcollection says it is 122 films, the early to 1870 is 287 films, how do you locate one record in that-order and read 122, or 287, films until you find what you are looking for?) On the other hand, the online images, named Vermont Vital Records 1760-1954, are indexed on familysearch.org, so they are extremely easy to find and use, and so, whereas probably nobody ever cited the underlying films, the online collection is cited often, and the name of the online collection is Vermont Vital Records 1760-1954.
 +:::::However, the issue has more to it than just that. There are other collections, unconnected with familysearch.org, such as Dedham Early Records, where the individual volumes have been added redundantly even though the collection exists as a source already, so now there are two ways to cite the volumes within that collection. And others such as Boston Marriages, Watertown Records, etc. People don't recognize the volume is part of a collection so don't realize the source is already defined. What is the best way to deal with these? --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 04:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 +::::::Some good points, and as far as your last couple of paragraphs...
 +::::::The films are in order with all of the cards alphabetical by name, so it would probably be as simple as if they were searching for a specific page in a sequentially numbered book stored on film (the searcher would just be scanning one film for a name instead of a number). The problem with merging the original sources/collections into the new larger collection is that not all of those are always going to be of the same type and quality. Speaking more generally, a collection of vital records can be taken from a number of different sources. Each source may have its own peculiarities. And it is hard to determine the quality of the data in an overly broad collection. A certain amount of granularity may always be needed because different people may arrive at a source in different ways (online index, film on reader in their local library, printed manuscript, &c). -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 05:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 +:::::In this specific case, it is the same set of images being looked at, so "type and quality" is identical. Further all appear to be handwritten copy made by town clerks and the various sources part (i.e., whether the town clerk used town records or gravestones, etc) predates the creation of the cards, is endemic of the collection whether found on film or online. The data is the same under both names. I think this is true in all the other cases above: whether you call it Boston Marriages 1700-1751, or Boston Marriages Volume 1, or Record Commissioners Reports Volume 28, it is the same book with the same pages in it.
 +:::::Regardless, the larger issue, i.e., when are two items the same source or a different source, I agree. I have been trying to intuit the design principles the entire time I have been using the source system, and it is clear, I am unable to do so, and in many places where I think I know the right answer, it differs from others. Some examples:
 +:::::*Census: clearly a page for each county, but it seems by year would be a unit since administered by a single agency, used the same form and questions. So I conclude the purpose was to provide a place to discuss the census of counties separately. It is also clear that almost all GEDCOM uploads simply link to census sources by year and ignore the county.
 +:::::*If the purpose is to provide a central place to discuss a source, why was [[Source:General Society of Mayflower Descendants. Mayflower Families through Five Generations]] created lumping several volumes of widely differing styles and content and quality into a single page.'
 +:::::*If the purpose is to provide an accurate citation that helps users find a source and locate the information, then the current policy is broken (see [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/WeRelate_talk:Source_Committee#Source_merge_.5B1_January_2012.5D here]), particularly about reprints that contain different content and page numbering than the original having the same title. Noting that it takes a breadth of experience and access most users don't have to know if two forms are identical or not. Ease of use suggests the poster needs to be able to figure out how to cite the source by just looking at that one source, not by doing a week's research of all the different editions, reprints, etc.
 +:::::*The article type has related issues which seems to cut across most the possible design principles: it is polluting the source name space (conflicting with book titles and reprint titles of the same name, filling drop down lists beyond their capacity), there is an ambiguous guideline when to use the type so it is used in different patterns (only if discussion of the article is needed, when cited more than 10 times, etc.) making both types (article title in record field, article title as title of source page) of usage less valuable, it looks like a book when in edit mode, and it provides no real functionality (like gradually creating a table of contents of a magazine or being able to convert record-name and article-type both into a consistent form).
 +:::::*If it was all about books, the answer might be simple: based everything on worldcat.org or on the title page or how the card catalogue entry would look. If those are different, the source is different. It becomes harder with online collections since they are often mirrors or collections of other sites.
 +:::::*An area where the comment "type and quality" really applies is the citation of an index. I think many of the comments about sources are meant to deal with the proliferation of indices. But in many ways, different indices offer different views of the data, often barely identifiable as having the same underlying basis. Shouldn't different data mean different source? For example, familysearch.org Massachusetts Marriages does not distinguish between intentions and marriage, but the underlying record does. Ma-vitalrecords.org creates an index with added information not found in the underlying record contributed by the person who built the index. Indexes are not supposed to be used as sources, but as we all know, this is all that some contributors have access to. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 16:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 +::::::For the Vermont Vital Records it may not be a big problem to merge them since they all contain cards from the Office of the Secretary of State. But as long as FamilySearch continues to keep the separate film titles (and I doubt that will change anytime soon), I would be hesitant to remove them from this site. -[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 20:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Current revision

Old topics have been archived: 2011 2012 2013 2014


Topics


GEDCOM import - More than 24 hours for review [27 December 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)


Can someone please review the Gedcom for my Robson tree that I submitted October 4?

I removed all the sources because I was not sure that they were in the correct format. But if they look acceptable, please feel free to include them.

Keith--Uhj090 14:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


Is there a method to learn if an uploaded Gedcom has been reviewed by an Administrator - or is in a queue? It has been about 3 days since I finished my review. I'm not in a particular hurry but from reading earlier messages in this link it appears that on occasion an upload will be lost.

Thanks, Ron--Ron 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I went through the gedcom list and I don't see your username. Are you registered as Rchallberg or under a different username. If Rchallberg is your username, my guess is the gedcom wasn't uploaded. Please resubmit and I will process it tonight. Thanks, --sq 21:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


In response to the most recent message, my user name is Rchallberg. However, my Gedcom was accepted after my query so it may not have appeared in the Gedcom pending list. Thanks.--Ron 23:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


Really this is not very good. There are two gedcoms listed as waiting for review and they have been there a week, I have offered last week to help as a reviewer but had no answer to the offer either. Typically this is the time of year when a lot of people start or restart genealogy research, not getting things reviewed for weeks is going to put a lot of people off.

I love that werelate is so low key and relaxed but it may be so laid back that it might be comatose.Rmg 09:14, 27 December 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 [28 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)

Sounds great - I look forward to seeing what you find. Thanks so much! --Jdfoote1 16:25, 28 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)


GEDCOM denial [7 February 2015]

Hi-- I submitted my DURGEE 4G gedcom a few weeks ago, and your reviewer "Solvieg" did NOT follow-up on my detailed query about what I might do to revise it. (attached below). If I re-submitted, I fear it would also be denied for the same reasons.

   There's nothing I can do about, for example, George (Fielding) Durgee's adoptive father being "too young" to be a natural father (when women died in childbirth the baby was given to a relative or neighbor, with no formal adoption records); Ellen Maley being "too old" to be a mother (I have copy of her baptismal record, and don't know who else the mother might have been); siblings who, probably unknowingly, told Social Security that their births were less than 9 months apart; folks unlucky to have died in deep winter with a foot of snow and frozen ground in the graveyard forcing burial to wait for spring, etc.
   I'm NOT in this game to share with "cousins", as most in my generation are already dead. My daughter is childless and my son, being missionary in the jungles of Bolivia, believes the only thing important is how you live your life after being "saved". Rather, I'm hoping that great and great-great nephews or nieces will someday wonder...     QUERY TO SOLVIEG BELOW:


If you look closely, most of the delayed burials are for folks that died in the winter and interment had to wait for the ground to un-freeze; some are folks that died far away and the body had to be shipped. Other post-death items are for legal estate settlements.

The event that happened before Uncle Ralph's birth was his family's arrival from Italy. Maybe not directly related to his birth, but I think it's significant.

If you'd like to talk in person, my home phone no. is 360-754-8625.--WAJoyce 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand you--

You want me to submit a NEW GEDCOM because the other one has too many errors.

To do this, I need to 1) copy my current database so I can work there without disturbing the original

2) strip out the offending dates; should I leave off just the date of an offending delayed burial, or cut out the cemetery also?

3) would it help to delete all the LIVING people?

4) create a revised GEDCOM from the copied database and submit it

5) would I need to repeat all the People, Places etc. edits that I've already done?

PLEASE REPLY It would be a shame for all my People/Places editing work to be wiped out.--WAJoyce 22:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)--WAJoyce 18:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Size [15 March 2015]

I have since 2 hours a problem with the size of the characters on the pages of the site ! ... it's now too little ! But no problem with other sites (wiki or not). Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 10:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's OK. I was/am "stupid" ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 02:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

George w Robinson 1800-1839 [27 March 2015]

Anyone know who is parents were and where and when they came from?--Patricia gross 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If anyone does know, they would have posted it to his page Person_talk:George_Robinson_(38) http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person_talk:George_Robinson_%2838%29. His page is like a wikipedia article, if you want to post theories or see what the discussion of the investigation is, go to his talk page rather than general help for the whole site. Talk pages are an awesome place to try to figure things out and keep track of what people have learned over the years. --Artefacts 01:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the talk page is the ideal place to leave notes so that they will be seen by other people interested in the person, e.g. other Australians interested in George Robinson. But it's probably not such a good way of getting the attention of people who would not normally notice that page, like the Colonial New England experts here at WR. (Which for sure doesn't include me.) The sustainable way to get the attention of a wide spectrum of WR contributors is probably to write the topic up as a brick wall. (I'm using sustainable in the sense that posting brick walls here is not sustainable; if everyone did so the page would quickly become unmanageably large.) --pkeegstra 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Preparing Family Tree Maker for import

I want to get my Family Tree Maker file ready to export to GEDCOM and then import into WeRelate. Are there any guidelines or cheatsheets on how to edit my sources in Family Tree Maker so they will import as smoothly as possible? (I'm a new user here.) I already am reading Help:Source page titles. Khqs 22:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


GEDCOM listing [19 March 2015]

The day after I uploaded my last GEDCOM, Jan. 30, my computer crashed. While most everything was saved, that was not. Is there a way to get the names that were in the Jan. 30 GEDCOM or the names added to my Bury family tree Feb. 1?--Diane Hosler 17:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


When the source is self or another person? [27 March 2015]

Hi, I am at the reviewing stage. Please tell me the best way to describe sources like "I was there" or "my cousin John". I have myself described as "daughter", "granddaughter" "niece" etc and by name. As I am alive, I won't be featured, so giving my name, or a cousin's name, seems futile. What makes sense and keeps it orderly?--Helen-HWMT 09:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What I personally have done, and others may have other ideas: if it is your own personal knowledge, make it "citation only" and write e.g. "Personal knowledge [[User:Helen-HWMT|Helen-HWMT]]". If it's someone else and that person hasn't given explicit permission to name them, I have at times written "Personal communication from X" where X is the relationship between the informant and the person described on the page. e.g. info from my father concerning my grandmother on her page "Personal communication from son" or maybe "Personal communication from son to [[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]]". If you are working from a document, create a MySource for it; if you hold the copyright, e.g. by inheritance, feel free to transcribe the entire document onto the MySource page (or, if it is lengthy, a Transcripts page). --pkeegstra 11:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Will junk places and sources delete when I delete GEDCOM? [28 March 2015]

Thank you for your instructive answer to "When the source is self or another person? [27 March 2015]" I've stored this answer safely.

Now I have found a worse problem! I have heaps of junk sources such as variant wordings of the same thing, and lists like "FreeBMD; census; cemetery records" and there doesn't seem to be any way to delete them. Excluding them results in them being marked excluded on peoples' pages which isn't nice.

Also -- worse -- most of the items on my Places list are not places at all but occupations -- and I can't delete them!

I can see I need to delete this GEDCOM and start all over again, BUT my questions are:

Will deleting the current GEDCOM result in this junk info getting deleted, or will it remain in the system ready to contaminate my new tree or GEDCOM?

Will I have to name the new tree differently in order to get free of it?

Also, how do you add parents to a person? And how can I re-unite a dislodged person to their parents and brother?--Helen-HWMT 12:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think you want to resubmit your GEDCOM anyways, my advice would be to wait on that until you have created pages for an entire family you know well using the manual process. (But please choose a family none of whom are living, maybe one set of great-grandparents.) We have training videos to help you with that. One of the things you will learn is that adding new parents for a person and adding a person to existing parents is essentially the same straightforward process. --pkeegstra 13:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at your talk page User talk:Helen-HWMT, it appears that your GEDCOM has not been accepted into the database yet, so no pages have been created, and there is nothing to delete. If you are in the reviewing stage, you should be able to just walk away from it at this point, and it will be bumped out of the queue. You could then make a copy of your tree (new name) in whatever software you are using, clean it up, and resubmit. As to your question about attaching parents, are you asking about a page that already exists here or something in your GEDCOM? --Cos1776 14:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Rename place page [11 April 2015]

Hi,

I want to get a place page renamed.

A while back the Place:Dabo, Moselle, France was named Dabo, Moselle, Lorraine, France and when a French user modified it I happily left it.

However twice now an additional page has been created for Dabo, Lorraine, France. So I would like change it to the full Dabo, Moselle, Lorraine, France but I can't because it has subordinates--JeffreyRLehrer 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Could Place:Dabo, Lorraine, France be enabled as a redirect to Place:Dabo, Moselle, France? would this solve the problem at hand?--ceyockey 00:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Well I put a link in but not a redirect, and then added speedy delete but a redirect could work.--JeffreyRLehrer 03:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Accessing existing GEDCOM files [12 April 2015]

I have an existing GEDCOM file at WeRelate.org and it was unfortunately lost over the last couple of years due to some extenuating circumstances. Is there any way that the file can be retrieved so that I can recreate my research files? I had an old account but have no idea how to access it. the email address was pelark@gmail.com on that account. Any help would be appreciated. thanks Phil Larkin--Pel152991 05:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Family Page Events copied to the children's Person Pages [21 April 2015]

This may have been asked before. If so, my apologies as I did not find it. I have just entered the 1911 Census of Canada as an event on a family page. It shows up on both the husband and wife person pages. As there were 3 children in the family noted in the census, I was hoping that this event would also show up on their person pages without having to enter the info separately. Is there a way to make this happen?--Gsirwin 20:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


StickyNotes on the side of your screen are a boon in these situations. Once you have the info as you want it for one person in WR, copy it to a StickyNote (remembering to copy the reference and note boxes as well), open the edit screen for child 1, paste it in the appropriate boxes, check it, save it, and on to the next.

It is often suggested that you keep more than one copy of WR pinned on your browser. I work with three most of the time. Pinned bookmarks to your favourite sources also help.

/cheers --Goldenoldie 20:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


How in the world do I navitage [24 April 2015]

I can't find my gedcom file..Where is it? This site is so very confusing. I get a message and cant respond. There isn't a response space Crazy--Riti 03:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Regret to see that you seem to be experiencing navigation problems. From what I can see, it doesn't seem that you successfully uploaded your GEDCOM file. Are you looking for your GEDCOM file you created on your own computer or one you uploaded to WeRelate? Normally once uploaded here, it should only take minutes for you to access it and start working on it. Can you tell me how many people you intended to load with your file? --BobC 19:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Gender box stuck on "unknown" [14 May 2015]

I am currently editing the placenames for the family of Johannes Boeg, contributed in 2007. I notice that all of the family are marked Gender:unknown. In addition to removing a lot of red-lined places in and around London, England, I would be glad to adjust the gender for those with common given names, but the multiple-choice box will not move off "unknown". What's the problem here? --Goldenoldie 15:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I had no problems. Changed all his children. --Jrich 15:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was also having a problem with my anti-virus software and had to get support in to clear a glitch. This may have been what was causing the problem in WR. Now to attack more of the Boeg tree and its poor geographical knowledge.... --Goldenoldie 19:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


Bug in Tree Management [17 May 2015]

It appears that there is a bug in tree management through FTE. I am pruning my Default tree, and I used FTE to remove a number of people from my tree, but when I went into View mode on that tree (which invokes SpecialSearch by keyword), they still showed up. When I used the Tree link (at the left) the checkbox for the Default tree was not checked. It appears that FTE is removing pages from the tree but not removing the keyword that causes the page to show up in the "view tree" function. I can't tell (without doing a controlled experiment) if this is 100% of the time or only some of the time.

My workaround is to check the tree box in the Tree link and select Update (that is, put the page back into the tree) and then uncheck the tree box in the Tree link and select Update (to take the page out again). That means that using FTE to remove a person from my tree tripled my effort. I'm lucky I quit using it after only a few families :) --DataAnalyst 13:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

For an example (until I get around to fixing it in the next month or so), see Person:William Castle (3). He shows up on SpecialSearch with keyword +Tree:"DataAnalyst/Default", but only in my Stewart tree according to the Tree link on the left.--DataAnalyst 13:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Further note: I don't think this is just a matter of the FTE updates waiting for re-indexing (at least I hope re-indexing is not turned off). At least 3 weeks have passed since I did the FTE updates and the pages are still showing up in the SpecialSearch by keyword.--DataAnalyst 13:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


Downloading and using Image Revisions [2 June 2015]

Yesterday I uploaded a map which I am using in several Place: pages which I am currently working on. All went fine on the upload and I proceeded to add the map to a number of pages. Part way through I came upon some information that proved the boundaries on the map were wrong. I corrected the map and uploaded it again with the same title. This appears to be the purpose of the instruction "Upload a new version of this file" on the second page of the upload procedure.

The revised map is now on the Image page, but none of the Place: pages associated with it have changed. Even after "deleting all revisions of this file" and uploading the revised map again, the Place: pages are still using the old map. And, even if I delete the mention of the image on one of the Place:pages, save the text, and re-edit adding the image, it is the old image that shows up.

I know I could alter the name of the image and do the replacing on each page myself, but that is not what the instructions infer. The image in question is [[Image:Tandridge_District_before_1974.png]]. Comments, please. --Goldenoldie 09:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


In the half hour since I started to write this message (including time-off to answer non-genealogical questions from immediate family members), the revised image is now finding its way to the Place: pages. Why wouldn't this be an immediate update like an ordinary edit or a "#redirect" is? --Goldenoldie 09:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My first guess would be browser caching issues. My second guess would be that the site itself implements a level of caching, and that somehow is not flushed even after deleting the reference on a page and recreating it. Maybe next weekend I'll test on the sandbox and see if I can duplicate it. --pkeegstra 10:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Browse feature [15 June 2015]

I'm puzzled as to how and when the Browse feature works. See example: Iva Jackson. The browse feature picks up most of the places on her page but does not pick up 'Clinton' County which is mentioned twice. It appears that browse has dropped that county info and that causes me wonder how often that happens???--janiejac 00:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears to only use the specific places mentioned. Since you aren't linking to Clinton Co. directly, it won't include that. -Moverton 02:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't 'get it'. Her residence is Harlan Twp, Warren Co., Ohio and the system offers to browse both Harlan and Warren. She died in Blanchester, Clinton Co., Ohio and the system offers to browse Blanchester but doesn't browse Clinton Co. So I can't figure why it is not offering the ability to browse Clinton Co. --janiejac 03:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
She was born in Warren Co., and that is the reason Warren is included. -Moverton 16:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
So if I edit her location of death to be just Clinton Co. (leaving out Blanchester) then Clinton will show up to browse? Bummer! Leaving out info to get the browse feature just doesn't seem right!! Wonder if this a bug or by design?? It certainly is limiting! Thanks for trying to help me understand even tho I don't like the answer. --janiejac 18:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The system offers to browse Warren County because that is listed as her birth and marriage location, but Warren County being offered has nothing to do with the residence. The residence only causes Harlan, the first part of the place, to be offered. The burial location adds the cemetery (only, not the town it is in) to the browse list, the death adds Blanchester, thus accounting for the 4 browse options offered. It appears to be working consistently, making me think it is working as designed. When you select browse Blanchester, which might be assumed to normally be of more interest than browsing all of Clinton county, it does a special search, and the search criteria are displayed. If you want to browse the whole county, simply delete Blanchester from the search criteria "Blanchester, Clinton, Ohio, United States", and hit enter to get what you appear to want. The search that results does include Iva Jackson even though no place on her page gives Clinton Co. explicitly, only places inside Clinton Co. --Jrich 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah! That does the trick! Thank you both for helping me understand how to get what I wanted! --janiejac 21:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


Do you have information on the British Virgin Islands or only America [29 June 2015]

--Alice harewood 01:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You might be the Christopher Columbus of WeRelate. You can start here to browse place and source pages: Category:British Virgin Islands. -Moverton 16:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't edit Sources: "Links to other websites are not allowed" [29 June 2015]

Any changes I try to make to a Source page will show up nicely in Preview, but when I try to save them I get a bold message at the top of the Edit page stating Links to other websites are not allowed and the changes are not saved.

First saw this when I attempted to add Ancestry.com as a new Repository and the URL of the item in its card catalog, but I get the same error even when I remove the Ancestry info and even when I don't touch the Repository. The Sources I have tried to edit all have prior Repository listings with URLs in them. (I haven't tried removing the existing Repositories because I wouldn't be able to add them back and then we'd be losing information.)

Is this expected behavior? User error? A bug?

--Bsktcase 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the page you are working on where you notice this linking issue. One of us can take a look at it and hopefully provide more helpful information.
Ancestry.com already has it's own Repository Page at Repository:Ancestry.com. --BobC 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

ref name vs cite [5 July 2015]

Somewhere (cannot currently find it) on this site is format information about using 'ref name' rather than 'cite' for connecting text to references. However, when I used the ref name procedure, it did not connect correctly to my S1, S2 or S3 sources in the Personal History section of Person:Elmer Irwin (4). Can you kindly advise.--Gsirwin 19:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, solved the problem - was missing an operator.


East European geography knowledge needed [15 July 2015]

Could someone who has knowledge of the geography of Eastern Europe make corrections for the birth and baptismal places for Christina Weber and her family? The birthplace is linking to a hamlet in Devon, England and the baptismal place to a Wittenberg in the USA until I took out the link.

I just came across her when tidying up Culm Davy, Devon. --Goldenoldie 20:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


New User Name [5 August 2015]

May I change my user name? Thanks!--Frank 23:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


Login not working [8 August 2015]

this is a test--KayS 00:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


creating cemetery place pages [14 September 2015]

I tried to create a cemetery page here: Place:Bethany Cumberland Presbyterian Cemetery, Coushatta, Red River, Louisiana, United States. It didn't turn out as I hoped. I don't know how to state lat/long correctly and the category isn't right. If somebody can fix this, I'll follow your example for the next pages I need to create. Thanks! --janiejac 02:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine now. I created the county-wide cemetery supercategory. --pkeegstra 09:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Whatever you did helped. I just added 5 more. --janiejac 17:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I may have messed up this cemetery page when I created it. There are two cemeteries with the same name, one across the road from the other. I put them both on the same page. Find-a-Grave labels them Low Gap Cemetery I and II. Place:Low Gap Church Cemetery, Knob Fork, Wetzel, West Virginia, United States I'm tired of messing with it. I can't finish my GEDCOM upload for lack of cemetery pages. Maybe another day. . . --janiejac 00:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I created your 2nd cemetery page for you here and moved the relevant info from the 1st page over. I also added Red Flags to alert readers to the 2 different cemeteries. Cemetery pages shouldn't cause stress :) Please just ask if you are unsure how to do it. Best Wishes - --Cos1776 20:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Guest Book [11 August 2015]

Is there a way to add a "guestbook" for visitors to sign--on my front page?--Cleonard 16:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there as guest book--or a "sign-in" that can be added to my front page? Colleen--Cleonard 01:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Every page, including your User page, has a Talk page attached (see upper left corner) on which anyone with an account can leave messages pertaining to that specific page. It is very helpful to be able to discuss specific individuals and families directly on their page. I suppose you could create a section heading called "Guestbook" for yourself on your User Talk page if you wanted to. There might be someone here who has done something similar to that in the past, but I have not seen it. People usually just use the subject of the message as their heading and then anyone who wants to can join the conversation. hth --Cos1776 02:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: previous entry inquiry re Guestbook-or guest log-in. This site would be seen by many whom aren't members or have an account. I would still like to add it to my front page (Herbert Edward Scarborough)--if someone can talk me through it. (I haven't added anything in a long time) Colleen--Cleonard 15:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I will just point out that for anyone to add a comment or perform any other type of edit, they are required to be signed in. So someone who is just passing through without having an account wouldn't be able to "sign" a guestbook. You can add your guestbook to your primary User page by using it like a template:
{{:User talk:Cleonard/Guestbook}}
You could also add a link to it:
[http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cleonard/Guestbook&action=edit&section=new Sign my guestbook!]
You would just need to create the Guestbook page before you do all of that. I don't know if there is a fancier way of doing it. -Moverton 23:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Worcestershire, England--sources for two places mixed up [18 August 2015]

I'm not sure who is on the panel of administrators for sources, so I have decided to put this problem here.

There are two places named Churchill in Worcestershire. Until today they were Churchill (near Kidderminster) and Churchill (near Spetchley). The first was in Halfshire Hundred and the second was in Oswaldslow Hundred. I have found references to Churchill (near Kidderminster) being called Churchill-in-Halfshire in earlier times.

Churchill (near Kidderminster) has been renamed Churchill and Blakedown because the two places merged into one civil parish in 1888. When I went to adjust the places on the Sources pages I found one source that appears to be pointing to both places.
The title is
"Source:Churchill (near Kidderminster), Worcestershire, England. Marriages at Churchill-in-Halfshire, 1564-1812",
but the citation reads
Citation: Church of England. Parish Church of Churchill (near Spetchley, Worcestershire), and W. P. W. (William Phillimore Watts) Phillimore. Marriages at Churchill-in-Halfshire, 1564-1812.

Churchill (near Spetchley) is not Churchill-in-Halfshire. I am not sure which Churchill is covered in the source. Is there someone who can check this out in some way, perhaps with an old LDS library catalogue? I cannot travel and our nearest LDS library is in the middle of London.--Goldenoldie 13:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

For now I'd go with the assumption that the WR place field was filled by an automated process and the place referenced in the text is authentic. But it should be double-checked. (I looked at the references in case anyone had actually cited it, but noone has.) --pkeegstra 13:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. I shall re-point the source to Churchill (near Spetchley) and make a note at the bottom that the source may refer to Churchill (near Kidderminster). Amongst the Churchill (near Kidderminster) sources is a similarly named one with a longer span--this might just be a hint.

Thanks. --Goldenoldie 13:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Your logic left me a little befuddled on this one. ;) Normally I would assume the TITLE of the work was correct and not change it to fit the place referenced. With a quick check on the Internet I was able to find the source:
https://archive.org/stream/worcestershirepa02phil#page/n9/mode/2up
The title and page references on the FamilySearch catalog page match what you will find in that book. Instead of renaming the page, you should have just corrected the place. -Moverton 07:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

won't save changes when I click on "save page" [22 August 2015]

I have tried to edit and to send messages to others on WeRelate, and it shows the preview just fine, but after I click on "Save Page" the same page reappears and if I try to go to another web address or location in WeRelate, it says if I leave that page I will lose my changes. If I go out and come back in the changes were not saved.--Thurm 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it saved this message, so your user id seems to be working. So it presumably a warning message that needs to be cleared. Frequently, things like dates and genders are not set to valid values, and the system won't let you save, and there is a warning message near the top of the page that alerts you to the problem. Which sometimes is not visible if you scrolled to the bottom to press the Save key. --Jrich 16:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Replying to: getting message: "Links to other *** are not allowed." on Person talk:George Teater (1). There are probably some characters in the posting that the software doesn't like. I can't really guess what you were trying to type in. I'd suggest you try saving things without any URLs or links. Then try inserting the link in a separate save if the first step works. If that doesn't work, try dumbing down your posting more and more until you can get the save to work. You can also try the "preview" button before saving.
Links to websites are surrounded by single brackets as in [http://books.google.com], which gives [1]. Not sure if URLs that don't start with http or https work. Vaguely seem to recall having problems with an ftp URL once. You can add display text after a space [http://books.google.com Google Books], which gives Google Books.
Interwiki lines are surrounded by double brackets, as in [[Person talk:George Teater (1)]], which gives Person talk:George Teater (1). Because page names can have spaces, in this type of link, the display test comes after a pipe, [[Person talk:George Teater (1)|The page!]], which gives The page!. --Jrich 19:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I did remove all websites, and even the word website, but still got the message. Are you saying that a web address IS allowed if in brackets? I wanted to send: In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote (1855) on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings. The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater". I could not reference my source because I got the message "Links to other websites are not allowed." This was followed by the list of names. Then I had a second reference: Another listing of the signers "A comparison of Signatory Lists for the Call to Rev. Cummings" compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator . I had removed the webaddress for that comparison.--Thurm 19:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The string [https://books.google.com/books?id=wz4VAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22George%20Feator%22&pg=PA117 click on this link] uses Google features to turn to page 117 (pg=PA117) of that book (id=wz4VAAAAYAAJ) and highlight George Feator's name (dq="George Feator", spaces replaced by hex code %20, quotes by hex code %22), i.e., click on this link. You can't pull in the actual image, only provide a link to it. If you click on the icon with a chain link in it while viewing a google book page, it will pop up a window and the top field is a link that you can copy and paste so that someone can come back to the same view you have, or you can put the URL together by hand by combining the various features as I indicated. --Jrich 20:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I limited my post to "In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855" and it still gave me the no links to websites warning.--Thurm 20:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


Your message with the GoogleBooks link is beautiful, but I only half understand it and could never create such a link myself. Are you saying that I should be able to put that link into my posting to enable others to see my source?--Thurm 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are confused by the syntax, just use the chain-link icon on the Google Books page to generate your URL for you. Do it once you have gotten Google books to display the page and text you want. You can copy and paste that URL that is generated by Google using control-C and control-V and just put brackets on each end. It will be ugly, but don't worry about it, it should work.
Try posting your stuff to this page, and I'll take a look at it. If it fails to save, add the characters <nowiki> at the front and </nowiki> at the end (notice the extra slash in the ending one) and then save again. Then I can see what you are trying to type in. --Jrich 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The following did save to your page. It is the version without websites.--Thurm 18:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855 on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings.

The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater". George Blackburn, William Blackburn, John Vance, John Casey, Benjamin Logan, Robert Edmondson, Thomas Berry, Robert Trimble, Wm. McGaughey, David Dryden, Wm. McNabb, John Davis, Halbert McClure, Arthur Blackburn, Nathl. Davis, Saml. Evans, Wm. Kennedy, Andrew McFerran, Saml. Hendry, John Patterson, James Gilmore, John Lowrey, Wm. Christian, Andrew Colvill, Robert Craig, Joseph Black Jonathan Douglass, William Berry, John Cusick, James Piper, James Harrold, Samuel Newell, David Wilson, David Craig, Robert Gamble, Andrew Martin Augustus Webb, Samuel Brigg, Wesley White, James Dorchester, James Fulkerson, Stephen Jordan, Alex. Laughlin, James Inglish, Richard Moore, Thomas Ramsey, Saml. Wilson, Joseph Vance, William Young, William Davidson, James Young, John Sharp, John Long, Robert Topp, John Hunt, Thomas Bailey, David Gattgood, Alexr. Breckenridge, George Clark, James Molden, William Blanton, Chrisr. Acklin, James Craig, Joseph Gamble, John McNabb, Chrisr. Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, Jr. John Sharp, John Berry, James Montgomery, Samuel Huston, Henry Creswell, George Adams, George Buchanan, James Dysart, William Miller, Andrew Leeper, David Snodgrass, Danl. McCormick, Francis Kincannon, Joseph Snodgrass, James Thompson, Robert Denniston, William Edmiston, Saml. Edmiston, Andrew Kincannon, John Kelley, John Robinson, James Kincannon, Margaret Edmiston, John Edmiston, John Boyd, Robert Kirkham, Martin Pruitt, Nicholas Brobston, Andrew Miller, Alexander McNutt, William Pruitt, John McCutchon, James Berry, James Trimble,

117

THE CAMPBELLS OF HOLSTON.


•William Berry, •Moses Buchanan, •David Carson, •Samuel Buchanan, •William Bates, •William McMillin, •John Kennedy, •Robert Lamb, •Thos. Rafferty, •Thomas Baker, •John Groce, •Robert Buchanan, •Thomas Evans, •William Marlor, •William Edmiston, •Thos. Edmiston, •John Beaty, •David Beaty, •George Feater, •Michl. Halyacre, •Stephen Cawood, •James Garvill, •Rob. Buchanan, Jr. •Edward Jamison, •Richard Heggons, •John Lester, •Hugh Johnson, •Edward Pharis, •Joseph Lester, •Saml. White, •William Lester, •William Page, •Samuel Buchanan, Jr. •Thomas Montgomery, •Samuel Bell, •John Campbell.

Another listing of the signers "A comparison of Signatory Lists for the Call to Rev. Cummings" compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator. --Thurm 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the version with websites: In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855 on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings. This is found at http://www.roanetnhistory.org/foote-virginia2.php?loc=Foote-Sketches-Virginia-Second&pgid=116 .

The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater".

George Blackburn, William Blackburn, John Vance, John Casey, Benjamin Logan, Robert Edmondson, Thomas Berry, Robert Trimble, Wm. McGaughey, David Dryden, Wm. McNabb, John Davis, Halbert McClure, Arthur Blackburn, Nathl. Davis, Saml. Evans, Wm. Kennedy, Andrew McFerran, Saml. Hendry, John Patterson, James Gilmore, John Lowrey, Wm. Christian, Andrew Colvill, Robert Craig, Joseph Black Jonathan Douglass, William Berry, John Cusick, James Piper, James Harrold, Samuel Newell, David Wilson, David Craig, Robert Gamble, Andrew Martin Augustus Webb, Samuel Brigg, Wesley White, James Dorchester, James Fulkerson, Stephen Jordan, Alex. Laughlin, James Inglish, Richard Moore, Thomas Ramsey, Saml. Wilson, Joseph Vance, William Young, William Davidson, James Young, John Sharp, John Long, Robert Topp, John Hunt, Thomas Bailey, David Gattgood, Alexr. Breckenridge, George Clark, James Molden, William Blanton, Chrisr. Acklin, James Craig, Joseph Gamble, John McNabb, Chrisr. Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, Jr. John Sharp, John Berry, James Montgomery, Samuel Huston, Henry Creswell, George Adams, George Buchanan, James Dysart, William Miller, Andrew Leeper, David Snodgrass, Danl. McCormick, Francis Kincannon, Joseph Snodgrass, James Thompson, Robert Denniston, William Edmiston, Saml. Edmiston, Andrew Kincannon, John Kelley, John Robinson, James Kincannon, Margaret Edmiston, John Edmiston, John Boyd, Robert Kirkham, Martin Pruitt, Nicholas Brobston, Andrew Miller, Alexander McNutt, William Pruitt, John McCutchon, James Berry, James Trimble,

117

THE CAMPBELLS OF HOLSTON.


•William Berry, •Moses Buchanan, •David Carson, •Samuel Buchanan, •William Bates, •William McMillin, •John Kennedy, •Robert Lamb, •Thos. Rafferty, •Thomas Baker, •John Groce, •Robert Buchanan, •Thomas Evans, •William Marlor, •William Edmiston, •Thos. Edmiston, •John Beaty, •David Beaty, •George Feater, •Michl. Halyacre, •Stephen Cawood, •James Garvill, •Rob. Buchanan, Jr. •Edward Jamison, •Richard Heggons, •John Lester, •Hugh Johnson, •Edward Pharis, •Joseph Lester, •Saml. White, •William Lester, •William Page, •Samuel Buchanan, Jr. •Thomas Montgomery, •Samuel Bell, •John Campbell.

Another listing of the signers at http://www.werelate.org/wiki/A_comparison_of_Signatory_Lists_for_the_Call_to_Rev._Cummings compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator. --Thurm 18:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Even that version did save to your page. Neither would save to http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person_talk:George_Teater_%281%29 --Thurm 18:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I was able to save your text to the page. I removed it after I was done.
However, I do think there is something messed up on that page, probably near the section that says "Translate this page" which has a bunch of weird characters that might be sequences that cause funny things to happen. Twice in the process I basically froze. Somebody familiar with the content should edit the page to remove all the bad formatting, etc., that is, and often does, show up when things are simply cut and pasted instead of prepared with WeRelate in mind.
That said, while I am not familiar with this region or whatever issue is being discussed, I can tell you that it is clear that any argument about the call to Rev. Cummings is going to need a scan of the original handwritten document to be authoritative. Your link to a website transcribing a book that in turn is a transcription (maybe) of the original is not going to convince anyone. For example, your cited website's spelling of Feater is different that the actual book that uses Feator, and it seems, may be unique in using that spelling. Anybody that has read colonial documents will tell you that T's and F's can be hard to distinguish, and colonial e's are written like cirley-ques that look like a modern o that isn't quite closed with a loop in the tail, so any argument over spelling would require a scan of the original. (Though colonial spelling was phonetic, and either spelling could suggest the same person.) Further Google searches brought back multiple sites all giving different orders, and some appeared to go across columns then down, others appeared to go down, then across, or something like that, so again, any argument based on order is going to need a scan of the original. One might even surmise that the original is in one order, and if it was recorded in record books by the clerk, the recorded copy could conceivably be in a different order. Analysis of source provenance and access to the original is the only way to resolve such questions. --Jrich 20:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

no confirmation email for new account [24 August 2015]

A cousin tried setting up a new account yesterday and has not yet received a confirmation email that will allow her to activate the account. She could not sign in. Are you aware of any issues (something not working, or emails from WeRelate getting blocked) or should I ask her to try again? Thanks--DataAnalyst 00:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


Sourcing and Citations [28 August 2015]

Hi all,

I recently uploaded a GEDCOM and volunteers have been kind enough to start transforming my "notes" into proper sources (since I never expected to be sharing the information outside the family, I took the easy route in my database of using my notes field for both the transcribing of information and the sources themselves - which worked for me since sometimes I had two sources for different data elements in one sentence/field.)

As I've started adding people individually to certain families, I find myself really unsure about how to input this information properly. First -- I'm a bit unclear on the difference between a citation and a source (the My Source, I get.)

Say I'm putting in someone's birth information from a town's vital records -- in my database, I'd put the whole thing in the notes field (e.g., Morris, Elisabeth, d. Edward and Elisabeth, Feb. 12, 1683-4. - Vital Records Of Roxbury Massachusetts To The End Of The Year 1849, Published By The Essex Institute Salem, Mass. 1925 [found on] http://dunhamwilcox.net/ma/roxbury_b8.htm) Split up properly, would this be a Citation or a Source? Is the presence of the transcription of the original information what makes the difference, or is it something else. What if I have information (such as a will) for which I don't have a legitimate source (perhaps it's from someone's personal website that no longer exists) -- would that just go in a notes field?

I'm sure professors from my past are howling that I've forgotten proper bibliographic format (although, when I went to college, computerized versions weren't yet a thing, so it's been a while!)

I think I have a lot of good research that I would love to share with anyone who is interested but I DON'T want to be "that person" who causes sighs and groans by causing extra work for people. I uploaded only a tiny portion of what I have and would like to share more and upload another GEDCOM sometime soon but don't know if I should go back into my system and fix all the sources there before I do more (which could mean I never get to upload any more) -- or if transforming my notes to sources isn't that hard for people who know what they're doing.

Also. I don't think it's come up in anything I uploaded yet (I'm not sure.) But is there a limit to how much information should be in a profile? For example, I have transcribed entire wills, inventories, and petitions relating to my ancestors. Should that appear in the notes for that person? Or is there a separate place where all wills, etc. are "filed"? Or do you not want them at all? (I know they're long, but I find them fascinating.)

If I do put them in, should they be in a particular format? (To save paper for the one time I tried to print out all the information on my direct line, I formatted the inventories (for example) so that they would appear in a paragraph format instead of a list. (I killed two printers and went through WAY too many ink cartridges -- I'll never do THAT again!))

In any case, if someone could give me some guidance, I'd appreciate it!

Lynda--TheTrefryTree 20:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


I assume you are talking about the "Citation only" option. The only time I use that is if I don't know the original source (such as with a will). If you don't want to hassle with searching for the correct Source, you could just use the Citation option as long as your citation is good enough for someone else to later do the association. But searching for the correct Source can of course help a person get to know the sources in this database, and it gets easier over time as you may use the same sources often. As to the wills specifically, I use a Citation when I don't know where it came from. For example, here I found an image of the will and later found a reference that said it was only available by contacting the N.C. State Archives. I only abstract information from the wills, but others copy the entire thing, and it is up to individual preference. There is no one right way to do it. You can put the text of the will either in the Text of the Citation, or as a separate section in the Personal History box. -Moverton 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


The advantage of determining the correct source page to specify is that it makes the citation less ambiguous. I have seen scholarly articles that refer to sources so carelessly that the description matched two or more sources. Read a few source pages to get an idea of how linking to a source page can help. For example, NEHGR has a table of links to where copies of the magazine can be found online. Some have commentary on the source, or hints on how to use it most effectively, or lists of repositories where it may be found. However the WeRelate source system is not strictly about being bibliographically correct. So for example, many different vital records sources tend to be covered by one source page, on the assumption that various iterations are as good as any other (which is sometimes not true, and undoubtedly violates some bibliography conventions).

As far as wills, etc., there are no rules, and plenty of pages have full wills, plenty have only abstracts. Both approaches have pluses and minuses. Consider the reader and consider that perhaps 90^ are only looking at the page to see if they are interested, while maybe 10% are interested and want to read everything they can get their hands on. So the best compromise is probably to put an abstract with a link to somewhere they can find the whole will. If the whole will doesn't exist in a freely-available linkable location, then creating a Transcript page or a MySource page may be appropriate. If a complete transcript is placed on a page, it should probably be done in a way that clearly identifies it, and makes it easy to skip, such as putting it in a section by itself with a descriptive heading in the narrative part of the page. --Jrich 02:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Confused over how to do correct citation for info from familysearch.org [13 September 2015]

For the first time, I have used some info found on familysearch.org. I tried my usual citation routine for linking to the Source page only to meet total confusion! There are a bunch of assorted familysearch pages making no sense, and the best one said on it that familysearch was NOT a source but a repository, and that one should use a separate source page for each collection within the repository -- or something like that. I have no idea how to find out what collection - or whatever - my info is in. Help please.--Helen-HWMT 22:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


There are two different methods I use for citation:

1. Cite the FamilySearch collection directly. Each collection should have its own source here on WeRelate. For example, the collection "Kentucky Births and Christenings, 1839-1960" is Source:Kentucky, United States. Kentucky Births and Christenings, 1839-1960. That collection can be used as the source, and any additional information added to the citation as necessary.

2. Cite the FamilySearch collection indirectly (my usual preference). Using that previous Kentucky collection for an example, the entry I found for Person:Robert Tolle (1) had a film number (216816) which I used to search for the appropriate source on WeRelate (having multiple items on that film, I chose the one for Barren county). Then in my citation I specified the reference comes from the collection (and provided a link), and I mentioned that I haven't viewed the original source to verify the information. If my local genealogy library has the film, I try to verify it.

Hopefully this helps. -Moverton 06:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


Place Completion on Custom Events [15 November 2015]

It looks like the recent changes to place completion have an issue. I'm seeing place completion for custom events just spinning, and never returning any matches. Place completion is working fine in the predefined event slots. So the obvious workaround is to construct the place in a predefined spot and use cut & paste to move it to the custom event slot. (Behind some firewalls I used to see place completion just spinning for all event slots, but this is happening on my static IP so I don't think it's anything to do with firewalls.) --pkeegstra 10:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know what exactly the change is and why it was made? I am experiencing not only the problem mentioned above, but a significant slowdown in return time for everything WR-related. It has been a big frustration for me for a few days now, but I thought it might be on my end, since no one else was mentioning it. I've tried the usual fixes on this end to no avail. Is anyone else experiencing this slowdown? --Cos1776 16:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Similar experience. ie. Previously, when creating 9 or 10 children for a set of parents, after entering a birthplace for the 1st child, WR would "remember" the birthplace for the 2nd child. Now I have to enter most of the birth location, or all of it. Has the hierarchy changed ? Or do the AKA locations affect the sort ?--SkippyG 17:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like place autocomplete was broken for additional events when it was changed to improve place sorting a few days ago. I'm out of town right now but will look into it when I return on Tuesday. I'll look at why previous places aren't being remembered. I have no idea why the site would be slow overall. Response time is good for me as I type this.--Dallan 00:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Certain activities seem slower than others to me. One is when you go to add a page, you get the screen that says Enter What You Know, and it seems like it takes a long time before the next screen listing possible matches, even if other websites (like checking my email while I wait) still respond normally. Not all activities seems slow. --Jrich 02:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why it listing possible matches would be slow right now. I just did a few possible matches and results came back generally within 1-3 seconds. Once every five minutes new/edited pages are added to the index, which can result in a 5-10 second delay, but that's been the behavior for over a year. Last week search, match, and add-page would have been slow because all 10 million pages had to be re-indexed to prepare for some new search facets going in next week, which was putting extra load on the search engine, but the re-indexing finished last Saturday.--Dallan 04:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just tried to add a Josiah Chaffee, after entering his bro, Stephen. After citing Josiah's death, the SEARCH feature gave me only his bro, Stephen as an optional match. Result: I couldn't add Josiah at all. Earlier today, all the numbers disappeared on my Dashboard and just came back about 3 hours ago. --SkippyG 23:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. You added Stephen successfully, then attempted to add Josiah. When you added Josiah you got Stephen as an optional match. How did this prevent you from adding Josiah? Couldn't you just have pressed the "Add Page" button to add a new person named Josiah? Or do you mean that you were trying to link to the existing person named Josiah Chaffee and he didn't show up in the search results like you expected? I just clicked on "Add", then "Person", then entered "Josiah Chaffee" with a death date of "1800" and got six Josiah Chaffee's on the search results page. Did you not see the Josiah Chaffee you were looking for?
My dashboard has two numbers on it: the number of pages in my watchlist and the number of contributions in the last 90 days. Are these the numbers that were missing for you?--Dallan 03:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusing explanation. After entering info for Josiah Chaffe, the system only gave me Stephen Chaffee as a possible "match" and wouldn't allow me to add him (Josiah); no add button was visible. Ten minutes after posting here, I was able to add Josiah. And.. the totals for contribs, watchlist, disappeared for about 5-6 hours on my Dashboard.

That's odd. I haven't seen that before. Please let me know if it continues.--Dallan 22:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Place completion for custom events on the person page seems to be fixed. I still see the problem on custom events on the family page. And also from time to time I still seem to have queries taking substantially longer than the norm. --pkeegstra 16:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am also noting a slowdown, and what seems to be a pattern. Every once in a while, a page will come up with the wrong labels - e.g., Discussion instead of Talk. When that happens, the page is incredibly slow. My husband suggested the alternate labels might be the result of load-switching to a server that doesn't have the latest version of the software. I used to notice the alternate labels infrequently and assumed it had something to do with maintenance/upgrades being underway. Now it happens every 3-4 pages. Has the server configuration changed recently?

There's just one server, but it looks like it's been being hit pretty hard lately by a Russian bot. I've denied access to the bot. Hopefully that will reduce the load.

BTW: While I am still deciding whether the loss of seeing the type of place in the place name completion change is a significant issue, I feel the new dropdown is a vast improvement over the previous method. Congrats on a significant improvement to usability of the site.--DataAnalyst 15:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Today I noticed Norton, Bristol, Plymouth Colony showing up in the drop-down list when I type Norton, Bristol. There is no place page called this. Technically, there was no such place, as Norton was so named in 1710 and Plymouth Colony disappeared in 1691. ??? --Jrich 23:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. and even though I picked Norton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States for the previous edit, on the next edit the fictitous Norton, Bristol, Plymouth Colony refuses to surrender its place at the top of the drop-down list. --Jrich 04:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is Place:Bristol, Massachusetts, United States is also-located-in Plymouth Colony, and Norton is located in Bristol. Norton wasn't part of Bristol until 1710, and although Bristol was only located in Plymoth Colony until 1685, the drop-down doesn't take dates into account. That's something that could be added in the future.--Dallan 22:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If we use place names as they are named in 1900, should the place page for Plymouth Colony be deleted? It should never be needed. And why does it insist on being on top even after another place has been used in a previous edit? --Jrich 22:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Place pages themselves are titled according to 1900, but we allow places that didn't exist in 1900 to be added as separate pages. This way someone can enter "Bristol, Plymouth Colony" if that's the place appearing on the record. I don't know why Norton, Bristol, Plymouth Colony insists on being the first entry even after another place as been used in a previous edit. It shouldn't. I just tried entering "Norton, Bristol" in a place field. The plymouth colony entry came up first and the Massachusetts entry came up second. I then selected the Massachusetts entry. Next I went to another place field and entered "Norton, Bristol" again. This time the Massachusetts entry that I just selected came up first as expected. If this isn't happening for you, you can try clearing your browser's "Local Storage". For chrome, go to chrome://settings/cookies#cont and search for www.werelate.org. Then click on "Local Storage" and click "Remove". That should reset your preferences for previously-selected places.--Dallan 03:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been working on a family from Norton over the past couple of days. The ordering started working some time after I posted my last message.
I'm glad to hear that--Dallan 07:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Can I suggest that if a place name that never existed is being generated perhaps something is wrong: either allowing the place page to exist, or the algorithm? I had no notion of the 1900 rule prior to working on WeRelate, but have really come to appreciate the wisdom in its separation of date from place and the way it allows consistent predictable naming, instead of to each their own style, not to mention simplifying the rather involved side-issue of proving/justifying the name one chooses to use and arguments over that. Recognizing that the best answer is undoubtedly GIS coordinates but how often is such precision available? --Jrich 06:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree the algorithm could be improved beyond what it is today. I'll have to work on that someday.--Dallan 07:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think place pages for pre-1900 names should be deleted. [Specific example, removed, not correct.] If you keep these names, or encourage them, people will misuse them. The users who have made similar errors include some of the more knowledgeable users on this site. You do not want to encourage the use of historical names because few people take the time to do it right by actually researching the place they are naming for the year in question. Instead they simply take any answer that doesn't say United States for dates before 1776 whether or not that name is accurate. --Jrich 04:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Other people have told me that they have to record the place as it appears in the record, so if the record lists a place that existed only pre-1900, then to make them happy it seems that we need to include the pre-1900 place. How could we satisfy them if we removed the pre-1900 places?--Dallan 06:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Several answers to this. (As an side observation, if people were getting the name correct, by accurately identifying or copying the record, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.)
The first point is that the record should be cited in a source, because part of collaboration is verification, which requires identifying sources, and so the place to put exactly what the record says is in the source citation. After all you may have several sources that give a location, and if they specify it differently (in New England, Indian place names are frequently found in colonial records, not to mention phonetic spelling, so where do you draw the line about copying the record exactly), what are you going to do then? So the need to transmit what sources say accurately is handled entirely and better by source citations, leaving the place field free to transmit physical location in a way that can be understood by software.
The second point is that what needs to be defined with some definitiveness is what the Place fields are supposed to be specifying. I would say you are specifying a physical spot on the planet, not a government entity's name. It needs to be somewhat isolated from stylistic differences that any add-on software that may exist or be added, saying mapping software, places the dot in the expected place on a map.
The third point is that a significant justification for having place pages at all, instead of simply using free-form names, is to document the meaning, description, and history of a place name in a centralized place, which one would think obviates the need to duplicate that effort on individual person and family pages. --Jrich 15:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I have a suggestion I will write up, hopefully tomorrow, since it's a holiday, to look at the system newly adopted by "gramps" which would allow us to get away from the "1900 Rule". It's obviously not something that will be implemented in a year or two. (For one thing, we should wait for them to prove its efficacy.) But it would allow the time-dependent hierarchy to be construed by local experts. --pkeegstra 12:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
WeRelate:Suggestions/Adopt a Flexible Place Page System like Gramps 4 --pkeegstra 20:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if someday a new place system is added (and there is much complexity and much work to implement anything more functional than the 1900 rule that probably suggest this might not be worth the effort), places that are input today need to follow the 1900 rule, so that at that potential point in the future where a change is made, the meaning of the place name is understood, and we do not damage the chance of being able to automatically convert those place names to whatever new system may be selected. As opposed to requiring a massive human conversion effort, such as has happened in the past for sources, which would probably fail anyway because people do not post the sources (deeds describing property owned, etc.) that justify their choice of place names. For example, if one wanted to enter the West Precinct of Watertown, Mass., prior to its incorporation in 1713, one should enter Weston, because any conversion of Place:Weston, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States will be based on its 1900 boundaries which include the West Precinct of Watertown, while using the seemingly more historically accurate Place:Watertown, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States will result in getting converted to the East Precinct, based on the 1900 definition of Watertown, which is not what is desired. --Jrich 03:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The new place completion software seems to be spinning on selecting Ohio, United States. For all of today, I have had to enter at least the first 2 words in order to get a list. I've used Ohio a lot in the last few weeks and this is a new problem. Dallan - can you get this checked into? Thanks--DataAnalyst 23:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor? I'd like you to clear the local storage for WeRelate to see if that fixes the problem. If it does, then I know where the problem is and I can fix it. You can do this with Chrome by entering chrome://settings/cookies in the URL bar. Then search for werelate, click on www.werelate.org, click on Local Storage, then click on Remove. After that, please try completing Ohio again and let me know if it works better. If Chrome isn't your browser let me know what your browser is and I'll find instructions to clear local storage. Thanks.--Dallan 06:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm using IE 11. Thanks--DataAnalyst 14:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you did something, but it seems to be working now. I did not do anything on my end, other than take a break for a while and come back to editing.--DataAnalyst 00:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't do anything. Please let me know if it crops up again.--Dallan 00:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Spam-bot user or some such [8 November 2015]

I stumbled across a page by User:LucasN11794 (contributions) that seemed really odd. There are five such pages; they seem to be something like mechanical translations into English of stuff about soccer (football) and not all that coherent. There are some web site mentions. The user page was replaced several times with radically different "bio"s. I would guess the pages should be removed and the user blocked. --robert.shaw 08:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. From the same mid-October period I found these additional soccer-spambot users: [2] [3] [4] [5]
A bit earlier there is a user doing what might be a prototype bot test with one "Psychic" page: [6]. ---robert.shaw 08:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I deleted the contributions and blocked the users.--Dallan 07:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Image rotations [21 November 2015]

Is it possible to rotate an image? The image I downloaded rotated.--Diane Hosler 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Easiest way is to use a picture-editing program on your desktop to rotate the image. You could try Windows Photo Viewer for example.--Dallan 00:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I did that, but when I uploaded it (twice) it flipped back...it's on the family page for Daniel Bury.--Diane Hosler 04:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Diane, it looks like the program used to rotate the picture didn't actually rotate it but instead marked it in a way that means approximately "If you understand this, rotate the image one quarter turn clockwise." The problem with that method is that only some programs understand that special mark; the others will show it in the standard way.
On many versions of Windows, this can be corrected this way: double-clicking on the image file will bring it up in "Windows Photo Viewer" showing the wrong orientation. One can then click on the right-pointing round arrow button at the bottom and then close the viewer. This should fix it so that double-clicking it again shows it right-side up in the viewer and it will be right for uploading. --robert.shaw 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I did that and thought it worked - but somethings wrong.--Diane Hosler 03:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I just visited Family:Daniel Bury and Magdalena Lifelsperger (1) but it looks like the image is no longer there. Did you remove it? the previous revision of this page appears to have the image with the correct rotation. If you re-add the image to the family it may look ok now.--Dallan 03:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Dallan, from histories it looks to me like at 19:58 she deleted it [7], which propagated a corresponding reference deletion to the Family page. She then added the same image (right side up) at 20:01 [8] and almost immediately the image was added to Person:Daniel Bury (1), which propagated a "<Persn title=" entry (whatever that is) to the Image:Bury family.jpg page. The state I'm now looking at is that Person:Daniel Bury (1) has the image in its gallery, and the Family: page does not. --robert.shaw 06:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That is what I did. (I am using Windows 10.) Now, it is in the right rotation, but it flickers when I put the curser on it. I will wait til you tell me it's okay to move to the family page. Or, I can rescan and start over.--Diane Hosler 14:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Diane, the flickering you see is due to a defect in the software used by WeRelate and is not because the image is bad or anything you did. I will make a new topic below for this problem. If it bothers you, I think you will find that the flickering will not occur sometimes, mainly depending on how you move your cursor into the thumbnail picture: try moving the cursor into the thumbnail from all four directions: from above, from the left, etc. Another thing that may affect its occurrence is changing the size of your browser window.
You should be able to add the image to the Family: page now and have it all work (except flickering sometimes). --robert.shaw 20:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me so we have this glitch resolved! Thanks Alot!!--Diane Hosler 20:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


Bug: Flickering/jittery image when hovering [29 November 2015]

In some situations the image that pops up when hovering over a thumbnail on a Person page flickers more or less continuously, as encountered by Diane Hosler above. The flickering seems to be due to repeated re-displays of the popup image, and consumes lots of cpu time while the hover-flicker continues. This happens on both Chrome and IE 11. Whether the flicker happens is not all that predictable, but in a particular arrangement in which it occurs, it is repeatable. It is dependent on the point from which the cursor enters the rectangle of the thumbnail; entering at some places will repeatedly show it, while entering from other places will never show it. It seems to also be dependent on the size of the browser window, maybe with a tendency to be more frequent with smaller window widths. It may also depend on the size of the image file attempted to be displayed. With wider windows the "Bury family.jpg" image on Person:Daniel Bury (1) tends to show it, but other images on that and on other pages also can show it. Seems like an issue with the javascript size calculations and some test thereof. Maybe it's some lower level erroneously giving an exception or returning "image doesn't fit" status (but after display) and an upper level continuously retrying the same display. --robert.shaw 21:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I just tried it, and the image flickers when my cursor enters the thumbnail from the top. As I slide the cursor down the thumbnail, the larger version of the image has to move to get out of the way of the cursor, causing it to flicker. Is this what you're talking about?--Dallan 04:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The repositioning of the larger image as you move the cursor isn't what I mean. There are cases where you put the cursor somewhere over the thumbnail and leave it unmoving there, and the larger image will continuously flicker, re-displaying at I'd guess say twenty times every second. On my machine it's slightly unstable image, overall about half-transparent, with irregular features like horizontal bands rolling through the image like an old TV with a weak signal. I think both Diane and I are on Windows; it may be that the Mac's API doesn't deliver events to the browser while the cursor is stable (I once toyed a bit with classic Mac programs), but that browsers on Windows somehow have to deal with repeated events or polling of cursor position so that an unmoving cursor still has program activity behind it. Oh, I notice now that while in this mode, the cursor icon is being continually switched between plain arrowhead and the link-available hand-with-index-finger icons so that you can see both as if they were both concurrently displayed with half-transparency (but of course they're actually being switched quickly). --robert.shaw 06:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Further observation: the problem happens when the code is trying to display the larger image in a way that partially (or wholly) overlaps the associated thumbnail. This is a valid larger-image position in some situations where there is not enough room for the two images to be shown without overlap. The problem occurs when the code puts up the initial version of the larger image with an overlap which includes the current position of the hovering cursor (which it really shouldn't do). It looks like it's looping, putting up the image, discovering that the cursor "now" is within the bounds of the larger image, so it takes down the image, and starts over again. Since it will redisplay the larger image in a bad spot (conflicting with the cursor position), it will continually detect the conflict again, and loop indefinitely. There is room on the screen for the larger image to fit without conflict with the cursor (although maybe requiring overlap with the thumbnail as a whole), but the code is positioning the larger image badly. --robert.shaw 06:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been able to reproduce it on the mac; I'll try to reproduce it on Windows.--Dallan 06:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

XML tags visible [6 January 2016]

I have noticed some XML tags on certain pages. Suspect they shouldn't be visible?

Clicked add link for nonexistent person: the message at the top reads

You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button. <edithelptext>

I thought there has been another one as well that I encountered a couple of time, but cannot recreate it. I though it might have had a tag "addpage...", but take that with a grain of salt. If I run across it again, I will add it to this posting. --Jrich 17:04, 26 November 2015

This happens occasionally when the server is under high load. I'm trying to figure out why this happens occasionally.--Dallan 06:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
addpersonpageend is the tag I was trying to recall. The other thing that happens is that the add page adds a page but never jumps to it. This has happened a couple of times. I press the "add page" button, get the black text that says Please Wait, and then the Please Wait goes away, as if I never pushed the add page button. I never get a chance to edit the page I added. As a specific instance, today I created Sarah Loring (7) who died as an infant, then created her sister Sarah who was born later. I had this problem when I added the second Sarah. So I selected add page again, and I was given page Sarah Loring (9). Out of curiosity, I visited Sarah Loring (8). It is a non-existent page apparently skipped. I can't tell if it is high load but maybe the logs can help you determine when these events happened and see if the load was high when this happened too? --Jrich 22:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I get these HML tags too. And sometimes I have to save a Place page a second time because the type of place hasn't registered. (That is, I've typed the place type in, no typos, and the standard error message re omitting a place type comes up.)

These quirks have all happened since the software update at the beginning of November (end of October?). --Goldenoldie 19:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still monitoring this but haven't been able to identify any problems yet.--Dallan 06:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still happening on about one in five place saves. --Goldenoldie 07:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


Gedcom place matching [12 December 2015]

When adding a gedcom file most of the places I have are detailed to specific building so do not get matched. When I try to match them by selecting one of my unmatched places I get a popup instructing me to check the details in thebottom screen then click find/add. There is no find option only add.

I could add anew village as a place under a town but the next place I had was a different street in the same village and all I could do was add a duplicate place so I left it as it was.Rmg 13:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi! and welcome to WeRelate

Our placename database is very large and covers the whole world, but it cannot cover every street in every village. Placenames include the village or township or parish, the county (depending on what part of the world the village is in), the state or province, and the country.

When you reach the edit screen for one of your people you will see that the area which lists the basic biographic details of birth, baptism, death and burial includes three boxes for your gedcom data. The first one is for the date, the second for the placename, and the third is entitled "description". The description box is for your extra details--such as the street address. Try cutting and pasting the street address part of an address into the description box and then seeing if the village comes up blue rather than red in the placename box. If that doesn't work, wipe out your entry in the placename box and rewrite it up to the first comma. At that point there should be a suggestion or more in yellow directly below the box you are working on. If not, start with the second part of your placename and see if if comes up. If you are lucky the second time, remember to add the place you dropped to the street address in the description box. Still unlucky? It may be a typo. We all do it.

Take a look at the FAQ list in the Places section of Help, or send a specific example to my Talk page. Regards, --Goldenoldie 16:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


I understand perfectly that you do not want every address in the places database but I think ypu missunderstand my problem.

When reviewing a gedcom before import you can link sources to existing ones where the naming convention is slightly different and it not automatically matched. For places many are matched automatically but where I have more detailed information then no match is suggested. Yhe instructions inform me that I can link to an existing place or add a new one. In most cases I do not want to add a new place linking to an existing one is sufficient but there is no 'link' button on the page so I cannot link them before import.Rmg 08:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So the help page says:
  • Click on a place that does not have a matched page.
  • Make sure that the name of the place is correct in the form that appears in the bottom pane, and click on the Next button.
  • Click on the Select button to select the matching place from the list of places shown, or click on the Add button to add a new place.
So you would click Next and see what you get.
If scrolling down you see the right place (like the town), there will be a Select button to the left of it. Click that and it will add that place into the corresponding "Matched Page" field, and you're set.
If nothing, or nothing reasonable, is returned (e.g. "Your search did not match any documents" is displayed) then you should modify the search data that was filled in, probably in your cases usually by deleting details. For instance, if you have "123 Main St, Anytown" you might change the "Place name" field in the search box to just "Anytown". You might need to adjust the contents of the "Located in" field as well, maybe sometimes moving a name from there over to the "Place name" field. Then you can click Search again. Hopefully a good result appears and you can click its Select button. You might have to try searches on several name variations until you find the right entry. --robert.shaw 22:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The help popup actually days 'First, make sure that the name of the place is correct in the form below and click Find/Add,' it does not say next. If I ignore the instructions and click next then I can link my places to yours. Rmg 08:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that discrepancy stymied you. Apparently the button had previously been labeled "Find/Add" before being changed to the more appropriate "Next". Yesterday I updated the help page text to correct the same mismatch, but I cannot fix the pop-up text because it does not reside in the wiki but is elsewhere. I'll add a separate topic so that it can (someday) be fixed. --robert.shaw 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Bug: Gedcom import popup has misleading text [12 December 2015]

User:Rmg (above) ran into this: In the Flash import-review utility, the popup "Tip" box, which appears when on the "Places" tab you click on a line without a matched Place: page, refers to "Find/Add" as the thing (button) to click. The button is actually now labeled "Next" and not "Find/Add" so this can keep and has kept users from successfully linking Place: pages. This needs to be fixed. Also, the same label-mismatch problem exists on the "Sources" tab. --robert.shaw 19:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


Problem linking downloaded images to required pages [1 January 2016]

I have just downloaded a series of images (maps) to use with a group of placepages. The first one I used linked perfectly (see Odsey Hundred), but the rest of the series (see [[Category:Hundreds of Hertfordshire]]) results in a red description of the image instead of the image itself. I have worked by copying and pasting, and there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the title, but I do notice that on the image page the link box is in a different position and a notice at the bottom states "Links: There are no pages that link to this file."

What have I done wrong? By the way, Happy New Year, everyone. --Goldenoldie 11:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong but it seems some image names have an underscore in them and others do not, like Image:Hitchin_Hundred,_Hertfordshire.svg.png . It seems the ones with the underscore are the ones not displaying.Rmg 12:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hurray. I have now got all of them working except Hitchin and Pirton. I have changed all the image filenames so as to remove the .svg part. I wondered about the underscores, too, but the image files all have underscores. Since I am using copy and paste in all entries I can't see why this would be significant. I shall have another go with Hitchin later. BTW, there is no reason why the change from Hitchin to Hitchin and Pirton should matter. I named Edwinstree Hundred as Edwintree in the image upload name (a typo) and it came through. --Goldenoldie 12:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hitchin and Pirton now re-downloaded, uploaded, and in its proper spot. Problem over for now. But I wish someone would rewrite the Image Upload screens with simpler vocabulary for those of us not exactly familiar with the process. --Goldenoldie 13:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


Change Account Name [10 January 2016]

I'd like to change my account name from FranklySpeaking to Frank Hawkins. Appreciate anything you can do to facilitate the change...

"Your user page needs to have the same name as your account name. If you want to rename your account, please leave a message on Support"--Frank 16:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


GEDCOM issue? [15 January 2016]

I know there is occasionally an issue with the information on a Family page being out of sync with a person page. This one seems pretty specific, with little activity, so didn't know if it might shed any light on the more general issue.

Person:Ebenezer Wilson (1) existed, added by "gedcom upload" 2007 with no parents or birthdate, name spelled Ebenezer Wilson (one L).

In 2012, a GEDCOM update that touched this page was performed. There are two changes listed in the history on that date. The one marked "Add data from gedcom" appears to have only resorted the order of the HTML tags, but made no change to data. The second change marked "Propagate changes to Family:James Willson and Molly Rich (1)" added parents, but no birthdate or other changes I assume both those changes were part of the GEDCOM process.

The family page did not exist prior to the GEDCOM upload, but was created by it. Currently, the family page for the parents, Family:James Willson and Molly Rich (1), links to this page described above, but the displayed data on the Family page shows the name spelled Ebenezer Willson, born 21 Oct 1793 in ", Shoreham, Vt" (this is the piped name, which is blue, and it links to Place:Shoreham, Addison, Vermont, United States). This is different than what is shown on the Person page.

The history of Ebenezer's page seems to indicate that his page never contained those values, so one would assume, the discrepant data on the Family page is not left over from an old version of the Person page. So I assume the family page got them from a staged page for Ebenezer Willson that was in the 2012 GEDCOM. Was the upload abandoned after the Family page was updated but before the Person page was updated? Does/did the system get confused trying to merge an existing person while creating the family page (e.g., assumes the family page is all new and bypasses some consistency checks that would have ensured the data got propagate one way or the other)? Did the user mishandle the merge step which compares the existing data to the new data? --Jrich 21:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There's another thing out of sync as well. Ebenezer's parentage does not show on his own family page. The fix for that is well-known, to disconnect him from that page and reconnect him. I wonder if that would resolve both issues. --pkeegstra 11:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I assumed editing would fix the page, but haven't because the relatively simple history of the page seemed to focus on a possible cause more than some of the other cases I've seen and I wanted to leave it so it could be analyzed by people who know the software and maybe have access to logs I am unaware of. I am not sure it is the same as other cases or not, it could be the user simply abandoned their upload for all I know. --Jrich 14:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Auto complete, etc. [22 January 2016]

Auto complete for places and sources not working for me. Also, on the top tool bar, 'Home' works, not much else besides 'Support'.--SkippyG 18:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC) After 3 restarts, problem went away.

It might be a browser cache problem, but if it is working now there is not a lot to do. If it happens again clearing the cache might help, if not report back and let us know what browser and version you have. If it is anything windows based then I cannot help further but someone else can. -Rmg 08:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

[22 January 2016]

This morning I renamed Place:St. John-Barford, Oxfordshire, England to Place:Barford St. John, Oxfordshire, England. Later I discovered that Person:Henry Milton (1) (1504-1558) and some other members of his family had been born and died in "St. John, Oxfordshire, England" (contributor gave no sources) and this place has now been linked in our database to Place:Barford St. John, Oxfordshire, England.

There are quite a few places with St. John in the title in Oxfordshire and there is no entry in the History for "St. John, Oxfordshire, England" to be renamed Place:St. John-Barford, Oxfordshire, England. How come "St. John, Oxfordshire, England" didn't get entered in red?--Goldenoldie 14:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


User Name... how do I adjust it? [23 January 2016]

New user... my user name did not come out as I typed it and would like to adjust it before I attach a tree to your site. I don't want to build a whole tree here to a user name that is not what I want. How do I do this or do I have to delete it and create a new user name? Thanks for your help.--Patricia ann 14:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I made a guess that you wanted it to be Patricia Ann, if this is not correct than let me know what name you would like. - Rhian 15:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Vermont Vital Records [3 February 2016]

Hi All, I've discovered Vital Records for Vermont, county by county, town by town here [9] I don't see anything in WR that takes me to this site. This is part of Family Search, titled "Vermont, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1732 - 2005" I've not created a source and am hesitant to "screw it up". Could someone take a look and guide me through it, or start the creation process ? The vitals have great indexes, and include the original pages for all the towns in Vermont. Thanks for any advise/assistance..--SkippyG 21:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's an artificial heading to group together filmed records of towns in Vermont. Every town is different, in terms of how it was organized, who created it, etc. The sources are already created in most cases as a government record type of source for the individual towns. If the film in the collection being viewed has a film number on one of the images you can probably use that to find the WR source that refers to the same film number under usage tips. [e.g., image 1 of the film linked to above is 29205, which is found on Source:Wardsboro, Windham, Vermont, United States. Records of Births, Marriages, and Deaths, 1782-1883.] Some have indexes some don't. Some have only town meetings, some have meetings and vitals in the same book, etc. The same thing is true for Massachusetts vitals, and probably more records are coming on line as time passes since the Family History Library seems to making more and more of its film collection available online. --Jrich 23:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
[10] (from Job Ramsdell) is not from the same source given above. It belongs to Source:Vermont, United States. Vital Records, 1760-1954 describing the index cards Vermont town clerks were required to fill out by law in early 1900s based on town records and gravestones. This is much like the old genealogies that use to publish the certified letters from town clerks giving birth records. But it is inherently not the original record, so while easier to find since indexed by familysearch, slightly less desirable as a source. The source named above describes the film of the actual book of Wardsboro town records. It is specific to Wardsboro whereas the index cards cover all of Vermont. The Wardsboro book should have been the original information that the index card was made from (presumably, source provenance on these films is not always clear, sometimes only copies of records are filmed, the originals being too brittle). In this case, the original for the death of Job Ramsdell, from the Wardsboro Records of Births, etc., is here.
The image number is not real useful since you have to be able to figure out how to get to the film before image number is much help. This is especially so if the film it corresponds to is identified wrong, as may happen since the source system at WeRelate is not easy to use. Better to give an actual link, found in the information tab at the bottom of the screen as part of the information in the sample citation. This should take a reader right to the image of the page desired even if the source get named wrong, etc. --Jrich 01:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
One thing about this online source is that if you go to image #1, you will see a film number for that group of images. That would be 540135 in J.R.'s example, corresponding to Source:Vermont, United States. General Index to Vital Records of Vermont, 1871-1908. There are different ways of recording these in the references. For an example of what a reference for one of these index cards might look like, see ref #1 on this page. At least that is how I chose to record it. -Moverton 01:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Something is underspecified in your posting. If I go to Skippy's original link, go to image 1, I get film 29205. I am not sure which image 1 you mean since it is accompanied by no link to follow. The familysearch website has been rebuilt a couple of times, but the way it currently works, the URL in the browser's navigation bar does not get updated, you have to go to the information tab as you view the image to get the correct URL for the image you are looking at. Clearly, a death in 1870 would probably not be expected to be found in a source titled General index to vital records of Vermont, 1871-1908. --Jrich 03:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Follow-up after playing around: Still don't know where 540135 comes from. (Yes, it is a film number but what link discussed above had an image 1 that gives that film number?) If I go to source page Source:Vermont, United States. General Index to Vital Records of Vermont, 1871-1908, and then click on the repository link to see the FHC catalog entry, it says "Vermont, Vital Records, 1760-1954 are available online, click here.", suggesting it is just a portion of the bigger work. On Newman Scarlett's birth record, image 1 gives film 27680. This is Source:General index to vital records of Vermont, early to 1870, which, like the 1871-1908 collection, is a subset of the Vermont Vital Records 1760-1954. I suppose you could cite the early to 1870 for Newman Scarlett's birth in 1799, but citing the encompassing collection would seem the most intuitive of all since this is the title of the collection displayed on the screen when you look at the film images. In either event, including a link to the specific image in the citation would seem to be a helpful aid for readers, and fairly trivial to do, being a simple cut and paste. --Jrich 06:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what was wrong with my browser yesterday, clearly something, as the Job Ramsdell link now gives image 1 as film 540135. So sorry to have added some confusion to a complex issue.
Some people, and apparently things, don't like working on Friday.  ;)
There are significant principles about source citation involved here. The ones I place emphasis on is making it as easy as possible for a reader to verify your findings and, hopefully, see why you reached your conclusion, and if they disagree, to know exactly the nature of the data that must be explained away. For that reason I find the citation on Newman Scarlett's page less than desirable for two major reasons: 1) no indication that they can find the object online, it looks like the person citing it read it off a film (except possibly the reference to image numbers, which is unlikely unless somebody is counting-i.e., online viewer) leading to the conclusion the reader must order a film to see what they are up against, and 2) it gives no indication of what the record said, thereby implying whatever the page currently says came from that source even though the page may have been changed by a subsequent edit. Having found many stupid errors, I have developed a deep seated desire to see if the record says June or Jun (which could be a misreading of Jan); if the record says the death belongs to Jane Doe or widow Doe; etc. So usually, I personally try to provide an abstract or transcript, as I think most useful, so the reader knows the nature of the information found there. And that way, if some thoughtless GEDCOM upload wipes out the birth or death date, it does not end up looking like the cited source supports the new date.
Regarding how I would cite this, one deficiency is that I rarely bother to specify an image number, or film number. I assume familysearch.org is not likely to remove or change the location of this image, so if I provide the URL which takes you to the image, I expect that will always work. Weird things always happen, and it would provide redundancy to give a film number, and the page number in the filmed object so if somebody had to revert to film, they could still find things. It is just that this redundancy probably takes 2 or 3 times as long as providing a URL of the image, and if I think it is important enough to go to that much trouble, I would probably take the little extra time to find the record in the actual town records (Wardsboro, in the case above) rather than work so hard citing an index, which is inherently a copy, anyway. But I recognize that providing redundancy location information in addition to the URL of the image is probably a good idea.
My opinion is that these sources should all be merged into Vermont Vital Records 1760-1954. Many of the Family History Catalog titles are inaccurate and arbitrary anyway, especially as regards date range (e.g., above, the 1870 death date of Job Ramsdell found in a subcollection for 1871-1908?) This particular collection was probably hard to use on film (the 1871-1908 subcollection says it is 122 films, the early to 1870 is 287 films, how do you locate one record in that-order and read 122, or 287, films until you find what you are looking for?) On the other hand, the online images, named Vermont Vital Records 1760-1954, are indexed on familysearch.org, so they are extremely easy to find and use, and so, whereas probably nobody ever cited the underlying films, the online collection is cited often, and the name of the online collection is Vermont Vital Records 1760-1954.
However, the issue has more to it than just that. There are other collections, unconnected with familysearch.org, such as Dedham Early Records, where the individual volumes have been added redundantly even though the collection exists as a source already, so now there are two ways to cite the volumes within that collection. And others such as Boston Marriages, Watertown Records, etc. People don't recognize the volume is part of a collection so don't realize the source is already defined. What is the best way to deal with these? --Jrich 04:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Some good points, and as far as your last couple of paragraphs...
The films are in order with all of the cards alphabetical by name, so it would probably be as simple as if they were searching for a specific page in a sequentially numbered book stored on film (the searcher would just be scanning one film for a name instead of a number). The problem with merging the original sources/collections into the new larger collection is that not all of those are always going to be of the same type and quality. Speaking more generally, a collection of vital records can be taken from a number of different sources. Each source may have its own peculiarities. And it is hard to determine the quality of the data in an overly broad collection. A certain amount of granularity may always be needed because different people may arrive at a source in different ways (online index, film on reader in their local library, printed manuscript, &c). -Moverton 05:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
In this specific case, it is the same set of images being looked at, so "type and quality" is identical. Further all appear to be handwritten copy made by town clerks and the various sources part (i.e., whether the town clerk used town records or gravestones, etc) predates the creation of the cards, is endemic of the collection whether found on film or online. The data is the same under both names. I think this is true in all the other cases above: whether you call it Boston Marriages 1700-1751, or Boston Marriages Volume 1, or Record Commissioners Reports Volume 28, it is the same book with the same pages in it.
Regardless, the larger issue, i.e., when are two items the same source or a different source, I agree. I have been trying to intuit the design principles the entire time I have been using the source system, and it is clear, I am unable to do so, and in many places where I think I know the right answer, it differs from others. Some examples:
  • Census: clearly a page for each county, but it seems by year would be a unit since administered by a single agency, used the same form and questions. So I conclude the purpose was to provide a place to discuss the census of counties separately. It is also clear that almost all GEDCOM uploads simply link to census sources by year and ignore the county.
  • If the purpose is to provide a central place to discuss a source, why was Source:General Society of Mayflower Descendants. Mayflower Families through Five Generations created lumping several volumes of widely differing styles and content and quality into a single page.'
  • If the purpose is to provide an accurate citation that helps users find a source and locate the information, then the current policy is broken (see here), particularly about reprints that contain different content and page numbering than the original having the same title. Noting that it takes a breadth of experience and access most users don't have to know if two forms are identical or not. Ease of use suggests the poster needs to be able to figure out how to cite the source by just looking at that one source, not by doing a week's research of all the different editions, reprints, etc.
  • The article type has related issues which seems to cut across most the possible design principles: it is polluting the source name space (conflicting with book titles and reprint titles of the same name, filling drop down lists beyond their capacity), there is an ambiguous guideline when to use the type so it is used in different patterns (only if discussion of the article is needed, when cited more than 10 times, etc.) making both types (article title in record field, article title as title of source page) of usage less valuable, it looks like a book when in edit mode, and it provides no real functionality (like gradually creating a table of contents of a magazine or being able to convert record-name and article-type both into a consistent form).
  • If it was all about books, the answer might be simple: based everything on worldcat.org or on the title page or how the card catalogue entry would look. If those are different, the source is different. It becomes harder with online collections since they are often mirrors or collections of other sites.
  • An area where the comment "type and quality" really applies is the citation of an index. I think many of the comments about sources are meant to deal with the proliferation of indices. But in many ways, different indices offer different views of the data, often barely identifiable as having the same underlying basis. Shouldn't different data mean different source? For example, familysearch.org Massachusetts Marriages does not distinguish between intentions and marriage, but the underlying record does. Ma-vitalrecords.org creates an index with added information not found in the underlying record contributed by the person who built the index. Indexes are not supposed to be used as sources, but as we all know, this is all that some contributors have access to. --Jrich 16:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
For the Vermont Vital Records it may not be a big problem to merge them since they all contain cards from the Office of the Secretary of State. But as long as FamilySearch continues to keep the separate film titles (and I doubt that will change anytime soon), I would be hesitant to remove them from this site. -Moverton 20:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)