WeRelate talk:Watercooler

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 13:41, 24 September 2008 (edit)
Msscarlet1957 (Talk | contribs)
(Watched pages)
← Previous diff
Current revision (17:17, 16 July 2014) (edit)
Janiejac (Talk | contribs)
(WeRelate Thesis - why folks leave)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +<gallery>
 +Image:LibraryBook.GIF|'''[[WeRelate talk:Source Committee|Sources & Repositories]]''' and '''[[WeRelate talk:Source review|Source Review]]'''
 +Image:New User.jpg|'''[[WeRelate talk:Support|New User Support]]'''
 +</gallery>
 +
This page is for discussing anything you want to discuss unless it relates only to a single page. Let people know what you like and don't like about WeRelate. If you don't want to leave comments on this page, you can email them to [mailto:dallan@werelate.org dallan@WeRelate.org]. This page is for discussing anything you want to discuss unless it relates only to a single page. Let people know what you like and don't like about WeRelate. If you don't want to leave comments on this page, you can email them to [mailto:dallan@werelate.org dallan@WeRelate.org].
-Old topics have been archived at [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2007]] and [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2008]].+Have a question about '''how to use WeRelate?''' Post it to '''[[WeRelate talk:Support]]'''.
-== Active discussions taking place at other pages ==+Old topics have been archived: [[WeRelate:Watercooler/Archive 2006|2006]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2007|2007]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2008|2008]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2009|2009]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2010|2010]],
- +[[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2011|2011]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2012|2012]], [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2013|2013]].
-* [[WeRelate talk:Digital library testing|Digital library testing]]+
-* [[WeRelate talk:Junk Genealogy|Junk genealogy]]+
-* [[WeRelate talk:Merging and downloading trees|Merging and downloading trees]]+
-* [[WeRelate talk:Source Committee|Sources and repositories]]+
-* [[WeRelate talk:Surname Research Pages]]+
- +
-== Places: Redirect and more... [1 August 2008] ==+
- +
-I don't know about others, but I just HATE to see places appearing in RED when I upload a gedcom. Since my database contains thousands of places it just is not reasonable to edit all of them within my software... Thus I have for example: Tiffin, Seneca Co., Ohio. This is how I do all my places. I do not have a country for even one place that is in America. As long as my places are in red, my pedimaps don't work.+
- +
-So all my places are appearing in red, OK, so I thought if I would take for example, Seneca Co., Ohio and put in a redirect to Place:Seneca, Ohio, United States that once I did that all the towns I have listed in that county would then match up and be OK, cause the name of the county and state would be "blue" now. I am not finding that to happen. I just had to redirect the city of Danville to Place:Danville, Knox, Ohio, United States; even though I had previously redirected my Place:Knox Co., Ohio to Place:Knox, Ohio, United States. Is this a bug, or am I doomed to create a whole LOT of redirects?? --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 00:39, 1 February 2008 (EST)+
---- ----
-The place matcher doesn't work very well right now. Improving it is part of re-doing the search function, which is the next thing on the agenda. Once we have the place matcher working better, we'll go through everyone's pages and re-match red places. There are nearly 2 million pages that we need to go through, so the re-match process will take about three weeks. So if you can wait until mid-March, most of your red places should be matched by then. In the meantime you'd need to go through every place and redirect it :-(. (That's why we're working hard to improve the place matcher in the future :-).--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:11, 1 February 2008 (EST)+== Costs to upgrade MediaWiki version [30 November 2013] ==
-----+
-:How is the place matcher/redirect process coming along now? If/when I do upload my data base, I also have not indicated U.S.A. Also, ALL my counties have Co., after the name. (I hate to see locations and not know if they are talking about the city or the county.) So would my locations get U.S.A added automatically, and would my county locations get directed to your county places dropping the 'Co.'? --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 20:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)+
-----+There has been an [[WeRelate:Suggestions/Upgrade MediaWiki|outstanding suggestion]] to upgrade the version of software we are running for over a year. It is mentioned on that page as "one of the primary focus". My question - how much would it cost to perform such an upgrade and if we were able to get funding, would werelate be happy to do this via the paid developer route? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 20:05, 21 June 2013 (EDT)
-:Hi Janie,+:My guess is if we were to hire someone to do this, it would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of low five figures. I can't do it myself because I'm working fulltime on a consulting project until the end of the year. In the meantime I'm in the process of open-sourcing the complete WeRelate codebase so that others can help out if they want to: https://github.com/DallanQ/werelate-wiki --[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 22:38, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
-Go check out Q's talk page. We are working on a new concept for a surname exchange page and we could use your input. I beta tested FTM's latest program and was incensed then as you are now because all of my places created error messages in the new program because I used county and did not use USA. After a year or so I have gotten over it and am now prepared to update to the new version of places. (not FTM) I believe that this is actually a function of Google maps so you need to complain to Google. Google maps does not recognize the county. If I recall correctly there is some method on WeRelate to designate city or county when the same name has been appended to the county and city in the same county. At least I believe it is Google maps but may be some other mapping program; but that is why there is now a new format for entering places and I believe that more programs will start using the new format.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:57, 3 June 2008 (EDT)+
-As Beth suggest to me earlier, perhaps the conversation on my talk page should be more public. It threatens to get too long for this space so I'll create a space for it at [[Talk:Surname Research Pages]]+::Terrific news Dallan (re getting the source code onto Github). Well done! :-) I know how hard it can be to find the time to work on these things.
 +::As for paying someone to get it all working with the latest MW, I think you're probably right. My feeling is that there might be enough of us genealogy-hackers around to perhaps get a fair bit done in say the next year... Are you around enough to point people in the right direction and advise and whatnot? Anyway, worth a shot via the open-collaboration route, before trying for funding etc.
 +::But enough talking, I'm off to look through the code! :-) Thanks again. &mdash; [[User:Samwilson|Sam Wilson]] ( <span style="font-size:0.9em">[[User_talk:Samwilson|Talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Samwilson|Contribs]]</span> ) &hellip; 22:50, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
 +:::Yes, that's the plan and the hope. I'm going to cut back to four days a week on the consulting project at the end of this month and I'll use the extra time to add documentation and provide pointers to anyone who wants to help.
 +:::Another thing to consider is http://www.wikidata.org . Wikidata is an effort to create a collaborative structured database for Wikimedia projects. It's been under development since 2006 and is still not quite ready for prime time, but it appears close. Not sure if we should consider using it or not.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 23:14, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
 +::::Wikidata certainly looks interesting. You mean for things like place names perhaps, that are of general interest beyond genealogy? Will definitely be something to look into. :-) I have been wanting to do some sort of analysis of the links between here and Wikipedia for a while... &mdash; [[User:Samwilson|Sam Wilson]] ( <span style="font-size:0.9em">[[User_talk:Samwilson|Talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Samwilson|Contribs]]</span> ) &hellip; 23:41, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
 +:::::Actually I was thinking of the possibility of using the wikidata extensions to manage the database of people, in addition to places, etc. We may not write to the same datastore that the official Wikimedia projects write to, but perhaps we should consider switching over to use the wikidata format at some point if it's going to become a standard for storing structured data on Wikimedia projects. I was thinking it may help us petition to become an official Wikimedia project someday.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:36, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
 +::::::That looks pretty cool. It looks like there is [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Wikibase a MediaWiki extension] for Wikibase, which looks like it would put us in good shape for using WikiData? -- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 14:18, 10 July 2013 (EDT)
 +:::::::I've been investigating this group of extensions a bit lately, and am playing around with a system for dynamically importing (as in, it traverses family trees and pulls what it can) data and files from werelate. Nothing to show yet though! :-) I'll post on the WR software page if I have anything. &mdash; [[User:Samwilson|Sam Wilson]] ( <span style="font-size:0.9em">[[User_talk:Samwilson|Talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Samwilson|Contribs]]</span> ) &hellip; 02:45, 29 July 2013 (EDT)
 +::::::::I'm curious - do you mean that you're walking the werelate tree and trying to pull data into a secondary database? In this case, WikiData? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 10:51, 29 July 2013 (EDT)
 +:::::::::Yep, exactly that. Well, not that it's functioning yet in the case of Wikibase, but I've been doing the same for other uses for a while. Basically, selecting two or four people and fetching all their ancestors and/or descendants. &mdash; [[User:Samwilson|Sam Wilson]] ( <span style="font-size:0.9em">[[User_talk:Samwilson|Talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Samwilson|Contribs]]</span> ) &hellip; 19:13, 29 July 2013 (EDT)
-----+::::For what it's worth, I've been thinking that an additional way to rationalize our membership in wikimedia would be to demonstrate that we're the most wikipedia-hip genealogy environment going (not just another user of media wiki software, but a cooperating user/contributor respecting content. So, as a personal goal, I'm trying to get us to the point of being source-attached to 100,000+ WP articles (we're presently at about 98,500). Of those, about 21,000 relate to people/biographical pages, while most of the rest are places. There is however, a small but very interesting and growing group that relate to things that make for sensible genealogical categories (Houses of Nobility, Battles-Campaigns-Wars, Civil War Regiments, and more). The idea for the last sort of thing is something Amelia had quite some time back, but I've tried to run with it more actively since the beginning of this year. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 15:57, 10 July 2013 (EDT)
-I'm working on the new place matcher right now as part of the new search functionality. I'm hoping to have the code finished in a few weeks. It's taken ''much'' longer than expected, but I think it will be a big improvement when it's finally ready.+
-Regarding counties vs. cities, the standard at WeRelate is that counties are listed under the state without the word County, and cities of the same name are listed under the county. So Los Angeles city is [[Place:Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States]]. If you see a place "X, State, United States", you can be pretty certain that X is a county. The standard isn't driven so much by Google Maps but by how FamilySearch and some of the other place databases that I reviewed work.+:"Low five figures" sounds like a figure that could be raised from a mixture of a grant application (e.g. [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/About_the_WMF_Grants_Program the Wikimedia Foundation]), a fundraising among site readers and perhaps some sponsorship. Is that something you would be prepared to consider? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 19:07, 12 July 2013 (EDT)
- +
-Once we get the new place matcher working we'll go through and re-match everyone's places. The new place matcher won't change the text you entered, but will do a better job of linking your places to existing places in the database by dropping "Co." among other things.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:45, 4 June 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Dallan, now two months later, how is is the place matcher working? I am still having to do a lot of redirects to get my places to NOT be red. Another question, when I do a redirect on my "misfit" places do I have to put checkmarks in the boxes beside the trees to add that to? Sometimes I remember to do that and sometimes I don't. What is the reason for the boxes beside the trees when editing places?? --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 22:46, 30 July 2008 (EDT)+I've found my way back to this discussion of "Wikidata" - in the context of language neutrality. In past discussions of use of English Wikipedia - concerns were raised that other languages might provide better pages than English.
-----+It appears that language-independent Wikidata human "objects" are the way that different language versions of Wikipedia relate biographies of common individuals. To my mind, this suggests that we might want to move from an English Wikipedia orientation for relating pages between WeRelate and Wikipedia - to something that relates pages between WeRelate and Wikidata.
-Since the new search functionality was installed we've reviewed thousands of places from various GEDCOM files to make sure that the new place searcher standardizes them correctly. As of two days ago, everything finally seems to be standardizing the way you would expect. During this time the GEDCOM uploader has continued to use the old place matcher. We expect to switch it to the new place matcher this weekend. After that, if you find places that aren't being standardized correctly, please let me know. Also, later this Fall we plan to add quite a few additional non-US places.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 01:32, 1 August 2008 (EDT)+
-== Merge/redirect and FTE [29 July 2008] ==+For example, for [[Person:Louis XIV of France (1)|Louis XIV of France]], the [[wikipedia:Louis XIV of France|English WP page]] is perhaps less desirable than [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_de_France the french]. However, [http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7742 this wikidata page] represents both. It's also easy to see why Dallan thought the database might be a particularly appropriate way for us to represent our database of people - since the Wikidata pages seem to represent genealogy simply be some ordinary properties.
-Have just done my first merge, but there is an interesting side effect. Once the merge is complete (and there are still two entities existing, but one has been edited to redirect) '''and''' you have FTE open '''and''' you do a search for the individual in question '''and''' you click on the individual that has been redirected, the following results:+Anyway - thought that this might be a useful direction to go for the many Person pages currently related to English Wikipedia. Perhaps what we really want - is to relate Person pages to the Wikidata object - and somehow indicate one or two preferred language forms for an extract? Or something like that... --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 03:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
-the proper page comes up (right side frame), but the FTE (left side) has a blank (shaded) box and it shows the clicked-on individual (the one with the redirect) at the top of that frame. If you mouse over the box, it also shows the clicked-on individual (the one with the redirect) in the mouse-over text. +An additional idea - since user profiles include a language preference (which is presumably recoverable as a wiki variable) - perhaps there's a natural way to dynamically provide users with Wiki extracts from their preferred language wiki? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 22:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
-If you want to see, search for ''People and Families'' with the values '''Benjamin''' and '''Knowles''' (my g-grandfather). There are many results. The two for the example are '''Benjamin Knowles (5)''' and '''Benjamin Knowles (6)'''. I have merged these two persons into Benjamin Knowles (6) (which I added to WeRelate). If you click on Benjamin Knowles (5) in the search results, the correct person (Benjamin Knowles (6)) comes up in the right-hand frame, but the behaviour I've described above obtains in the left-side FTE frame. 
-Also, I would like to make a plea that search results are ordered by '''Person''' first, then Family. I get both Benjamin Knowles (6) and Benjamin Knowles (5) on the first page of search results (although they are not at the top). It doesn't seem right that I have to go to the third page of search results to find Benjamin Knowles (2)!+== Foul language on other's talk page [26 September 2013] ==
---[[User:Slknowles|Slknowles]] 14:43, 30 April 2008 (EDT)+I have just had a new user add vulgar and foul language on my talk page over a disputed point on a family line. Although I have admin powers, it isn't clear to me how one should proceed on this, or if there is even a given rule about this. I would have never thought that a geneological website this would be a problem, but I guess it takes all kinds.--[[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 19:41, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
---- ----
-Yes, merging pages while the FTE is open "confuses" the FTE - that's a known bug that I need to repair.+Mediation might be a good strategy, no matter how disruptive the dispute becomes.
-The new search will have three sort options: +If a particular genealogical issue has potential to be disputed, I think it needs to be recorded somehow. If werelate becomes successful as a go to reference, others are likely to rediscover the issue in future. It would save future wasted energy.
-* sort pages by how close of a match they are to the search criteria ("best match")+
-* sort pages that match all search criteria by last-modified date+
-* sort pages that match all search criteria by page title+
-The last option should work for what you want to do.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 14:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)+Good luck with that, by the way--[[User:Dsrodgers34|Dsrodgers34]] 19:48, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
-----+:This was with a line I wasn't currently working on, but that isn't the point. The user was adding unproven information on an important line (Kenelm Winslow, the oldest known member of the Winslow line). In stuations like this, he should have made a comment on the talk page before making major changes and from there discussed it. But that wasn't my point in commenting about this here. I have had disputes with several other people on unproven/etc information, but they also don't leave disgusting language on my talk page over it. That is why I brought this up here, what WR policy is toward this kind of behavior. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 19:51, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
-Another merge question: +
-I've found a duplicate family of one I uploaded. My family page is titled 'David Jackson and Jane Carlock'. But the author of the duplicate family has added her married name to the title 'David Jackson and Jane Carlock Jackson'. Looks to me like this author hasn't updated anything for a year. I can't just edit his page to change Jane's name to Jane Carlock. They are both #1. So should I try to redirect his page? This couple has a LOT of children. Do I work from the bottom up or the top down? I'm not sure if I should try to do something with this or just wait until the merge feature is further along. But waiting is my choice! --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 20:46, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+
-:Apparently I'm in a minority on this subject, but I think people should have a reasonable expectation of having their material displayed the way they want them to be displayed. Changes in someone elses lineage should be made collaboratively, not pre-emptively. If you really feel a need to merge, then why not ask the person if its OK with them, ask them to collaborate with you. Ask them in the discussion page, so that there's a public record of having the question put to them. If they are watching, they can respond. If they aren't watching, and don't respond, then I think the presumption is that they don't care, and you'd be free to merge away. If they don't respond you might try contacting them offline, but a public statement that you'd like to change the page, should suffice. No response, change away. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 21:04, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+::In theory, this is a matter for the oversight committee, but don't hold your breath...
-----+::With respect to the issue at hand - and presuming ''constructive'' engagement among the parties - [[WeRelate:Suggestions/Assertions|a number of templates]] have been created to help mark things like this. Situations such as no known parents, no known mother, speculative relationships and more. So if the present state of the genealogical art does not offer an accepted set of parents for Kenelm Winslow, then you can mark his page as such. If one or more families are offered as possible, as a matter of speculation, then templates exist to indicate such tenuous relationships.
-The value in performing a merge is too great to wait. The result is the union of the contents of the contributing pages and a page that explicitly has the watchers of both contributing pages combined. It's a defacto call for input on the subject of that page because everyone is going to be noticed of the modification by e-mail. Since this is a wiki with history, nothing is ever lost anyway, so discussion can evolve as needed subsequently.+
-I've performed several thousand page merges. From time to time someone disagrees with the results, takes an interest, and changes the layout - but the result is a refinement of the merged page, which is precisely as it should be. That is also an extremely rare event - figure less than 1%. The only time that we go back to separate pages is in the really rare event that a merge is found to have been incorrect (which again is as it should be).+::Speaking as one of the parties that developed the templates, we saw the practice of limiting decisions to absolutes as a potential (and pointless) source of conflict. Instead of forcing decisions to be absolute - parties should be able to indicate alternatives that represent reasonable speculation (not pure guesses mind you - but informed conjecture). Likewise, assertions about a negative state of information (the no accepted connection templates) - also represents a kind of information that we wanted to be able to capture. Perhaps the unfortunate situation here would never have occurred, if Kenelm had been marked as having no accepted parents with some backing documentation indicating as much. Then the person adding that information might have been on notice and been able to avoid possible embarrassment.
-There's also a practical consideration - who do you wait for and how long? Take a look at the watch lists on any of the Pilgrims - [[Person:Stephen Hopkins (2)]] and [[Person:John Alden (1)]] for example.+::In any case, good luck.... --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 21:19, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:::I am of course aware of the 'alternate' tabs, although still new. That isn't the problem. I want to know if users who use vulgar language can be warned/blocked/banned. I just about pre emptively banned him for it I was so upset. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 21:32, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:::Also, I want to be able to keep his edit of my talk page but have that revision hidden to anyone but admins - at wikipedia this is called 'oversighting' but I am unaware of how that works here.
 +::::I found a precedent (from 2009) that says that profanity is not allowed on WeRelate, and the user was blocked. I fully support blocking any user who is verbally abusive. Abusive behavior is upsetting and harmful to emotional and mental health (as recognized by all workplaces I have been in in the last decade or so), and none of us should have to put up with it. If you want to see the precedent, search WeRelate for "profanity" and check out the Talk page hit - the profanity was posted by another person on this person's talk page.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 21:56, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:::::Thanks Data. I take it then the user should be blocked now? I was uncertain of this because there is no clear policy as to length of ban, etc. On Wiki it is for set lengths. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 22:00, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
 +::::::I don't know the policy. Try asking [[User talk:Beth]] - she did the block in 2009.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 23:12, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
 +----
 +I have nothing to say on the language issue that others can't say better.
 +
 +The use of UNKNOWN can come across as capricious and arbitrary. There are plenty of cases where the leading experts present facts for which there is no primary documentation and which evidence actually argues against. [[Family:John Parkhurst and Abigail Garfield (1)]] is one case. There are others. I guess this should really be John Parkhurst and Abigail Unknown. But I figure anybody that is serious about this couple will read this page, and so does it really hurt to leave it as it stands? There are many cases where an answer is accepted by some number of researchers, so not considered unknown, but in truth they are based on a string of coincidences that may at some point turn out to be wrong when new evidence is presented. So to me, that is the key: present the evidence. This goes for the people who want to make the hypothetical case, and the people that apparently don't like the hypothetical case. If you can't disprove it, maybe the better policy is just to add a note registering that some author in year xxx said that as far as that one author was aware at that time, the fact was unknown, or that so-and-so authority thinks differently. But assume a person that is really interested will read the page, and don't insist that your personal understanding is the only correct one to display. It seems to me the goal is to collect more evidence and get rid of the unknowns, not to erase possibilities that aren't wrong only to add unknowns.
-Merge. Always merge. Merge immediately. If you don't want to do the heavy-lifting of merging pages, at least put a very clear notice on both pages that indicates the other as a merge candidate.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 21:42, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+Arguing against me, of course, is the fact that people put outlandish facts with no sources, and these kind of submissions are almost always wrong when confronted by the need for proof, making it very hard to argue that we should try to respect them. So I can't stress that all this depends on both sides giving the primary basis for anything they think is true and clearly labeling as assumption anything that is not fact. But as a guideline, I suggest: if you can't disprove it, leave it. Register your objection, but no more, until you can earn your right to change it by actually proving the right answer. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 23:26, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:I know. We've been over this before. I don't mind differing opinions - that's why we have those little templates for weak lines that some might want to note. But this doesn't apply here. What I objected to in that case was that he deleted the unknown earlier wife of Kenelm even though the later wife Catherine was probably not the mother and that is what is believed by the current Winslow knowledge. There existed a page for that marriage (since Catherine is named in his will), but with no children listed because Winslow researchers believe the children were by an earlier wife as I said. So it was the other way around - he deleted it for HIS vision and objected when I reverted it, then used foul language. But if this were merely a simple dispute I wouldn't be posting this here. WR needs a clearer policy on vulgar language and abusive comments, there was one example of this in the past from 4 years ago but nothing is set in stone. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 23:49, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
 +----
 +How to handle user behavioral problems is a thorny area, but one aspect about it is clear to me - the involved parties shouldn't decide on and implement any sanctions. An admin who is the target of perceived abuse should avoid taking action like suspension or banning as they often are too close to the situation to make a wise decision. Someone who is targeted by abuse should raise the matter with uninvolved admins or experienced users. Just how to do that, and to whom, I'm not sure, and what guidance about abuse issues they should follow is also murky to me. --[[User:Robert.shaw|Robert.shaw]] 02:04, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:I'd agree, except that WR doesn't have enough admins for a large body of people monitoring this kind of thing. This is actually the first discussion of this issue on the site at all far as I can see, so this might be a discussion worth having. It sounds as though there is no disagreement with blocking/banning of someone who does it, just on how to implement it. I have not taken any action except for removing the offending remark from my page (which for now is viewable in the history). [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 02:07, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
 +::Per [[User:Beth]], who dealt with a potty mouth before, I have blocked the offender for 1 week and I will post a warning on his talk page. In the future, when a more clear policy is arrived at, I will put it in the hands of other admins [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 07:52, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:::I awoke to this situation this morning and started a private discussion with the Overview Committee regarding creating a policy for this type of behavior. There are a number of issues here the committee will need to address and clarify for future situations:
 +:::1. Abusive communication. This type of conduct '''cannot''' be tolerated and a clear policy needs to be created.
 +:::2. The action of admins reverting edits before engaging a user in discussion. There are times when reverting a user's edits is warranted, but I believe this process needs to be better defined.
 +:::3. I agree with Robert.shaw that "the involved parties shouldn't decide on and implement any sanctions". The manner in which we block users needs to be in keeping with professional standards. When a user is involved in the situation, they are not impartial.
 +:::I will post back here when the Overview Committee has drafted a policy. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 08:27, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
 +::::Let me explain myself. I only reverted the first time, and right after posted a notice on said user's talk page. I assumed I would get a reply and we could discuss it. I only reverted again when he put back the changes I had just explained the problem with. I did not do it without comment on my part. I also hesitated to act myself. As I said, in the future, I am happy to let uninvolved admins do the blocking/banning (unless someone is asking me to help in arbitration). [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 08:31, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:::::The primary issue here is, without a doubt, the abusive communication. That needs a strong policy and perhaps even a committee under [[Portal:Maintenance]] to help manage. I will make sure this happens, because no user deserves this type of treatment. Secondarily to this, I feel that looking at what may precipitate this type of outburst would be good. I am not at all trying to blame your actions for this behavior! Recently, I have seen a few instances where users with admin rights have reverted then posted on the user's talk page - and the results were angry and unproductive. I am just trying to look at the big picture, so that we can prevent and deal with abusive communication in the future. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 08:46, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
-----+::::::You're kidding, right? It's just coming to you now that abusive communication and arbitrary edit reversion needs to be dealt with? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 09:02, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
-Hopefully I'll have the match and merge functionality for merging Person and Family pages ready in about a week.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Discredited Genealogy [29 July 2008] ==+
- +
-I'm starting to see folks critically working over some of the genealogy that I've been (more or less) mindlessly merging over the last couple of months. It's actually gratifying to see results that I merged from several contributors critically reviewed edited by others. I have a minor suggestion though.+
- +
-I've started to think more about the question of how to represent discredited, improbable, and flat out wrong stuff. I've tried to do it up to now using "Note" fields in the appropriate person or family pages, but that may not be sufficient in cases where finding and proving an error is a research effort unto itself. Should we adopt a convention of putting a section, immediately prior to sources, where we'll put such stuff? I'm trying to think of a good name for it, but am not satisfied with anything - "Dubious Genealogy", "Common Errors", "Probable Errors", etc.+
- +
-Am I out in front of the curve on this? Does anyone want to suggest something?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 18:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:JRM, perhaps one should write an article and link it to the main page. There are examples of good articles in the NGS quarterly. Because of lack of time for now I have entered a title on the page regarding the discrepancy. See [[Person:Robert Coker (3)]] and the topic Lenard Coker & Charlotte Coker in the 1850 household of Robert Coker. This error is found in many of the family trees posted on other sites. I plan to write an article; but may never do it. I have approximately 26 more trees to enter and have not finished the ones that I started. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:17, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::I think I prefer the discussion to be on the person or family page. I've been generally dealing with the issue under a heading that's specific to the issue - like one in the beginning called "Origins" (because so often the problem is a faulty line for an immigrant back to England) or I've seen (Ronni I think) have a section on "Possible Children". But a standard section title that calls attention to wrong information is probably useful. I like all JRM's suggested titles, depending on whether the problem is something that's been proven wrong, something that's incompatible with known information but not impossible, or just untrustworthy. I like putting it on the page better because it's more likely to be seen, and because there will often be content to put there (i.e. "Author X disagrees that this man ever sailed on the Mary and John because of X, Y, and Z.") that doesn't really need it's own article (an article which, as Beth points out, may never get written!) --[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 20:24, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:What goal are you attempting to accomplish with such labels? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 20:50, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::They call attention to and acknowledge the bad information, and (hopefully) demonstrate why it is wrong, so that people who don't know better don't get upset at the information being removed and/or try to add it back.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 20:57, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Off topic. Has your blessing arrived yet? --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 22:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
-::Two weeks ago today...and he sometimes sleeps enough for me to read and type again :-) --[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 23:22, 14 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::They are also labels that do not, in my experience, improve the success of a discussion, but different folks have different approaches. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 21:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::In cases where the evidence is unclear and there is room to disagree, you may be right. But there are many cases where information that has been proven to be flat-out wrong is still being circulated, and in that case I think we should call a spade a spade.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 21:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Red hot pokers are rarely an effective argument. You might "win" with one, but you will rarely change anyone's view. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 21:15, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Bill, but you will change someone's view if you have convincing evidence. It should be posted and if a user disagrees they are free to post and document why they disagree. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 22:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::I don't think the issue is making a logical argument for or against something. Its labeling someone else's stuff "Discredited", "junk" or what have you. It may in fact be such, but labeling it so implies "I'm right, your wrong". That's not reasoned argumentation. That's argumentation by fiat. If you have to apply a label to enforce your viewpoint, frankly you're argumentation can't be all that good, or people would change their view. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 22:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:: Bill, that makes sense. Just title the discussion with reference to what you are disputing. For example, John Doe shown not to be the father of Samuel Doe or evidence disproves that John Doe is the father of Samuel or something.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 00:35, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+
 +:::::OK, thank you. The user was making other unsourced edits to other sourced pages (see comment by jaques just before mine), 'fixing' things by looking around on rootsweb and the like. Lines before about 1750 or so are some of the better sourced (if not best sourced) material on WR, and those of us that have worked on them get a little territorial especially when unsourced information is added (though I admit, I hadn't cleaned up the Winslow line yet). I had considered asking Dallan to consider some kind of user guide for new users in editing people born before the earliest date the GEDCOM upload will allow (1700?) - in other words, pages where the user has to create them by hand. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 08:52, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:Wikipedia has a page called ANI - Administrators Noticeboard / Incidents. Do we need the same here, or is this watercooler followed by enough Admins? Given that there are only [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Listusers 30 sysops] on this site, is the easiest process just to contact a handful of them to take action? As to an Oversight Committee policy - would this really be useful, or should we just adopt [[wikipedia:WP:NPA]] [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 16:25, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
 +::I don't think there will be many incidents to justify an entire section like WP, where this kind of thing is probably constant. We are not THAT big, in fact not even close. I think JBS66 is right, this should be part of the rest of the Portal:Maintenance and just another aspect of their job.
---- ----
-Perhaps the approach that could be taken here is to include a section in the article entitled "Alternative Interpretations". There different perspectives on the subject could be discussed, coupled with the evidence for and against whatever the issue was, with out applying a divise label. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 02:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+A policy regarding "Profanity and lewd language" has been added to [[WeRelate:Policy]] and linked to from [[Help:Wiki etiquette]] as well. The policy states "''WeRelate is a family-oriented genealogy site. The use of profanity and lewd language is not allowed. The first offense will result in a 1 week block with the offending language being removed from the page. The second offence will result in a permanent block from using WeRelate. If a complaint is lodged with the [[WeRelate:Overview committee|Overview Committee]], they will use their discretion to address the situation.''"
-:I had a situation on WeRelate. There are 2 different wives shown for the same person. I discussed this with the other user. The user had no objection to me changing the name of the wife; I had direct evidence and the user was not certain where that information came from, possibly a vertical file. So sometimes a discussion with the user eliminates the conflict. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 07:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+I've also added text on the [[Help:Administrators' guide]] asking users with Admin rights to refer requests for blocking to the Overview Committee so that an impartial team can address the situation. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 14:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
-----+== Wikipedia updates [8 September 2013] ==
-I had no idea this would be so sensitive! Still, I'm seeing the perspective from both sides. I think most of the information I'm talking about is accepted as discredited, but there's no sense alienating folks either. May I suggest the title "disputed interpretations"--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 07:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+
-:Since we're talking about individual articles, how alternative viewpoints are handle is largely up to the individual authors. If someone else wants to have a different view of some genealogical "fact", that's pretty much their prerogative. I don't need to convert them to some other viewpoint. Arguments really only get in the way of doing the genealogy. I probably go out of my way to avoid "hot buttons", simply because its not an argument that I'm trying to achieve. Now, if someone wants to engage in a reasoned discussion of some viewpoint, that's another matter. I always learn from discussions (such as this one). The only thing I learn from an argument is to avoid the person in the future. +Will there be an update of places from Wikipedia tomorrow? I have been incorporating Wikipedia data to a number of English places in the past two weeks. Thanks. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 09:57, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
-:So, if "Disputed interpretations" floats your boat, that's better than "Rejected Conclusions" or something of that sort. Personally, I try to avoid hot button words as much as possile, as they do not usually advance a discussion, and sometimes hinder it. The advantage of a phrase like "Alternative Viewpoint" is that its about as non-confrontational as you can get, and still convey the message that there is a subject where differences of opinion are held. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:58, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+:For whatever reason, it hasn't run for at least a couple weeks. I wasn't pestering Dallan about it because the current wikipedia extract we're working off is pretty old (there are several hundred that didn't resolve the last time it ran) and we really need an overall update. Don't worry though - hooking things to WP when possible has such a great upside long term! I've made a career of this for the last four years or so. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 10:32, 8 September 2013 (EDT)
---- ----
-I'm not particular about what we call it. "Plan Nine from Outer Space" works for me. I just think we need a more or less standard place to indicate relationship connections, generally discredited ones anyway, that don't appear as part of the explicitly connected genealogy.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 09:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+In the past week I've found several WP entries that have been altered since they were originally downloaded to WR. These allow me to ask for <nowiki>{{source-wikipedia|place}}</nowiki> again, along with selective requests for the remainder of the article, now split into sections. So much for trivial bits of late 20th-century "history".
 +--[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 11:36, 8 September 2013 (EDT)
-::JRM; I am not all sure that a standard place and name would work for me. It actually would depend on the context within the applicable page. Just checking a few titles for articles in the NGSQ and the NEHGR that pertain to this subject; I found the following titles:+== Swedish farm location type? [12 December 2013] ==
-* ''Which Jacob Pence? A Case Study in Documenting Identity'' [NGSQ;Vol. 75, No. 2]+
-* ''Two Simeon Nuttings of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, and Their Wives Named Dorothy'' [NEHGR; Vol 157, whole no. 626]+
-* ''King Philip (Metacom) Redux: Massasoit's Son or Grandson?'' [NEHGR; Vol 157, whole no. 626] --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 09:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+
-::The nature of a wiki is that folks are pretty much going to do as they want. If someone wants to create a "standard" section entitled "Plan Nine from Outerspace", they are going to do that. You aren't going to stop anyone from doing it the way they want, unless you want to establish a policing system---which ain't going to work. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 09:50, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+In Swedish genealogy, a country side location typically will include the "Gård", or farm that the person lived at. This is highly useful information as many records will be ordered by Gård, and it's also highly useful to distinguish people from each other as people tended to be quite unimaginative with names. The same place also will naturally recur many times in a family tree, so I do think these should be places, not just notes or comments.
-:::Precisely my point Q. One can create a "standard" section; but I may choose not to use it. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:06, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+(I have an ancestor whose father, both grandfathers, two great grandfathers and two great-great grandfathers were called Per Matsson or Mats Persson, all from just two farms in the same parish during the 18th century. It's quite confusing.)
-----+So the question then is what location type to use for these locations? It's not a farm. Originally a gård would most likely have been one farm, but by the time the record keeping starts they are typically split into several farms. It's not an estate, because it doesn't have a single ownership. And in any cases none of these words are in the list of location types anyway. It's not a village, because although the houses tend to be located together, it's usually just a question of three-four houses.
-Ok, where this started was that I've encountered a number of places where I wanted to document connections that are generally not accepted. The rationale here is that others are going to repeatedly stumble over these issues as information from old GEDCOMs and other databases is recycled. Put differently, if a connection between a person and a family - either as a child of that family or a spouse - is not generally accepted, then:+
- A) It should not be part of the ordinary explicit family connections<br>+The Swedish word "gård" comes from proto-indo-europan *gardaz, meaning "enclosed area", but I don't know if that helps either.
- B) It should be explicitly documented within the body of related person and family pages<br>+[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=57.258646,18.398041&ll=57.258809,18.399439&spn=0.01836,0.052958&num=1&t=h&z=15 Here] you can see how one of these places look i real life.
-The only question I'm asking is whether we can make the documentation of these sorts of situations a little more obvious.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 11:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+Any opinions on this? --[[User:Regebro|Lennart]] 08:37, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
---- ----
-Jrm, how about a heading of "Disputed Lineages", highlighting the contradictions? Most of the disputed lineages occur because of conflicting secondary sources. Some of the disputed lineages are due simply to "old" disputes that have since been solved by a good primary source but the "old" keeps getting passed around from GEDCOM to GEDCOM. The word "disputed" does not have to have a negative connotation to it. Dispute can also simply mean to seek the truth in argument, discussion or debate. So I see nothing wrong about your suggestion. Collaboration is going to involve disputes, plain and simple. Like Amelia said, let's call a spade a spade (I'm sorry, but a father can not be younger than his biological son - that's ''improbable'' so let's call it what it is). +My commiserations. My family comes from a rural area of Scotland that has the same kind of divisions (and the same lack of creativity in naming children). When parishes or townships or areas of other parts of the world are fairly large, it would be handy to have another level of "place". Nineteenth century censuses can show numerous individual dwellings on a single farm. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 11:21, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
- +
-Perhaps linking these "disputed lineages" to a category as well would be useful. While the highlights can be brought out on the Family or Person page, maybe eventually these disputed lineages can have articles of their own.+
- +
-The problem is, as you pointed out, is getting folks to look for something they don't know that they should be looking for. For instance, the family of [[Family:William Spencer and Agnes Harris (1)|William Spencer and Agnes Harris]] *was* a disputed lineage. Agnes was thought to be a Tucker or a Hearne. But Douglas Richardson several years ago found a primary source revealing her name as Harris. The disputed lineage has been solved, but not everyone is aware of it, so GEDCOMs get uploaded with Agnes Tucker and Agnes Hearne. I would assume when Dallan gets the match/merge function that such a case would be flagged as a possible merge, but even still, there needs to be something on the page telling of the dispute or former dispute and why folks should merge their Agnes Tucker into Agnes Harris. +
- +
-Perhaps a category should be set up in the mean time so we can add these disputed lineages to it as we come across them to "hold" them until a solution is found on how best to present them. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 11:35, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-We keep coming up with the scenario of Person and Family pages needing "subpages" as it were. Maybe we should start thinking of just plain ol' articles as a type of subpage. Note the disputed lineage on the person or family page and then link it to an article where more information is presented. The article would link back to the Person/Family page. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 11:44, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+The gård sounds fairly similar to the Irish townland - a subdivision of the large parishes that isn't its own political or administrative entity, but does tend to be used as the basis for organising many of the records. Townland is allowed as a place type and many Irish townlands have place pages on WeRelate - on my own tree I know I've linked to several townlands, including: [[Place:Skirteen, Monasterevin, County Kildare, Republic of Ireland]].--[[User:RichardK|RichardK]] 11:55, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
-:If the detective work behind a disputed lineage is significant, it could very well belong in an article by itself. I wouldn't suspect that to be the typical case though, where creating an article "sub-page" would be a heavy handed answer that is, never the less, even more obscure than a "note". I prefer that a brief section exist in plain sight, referring to additional articles if needs be, but not as a general rule. --[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]]+: I have some familiarity with this, and I do agree with Lennart that a gård distinction can be very helpful in differentiating between individuals and that Swedish records often group individuals living in the same gård together within a parish or locale. However, I am not sure it is necessary to give each gård a separate place page. I think it is just too small of a designation that only applies to a handful of individuals. Saying that someone lived in a particular gård is not much different than saying that they lived on a particular farm or small group of farms or on a particular block. I am curious why the desired differentiation can not be accomplished by putting the gård in the description field or the "name suffix" field in the same way that it is done on other pages (i.e. saying "of Beverly Manor" or "of Pike's creek")? --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 13:24, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
---- ----
-A "Disputed Lineages" section would be fine, I just want to follow a convention that at least a few other folks think is reasonable. In my colonial merging adventures I hit these sorts of things from time to time. I want to leave things in the most probably "correct" state, but I don't want to lose the information on what may or might have been a connection either. I had been adding this material as a "note" entry, but I decided that was a little too obscure. I saw some of Amelia's entries and liked having the material in the body of the person page, but perhaps not as the initial item! I figured a section at the end of the page is a nice compromise and, if a convention could be adopted on the title, there would be a better chance people would see the information when they needed to.+:::Indeed, a Townland seems very much like the same subdivision, and is of a very similar size, judging from [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Skirteen&hl=en&ll=53.138507,-7.075109&spn=0.020364,0.052958&sll=53.140065,-7.060377&sspn=0.020363,0.052958&t=h&hnear=Skirteen,+County+Kildare,+Ireland&z=15 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_townlands_of_County_Kildare this list of townlands].
 +:::We *could* put this into the description field, but it is a stable division that doesn't change much over the centuries. The "handful" of individuals are indeed less than a thousand in recorded history per gård, and of course it's not likely that we record the full history of a parish like that any time soon. But as an example, in the GEDCOM I have that's waiting for review there are 38 individuals, and Uddvide, Grötlingbo appears 14 times, Ronnings, Grötlingbo 13 times. For some individuals it appears twice, as the both die and are born there, but still. (The extended tree for Gotland I'm using as a base for my research contains 247 people born or died in Uddvide, btw).
 +:::However, I think the more important question here is searchability. You can search for persons on location, but not on the location description.
 +:::I'll defer to the general view of this here, but using Townload as the type would probably be acceptable. --[[User:Regebro|Lennart]] 14:02, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
-So, as a convention (__NOT__ a requirement), could a few folks chime in on whether "Disputed Lineages" is a catch phrase they would recognize for this purpose?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 11:50, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+:I have a similar situation to Goldenoldie - my ancestor's family are from [[Place:North Ronaldshay, Orkney, Scotland]], where the so-called "House" was routinely used as the location for people, often contained several households and is actually a very useful tool in tracking family histories. Indeed in North Ronaldshay there are examples of people like "[[Person:Thomas Tulloch (36)]]" from Garso who was normally referred to as "Tommy Garso". Can I ask the question the other way round - what is the rationale for the current restriction on places to aggregations above a particular size? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 15:43, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
 +--------------
 +Norway is similar to Sweden, and as far as I can tell, a Municipality in Norway (which appears to be the smallest division currently recommended in WeRelate) is not necessarily like a city in North America. It might be a city, but in rural areas, it is more like a township. I believe that it is the smallest division with an official administrative body (which I assume guides WeRelate policy), but I don't think that that is sufficient reason to make it the smallest division in WeRelate place pages. For one thing, tax lists have been organized by gård (see [http://www.dokpro.uio.no/cgi-bin/stad/matr50 this example from 1950]), making them of at least some administrative importance (at least as much, for example, as a census division, which is supported in WeRelate). I would like to see the gårds added as well - for the same reasons as given above.
-----+I would draw the parallel with the Town of Hempstead in Nassau County, New York (which appears to me to be like a township) which includes many villages and hamlets (although you can't see that in WeRelate, because each hamlet or village just says that it is also in Nassau County). These villages and hamlets have their own place pages - not necessarily because they have/had their own administrative bodies (although they may have), but because they show up on maps, in VRs, etc.
-I suspect that every problem will have its own specific needs. There's not going to be a one-size fits all solution. In some cases placeing a discussion of the issues directly into the article is going to work, in other cases, the matters involved are going to be too complex for detailed inclusion in a person article. [[Person:Dale Carter (2)|Here's an example]] of one approach I've taken for a relatively innocuous issue. Go to the Personal data section and read the very brief blurb in the comments section about Dale Carter's Spouse. Relatively straightforward, simply identifying the fact that others have a different interpretation, and pointing to a location that contains a more complete discussion of the issue. I don't think there's much controversy here, as knowledgable researchers have identified the problems; the purpose of the point is simply to provide a more complete explanation of the issues here. If it were a bit less complex I'd have included it directly in the Dale Carter article. +
-An example of a more complex treate is found [[Rutherfordiana| Here]]. This series of articles, still being built, addresses a very contentious problem in the genealogy of the descendants of John Walker I of Wigton Scotland. This is a very complex problem, and ultimately it is probably unresolvable. I have my opinions, others have theirs. the problem is complex and deserves a more complex treatement. It would not be easy to capture something like this within the framework of a simple person article. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+As for the number of people living in a gård - there can be anywhere from 2-3 families to about 40 families - easily as large or larger than many of the villages and hamlets in North America that are recognized in WeRelate with their own place pages.
-----+Lastly, there are at least 2 more-or-less authoritative sources for the list of gårds in Norway. A list begun by Oluf Rygh in the late 19th century ([http://dokpro.uio.no/rygh_ng/rygh_info.html Norwegian Farm Names]) is considered a standard, and there is also an updated version from the draft land registry of 1950 (link above).
-Something else to keep in mind: One of the BCG's Standards of Proof, is that any contrary views must be adequately addressed. That means including an objective discussion of what others think, coupled with a well reasoned discussion of your own interpretation. Usually, there's an advantage to being objective in such treatments. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 20:36, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+I would also like to see a place type of "Gård" added, so that we don't have to characterize these as "Townlands". It would help to show that WeRelate is aware of other parts of the world besides the English-speaking world.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 21:33, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:Gård has been added to the list of place types.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 03:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 +::Note: People interested in this topic might also be interested in the discussion on place page names for [[Place talk:Norway|Norway]], as there appear to be similarities between Norway and Sweden.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 03:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
-----+== Importing early ancestors [13 September 2013] ==
-Just to throw out some different wording for consideration; I have used "Conflicting Data" on my Jackson web site. I figured if I told about the conflicting info and explained how I came to my conclusions, it would give others an insight into how I came to a resolution. I didn't want folks wondering why my data differed from data they found on other sites. Some conflicting data can be explained in a couple of paragraphs, but I have one that took 3 pages. It will need some polishing before I can put that one on WeRelate!+
-I'd expect to put a couple of paragraphs on the person or family page near the bottom, but maybe with bright color text near the top saying 'See Conflict Resolution Below' or something like that that at the top to catch attention. Anything that takes more than a couple of paragraphs perhaps could be a linked article. --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 23:28, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+I just noticed this:
-----+"The Early column is checked for people born 1750 or earlier. Early people are excluded from GEDCOM import."
-Others may take the view that a generally common or conventional approach will never help, but that is not my experience. I have already tried such an approach and found it convenient to have, and I now want to improve it.+
-Of the ideas put forth, I think "Disputed Lineages" as a final section before "Sources" is least offensive and most on point. I encourage others to adopt the approach if they find it useful (or at least, can think of nothing better).--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)+
-:Generally, what is being suggested IS the conventional approach. You don't get much more conventional then BCG. Their guidance on this particular point is to include:+Ho hum.
-*Resolution of conflicting evidence. +
-:Because it:+
-*Substantiates the conclusion's credibility. (If conflicting evidence is not resolved, a credible conclusion is not possible.)+
-:How you go about doing that is pretty much up to you, but it's their recommendation to resolve such conflicts. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)+"WeRelate already has wiki pages for many early ancestors"
-----+Yeah, that may be, but not for mine. Or is this site only for Americans?
-I hadn't considered this situation; I'm very grateful for the discussion. I'm going to throw another wrench into the works. For the upcoming merge function, I've been thinking the system would take the events/facts from the newer page and add them to the older page if they don't already appear on the older page. For events like Birth, Christening, Death, Burial, and Marriage that we can have only one of, if different values for those events already appear on the older page, the system would add the events from the newer page as "Alt Birth", "Alt Death", etc. events on the older page. This means that in addition to a text section explaining why a certain event/fact is disputed, it still needs to be stored as an "Alt ..." event/fact. If not, it will be added as an "Alt ..." event/fact every time a page with the disputed event/fact is merged into this page anyway.+
-We currently don't have anything like "Alt Parent Family", "Alt Spouse Family", "Alt Husband", "Alt Wife" and "Alt Child" to record that certain family relationships are disputed. And we'll need to record the disputed relationships on the page, or every time a page with a disputed relationship is merged into the page, the disputed relationship will be added to the page anyway. I'm thinking that the system can assume that if a Person page is linked to two or more "Parent Families", then the second and later parent family links are disputed. And it can assume that if a Family page links to two or more Husbands or Wives, then the second and later links are disputed. But we'll need to have the user explicitly check a checkbox on the "Spouse Family" link to specify whether this spouse family is a second marriage or is known to be disputed. We'll also want to display a "Disputed" checkbox next to the child links, but we can derive the value for this checkbox based upon whether this family is the second or later "Parent family" on the child's Person page. +OK, fair enough, these early ancestors often have bad sourcing, but I think the exclusion in that case should be for people who have no sources, not because they are early. --[[User:Regebro|Lennart]] 17:16, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:This was a big problem when the site first started. Worsening GEDCOM duplicates of Mayflower passengers or other early immigrants were piling up badly, and when people who didn't know what they were doing merged with someone elses you ended up with a jumbled mess. I still run into these on occasion. But jrm03063 is probably right that certain instances it should be able to get waved when approached by an admin, but I still think our policy on this is the correct one. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 14:10, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:There's actually more reasons than simply the past transgressions of various GEDCOMs creating a bad impression. The further back you go, the more researchers you potentially intersect with, and the more appropriate it is to be careful in entering data. And of course, yes, everybody think their sources are appropriate. People that use no sources don't think they're necessary, people that use bad sources do so because they think that's all that needed. In previous discussions, no way to automatically assess source quality could be settled on. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 19:28, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
 +::I am emphatically opposed to deleting unsourced people pages. Working on early New England families, I have often found data, usually from drive-by gedcoms, which is accurate but unsourced. If the source is relatively easy to find and add, it seems counter-productive to delete it only for some one coming along days or years later to have to start over. Even in cases where the sources aren't apparent (just because we don't know about a source does not mean it does not exist), the data sometimes furnishes clues which are helpful in putting families together.--[[User:Jaques1724|jaques1724]] 20:35, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:::different topic, I think. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 23:41, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
 +::::Definitely different topic, but might be worth bringing up. IMO unsourced people who has had no edits since import could be deleted. The information is typically easily found on other sites. But, no biggie. --[[User:Regebro|Lennart]] 14:35, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:::::I agree with jaques. Eventually hopefully someday somebody will come along and clean up all those pages. But they are part of families that have been linked to, so form a junction in a big mesh that is our unified tree, and to create holes by deleting them is just as disruptive. For example, when somebody deletes their tree, it will often delete 2 or 3 children out of a family of, say 8, leaving the family incomplete, etc. Also, occasionally, the source is posted on the family page, and so it's there, just in a different spot than might be expected. Better to let the cleanup on existing problems be done in a thoughtful, careful manner, just limit the amount of new problems that can be created as much as possible. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 16:20, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
-By the way, if the resolution of conflicting evidence gets really long, I'd rather have it moved onto an article than to create a subpage. Subpages aren't automatically renamed when you rename a page, and they aren't automatically redirected when you redirect a page. Creating separate articles if necessary just keeps things simpler.+:I'm pretty sure that any of these policies can be waived if someone thinks they have a special situation, or their GEDCOM content is particularly well done. The policies represent what seems to be good practice in the general case. Folks should feel free to appeal if they think it appropriate. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 11:25, 10 September 2013 (EDT)
-What do people think?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:18, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+== Help with a Transcript [10 September 2013] ==
-----+
-:This is just going to be messy regardless of what we do. The first issue I have is that I object to having information that is just plain wrong continued to be listed as if it's a legitimate possibility - i.e. labeled "disputed" or "alt." I know that's a line that humans are going to have to discuss, and many times there are good faith alternatives, but there really are many situations where information is just plain wrong. If we continue to present it as a viable alternative, we're doing a disservice and spreading the wrong info - particularly if this "alt" info makes its way into gedcoms downloaded from WeRelate. I would rather have people who get the notification emails generated by the merge keep deleting nonsense than keep the bad information on the page - it's work, but it's the wiki way. It also preserves "alt" as alternatives that could actually be possible. I do feel more strongly about this with regard to relationships (which are harder to clearly label as wrong) than with dates, where we can at least use the note field to explain why something is wrong or disputed.+I'm making my first attempt at creating a Transcript page and am not really clear on the most efficient/useful way of doing it. I'd appreciate it if some of you who have experience with transcripts would take a look at the initial part and provide suggestions on how to improve it.
-:Another issue - I don't think it makes sense to assume that "later" parent families are the "disputed" ones. The parents are listed in order that they are added to WeRelate, and although in many cases the older page will have been "cleaned" and have the most reliable data (we hope), that won't be true everywhere, and it's not intuitive to change the order to reflect what's the best data. Plus, elevating one set of parents and calling the rest disputed it doesn't cover two common situations 1) the dispute is whether the parents are known or unknown or 2) the dispute is which of two couples is the parents, with both being equally likely.+[[Transcript:Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts:Wise, John, 1673]]
-:I would love a way to indicate that parents, spouses or children are disputed, but given the discussion above, that's apparently excessively judgmental of me. A nice alternative would be a way to add a note to a relationship like we can do with events. --[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 18:43, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+--[[User:Jaques1724|jaques1724]] 23:00, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
-::From past experience I have had in informing someone that their information is wrong; unless they are a professional genealogist, some do not take it very well. My recommendation is to obtain all of the useful information a person probably has before saying outright that they are incorrect. I guess that does not sound very nice but unfortunately sometimes it is necessary. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:12, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+: I would be happy to help. Let me know where you want to converse... --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 11:27, 10 September 2013 (EDT)
-:::Beth, a very good observation. <BR>+::[http://archive.org/stream/biographicalsket02sibluoft#page/428/mode/2up]. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 11:51, 10 September 2013 (EDT)
-::::Almost everyone thinks they are "right" about whatever position they take, <br>+
-::::most do not take kindly to being told that they are "wrong", <br>+
-::::and some seem mistake honest discussion for personal attack. <BR>+
-:::Objectivity is rare. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 20:40, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
-::Let's don't forget - this is a shared space. The caveats that are expressed on wikipedia apply - if you don't want to see your contribution edited, re-edited, changed around, etc., you should probably find a different place for your work. We're after the community sense of what's correct. We can't be afraid to "fix" things that are broken because we might offend.+== New logo [12 September 2013] ==
-::I take the view that the person currently working any page has the information that's present there and whatever the best additional information is at that moment. They should make any and all corrections and changes that they believe are appropriate. Nothing is ever really lost, because this is a wiki. Even so, anything that I change because it was incorrect gets a note or (from here on) added to a disputed lineages section. Within that, I place information on the relationship/linkage that I found to be incorrect, along with links to the family and person pages involved (this sort of gives the feature that Amelia wanted, without actually placing such links in the left-hand column).+What happens next with the [[Logo Suggestions]]? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 17:03, 10 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:The next step is a vote, but I will bring this up at the Overview Committee meeting on Sunday. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 08:05, 12 September 2013 (EDT)
-::I avoid situations of A says X and I say Y by adding whatever source information I have. If the discussion is focused on the relative merits of sources, the discussion will probably remain constructive. If two parties reach an impasse, I think the community can be called upon for assistance and the generally accepted/majority view will prevail. If the other side remains unconvinced they can and should write an extensive minority opinion. After all, new information comes to light from time to time, and perspectives change.+== WR needs clarification of the 'Famous person' living exception [26 September 2013] ==
-:::Really I am okay with whatever we decide. This is a dynamic site so what we decide now may be changed in the future. The dynamics is one of the many things that I love about this site and a new and updated version of the Think Tank. Although, I '''am''' having fun imagining a court of 3 Wiki Judges deciding the outcome of a genealogy impasse. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 21:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+I apologize if this was discussed elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything in a quick search. I noticed that several siblings of President George HW Bush were tagged as speedy delete, which I have deleted. But I think WR needs to clarify what persons fall under the famous living person exception. Being the brother or sister of a famous person doesn't seem like a good enough reason, but this isn't defined anywhere I noticed. I suggested something else related to this to Dallan, but I want to bring it up here. [[Person:George Bush (2)]] has an ugly 'after 2010' in the death section so he could be added. Could this instead be replaced by a 'famous person' tag which will then enter him and anyone else with it into a category so it can be checked to be certain the person meets WR's criteria for 'famous'. Merely having a wikipedia page doesn't seem like a good enough rule for famous but before I go on a deletion spree of the siblings/nephews of George Bush I want to be sure.--[[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 13:54, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:When you say "clarification" do you mean that or do you mean "change"? My understanding was that the rule was clear cut: no living people unless they have a Wikipedia page. The rationale is simple: the website excludes living people in order to protect privacy. If you are the subject of a Wikipedia article then the information is already in the public domain so there can be no objection to having the information on here. Adding an extra rule trying to define "famous" would be a futile exercise and just lead to endless disputes. What possible advantage could there be in deleting this information? All it does is degrade the quality of this website and annoy the people who have spent time adding it in the first place. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 16:47, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
 +::I don't see anything 'clear cut'. In fact I see zero actual stated policy. I am not suggesting deleting George Bush, British royals, or other clear exceptions obvious at all. But what about border line cases? Brothers of famous people, nephews, etc. What about their spouses and children? Many of them are not considered notable enough for wikipedia, why here? And I also don't like the idea of being wedded to the hip of wikipedia policies. Alot of people on Wikipedia I do not believe are famous enough for their public information to be widely known and discussed. A wikipedia article is a pretty low bar considering what passes for 'notable' over there. But assuming that they are, why are non notable nephews of George Bush to be left intact? [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 16:54, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:::I think that the Wikipedia policy explained [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources here] makes a lot of sense for us to adopt as well. They say that people's private information (e.g., birthdates) should only be on WP if that information has been widely published or if the person has made it clear that they don't mind that information being known.
 +:::Wikipedia has a much larger community, and receives a lot more scrutiny. I definitely don't think we need stricter criteria than they do, and I think it makes a lot of sense to piggyback off of the natural scrutiny that pages there receive (especially pages about living people) - I vote that our criteria for including living people is that person must have a Wikipedia page with a birthdate. That seems both straightforward, and easy to "enforce". -- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 17:08, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
-----+::::We are not a branch of Wikipedia. Let's get that out of the way first off - not to mention that Wikipedia condones the storing of large amounts of porno on their commons site - including some absolutely unspeakable images. Wikipedia is not a good example of a 'responsible' site. But let me given an example related to my point- perhaps a certain author, or military personnel, or reporter, notable enough for wikipedia - can we really say that some of the Generals added there are notable to have the names of their spouses, children, etc added to WR? +
-It seems that we have two distinct situations here:+::::Actually, this is a sidetrack about my actual point in my first post that AndrewRT flipped out over. Are the non notable siblings and relatives of Presidents now OK here? That is all I was talking about deleting. If there is notability, it should be on a case by case basis. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 17:16, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
-# There are two dates or relationships, and the contributors are not yet sure which is preferred, or there is some evidence to support both (or more likely, there is no good evidence to support either).+
-# There are two dates or relationships, and the contributors can generally agree that one of them is wrong.+
-I know that we could remove the wrong date/relationship from the page, but having to re-remove it every time someone uploads a new GEDCOM with the incorrect information would be a pain and violates the idea that newly-uploaded GEDCOM's shouldn't be too burdensome to the community. Also, even though they'd be useful, I'd rather not add notes to relationships because most desktop genealogy programs don't support notes on relationships and it would cause problems when we implement GEDCOM re-upload. Having a specific "disputed" flag on the event/fact or relationship, with the reasoning recorded in the big text box, would make it easier for the system to treat disputed information differently from non-disputed information. +:::::I start to see the issue. I was just looking at the father of the Duchess of Cambridge. While he doesn't have his own WP page proper, he is discussed explicitly in a section on her WP page. So being absolutist about whether there is or isn't a WP page may be missing the mark a bit. But it does get dicey if we start letting people make an argument on a case-by-case basis. What if the requirement is that there be a WP page dedicated to the person, or that contains discussion of a person's genealogy - and further - that such WP page be provided as a source in support of a death fact/living person exception? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 17:51, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
-How about the following?+:::::See this page as a for example - [[Person:Michael Middleton (3)]] --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 17:56, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
-* The system doesn't automatically mark anything as disputed. So for example a person could belong to multiple parent families (which they can now) while people figure out which one is correct, or if nobody can definitely say which one is correct.+
-* When merging, if the to-be-merged page contains an event/fact or relationship that does not already appear on the merged-into page (either undisputed or disputed), it is added to the merged-into page as undisputed.+
-* People can mark any event/fact or relationship as disputed by checking a "Disputed" box. If you do this, you should enter your reasoning into the big text box.+
-* Disputed events/facts and relationships don't appear in the left-hand infobox. Instead, they are displayed in the body of the page above sources, images, and notes.+
-* Disputed events/facts and relationships don't appear in GEDCOM exports (when we get that working).+
---[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 12:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+
-----+:::::On the other hand, the page for [[Person:Peter Middleton (3)|his father]] seems more problematic. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 18:01, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
-Dallan, I am not sure of your approach to match/merge, but the way he PAF utility works, the two pages proposed for merging are displayed side by side. Each data field on the right hand page has a check box beside it. If a field is blank on either page the data from the filled in field is incorporated. If both pages have conflicting data, the values from the left hand page are incorporated unless the box on the right is checked. Then the value is overridden. Any changes made should trigger a dispute flag requiring an explanation, probably on the Talk Page rather than in the big text box. The main issue then becomes source quality.--[[User:Scot|Scot]] 15:33, 16 July 2008 (EDT)+
-:::Yes, the Talk page is a better spot. Since we can store multiple occurrences of relationships and events, if both slots are filled we can by default add the other relationship/event as a second opinion rather than overriding it, but I do want to display both pages side-by-side, and there should be a way for the user to say which of the two conflicting relationships/events should be listed first.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+:::It's quite possible that this is one of those things that was discussed to the point of a conclusion - but nothing was ever recorded in a way that we're able to find just now. That said, my understanding is that the only exception is for people with a Wikipedia page - ''and even then'' - the only thing we allow is the mechanical extract of the wikipedia content. When I've created such pages, I leave the death date and place empty, but add a description to the death fact that says "wikipedia notability excepetion". I suppose we should get this policy written down somewhere, and I should go back turning those descriptions into a template that takes people to a policy statement... --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 17:25, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
-:I love it.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 13:37, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+::::::I think that it's simplest to understand and enforce if it's a hard and fast rule - living people must have a WP page of their own in order to be included here. -- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 17:59, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:::::::But then it can ONLY be for that person. That is what I meant by case-by-case. General so and so's wife is not famous, and neither are his children, or his possibly still living parents. That is where I see the problem and where I believe it steps into invasion of privacy, or could. Under this rule, GWB's nephews are not famous and will be deleted unless they become notable in their own right. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 20:47, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
---- ----
-Interesting comments Dallan, and I think you're on to something. My concern was that human users would need to see something on the body of the page explaining about known issues/errors that are "out there" in the world knowledge base. I hadn't considered that there might be a way to automatically recognize discredited information on the way in, which is better still (and even if you can only do a few special cases).+The policy is at [[ WeRelate:Policy#Living People]], and says;
 +:Information on living people will be removed unless the person is a notable individual documented on Wikipedia whose shared ancestry is likely to be of interest to the community. (This exception is used primarily for heads of state.)
-My question then, is what of the "alternate birth", "alternate death", etc. events. To my mind, those are by definition disputed or less probable facts. The primary birth/death dates being the generally accepted and/or most likly values, the alternates being other values that have been seen but are probably incorrect. What does it mean then, for an alternate birth to be "disputed"? Does this mean we should drop the "alternate" tag from the various event types and simply allow zero or more births, deaths, or whatevers? The first non-disputed value for birth/death/christening is the value that the page goes by...?+There is this guidance, which is similar but not the same, on [[Help:Person_pages#Can_I_create_person_pages_for_living_persons.3F|Help: Person pages]]:
 +:The exception [to "no living people"] is for famous and notable people whose ancestry is of interest to the general public. The general rule of thumb is that if someone has a Wikipedia page listing their birth information and/or parents, a WeRelate page may be created for them. This exception is used primarily for heads of state.
-I suppose it would be a drag to change the database so that every "alternate <whatever>" event became simply "<whatever>" with the disputed flag set. On the other hand, ambiguity about the fact items probably isn't a good thing.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+So having a Wikipedia page is a prerequisite, but they also need to be someone "whose ancestry is of interest to the general public." There is much discussion from 2006 to 2012 at [[WeRelate talk:Living people]].--[[User:Robert.shaw|Robert.shaw]] 18:13, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
---- ----
-I've been thinking about the "alternate" events as well. It would be pretty easy to change if we displayed them without the "Alternate" word (so just "Birth" for example), but kept using the "Alt birth" tag in the database (which you'd see only when you view a page difference).--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 14:44, 25 June 2008 (EDT)+I'm going to chime in since I'm pretty sure I wrote both those help pages ... they express the original rationale for the exception that's described above: there's no point in deleting information about (originally, extremely) famous people who happen to be living, and a greater benefit to leaving it because it shows the common ancestry people might be interested in. The policy was defined when it was pretty much only used for Bill Clinton, the George Bushes, and Queen Elizabeth. I didn't expect at the time it would be as widely used as it is now (hence the head of state reference), but that goes to show that different people find different lines interesting. Since it's no longer true that the exception is used mostly for heads of state, that should be deleted.
-----+While ideally I would argue that interest in the ancestry should also be its own criteria, as a practical matter that's impossible to enforce. The only way to have a clear enforceable rule that is something other than allowing or banning all living people is to refer to some external standard to define what's famous. Wikipedia, faults included, is the best thing I can think of -- it's readily accessible to all, it covers all types of famous people, it has a policy on this (that's arbitrated by far more people than we are), and it's constantly updated. It also has a benefit of making this a very easy question to answer--George W. Bush's siblings and one nephew get pages, if people so desire to create them. In relatively rare cases like the Duchess of Cambridge where there are living parents/grandparents not themselves famous, they can be links in the chain listed as "living" for now.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 01:35, 14 September 2013 (EDT)
-I don't think we can assume that "alternate" means less likely or disputed. Going back to the first scenario Dallan identified above - there are cases where there's evidence/sources for two different dates and researchers (or at least the page editor) don't know which is the more reliable. That's different than disputed, which means that there ''is'' one date that's more likely than others, either because it's the one favored by more careful/better source or because it comports better with other information (including, for example, not belonging to someone else). So whether or not the different fields in the left hand box are marked "alt" or not, I wouldn't want to see all the alt dates/relationships marked disputed or to lose the ability to show more than one piece of information for a field.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 17:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I think we'd still allow alternate events. Some of those events might be marked as disputed, but they wouldn't have to be. And on the left-hand box we could possibly display them under just the event name rather than the "Alt event" name (e.g., display alternate birth events under "Birth" rather than "Alt birth").--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:21, 3 July 2008 (EDT)+I don't have anything more to offer on what the policy is or ought to be, other than running with an idea from [[User:DMaxwell]] to provide a common practice for labeling the situation. See [[Template:FamousLivingPersonException|this template]] and [[:Category:FamousLivingPersonException|this category]]. Check out any of the pages listed in the category for examples of use of the template. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 09:04, 14 September 2013 (EDT)
- +
---- ----
-So are we saying that an event can be plain, alternative, or disputed? Or are we saying that events can be a combination of alternative and disputed? I suppose you could also add "disproved" as a more definitive form of the negative, but I'm already confused by alternative and disputed, without adding anything else.+The Overview Committee discussed this today. The exception to the living person policy is only for people who themselves have a page on Wikipedia (on any of the language versions). The exception does not extend to living people who are mentioned in a Wikipedia article. In the example given above for the Duchess of Cambridge, she would have a page on WeRelate since she has a page on Wikipedia. However, her parents would not have pages on WeRelate. WeRelate no longer allows empty placeholder pages titled Living - so it is advised to place a link on the Duchess' page to her grandparents' page in the free text field as well as a link to her page on her grandparents' pages. This follows the policy that states "If you would like to link pages to others that would otherwise be linked through living people (in-laws with living children, for example), do so by creating direct links in the body of the pages. Do not put information about the living people on the pages."
-We need a couple of variants here, but not so many that folks don't understand what the intention is.+I have not heard of any requirement that "the only thing we allow is the mechanical extract of the Wikipedia content." I will ask Dallan for clarification on this. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 10:30, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
-As someone once said, "it's such a fine line between clever and stupid."--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 16:37, 3 July 2008 (EDT)+: I encourage the committee to review [[:Category:FamousLivingPersonException|this category]]. It collects Person pages of the living that I have found, entered by a variety of folks (oddly enough, mostly ''NOT'' me...). A number will be found to be without directly corresponding WP pages - but none of them strike me as an intrusion upon privacy. I expect to continue my search and tagging efforts.
-----+: My memory as to whether anything other than a mechanical extract is allowed may very well be flawed, as it may simply be my imperfect memory of a good way to prevent misuse of these exceptional pages for the living, and not a policy as such. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 20:15, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
-I've been worried about this too. I think we could generally remove the distinction between plain and alternate events, which is why I've suggested that we remove the "Alt" part of the event title, although there will be some places where we have room to display only the first event (the first birth event and the first death event for example). So then we'd just have two types of events: plain and disputed. Coincidentally, New Family Search has a similar structure: plain events and disputed events. They also allow multiple events, although just one of each type of event can be displayed on the summary page.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:35, 3 July 2008 (EDT)+::The policy states there must be a corresponding WP page for the living person exception. I wonder if it would be wise to add a few parameters to the exception template, namely the page title and language version. Then, the link in the death field could go to WP. The page could still be placed in the FamousLivingPersonException category, but there would be only one link to it on pages instead of two. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 08:44, 16 September 2013 (EDT)
-----+:::I'm not usually in favor of revisiting policy, but this is a case that may be justified on grounds of improved information on the issue. In particular:
-Sorry, I havn't been aware of this discussion before, as I have been busy preparing a presentation for an upcoming convention. To me, the biggest problem with public or commercial sites is that they don't get corrected and/or consolidated. As a result, the discredited stuff is all there uncorrected. The other day, I checked the IGI looking for a particular person born in 1639 +- 10yrs and found 92 separate entries, all of them submitted, none with spouses or parents mentioned and no extracted entries. I suspect that nFS will become the same type of mess in that nothing submitted will ever be deleted so searching for good information will become another case of trying to find a needle in a haystack. There are many lineages that have been discredited through scholarly research. Many people cling to them because they may have once been, but no longer are, accepted by DAR, Mayflower Society, Dames of the Magna Carta, etc. Dozens of colonists have been endowed with royal ancestry by the many genealogical charletons of the 19th century, Gustav Anjou, eg, one of the most notorious, but certainly not the only one, or by just plain wishful thinking. Case in point; JRM and I both worked on a page for Sargent Francis Nichols of Stratford, CT the other day. A persistant myth is that he was the brother of Richard Nichols, the first English governor of New York. Richard's mother was Margaret Bruce, a descendant of Robert the Bruce, King of Scots. This has been the subject of several articles in publications such as TAG by several noted genealogists which have proved it wrong. I noted this on Francis' talk page with the articles cited and deleted the alternate parent as well as a note stating "it is clear there is a close relationship between Francis and Richard." To me, the goal of WeRelate is to reach consensus upon which is the most reliable source and present the single best choice as to what is correct along with documentatin. My understanding was that the talk page was where the dicussions to resolve the conflicts take place. Anyone wishing to reverse an edit must justify it first, not just change it back.--[[User:Scot|Scot]] 15:04, 16 July 2008 (EDT)+:::* We now know that the domain we're talking about is relatively small (the current category is just shy of 100 - assuming we double that - it's still pretty small).
 +:::* It's clear that WP won't have a separate page for every person that is openly discussed. Spouses, parents, and other immediate family of a really famous person are often very explicitly discussed in WP - even though they may not justify a WP article in their own right.
 +:::* The value of being able to add pages for a famous person is going to be seriously diminished if we can't also allow entry of linking people that connect to that person to their genealogical past.
-----+:::I'm not going to try to suggest exactly what the policy really ought to be - beyond the (it seems) generally accepted principle that we should have a common practice for marking this situation. At present, I'm working through the category to see how many don't have their own exactly corresponding WP page. I'll bring those names forward when I have them for wider review. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 15:44, 18 September 2013 (EDT)
-By the way, I've edited the [[Help:Wiki etiquette]] page with a goal to include a link to this page from the [[Template:Welcome2|welcome message]] that everyone receives. The comments in this discussion are relevant, so I'd appreciate thoughts/edits that anyone has to offer on that page.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
-== GEDCOM size limits for rookies [29 July 2008] ==+:::Ok, I've walked the entire category, adding WP sources where needed, and all I've come up with is [[Person:Michael Middleton (3)]], (comment added by [[User:Jrm03063]])
-It's been a few days since I've been scorched in this forum, so I'm going to offer a suggestion that's bound to be controversial. For "rookie" users of werelate, the total number of pages they can create via GEDCOM upload (a cumulative total over any number of GEDCOM uploads) is limited to some modest number - say, 100 or 200. I would define a rookie as someone who has fewer than some limiting number of contributions made by hand - perhaps a 100 or even 500.+I'm glad that the Oversight Committee has given us a definitive policy on this now - as I said before, the main risk is that the website infers that a category of pages is acceptable, someone like me comes along and adds them and then some time later someone else comes along and deletes them because they have interpreted the policy differently. Now I hope we can all agree to implement the policy that's been agreed.
-The problem I'm regularly encountering, when searching out stuff to merge, is that it is very easy for a total newbie to upload a very large GEDCOM and then walk away. There has been discussion of the idea of purging unused GEDCOMs after a time, but that approach is not entirely free of disruption, especially if the community has begun to integrate the data. I've suggested writting a warning to encourage users to start small or use the digital library, but warnings like that are typically ignored. There have also been discussions of ideas that try to identify dubious GEDCOMs at or before upload, as well as to merge on the fly. Those are good ideas too, but I'm thinking they may be missing the point. A dedicated user can clean up even an awful GEDCOM. A decent GEDCOM that is abandoned - even if good quality - imposes a real burden on the community.+It's a pity, however, that Jennifer's explanation of the policy chose a bad example that was factually incorrect: "''In the example given above for the Duchess of Cambridge, she would have a page on WeRelate since she has a page on Wikipedia. However, her parents would not have pages on WeRelate''". Actually, Wikipedia has pages for both at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Middleton and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole_Middleton. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by this - should we follow the words of your agreed policy or the specific example you gave?
-An initial size limitation would also, I think, discourage upload of materials that are apt to be duplicated (vast harvestings from ancestral file and the like).--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 17:04, 18 June 2008 (EDT)+As for her grandfather [[Person:Peter Middleton (3)]], he is clearly allowed on WeRelate as he died in 2010. The key thing about this family is that they are a notable family in their own right as they are descended from minor nobility, hence the interest in their ancestry. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 20:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
-:Hi Jrm, I am sorry that you felt scorched in the forum. There is a size limit for gedcoms in place now. I recommended no gedcoms; but one of the attractions of WeRelate is the gedcom feature. It seems we have to take the good with the bad. After the match/merge features is added, perhaps we can reevaluate WeRelate and make a more informed decision.+:Sorry, slight correction: Based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Middleton this discussion] it seems that there are divergent views on Wikipedia as to whether or not they qualify for separate pages and the situation is currently still fluid. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
-There is an interesting, well I don't know what you call it and I can not find it again; but it is a large colored box with text placed on articles in the Wikia that are unsourced. It says something to the effect that this section has no sources and is subject to deletion. If someone can find this, perhaps we could use the banner on our pages.+::When I wrote the above message it was factual ;) I checked WP to make sure pages did not exist for Michael or Carole. At that time, I am certain they were both redirected to Catherine's page. It's odd, because Carole's history on WP says it was un-redirected before I wrote the post. Anyway... it would be correct to follow the words "''The exception to the living person policy is only for people who themselves have a page on Wikipedia (on any of the language versions). The exception does not extend to living people who are mentioned in a Wikipedia article.''" --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 21:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
-Also once a user uploads a gedcom or creates a new page; those pages are now part of the community of WeRelate and not really owned by the user. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
-----+== Tree Delete Nomination [2 October 2013] ==
-I am aware that there is a size limitation, but it's far too big for people who have not determined that they are really going to stick with werelate. I also know that Dallan is working on tools that merge on the fly, but that's never going to be a perfect solution. The real problem is abandoned material - and deleting after the fact isn't a solution, because the rest of us don't stop working while waiting to see if a new user is going to stick around. By the time we realize that someone is gone, it's often (for me anyway) more trouble to get rid of their upload than to just carry on, finish the job, and hope that doesn't happen again too soon.+
-I don't blame the new users particularly. This is a very different paradigm then traditional genealogy, and there is no reason folks would fundamentally realize they are working in a shared space. Their previous experience with genealogy software is you toss in your GEDCOM and see how you like it. If you don't, you just walk away.+Been a while since I found anything quite as unhelpful. The GEDCOM upload of User:Wuiske on 7 Jan 2008 - not a large one - but seems uniformly disconnected and utterly unhelpful. I could delete it by hand on my own, but the few dates that it has put it outside the medieval spaces where I'm usually operating. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 03:09, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
 +:This tree also contains a large percentage of pages without dates, many of which may be living. Since these types of pages would be rejected in current GEDCOM upload standards, Dallan will delete the tree and inform the user. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 10:32, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
 +::The tree has been deleted.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 02:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
-Really, is there any reason that a new user to werelate needs to upload a GEDCOM of more than a couple hundred people? If they are really going to use werelate, they can start small and upload the rest later. If they aren't, let's restrict the damage they can do.+== Too many DAR GRS Source pages [6 November 2013] ==
-Adding "good" information really isn't helpful unless someone is prepared to take responsibility for getting it merged and cleaned up as far as place names so forth.+
-I would also add that I've done a lot of merging, well over 2500 families and their associated members. It's real work, and it's just not fair to hope/assume that such things are going to magically happen even if voluminous trash is routinely uploaded. I would rather be adding real source material or merging families that wind up increasing the knowledge of the different contributors - not just merging and re-merging, and re-re-merging the same ancestral file content that I've merged numerous times before - and worse - for users who have already given up on werelate. Dallan, please help...--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 11:43, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+Please excuse this post if this has already been discussed elsewhere. I could not find mention of it.
-:I do agree (surprise), but I also wonder if we could accomplish (most of) the goal in other ways. Right now, the upload page has no information on the consequences of one's actions aside from licensing information. It could be a lot clearer that uploading a small file is a much easier way to start. The page could even state it as an official policy that no users should import information from before 1700 (or whenever) without checking if it already exists (although we new search would make this vastly easier) -- the chances of pages already existing go up exponentially for earlier people, and more recent data also tends to be better researched and more reliable.) +I have been noticing that there are a lot of different source pages which all seem to be for the same source, namely the online DAR Genealogical Research System, so I did a little search and came up with the list below. It looks like all parties were going for the same thing, but had slightly different approaches and used different page titles which resulted so many duplicates.
-:Or instead of limiting the upload by number of people, I imagine it could also be limited by date, permitting only pages of people born after 1700, which would get us similar benefits while encouraging more recent info. The problem with any gedcom limit is going to be that many newbies don't know how to create limited gedcoms - it's either everything in their program or nothing. So a simple warning may not work, and a programming limit means some people just won't upload. I can live with that, personally, but it's worth thinking about. --[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 16:40, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+ 
 +What are the opinions on combining them ALL (yes, I did say "ALL") into one source page and what is the favored approach? This may cause some waves with some of the originators, but others seem to have moved on.
 +* originated 2006 - [[Source:Daughters of the American Revolution]] - a possible contender for merge with the others, I am guessing it was created before the Patriot database was fully online
 +* originated 2006 - [[Source:National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (NSDAR)]] - likely same scenario as above
 +* originated 2009 - [[Source:The DAR Genealogical Research System]]
 +* originated 2011 - [[Source:Daughters of The American Revolution. Genealogical Research System]]
 +* originated 2011 - [[Source:United States. DAR Descendants Database]]
 +* originated 2012 - [[Source:National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Applications for Membership]]
 +Did I miss any? --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 01:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
---- ----
-I took a swing at a warning page in my personal pages area. I'm all for it, but I didn't think it would get the job done. Maybe I don't know how to say what's needed without going on too long, but I was struck that what folks need to know is more than most will take the time to read. I agree that any burden we place on uploads - size, quality, etc. - will result in some uploads not being done.+:Well, "Applications for membership" seems more specific than the others. But otherwise, yes, merge. --[[User:Regebro|Lennart]] 09:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- +
-But I go back to an idea that I mentioned above - what good is a GEDCOM, of whatever quality, if no one is around to take care of the data? We could harvest GEDCOMs if that's what we wanted to do, and toss them all in, but the problem is having folks who will take care of that data. If carving a large GEDCOM into a smaller piece to try out werelate is beyond someone, what are the chances they're going to stick with this learning curve?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 17:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, let me throw this in. I suspect that a fair number of people will upload their GEDCOMs with no intention of sticking with the learning curve. They want to publish their tree in the hope that someone researching some of the same people will contact them. They don't necessarily want to go in "whole hog," so to speak. But does that invalidate their contribution? And would we be doing a disservice to the rest of the WR users who might want (or need) the info in that person's GEDCOM if we discourage that upload? --[[User:Ajcrow|Ajcrow]] 17:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::That's a legitimate purpose, but this is a place for actively working your data in cooperation with others - at least to a basic level of correctness and completeness. Of course nothing is ever really "done", but walking away without a basic pass through your data after upload - no attempt to clean up your own duplicates, merge with other werelate data as appropriate, standardize and correct place names - amounts to burdening the active members of the community without their agreement. We could provide a help page that instructs people on where to get GEDCOM split utilities so they can readily break their stuff up into a piece for upload now and another for upload later, if they remain interested.+
---- ----
-In looking at the GEDCOM's that have been uploaded in the past year, I'm going to drop the size limit to 5MB. Only a few (44) GEDCOM's are larger than that. That amounts to roughly one user per week to have an email conversation with and ask them to consider uploading a smaller GEDCOM, or to evaluate whether they're committed enough to get permission to upload the larger GEDCOM.+::WELL! Please excuse me - I've merged the two "Genealogical Research System" sources and opened a discussion on this below. I'm not sure whether the Descendants database is really the same as the list of ancestors. I also seem to remember seeing a note somewhere that Applications for Membership do not appear online (and some of that material, which may be ordered, remains copyright to the DAR who explicitly refuses having it reproduced on line). So hmmmm! --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 15:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- +
-I am reluctant to make it smaller than that right now, because I think the main issue we're dealing with is that it's difficult for most people to know up-front whether they will stick around until they see some benefits. They start out by uploading a GEDCOM to see what happens. If nothing happens, they don't come back and their tree is abandoned. But if others start adding onto their tree by merging their trees into it, and they receive a periodic email telling them that "you now share common ancestors with N new users", or "N new people are now reachable from your tree" or something to that effect, then chances are greater that they'll return. And since we don't currently issue these periodic emails because basic functionality that these uploaders would want, like gedcom re-upload without needing to delete their tree first isn't finished yet, most users at present are fairly inactive.+
-Rather than put things in place up-front to discourage people, I'd prefer to talk about ideas for making uploaded GEDCOM's:+== Signing in [21 September 2013] ==
-# not burdensome to the community, and+
-# not disruptive if we decide later to remove them.+
-For example, a possible solution to #1 might be to ask people to do their own merging, especially for duplicates within their own GEDCOM. We don't have tree match-merge working yet, but until we do we could do a "poor-man's" matching by reporting the family pages in their upload that have the same husband and wife names as existing family pages and asking them to review and merge them (we'd need to create a simple "Merge" function and write an instruction page). If they don't respond to this request after a week say, then we remove the GEDCOM.+Until yesterday it was usually the case that one sign-in was enough for a day. Suddenly I am having to sign in every time I reopen my browser. This is a bit of a pain, but, okay, security is security. HOWEVER, I was just leaving a message on someone's talk page, went to preview it, and was told I had to sign in before editing. The message, which I had spent 15 minutes on, has disappeared. Grrr. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 10:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 +:What browser & version are you using? --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 10:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
-Another thing we could do, and in fact is high on the ToDo list, is to detect when uploaded GEDCOM's are going to cause problems due to a lot of internal duplication or obvious errors (e.g., people being born after they die), and to report the errors prohibit the upload until the errors have been corrected.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 12:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+I am experiencing this as well using Chrome. It used to only happen when i stepped away for several hours which was understandable, but yesterday it was happening every 15 min or so. I feel your frustration goldenoldie. My workaround to avoid losing text is to open a new tab or window, sign on in the new window. Then go back to the old window, hit the back button and an alt-p (preview) and you should be able to continue editing. This is not a fix (which is still needed), just a salve to help you avoid losing your work in the future. Best wishes! --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 13:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 +::I've alerted Dallan to this problem. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 13:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
---- ----
-I'm not clear on how far this goes:+I am using Firefox, latest version as far as I know. So glad to know I'm not the only frustrated one. Speed of upload has improved as the day wears on. (I am in the UK so I have been using WR for 8 hours already today.) --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 14:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
-"Also once a user uploads a gedcom or creates a new page; those pages are now part of the community of WeRelate and not really owned by the user.[Beth]"+
-I think that should be made clearer, and available to all who join if that is the current belief.+
-I tried to rejoin and ask on the wiki list, but was unable to join, twice. I would not have commented here if I had been able to put it on Beths list.+
-::Hi, I have subscribed you to my mailing list; sorry but I don't know what caused the problem. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 13:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-Jrm03063, I looked at the warning page you have created. The need is for a warning that a person must click through to add anything here. When I joined and added my gedcoms, I saw nothing here that was alarming at all, anywhere. Now I do wish I had not added my gedcoms, and I am not sure if I can completely remove them. The best solution is to remove the ability to add gedcoms. That way the 'junk' is easily taken care of and with warnings people will not add their information without careful thought, and then, one family at a time. Need for this conversation would be eliminated completely.+
-I have been burned in a major way by a researcher and I am careful to retain rights on my research everywhere, so I have been finding the whole discussions on this matter disturbing. I certainly want this made clear soon. +
-I really liked the wiki format and was more trustful perhaps because of the connection to Allen County Library. I thought the only problem would be someone coming in and putting up false information over my own research. FamilyTwigs- [[User:Familytwigs|Twigs]] 12:55, 20 June 2008 (EDT) -+::On another issue, Dallan said some hardware was changed out recently, perhaps some configuration wasn't quite preserved. There seems to be some changes with patrolling too. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 15:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
-::FamilyTwigs -- could you explain more particularly what it is that you're finding alarming that you didn't understand before? The one thing that is repeated often here is the terms of the license that permit "your" work to be edited, downloaded, and redistributed, so if that's what's concerning you and didn't get through, that's an additional problem.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 13:35, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+== Problem with images? [22 September 2013] ==
-::FamilyTwigs -- something else to keep in mind is that whenever someone makes a change to a page, you can always change it back. In fact, each page has a link to "History," which shows all of the revisions made. --[[User:Ajcrow|Ajcrow]] 13:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)+Is anyone else having issues with some images loading? Like [Image:LibraryBook.GIF] or [Image:Letter from Fanny Cook to Catherine Munday, 29 November 1875, page 2.png]. I'm getting 404 errors for both. (The actual image files, I mean, not the description pages.) Most other images are working though. &mdash; [[User:Samwilson|Sam Wilson]] ( <span style="font-size:0.9em">[[User_talk:Samwilson|Talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Samwilson|Contribs]]</span> ) &hellip; 01:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
-::One good indication of whether a new user intends to work their data, is whether or not they create a user page. If they don't even bother to do that, then we can assume they won't do more. I am not so sure about removing unsourced data, as over the years, I have collected a lot of such data which has later been validated by source information I have found, although it should not be allowed to supercede sourced data. BTW any data that claims AF, IGI, Ancestry.com, wfT and such as a source should be considered unsourced.--[[User:Scot|Scot]] 18:39, 16 July 2008 (EDT)+:At least I now know it's not my computer or server. Lots of problems with loading thumbnails -- presumably to be fixed soon?
 +:Of greater concern, I can't get the Duplicate families report -- it's "Not Found". --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 01:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
-----+::Well, the site seemed altogether down for a while there. When systems come back up, they sometimes don't immediately return with their full complement of filesystems. It's pretty easy for me to believe that images live on a different filesystem from the wiki database proper. Other reports? Also possibly somewhere not currently up/accessible. So I'ld say hang in there for now... --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 01:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
-I want to re-ask the question about GEDCOM size limits for rookies in a different way. What is the largest database that any of us can imagine doing a responsible job maintaining? While I'm watching 22K pages, that's only as a side effect of merging - there is no chance I could do quality research on a space that big. My own tree is only slightly over 3000, and I can't see it growing all that much. Doubling perhaps at the outside, but not much more.+ 
 +::Search server also seems down - so if you can tear yourself away - it's probably time to call it a night... :) !
-When a GEDCOM comes in with over 5000, or even 10000, from someone who isn't a comitted user - why are we allowing that to be uploaded? It's so unlikly that GEDCOMs of that size will be anything more than large dumps of unproofed commercial data bases. Essentially oceans of unsourced names and dates that create a merging burden without adding real information. A dilligtent researcher will still have to go back through any such lineage and try to document it with appropriate reference material before it really becomes useful.+:::Yes, let's see what happens in a few hours or tomorrow. I assume Dallan knows what's up? As for calling it a night — I've only just had breakfast! ;-) Sunday morning in WA... &mdash; [[User:Samwilson|Sam Wilson]] ( <span style="font-size:0.9em">[[User_talk:Samwilson|Talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Samwilson|Contribs]]</span> ) &hellip; 01:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
-I also think that a file size limit, while convenient to implement, isn't the right answer. It needs to be a content size limit (number of people/families).+== Thanks for the Wikipedia Update! [9 October 2013] ==
-I understand not wanting to discourage contributions, but no one should be uploading data they aren't willing or ready to maintain, and it is just beyond reasonable to expect that GEDCOMs with over 10K people are going to be dominated by really useful information. At the same time, it's hugely unfair to expect that a shared-space community is just going to clean up someone else's thinly sourced yet bloated database. In a few minutes a rookie can create months of work for others. Mind you I'm not holding such folks personally responsible - they don't know the implications of what they're doing - so they just have to be reined in.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 15:49, 17 July 2008 (EDT)+To Dallan et. al. - thanks for the wikipedia (WP) update of 9/22. It hadn't run for several weeks and the accumulated backlog of pages waiting for a WP extract was approaching 500. So let me start by saying I'm most appreciative...
-: I may easily be one of those who could/would upload a large GEDCOM without realizing the implications of the work involved. We are used to uploading to sites that don't require further input; so perhaps it needs to be spelled out in more detail up front just what would be expected of someone who wants to upload a GEDCOM. I've been holding back my main data base until match/merge but maybe I need to learn more of what's expected. --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 16:16, 17 July 2008 (EDT)+However...the extract we're working from is getting a bit tired. Even after the refresh, 120 "source-wikipedia" templates were not resolved. Also, more and more I'm starting to notice that useful internal cross-links aren't resolved. By that I mean - if WP page "A" is extracted and has a reference to some yet-unreferenced page "B". Then, we add a new correspondence that creates a correspondence for "B". The extract present on "A" doesn't get the local cross link to "B" until we perform the full update. It's possible that there's value in having an intermediate WP update to pick up such cross-links - even if we don't go to a new full WP extract (I defer to those who do that work to know whether it's just as easy to do the full update with a new extract).
-:: I would think that if you upload XYZ pages, that you'll go through each of them sanitizing place names to make sure they point to something in the place database. Further, when you find family names that have an index greater than 1, you'll check to see if there's a duplicate of the family already here. When you find duplicates (and you will, especially if you have any colonial genealogy), merge them or get help merging them with the pages that are already here. There's been talk that Dallan may be able to automate some aspects of that process on the upload side, but I don't see how that would ever be a perfect/complete solution. You'll still need to visit your own pages and tidy them up. Maybe others disagree, but that's how I see it. --[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]]+So thanks again, and please forgive me for asking for yet more! (BTW, our overall correspondence set w/WP is approaching 100,000 - which starts to make us look like we're serious about making use of WP content. I don't know of anyone else that has tried to bring open scholarship like this into genealogy on this scale - between WR native content and integrating WP content. I really think this matters - but then, I always did...). --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 14:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
---- ----
-I've set the GEDCOM upload threshold to 5,000 people. People can request to upload larger GEDCOM's, in which case I'll review their previous contributions to decide whether to allow it. Less than 10% of our current GEDCOM's are over 5,000 people, so this shouldn't cause difficulty for most uploaders. I've also added some intructions to [[Special:ImportGedcom]] based upon instructions [[User:Jrm03063]] has written. Hopefully this will help.+I would like to second the vote of thanks for the wikipedia update of 9/22. My personal backlog of place pages was about 100--yesterday my email letter box was very large.
-Just a quick note: I'm not sure I would recommend that people go through their pages and make sure that the place names point to Place pages, especially not yet. I've spent some time this week improving the place matcher used for GEDCOM uploads so it's better than before, but we have a list of what looks to be about a million non-US places that need to be added to the place wiki later this year.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+A couple of things I noticed: (1) distances appear to be coming across from Wikipedia to WeRelate--is this the end of place A being "about south of" place B? Sure hope so. (2) sometimes the Wikpedia page writers change their titles between our making an original request and the time the request is acted upon (for instance, writing separate sections for "History" and "Geography" when we had noted a single section entitled "History and Geography". In this case the update cannot be made--and worth checking if a section update is still sitting there untouched after several months. --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 19:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
-== Color-Coded State Maps [7 July 2008] ==+== New Logo Suggestions - please vote [19 January 2014] ==
-Hello WeRelaters,+It was suggested back in July that WeRelate could [[WeRelate talk:Watercooler#Time for a new logo.3F .5B7 July 2013.5D|use a new logo]]. The [[Logo Suggestions]] page was set up to collect ideas. Now, we would like to put this to a vote. Please take a moment to view the logo ideas at [[Logo Suggestions]]. Then, sign your name here to vote for the logo you would like to see represent WeRelate. Please note that due to attribution requirements, the final logo may need to be tweaked a bit. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 13:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
-Look at this fantastic site: [http://monarch.tamu.edu/~maps2/]. Select a state and then you can color code the counties and export the whole shebang as an image.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 09:46, 22 June 2008 (EDT) 
-Nice find. It certainly is easy to use---much easier than creating such maps manually, or extracting them from the Wikipedia, which is what I've been doing. However, doing a test on this I'm not sure how easy it will be to import these images into WeRelate. The image backgrounds use "transparancies", which either may not import well, or would require some manipulation to import. Will check on it and see. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:08, 22 June 2008 (EDT)+*Votes for '''Single Tree'''
 +:: --[[User:Regebro|Lennart]] 08:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
-OK, did a check. The program creates gif images and seems to give a decent display. Not sure about the license restrictions on this, if there are any. Need to check terms of use. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:45, 22 June 2008 (EDT)+*Votes for '''Collaborative Forest'''
-[[Image:TestImage.gif]]+I wish I could see where to sign my name. My vote is for Collaborative Forest--if the belt was deeper and more visible.
 +--[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 09:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 +*Votes for '''Delijim's Suggestion'''
 +::--[[User:Jhamstra|Jhamstra]] 16:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 +::--[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 +::--[[User:Quolla6|Q]] 19:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 +::--[[User:janiejac]] Though the tree could be just a tad smaller; but NOT small like 'single tree'.
-----+*Votes for '''Relating'''
-Bill, I did not find any license or terms of use on the site. Wes Coleman used maps on his pages on Rootsweb and added a note that the maps were available from Texas A&M and gave the link. See Wes' page here [http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nansemondcolemans/uscensus/]. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:24, 22 June 2008 (EDT) +::--[[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 20:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC) My choice (assuming I can't vote for my own), although as per Jrich, I would prefer they were narrowed down and then iterated.
-:Beth, I also checked, and no terms of use. So I sent an email to determine if there's a problem in using the images. I'm sure there's not, otherwise they'd not have the thing out there for people to use. But its always good to check.+*Votes for '''Sharing (color)'''
-::Bill, did you receive an answer regarding the usage of the map images? --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 12:26, 7 July 2008 (EDT) +::--[[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 22:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
-:::Nope! But its a collegiate site, and the responsible party may not be around during the summer. I'll ask again in the fall.+::--[[User:Lidewij|Lidewij]] 08:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 +*Votes for '''Sharing (gray)'''
-Also, on a related matter. Note the modifications to the DIV on the Exchange page. I adjusted this so that it wouldn't overlap the advertising sidebar on the right. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:45, 22 June 2008 (EDT)+*Votes for '''keep the original logo'''
-== Data Consistency in Werelate [2 July 2008] ==+::--[[User:RichardK|RichardK]] - I'm not particularly inspired by any of the suggestions. The current logo may not immediately shout 'genealogy' at you, but it's distinctive, bright and slightly eccentric. I say stick with it unless and until someone comes up with something truly worth changing for.
-I've been working on [[WeRelate:Functional Specification for Data Consistency Verification|a functional specification document]] that describes data consistency testing we could perform in the framework of werelate. While I'm calling it a specification, it's pretty informal. If you are interested in this sort of thing, or have some experience with tools of this sort elsewhere, I would like to hear your thoughts and comments. I think it would give [[User:Dallan|Dallan]] and others something to work from when they get around to adding features like this to werelate.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 14:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)+:: --[[User:Prcb|Prcb]] 17:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I actually kind of like it, it's abstract, simple, and active. The very clean look of WR is enhanced by this logo. I'd vote for change if an alternative were a clear improvement.
-:Consistency checks are something that I'd like to implement in the future, so I encourage anyone who is interested to get involved. [[User:Jrm03063]], could you perhaps create a "WeRelate:" page from the contents of this page? You have to be an administrator to edit someone else's user page, so making this a "WeRelate:" page would allow others to edit it. Thanks!--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:30, 1 July 2008 (EDT)+*Votes for '''none of the above'''
 +::Nothing strikes me, nor do I think the old one great. No real ideas, I might combine Relating (interconnected) and Sharing (puzzle) ideas? --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 19:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
-::Done, find it at [[WeRelate:Functional Specification for Data Consistency Verification]] --[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 20:07, 1 July 2008 (EDT)+::I do want to express my appreciation for the efforts invested so far, but I don't feel like we're there yet. I would rather see the interested parties continue to work the issue. Changing when we're not ready - leading to another change too soon - would be very unfortunate. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
-== Image Markup [1 July 2008] ==+::While I did vote, I do think this could use some more work. A ton of other genealogical sites use some kind of tree/branch/forest for a logo. I cannot say I am a fan of the 'pawns' logo, either though. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 02:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
-I may have asked this question before, but if so, I don't remember seeing an answer.+::: Agree with users Jrich and jrm 03063. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
-The article article [[Settlers of Thompsons Creek, Washington County, VA]] includes a markup of a map with annotations identifying various reference points in the area.+
-The annotations do not show up on the version of the image in the article, but if you click the image, it takes you to the stored version, and there the annotations do show up.+
-Why do they not show up on the image accompanying the article? or in the version displayed below? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 19:40, 29 June 2008 (EDT)+
-[[Image:Thompson's Creek Settlers Markup.jpg]]+:: I prefer to keep the existing logo while we keep working on something unique to WeRelate. --[[User:Susan Irish|Susan Irish]] 17:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
-:It's a known deficiency that's on my todo list. The technical reason is that the annotations aren't part of the image itself; they're actually stored in the text of the Image page. When you include the image on another page you're including just the picture. What needs to be done is I have to read the annotations from the text of the Image page and add them to the image when the image is included on another page.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]]+::Ditto. I like the idea of Relating (prototype), but it is definitely a prototype, and doesn't suggest genealogy. The Trees, however trite, are recognizable as genealogy. So, relating (connecting), collaboration, and quality -- all in one? --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 18:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
-== Trees as a notepad or checklist [3 July 2008] ==+:: I agree that we aren't there yet, but I think that we can't just let things die here. I think that almost any of the suggestions would be an improvement to the current logo, but I think that it's not worth changing until we've found something we love. My worry is that we'll just push this off forever. How do we move forward to actually get closer to a new logo? -- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 20:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
-A werelate "tree" is really nothing more than a list of pages. Usually they represent a tree of some kind, but this is not a requirement.+:::I suggest we leave it open for a couple more weeks to let everyone have their say and then see what the verdict is, although the current prevailing view seems to be that more work is needed. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 20:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
-Lately, I've started using a tree as a general purpose list of families and people that I need to do further work on, because they represent duplication or are obviously in error. So, I just created a new tree called Errors and Duplicates. If I find an error or duplication that I don't want to resolve at that moment (say I'm in the middle of working on a different family), then I just add the page to my Errors and Duplicates tree.+:: --[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 03:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)"Sharing Genealogy" and "Sharing Genealogy Through Collaboration" could be tighter: "Collaborative Genealogy" or "Genealogy Collaboration". Or, there is an opportunity to really globalize the site with "'''The World Family Tree'''" as the second line, like how Wikipedia has "The Free Encyclopedia". If that is considered taken, maybe '''"The Free World Family Tree"''' of '''"The Free World Genealogy"'''? The font in the wordmark seems slightly less professional than possible, given that Wikipedia itself uses an open-source Libertine font: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_of_Wikipedia. To get people to fully associate WeRelate with the idea of a wiki like wikipedia (an online collaboration that goes beyond a database and includes articles), I would go with an all-grey logo and the puzzle piece does seem to draw that association as well -- is it possible to take the puzzle piece globe from wikipedia and stick a tree on top of it?
- +--[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 05:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)I don't have Adobe Photoshop c5 but if somebody does: http://psd.tutsplus.com/tutorials/3d/create-a-spherical-3d-puzzle-with-photoshop/
-I used to do this with a personal page, which had the advantage of allowing me to make notes on what the issues were, but this is a lot quicker.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 09:58, 2 July 2008 (EDT)+--[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 06:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Put my money where my mouth was and built what I could [[Talk:Logo_Suggestions#Implying_the_Collaboration_with_Wikipedia_elements_.5B10_December_2013.5D]]
---- ----
-That's a great idea. Another thing you could consider (if you wanted to edit the pages) is to add them to a category. The long-delayed but upcoming search function will let you search based upon category.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:21, 3 July 2008 (EDT)+Howdy, I thought I'd take a stab at a "compromise Logo" combining two of the logos that may be a good alternative (combined 5 votes so far):
-== How is a Family Page named before the wife is added? [2 July 2008] ==+[[Image:WeRelate-Logo-Compromise.jpg|left|150px]]
-Hi, I am trying to help [[User:Susyq|Carol]] fix her pages. Before I fix this page, just wondering how the page was named before the wife was entered? The page is [[Family:Dorcas Jones and Issac Standifer (1)]]. Also there are 2 pages for Issac. One under Isaac Standifer and one under Issac Standifer. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)+Jim--[[User:Delijim|Delijim]] 16:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
---- ----
-Well, from the history of the page it looks like she has entered the wife's name in the title first and then the husband's, which of course is reversed. Then when WeRelate created the page, it would have had "Dorcas Jones (new)" as the husband's name and "Isaac Standifer (new)" as the wife. It looks like she has taken out "Dorcas Jones (new)" and replaced it with "Isaac Standifer (1)" and then tried an "Isaac Standifer (3)" as the wife, but later took it out and didn't replace it with anything. Thus it looks like a family was created without a wife. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 11:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT) 
-== Family page and named spouse and unknown spouse [3 July 2008] ==+: A good logo is a really hard thing to do. It needs to be identifiable when it's shrunk down to be the tiny left-hand side icon on a browser URL type-in field (perhaps 8x8 pixels?). It also needs to look nice when it's grown to a much larger size. You probably can't just rely on automatic algorithms to do the growth/shrinkage - you will probably have to create a number of different explicit sized versions for tiny, medium, large, and extra-large variants. Somewhat perversely, the different versions will be needed in order to get different size images that will be perceived by a human as, in fact, the same image (the next set of candidates should be shown at different sizes).
-This is not addressed in the family pages tutorial, or if it is I missed it.+: If I had a really expensive Madison Avenue firm designing a logo for us, I'ld ask them to try to come up with a design that suggests as much of the following as possible (in no particular order):
 +:* a single shared space/tree
 +:* A collaboration environment that isn't just optional - it's fundamental/required
 +:* We're a wiki
 +:* We're the cool way to do genealogy.
 +:* Your information is safely in the care of a real library
 +:* We're free - and so is your information - now and forever
 +:* trees (as images) suggest genealogy well enough, but I'm not sure identifying us as another genealogy site/software system is what we need from our logo. I feel like people will already know that - what they need to know is how we're different from the others.
 +:* Words or a motto can be nice in/underneath the larger versions of the logo, but it would be unfortunate if a wordless version (required in the tiny form) didn't suggest any of the key features/differences about WeRelate versus non-collaborative approaches
-If the you know the name of the husband but not the wife how do you enter her name? Do you enter unknown unknown or just unknown for the surname or do you enter the married surname for the spouse? I have entered unknown unknown but I am cleaning up data for another user and this user has entered the spouse's surname, before I change it I need to make sure that it matters. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)+: Some rough ideas that try to break/expand the trend of trees and individual puzzle pieces -
 +:* people holding hands suggests collaboration - people working together and making one of those pyramids that we made in HS gym classes years ago suggests something about collaboration and yet a single entity.
 +:* It wouldn't be a sin to use elements of the existing logo to create the new one - in could be a benefit. Could a different arrangement of the people do a better job suggesting key themes of our site? Different people working on the same puzzle? One of our existing logo's "people" on one side w/a puzzle piece below them, another adding a second piece to the first. Or even - two such people looking down from different sides at two linked puzzle pieces.
 +: Like I said - I'm pretty sure that this is the sort of thing that's really hard to do well. I'm pretty sure I'ld be awful at it. So the people making this effort have my respect and gratitude. That said - if we go to a new logo - I hope we're really sure that it's an improvement, lest we do more harm than good. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 17:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
---- ----
-It doesn't matter all that much whether you Unknown or Unknown Unknown. If you leave the wife's name blank, the system will create a page with just the one "Unknown" for the wife, so a single "Unknown" will be consistent with other pages. What I'd rather ''not'' see however is people entering the surname of the husband for the wife's surname, because it will confuse the matching algorithm somewhat (not a big deal, but "Unknown" or even "Unknown Unknown" are better).--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:21, 3 July 2008 (EDT)+Ok, I'm not sure how we'd possibly be able to accomplish communicating everything you've listed above without coming up with a logo with way too much text or way too busy.
 +:My take is as follows:
 +:* the Logo needs to be fairly clean and not cluttered with "mixed messages", IMO.
 +:* The collaborative environment of a wiki is still an unknown to many, that is I believe the most important aspect of what wiki sites like WeRelate "bring to the party", and needs to be emphasized most, IMHO. I still run into people that are working on their family tree that are unaware or somewhat unaware of the positives of a wiki environment.
 +:* Althouth I didn't come up with the puzzle piece logo, the more I thought about it, genealogy is like trying to assemble a very large puzzle, where some pieces fit, but many do not, so I think the puzzle part of the logo works for most serious genealogical researchers, unless they just don't like puzzles. :)
 +:* As one person noted above, the tree symbol may be sort of over-used, but it still remains the "universal symbol" of genealogy.
 +:* I'm not particularly big on logos with people "holding hands" and the whole "cumbaya" thing, but maybe that's just me.
 +:* Finally, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to reach a consensus on this since we have so many varying opinions, which reminds me that a camel was a horse designed by committee, so if anyone wants to step-up and give it a better try, then I'm not sure we'd ever get total agreement.
 +Anyway, just my $.02.
 +Best regards to all,
-== Happy 4th and WeRelate once again in the top 101 [4 July 2008] ==+Jim
-From Dallan:+: I entertain no illusion that all of what I note could be accomplished - like I think I said - if I had a ton of money and could ask for the sky, the moon, and the stars - it might look something like that. Still, there is something there that I'm wanting to stress: we should know what we're trying to communicate in a new logo. The extent to which a new logo does or doesn't do a better job of communication, is the extent to which it should be favored. I don't favor new for the sake of new - because that costs you whatever market identity you already have - without any clear idea that you're going to improve something.
-''I recently received the following link:+: Maybe the holding hands thing isn't your thing - and I'm not sure it's mine - but I think there are more female genealogy enthusiasts than there are male - and maybe it would reach them? Maybe a different image - one of our current WR logo "people" handing a puzzle piece off to another WR "person"?
-http://www.familytreemagazine.com/podcast/episode2.asp+
-In it Family Tree Magazine talks about their new 101 Best Websites list.+: If you think that people don't know that WeRelate is a genealogy site, then a tree makes sense. Still, a tree on its own is pretty weak and we ought to be able to send a bigger message. Maybe a tree with a trunk that looks like a big number "1"? Suggesting that we're working on one tree? Maybe a tree in front of an obvious background containing a big "1"?
-WeRelate.org made the list again this year. What's especially wonderful is+
-that when their editor Allison Stacy was asked to pick *one* website to talk+
-about in the podcast, she chose WeRelate. The success of WeRelate is due to+
-you.''+
-The part of about WeRelate is toward the very end of the podcast. I believe that Allison is also highlighting WeRelate in the upcoming magazine.+: When I see another round of logos - I'm going to try to imagine how they do (compared to what we've got) - on communicating ideas like those in my notes above. They could be subjectively great art and beautiful even - but this is art with a purpose. I mean no disrespect to the people who are working on this - I think this is really, really hard - but I felt like I couldn't vote on other people's efforts without being clear about how I'm measuring them. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 19:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
---[[User:Beth|Beth]] 12:39, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+::Just thinking about process here, there isn't a clear favourite here so it sounds like there needs to be another "round". I suggest the process needs to include some kind of "reward" for the people who have spent the time to develop their logo suggestions, so how about we say the three logos that got more than one vote (i.e. sharing, relating and Delijim, counting jrich and GayelKnott per their comments) should go through and people should be able to submit logos that are developed from one or more of these three? Given the small voting base here, should we try to sample non-users of the site as well? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 20:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- +
-== Person page - adding spouse of Family [14 July 2008] ==+
- +
-Spouse of Family? choose » remove +
- +
-Add new family page Select existing family page+
- +
-I believe that the layout above leads to confusion with new users. Some are adding the name of a new family page before the spouse is added. We need a redesign of this section.+
- +
---[[User:Beth|Beth]] 12:47, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Hi beth. I don't know that it needs to be redesigned. Seems like it works they way a reasonable person would expect it to. What might help would be a different label. "Spouse of Family" and "Child of Family" might be a bit confusing, and lead people to putting in the wrong information. I remember the first time I looked at this entry system I had to pause a moment to figure out what was meant. ie, "Does this mean I should put in the children of this person" or does it mean "identify the parents for this person". Intuitive is always better, and this isn't what I'd call intuitive--reaonable, rational, but not intuitive. The fact that this is set up to describe a "Family" as a basic card type is I suspect novel, and could use a little more immediate description of what is intended. What's there now is probably the most precise and concise way of saying what's needed, but it's not the terminology people expect. Would "Identify parents" work better? I'm not sure, as I don't routinely use this aspect of we relate.+
- +
-Ditto for spouse. Perhaps "Identify Spouse" would be less confusing? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:22, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-Hello Bill,+
-One day soon I hope to return to our project. Actually I think the line below adds to the confusion more than anything else; it says add new family page or select existing family page. If no family page exists; you should select add new family page. When you select that a screen pops up and you enter the spouse's given name and surname and click okay.+
- +
-But I belive that some new users interpret the line - add new family page - to mean they are supposed to type in the name; they then end up with a family page with no spouse. That is why I say something needs to be changed to make this clearer. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 14:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-Hi Beth. I believe what I was saying was that It works as described and intended, but the way things are labeled is not intuitive. A new user might get the wrong idea, which is what you were pointing to. My observation is simply that there's no redesign needed, just some more intuitive labeling. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 19:17, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-Well Bill, we agree just a problem with semantics; so we need intuitive labeling. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 19:33, 4 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::This is causing all kinds of family page problems with one new user. Hopefully this is just isolated case; but if we have an influx of new people making the same kinds of mistakes the administrators are going to be hard pressed to fix all of the pages.+
-Not only does the user type in the name of the new family page; but sometimes it is done in reverse so we have Mary Smith and John Jones as the family page.+
- +
-::Also if you are creating a new family page; why would you need to select an existing family page? --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 08:44, 5 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::Not being one who uses this approach, I'm probably not the best person to answer, but I'll take a shot at it anyway. I think the short answer is that there are a number of ways you might have arrived at this point. Depending on the past choices that have been made you might or might not have already created a family card for a husband and wife pair---but you haven't actually created the person cards for them as yet. So, when you create the person cards, you need an option to attach them to the already existing family card.+
- +
-:::On the otherhand, you might be starting from scratch on this family, and have previously created the husband or wife, but not the family card. In this case you need an option to create a family card from scratch.+
- +
-:::On of the fun things programmers get to do is account for every dad-gum possibility that someone might encounter when using the system. That means they have to think of everything, including ways of interacting with the program that are different from the way many users would approach it. Different is not bad, just different, and the programmers have to accomodate those differences. This is an example of that. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 09:36, 5 July 2008 (EDT) +
- +
-:Okay Bill, first I am going to attempt to improve upon the tutorial by uploading images of screen shots and see if that helps. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:19, 5 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Sorry for not responding sooner. How about renaming the labels to:+My understanding of a Logo is that it is simple so it is easily recognised. This is a good example, the banks logo is well know by all Australians but what does it have to do with banking? [https://www.commbank.com.au/] I like the tree and jigsaw idea but keep it "symbolic". Use the KISS method of design! "Designing a good logo is no simple task" quote from Wikipedia but it doesn't have to be a complicated design.--[[User:Burgjoh|burgjoh]] 23:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
-* Parents & Siblings Family page:, with a "find/add" label to the right (replacing the "choose" link), and an "Add another parent family" link underneath+
-* Spouse & Children Family page:, with a "find/add" link to the right (replacing the "choose" link), and an "Add another spouse family" link underneath+
- +
-What do you think about the proposed renaming?+
- +
-In the very near future I'm planning to get rid of those little dialog boxes that pop up when you add a new family entry. Instead, when you click on the "find/add" link, a new window will open where you'll enter the names of the husband and wife of the family along with their marriage date, and the system will do a search to see if a matching family page already exists and show you possible matches. If the family page already exists, you'll select the matching page and the system will fill in the family field with the title of the selected page. If the family page doesn't exist, you'll click on an "Add" button, the system will create a family page with the information you've entered, and fill in the family field with the title of the newly-created page.+
- +
-I'm hoping this new approach will reduce the frequency of creating duplicate family pages and mis-titling family pages.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:45, 11 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Dallan, I would prefer to have under add spouse; add new person or add existing person. Although I realize that we cannot currently add an existing person without entering the person and their index number. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 21:12, 11 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::We could keep the "add new family" link.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 03:19, 15 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Source Citation Details [10 July 2008] ==+
-I have several questions regarding the format for entering data into the fields. I want to make sure that I follow the correct format in my screen shot for the tutorial.+I am a terrible artist but I am quite good at visualization. Here are my thoughts:
-Regarding the field Volume / page. Should I enter: ''Part I / 107-109''. And how do you enter the data if you only have a page number and no volume number. May I just enter ''I: 107-109'' or is the ''/'' important?+1) A slogan and a logo are not the same thing - they are processed in different parts of the brain. I dislike any verbiage in a logo. It takes too long to read whereas a distinctive logo can be instantly grasped by the visual part of the brain without having to invoke the language processing center.
-What about record name? My source is a book. The name of the article is Rev. Robert M. Cunningham, D. D. which is in the Chapter (not really numbered chapters; just book sections) named ''Recollections of North Alabama''. How about this? ''Rev. Robert M. Cunningham, D. D. in <nowiki>"Recollections of North Alabama"</nowiki>'' +2) I think that if we simply put hands on opposite sides of the puzzle piece(s) it will convey collaboration. Two hands, each on a separate piece with the pieces interlocking, should convey the concept.
-Year - I assume that is the year of publication of the book.+3) I would flatten the tree into the puzzle piece(s) and leave it incomplete - branching off the edges.
-Text / transcription location - I probably will not enter anything in the text field; but if one enters text does one follow the text with this ''/''+I can see this in my head but I cannot draw it: two interlocking side-by-side pieces each held between thumb and forefinger, thumb and forefinger on opposite sides (and rotated) - one above and one below, tree spreads across the two pieces.
-if one has no transcription location.+--[[User:Jhamstra|Jhamstra]] 00:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
-My article gives source information. I suppose I will enter that in the notes field.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 17:17, 10 July 2008 (EDT)+: Maybe a snipped of the hands from "The Creation of Adam" - but with the hands a little further separated holding interlocking puzzle pieces? Sacrilegious I know - but struck me a little funny! :) --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 16:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
---- ----
-I personally don't worry too much about the format of the "Volume/Page" or the "Text/transcription location" fields as long as they're reasonably easy for others to interpret. Date is somewhat ambiguous in the GEDCOM standard. I think it's meant to be used for the date you looked up the information, which is useful for online sources. But it also makes sense to use as the date of the particular edition of the book you looked at. I think using the "Record name" field for the Article and chapter makes good sense.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:45, 11 July 2008 (EDT)+This graphic and this site is a good place to look for inspiration
-== Spam? [15 July 2008] ==+http://www.123rf.com/photo_18407421_jigsaw-pieces-being-joined-shows-teamwork-and-assembling.html
-On the 13 of April 2007 [[user:Lynn9932]] added a Gedcom to this site. She also added a note on her user's page that would appear to be spam. Would one of the admin's check this please? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 22:40, 14 July 2008 (EDT)+Would be nice to convey yhe concept of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts and high quality (Gold standard) maybe one of the pieces could be golden and just connecting mahes the others turn gold (graduated fill)--[[User:Dsrodgers34|Dsrodgers34]] 03:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
---- ----
-I agree. Seems to be a case of "link spam." Since this is the first time I've seen this type of spam on WeRelate, I want to get Dallan's opinion. Thanks Q! --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 01:29, 15 July 2008 (EDT)+[[Image:logothought.jpg|left|150px]]Based on the hands and jigsaw pieces, how about a dynamic logo ?
-----+Three pieces are already there, could have symbols on them.
-This isn't the typical "link spam" case that we used to see before people had to confirm their email address in order to edit pages: It's not on a high-visibility page and the user has other contributions. It may be that the user made a mistake and forgot to put in the full URL of their family website. I left them a message about it. In general though I think we should be more lenient about people adding links to their own user pages.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 03:19, 15 July 2008 (EDT)+
-== Current status of various projects [29 July 2008] ==+A hand adds a fourth gold piece, and the other pieces turn gold
-Would it be possible or advantageous for there to be a list of projects or features that Dallan has planned and the current status? I know these things are discussed in various places at the watercooler, but I'm hoping for a standard place, easy to find, not buried in many discussions, where this info would be made available. For example, I'd like to know the current status on the match/merge function. And how far down on the to-do list is a feature that will allow line breaks in uploaded notes in GEDCOMs. If there already is such information available, I don't know where to look for it. --[[User:Janiejac|Janiejac]] 12:15, 15 July 2008 (EDT)+An alternative could be to have the tree or a plant growing out of it--[[User:Dsrodgers34|Dsrodgers34]] 00:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
-----+The graphic is a bit of a thought bubble. Im imagining it put on a sphere like wikipedia.
-and is there a place that tells what has just been done?+The vine represents the connectedness, the interlocking pieces represent exactness and scholarly work
-I have been away about a week and now when I go to add someone it looks very different. I also cannot find whatever it was that I always used that was a directory of all the pages I have in various trees. I cannot recall the term for this but it doesn't seem to be in the pull down where it used to me. I am feeling very disoriented and if there is somewhere that details the changes I would like to find it?--[[User:MizLiv|MizLiv]] 15:58, 24 July 2008 (EDT) 
-The new look is from the new search engine that Dallan installed. Dallan is editing the tutorials. You still select My Relate>User Profile. That will show a list of all of your trees and you can view the list from there. Or you can select My Relate>Trees and select to view the tree there. You can also select My Relate_Launch FTE. Do these include the directory that you are looking for? --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 17:18, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+: I like this - I think a jigsaw of a tree could be a cool logo - puts together the ideas of collaboration (via puzzle) and genealogy (a tree) -- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
-----+::I agree with a lot of what jrm and others have said above, but I'm not sure a puzzle on its own is enough to communicate "collaboration". This is what I had in mind with the shaking hands, although I do agree that the 123rf logo does this better with different people putting pieces into a puzzle. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
-thank you!+
- +
-the list I can't find is not the index within the tree - it was a link that I went two that let me see ALL family pages, individual pages, images etc. no matter what tree they were in. I can't figure out if I am blind or if it has been moved? I thought it was in the MyRelate pull down memory? I have used it a lot so I know I am not imagining it but I COULD be wrong about where it is and suddenly have gone blank!--[[User:MizLiv|MizLiv]] 19:12, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-Well, I am not sure that I ever found the list that you are missing. The dashboard has been moved to the top of the list under My Relate. Sorry that I cannot be of more help. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 19:36, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+
 +:::That is why I suggested different fingers putting different pieces together from opposite sides of the puzzle. Working on jigsaw puzzle with someone is a good way to learn to collaborate.--[[User:Jhamstra|Jhamstra]] 22:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
---- ----
 +My thought was we could leverage of the wikipedia jigsaw globe, which does suggest the collaboration, th exactness. I m suggesting the vine draped over the globe instead of the wikipedia symbols the vine is closer to the pando idea than a single tree symbol--[[User:Dsrodgers34|Dsrodgers34]] 22:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
-Would "Browse" be what you are looking for? Its under Admin in the pull downs. Or at +: Wow! Cool! Maybe we could go with my mash-up for the [[WeRelate:Wikipedia Biography Inclusion Project|Wikipedia inclusion project]]! :) (ok, probably not...)
- +
-[http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Browse Special:Browse]+
-[[User:Quolla6|Q]] 20:06, 24 July 2008 (EDT) 
---- ----
-Sorry for being late responding. In addition to the "Browse" screen, you can also go to the "Search" screen, check the "Watched" checkbox, and press "Search". This gives you a list of all pages in your tree, and unlike the "Browse" screen you can see vital information about the People and Families you are watching. You can even sort them by title or by date modified by checking the "Exact pages only" checkbox. [[Help:Search]] has more details. Since it does so much more than Browse does, I removed the Browse menu item from the MyRelate menu (but left it in the Admin menu), but then I didn't tell anyone that I did that :-(. I apologize for the confusion; hopefully you'll really like the new search interface or you can continue to use Browse in the Admin menu.+Suggesting:
-As for talking about changes that have been made, I'm [http://werelateblog.wordpress.com/ starting a blog]. There's not much there yet, and it looks ugly, but it will improve over time. +[[Image:WeRelateLogoProposal.jpg]]
-As for talking about changes that are going to be made, I'm not going to estimate dates any more, because I'm not a good estimator :-). But I have put a partial list of the things on my ToDo list on the blog (you'll see a link to the ToDo page in the upper right-hand corner).--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+[[Talk:Logo_Suggestions#Implying_the_Collaboration_with_Wikipedia_elements_.5B10_December_2013.5D]]
 +--[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 06:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
-== Google Books - Sources [24 July 2008] ==+:This logo seems a step forward to me. But the tree is too small, which I assume is to allow the features of the globe to be seen, so I would probably make it green to increase it prominence. Actually an animated gif going from the proposed picture to a smaller puzzle and bigger tree would also work, i.e., showing progress. Further, I don't like the word "free". Advertises the wrong message, imho, attracting people who want to dump their GEDCOM and invest nothing. I would prefer long-time participants because genealogy is an ongoing process: you never know if you have the final answer. I would prefer something like "Finding Out How We Relate". Personally I find the parallels with wikipedia overdone, but this would be most easily accomplished by calling it WikiRelate instead of WeRelate. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 15:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
-Hello Everyone,+: I really like this. I mentioned a few concerns on the Talk page for the logo suggestions. I just wanted to chime in here to say thank you for getting this conversation going again - let's keep thinking and working on this, and get a new logo! :) -- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 02:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
-I am trying to figure out what to do about online books (sources) found on the Google Books website. +:I love the globe covered with puzzle pieces. Could we overlay a tree on this globe? The tree planted on top looks a bit tacky and out-of-place to me. --[[User:Jhamstra|Jhamstra]] 05:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
-What is the policy of Werelate, and Google Books about Werelate users citing the book.+::I'm aesthetically challenged, and plan to abstain from the next round of voting on that basis. I did want to offer a couple ideas though (maybe they're horrid - but I wouldn't know...). What if it weren't a globe with a tree on top - but instead - a tree trunk that reached up into the globe? (a sort of lolly-pop tree). Alternatively, what if it were an incomplete puzzle piece globe (only the northern hemisphere with a handful of pieces missing) - with the trunk stretching up and starting to fan out - before it disappears into the northern hemisphere of a puzzle globe? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 16:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
-Many of these sources are virtually impossible to see in person.+----
 +My vote would be for the single tree (with the poodle cut) in green on the gray puzzle piece. Also, fewer words would be better, so just "Sharing Genealogy" or some such below the image.
-Can they be added as Werelate sources? If so how do we the users list them?+I never did quite get the original logo.--[[User:KayS|KayS]] 20:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
-By Title of Book, location Google books?+== Lost GEDCOM matches [29 September 2013] ==
-Thanks for the input on this subject+I'm in the middle of going through the errors and warnings on a GEDCOM and when I opened it today I noticed all the work I've done on it seems to have disappeared! Is this linked to the problems that other people have been having recently? Is there any way of getting it back? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 +:From my view of your file, 120 families are matched and 143 are not matched and only 2 are updated. 249 places out of 251 are matched. Had you matched or updated more families than this, or are the matched families not appearing in your GEDCOM review? What other work had you done that is missing? Just trying to get more details so I can message Dallan. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 21:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 +::Thanks - seems to be ok now. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 20:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
-Debbie Freeman--[[User:DFree|DFree]] 12:48, 19 July 2008 (EDT)+== Full source code for WeRelate available on github [10 December 2013] ==
-On another subject could we add a spell checker to Werelate? I though we had one before.+The full WeRelate source code and installation scripts are now available on [https://github.com/werelate?tab=repositories GitHub]. This means that developers can now use the WeRelate source code to create custom family wikis and wikis for genealogical societies. In addition, it means that anyone can now help implement new features for WeRelate.org. If you have experience developing software and would like to help us move WeRelate forward, I'd love to have your help! See [[WeRelate talk:Website features]] for more information.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 02:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
-:Google Books is a repository. If a book (which is a source) can be found there, the link to the book should be listed in the repository listing (e.g. [[Source:Allis, Horatio D. Genealogy of William Allis of Hatfield, Mass., and Descendants, 1630-1919|here]]).--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 18:12, 19 July 2008 (EDT)+--[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 03:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Hi, I have no programming experience but was wondering how to start, if possible, with creating a feature that would post a summary table to a family page (or person page??) that counts the number of grandchildren, greatgrandchildren, and great-greatgrandchildren from that point and lists their birth and death locations (in summary format so that places are no duplicated?) based on pages entered. Something like this:
-::Debbie, the browser Firefox has a spell checker. You can download from here [http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0.1/releasenotes/]. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 19:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+Grandchildren: 16
 +Greatgrandchildren: 42
 +GGGrandchildren: 108
 +Birthplaces: Toronto, York, Ontario Canada; London, London, England; etc. etc.
-== Cluuz [29 July 2008] ==+== Sandbox is back [14 October 2013] ==
-Here's a link to very interesting beta search engine site.+The [http://sandbox.werelate.org Sandbox] is back. The sandbox is a bare-bones playground that runs the same software as WeRelate but with a nearly-empty database. New features will be tested on the sandbox before they are moved to WeRelate.org. If you want to play around with ideas that you don't want to become a permanent part of WeRelate, create an account at the sandbox and try them out there.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 02:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
-[http://www.cluuz.com/Default.aspx?__VIEWSTATE=%2FwEPDwUKMTQ0ODMyMDI5NA9kFgICBQ8WAh4HVmlzaWJsZWhkGAEFHl9fQ29udHJvbHNSZXF1aXJlUG9zdEJhY2tLZXlfXxYPBQl2ZXJ0aWNhbHcFCXZlcnRpY2FsbgUIY2hrWWFob28FBmNoa01TTgUIY2hrQWxleGEFDWNoa1RlY2hub3JhdGkFDWNoa1Nob3dQZW9wbGUFEGNoa1Nob3dDb21wYW5pZXMFDGNoa1Nob3dQaG9uZQUNY2hrU2hvd0VtYWlscwUQY2hrU2hvd0FkZHJlc3NlcwUOY2hrU2hvd0RvbWFpbnMFDGNoa1Nob3dEYXRlcwUQY2hrU2hvd0dlb2dyYXBoeQUMY2hrU2hvd090aGVy&query=&vertical=web&chkYahoo=on&chkShowPeople=on&startAt=1&noResults=10&sites=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.werelate.org%2Fwiki&removeTerms=&__EVENTVALIDATION=%2FwEWFQLXkerrDgL%2F%2BOneAgKJ5PXlDALZ4rGICwKc9MboCgLl19%2F%2FAwK4nL%2F3CwLD%2F6SjCQKi2OOLBwLHm9DGBgKYkYbRBwK%2FicTBDgLn2fT7DgLc0db6CwLc8arEBQKooOS%2FBQLJ8YKoAwLm4sSPDQLtoKPwBQL4%2BuItAtKglOQD Cluuz]+== Bye for Now [27 October 2013] ==
-The specific link above allows you to search the WeRelate site. As an example, type in "Daniel Boone" (include the quotes---otherwise you'll get hits for "Daniel" and for "Boone" as well as "Daniel Boone". You can also use Boolean operators. Not sure if the standard Google symbols (beyond quotes) work here. +This is a bit of a swan song because you may not see my contributions on the place pages for a while--I have the first of two much-needed cataract operations this afternoon. Hoping to get back to "work" in a few weeks, --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 09:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- +:Best wishes for a successful operation and speedy recovery :-) --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 10:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
-When you do that you get a display of links to the site that contain "Daniel Boone". This is fairly neat if what you want to do is search specific to WeRelate, though its advantages will likely be overcome when the update to the WeRelate search engine are in place. Also, I've notice that with some settings links to other websites are also retrieved.+::Best wishes for a successful operation and speedy recovery.--[[User:Lidewij|Lidewij]] 14:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- +
-However, the really neat bit with this engine is the "grey" display of connectivity. Near the top of the page there will be a few links that will be in grey, with the form "Daniel Boone (208)" or something of that sort. Click on one of those links and you get a display map showing the links between articles in which "Daniel Boone" appears.+
- +
-In theory, this would allow you to quickly see other connections to Daniel Boone located on WeRelate---Might be faster to scan the images than to look at the individual links to cull out what's of interest and what's not.+
- +
-[[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:57, 20 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Q, is this working? I tried this using Firefox and I did not get any results. I don't mean zero matches; there were no results displayed. By the way Dallan's new search engine is installed. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 19:28, 24 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-It works for me (maybe it was down earlier). The link graph is cool.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+Get back ASAP and bring back a few more as helpful and competent as you. All the best.--[[User:HLJ411|HLJ411]] 19:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- +
-:As I recall from my PERL programming days, there's a canned routine for generating such displays. I've not seen it implemented previousy (assume this is probably a redo using PHP). The item seems neat, but you need a large data rich site to get any use out of it. WeRelate would qualify as "data rich". Some County web pages (e.g., Russell County GenWeb) are also extremely data rich, and this works effectively on that site. Sites like Ancestry are compartmentalized, and much of the data is only served up on demand, so it doesn't work well there. But on data rich sites, it could be very useful. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 18:40, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-We could do something like this based upon the "what links here" links. Probably not anytime soon though. I'll have to mull it over.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 21:27, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+Get well soon! (and maybe a large monitor and large fontsize? :) ?! --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 20:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- +
-:As elegant as this is, there are many other things I think would be needful, and I would, I think, deserve higher priority. In the meantime, the CLUUZ site itself seems sufficient unto the need. And as I said, I'm not entirely sure how useful this will prove. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 22:38, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Living Coker (12) replacing with actual person [29 July 2008] ==+
- +
-When edited pages that were submitted by another user; if I have a death date for the ''living person'' what is the correct procedure? On the first one I just removed the living person and added the other.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 21:19, 25 July 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Wouldn't it depend on why they had a) a "death date" and b) a notation that this card was for a living person? This, and variants is a frequently seen error on Ancestry family trees. Sometimes you;ll see folks with the notation "living" but DOB's in the 1500's etc. Obvious no longer amongst us, but still with the notation "living person". I suspect from that that this is due to a preference being set to ALWAYS assume the person is living, unless noted otherwise. Then they forget to note otherwise as they are adding hundreds and thousands of cards to their family tree via GEDCOM dumps. To me, this is simply a symptom of not thinking about what they are doing, but just harvesting names for their tree. I believe that for those showing this and other symptoms, the actual data about the person is of only secondary interest---its adding as many connection that you can find that's important. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:00, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-You could enter the death date, then rename the page to include their given name if you wanted.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+Thanks for all your good wishes. The first cataract was very bad and when the dressing first came off yesterday morning I realized what the expression "seeing though a glass darkly" was all about. Now everything is bright and shiny and blue is BLUE. The screen is still pretty bright, so my not be fixing many p;ace pages for a while.
-== Best way to ID accidental duplicate pages for later fix [27 July 2008] ==+For your information, Jrm03063, I bought the bigger monitor back in August and fiddled with all kinds of settings. When I opened my computer yesterday I first headed to Excel 2007 where I can now see the upper part of the ribbon--I had been depending on lengths of words to get down to the second choices.
-Hello,+Hoping to get back to work on Yorkshire fairly soon (BYW I started with the West Riding). --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 09:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
-My question is what do I do to ID an accidental duplicate family or person page that I created so it can be fixed later? +== Which to keep? [7 November 2013] ==
-As well as help me know it is a duplicate page so I do not add information to that page but to the earlier numbered page. Example John Doe (1) and John Doe (3) person page. I want to make sure I add information to John Doe (1) person page. Debbie Freeman --[[User:DFree|DFree]] 16:26, 26 July 2008 (EDT)+Two repository pages for the same thing. Which name follows conventions?
-Debbie just redirect (3) to (1). If the (3) remains in your tree list after the redirect just remove the page from your tree; do not delete the the page.+* [[Repository:England and Wales. General Register Office]]
 +* [[Repository:General Register Office for England and Wales]]
-To redirect do the following: Redirect the duplicate page to the surviving page by typing ''# redirect[[title of surviving page]]'' on the first line in the text box of the duplicate page.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 18:38, 26 July 2008 (EDT)+???
-----+--[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 15:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
-Hi Debbie... to clarify Beth's instructions, don't forget to add the brackets. Also, I don't think it works if there's a space between the "#" and "redirect". Here is what your command should look like: <nowiki>#redirect [[Person:Stella Orpha Sumpter (1)]]</nowiki>. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 21:17, 26 July 2008 (EDT)+
-----+: Absent guidance, I've merged to [[Repository:England and Wales. General Register Office]]. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 15:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
-I saw your comment and dug through your contributions. I found and fixed at least some of the duplicates you were trying to work through. You'll have to review it anyway. I noticed that you had two problems "#" and "redirect" need to be together. Also, as you already read, the destination of the redirection has to be enclosed in double square brackets.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 22:58, 26 July 2008 (EDT)+
-== New Search Functionality [29 July 2008] ==+::According to [[Help:Repository_pages#Is_there_a_format_for_repository_page_titles.3F]], "WeRelate automatically creates a Repository page title that uses the fields you've entered to create a unique Page Title". I can't exactly work this out but I think this means it uses the '''place'''.'''title''' format, similar to sources, which would indicate that your redirection is the consistent one. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
-The changes made to the Search function are greatly appreciated. I haven't fully explored this yet, but this is a great improvement. A couple of things to consider:+== DAR Genealogical Research System [6 November 2013] ==
-1. If you search for a specific name, e.g., Daniel Boone, you generate a long list of hits. The counter says there are over ten thousand hits. Some of those hits are for "similar to Daniel Boone", and not exact matches. Obviously, you can't examine all of those hits. Fortunately the list is "semi" ordered, so that exact matches for "Daniel Boone" appear near the top---but not necessarily all of them, and not necessarily in order of their "index number". Here's a list from the second page of hits:+I've started working with content from this source. For starters, I found that the source was duplicated as both the "DAR Genealogical Research System" and "Daughters of the American Revolution. Genealogical Reseach System". I merged to the latter (hope that was the right choice!). After the fashion of the Find A Grave templates, I've also created [[:Template:dargrs|a template]] to conveniently create references to the site's pages for ancestors (those would be folks with an assigned "Annnnnn" number). For example, for [[Person:Daniel Boone (1)|Daniel Boone]], the record name for this reference contains <nowiki>{{dargrs|012096|BOONE, DANIEL}}</nowiki>, which displays as {{dargrs|012096|BOONE, DANIEL}}.
-:Person:Daniel Boone (23)+As I've worked through more pages with this reference, I've noticed that some folks cite member numbers and other sorts of pages on the DAR site, so there may be a need for several templates (and "dargrs" maybe should be "darancestor" or similar).
-:Person:Daniel Boone (25)+
-:Person:Daniel Boone (26)+
-:Person:Burwell Boone (1)+
-:Person:Daniel Boone (27)+
-:Person:Daniel Boone (28)+
-:Person:John Boone (35)+
-:Person:Daniel Boone (29)+
-Note that the sequence of "Daniel Boone"'s is interrupted by the insertion of "Burwell Boone (1)", and "John Boone (35)". I don't see an obvious reason for that to be a desirable thing if you are searching for "Daniel Boone". What it says is that the list of hits is only roughly ordered. Here the unneeded hits can be easily skipped over. But they are obviously out of order. That makes me wonder if you might get hits for "Daniel Boone" isolated very deep in the list---say at hit 949? You wouldn't be able to find such scattered hits as they would be buried so deeply---and so might miss something helpful+I'ld like to hear from anyone familiar with that site, on whether there are different types of pages worth citing from WeRelate.
-2. The above sequence of hits skips over "Daniel Boone (24)". There is actually a card (sort of) for "Daniel Boone (24)", though the corresponding tree has been deleted, and "Daniel Boone (24)" is just a placeholder for something that once existed but for which there's no information retained---just the fact that sometime someone created a space for "Daniel Boone (24)", and then went away. Is this little bit of real estate (so to speak) up for grabs? Should this "ghost" persist, and could/should others with an interest in Daniel Boone choose to utilize this real estate? Should such "ghosts" be completely purged from the system, and the space set aside for them be reused?+I'ld also like to hear from anyone with an opinion of whether "dargrs" is a sufficient name, and/or whether the "Annnnn" number should be exposed when the template displays - I could make the above noted example display "A012096 BOONE, DANIEL", "A012096: BOONE, DANIEL", etc., etc.
-[[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:38, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+Also - a quick note to the purists out there - ''I KNOW'' - this is a secondary source! But it's of a lot of interest to average folks, and it can be the basis for someone looking further.
-:Hi Q, I have reused some of these "ghosts"; when helping others rename their pages. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 11:59, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+Thanks! --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 15:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
-::Yes, I think you and I have discussed this before. I think you're re-use of the real estate is the best choice, but there might be reasons for keeping them that we don't know about. Just putting the question, so to speak to Dallan. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 12:04, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+== Free Census [7 November 2013] ==
-----+I have been asked to post this, though undoubtedly others know more about this than I. Images of '''all''' the censuses are available at archive.org '''for free'''. Some are available for free at familysearch.org (at least 1850, 1870, my favorite 1900, also 1940, maybe others). familysearch is much easier to use because they have a search engine and then just click on the link to get to the image. You can simply copy the address from the browser navigation bar to the source citation. However, the familysearch.org search engine can also be used to make archive.org easier to use (as could other search engines, such as heritagequest.com, and yes, even the ancestry search engine). As a result of this, it should be possible to totally avoid links to fee-based census images, or to convert existing links to free alternatives.
-Clicking on "Exact Matches" I get 18 hits for Daniel Boone. If I don't find what I want in there, I would then expand the search. Burwell Boone shows up when doing an "exact match" because his alt name is "Daniel." John Boone shows up because Daniel is his middle name. I find both of them showing up in the hits as a desirable thing, unless you are speaking specifically of where in the order of things they appear. Even so, I *could* have been searching for Burwell, but only know him by the name of Daniel. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 12:58, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+
-:Hi Ronni, I could be wrong, but I'd think you'd want the priority to be given to persons whose card reads as stated, then persons who have as an AKA the same name. Names not actually being searched, but which for various reasons give you a match, should, I think, appear a lower depth in the search. Yes, the instance you cite would make things harder, but the instance you cite would be much less common than someone simply looking for Daniel Boone. The priority should, I think, go to what serves the greatest number. +I assume using familysearch.org is easy enough to need no explanation. Then I hop over to archive.org to find the actual page. For example, search historical records at familysearch.org, I ask for Name: Theodore Roosevelt, Birth: New York 1855-1860 (he was in early 40's when became President in 1901), Residence: New York 1880-1880 (because I want 1880 census).
-:Also, the problem you point out would be largely eliminated by using any of the additional fields (e.g., parents, spouse, DOB, DOD, whatever) provided to narrow a search.+Usually I use the reel and image number to get close in archive.org. The familysearch film number usually has the reel number as the last three digits. In the above example, 1254895, so reel 895. Event Place is New York (city), New York (county), New York (state), United States. Image is given as 256, page 426B.
-:With a common name you could expect to get a hundred hits or more. In the future, as the database builds, this will become much more problematical. Right now you get about 120 hits for a common name like "John Walker". Some day I expect you'll get literally thousands of hits for that name. At that point, there's a substantial penalty to be paid for retrieving names that don't match a search exactly. From my perspective, what's needed is a system that +So in archive.org, I search for "1880 New York county Census" in archive.org, then find the desired reel number (895) in the list returned by archive.org. For small counties, there may be only one candidate and you can find the reel simply from the description. If you don't have the reel number, the enumeration district (ED) can also help you locate the correct reel since the description given on archive.org may list the enumeration districts covered by each reel. Click on the reel and select "view online" to browse the actual images.
-::a) gives a well ordered list for what's being searched. If the search is for "John Walker" than hits for John Walker should appear beforehits for John Alexander Walker; John Walker before Alexander Walker,,etc, and hits should be in proper "human" numerical sequence (index numbers ordered 1,2,3,....19, 21, 22, 23....n), not (1,11,12...19,2, 20,21....), etc.+Drag the slider button at the bottom over until it is on the desired image, 256. I use one up viewing, just one page at a time, for simplicity. It is my experience that the image number given by familysearch is off by one or two. So then use the page number they give, 426B, stepping forward and back until you find the desired page. In this case, page 426B turns out to be image 255. You often have to find the "A" page to find the page number, then backtrack to the "B", "C", or "D" page as necessary. Page numbers are not consistent, usually at the top, sometimes at the bottom, sometimes they have been renumbered, so this is not always this trivial, but most of the time it works well. In this case, page 426B turns out to be image 255 according to the slider, one off from where I started: [https://archive.org/stream/10thcensus0895unit#page/n254/mode/1up dwelling 236].
-::b) That there's a way to skip forward in a series of hits, so that you could guage where a specific hit of interest to you might lie in the sequence---ie, if they are in exact numerical order, you could skip forward ten pages to get to John Walker (109). Right now the sequence is ordered with machine logic---ie John Walker (2) would appear immediately after John Walker (19)--because "2" is greater than "1", which is the way the machine looks at it as things are currently set up---rather than having 20 appear after 19, which is the way we look at it.+
-::Having an irregular display algorhythm makes it hard to figure out where in the sequence you need to get....which could be fatal if you can only look at 10 cards at a time,...and there are thousands of hits to look at.+For the most part, page numbers are ordered within an enumeration district, which is identified at the top of the page. So if you are not getting the right town, etc., check that the page you are viewing is in the right enumeration district. It seems like most of the time, the enumeration districts are on the film in order so you can usually jump forward and back if the first attempt doesn't put you in the correct location. I seem to recall some of the older ones (pre-1850) didn't use enumeration districts, rather alphabetical by town, but this becomes obvious pretty quickly as you page forward and back.
-::Another component of a fix here (if a fix is needed) is to display more hits to the page. I like the fact that there's a good selection of vita data to review when you examine the hits. But the fact that they are strung out on separate lines means you can only get a few hits per page---and keep the page down to a relatively small size. There are two solutions for that which I see---a) allow more hits per page (100 would not be too many, but might get consuptive of bandwidth or something.) b) compress each hit to a single line---which probably means smaller type face. Might also consider using the whole page width by eliminating the left hand side bar.+Most of the time I find this to be a quick process. One or two cases involved lengthy explorations. Not sure if this was pilot error, or just inaccurate or inconsistent indexing. But experience seems to make this easier. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 16:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
-Might not be able to display as many of the vita elements as currently the case. (By the way, I also like displaying the list of user's for each hit, but if you get very many people watching the same page that might become a problem. Possibly displaying just the initial creator would be good. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:51, 28 July 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Another issue/suggestion/irritation with the functionality rolled out with search: It appears something happened to the place name dropdowns on the person pages? I noticed that the matching seems to have gotten better, but... I used to be able to type, say, "Plymouth, P" and get just the places that have the word Plymouth, and another word starting with P (like Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachusetts). And the list would be in alpha order. Now, if I type "Plymouth", I get too many results to display, they are not in any order I can decipher, and the town of Plymouth, Mass is not one of them. Typing more letters does no good unless I type the entire word Massachusetts, with the comma. Both issues are mostly on the level of irritating (I enter Plymouth as a place a lot!), but to the degree we want to encourage people to use the official place names, having a useful list pop up while the person is typing the second word instead of afterward would help. And, (I forgot to add), the way I discovered that I had to type "Plymouth, Massachusetts," instead of "Plymouth, Plymouth," is that nothing pops up if I type that - which is just plain wrong.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 02:51, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+Question: Does archive.org support censuses from other countries, or just from the United States? --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 17:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 +:Personally I don't know. You would have to try searching from the main screen. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 17:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
-:Interesting example, though if I entere "Plymouth" I do get a list that includes "Plymouth, Massachusetts" with a notation of a redirect to "Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachuetts". Still, a display in true alphabetical order, (and numerical order) would be very helpful. Also, in this particular example I see some "hits" that just seem out of place---no obvious reason why "Piney, Franklin Arkansas" should appear in this list of hits, particularly sandwiched between Plymouth's". More hits to the page would be an advantage. Perhaps achievable by simply eliminating the "type" which takes up a separate line, and or using smaller type face. +: Ok! This is great information. I'll have to take some time to digest it. I've been wanting to fix my fee-based links for a long time - since I left ancestry years ago because I didn't want to be a shill for them. Hope there aren't any hitches due to [[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Internet-Archive-s-S-F-office-damaged-in-fire-4960703.php this]]! --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 20:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
-:Did spot a rather bizarre entry that a user has entered for "Place:Plymouth Colony, Kingdom of England"; I guess that makes sense, but there does not seem to be any consistent usage to describe other colonies in the US. For example, "Jamestown Colony" comes up with two hits for a place in Coffee, Alabama, but none for "THE" Jamestown Colony in Virginia. "Plimouth" or "Plimouth Colony" gives a single hit for "Plymouth, Plymouth...", but its not displayed as a redirect---rather the system change the entry to a key word, and picks it up that way. Which is sort of curious. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+-----
-===Reusing index numbers [29 July 2008]===+: So now I'm looking at some of my "ancestry.com" generated census cites. The first one on the page for [[Person:James Mason (13)|my Grandfather]] comes with the usual ancestry stuff. The question - how much of this is worth keeping? The standard stuff present there is:
-Currently you could run into the following problem if you re-use index numbers (although it will hardly ever happen in practice): Suppose several months ago User A created a Family page "Squire Boone and Sarah Morgan (1)", and listed Daniel Boone as a child. An ID would have been reserved for Daniel, say 24, and a red link to "Daniel Boone (24)" would be displayed on the family page. Now suppose that User A doesn't create the Person page "Daniel Boone (24)" right away, and User B comes along, sees that ID 24 is unused, and re-uses it. When User B creates the page, "Squire Boone and Sarah Morgan (1)" will be listed as parents. Suppose User B is creating the page for an entirely different Daniel Boone, so they wonder how this link got put there and remove it. This causes "Daniel Boone (24)" to be removed as a child link from "Squire Boone and Sarah Morgan (1)", which confuses User A. +
-As of last week this shouldn't happen anymore, because Person and Family pages get created immediately after the ID is reserved -- there are no more red links to newly-added people/families on Person and Family pages. But there are lots of old red links on existing Person and Family pages. The plan is to eventually create pages for red links on existing Person and Family pages. After that time we could start re-using unused ID numbers. This doesn't seem like a high priority to me though. I notice that most of the 18 Daniel Boone's that show up in the search results really need to be merged into two or three distinct people. Supporting match and merge seems more important right now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 21:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+:* Year: 1930; Census Place: Conway, Carroll, New Hampshire; Roll: 1298; Page: 5B; Enumeration District: 5; Image: 548.0.
 +:* http://trees.ancestry.com/rd?f=sse&db=1930usfedcen&h=7625639&ti=0&indiv=try
 +:* http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=1930usfedcen&h=7625639&ti=0&indiv=try
-===Ordering search results [1 August 2008]===+: I'm going to start by assuming that the two ancestry.com URLs are worthless outside the ancestry.com universe (I think they may code up individual lines in the census document, but they're not doing it in a way that seems worth reverse-engineering).
-There are three possible orderings of search results: by relevancy (best match), by title, or by date modified. Relevancy is the default, and people with a first name of Daniel and a last name of Boone show up before people with a similar name (e.g., before [[Person:Daniel Boen (1)]] who shows up as search result #19 in my list), and people with one similar and one exact name should show up before people with only one exact name, who should should show up before people with only one similar name. I could order people whose primary first given names match exactly before people whose alternate or middle names match exactly, but it would require a fair amount of additional processing, and I'm not sure it occurs often enough to be worth it.+
-:Try a search for "Ann Walker". Almost all of the initial hits are for someone where the page title does NOT include ANN, but where her middle name is Ann. So if you are looking for "Ann Walker" you have to sort through a lot of folks that don't match. Seems like the priority should be to exact matches first, then secondary possibilities. I realize this might be tough to work around programming wise. +: Since the source title is [[Source:Carroll, New Hampshire, United States. 1930 U.S. Census Population Schedule]], 1930, Caroll, and New Hampshire seem redundant. Enumeration district on the actual image shows as "2-5", not simply "5". Sheet No. does correspond to "Page: 5B". "Image: 548.0" seems not to have any relevance for the archive.org content - which itself is reached on page "555". I suspect that those numbers are specific to ancestry.com and archive.org respectively.
-:But why are their page titles that do not include the middle name? yet the card notes a middle name somewhere in the system. Seems like if there's a middle name it should be in the title. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 22:56, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+: A minimal, but absolutely specific, reference to the archive.org image could be <nowiki>{{USCensus1930|1298|555}}, line 52</nowiki> - {{USCensus1930|1298|555}}, line 52. But I'm reluctant to drop things like the enumeration district - which presumably had some meaning even if it isn't needed for this purpose. Likewise the sheet/page number.
-::Because discussion a while ago yielded the rule on page naming that you don't include middle names. It helps with consistency because middle name are harder to determine and less frequently used/known.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 23:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+: ???? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 23:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 +:::Very interesting question - I have been thinking about this myself as well, not just for the ancestry generated cites but also for the FreeCEN citations I've added myself. Given modern indexing, I suspect much of this is redundant if you know the name and location of the record in question, although I would appreciate any other views on this. As a related question, is there any benefit in splitting up the source pages into the individual areas rather than just linking them all to the generic country/census year source? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
-It's not possible to mix title sorting with relevancy sorting. The search engine allows only one sort at a time unfortunately. I'm not sure why sorting by ID within relevancy would be important though. The ID numbers don't mean anything except that one page was created before another one, and if we re-use ID numbers it won't even mean that. +::::I'm starting to think that there's a role for either a translation table or even a limited (very sparse) transcript. The hierarchy for 1930 seems like this: state/county/enumeration_district/sheet/line. We've already decided that the sources for 1930 go down to the level of the county - so if you create a transcript for any given 1930 census source, you could create a hierarchy of enumeration districts, and beneath them, their pages. While each page could be a full transcript, it could also be as simple as a list of the 52? lines on that page - and a header that points at the image(s) available from various providers. Of course, the value of having the names on such pages is to link them where possible - which starts to give you a reverse-citation process that could be processed by software into nice back-links. What I don't really like is to populate the individual (person) page records with items that are artifacts of someone's scanning process - and not actual census reference parameters. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 21:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
-:Probably true to some extent, but if you are looking through search results systematically, non obvious display pattern makes it a bit difficult to keep track of what you looked at. One can adapt to an usuall display sequence, but usually its better not to make people learn new rules for what currently comes naturally. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 22:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+== Wikipedia - over 100K pages correspond now - time for a fresh extract? [11 November 2013] ==
-If you know the ID number of the page you want to go to, you can enter the page title (e.g., "Person:John Walker (200)") in the search box at the top of any page. I find that I use this feature quite a bit.+We've reached a bit of a milestone with inclusion of [[Source:Wikipedia|wikipedia content]]. There are now over 100,000 WeRelate pages that correspond to individual Wikipedia pages. They come in a number of forms, so I'll break it out a little bit:
-Sorting the IDs as numbers so that 21 is displayed after 3 is possible; I'll add it to my ToDo list. The reason I sorted it the other way is that's how People and Family pages are listed in the auto-complete drop-downs, and it's not possible to change that order. If others would like to see the sorting changed (or see it not changed), please let me know. By the way, it looks like there's currently a problem with sorting by title that I need to look into.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 21:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+* 76,822 Place pages - (including 5084 cemeteries or burial locations, 83 castles)
 +* 22,374 Person pages
 +* 877 Category pages (battles, campaigns, wars, military units, royal dynasties & houses of nobility)
 +* 72 Surname pages
 +* 53 Repository pages
 +* 47 Source pages
 +* 12 Givenname pages
-----+Among the more extensive and interestingly nested categories are [[:Category:Wars|Wars]] and [[:Category:NobleHouse|Houses of Nobility]].
-I fixed the bug with sorting by title today, and at the same time I went ahead and changed it to sort ID numbers numerically instead of alphabetically. (It turns out it's also possible to change the sort order in the auto-complete drop-downs, but that's low-priority.)+
-I also modified search so that matching given and surnames in the title sort higher in the relevancy ranking than names not in the title. This solves the "Ann Walker" problem -- people with a first given name of Ann now sort higher than those with a middle or alternate name of Ann.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 01:32, 1 August 2008 (EDT)+Remember, the point of "attaching" to a WP page in this way is to try to derive whatever benefits we can from the WP community of contributors and content - both as it exists presently and as it may exist when currently modest WP articles are expanded. It doesn't mean WeRelate won't provide unique content - but we need to use care to remain engaged with as wide a community of contributors as possible. When we provide alternative content to that present on WP - we should do so because it is specifically appropriate or necessary for genealogical research. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 19:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
-Very good! That helps considerably. Having things display with this set of priorities will make the most sense to most users. Hence should make the searching system more helpful. Thanks [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT) 
-===Displaying search results [29 July 2008]===+== An overly done page....! [16 November 2013] ==
-It's certainly possible to list more than 10 results per page, but 10 per page seems like a standard. Google and Ancestry both do this. I'd be worried about decreasing the font size, because usability experts say that websites designed for older people (many of our users are older) need to generally have a larger font size.+
-If lots of users are watching a page, we show at most 80 characters (or around that number) in the search results so the user list doesn't get too large.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 21:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+I've taken a small but notable historical document and done everything with it that I can imagine. The document is known as The Exeter Combination, and the group can be best understood starting from the [[:Category:Exeter, Rockingham, New Hampshire, United States. Exeter Combination|corresponding category]]. It has:
 +* A template (transcribed text of the document, with links to appropriate Person pages)
 +* A source
 +* An image (which includes the template)
 +* A transcript (which also includes the template)
-===Place auto-complete [1 August 2008]===+The Person pages referenced, themselves refer to the source and include the image (which is attached to the source as an appropriate "I<n>"). The Person pages fact lists contain entries supported by the source - containing a fact that is described with a reference to the category. The only actual bit of category syntax is found in the template page.
-I'll work on the place auto-complete. I'm not sure why "Plymouth, Plymouth," doesn't work but I'll look into it. I'll also sort place auto-complete results alphabetically, show the type (but not the title) in smaller font so we get more results per screen, and filter the results by partially-entered higher-level place names so you can enter just "Mass" instead of "Massachuetts," (although it's even easier to enter "Plymouth, MA,").+
-The reason that Piney shows up when you do an auto-complete on Plymouth is it has an alternate name of Plymouth. The reason that Plimouth gives [[Place:Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States]] is this place has an alternate name of Plimouth (and it's the only place with a name or alternate name of Plimouth). I think we had a user create some early American colony places, but just a few, which is probably why you don't see Jamestown.+It's much more than the situation requires, but I thought it might be an interesting example of some of the possibilities.
-Most of the place redirects will be deleted so that they stop cluttering up the drop-down list later this year.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 21:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)+--[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 20:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
-----+:Jrm, I think you've just demonstrated what WeRelate could hope to be some time in the future. --[[User:GayelKnott|GayelKnott]] 20:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
-Place auto-complete should be working much better now. Please let me know if you see any problems.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 01:32, 1 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Contribution Count [1 August 2008] ==+
- +
-How do I get my contribution count since I started?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 14:51, 1 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:You've edited a whopping 112,303 pages since you started! Wow! You have the distinction of having made more edits than any other person on WeRelate. I'll add to my ToDo list displaying the total number of contributions on your MyRelate Dashboard page in addition to the number of edits over the past 90 days.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:32, 1 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Sorting Sources [7 August 2008] ==+
- +
-A request for your already too long list. I am a software engineer and when things aren't ordered it bothers me more than it should. Sources end up managed in whatever order they were entered. It just seems more natural to have them in chronological order. Since there is a date entry associated with all sources, you could add a tool that will reorder sources by date. The source remove tool cleans up the data nicely, and a reordering tool would need to do the same. You could do it manually, but is is very painful and prone to error. I try not to obsess when seeing things in the "wrong" order ;-) , but this would be nice for us obsessive types .....--[[User:Srblac|Srblac]] 15:22, 2 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Of course, one person's "wrong order" is someone else's "right order". What comes up now is close to being what I'd call right, though I'd still like to see thing in sequence by Index number within major sort categories---that's roughly (not necessarily) ordered by date of creation. Dallan's right, however: its only a "tidyness" thing to have them ordered by Index---in its self it serves few purposes, other than "it makes sense looking at it", as opposed to being "inscrutable". I can, however, see an advantage, with other ordered arrangements. As with DOB or with DOD, or perhaps death range. That way you could quickly scan the list to see where you needed to be looking for potential matches: up front, down in the middle, or way down at the bottom. Then you have the problem of getting to that part of the list, but that's something else again. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 17:01, 2 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-I think I may not have given enough information. Your response appears to be with respect to the way the new search tool responses are ordered (understandable given your recent focus on it and a very nice improvement IMHO). I was talking with respect to source entries on a person page. I would guess you'll never get an agreement on how the search tool responses should be ordered, they work OK for me as is. What I would like to have is the option to run a tool that would reorder the sources on a person page in chronological order based on the dates entered in the source data. Undated entries can flow to the bottom in the order they are already in (i.e. the order they were created). I have a series of census sources (and other records) on many pages that are all out of order (e.g [[Person:Sophia Polkow (2)]] is particularly disordered). It bugs me. Ordering them by hand is too dangerous and tedious. Here, [[Person:Henry Becker (5)]] is what I am shooting for. All the sources in order by year and the undated entry at the end. --[[User:Srblac|Srblac]] 17:17, 2 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Ah, sorry to misunderstand. Yes, I see how that would be "untidy", and cumbersome to do something about. "Painful" as you say, would probably be about the right description. Since that aspect of WeRelate's system is not something I work with, I've no oar in the water on the problem---other than to sympathiz. It looks like what you are doing is about optimum for the WeRelate system. (And, as an aside, folks who actually take the time, as you have done, to write text articles are in the decided minority here.) While I take a different approach to citations, one thing I like about the WeRelate system is how it encourages folks to cite the specific basis for different data elements. Ie., "The DOB is from source S13, and the DOD is based on S2". [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 18:38, 2 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-::Sorting source citations seems like a good idea. I'll add it to the ToDo list. It will probably be a couple of months before I get to it though. (You don't know javascript and would want to implement this do you?)--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 15:15, 5 August 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Maybe we'll come up with some conventions on how we want the sources to be ordered. On the other hand, we might not. All I would suggest for now is a set of up/down arrows that allows you to move a record up or down a position.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 16:34, 5 August 2008 (EDT)+:Thank you so much for this example! I've been trying unsuccessfully to get my head around using Categories / Templates / Transcripts / Sources and what the relationships between them all are intended to be. Your example is fantastic and I've bookmarked it for future reference. One question, though - to my way of thinking a Transcript is the purest form of extract - the very words to be read. You use the Template for this function, and then refer to this from the Transcript. Is there a reason it is done this way (and thanks in advance).--[[User:Wongers|Wongers]] 10:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
-----+::In principle, you're exactly right. However, I wanted the same text to appear on a transcript page and the text box for the image - but I wanted only one "live" copy for maintenance purposes. The fundamental wiki item for doing that is a template - even though we more commonly think of it as a way to do orderly parameter substitution and handle nasty little bits of syntax. An alternative approach would be to let the text live on the transcript page, and transclude that into the text box of the image. I havn't tried that (feel free to try and see what happens) but I think you would wind up with a mish-mash of transcript-specific items mixed in on the image page.
-The up/down arrows are a good idea; I was thinking we could also add a "sort" button in the source citations section of the edit screen that would allow someone to sort the citations chronologically. But it would be something that someone would have to click on; sorting chronologically wouldn't be automatic.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)+
-----+::All that said, as I've continued to reflect on this, I think the approach I took creates more problems than it solves. I agree that the transcript ought to be pure and we don't want to distract from that. Instead, I might put a small "See transcript" active link in the image page's text box (perhaps also a link to the source page). The image page already has a separate mechanism for creating bi-directional links with the person page - so the hyperlinked text is semi-redundant in that respect. I'll be changing this shortly. Stay tuned and let me know what you think!
-Is the request to order sources based on dates entered in the source (e.g. covered by the source), the date the source was produced, or based on the information to which they are attached? Because it strikes me that most people are going to want or expect the last one, but if we can really order by date, there are much more useful things to do (sorting search results and events in the left hand bar, for example). And with the exception of census records, the first two sorts are rarely going to correlate with the information entered and are thus largely useless and going to confuse people - sorting by the dates books are published or the dates they cover doesn't serve any purpose. I would much prefer that any effort go to the up/down arrows - since that would also let us move "down" less reliable sources.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 18:27, 5 August 2008 (EDT)+
-----+::Thanks also for your kind words and observations! I had hoped a small example could bring together some of the nuances of how the different page types can be made to relate (pun intended) usefully! --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
-I am thinking that the button would sort sources according to the dates of the events that the sources were attached to. What do you mean by sorting search results in the left hand bar? (I'll add your vote for the up/down arrows.)--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)+
-:Re: left hand bar, I mean sorting events on the person (or family) page so show they show up as, for example, birth, census, will, death, instead of birth, death, then alt events in the order entered.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 13:03, 7 August 2008 (EDT)+:::Following up on my prior remarks: I've made the changes that I contemplated. I think this makes the group easier to comprehend and doesn't cost anything in terms of capabilities. Only a minor cosmetic - on the presentation of the image page - at least on my browser - the bullets of my bullet list are overlaid by the image. Can anyone offer some syntax that will cause the text to be shifted below the image - pretty much regardless of browser circumstances? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 15:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
-Some sources are specific to an exact date. e.g., a birth certificate. But even there, its not uncommon to have multiple dates contained in the source---in the case of a birth certificate you might, for example, have the mother's DOB. It's relative rare to have a "source" include information only for a specifc date. Usually they cover a range of time, often a very large range of time in the case of histories and genealogies. If you were using the "date" to which the source was pointing, rather than the date of issuance of the source, how would you select date to be used for sorting? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 07:44, 7 August 2008 (EDT)+::::I've added some HTML into [[:Image:Exeter Combination.jpg]] which I think does what you wanted. It uses style "clear:left" which causes following things to come only after the lefthand side is clear. I got the relevant syntax from Wikipedia's <nowiki>{{Clear}}</nowiki> template. (If there's a general need, we could have that template here). --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 08:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
-::Looking at the 2 pages mentioned by Srblac, there are 16 source citations all listed as mysources. In actuality only 4 appear to be mysources, the death, marriage and birth certificates. The rest, census records, books and the like are properly sources, not mysources. Sorting by date seems to me to mean the date of the event for which the source is cited. However, unless a different Vol/page # and/or actual text is quoted, the source only needs one citation per page. I have seen family pages for example where the exact same source reference is cited 10 times and attached to 10 different individuals birth dates. These should be combined into one citation and referenced for each event.--[[User:Scot|Scot]] 11:41, 7 August 2008 (EDT)+:::::Thanks! --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 17:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
-----+== Early rule [2 December 2013] ==
-Sources would be sorted according to the dates of the events to which they were attached. And I agree that up/down arrows on sources and sorting events automatically in the left-hand bar are higher priority.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 19:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)+
-== Source Clean Up Project [4 August 2008] ==+The pre-1700 "Early" rule is a major turn-off from WR. The stated purpose - to save time from duplicates since almost every documented human before 1700 is already in WR - is demonstrably, clearly, starkly, and obviously mistaken. Perhaps there were multiple uploads of Mayflower passengers, however there were 150,000 to 200,000 other pre-1700 immigrants, including over 5000 enslaved Africans, besides this. (see http://www.zanran.com/preview/pdf/113151005.010101?q=north+american+immigration+history) Not to mention the millions around the world who missed their chance to immigrate to America before 1700, and the millions of Native Americans who were already here to greet the Pilgrims. And not to mention the millions of pre-1700 descendants the immigrants produced.
-We are looking for volunteers to help clean up the thousands of sources page in anticipation of a "Research Assistant" - a goal set for 2009. You can read more about this project [[WeRelate:Source review|here]]. Any questions or problems can be discussed on its appropriate [[WeRelate talk:Source review|talk page]]. It's a daunting task and any volunteer time you can offer, even if it's only a few minutes a day, will help! Thanks! --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 15:58, 4 August 2008 (EDT)+This rule wastes so much human time and effort. And it contradicts the stated aim of WR to link genealogies. It works squarely against that purpose. I've taken to listing pedigree outlines to link early northern Clevelands with more modern ones. Someone else can hand-enter the thousands of early Clevelands not in WR. I've done my share, thank you.
-== Embedding Google maps? [14 August 2008] ==+I have a pending GEDCOM upload with about 1/3 rejected because they were early. There was one semi-famous family - Richard "Bull" Smith of Smithtown, LI - that I deleted from the GEDCOM before I tried to upload it.
-Google Maps has a nice feature called "My Maps" that allows you to construct your own custom Google maps with pushpins (or other icons) wherever you'd like to put them. I'm playing around with it, as I've found it useful to plot the location of homes where various related families lived, churches they attended, etc. You can put descriptions that pop-up when you click on a given pushpin, and make them include links back to the relevant werelate person/family pages. Google allows you to embed their maps in other websites, but the way to do it is using a snippet of HTML they provide that has an "iframe" in it. (If you're curious, you can see an example of one such map [http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=114495216136942644394.000454662bd5b7b22dc18&z=16 here].) Obviously, I could simply put a link to the map from a Person or Family page, but it would be much cooler to actually embed the map. Is that possible? Alternatively, is there a way that I can extend the WeRelate Pedimaps to show additional geolocatable things - residences, churches, etc? --[[User:TomChatt|TomChatt]] 04:10, 14 August 2008 (EDT)+This amount of rejection turns the GEDCOM into a disjointed, unmanageable mess. What's the point of having a GEDCOM upload at all?
-----+I understand the desire to control quality and merge GEDCOMs. This is not the way to do it. How about having at least one reference not to an amateur website or GEDCOM? There a thousands of WR persons without any refs at all!
-This has been the subject of past discussions. What you are speaking of would be a welcome addition. I believe someone (not Dallan) said that this was in the works. Personally, I'd just as soon copy an image, and insert on WeRelate as needed, but there are some licenseing restrictions about doing that. There are definite restrictions on using the aerial photoimages, but the restrictions on the pseudo 3D topo maps seems much less restrictive. Dallan was mulling the distinctions over awhile back, but I haven't heard what he concluded. +
-All of the Google map products (aerial, topos, Street maps, Street Views) have their uses. Since Topozone sold out to US Trails, having a source for USGS maps got a bit harder. (Theere were licensing restrictions at Topozone, such that their use on WeRelate was questionable, but at least you could get versions for person use. The implementation as US Trails pretty much requires a subscription to view the maps effectively, and all you can get there now is the 3D version, and a very small window at that. Personally, for our purposes the original USGS maps are better, because they provide more detail than the psuedo 3D versions of either USTrails or Google maps. There are still a couple of sources for the USGS topo's, but they are clumsier to use than old Topozone.+Similarly the "One Date" rule is misguided. Some people - like my hillbilly southern ancestors - didn't leave many written records. This does not mean they didn't exist. Again, having some sort of source for these people would be more helpful than forcing manual entry and linking of their family members, which may entail a substantial effort for even one rejected person.
-But I ramble.+In summary, I simply don't understand why these onerous and senseless rules are tolerated. I hope they can be changed.
-[[User:Quolla6|Q]] 09:00, 14 August 2008 (EDT)+[[User:Prcb|Prcb]] 21:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
-----+: In respect, were it not for a rule like this, WeRelate would probably not still be here.
-I don't know if it's quite what you're looking for, but you can add a reference to the google map template in the description field of an event/life-fact. Dallan was planning to special-case the handling of such items in the pedia-map by using that set of map coordinates in preference to the implied coordinates of the place associated with the event. A for example of the use of this stuff would be on my Grandfather's page - [[Person:James Mason (13)]] - where I am able to indicate details like where the family farm is.+
-While the map template may or may not give you what you are looking for presentation wise, it does let you preserve important details.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 09:22, 14 August 2008 (EDT)+: In the early days - there were no rules. Enormous amounts of unsourced content was dumped by users who then disappeared. Those of us who want the site to succeed, have spent years trying to clean up and de-duplicate content that was loaded back then. To get an idea of the scale of the problem, I invite you to look at the page for [[Person:Charlemagne (1)|Charlemagne]]. From there, go to the "what links here" page. Count up the number of "redirect" pages. Each such redirect represents a GEDCOM with lineage to Charlemagne - and many thousands of intervening individuals - every one needing de-duplication and individual editing.
-----+: You are quite right that many pages don't have references of any quality at all. That is unfortunate - but it too is a product of the early days of no rules at all. It's not a great reason to continue an unsound practice.
-Adding more mapping capability is something I really want to do soon. I need to spend a bit of time adding some match-merge functionality first, but I hope to have some additional mapping capability, including the embedded google maps, within two months. +
-The googlemap template should be working for the pedi-maps now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 22:32, 14 August 2008 (EDT)+: We have found that the larger the GEDCOM - the greater the reason to be concerned. The best use - and only one I would suggest for a GEDCOM - is to use it for your personal and immediately documented family. Perhaps a few thousand individuals at most. If you are determined to bring a large amount of material to the site - then we would suggest breaking your GEDCOM into chunks.
-== Network page of others? [22 August 2008] ==+: Finally - if you feel that your content is of an unusually high quality - you can ask that the rules be waived. You would need to justify that - but it's a possibility if you really have some good content. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 21:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- +
-Is there a way that I can look at the "network page" for another user? I assume there's some weird parameter string I can add to the end of the URL, but I can't guess what it might be...--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 07:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-There really should be, but there's not. That's an oversight. I'll add one next week and update this page when I do.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 14:35, 20 August 2008 (EDT)+Your comments are perpendicular to my criticism.
-:If you are going to fiddle with that function, perhaps you could set it to exclude "watercooler" and "User" pages from the mutal network? Most folks are going to edit something sometime on the watercooler, and it doesn't really tell others much to learn that someone else is watching the watercooler. Ditto, but less emphatically for user pages. Where the value of this function comes is from identifying folks interested in specific people articles. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 18:12, 20 August 2008 (EDT)+I quite agree with breaking the GEDCOM into chunks and merging small pieces. This would be my my plan.
-----+Likewise, I understand that regulating GEDCOM imports to WR is essential and important. I am remarking that you are doing it wrongly and harmfully.
-That makes sense; I'll do that as well.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 10:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)+
-== HTML and Spreadsheets [21 August 2008] ==+It is rather astounding that you would allow this criticism, which illustrates how unnecessarily painful WeRelate is to use for many people with substantial new content to contribute, to pass without some cogent response.--[[User:Prcb|Prcb]] 22:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
-Don't know exactly where to put this, but there's a nice technique for working with Excell Spreadsheets, and converting them into HTML tables on the web+:Simply for clarification, all but one of the excluded individuals within your GEDCOM already have Person pages represented on WeRelate. [[Family:Peter Wright and Alice Wright (1)|Peter and Alice Wright]] and [[Family:Nicholas Wright and Margaret Nelson (1)|Nicholas Wright and Margaret Nelson]] are two of the families which represent many of your Wright family ancestors. It is unfortunate that the upload system did not match the pages to show you this fact, but hopefully this will help to at least resolve the immediate issue, if not the far-reaching issue you describe.--[[User:Khaentlahn|Khaentlahn]] 22:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- +
-http://htmlhelp.rootsweb.ancestry.com/tutorials/genpages/excel.html+
- +
-While I've just found the above article, I've made use of this technique for years. Thought I'd pass it along in case someone else might find it handy. --[[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== transcripts [25 August 2008] ==+
- +
-Does anyone have pointers as the the "best" way to enter transcriptions? I have a partition document (dividing real estate among heirs) that I'd like to add to the person page but I'd like to be consistent with others? +
- +
-Thanks--[[User:Jsadler|Jsadler]] 23:03, 22 August 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Sure - scan it, upload the jpeg's, and transcribe the text into the associated text area for the various jpegs. If there are several pages, associate them together in an article. I copied a transcribed interview I did of a grandparent while I was in HS back in the 70s. You can see that at [[Mason, James R. Interview of James C Mason]].--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 00:16, 23 August 2008 (EDT)+Indeed the rejected ones are in WR. This casts doubt over my impression that many of my uploads are being spuriously rejected. Are matches not shown for pre-1700 uploads? If so, in my case it gave a negative impression about WR.
-----+Also, please forgive my use of the word "senseless". I believe your policies and procedures are for good purpose and intentions.
-You can capture the document as suggested above, either as a transcription or as an image, or as both. The more interesting question is where you put it. +
-*One way would be to attach it directly to a specific specific person article, but that would make it difficult to use it in any other context. +[[User:Prcb|Prcb]] 23:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
-*Another way would be to create a "source document" (either source or mysource); then the item could be cited/linked to from anywhere. The problem with that is that "sources" are supposed to be more along the lines of bibliographic citations, rather than actual documents.+
-*You could create an "article" containing the material you're interested in, plus a "source" article describing it.+
-*If you expect to want to place the transcription in multiple locations, then you might want to consider making it into a template. That way you could insert a template link (e.g., <nowiki>{{template:name of document}}</nowiki>, and that could be inserted where needed, and the transcription would display on the page where ever you put the template link.+
-*An alternative (possibly the best) approach would be to place it (either the images, or the transcription, or even both) into the digital library. That's in Beta development so not generally available for use, but ultimately, that's going to be the place where things such as you mention are stored. An advantage/disadvantage of placeing things in the digital library is that they can't be modified---on the positive side, that means it will appear exactly the way you want it to appear, and you don't have to worry about anyone deciding it should read some way other than you think it should. On the negative side, that means its hard to get a correction in place once you've saved the file.+
-A number of folks have played with the digital library, but not many have made extensive use of it--I'm sure Dallan would be happy to have anyone work with it who wanted to. The most extensive use of this feature has been by the "Low Country Africana Project", with regular contributions since march, and about 500 items added to date. Not all of the bells and whistles on this feature are in place, and I guess it probably won't become generally available for awhile. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:42, 23 August 2008 (EDT)+:Perhaps someone with experience on the back-end of this system can answer your question about the way individuals are matched in the upload system (that would not be me, sorry). All the best, --[[User:Khaentlahn|Khaentlahn]] 23:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 +--------------
 +Point taken about the vast number of people before 1700 not in WeRelate. I have made the same argument myself in the past, and was granted the right to upload people prior to 1700 (after demonstrating the quality of post-1700 data I was uploading). I recently uploaded a number of German Mennonites living in Prussia in the 1600's, with just a handful of matches. '''However, I support the WeRelate rule''' because I believe that it gives us a reasonable balance between efficiency of uploading information and effectiveness in getting it right. I spent 6 months cleaning up medieval data in WeRelate and just scratched the surface (luckily others have taken up the work), so I am well aware of the garbage that was dumped in WeRelate through GEDCOM uploads prior to the establishment of the rule.
-----+Once you prove yourself to be a careful contributor (well-researched and cited data, good citizen about matching and not adding duplicates, etc.), and if you still find that you have a significant amount of pre-1700 data that is not in WeRelate, ask for the right to upload it.
-Here's another idea - see the will on this page - [[Person:Helen Lewis (6)]].--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 09:17, 23 August 2008 (EDT)+
-----+A note about the absence of dates: While you might not have dates for some of your ancestors, a GEDCOM with no dates at all is usually a sign of unsubstantiated poor quality data (hence the rule). If it is truly impossible to find any dates for a whole tree, it should be at least possible to estimate some years, which adds greatly to the value of the information. If this is not possible, that particular tree might not be ready for sharing. My personal approach is to add at least an estimated birth year to every record that has no dates, as it is extremely useful in searching (and has also helped me to discover errors in family groupings).
-Some of my attempts at transcripts can be seen [[MySource:Srblac/Wilson Research Report, Recipient: Scott Black]], [[MySource:Srblac/Antony Broad Research Report]] and [[MySource:Srblac/Charles Cunningham Black Family History: Transcribed by Cheryl Ahner]].<br>+
-<br>+
-This is a completely different issues, but ... As you can see I have gone in the completely opposite direction with my MySource data. ("sources are supposed to be more along the lines of bibliographic citations, rather than actual documents.") I have been making all of MySources actual source documents themselves. I suppose that merits a separate discussion, but I want folks to be able to see actual source data rather than just a reference to it. Turning everything into an article and linking to it makes life harder for both the researcher and for the reader.--[[User:Srblac|Srblac]] 15:42, 24 August 2008 (EDT)+
-:I believe there was quite a bit of discussion on this at some point---probably contained in the archives. There seemed to be a variety of different approaches to using the "Sources". Some thought it was best used as a bibliographic citation, and others wanted it to be the actual information. Some of us (moi) confused things doing both. My recollection is that the conclusion was reached that they should be used as a bibliographic citation, because when the Digital Library came on-line, that would be the place to put actual documents. Those documents could then be linked to wherever they needed to be cited. Digital Library is still in Beta development (though it works fairly well). I think Dallan moved it up in the priority list to get it to the point where some groups could use it to enter their documents, but once it got to the point where it would work effectively, other priorities took over (my personal interpretation), and final fixes were postponed while he worked other pressing issues (like the very much improved sort function---which by itself is well worth the delay in finalizing the Digital Library.) In anycase, I don't know if it really makes much difference how an individual might choose to use the "Source" namespace. There might be a conflict at some point if your use conflicts with later changes that conform with the intended use. My personal choice has been to use the Source as a bibliogrpahic citation, and place the actual documents involved into the Digital Library. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 17:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT)+Welcome to WeRelate. I hope you find that through collaboration, you find information to add value to your own personal family tree.--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 15:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
---- ----
-I think you could appropriately put the transcription in a MySource, or in an article with a link from a Source page. The digital library is ultimately the best place to put it. The digital library works pretty well right now, but as [[User:Quolla6|Q]] says, future development (including better integration with the wiki) is on back-burner until matching + merging person and family pages in the wiki is working. If you want to play around with the digital library, let me know and I'll set up an account for you.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 23:31, 25 August 2008 (EDT)+I felt I had to offer a defense of the measures taken to avoid GEDCOM dumping. While I'm sorry for the burden that some people feel they impose, I remain of the belief that WeRelate would have died without them.
- +
-== Uploading gedcom to existing tree [5 September 2008] ==+
-I would like to upload a gedcom to an existing tree, but I wish the existing pages in the existing tree to remain in the tree. The new gedcom does not duplicate any pages already in the tree. Is this possible or is it necessary to upload the gedcom to a new tree and then copy the pages to the now existing tree?--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:11, 24 August 2008 (EDT)+The measures taken to avoid bad GEDCOM dumps can, and should, continue to be reviewed and discussed.
 +Were it up to me - the real measure wouldn't be on any GEDCOM - but on the user offering the GEDCOM. I would allow new users a tiny amount of total GEDCOM upload content - perhaps a few hundred people. I would expand it as a function of the hand-edits/contributions that they made, and/or on the basis of the quality of the work they were seen to be doing. I'm not concerned if a GEDCOM starts out as weak content - as long as the user is committed to WeRelate and to the ongoing integration and improvement of whatever they're adding. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 22:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
---- ----
-I don't think it's necessary, but there are reasons to prefer an isolated upload. After a GEDCOM upload, I want to go back through all the pages and tidy up place names, remove duplicated sources (or useless sources like "one world tree", etc.). When I'm done with that initial tidying operation on the page, I drop it's membership in the tree I uploaded into and add it to my default tree.+I'd like to second Jrm's reasoning for '''NOT allowing pre-1700 gedcoms'''. I too have spent perhaps ''hundreds of hours'' cleaning up many inaccurate and unsubstantiated lineages that were "dumped" here, left for many of us to cleanup the "mess" left behind. It is certainly easy for some to criticize what has evolved here (perpendicular or not), especially when they have no idea how much time has been spent by many here making sure WeRelate doesn't turn into what most of the "Ancestry Member Trees" have become, poorly researched, poorly sourced and questionable lineage at best. There have been way to many "gedcom dumpers" that have come here and left for us to turn back the clock and go back to how it was. We've learned from this, and frankly, even though it is somewhat more difficult, we don't need to repeat the mistakes we've already learned from. Those who think otherwise have not "walked in our shoes".....
 +--[[User:Delijim|Delijim]]
 +:A bit late to this party, but I have to agree with the pre 1700 rule, which can be waived in certain circumstances. I have spent the last year cleaning up alot of unsourced pre 1700 ancestries. I've started to make a crack at nobility/visitations, but the going there is slow. The amount of garbage that was dumped here in 2007-9 is STAGGERING. Between myself and about 4-5 other admins, we have deleted about 25,000 'living' person pages, with over 90,000 left to go, and another unknown number of 'livings' that are simply undated. The early site was pure chaos. JRM is right. Without these 'strict' rules, this site would probably today be a parked godaddy webpage. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 13:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 +::I have to say I'm also a bit frustrated about this rule. It can be particularly annoying to have the "heads" chopped off a GEDCOM upload - the temptation is to leave them off rather than going through and manually adding them back in again. It's interesting that people are open to "waivers" for experienced contributors and I think this would be a positive thing to publicise more - it would give an incentive for people to stay around and contribute more! I wonder if it's worth have something more formal and more explicit about saying that experienced users - maybe ones who have already been here x months and uploaded y GEDCOMs - are allowed to upload GEDCOMs with an earlier date cut-off or ones that are larger in size? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 22:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 +:::The rule for it probably needs to be formalized. I think if you are an established user, and you are able to show that 1) the material you are adding is of a high quality, and 2) that there not many (or any) duplicates (this is key I think), then on a case by case by basis it could be waved after checking by an admin. I would never want to see 'auto-waving' because it would bring back the old problems, particularly with royals/nobles/unsubstantiated lines going back to 100 BC.. But I don't know that I would publicize it so much - when the general public hears something like that they may think "WR is dropping their standards" [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 23:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
-But that said, I'm sure you can upload to an existing tree. Even when you have duplicated person and family pages, you just get a page with an incremented sequence number - you know "Family:John Doe and Mary Smith (2)", etc.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 10:35, 24 August 2008 (EDT)+== Content Language Neutrality via Wikipedia/Wikidata [5 December 2013] ==
-:Okay and thanks. If the gedcom just creates duplicated person and family pages; I should have uploaded my first gedcom into the existing tree. I have not used this gedcom feature before; so I was not clear on how it worked. But anyway this will work; all of the pages to be tidied up will be in one tree and the duplicates in the other. I will tidy up and merge the duplicates and eventually end up with everyone in one tree.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 11:19, 24 August 2008 (EDT)+Moved this item to [[WeRelate:Suggestions/Content Language Neutrality via Wikipedia/Wikidata]], and follow up discussion to the associated talk page. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 18:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
-----+== Policy update regarding inclusion of obituaries [5 December 2013] ==
-I have a similar problem. It is too time consuming for me to enter my information into WeRelate directly. Entering into my genealogy software goes 10 times faster, so I upload small gedcoms after I process a family unit.+
-* I had uploaded a gedcom ([[Family:Bartholomew Clark and Ann Shoff (2)| Clark family]]) and then got a break on a lot of information for one of the children in that gedcom [[Person:Lydia Clark (20)| Lydia Clark]] which included several generations for her into the present day. +
-* I have deleted Gedcom's in the past and uploaded "new improved versions" of that same family, but this leaves behind all the "Lydia Clark (1)" and then creates "Lydia Clark (2)" for no reason. So rather than delete ([[Family:Bartholomew Clark and Ann Shoff (2)| Clark family]]) I simply created a gedcom beginning with that one descendant, [[Person:Lydia Clark (20)| Lydia Clark]], which included all the new data I have researched and uploaded it as an additional tree (I read somewhere we are NOT supposed to upload more than one Gedcom into any given tree). Then I merged the Lydia Clark in the Clark Tree with the Lydia Clark from the additional tree. +
-* My problem now is that there does not seem to be an option to add persons from the Lydia Clark tree to the Clark tree without manually editing each person and putting a checkmark in the box next to the Clark tree at the bottom of each page. When I go into FTE all I get is grey for any of the members I have not yet edited in this way, saying they are not in the Clark Tree, but I want them there.+
-*Did I do this all wrong? or what is the procedure? Yes I know that "one day" the upload a new gedcom will work better when the match merge thingy is working... but in the meantime I want to get my updates on WeRelate now, as I am hoping to get collaboration on this family group. +
-* It seems to me that there "should" be an option under file in FTE to add persons from one tree to an existing tree. --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 08:49, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+
-::There are several things in here, so let me see if I can respond to it in parts.+The Overview Committee has updated WeRelate's policy regarding the inclusion of Obituaries. This policy is similar to those found on other websites (such as [http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?searchArg=obituaries&page=listFaqs Find-A-Grave]). As with other texts, if an obituary is published after 1923, it may be subject to copyright and should not be added to WeRelate. However, some of the facts contained in the obituary such as name, age, birth/marriage/death/burial dates and places, names of parents/spouse/siblings/children are not copyrighted. You may include a link to the obituary (if published online), a brief summary of the facts (<s>please exclude names of living relatives</s>), the name of the newspaper, and date of publication. The full policy can be found [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:Licensing#Obituaries here].--[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 11:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
-::* I can understand being more familiar with one interface than another, and therefore being faster with something else. Allowing for differences in familiarity, what is less convenient about werelate?+:The policy was revised slightly to be more in line with guidelines that appear on [[Help:FAQ]] that say "On pages for People/Families who are deceased, information about still living people that is publicly available (ie, 1940 census data) - can be included on the pages." That is why I crossed out a bit of the text above. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 12:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
-:::Hello [[User:Jrm03063| JRM]] I use [[http://www.whollygenes.com/ TMG (The Master Genealogist)]] and with it we have the ability to repeat a citation last used simply by hitting F3. with WeRelate I have to jump though all the hoops, choosing type of source / finding the source (''IF I remember how to type in the name of it and get it easily OR then having to go through the laborious task of finding it, YUK'') and again entering page.. notations etc.. A good example is when entering a lot of data found on several persons from within a particular census page. In TMG, I can hit "F4" with opens typs of tags, and it self-completes as I type, and choose that which I need. I tab to date and enter, then from within that tag I can again hit "F4" which opens the "add a source" page and hit "F3" which automatically cites the WHOLE last source used with all its page numbers/notations/ etc. as an added bonus all I have to do is hit "ctrl" F3 to get a list of the last 15 used, arrow down to the one I want and hit enter, and viola. SO much easier to cite sources!!! +:: Just to be clear - I'm not seeing a policy change per se. This seems only to be a revised description of practice, calculated to better help people to avoid inadvertently infringing. Right? If not, then I'm missing something... --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 14:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
-:::I find I am more and more just putting in the "personal history" section on the page that "the information on this page came from census records, contact me for further source info" and leaving it at that. (This is just one example of ease with use of software vs. WeRelate) --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 14:38, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+
-::* In order to allow for everyone to work together without anyone accidentally destroying someone else's work, a true wiki never deletes anything. It just creates a new version. "werelate" departs from this a little, to allow delete of information that only you contributed to, but the name-space footprint of the stuff you had can not go away. Once a name comes into existence, the sequence number for that name is created and is ever increasing. I don't know if a "new page", could be created in a location freed up as a side-effect of a delete, but I suspect that's below the level of the code Dallan wants to work on (it's certainly not something wiki software wants to do).+== Savage Transcript Contents Updated! [9 December 2013] ==
-::* You can't do anything "wrong", unless you're intentionally screwing up data. You can do things that are less convenient and more time consuming for you and others to work on, but that's not a crime to my knowledge. Keeping information synchronized across different application systems, whether a traditional business or an application like genealogy, has kept a lot of software engineers well paid for a long time. It is a highly challenging proposition, and I would discourage anyone from adopting that sort of work flow pattern if possible. Dallan is determined to try to implement something like this, and my hat's off to him for the effort, but GEDCOM really isn't set up to record the kind of information that would allow a smooth re-integration of former download. I suspect he'll solve the problem in the 90% case, but that 10% may make a user crazy...+The [[Transcript:Savage, James. Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England|contents page]] for the WeRelate transcript of [[Source:Savage, James. Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England|Savage's Dictionary]] has been rebuilt.
-::* A "tree" in werelate is different than a "tree" in other genealogy systems. Typically, a tree "contains" both the names of the people in it but also all their information. "Deleting" a tree therefore deletes both things. In "werelate", a tree is just a list of page names that are represented out in the common name spaces, like PERSON and FAMILY pages. In wiki-terms, delete of a tree should do nothing to the pages the tree points at. However, in order to make werelate a little more like the systems folks are familiar with, [[User:Dallan]] coded a side effect into the tree delete, such that PERSON and FAMILY pages - to which only you have contributed - are also deleted.+The former version was obtained from direct processing of Dr. Kraft's ASCII files, using logic that was necessarily imprecise. The result being that section names were sometimes abruptly shortened (leaving out alternate name forms) or even missed altogether. The new version is built directly from the WeRelate transcript pages, processed through a program that recognizes the [[Template:Savagetranscriptsection|section marking template]]. While not strictly a part of the transcript (Savage's dictionary had no such table), I hope others will find it as helpful as I have.
-::* To my knowledge, you can load another GEDCOM into an existing tree, but you'll still get duplicate pages - they'll just be in one tree instead of two. When I load a secondary GEDCOM, I load it in it's own tree, and then use the upload tree as a guide for my work. I visit every page in that new tree, tidy up places and such, then drop it from the upload tree and add it to my default tree. When the upload tree is empty, I'm done so I delete it.+For example, the following:
 +: {{savagepage|3|304|OAKLEY}} {{savagepage|3|304|OAKMAN}} {{savagepage|3|304|OATES}} {{savagepage|3|304|OBBINSON}} {{savagepage|3|304|OBER}} {{savagepage|3|304|OCKINGTON or OKINGTON}} {{savagepage|3|304|ODELL or ODLE}} {{savagepage|3|304|ODERIC}} {{savagepage|3|304|ODIORNE}} {{savagepage|3|305|ODLIN}} {{savagepage|3|305|OFFITT}}
-::* If there are pages that you really aren't interested in editing associated with a GEDCOM upload, it probably would be better if you just didn't upload them. It's sort of like dropping pages on the floor and expecting someone else to tidy them up, file them, redirect them to a better version of the page, etc. The general rule I would hope people would observe is to not upload what they don't want to maintain (or at least, tidy up and merge) after the upload. [[User:Jrm03063]]+Became:
 +: {{savagepage|3|304|OAKLEY; OAKMAN; OATES; OBBINSON; OBER; OCKINGTON or OKINGTON; ODELL or ODLE; ODERIC; ODIORNE}} &bull; {{savagepage|3|305|ODLIN, ODLYN, original. AUDLEY, or AUDLIN; OFFITT}} &bull;
-:::[[User:Jrm03063| JRM]] I do not think I ever said I do not want to edit pages, I am saying my pages are already edited within my own software '''BEFORE I upload them''', thus I do not need to edit them, beyond doing merges where there are overlaps. I feel you think Gedcom uploads are junk, I am here to tell you that I do not feel that way. My goal with using WeRelate is for collaboration and that is all. If I can get cousins to see my pages and submit extra information and updates that will be wonderful, as I have already added all I knew and or could find, '''before I uploaded it'''. Now if someone does separately email me information, without at all posting it to my WeRelate pages, then I do go in and edit the pages. --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 14:38, 5 September 2008 (EDT) 
-Can't personally speak to your question, but it sparks a question of my own. What is it about the data entry system on WeRelate that makes it so much slower than your genealogy software? Is this a layout issue? Is it an issue with the basic "Person page-Family page" style of organization? What could be done to make the direct data entry process faster? Personally, I don't make that much use of the data entry system myself, but use my own HTML programming to layout the information. Plus's and minus's with that approach, but "speed" certainly isn't one of its plus's. I personally find the WeRelate data entry system a bit cumbersome to use, but I'm not exactly sure what it is that makes it cumbersome. I think it has something to do with the "Person page-Family page" style of organization. I think this is unique to WeRelate, but its been so long since I explore genealogy programs, maybe its commonplace today. Not saying that it should be different---the WeRelate system is obviously geared toward GedCom downloading, and direct data entry is available for those that need it. But I'm wondering if there's a way to improve direct data entry? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 10:58, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+And, this:
 +: {{savagepage|4|358|UFFORD, UFFOOTE or UFFIT}} {{savagepage|4|358|UMPHERVILE}} {{savagepage|4|358|UNDERHILL}}
-:::[[User:Quolla6|Q]] to my knowledge there is no genealogy software that causes you to create both family pages and person pages, this is yet another reason I shy away from using WeRelate to directly enter information, it just takes too long to do all that, which is automatically done if I just do it from within my [[http://www.whollygenes.com/ own software TMG]] --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 14:38, 5 September 2008 (EDT) +Became:
-----+: {{savagepage|4|358|UFFORD, UFFOOTE, or UFFIT; UMPHERVILE, UMBERFIELD, HEMPEHREVILLE, UMFREVILLE; UNDERHILL}}
-I'm making a change in the next month or two that should help: the FTE window will be displayed on every person and family page (you won't run the FTE in a sidebar), and will show the people related to that person/family regardless of whether they're in your tree. So you'll be able to give your relatives a link to a person/family in your tree and they'll be able to navigate around by clicking on the boxes in the FTE window that is displayed on the page. They won't have to launch the FTE. +
-There's no way to add everyone from one tree to another (and I probably won't be adding one because with this change I'm trying to make it less necessary to worry about what tree(s) a page is in), but if you [[User talk:Dallan|leave me a message]] with the names of the trees you want to merge, I can add them for you.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:27, 5 September 2008 (EDT) 
-== Ettiquette and Conventions [5 September 2008] ==+Besides offering a more faithful representation of Savage's section names/introducers, the new index also creates a single link entry per transcript page (combining all the sections that begin on a particular page into a single link - hence a larger individual text/mouse target). Since we don't have anchors that allow addressing within individual pages, there is no value in having separate links that all head to the same page. Separate links are also now set off from each other with bullets, while sections on the same page are set off with a semi-colon.
-It is likely I missed something, but I have watched the get-started video a couple of times, and what it presents is nearly intuitive where I find there are many non-intuitive issues that I wouldn't mind guidelines or rules for.+Questions, comments and corrections welcomed!
-For example, what is the polite way to dissent with data input by others? Add a topic on the talk page with a explanation of why the data might be wrong, wait a month, and if no response, change the data?+--[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 17:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
-For example, guidelines of what goes in family history and what goes on the talk page? Right now, not many people have talk pages, so one is worried that people don't check here, but this would seem to be the ideal place to explore discredited or alternate evidence.+== I hope you all have a Happy New Year [1 January 2014] ==
-For example, when using bet., bef. or aft. in dates, it might be reasonable to ask that people always include a source and probably also a note that explains how you arrived at the date. There is a myriad of date issues that could generate such conventions.+It has been a happy Newyear for me. My great-great grandmother's maiden name has been a brickwall since I started family history in 1981. Her husband is in my direct paternal line and I had traced two generations beyond him, so it was very frustrating to list her simply as Martha with dates of birth and death from her tombstone. In the past few years I had picked up her birthplace from a two-line obituary and a possible surname from someone on Ancestry. Yesterday I decided to take the plunge and feed the information into FamilySearch. The first line to come up was Martha Maw, baptized 30 Jun 1807, Settrington, Yorkshire, England, dau of Newyear and Elizabeth Maw. I could hardly believe it. My Martha's eldest son was also named Newyear.
-There is a hint of the type of rules I am looking for on the screen that describes how to pick Source or MySource. But there are many such decisions where it would help if all users could try to work the same way.+Happy New Year everybody! --[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 10:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
---[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 18:24, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+:Congratulations! A few years back, I spent a bit of time trying to figure out how New Year Maw's family was connected to my Maws from neighbouring Thornton Dale, but I didn't come up with anything.--[[User:Werebear|Werebear]] 01:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
-:You'll find much discussion of this here and elsewhere, but in brief, if you have good reason to believe data is wrong, just fix it. If someone disagrees with you, they can start a discussion. If there's a dispute, add dates as alternates and explain. Some don't believe that any data is ever wrong, in which case you're free to be cautious, but I've fixed probably hundreds of errors and never gotten a complaint.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 22:18, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+: What a wonderfully timed discovery! :) -- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 02:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
-----+:My smile of the day - what fun! Happy New Year!--[[User:DataAnalyst|DataAnalyst]] 03:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
-I concur w/Amelia. It's just far too impractical to wait around for folks who might disagree. How do you know who's interested at that moment? Check out [[Person:John Alden (1)]], and look at the number of people watching on the left hand side. What would be a quorum?+
-It's part of the wiki-way to just make the changes. If a dispute arises you deal with it then, but you just can't allow the process to be crippled in the vast majority of cases because once in a very great while someone disagrees. I'm currently watching about 25,000 pages. Over 20,000 of those arise from merging duplicates and tidying up other people's pages. I think I've encountered a disagreement maybe three or four times - and it was never of a severe sort. More of an, are you sure and what do you think sort of thing. Even if it were awful, that's something like 3/20,000. Does that seem worth worrying about?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 22:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+== Werelate on the rise [4 January 2014] ==
-----+[http://www.genealogyintime.com/articles/top%20100%20genealogy%20websites%202013%20page7.html This article] notes that Werelate.org had the second biggest jump last year in Alexa ranking of any large genealogy site. I was a bit disappointed to see it described as an "English-only" genealogy wiki, though. --[[User:Werebear|Werebear]] 06:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
-Jrich, I applaud your concern with courtesty. I have a similar view, and would not witingly change a page I had not created without at least attempting communication with the author. There is an issue of courtesty with doing work in a wiki type site. WeRelate, despite what some folks think, does not follow the rules of the Wikipedia in several respects. Most importantly, on the Wikipedia there is an overriding emphasis on using published, peer reviewed documents as sources. Use of original research is prohibited. (Good reasons for those rules---without them the Wikipedia would quickly degenerate into into a something quite unreliable.) But if those rules were followed on Werelate, there'd be virtually nothing here---because almost all genealogy involves original research. True, people cite family histories as their sources, but such sources are rarely what could be called "peer reviewed"---perhaps widely read, and some folks think they are the "bible" for their line, but unless something has gone through a formal peer review process, it doesn't meet the wikipedia standards, and you won't be able to get an article based on this accepted long term on the Wikipedia. Try making a change on a wikipedia article based on your original research, and or based on a "family history", and see what happens. Here that's not a problem, but that's because this is not the Wikipedia, and despite what some seem to think, different rules do apply.+
-Another aspect of the differences between this and the Wikipedia, is that the readership base is much smaller here, than on the Wikipedia. On the Wikipedia you have roughly 40 to 100 Million hits a month. That's a lot of folks reading articles. Not all hits result in an edit, but many do. Here you have at most about 10-20K hits a month, with a corresponding reduction in edits. Half of the users of the Wikipedia are what might be called regulars---folks who habitually go to the Wikipedia to get or add information. On WeRelate most users (about 80%) are just passerbys <ref name="quantcast>These data are based on [http://www.quantcast.com/werelate.org Quantcast] results; Werelate is not registered with Quantcast, and the data quantcast presents for it are estimates. Those estimates may undercount actual use. I've observed that the counts went up substantially on another wiki after it was registered. Nonetheless, I'm confident that the traffic on WeRelate is a tiny fraction of the traffic on Wikipedia.</ref> One look and they are gone. The base of people seriously working the WeRelate wiki is far smaller than that on the Wikipedia. As a result, far fewer folks are going to be paying attention to changes in articles. Some will, but the vast majority will never notice the change---even if they might have felt strongly about the change (one way or the other) they are probably not going to see it, and if they do see a change notice, probably won't invest the time to discuss the point. On the wikipedia, given the larger, more involved user base, you can pretty much guarantee it that if you make a change, its going to be a) noticed, and b) discussed, and maybe c) argued. Not here.+:Not to mention that WeRelate is the only wiki in the Top 100.--[[User:Jhamstra|Jhamstra]] 07:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
-Given the smaller base, I think there's a need to be proactive in contacting folks with whom you disagree about some point of family history. How long you might wait for them to respond is an interesting question. Personally if I were inclined to change an article created by someone else (other than say cosmetic, spelling, etc.), I'd make the change, and then contact them directly by email, asking for their input. That would seriously cramp some peoples style, but I think there is such a thing as courtesty---and this is not the Wikipedia. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:30, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+:Not so. WikiTree is in that Top 100 too (at 31).--[[User:Borgsteede|Enno]] 21:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
-References:+::Great news, but does anyone know why? Our number of records or users don't seem to have grown that much. Do we know which pages are getting the hits or where they are coming from? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
-<references/>+::Based on [http://www.genealogyintime.com/articles/how-popular-is-genealogy-page05.html this article], readership seems to have nearly dounbled - from ca. 650 visitors per day to around 1,000. Is this consistent with the page view stats our site admins can see? Has there been a step change or just a gradual rise? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
-----+== Deleting "discussions" and messages of other contributors [5 January 2014] ==
-While I understand the "just change it" philosophy, I am not sure it will scale to high-volume use and mature data. I would hate to see dueling edits flip-flopping data back and forth in one of those numerous cases where the answer cannot be determined and multiple possibilities exist. I would prefer to see a convention for handling this set up now so most people come into WeRelate with it being the norm, and them not getting used to any other way. It is tempting to think we could have a moratorium in its infancy, but I think it should be established and people should start to use it as often as they can bring themselves to...+Hello ! I do as proposed by Jennifer ! Please see my "thought" on her [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User_talk:JBS66#Deleting_.22discussions.22_and_messages_of_other_contributors_.21_I_say_.22NO_.21.22_.5B22_December_2013.5D talk-page]. My english is so poor and it's for me not easy to explain (that I think and what I observed on some wiki-sites) and to understand precisely the arguments in their details. GoogleTranslate is truly catastrophic ! I became a [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User_talk:Markus3#Removing_Titles_in_Suffix_Fields_.5B4_January_2014.5D new message] from an WR-administrator, but I saw I deleted also several messages of others on his own talk-page ! Of course I can answer him on my page, but ... I think, this (''problem'' ... for me) should be discussed and explained. Why is the only solution not an implementation archive, also an '''archive without destruction''' ? Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 09:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
-I was also curious about other issues. There are so many places to put information and it is not clear (perhaps just to me) which is the best for what: embedded in a source, put it in a note, or add it to family history. For example, a one-line statement of historical interest (say, 'Selectman in 1673')probably belongs in the family history section so that all data of a single type is in one location, but it fits so easily in the text section of a source, especially if one wants to attribute that item to that source. A standard set of conventions that most conscientious users follow would result in more readable and understandable pages. I could even see starting every person with a family history section having a standard set of topic headers, or similar framework.+: Je crois que peut-être certaines de vos idées était <<perdu en traduction>>, mais je pense que je comprends. J'essaierai d'expliquer en anglais, et vous pouvez me corriger.
 +: As I understand it, the problem is that some administrators are simply deleting revisions of pages, instead of removing the information and leaving it in the revision history. Is that correct? If so, then I agree with Marc, and think that the only information that should be deleted are copyright violations or privacy violations, and generally the revisions should still be available. -- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 22:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 +::I agree with jdfoote, better to leave discussions in the page history. Editors should be given more freedom on their own Talk page histories, but should still leave discussions in the history where possible so that others can refer to them if they need to. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 +::: Yes, deletion of a talk page (deleting all its history), or deleting items from the revision history, should I think only be done in extraordinary circumstances. Circumstances could include extreme language, attacks, defamation, etc. but should not be used to just get rid of "old stuff" that is thought not to be needed. Go ahead and edit the page to remove the stuff, but deleting the old revisions should pretty much be avoided if at all reasonable. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 22:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
-Another issue is the formatting of dates. There are all sorts of practices in the various sources out there, many of which I happen to have an opinion on :-), and I thought the staff genealogist, or other appropriate person could write a quick outline of ideal practices. +== People with one name [4 January 2014] ==
 +What about when someone has only one name? An example is [[Person:Unknown Redhawk (1)|Redhawk]]. Should Redhawk be entered for the first name or the last name? --[[User:Cthrnvl|cthrnvl]] 03:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
-:I think of "WeRelate" as in perpetual Beta mode. Unlike most genealogy programs you buy, WeRelate is very adaptable---mostly because there's someone there willing to make changes on the fly to meet specific needs. There's been a lot of thinking gone into setting up WeRelate...much more so than other genealogy wiki's, I think. I'm sure not every idea has worked as well as someone wished it to, but by trial and error, what "works", survives, and what doesn't, dissappears. But there can be different solutions to the same problem in a system. and I think that's a good thing, as different people have different capabilities, and different needs. One solution does not fit every problem for every person. Sometimes you need multiple ways of getting at things. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:54, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+:I favor first name because that is the "given" name, the one identifying the individual, whereas the surname or last name (in Western usage) is the family name and identifies the family. Since a single name does not identify the family, it belongs in the given name position to my way of thinking. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 06:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
-Never shy about expressing my opinion, I will outline some of the date issues specifically. George E. Bowman of the Mayflower Descendant sometimes converted dates to new style, which technically meant adding 10 days. So if you saw a date in that magazine of 3 June 1632, you always wondered, is this really 3 June or was it 24 May converted to new style? For that reason, I prefer to leave the date as written in the source, only adding a second year for the months Jan-Mar if necessary, e.g., 24 Feb 1645[/6]. I prefer using brackets to show that I added the second year based on context, or no brackets if the second year format was used by the source, e.g., 24 Feb 1645/6. When quoting numeric dates, I like to quote the date and then give my interpretation in brackets to make it clear I have adjusted for the change in month numbering that occurred in 1753, e.g.: 4 (5) 66 [4 Jul 1666]. When I use aft. or bef. I like to have an explicit note explaining the significance of the date given, such as died bef. such and such a date because that was the date of the inventory. I hate the use of unadorned years which I frequently see, e.g., '1749', except in the sole case where that is all the source gives. If a will is dated 5 Jun 1749 and proved 8 Aug 1749, the death date should be bet. 5 Jun 1749-8 Aug 1749, not 1749. The term Abt. should be used for calculated ages with a 1 or 2 year precisions, e.g., from census entries, depositions, or gravestones, whereas some other term, such as 'Est.' or 'Say' should be used for the swags based on children's ages, date of marriage, etc. Obviously, the basis for all estimates should be explained in a note. I don't want to put words in the mouth of my source, or make it more or less precise than it was, and at the same time, I want to make it very clear what I added so others can check, and if necessary, correct my work. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 13:19, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+== Loss of TITL events during GEDCOM import [12 January 2014] ==
-Another issue is the formatting of dates. There are all sorts of practices in the various sources out there, many of which I happen to have an opinion on :-), and I thought the staff genealogist, or other appropriate person could write a quick outline of ideal practices. +I have the impression that during my GEDCOM import all TITL events were lost and the titles were simply copied to the prefix of names. Is this a feature or a bug ? The loss of TITL event looks to me pity, as the TITL event may content not only the title itself, but the date of attribution, place, comments etc.
 +Is there a list of events which are supported and not supported during the GEDCOM import ?
 +--[[User:Alexandre|Alexandre]] 10:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
-:If the only thing someone puts down for a particular data element (say a DOD), then yes, some sort of rules are needed for that data element, and what is meant by (for example) "circa". That way others can interpret the value. Whether "Abt" means the same as "Circa", or whether either means "one or two years" in terms of precision seems sort of if'y. Why might some folks mean "within 3 years", or "within a decade or two". Not likely to be something that could be pinned down and have used consistent. +: Are you saying that it's throwing away information? Or is it just dropping stuff it doesn't understand into the narrative body of the page? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 19:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
-:On the otherhand, if you include the reasoning for the date in question (ie, "falls within a five year period between the date the will was written, and the date probate was entered"), then "rules" are not needed so much. Including the reasoning though, is sometimes difficult to do---especially if all someone is doing is filling in the text boxes. There's are also some practical problems with that related to the wide variety of capabilities different people bring to genealogy. You can provide a short explanation there, but I suspect in most cases the logic of the answer put into the text box, is more complicated than that. Which is why I personally prefer text articles, rather than "fill in the box". [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:54, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+----
 +I mean that the TITL event is lost. The title value itself is not lost, it it is copied into the prefix of the name of the person, which i personally do not mind, but some GEDCOM purists may argue that the title should not be part of the name. The date, place and comments of the TITL events are copied to the general notes, not related to attribution of the title. For example, the
 +following GEDCOM record:
-:: I agree that everything is fixed by an explanation. In regards to circa, about, estimated, etc. there are two different situations at least that I see. One is where you have a documented age on a given date and you can calculate some other date. This is not precise as it is subject to error of the document and usually the age is only given with a precision of a whole year, meaning it is probably only precise within a year or two. However, this is different from the swag based on typical age relationships, i.e., first child born at 25 and then the next children are born one every two years. It is useful when you see a name in a list to have an idea of which century they lived in, at least, but this kind of swag has a much lower authority/reliability than the first kind of estimated date. We can't change all the sources out there that have followed a million different practices, and probably can't isolate WeRelate from that either, since GEDCOM uploads will invariably bring in garbage, but a convention would tend to get used, which people would follow more and more as they see it used on various pages they view, and over time the pages would be more consistent, hence more understandable. I don't really care too much about what the convention is, but think it would be beneficial if there was one. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 14:32, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+1 NAME Petr /Tolstoi/
 +1 SEX M
-:::Ok, here are my date conventions:+1 BIRT
-:::Date conventions are really important, as they should eventually serve as a basis for data consistency checks. A date string that uses an unusual form will not be able to be recognized by the software, so useful integrity checks could not be made.+ 2 DATE 1645
 + 2 PLAC Moscow, Russia
 +1 TITL Comte
 + 2 DATE 7 May 1724
 + 2 PLAC St.Petersbourg, Russia
 + 2 NOTE title retracted 22 May 1727 after deportation to Solovky
 +1 DEAT
 + 2 DATE 17 Feb 1729
 + 2 PLAC Solovky, Russia
-:::* <day of month> <month abbrev> <year> - Day of month is an ordinary integer, as is the year. The year is also an integer (w/AD implied) and can appear with a trailing "nn/nn+1" to indicate dates before the calendar shift (early 1600s?). Month abbreviations are the usual - "Jan", "Feb", "Mar", "Apr", "May", "Jun", "Jul", "Aug", "Sep", "Oct", "Nov", "Dec". These have a leading capital as would be appropriate if they were spelled out. No trailing ".".+is transformed in WeRelate into "Comte Petr Tolstoi (M) born in 1645 at Moscow, Russia and dead 17 Feb 1729 at Solovky, Russia".
 +With general comments: "7 may 1724", "St.Petersbourg, Russia" and "title retracted 22 May 1727 after deportation to Solovky".--[[User:Alexandre|Alexandre]] 13:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 +:Hi Alexandre. I've brought this to [[User:Dallan|Dallan's]] attention. The TITL Title (Nobility) field is relatively new to WeRelate's events list, so there may be a GEDCOM import bug. I appreciate you letting us know about this! --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 14:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 +I reformulated my example in more correct way. Thanks for reporting this issue.--[[User:Alexandre|Alexandre]] 21:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
-:::* before, after, about - "bef", "aft", "abt". No period, keep the lower case to take up less space and because "before", "after" and "about" would not correctly be upper case. The about characteristic can also be "ca".+== Integer Math in a Template - Parser/String Functions Extension [15 February 2014] ==
-:::* If a date is an estimate, precede it by "Est.". This is meant for consistency with the usage in the WFT (which actually uses "WFT Est."). +I was just looking at trying to write a template, where I need a little integer math. It looks like something I could do with the expression handling part of the parser functions, but they don't seem to be present. I'm looking at creating a template to create something like the following:
-:::* Time ranges for an event w/duration (say, residence) - "from" <start_date> "to" <end_date>+ <nowiki>[http://www.thepeerage.com/p10214.htm#i102139 Henry Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Lancaster]</nowiki>
-:::* Range within which an event is believed to have occurred - "bet" <start_date> "and" <end_date>+I'ld like to create a template that looked like <nowiki>{{Lundy|102139|Henry Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Lancaster}}</nowiki>, but I need to be able to take the second parameter, divide it by 10, and if there's a remainder, add 1 - to create 10214. It seems a waste to have the second integer parameter, if it's a simple function of the first.
-Never use an all-digit form (i.e., <yy>-<mm>-<dd>) since there is often confusion between what field is+Anyone have any clever ideas? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 16:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
-the month and what field is the day. Never gratuitously capitalize - it takes up too much space.+:We're on an old version of mediawiki. Chances are math functions were introduced in a more-recent version.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
-----+== Weird Category Sort Behavior [4 February 2014] ==
-I'd be happy for someone to create a [[Help:Conventions]] page and add conventions to it. I don't consider myself enough of an expert to have good opinions here over the basic "don't use all-digits" advice. Currently the software just looks for a 1-2 digit number for the day, an alphabetic word for the month, and a 3-4 digit number for the year. It ignores modifiers like bef, aft, abt, and uses just the first date of a range. (To handle those cases where people use all-digit dates, it checks to see if one of the numbers is between 1-12 and the other is between 1-30, and does the right thing in that case.)+
-Regarding where to put information, I plan to make a change this Fall that I think will make it more natural to put short explanations on the talk page: I want to list the talk page contents after the contents of the primary page, with an entry box for adding a quick comment to the talk page, like you see in blogs. I'm hoping that this change promotes two behaviors: (1) it will encourage newcomers to leave comments when they have something to say about a page -- filling in a comment entry box at the bottom of the page is a lot less intimidating than editing the page, and (2) it will encourage newcomers to leave their opinions about a page in the comment box rather than editing the page. Then others with more experience can decide whether to incorporate their comments into the primary page. People could be encouraged to leave comments rather than edit well-established pages directly.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:27, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+I'm getting some weird behavior associated with sorting items in a category. The specific category is the [[:Category:Salem Witch Trials|Salem Witch Trials]], and the strange sort behavior is the appearance of [[Person:Rebecca Unknown (632)|Rebecca Unknown]] in a second "W" section after "^". Rebecca is assigned to this category by way of a template (which provides a reliable category sort in many other situations - for example [[Person:William Stoughton (1)|William Stoughton]]). The sort parameter I've provided is "Unknown, Rebecca". I would have expected her to show up under "U". ??? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 +:I don't think it's the template that is providing the sort - it is the <nowiki>[[Category:Salem Witch Trials|witchcrf.]]</nowiki> in the S3 source citation. The sorting follows ASCII sort - so all of the upper case letters come before ^ which comes before all of the lower case letters. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 17:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
-== Preserving Copyright [5 September 2008] ==+::Oh.... --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
-As one of the benefits of WeRelate should be collaboration, I have been doing the genealogical equivalent of picking a fight: 'fixing' other people's data, and adding controversial individuals, hoping to encourage discussions of these interesting cases. Many of these cases hinge on other people having access to sources I do not, or vice versa.+== Possible Next Steps for WeRelate [15 February 2014] ==
-In making my arguments, I frequently find myself wanting to quote my sources. Sometimes the actual text of a source is important. Having the text certainly seems to add authority in some cases, and shows exactly how limited that authority is in other cases. (A record giving the death date for "Wid. Parks" could easily be applied to the wrong person, but without the text, a reader might assume this is of the same quality as a source that says "Lydia, wife of Benjamin Parks".)+I recently created a discussion page about [[WeRelate talk:Next Steps|possible next steps for WeRelate]] and the possibility of becoming a Wikimedia Foundation project. Would you please take a few minutes to review that page and add your comments (on that page, not here)? Your feedback is greatly valued - thanks.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 +:I refuse to contribute to anything involved with Wikipedia. At this point I will be ceasing my editing of WR, and will have to look elsewhere for collaborative genealogical work. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 17:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 +::Ok, would you please add your comments to the [[WeRelate talk:Next Steps|discussion page]]? I'd like to keep all of the discussion in one place. Thank you.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 17:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
-I suspect quoting one vital record with proper attribution would not be regarded as copyright infringement, but after 10 or 15 years of data input, will WeRelate collectively contain 75% of the vital records of towns such as Woburn, Concord, etc.? Would that now be considered copyright infringement?+== A language half-measure - wikipedia inclusion alternative [24 February 2014] ==
-As a lay person, I am not at all comfortable trying to interpret copyright law. I read some of the fair use links and such, but it might help to have examples of what WeRelate would consider good or ideal usage and improper usage.+On the various language wikipedia, people expect to find alternative language versions of the page (if any), listed in the lower-left hand column. For our pages, that section of screen real estate is usually empty, presenting a an opportunity. What if we populated the same space with the same language-specific WP links (not particular alternative languages - rather - all that are defined for a Person, Place, or whatever). I previously wrote [[WeRelate:Suggestions/Content Language Neutrality via Wikipedia/Wikidata|a suggestion]] that would try to present an appropriate language extract depending on the user's language preferences. That idea is orthogonal to this, but would likewise rely on a language-neutral Wikidata address to establish a page association (from that, you can get the list of different language WP versions that have a corresponding page).
-Is abstracting a source with attribution always valid? To list a source without some indication of what that source supports could create erroneous appearances if the data gets changed. For example, I enter date-A supported by my source, and later the page is edited to say date-B. If the source is still there, it would now appear that that source is in support of date-B, which is incorrect.+As I'm contemplating this - I'm wondering if we could arrange to have our corresponding pages WP<->WR established in Wikidata? That would make WR quite unique and interesting technically... ??? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 23:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
---[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 18:48, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+:I am not sure I understand. Do you mean that the list of alternative language versions for a Wikipedia page would appear below the "Watchers" and "Browse" lists, and if you clicked them, it would bring up the alternative language versions of the Wikipedia page? That sounds like a step forward in making Werelate more welcoming to foreign language users, at least for pages with a Wikipedia component. --[[User:Werebear|Werebear]] 15:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
-:Your use of Werelate sounds exciting. Have you stimulated discussions? Regarding copyright; facts cannot be copyrighted, but rather the format that is used to present the facts. So if you just quote the facts you are not violating any copyright law.--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 21:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+::Yes, that's exactly the idea. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 15:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 +:::The previous suggestion alluded to was for wikipedia pages and how to include them from the different servers, so that people could choose to get their native language - though perhaps different content that the builder of the WeRelate page read when they decided to use wikipedia in the creator's native language. Not sure that is good, but if readers understand that risk, who knows? They may actually get better material in their language. Of course, that is possible because wikipedia does all the work of providing the foreign language version. It is the production of the foreign language version that seems completely lacking from this current proposal. That is the hard part, is it not?
 +:::Ignoring cultural issues, such as different events being of interest, and naming issues, for which various workarounds seem to be progressing as needed, just the presentation of foreign language offers several problems that have been glossed over, I think. I assume that internationalization/localization can be applied to facts to make them reasonably easy to understand to a foreign language reader, which at least gives a skeleton view of the page that is understandable. So this problem seems to be centered on the narrative, notes, and other free-form text.
 +:::If one person produces a Japanese narrative, who is going to produce an English one so that there is an alternative to offer in this little list on the side of the page? Who is going to ensure that they remain in sync? I would assume that many of these may be team efforts where one researcher writes in one language and another provides a translation, like some of the discussions on various Talk pages. What if one member of the team becomes inactive? Now the translation gets out of synch and probably should be deleted. Or are you suggesting using translation software to provide machine translations? If so, then no list is needed, it could just adjust based on user preferences.
 +:::It is nice to talk about foreign languages. Nobody want to make this English only, which is predominant because most of the users are probably from the United States, but could have and may still develop otherwise. But how exactly do you imagine a researcher of one language writing so a reader in another language can understand? That is the process that needs to be defined. Where to put links on the page, if links is even the best way to offer different languages, seems like the least of the problems. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
-:: I have not as of yet stimulated any discussions. Unfortunately I do not think there are enough users active on WeRelate to make this a high probability. Also, most of my hard cases are hard because they do not have a wealth of information readily available so the chances of hitting an interested party may be smaller. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 13:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+== GEDCOM disappeared [23 February 2014] ==
-:::We're not actively promoting WeRelate at present until we get match+merge working. But yet we continue to grow. Once we start actively promoting it early next year I expect we'll see a lot more users.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:27, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+I had a GEDCOM in admin review and now it appears to be gone. If it was deleted/rejected, I assume I would've gotten a message, correct? [[User:Colby Farrington|Colby Farrington]] 06:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-:A few more things - records from before 1923 are in the public domain, and that includes most of the New England vital records collections. Lengthy verbatim quotes (like copying entire entries out of Great Migration) are what's most likely to raise eyebrows, but that's much different than the selective quoting you're talking about. And as for someone changing the data attached to a source, that's why you always watch the pages you've edited, that way you can fix such errors.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 22:09, 26 August 2008 (EDT)+:Have you checked to see if the data was successfully imported? Maybe the 'Imported Successfully' message was dropped or delayed. I see recent contributions of things like "[[Family:Zechariah Eddy and Mercy Morton (1)]] (Add data from gedcom)". --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 07:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 +::Those were done while matching/updating families. When everything is accepted, the contributions say "gedcom upload", like this: http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:Ella_Ellsworth_%283%29&diff=prev&oldid=20360924. It should have been hundreds of edits with that comment. [[User:Colby Farrington|Colby Farrington]] 14:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 +:As to your first question, yes, you would have gotten a message if it were removed or rejected, but that did not happen. The file should have imported without a problem, but that does not appear to be the case. Jennifer has indicated that she will contact Dallan about the issue and hopefully it can be resolved as soon as possible.--[[User:Khaentlahn|Khaentlahn]] 16:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
---- ----
-I'm not a lawyer either, but as others have said: facts are not copyrightable and if you put something in your own words you're not violating copyright. Also, I would think that quoting a few sentences verbatim from a copyrighted source along with proper attribution isn't a problem.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+Dallan has successfully sent your file through to import. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for letting us know about the problem. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 22:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 +:Thank you very much! [[User:Colby Farrington|Colby Farrington]] 03:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
-:: As hinted by some of the answers, it appears most of my sources are old enough that it is not an issue. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright wikipedia article on duration of copyrights] I was confused that more works aren't available on books.google.com and thought there must be some other complexity involved. (books.google.com is another example of how the next big changes to genealogy are going to revolve around the Internet. WeRelate is part of that too.) --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 13:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)+== Narratives versus Facts [25 February 2014] ==
-== Displaying marriages sorted by date [28 August 2008] ==+In cleaning up pages, I've often found myself looking at narratives that (at least to my eye) did nothing more than string together material that could as easily have been represented as facts. I also pretty much took it for granted that the fact list representation is to be preferred - it provides an obvious way to associate particular sources with particular facts - and that association would persist in a GEDCOM export.
-I have noticed that on Family pages, children can be entered in any order and will display sorted by their birth date. This is a great feature. On Person pages, however, when a person has been married multiple times, their marriages are not sorted by date. Is this possible to do other than ordering them correctly on the person’s edit page? Also, is it possible to display a person’s marriage date and location on their Person page?--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 08:50, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+In my primary discipline, computer science, it is almost always considered bad practice to duplicate information. So when I create a fact list from narrative information, I'll drop the narrative if it doesn't seem to add anything not apparent in the fact list. Also, while we havn't done anything along these lines, I've always considered automatic information consistency checking to be something that we will eventually want. It would be fairly straight-forward to recognize a page, where a date of residence fact was later than a date of death fact - but recognizing such information in free-form narratives is practically impossible. A fact list is also more apt to be useful in an environment where we strive for more language neutrality - since fact names can be expressed appropriately.
 +So are there general principles that we should have on this sort of thing? I'm willing to accept that there may be good reasons to keep a narrative along with a fact list - but "I just like it that way" probably shouldn't be among them. To be sure, I don't think a narrative should ever be considered a substitute for the fact list representation. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
---- ----
-What I plan to do in the near future is display a mini-tree on the right-hand side of each person and family page. In this tree, the marriages and children would be listed in order by date.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+I'll assume that it OK for a narrative to summarize facts/records on a Person Page, versus using a narrative to replace facts.... Frankly, this is why I like using wikipedia content on Person Pages, as long as it is supported by an appropriate amount of sources and records. Just my $.02.
-== Place Names - the Netherlands [28 August 2008] ==+Jim [[User:Delijim|Delijim]] - 25 February 2014
-I have an observation on Place names - not sure if this is the proper place to post this.+: I'm not sure that I understand why having both is a concern unless it has to do with keeping the size of the primary page manageable or readable? I like both for different reasons at different stages of putting a page together. I want to have the Timeline available for research and reference, but once events are pretty well sorted out, I think a narrative summarizing the person's life is nicer to have front and center on the page. A narrative can include relevant analysis and discussion and can cover territory that shouldn't be included in a strict list of facts. Sorry, that one ''is'' just my personal preference. I don't want to reduce these human beings to just a series of data points. Wasn't there an idea floated around at one time about moving the Timeline to a Subpage or an attached Article? --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
-My current research involves the Netherlands, specifically the province of Friesland.+::The narratives that I find revolting are those that don't do anything that wouldn't be done by a software program that strings together sentences generated from a chronological walk over the fact list. It's not a space problem - it's a doubling of the maintenance and review problem. It also creates a situation where a change made in one location could be left at odds with another. I'm not saying don't do narratives - I'm just saying they ought to contribute something that isn't equally apparent from the fact list. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 18:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
-The Netherlands is divided into provinces and each province is further divided into municipalities. +
-So, I would be inclined to record the town of Fewerd as such:+
-Ferwerd, Ferwerderadeel, Friesland, Netherlands. (town), (municipality), (province), (country). +
-This would be similar to the divisions in France. I noticed that Werelate’s Place pages for France are recorded in this manner (ie: [[Place:Igé, Orne, Basse-Normandie, France]]). However, the Place pages for the Netherlands do not include the municipality (ie: [[Place:Ferwerd, Friesland, Netherlands]]). It would be helpful to know the municipality in which a town is located for easier searching. I have noticed that websites for Friesland research include municipality information to further limit searches.+
-I wasn't sure if it was possible to make changes to the place pages to add this information.--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 15:49, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Hello JBS66,+As a choice between facts ''or'' narrative, facts lose because they are incapable of transmitting as much detail so richly due to their constrained format. If there can only be one, it should be narrative. Besides not being as sterile, or as black and white, it gives researchers the freedom to discuss various things in as much detail as they want, including stories, background, conflicting views, mistakes in the past, analysis, etc., etc. which facts by themselves could not possibly communicate.
-Many of us enter our location names is it was when the event occurred. As I understand it that creates a problem for the mapping system since the mapping is based on present time location names, and it creates issues in Werelate because of that. If I understand correctly you can enter your locations as you wish, and in time those locations will be redirected by Werelate to the present time locations page.+As to how to balance facts ''and'' narrative, facts appear me to be summary items with narratives providing the finished product that makes it look like somebody has actually studied the whole life of the person, not intersected it at one factoid. Most facts outside birth and death are not processed by the system other than sorting the list, so no functionality benefit accrues from their presence (and if they were desired to be processed, they would have to be more regulated as to content, e.g., fact type military would have to be specifically understood to be rank, or unit, or battle, or all three in some constrained format). They add redundant maintenance as sources and narrative get changed. Certain facts seem useful in situations where there are uncertain results, such as alternate dates, will and probate, but other than the these and the main 4, I personally see no value. I prefer to provide a more concise summary with the facts, having it understood that details will be found in the narrative, notes, and sources which are capable of nuance and depth.
-Dallan or others probably understand this much better than I do though. Debbie Freeman--[[User:DFree|DFree]] 16:18, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+Excessive facts can cause the list to extend off the visible part of the screen. Because I use the facts to quickly identify a person based on their birth, death, and marriages, I find the last particularly annoying. If the person is of interest, I will read everything on the page. But having their last marriage pushed off the bottom so so that can list 6 residences, 4 ranks in the military, 5 battles participated in, 3 town offices, and every other little detail that strikes ones fancy, in the facts, just makes pulling the critical information out of the fact list harder. It is clutter. The fact list should be like the info boxes on the families: it just a quick overview, not all the information on the family page. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 18:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
-----+:I agree with the problem of minor facts cluttering up the timeline. But I do not think the solution is to eliminate the facts. The current structure of WeRelate is fact-driven rather than source-driven. I try in most cases to tie my Sources to Facts. Especially in the case of some of my ancestors and their families who did indeed move five or more times across three or four different states, when and how they moved around is a key part of unraveling the genealogy puzzles. Here the devil is indeed in the details. Consider the puzzles of [[Person:Samuel Wilson (63)|Samuel (Bauer or Bowers) Wilson]] and of his niece [[Person:Mary Wilson (302)|Mary Salome Wilson]]. Between them they moved around a lot and Mary had 8 recorded marriages to 7 different husbands. I do not claim to have the best-formatted pages on these distant relatives but I think I have a fairly good compilation of the known facts with some supporting narrative. --[[User:Jhamstra|Jhamstra]] 18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
-The short answer is '''yes!''' The reason we have only three levels for the Netherlands (and many other European countries) is because the data that we used to construct the Netherlands places (Wikipedia, Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names, and the Family History Library Catalog) largely had only three levels for most European countries. These countries stay in their current state until someone decides to improve them. For example, [[User:Scot]] is currently doing this for Portugal. Others have done it for Sweden, Scotland, Poland, and many other countries (see [[WeRelate:Place review]] for information about a large review project last Fall). +
-If you're interested in working on adding municipalities to the Netherlands, leave a message on [[User talk:Dallan|my talk page]] and I'll help you get started. +:Obviously, I concur w/Jhamstra. If the problem is that fact display is creating visual clutter - the solution isn't to eliminate facts - but to address software choices latent in the display. Some people perform narrow research - participants in battles, burials in a grave yard, passengers on a particular vessel of immigration - and who knows what else. Their contribution can't be less worthwhile or honorable if they offer it as a single well supported and properly described fact on a Person page! They can't possibly be on the hook to learn the life story of the individual beyond learning enough to be sure that the fact is being assigned to the right individual. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 18:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
-For Europe we tend to title places according to the hierarchy they were in around 1900-1930, and earlier/later hierarchies are listed as also-located-in places. The Netherlands seems to have been relatively stable for the past 100 years, so this won't be an issue for Netherlands. +::Did I miss something? I don't recall anybody even hinting at eliminating facts, and in fact the very reason for expressing concern over clutter, is the usefulness of certain facts. But many people lack perspective, which leads to clutter. Now clutter can be reduced by having major and minor facts, and perhaps a user preference setting combined with "+"/"-" buttons would allow each to see their own preference. The issue of clutter could also be resolved by creating two sections on the page, one for summary facts that identify the person, the other for a timeline. (Still I think guidelines are needed about what is important enough so people aren't adding facts for "John Doe turned 50".) Or people can simply use the normal method of Categories to put pages into groups. Unless accompanied by a banner, categories impose much less disruption on the format of a page so that people can tie together the subjects of their research project without taking over the page from the person who is studying the person's whole life.
 +::But given the total lack of prevailing practice on facts, converting people's narrative into facts and removing the narrative is, I think, too much an imposition of personal preference, whether because facts are the latest technical feature you are playing with, or simply because you personally don't like narratives. Yes some present problems because they mostly talk about people that have their own pages and the material should be moved. Or they merely dump a list of children duplicating the family infobox, and should be trimmed or eliminated. Some are under-documented and need footnotes added. But overall I think the dominant practice in genealogy would suggest a narrative describing a person's life is a necessary ingredient of a mature coverage.
 +::By the way, I think the key to "worthwhile or honorable" is "well-supported", i.e, sources, preferably reliable objectives sources that are cited, and there is a whole other school that would suggest a person should be presented merely as a collection of sources, and that the rest is redundant after that. That is more my style, but I respect that some people like narratives, and so I try to maintain them when I find them. And which is why I agree wikipedia inclusions do serve a purpose when nobody has taken the time to write a narrative. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 20:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
-One final thing: I'm starting a process to automatically edit 750,000 Source pages for the sources in the Family History Library Catalog. During the next few days while this is running, I'd rather not have a lot of place reorganization underway, but you could start around the end of next week if you're interested.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+:::I certainly think that a more sophisticated display, with respect to fact lists, could be helpful. Beyond that I direct attention to the opportunities presented by structured information, as opposed to free form, both in terms of obtaining it and using it on larger scales. When cleaning up pages, I tend not to retain narratives that don't offer context or something that isn't immediately apparent from the fact list. The narratives I object to most, are those that appear to have been mechanically produced by report software, which turned information that originally WAS a list of facts, into a pseudo-narrative. If there's a human intellect involved in composing a helpful presentation or introduction that's more friendly - that's just fine. But there ought to be a reason, and it ought not to be instead of creating entries for appropriate facts. --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 02:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
-== Howto Export GEDCOM or Backup Tree [28 August 2008] ==+== Basic Tutorials [26 February 2014] ==
-I was wondering how I can export data from weRelate to a gedcom.+Is there any one person who has the responsibility to keep the beginner tutorials up-to-date?--[[User:Khaentlahn|Khaentlahn]] 15:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
-It's a feature that we can see in the future ?+
-The only way that I can see to backup my tree is to use a web crawler / spider and make an offline copy (is a really bad idea, but it's the only that I can imagine now).--[[User:Fbarriga|fbarriga]] 22:39, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+
-----+: I think the crickets chirping may be your answer - though you can certainly look at who edited them last time to see if they're interested in updating things. Are you nominating yourself? Perhaps you just not want to go in there alone? :) ? --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 18:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
-There's supposed to be a GEDCOM download one of these days, but we're waiting on [[User:Dallan|Dallan]] on that one. It's somewhere on his dance card.+
-I want it for the same reason you do. Also, since there really aren't plans for werelate to offer anything in the way of report generation, it would allow you to dump a section of data to the report-generating facility of your choice.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 10:18, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+Nominating myself... Not initially, but I will make the attempt if no one else wants to do the text tutorials. They are in dire need of updating. The video tutorials will need to be someone else's purview. I've never produced a tutorial video. I would be willing to help with a collaborative effort on the videos if need be, but not as a solo effort.--[[User:Khaentlahn|Khaentlahn]] 18:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
-:I am also looking forward to the day that this is possible. It is too time consuming to enter data on WeRelate and a genie program. I found a new site on line; you can upload your gedcom and create a custom family tree and export your tree and have it printed. There is no charge for the service but you do have to contribute your family tree. Here is the link, but I have not tried the service. The creators of the web site were formerly associated with Family Tree Legends and GenCircles. The link: [http://webtree.com/home?l=en.us]--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 10:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+: You might want to reach out to [[User:JBS66]]. Do you think that you should first go through and identify weaknesses, then try to address them? Or would it be more efficient to simply work through them as you find them? Like any other sort of page, the history is of course retained, so I don't think you should be afraid to make a direct assault on a page or two that seem most offensive. You can actively solicit review after the fact... --[[User:Jrm03063|jrm03063]] 19:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
-----+The first page needing some work would be [[Help:Person pages tutorial]] as it is the initial link on the Home page to begin any text tutorial. Attempting to go through the page with the eyes of a new user, it was very confusing. The main tutorial page appears to reference old page layouts and procedures which are no longer valid. Primarily, that page needs to be updated to present a better face to the general public and new users. Perhaps at a later date and time, the page may be broken into individual lessons and the main page can link to a list of these lessons.
-I should have mentioned previously, there is an ongoing discussion at [[werelate talk:Merging and downloading trees]].--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 14:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+
-----+In any case, while updating this page should be done sooner as opposed to later, it may be a few days before I can focus my energies on revising it. In the mean time, if someone else finds that they are wanting to tackle this or already has the responsibility for doing so speaks up, all the power to them.--[[User:Khaentlahn|Khaentlahn]] 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
-I'm the bottleneck on this one unfortunately. I expect by the end of the year we'll have GEDCOM export ready. Need to get matching+merging working first.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+
-== Convention for Two Family Names [28 August 2008] ==+== Just sent a MyHeritage offer [27 February 2014] ==
-In Chile and others countries, the wife don't loose their family names and we all have two family names.+WeRelate raised several hundred dollars when we sent out a special offer from MyHeritage late 2012. This one looks like a better deal than the last time since it includes access to all of MyHeritage, not just the WorldVitalRecords part. I'm sorry to send out the spam, but it's a way to raise money and we do it only about once a year.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 22:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
-Example: I'm "Felipe Barriga Richards", son of "Arturo Barriga Apparcel" and "Heidi Richards Staab".+
-At this time, I was using the two family names, but I don't know if there is a convention to deal with that.--[[User:Fbarriga|fbarriga]] 22:43, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+
-----+== Speed problems? [2 March 2014] ==
-Local and contemporary custom is most important. I'm not aware of any customs on this particular issue, but if I understand it correctly, you're saying:+
- <given name> <parent surname 1> <parent surname 2>+Anyone else having speed problems with WR pages today? Or is it just my machine? I tried some other sites and didn't have the same slowness, so I was wondering if anyone else here is experiencing it? --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 23:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 +:We've been updating wikipedia templates with up to date content from Wikipedia for the past several days. Maybe that's the cause of the problem? I'm hoping it will be finished soon.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 23:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
-Where the "effective" surname is "<parent surname 1> <parent surname 2>". I think that you would simply put the two parts of the effective surname in the surname field, because that's what they are. My children have their Mother's surname as their middle name, but that's not what you describe. I'm familiar with other customs as well, where children take a hyphenated version of their parents surnames - <parent surname 1>-<parent surname 2>. I suppose this latter situation is most like the one you describe, but apparently use of the "-" character isn't a typical custom where you are? Do folks sometimes put the parent surnames together with a "-" so that they will not be mistaken for a middle then a last name?--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 23:18, 27 August 2008 (EDT)+:I was having both speed problems, and I couldn't save or delete anything. The save message indicated loss of session data and told me to try again/log out, but neither worked, and I had the same problem on other browsers and my iPad - even as I watched recent changes come in, so clearly it wasn't universal. The delete page just reloaded while doing nothing. It went all evening west coast time. But if you're seeing this, clearly it's fixed!--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 +::I had this problem yesterday morning; it seemed to fixed after I went and deleted something. Very strange. Was this site wide or just some of us? [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 18:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 +:::I had this problem ... speed + session loss + invitation to try again / log out ... in vain (I am in France) - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 19:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 +::::The session loss problem went away after I restarted the server late last night. I'm not sure what happened; I haven't made any code changes recently. (I noticed that if I checked the "remember me" box on logging in it didn't lose the session, but checking the box shouldn't be a requirement.) After rebooting the server it seemed to be fixed.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 22:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 +:::::I was having the session lost problems too. Thanks for the fix. Before I retired (2004) I worked in both IT support and security. One of the cardinal rules was, "When in doubt, punch it out." Seems to have worked this time. That's still good advice much of the time (but think about any reasonable alternatives first).--[[User:Jaques1724|jaques1724]] 23:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
-----+== Cleaning up pages [7 March 2014] ==
-I agree with [[User:Jrm03063]]. Put both surnames in the surname field; you can hyphenate them or not. The surnames will be individually-searchable, so if a person's surname field is "Barriga Apparcel" and someone searches on Barriga or on Apparcel, that person will be returned.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)+
-== Checkout the newest browser Google Chrome [15 September 2008] ==+Is there a dedicated page in the help pages for instructions on cleaning up pages? --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 02:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 +:Beth, I intend to upgrade such a guide. Need to talk to some others first. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 15:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 +::It is good that someone is at least looking at this. What guide is it that you are updating? Someone seriously needs to explain to people how the genealogical version of the sunk cost fallacy is crippling the quality of genealogical wikis like Werelate.--[[User:Werebear|Werebear]] 16:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
-The new browser from Google is great for merging pages. You can actually have two or more windows open at the same time. Check it out. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 19:48, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+:I had wondered the same thing a few months ago. I tried to start a discussion [http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help_talk:Wiki_etiquette here], which didn't really go anywhere. (Some of the pages I linked to as examples have been changed since then.) I found it disheartening that the discussion ended up going nowhere, but I suppose I was trying to start it in the wrong place. Maybe, judging from the crickets chirping in response to your question, there is simply no interest in such things here?!?--[[User:Werebear|Werebear]] 13:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
-:Understand that Chrome is based on the same underlying programming as went into Apple's Safari---which has had this capability for some time. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 19:56, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+::I brought up the topic in a conversation on [[Person_talk:Rene_Landry_%283%29|this page]] recently, however that thread has flagged as well. I don't know how general my suggestion there is; it was intended only for Karen Theriot Reader's GEDCOM. Cleaning up all the dumped GEDCOMS on WR is a monumental task. It could be partially automated. A simple rule for Karen Theriot Reader's GEDCOM might be to move all her narrative text to a note for person pages not edited since the GEDCOM upload.--[[User:Prcb|Prcb]] 15:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
-::Hi Bill, I had Safari on my computer but never really checked it out; did not know that it had the capability or I would have used it; but the downloads from the Apple site for updating the Ipod typically mess up on my laptop and I have to download them from the site. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+== Place drop down menu [8 May 2014] ==
-:::Believe it comes with OS X. Initially I wasn't especially impressed, but then Microsoft stopped supporting IE for the Mac. Figured if they didn't think they were competitive, then the handwriting was on the wall. I never particularly noticed that having multiple windows open was unique to Safari. Figured it was so obvious that all browsers would support it by now. So your note took me by surprize. Didn't know I had it so good. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 20:36, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+I find I'm not getting a drop down menu when entering a place name on a person page. It works on a person search page however.--[[User:HLJ411|HLJ411]] 21:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- +*I find this function does not work some days/some sessions but then it comes back [[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 04:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
-Son said that the Safari windows version has issues; but don't know if that is still the case. Yes, Bill you have been having a good time and didn't let us know. <g> I have been opening WeRelate in my laptop and desktop to merge pages. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:44, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:I do something similar. While I'm entering data on a WeRelate page I'll open the source page in another window, then copy and paste between the two. Beats continuously opening a page, capturing the data, then navigating to the destination page, pasting, then navigating back to the source for something else. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 21:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Tabs are definitely awesome. Firefox and IE7 also have them. I just downloaded Google Chrome to check it out.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:45, 7 September 2008 (EDT)+I had the same problem but I realised that it works as soon as you put a space after the place name--[[User:MWalker|MWalker]] 13:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
-::Dallan, with Chrome when you open 2 or more tabs; you can just drag one of the tabs to a new window so you can have multiple tabs open in different windows at the same time. Can you do that with Firefox or IE7? If so I don't know how. I can have multiple tabs, but have to switch from one or the other; I cannot view both of them at the same time with Firefox or IE7--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 02:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)+== 'Anachronistic' place names and personal preference [22 March 2014] ==
-:::I see what you're saying now. I just tried it. That is pretty cool. I also like that it lets me use nearly my entire screen for the webpage (very little is used for their menus). I don't like that it crashed on me while I was editing a page though. I think I'll give it another month to mature, and then I'm planning to switch over and make it my main browser.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+There was a mini revert war between an admin and one other user recently about so called anachronistic place names; ie the modern place name vs. the historical place name, in that case whether or not the place should be in 'Massachusetts, United States' vs. 'Massachusetts' (colony). If I wanted to, I could hairsplit and say that no, there was no such place called simply 'Massachusetts' at that time, either, it was 'Massachusetts Bay'. There has been some leeway with this, i.e. the person working on it writes it as they like, and neither or wrong, but there is a problem when users are reverting each other's work. Should there be a more hard policy on this matter? The solution I thought of was that maybe older (ie colonial, non existent counties, countries, etc) place names might display vs. modern place names as a user's dash board preference. For example, I have 'older place names' setting on, and thus WR will show the older place names. If I have this setting off, then it shows the modern place names. How this might work - in the place page, names could be set by year, ie 'Colony of _____' before the United States existed. Without such a compromise, it seems this could get into an editing war of what I like vs. what you like.--[[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 02:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
-----+: To me, this seems like the sort of thing we need to figure out how to resolve, as a community. I think that having a setting to display things differently sort of defeats the purpose of having one shared page. Personally, my vote is to show the place name as it appeared at the time, but linking to the modern place name. However, I'd be happy to support an alternate scheme. Either way, I think this is the sort of thing we should have a policy about. - 13:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
-My hubby says the "buzz" on the net is that Google created this "Chrome" without any collaboration with other "browser makers" and thus it is full of security leaks and other problems, which other established browsers have already "fixed" in their versions. Just an FYI --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 23:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== 18th Century Trade Faire at Fort Loudon, Vonore, TN [6 September 2008] ==+
- +
-My major interest in WeRelate is in developing a feeling for how our ancestors lived, particularly on the Virginia Frontier in the late 18th Century. The [[Southwest Virginia Project]] is part of how I'm attempting to do this. One of the things that I think helps are images that help create a sense of the context of our ancestors lives. My wife and I recently attended an "18th Century Trade Faire", at Fort Loudon, Vonore, TN. Fort Loudon was the site of an ill-fated British Fort that came into existence during the French and Indian War. Each September the Fort Loudon Association puts on the Trade Faire. You can read about it [http://www.fortloudoun.com/ here].+
-I took a number of photographs, and placed a few of them in a [[Re-enactment:18th Century Trade Faire at Fort Loudon, TN|temporary starter article]]. Some of these photos will probably make their way into illustrations for the [[Southwest Virginia Project]] [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 00:18, 7 September 2008 (EDT)+: In terms of factual accuracy, you cannot use current place names to accurately indicate the location of a large portion of historical vital statistical events. They simply do not accurately indicate the actual geographic location of the event anymore, for a number of reasons, including, in the west, that places often tend towards amalgamation and increase in size. Given the scope of WeRelate, embracing description of facts that use the tightest possible normalized geographic descriptors (shy of street addresses which can be input in the note field) is a necessary adjunct to correctly differentiating people with the same name. Accurate genealogy depends on doing comprehensive geographic research to properly situate people. Additionally, place names are going to continue to change so embracing a system that accommodates documentation of change (linked, parent-child records, etc. like the one we currently have), while it may seem like a lot of work, is a reasonable response to this reality. It also fishtails with record access. As an example, you can search Toronto records until the cows come home and never find information on people who lived in Yorkville (now a neighbourhood in midtown) between the 1780s-1940s when it was not within the city limits. As a second example, if a place's name changed, there may be excellent records under the preceding name which will never be found if someone does not undertake (and preferably document here) research on the differing names for that location.
 +:: PS Some people are naturally inclined to simplicity and want to reduce, reduce, reduce, as much complexity as they can get their hands on, but there are huge sacrifices made in the service of this misguided ideal of minimization. There are no informational gains. Normalization and standardization of information with pull-downs and standardization of spelling is, however, worthwhile.[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 16:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 +:::It would be inaccurate to characterize this discussion as for or against accuracy. My experience has consistently been that "historical accuracy" is a mantle that some people cloak themselves in while providing names that are no more historically accurate than the names they are changing. While the place fields have had structure added (simplified?) to allow places to be understood and processed in a limited way by the computer, to centralize data about the place in a single location, and to be more accessible to the kinds of new users that attend this site, there appear to be plenty of opportunities elsewhere on the page to communicate accurate and precise locations, including use of Template:GoogleMap in the description field, and justifying and documenting homestead locations or parishes in source citations or in the freeform narratives.
 +:::This is a discussion about the use of piped names in place names. The use of piped names is very controversial because there is no guideline and use is by perceived purpose rather than guided by any policy. The perceived consensus to me seems to be to remove them, as this seems to be totally or partially what makes up most of the changes I see in my watchlist notifications.
 +:::My personal opinion concurs, as I believe that piped names represent a less than desirable feature for several reasons:
 +:::*in simple display, they obscure standard place names leading to undiscovered errors in links to place pages
 +:::*they cause different pages to name the same place differently, causing confusion to new users and encouraging undisciplined data entry.
 +:::*attempts (rarely correct) at historical accuracy are mostly indistinguishable from personal preference and GEDCOM chaff
 +:::*they provide a battleground for competing personal preference
 +:::*in any processing, such as Pedigree maps, the computer will ignore the piped name and only operate using the linked Place name
 +:::In order to have an orderly use of piped names, some form of guideline is needed about what is considered appropriate piped name. In a community database, it is hard to think that personal preferences would be an appropriate reason. Certainly the preference of one user is the pet peeve of another user. It is hard to think that historically accurate names can be made distinguishable from arbitrary variations without a major development effort to add software support and ensure consistency. For adding preciseness, no piped name will be understood by the computer, so it is not clear why the Googlemap and freeform areas of the page are not the better method to provide details, justification and explanation in whatever form will be most helpful to readers not so familiar with the place, both for clarity of communication and to avoid the shortcomings of the list above. The only use I see that is necessary for piped names is as a place to save GEDCOM input, which is inherently arbitrary, until the automated place matching the computer provides can be verified by a human, which is then signaled by removing the piped name. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 21:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 +::::I'm coming at this with an understanding that "piped name" means name pulled down from the place space index, '''so Jrich, if that is not what you mean, please let me know'''. I think we should have a policy and training to strongly encourage people to pipe in the place name in all fact fields, rather than typing in something that is not a place space. However, the ability to add places that are no longer current is necessary for factual accuracy and specificity, so I disagree with your statement that the place discussion is not about accuracy (not sure we are talking about the same thing though). It is absolutely possible to assign a historically accurate value, that is, '''the legal name(s) of the geographic entity of the event at the time it occurred''', with the highest degree of spatial specificity possible '''and which is derived from a contemporary source'''. This creates a multitude of additional place pages, however, they all have tremendous value as the place names are associated with specific source materials, administrative histories, and contemporary narratives and links to such materials can be lost or confused if the place name changes over time are not recorded and represented in a way that editors can get at and use.[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 22:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 +:::::"Piped" is a reference to the following example: Place field:'''Cambridge, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States|Cambridge, Middlesex, Massachusetts'''. The "|" is the pipe which makes the system standard name of '''Cambridge, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States''' appear as '''Cambridge, Middlesex, Massachusetts''' on the page that a user is viewing.--[[User:Khaentlahn|Khaentlahn]] 23:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 +:::::Got it, "piped"=assigned display value of the internal link. Not relevant to the angle I am coming from.[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 01:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
---- ----
-These are some terrific pictures!--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:45, 7 September 2008 (EDT)+I don't think this can be reduced entirely to a debate about the use of piped names on Place links, although that certainly comes in to play. I don't think the Cambridge example given above is a very helpful example for the more substantive issue being raised here. Let's talk about something more interesting, like the town of Huncovce in Slovakia. At the time that my great-grandmother's birth was registered there, the town was called Hunfalu, and it was in the kingdom of Hungary. A century later when the good LDS folks took microfilms of the church records there, it was called Huncovce, in the former nation of Czechoslovakia. Currently, WR has a Place page for "Hunfalu, Szepes, Hungary" and another one for "Huncovce, Kežmarok, Slovensko, Czechoslovakia", neither of which reflect the fact that this place is today in the nation of Slovakia. Ideally, there should be one page for this town, which has existed continuously through its various name and nationality changes. But when I reference the Place page for that town on my great-grandmother's page, I would like it to show up as Hunfalu, Szepes, Hungary, because that's what it was when her birth was registered. When I go to that page, I would like to find all of the information about the town through the ages on the one page.
-== Transferring information from data fields [7 September 2008] ==+WR already has some features that help with this. The "Located in" field on the Place template supports having multiple "Located in" fields with time ranges, so I can indicate that it was in the Hungarian megye (county) of Szepes prior to 1918, and in the Czech region of Kežmarok after 1918. If we had similar date range information on the "Alt name" field (or perhaps a "Former name" field), that would enable automated processing (such as timelines and Place name links) to provide the appropriate historical place name for the "fact".
 +:Amen to the above 2 paragraphs. The Austro-Hungarian Empire ("Austria-Hungary") isn't even a country here. LDS re-assigned one of my ancestral Slovak villages to an entirely different place and the only viable record is for Hungary (which I don't mind because that is not anachronistic to my time span, but for later records it would be a wee bit misleading). I could not make the parent to child or associated relationships work using the existing place space indexing list (pull-down)PS I think you are basically proposing a series of date-activated AKAs which would work as far as I am concerned [[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 01:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
-Dallan+In the mean time, how should such a situation be handled? That is the real question here. Should I make the Hunfalu page redirect to the Huncovce page? (And if so, should that new page preserve the distinct FHLC template from the old page? And if so, how?) If WR will let me, shouldn't I link my great-grandmother's birth registry place to the Hunfalu page (even though it would now be a redirect)? And if it won't let me, wouldn't it be appropriate to use pipe notation to show her birth registry place to be "Hunfalu, Szepes, Hungary" rather than Huncovce? [[User:TomChatt|TomChatt]] 00:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- +: If editors are coming along and de-rendering piped display names '''which match the name of the location at the time of the event''', in order to modernize (or standardize) place display in the text, particularly if they are already a viable link which provides all names for the place, that is not an editorial policy which you would see in any respectable historical publication (because it introduces inaccuracy and misrepresentation). It is also a huge waste of time and could become offensive in situations. I have ancestors who were United Empire Loyalists and fought and died (and mostly lost all their property, lol) and if I write it Massachusetts Colony and someone wanders in declaring they lived in a state the person repudiated in their lifetime, that would be kind of obnoxious and unnecessary bureaucratic lollygagging.[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
-Is there code that can be used in an article page that will transfer the content of edit input boxes (e.g, date of birth input box) into text placed in the article? [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 13:47, 7 September 2008 (EDT)+::And quasi-political approaches to representing information are exactly why freedom to choose one's preference should be outlawed. The 1900 rules may cause certain discomfort, probably for most people at one time or another, but it is impersonal and not aimed at anybody. Perhaps while he works on creating his mechanism to support private and public spaces, Dallan can allow personal place aliases that one can have displayed by preference, without foisting them on others. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 02:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- +::Geographical settlement names are by their very nature political entities. There is no "quasi"-ness in my argument. If place names from 1900 were selected because administration beyond that scope presented practical impossibilities, then become a wikimedia site already and grow into a sophisticated, high quality site that uses industry-standard editorial techniques to accurately represent information instead of bullshit work arounds that freeze a thousand years of history to a reality represented by 1 arbitrary year a hundred and thirteen years ago.[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 02:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
-:Sorry, it's a good idea, but there isn't anything to do that right now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+I agree with Artefacts. All place names are political. Sometimes the changes in jurisdiction are a result of civil action, sometimes a result of military action. Not to mention places that were settled 200 or 300 years ago but no longer exist due to geological or demographic events, or were not settled in 1900 but now exist. You cannot freeze geography at a point in time. For my own ancestors this works reasonably well because the places have been relatively stable, but for many other parts of the world there have been major upheavals. For some families I am researching in the interior of the US of A 1900 is a rather unfortunate "freeze point" because they were still "Indian Territory". And some of these rural villages have since disappeared! I could show you many examples in this part of the US of A where the WeRelate "standard" place names did not exist in 1900 so whoever is maintaining the database does not follow the rules. Nor have I chosen to go into trying to "fix" these entries because the 1900 names if they existed at all do not make any sense whatsoever to anyone trying to research those places. I could cite other examples including the German settlements in what is now the southern part of Ukraine, etc, etc, usw. Historical facts on the ground will ultimately trump any system of conventions.--[[User:Jhamstra|Jhamstra]] 10:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- +:I think place is ultimately identifying a spot on the planet earth. The ideal way would be some form of geo-coordinates so you can show a spot and change the political rearrangement of the map underneath the spot at will to whatever time you find most useful. But since few people have researched things to that level, we are left assuming it falls somewhere in the jurisdiction of some political entity, which is often a rather vague estimate of the location. But the political entity is not what we are trying to communicate, it is location. The location is the same today as it was in 1900 as it was whenever. The political entity changes. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 14:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
-== Editions of Sources [8 September 2008] ==+:As a counter to the opinion that "place is ultimately identifying a spot on the planet earth" (which could be done by reducing to latitude and longitude, what engaging narrative that would make): place is a socio-historical context in which life events occurred. The name(s) of places provide human-readable access to linked information associated with those events. If you are not prone to seeing (or modelling) reality across large chunks of time, you won't care about this dimension; but seriously, as a genealogy site, you have to expect the vast majority of users to be very, very interested, in the historical time dimension and how it is represented. We are not recording geologic events here. [[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 18:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- +
-Many of the sources found in the Source namespace are FHL microfilms or ancestry.com databases. But they are merely reproductions of real books which may also be found in libraries.+
- +
-When you use find/add to locate a source, the list presents the title only with no hint about the edition (except those where ancestry.com or FHL film number gets stuck in the title).+
- +
-I have been using these reproductions and the underlying sources interchangeably, since I assume if the data is the same, others will just want to know the most convenient form for themselves. I.e., if I can find the book in a nearby library, why rent a microfilm at a Family History Center which takes at least 2 weeks to arrive? For some I have taken the time to add in the author and original dates of publication, even though the source is nominally referring to a FHL microfilm, to provide more descriptive information about the source.+
- +
-Recently an "automated update" changed one of these entries to enter the date of filming, overwriting the publication date of the underlying book I had entered. It also undid my edit which had moved the subtitle to the subtitle field and instead put everything back in the title field so that the title is once again long and impossible to input except by cutting and pasting.+
- +
-:Sorry - the automated update is not supposed to overwrite human changes. Could you let me know the title of the Source page so that I can try to figure out what went wrong? And if you haven't already, I'll put it back the way you had it.+
- +
-::I believe it was [[Source:A history of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania : from the earliest settlements to the present time including much valuable information for the use of schools, families,‎]]. It is not even one I care about but I was adding information to differentiate it from Charles Roberts History of Lehigh County. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 21:42, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::I found it and fixed it.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-First, I would argue that in terms of assessing the quality and type of data, the date of filming is useless. It depends on the publication date of the underlying material.+
- +
-:Good point. In cases where you find the publication date of the original material, please feel free to replace the one written by the automated update.+
- +
-Second, most of these entries abuse the title field, and clearly combine both the title and subtitle into the title field instead of properly using the subtitle field. This makes it very difficult to type the source names by any manner than cutting and pasting when you want to add a <nowiki>[[Source:xxx]]</nowiki> type link to your notes.+
- +
-:I agree that the FHLC titles are often overly-long. But it's difficult for an automated program to know where best to split the title. Currently it splits it on a colon or semi-colon when the FHLC title is longer then 80 characters. If there's a better place to split, please feel free to update the Title and Subtitle fields to split at the better location. Also, feel free to rename the Source page to have the shorter title. Around the end of the year we'll run another automated process to rename the Source pages to use a "place. title" format for Source pages for geographically-oriented record collections or a "first-author. title" format for books/articles, which conforms to the [[Help:Source page titles|standard for titling Source pages]].+
- +
-::I recognize that this is personal opinion, but since I type a lot of stuff in manually, instead of GEDCOM uploads, I find the long titles very annoying to get exactly right.+
- +
-:::Excellent point! Not to mention making a very messing looking article if you are writing extensive text, as opposed to putting information into text boxes. Like yourself, most of my input is manual. That appears to be a very small minority on WeRelate. Perhaps our needs are different from the majority. Fortunately, Dallan doesn't seem too hard over about folks following their own drummer. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 21:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
- Not only are the FHLC titles long, but adding place and/or author before the title makes them too long. Most place oriented items have the place name in their title anyway so it becomes redundant when you add it in front. And adding the FHLC number to make each title unique instead of listing all the filmings in the text of a single page also screws up the title. I expect the title to be the title. Is this just compensating because the listing of titles after you do a search on the find/add screen doesn't specify the author, etc? I haven't memorized the FHLC film numbers so I still have to follow the FHL link to read the description to find out what the different versions of the same title are. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 21:42, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Actually, not having the author/place as part of the Source page title is why so many titles currently include the FHLC number -- because several items in the FHLC catalog have the same title (often just something like "Parish registers 1800-1850") so we had to add the FHLC number to a Source page title in order to make the title unique. When we rename FHLC sources to include the author/place in the title later this year we'll be able to drop the FHLC number (and the subtitle) from the Source page title. +
- +
-:In cases where there are multiple filmings of the same item, I hope that over time people will redirect the Source pages to a single Source. If you find that you're citing the same source over and over, feel free to create a Source page with an abbreviated title and redirect that source page to the longer-title source page.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-But, that said, there are times when editions become an important issue, as in when things get updated or there is an error in one edition. But is there a need to treat each different edition on each different media as a different item in the Source namespace? +
- +
-:Not generally. If there are multiple editions, It's best to put that information into the text of the Source page. I realize there's only one publication field; in cases where the item has multiple editions, feel free to leave the publication field empty and put the publication information for the various editions in the text. We're encouraging people to put the edition information in the citation. Another possibility is to create a "redirect" (see below) for each edition, with the publication year in parentheses in the title of the redirect, and have the redirects point to the Source page that covers all editions. You could then cite the (redirected) Source page containing the publication year in the title in your source citation.+
- +
-If so, it seems that the process to select from the list of known sources needs to change. Perhaps the first step is to pick the title/author and then a second step would be to identify the edition/format.+
- +
-I guess this touches on my earlier question about conventions. Different people might think different organizations are more optimal than others. But the one thing that won't work is to have everybody each do their own thing. What is the best way to deal with this?+
- +
-:Two things: First, there has been [[WeRelate talk:Source Committee|a lot of discussion]] around the best way to [[Help:Source page titles|title source pages]], and as we are currently [[WeRelate:Source review|reviewing the online source pages]], the rules are being refined. I think they're pretty stable now and in fact I'm about to update the help pages to reflect the latest thinking later today. In the future when people create sources that don't conform to the rules we'll be able to educate them on what the guidelines are.+
- +
-::I will go read the help pages and try to follow the preferred way of doing things. Perhaps you should require new users to take a test to make sure they have read all the recommended help pages before screwing up the system. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 21:42, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:::The help instructions at the bottom of the "Add Source" screen are hopefully a little clearer now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Second, we can use redirects. If you create a Source page and put <nowiki>"#redirect [[Source:target source title]]"</nowiki> as the only text in the text field, then the title of that Source page becomes a "synonym" for the target source. This is pretty useful, because if the same source is available in book form, in microfilm form, or online, and people naturally use different Source page titles to refer to the different forms of the source, we can have the alternate titles redirect to the original title. Redirection can also be used to create abbreviations for commonly-referenced items with long titles.+
-:--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
---[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 09:14, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-Your point about not citing specific editions is an excellent one. That is something that should always be done, where it applies, and usually the distinction between editions is based on the date of publication. Works published in different years oft contain different information---sometimes contradictory---so knowing which edition you are using can be very important, and needs to be included in the citation. In theory, the citation format preferred here includes that information, though not as part of the article title. Unfortuantely, I've seen sources here where the date of publication was not specified---apparently whoever wrote the article felt the title alone was sufficient. In most cases it is, but not in all, and good form should always include the date I think. +Has anyone ever noticed what we did to Ireland? Ireland did not split into the Republic and Northern Ireland until 1922 and yet we must choose between one and the other when giving a place for those who left with the Famine before 1850.
- +--[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 16:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
-Here's and example [[Source:Marriages by Rev. George Wack]] +
-If you read this work you'' see that it was created by a 'bot', and that the date is not included.+
-If you open the page up for editing, you'll note that there is an input box for "issue date" (really that should be publication date in most cases, but perhaps "issue" fits a more global interpretation. (ie, something that was never "published", just printed up on a certain date.)+
- +
-So if "Marriages..." was first released in 1890, and then reissued in 1895 (perhaps with corrections or with additional marriages), just citing "Marriages by Rev. George Wack" would be quite inadequate. The date the specific document examined should have been included in the bibliographic citation. Personally, I think it should be included in the articles title, but that's personal preference. In anycase, the date should be in the pages data. +
- +
-But suppose "Marriages by Rev. George Wack" was indeed released in 1890 and 1895. How would you direct someone to one version or the other---even if you figured out a way to include both dates in the description, just calling out the articles title <nowiki> [[Source:Marriages by Rev. George Wack]] </nowiki> would not allow you to point to the specific edition. Perhaps you could fiddle with the article title itself "Marriages by Rev. George Wack, first edition" or "Marriages by Rev. George Wack, second edition". Citing "Wack, 1890" seems easier, but that's just me perhaps.+
- +
-On consistency, One can expend an awful lot of effort in making things consistent.there are circumstances where consistency is important and needs to be achieved. There are other circumstances where it accomplishes little, and simply drains time and effort. Depends on the goals. in anycase:+
- +
-There are five major citation styles in use in the United States. Here's a summary of examples for each Style, as given on World Cat, for a specific work.+
- +
-Citation Styles for "Annals of southwest Virginia, 1769-1800,"+
- +
-<table border=1> +
-<tr bgcolor=lightgrey><td> Style<td>Example+
-<tr><td>APA+
-<td>Summers, L. P., Bickley, G. W. L., & Coale, C. B. (1929). Annals of southwest Virginia, 1769-1800. Abingdon, Va: L.P. Summers.+
- +
-<tr><td>Chicago (Author-Date)+
-<td>Summers, Lewis Preston, George W. L. Bickley, and Charles B. Coale. 1929. Annals of southwest Virginia, 1769-1800. Abingdon, Va: L.P. Summers.+
-<tr><td>Harvard+
-<td>SUMMERS, L. P., BICKLEY, G. W. L., & COALE, C. B. (1929). Annals of southwest Virginia, 1769-1800. Abingdon, Va, L.P. Summers.+
-<tr><td>MLA+
-<td>Summers, Lewis Preston, George W. L. Bickley, and Charles B. Coale. Annals of Southwest Virginia, 1769-1800. Abingdon, Va: L.P. Summers, 1929.+
-<tr><td>Turabian+
-<td>Summers, Lewis Preston, George W. L. Bickley, and Charles B. Coale. Annals of Southwest Virginia, 1769-1800. Abingdon, Va: L.P. Summers, 1929.+
- +
-</table>+
- +
-For the most part, there's not a whit worth of real difference between these styles---all provide the same basic information. None specify edition, but all specify date of publication---just in different places, and in different "styles". What's preferred on WeRelate (not my personal preference, by the way) is MLA or Turabian. (It doesn't appear here, but the difference between MLA and Turabian is that in Turabian, the title is underlined.)+
- +
-These different styles exist, I presume, because they meet specific needs. These styles are preferred and used by different groups of writers. In part, what they use is simply a matter of convention. Someone "liked it" early on, and that like turned into a standard within that group. It is likely, however, that some of the styles developed in response to specific needs of specific groups---because the style emphasized things that were important to that group. APA and Chicago, for example, are used in the Sciences, Harvard in law, and MLA, and Turabian are probably encountered more in the arts (including English, which is significant because that's the style most folks are going to be familiar with. The distinction between Science and the Arts in terms of citation style probably reflects what these groups want to emphasize. Ignoring content, for Science, the important thing is not what you call your document, but who wrote it and when. Priority of discovery is based on precedence, and who said it first, and when, is what is important to science authors. In the arts, what's important is who made it and what they called it.: No one refers to "Shakespeare, 1589", instead they refer to "Shakespeare's Hamlet". Among scientists, on the otherhand, when writing technically would prefer "Darwin, 1859", over "Darwin, Origin of the Species"---though they might use the latter form in more casual reference, simply because Origin of the species has become iconic.+
- +
-If there is a standard in genealogy, its probably MLA and Turabian. The [http://www.NewEnglandAncestors.org/publications/5283.asp NEHGS] prefers something similar to MLA, but its not quite the same. Other journals use, I believe, different source formats, but they are probably most similar to MLA or Turabian.+
- +
-Does it really matter which format is used? That depends on the purpose. Obviously, if you want to create a bibliography for your work, you'd prefer to be consistent within that work. That doesn't mean you have to be consistent BETWEEN works, just within that one work. After all, purposes and objectives might change, and different format serve different purposes. But in the broad scheme of things, it doesn't really matter which of several formats you choose---what's important is that the needed information is present.+
-That way, if a bibliography needs to be developed necessary to support an article in a particular journal (say NEGHS), then you'd have all the information needed to support that article. One day there may even be a Bibliography Tool here to do that for you. You could specify the format (MLA, for instance), give it a list of articles, and it would punch out the bibliography according to the needed specifications. Send it to a different Journal (say one that prefers Harvard), you could get a bibliography in that format. That would be a very cool tool to have, even if you weren't into publication, and it wouldn't make much difference if the format's of the original source articles differed---as long as the data was there. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 12:38, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-:Also, we have to walk a line between having Source page titles that look similar to accepted styles for source citation and titles that are short and easy to remember. So we've chosen to include just the first author in the Source page titles for books, and to include the place, but not the full agency name, in Source page titles for geographically-oriented record collections. All authors are included in the Authors field though.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 13:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-== Blog badges [17 September 2008] ==+
- +
-Is there a badge we can add to our blogs that would link back either to the WeRelate homepage or to our profile page? More and more sites are offering that feature to their members/users. I think it would be a neat way to drum up a little more traffic for the site (and it would look cool on our blogs ;-) --[[User:Ajcrow|Ajcrow]] 08:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)+
-:I presume you are looking for an icon of some sort. There's the WeRelate Icon [[:Image:WeRelate.gif]] which might serve your purposes. [[User:Quolla6|Q]] 08:54, 11 September 2008 (EDT)+:Lol, noticed that. Also, fyi I recently discovered, working with Canadian and American immigrants, that when they documented their own origins, they frequently referred to their Irish townland (which French Canadian priests then recorded incorrectly as their parish), which are 60,000 geographical entities that basically do not exist on the Internet except in lists on wikipedia. [[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 18:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
---- ----
-Good idea! How about <nowiki><a href="http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User:Dallan"><img src="http://www.werelate.org/w/skins/common/images/badge.png"></a></nowiki> ? You probably want to replace my user page with your own :-)--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)+Because some places existed only before or after that arbitrary reference point in the early 1900s, the Place pages may not be historically accurate in how they are named. But it should be remembered that the Place page name is only an arbitrary name which is used to name the unique wiki page. It probably could have been a unique 12 digit number or some other computer code, but instead it is the name of the place to make it easier for humans to use (and that is how wikis typically name their pages). The software and database would probably have to be significantly improved to incorporate the kind of flexible naming that has been suggested. Many Place pages are for small well-defined (specific) locations, but many (most?) are not. Such non-specific locations are usually political divisions of varying sizes which may have changed many times during their history. (But it should be noted that even city pages are non-specific on a small enough scale.) I think that allowing pipes is the simplest way to allow flexible naming. Yes, some people may argue over the proper historical name of a place in a given time, but I would be willing to risk that to create a better history. Besides, the page names that are displayed don't conform to normal genealogical standards (ie. displaying "Smithville, Smith, ..." instead of "Smithville, Smith Co., ...").
-== Protocol for untended to Gedcom uploads [17 September 2008] ==+I realize those in the "Minimalist" camp don't like extensive use of the fact list and would relegate the place fields to the arbitrary page names without pipes. But making a feature (like piping) available for use by the users and then slapping their hand when they try to use it is not conducive to cooperative work between individuals. I have been making use of the feature more frequently. However I avoid editing pages ''owned'' by other users who may be Minimalists because I have no desire to argue over stylistic issues. Luckily, most of my tree is not shared by anyone else. But it also means a few areas may not benefit from my desire to research. But I do not have a shortage of work. Where I do use the piping is when I desire to override the default names to make it more historically accurate or more understandable for the reader. My primary concern is the human reader, and if the computer happens to understand what I'm doing, bully for it. But the human reader should never be a secondary concern, especially when doing serious research. —[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 05:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
-I'm preparing to merge my individuals where duplicates exist with other users.+:Yet a piped place name is unable to explain to another human why that pipe is needed or essential, so is that not, in essence, making it more difficult for a human to understand at least from an editing perspective?--[[User:Khaentlahn|Khaentlahn]] 05:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
-I came across a user that uploaded a Gedcom with over 11,000 individuals.+
-They have not made any contributions since, and their work contains duplicates.+
-Should I go through the effort to merge into their work or can we consider deleting this tree as suggested for another user on [[User talk:Jrm03063]]?--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 17:23, 13 September 2008 (EDT)+
-----+::We don't edit in a vacuum. Understanding should come from the source or the associated descriptions. I would hope there aren't people going around eradicating pipes merely because they exist. There may be many pipes created in the GEDCOM upload process that can be eliminated because they didn't get linked to the correct place. (Just guessing, I don't use GEDCOMs.) But I wouldn't make a blanket statement about all pipes. —[[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
-As you've noted, there has been much discussion on this issue and the reason I would say for a lack of response here is we are at a stand-still on the topic. I don't recall that a decision was ever made on what to do about such GEDCOMs. We'll have to wait for Dallan to chime I believe. :) +
-I wonder though if instead of deleting the entire GEDCOM (which some people oppose for fear of losing some crucial data yet undiscovered) if the pages couldn't be moved to a ... graveyard of some sort? Gone but not forgotten? --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 08:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+:::Where GEDCOMs are concerned, unless the creator of the GEDCOM has the exact same place names in their GEDCOM that WeRelate already contains, the review matches them to the most likely candidate, as it should. Anything that is matched, whether by the review program or by the user, is modified on every matched page with a piped name, thereby allowing for the original to be retained. ''Chase Co., Kansas, USA'' is produced as ''Chase, Kansas, United States|Chase Co., Kansas, USA''. A user may then go through their pages and eliminate the computer-generated pipes. This rarely if ever happens, so these computer-generated pipes go into the wiki. Has there been an overall determination concerning whether these computer-generated pipes should be retained or removed?--[[User:Khaentlahn|Khaentlahn]] 01:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
-: If the original GEDCOM is still around somewhere, that might help. Without that, I don't know how you structure the stuff you're pulling off. If the original GEDCOM exists still, then perhaps it could be dropped as an archive on the digital library. Thinking out loud here - I wonder if there's a decent GEDCOM to pdf report (simple and complete, easy to search - not necessarilly cosmetically beautiful), such that we could have both in the digital library. GEDCOMs aren't very useful to werelate unless you upload the whole thing, so you couldn't easily inspect a GEDCOM for bits and pieces of information. --[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]]+::: My approach to my own work is to avoid using pipes unless they actually add information - eg the name of the place has changed, the "standard" name is ambiguous or incorrect, etc. When I encounter an obvious "GEDCOM pipe" in someone else's work, I generally remove it unless it appears to add information.--[[User:Jhamstra|Jhamstra]] 06:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
-:: I don't know about a GEDCOM to pdf format, but the program [http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/ Behold Genealogy] reports everything in a GEDCOM on one page which can then be exported to HTML or RTF. Neat program which I've been using for about a year now. BTW, I'm on the delete-the-GEDCOM side of this issue. --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 15:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+== Why can't I use external link in Talk pages [20 March 2014] ==
-----+Hi,
-I think we treat abandoned GEDCOMs like abandoned property. Make some reasonable attempts to contact the person who did the upload to see what their intentions are. If we don't hear anything, then it belongs to the community and we can do what we want. If anyone in particular has worked with the materials in question, then I think Dallan will generally respect that person's opinion on whether the material is worth retaining or not.+
-I've covered a lot of ground on stuff like this - could you please advise what user/tree you're looking at? Thanks...--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 10:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+Why are external links in Talk pages not allowed?
 +For I certain I want to Talk about his mother, because the one listed on that page differs from the name registered in the Churchbook.
 +So, obviously, I'd like to include a link to the Church book images available from the Regional Archives.
 +When saving the talk pages I get this error: External links are not allowed.
 +Why not?
-----+Fred--[[User:BigBearFreddy|BigBearFreddy]] 07:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
-The user I keep coming across is [[User:Rrhoule]].+
-: Strangely, I havn't crossed paths with anything from that user, but I looked after seeing your remarks. I checked a small sample of their person pages and found repeated and pretty much useless pro forma sources. I can't say exactly how much duplication there is, but there seems to be a lot. I grabbed the last page of their contributions and found that 50 of 500 families had an index greater than 1. Rashly estimating, that means that there could be as much as 10% duplication associated with this GEDCOM. If we further assume that merging about 100 pages a day is doing well, and that the 10% holds across the 11000 page tree, [[User:Rrhoule]] has kindly presumed upon the werelate community, a task of some 100 user-days, to which they have so far contributed....0. I would second the nomination for delete. --[[User:Jrm03063]].+:What kind of talk page? I [http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person_talk:Colin_Campbell_%286%29&action=history attempted] to add an external link to a Person's talk page and was successful. [[User:Moverton|Moverton]] 05:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
-I've been trying out some merging this morning thanks to the great tips on [[User talk:Jrm03063]] and [[User talk:Scot]]. 1/5 of the Gedcom families that I uploaded have potential duplicates. I'm glad I only uploaded a portion of my data!+== Links to FindARecord.com [11 April 2014] ==
-What happens with families that have been deleted such as [[Family:Charles Cloutier and Louise Morin (1)]]. Actually, this family is indexed under (1)-(12), 10 of which have been deleted. Can the lower index numbered pages be reused? So, can I redirect my [Family:Charles Cloutier and Louise Morin (12)] to [Family:Charles Cloutier and Louise Morin (1)] to keep the index numbers low?+If you have a place but not a source for a birth, marriage, or death, I've added a link to FindARecord.com in the upper-right of the Person page above the family infoboxes. FindARecord is a relatively new website by a friend of mine. Please tell us what you think.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 23:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 +:It's not a bad WIP, but I find the placement annoying. Could it be moved into the 'blue' area that contains the name? [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 02:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 +::I'll move it tomorrow.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 05:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
-It seems so easy to upload a Gedcom, and so incredibly time consuming to clean up the results.+== Porting Source(s) from Family Page to Person Page [11 April 2014] ==
-I look at why I uploaded a Gedcom instead of entering by hand. I thought entering by hand would take too long, and I wasn't sure how much of my data was common to WeRelate's. I only uploaded names/basic dates/marriages and planned to go back and add in sources. Perhaps there could be some sort of happy medium. I could upload my Gedcom, but if the program notices the family currently being uploaded shares a title, it will put that into a log file instead of creating new pages. Then, I would be responsible for checking the log file to see what I needed to enter by hand. It would be a whole lot easier to enter in a few pieces of missing data on a page then to match/merge multiple pages. Just a thought...+
-I do have to say that I love the concept of WeRelate. It's great to have a site where work can be done collaboratively on unique pages.--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 12:22, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+
-----+I recently noticed that person pages now display a source # for the marriage data. This seems to occur whether or not the sources cited for the marriage on the family page are even present on the person page. This is more than a bit confusing and introduces inaccuracies in the person pages as displayed. This is a kind of lame description of the problem, but see the following pages as an example.
-I definitely try to keep the index numbers low. If index "1" was previously deleted however, you'll need to recreate it before you redirect to it. That's easy enough of course, because when you try to go to the deleted address location you'll get a chance to create the page anew.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+
-----+[[Family:Weeks Williams and Mehitabel Cone (1)]]<br>
-So, how do we go about deleting this tree?+[[Person:Weeks Williams (1)]]<br>
-This user holds the coveted (1) page on many of my merges, so I'll hold off on merging those until that tree is deleted.+[[Person:Mehitabel Cone (2)]]
-This might be a silly question but I came across a few cases like [[Family:Marin Banne and Isabeau Boire (2)]] where there are no other duplicates but the [[Family:Marin Banne and Isabeau Boire (1)]] spot was deleted. Would you suggest redirecting to the (1) page, even though this family is not duplicated, just to have the (1) spot? It would make it easier to see that it wasn't a duplicate, but would it create a needless redirect page?+--[[User:Jaques1724|jaques1724]] 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 +:Yes, this is a system wide problem now. See [[Person:Edward Bugbee (2)]] that I have been working on as another example. It's even uglier on pages where there is no source for birth/death dates. Example: [[Person:Richard Chamberlain (1)]]. [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 02:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 +::Yes, sorry about that. I'll fix it tomorow.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 05:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
-Thank you!--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 07:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)+== Gedcom software [12 May 2014] ==
-: As for deleting the tree, we wait for Dallan to get around to reading the watercooler or someone sends him e-mail. W.R.T. redirecting 2->1, I often do for precisely the reason you give. There are bazillions of redirects out there already, a few more makes no difference. --[[User:Jrm03063]]+I'm a bit of a beginner, and have hand entered many pages quite painstakingly. I've been finding just about all the birth, death and marriage registration documents on http://www.allegroningers.nl/. Then I noticed that you can export from there to Gedcom and import Gedcoms here. Except that didn't go too well because for some strange reason their default birth date for people (e.g. the parents of a bride and groom whose birth dates are not mentioned) is 1970. So I thought that maybe it would save me some time to get some kind of Gedcom software that I could pull all these funny records into, clean them up and link them properly, and then only once I had a decent set of data, import it to this site.
-::In just a few months of real usage by the genealogical community, the (1) label will loose all special meaning. Even in this small dataset there are multiple hundreds of John Wheelers. Some names (John Smith) will probably routinely have 5 and 6 digit numbers after it, and of course, to the person related to him, that last John Smith is as important as the first one. --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 09:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)+My question is... what (preferably free) gedcom software do you recommend?--[[User:MWalker|MWalker]] 11:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 +:There are a lot of problems with AlleGroningers' GEDCOM export. Just a few issues:
 +:*Does not export the place of birth.
 +:*Excludes the name prefix (so van der Pers just exports as Pers). Also does not use the GIVN or SURN tags.
 +:*Appears to exclude the marriage date and place
 +:*You miss important data in the index, such as parents' age at child's birth, spouses' age at marriage, and source citation.
-:::For person pages, you're right. However, for what I call "fully qualified" family names (both given and surname for husband and wife - no "unknown"), the probability of duplication seems to be extremely remote. I made a stab at some statistics on the subject, based on my experience searching out duplication so far. My claim a few months ago was, "Cases of identical family page names being associated with different actual families are extremely rare, and occur less often than one per one thousand duplications (possibly even less)." I have seen no indication that duplication of such fully-qualified names is any more common now (with a "person" population of 1.5M). If we assume that this strategy is useful so long as the percentage of duplicates is below 10% (even then, judicious use of "1" and "2" probably extends the approach indefinitely), then I think we get a progression like this: {(1.5M, 0.1%), (3M, 0.2%), (6M, 0.4%), (12M, 0.8%), (14M, 1.6%), (28M, 3.2%), (56M, 6.4%), (112M, 12.8%)}. So I think redirection to "(1)" for fully-qualified families is going to be worth it for quite a while yet. Even if we discarded it if/when the person population exceeds 100M, it will help get us there. --[[User:Jrm03063]]+:I would strongly caution against utilizing the GEDCOM export from AG. --[[User:JBS66|Jennifer (JBS66)]] 12:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- +
-::::Good point. What I should do is lower the last-index-number counter when a page with the highest index number is deleted.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 10:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)+
---- ----
-I'm sorry for not chiming in earlier; the last few days have been overflowing with various things that ''had'' to be done. +Yes I noticed that - waste of time! I'm also so annoyed that after I carefully linked all my ancestors' records back to AG, they changed the links. I've written to them to complain, either they should have no links at all, or they should respect that the links must have ID's on them and never, ever change. No point otherwise!
-I'll contact [[User:Rrhoule]] and let them know that I'm deleting their tree. I'm working right now on tools that will make merging easier, and in the future part of the GEDCOM upload process will be to merge into existing pages before the new pages get created. Until those tools are in place, the policy is that GEDCOM's that are going to cause a lot of merge work that are uploaded by people who are no longer active, are deleted upon request.+Anyway, thanks for your response. Back to the old fashioned way... doing it by hand :-)--[[User:MWalker|MWalker]] 12:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
-We keep every GEDCOM that's been uploaded, but a lot of the GEDCOM's contain information on living people to I'm reluctant to automatically put existing GEDCOM's into the digital library. Sometime next year though I plan to add an option to the GEDCOM import where people can say explicitly that they want their GEDCOM to be added to the digital library, and I'll make a "gedcom viewer" available (similar to the FTE) so that people can view the GEDCOM files online.+: If you are worried about links changing in the future, might I humbly suggest creating a Template. This was done with good success for Find A Grave (see [[Template:Fgravemem]]) and Billion Graves (see [[Template:Bgraves3]]) and other such sites. [My Disclaimer: I am not familiar with AlleGroningers so there might other factors of which I am not aware. :) ]. Regards, --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 15:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
-As for renaming/redirecting pages to (1) indexes, you're free to do that, although I agree with [[User:Jrich|Jrich]] that ultimately a (1) index often won't have any special meaning.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)+== Warning notice on place pages [16 June 2014] ==
-== Button Link [17 September 2008] ==+When I go into "edit" mode on the place pages for English counties I keep on getting this warning:
 +:WARNING: This page is 80 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.
-Is there a button link I can use to link werelate to my blog? I already have a text link but buttons are better because they stand out. --[[User:Brannon|Brannon]] 18:21, 15 September 2008 (EDT)+I have several questions:
 +:#Should we just forget about it? Computer memories and online facilities have moved on from when it was put into place, probably, in 2007-08.
 +:#The length of the page is caused by the number of individual places within the county—not by the descriptive text added from Wikipedia or written by ourselves. Without reducing the number of places listed how can we break down the page into smaller sections?
 +:#Could the warning be removed?
 +:#How would one go about making a continuation place page where we could safely expand the data we would like to provide?
 +--[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
-----+: I took a look at the code, and it looks like this message will appear on any page that is over 29 kb long. It looks like it would be very easy to either:
-Brannon, I don't think Dallan has a specific button link, but could you use the little WeRelate icon that appears in the upper left corner of this page? Just embed a link in it and put it on your website? --[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 12:32, 16 September 2008 (EDT)+:# Increase the limit
 +:# Remove the message completely
 +: I'd be happy to make the change, and submit it to Dallan. For what it's worth, it looks like Wikipedia got rid of this message completely.
-----+-- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 22:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
-Try <nowiki><a href="http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User:Dallan"><img src="http://www.werelate.org/w/skins/common/images/badge.png"></a></nowiki> . I just created it this morning using [http://www.lucazappa.com/brilliantMaker/buttonImage.php this website].--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 11:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)+:For the record, the Great Migration sketches page also gives me that warning. Could this change be made centrally or would it have to be done on a page by page basis? It seems to me that we don't people to make pages too huge (ie putting the entire content of a book on a person page), so maybe the limit should increase but not be eliminated? [[User:DMaxwell|Daniel Maxwell]] 03:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 +-------
 +: I would be pleased to see it disappear. As I said, on place pages, it is usually not our fault. But, any suggestions on point 4? I would like to make lists of groups of administrative areas within British counties and include a map locating the areas, but there just isn't room for the map along with the text and the county list of places. Maybe these would be worth a "Portal"?
 +--[[User:Goldenoldie|Goldenoldie]] 07:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 +:[[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] kindly made a code change to remove the warning. This seems like the best thing to do since as you say, browsers are much more capable now. I've merged in his change so the warning no longer appears. Thank-you [[User:Jdfoote1|jdfoote1]]!--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 19:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
-== Chinese surnames [18 September 2008] ==+== Translating WeRelate to other langauges [10 July 2014] ==
-How should Chinese surnames be handled?+Are you interested in helping translate the WeRelate interface to other languages? If so, please visit the following page: [[WeRelate:Messages]]
-The Chinese surname 伍 has the pinyin Wu, but most natives of this surname originate from Guangdong and go by Ng or Eng in western countries.+--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 04:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
-And Wu is used by other surnames, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_(surname).--[[User:Ronengyoung|Ronengyoung]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)+:It's fine ! Thank you ! I can help, but I need other contributors ... my english is basic and I don't know all pages and functions of WeRelate. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --[[User:Markus3|Markus3]] 06:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
---- ----
-Here are two possible suggestions:+Is it possible to create Russian page ? If yes, i can help with translation.--[[User:Alexandre|Alexandre]] 16:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
-* Since Wu is used as the transliteration for several different characters, I would add 伍 as an alternate name on the Person page (or maybe list 伍 as the surname and list Wu as an alternate name - your choice) so that people know which character you mean. To keep things simpler for others though, it would be best if Wu, not 伍, were used in the page title.+:I expect that Russian would work, so I've been bold and added a Messages page for Russian. I'm just another user, so it's possible that this isn't quite right for some reason unclear to me, but I think you're set to do some translations. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 +:Dallan has looked it over, and the Russian translation page is ready for use. --[[User:Robert.shaw|robert.shaw]] 18:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 +: I finished the translation to Russian. Some remarks:
 +:: For the moment I left the name of the project in the text in English "WeRelate". I can put Russian translation "МыСвязываем" , but it does not sound very attractive and i do not know what will be the policy for other languages. What will be the policy ?
 +:: In some cases exact translation depends on the context, so more iterations will be needed when the site will start working in Russian
 +:: It will be nice if somebody could independently review this Russian translation
 +--[[User:Alexandre|Alexandre]] 00:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
-* If you edit the [[Surname:Wu]] page and list Ng and Eng in the "Related names" field, then searches for Wu will also find people named Ng or Eng. And vice-versa, if you edit the [[Surname:Ng]] and [[Surname:Eng]] pages and list Wu as a related name, then searches for Ng and Eng will also return people named Wu. Changes like this require 4-6 hours to start having an effect on searches.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 10:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)+== Request for Volunteers [17 June 2014] ==
-== Google maps not working? [23 September 2008] ==+If you are interested in helping out at WeRelate, we could use help on two committees:
 +* [[WeRelate:GEDCOM review|GEDCOM review]]
 +* [[WeRelate:Source patrol|Source patrol]]
 +Would anyone be interested in helping out? It's not a big time commitment and it does make a difference.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 05:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
-I am not able to see any of the Google Maps. Is it my browser? or is it a problem at Google? or some problem here at WeRelate? --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 10:29, 18 September 2008 (EDT)+: I can help on either one or both. --[[User:Cos1776|Cos1776]] 16:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
-----+== Ancestry and Find-A-Grave DDOS Attack [17 June 2014] ==
-: Working ok for me... --[[User:Jrm03063]]--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 10:49, 18 September 2008 (EDT)+
-----+Ancestry and Find-A-Grave (recently purchased by Ancestry) have been down since yesterday. Ancestry has released a statement here:
-not working for me most of the time but does work once in a while along with several other features. i think the problem is in the werelate program. i am using vista & internet explorer. --[[User:Jimlatimer|Jimlatimer]] 13:46, 22 September 2008 (EDT)+
-----+http://nutfieldgenealogy.blogspot.com/2014/06/ancestrycom-ddos-attack-press-release.html
-Google maps is working fine for me. I use Firefox, Google Chrome, and also tried it out on MS Internet Explorer.--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 13:58, 22 September 2008 (EDT)+
-----+While Ancestry has come back up (albeit intermittently and with limited search capability), Find-A-Grave remains down, at least as of now.
-I'm able to repeat the problem with IE7 on XP, but I haven't found out what's causing it yet. I'll look at it more tonight.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)+
-:It turns out that at least in my case, the problem was due to my web filtering software. I had the same problem seeing maps on WeRelate as well as on an [http://code.google.com/apis/ajax/documentation/example.html example on the google website] (can you see the map in this example?), so in my case I figured it was a browser settings problem. But none of the things I tried -- clearing the cache, disabling add-ons, resetting to the default IE settings, even upgrading to the new IE8 beta, did any good. Then when I turned off the web filter, the problem went away. I don't know if that's the same problem in your case. If you're still having difficulties after pressing control-F5 (or clicking on the refresh button while holding down the control key) to clear the cache, and you can see the map in the google example but not on WeRelate, would you please let me know?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 01:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT) 
-----+Several other genealogy blogs are reporting the same information.....
-still not working -- i did control-F5 and nothing changed, i did control-refresh and nothing changed, i turned off protected mode and nothing changed. i am not sure what you mean by turn off web filter. i do not have parental control turned on.--[[User:Jimlatimer|Jimlatimer]] 11:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)+
-----+Jim--[[User:Delijim|Delijim]] 20:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
-Google maps (on WeRelate) is now not working for me. Tried it on Firefox, Chrome, and IE.+
-On IE last night, an error box that said "Maps Loaded" came up.+
-Your example site, Google Maps, and Acme Mapper all do work.--[[User:JBS66|JBS66]] 12:53, 23 September 2008 (EDT)+
-----+== Possibility of updating the style sheet [11 July 2014] ==
-I'm sorry. How embarrassing -- I ended up breaking maps completely last night and didn't realize it until tonight. Maps should be working finally now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:23, 24 September 2008 (EDT)+
-== Famous Living People [22 September 2008] ==+This is me being anal retentive and I don't want to cause extra work but I thought I would bring it up to see what would be involved and if anyone else in the community has also noticed this. Namely, the current style sheet which generates the orange headers and related design elements seems to me to present the following problems:
 +# it is difficult to match non-header design elements in the body of the page to the font, color, and box style,
 +# it doesn't print well so content has to be dropped into a word processor and reformatted prior to being printed for distribution (i.e. to family who aren't going to go to the web)
 +# it is starting to look a little "Internet 2005"
 +# I like to think of myself as a historian-genealogist and it is bit too far towards campy and away from academic style for me to take it seriously
 +# might just be me/led screens but the eye does not pick the header out quickly on viewing.
 +Anyway, I wondered if anyone else thought a bit of a style update might be called for. I am not asking for investment in redesign if resources aren't there, maybe just reverting to defaults.--[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 18:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 +:I agree - would anyone like to help work on a new stylesheet for us?--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 03:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 +::I might be interested in having a crack at it. I'd try to implement it as a stand-alone skin and move all skin JS/CSS/imgs to it. I'll start a PR on github, so others can see what I'm doing. &mdash; [[User:Samwilson|Sam Wilson]] ( <span style="font-size:0.9em">[[User_talk:Samwilson|Talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Samwilson|Contribs]]</span> ) &hellip; 05:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 +:::Thank you.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 05:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 +::::Is it possible selecting the style could be a user preference? --[[User:Jrich|Jrich]] 05:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 +:::::Yep, skin-selection is part of [[Special:Preferences]]. There's only the 'MonoBook' option at the moment, but more can be added. &mdash; [[User:Samwilson|Sam Wilson]] ( <span style="font-size:0.9em">[[User_talk:Samwilson|Talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Samwilson|Contribs]]</span> ) &hellip; 05:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 +::::::I am sorry that I do not program, but maybe these will help: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:All_skins --[[User:Artefacts|Artefacts]] 02:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
-What's the protocol for pages that have been created for famous living people? Example: [[Person:George Bush (3)]]. There's also a page for Prince Charles around that does actually have data. One one hand, yes, we say no living people. On the other hand, George Bush's vitals are available in approximately a zillion places already, and the ability to hook into a famous person's ancestry is probably a perk of our system.--[[User:Amelia.Gerlicher|Amelia]] 13:56, 21 September 2008 (EDT)+== WeRelate Thesis [16 July 2014] ==
-----+So, I recently defended and submitted my Master's Thesis. I study online communities, and how people become engaged in communities.
-There's a lot to be said for the absolute nature of living/dead. If you decide on fame, then you have to decide on a metric that is relatively objective. My choice would be whether or not they have a wikipedia page, but again, I don't have a strong preference.--[[User:Jrm03063|Jrm03063]] 16:50, 21 September 2008 (EDT)+
-----+The context of my thesis was actually WeRelate. I took the edit history of the site from Jan 2007- Feb 2013. I categorized people based on what types of pages they edited, how often they edited, and how many pages they edited.
-Let's go with what [[User:Jrm03063]] suggests -- this lets us rely upon Wikipedia's metric rather than create one of our own.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 18:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)+
-== Ditto-Clipboard Extension [22 September 2008] ==+It's very long, but if anyone wants to read it, it's [https://www.academia.edu/7544796/ONLINE_NATURALIZATION_EVOLVING_ROLES_IN_ONLINE_KNOWLEDGE_PRODUCTION_COMMUNITIES online here]. I'd be very happy to answer questions, or even better, to get any insights or comments that you have about the paper.
-I don't think that I have posted information about this program on the Watercooler before. The program is very useful; especially for me since I am spoiled by the clipboard features available in Legacy.+-- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 21:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
-The program is free. Access the download here.+Thanks for an interesting piece of work. I am now in your low activity category. A big reason for this is that those of us who are primarily interested in certain families or places, eventually uncover almost everything that can be learnt on our favorite subjects. Once that has been captured there is a relatively low level of ongoing maintenance of the portions of the database where we could contribute.
-[http://ditto-cp.sourceforge.net/]+It is unfortunate that your interaction model could not capture those of us who return to pages we are watching after others make updates. This would not be visible in your study for two reasons. (1) We do not need to login to view the changes that others make. (2) Page views are not logged - only page edits.
-Description:+I also suspect that failing to distinguish between those who do GEDCOM uploads vs those who tend to contribute their data in situ, misses a lot. These are two very different modes of contributing data.
-''Ditto is an extension to the standard windows clipboard. It saves each item placed on the clipboard allowing you access to any of those items at a later time. Ditto allows you to save any type of information that can be put on the clipboard, text, images, html, custom formats, .....''--[[User:Beth|Beth]] 23:11, 22 September 2008 (EDT)+--[[User:Jhamstra|Jhamstra]] 12:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
-== Watched pages [24 September 2008] == 
-I am so excited as '''finally''' I have two cousins who have joined WeRelate, '''AND''' have adopted the appropriate tree I have online, '''AND''' they are collaborating. It is a dream come true! OK, so now I have this "new" problem. +Jhamstra - very useful and interesting feedback. Previous studies of WP, for example, would suggest that once people finished with the things they are interested in, they might move on to other activities on the site. I could definitely see how genealogy as a context might be different, though. If all you are interested in is your own direct line ancestors, then once their information is reasonably complete, perhaps you would be "done".
-As I find more information, Say.. John Doe had NO wife or kids entered when my cousins adopted the tree. Now I find more info and add the wife and kids. I find that the wife and kids are now "not" being watched by the two cousins, so they don't know anything when I even find more and add a second generation to the original John Doe. So I have write to them and have them go in and manually open each of the new kids and click edit in FTE and click on "add this person to the tree." Is it unreasonable to somehow have new people pages within an adopted tree, added to the my collaborating cousin's watchlist automatically? --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 20:11, 23 September 2008 (EDT)+I agree that there are certainly some interesting interactions that are missed. I was tempted to try to use watchlists, but it has its own problem - jus tbecause something is on your watchlist doesn't mean that you've seen any changes.
-:Fantastic. But it does not work that way. If you trust them you can allow them to use your user name and password and then you would not have to notify the cousins about new pages. --[[User:Beth|Beth]] 20:18, 23 September 2008 (EDT)+I also agree about the importance of GEDCOM uploads - if I were to do further analysis, I think I'd focus on detecting those users.
-----+-- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 13:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
-I think though if your cousins are watching John Doe and then you add a spouse to him, your cousins should get a message that changes were made to the John Doe page. When they look at what has changed, they should see something like ''Propagating changes to a family member'' and then they can see the newly added page and choose to "watch" it. I ''think'' this is how it works. I don't have my preferences set to receive email when changes are made so I'm not sure about notification, but when I look at my Watchlist, I see this kind of change all the time. +
-And btw, congrats on the new collaboration! :)+:Well I am interested in more than my own ancestors. I have also traced the ancestry of various relatives and acquaintances. With regard to places, I find the 1900 rule to be a major dis-incentive. One of the places where there is error and confusion in the existing WeRelate database was in a state of transition from "indian" territory to immigrant settlement in 1900. I could add and correct a lot of information there but I chose to walk away. For me it is worth going to the trouble of extending and correcting WeRelate date regarding people, because WeRelate provides a fair bit of useful infrastructure for this process. I have also added a dozen MySource pages, as well as adding and correcting some Source pages where appropriate. It is not worth extending and correcting WeRelate information about places. I simply override the Place pipes where I think things can be captured more clearly. --[[User:Jhamstra|Jhamstra]] 14:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
---[[User:Knarrows|Ronni]] 20:34, 23 September 2008 (EDT)+I wonder if there is a learning point for the site here? Maybe we need to find more ways to encourage people to "hang around" once their own ancestry has been exhausted - perhaps through broader projects such as surname studies, branching off into work on sources or places, or developing individuals into "featured pages". [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 18:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- +
-----+
-I agree with Ronni's comment -- your cousins should get an email about the Family page being changed, and when they view the changed page they can decide if they want to watch the newly-added pages. Having them use your user name and password could also work, but then they wouldn't get email notifications since the emails would all go to you.+
- +
-The issue with their needing to also add the pages to their adopted tree is a pain I agree. For reasons like this I want to get rid of the notion of "trees" later this year and instead display the FTE window on every Person and Family page. I think this will make things simpler. I could also provide an option to "watch every page that user X watches", but that's lower in priority for now.--[[User:Dallan|Dallan]] 00:23, 24 September 2008 (EDT)+
- +
-----+
-Both cousins already have their own user name and password. and the whole idea of collaboration is for us to get emails when any of us makes changes. so having them use my password would mute the whole collaboration concept for me.+
-The option to "watch every page that user X watches" would not be good, in my humble opinion, as I am watching all pages from my other trees, which have no connection what so ever to the folks in the tree which the two cousins are collaborating on, thus that action would add a bunch of pages they don't need to be getting emails about when updated.+I think that is right on. If I had to summarize what I think the findings are that could be translated into suggestions for the site, they would be:
 +* My best guess is that those who become really active users are not genealogy neophytes nor technology neophytes when they join WeRelate. This suggests two possible courses of action:
 +# Greatly simplify the site to appeal to new genealogists. Put up more training material, etc.
 +# Focus on recruiting other genealogists who have time and experience.
 +* Figure out how to keep the active participants active. People disengage slowly, which may indicate that they are looking for ways to continue participating.
-Let me ask, if they just go to the page and click "watch" in the upper right hand corner, does that do the same thing as when you go up to "edit" and then select "add this page to tree"? I did not think it did, I was thinking that only makes them watch the page, but these newly watched pages would "not" show up in the FTE window. I was thinking that when you go up to "edit" and then select "add this page to tree" -that cause you to watch the page AND to have it added to the adopted tree, thus the new children and spouses will now show up in the FTE window. Do I have that correct? I am attempting to "guide" my cousins, I don't want to get them discouraged, now that I finally have someone willing to Collaborate!! --[[User:Msscarlet1957|Msscarlet1957]] 09:41, 24 September 2008 (EDT)+-- [[User:Jdfoote1|Jdfoote1]] 20:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 +::If interested in why older genealogists hang around or leave, I'll add my 2 cents. I've been around since June 2007 on and off. On when I've decided to upload yet another GEDCOM and off when I leave in frustration because I have had to stop the GEDCOM review process to create new place, source and cemetery pages. Sometimes it just seems like the results may not be worth the effort. Especially with us older folks who are not so wiki literate. '''Another large frustration''' is that the items on the suggestion page never seem to get addressed. Actual bugs get fixed but real suggestions for making the site work better are still sitting there and I expected some progress over this period of time. I am certainly willing to work on a site still in beta but when, oh when, will these suggestions ever get addressed so the site can come out of beta?? I could be patient easier if I saw even just a few suggestions marked through as completed so I'd know some progress was being made.
 +::I think the mentoring idea is a good one but it needs to be in conjunction with getting those suggestions implemented so that things work more smoothly. Without that, mentoring will still be an uphill trek. A select few made me feel very welcome and I still miss them since they've left. --[[User:Janiejac|janiejac]] 17:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Current revision

This page is for discussing anything you want to discuss unless it relates only to a single page. Let people know what you like and don't like about WeRelate. If you don't want to leave comments on this page, you can email them to dallan@WeRelate.org.

Have a question about how to use WeRelate? Post it to WeRelate talk:Support.

Old topics have been archived: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.


Topics


Costs to upgrade MediaWiki version [30 November 2013]

There has been an outstanding suggestion to upgrade the version of software we are running for over a year. It is mentioned on that page as "one of the primary focus". My question - how much would it cost to perform such an upgrade and if we were able to get funding, would werelate be happy to do this via the paid developer route? AndrewRT 20:05, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

My guess is if we were to hire someone to do this, it would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of low five figures. I can't do it myself because I'm working fulltime on a consulting project until the end of the year. In the meantime I'm in the process of open-sourcing the complete WeRelate codebase so that others can help out if they want to: https://github.com/DallanQ/werelate-wiki --Dallan 22:38, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
Terrific news Dallan (re getting the source code onto Github). Well done! :-) I know how hard it can be to find the time to work on these things.
As for paying someone to get it all working with the latest MW, I think you're probably right. My feeling is that there might be enough of us genealogy-hackers around to perhaps get a fair bit done in say the next year... Are you around enough to point people in the right direction and advise and whatnot? Anyway, worth a shot via the open-collaboration route, before trying for funding etc.
But enough talking, I'm off to look through the code! :-) Thanks again. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 22:50, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
Yes, that's the plan and the hope. I'm going to cut back to four days a week on the consulting project at the end of this month and I'll use the extra time to add documentation and provide pointers to anyone who wants to help.
Another thing to consider is http://www.wikidata.org . Wikidata is an effort to create a collaborative structured database for Wikimedia projects. It's been under development since 2006 and is still not quite ready for prime time, but it appears close. Not sure if we should consider using it or not.--Dallan 23:14, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
Wikidata certainly looks interesting. You mean for things like place names perhaps, that are of general interest beyond genealogy? Will definitely be something to look into. :-) I have been wanting to do some sort of analysis of the links between here and Wikipedia for a while... — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:41, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
Actually I was thinking of the possibility of using the wikidata extensions to manage the database of people, in addition to places, etc. We may not write to the same datastore that the official Wikimedia projects write to, but perhaps we should consider switching over to use the wikidata format at some point if it's going to become a standard for storing structured data on Wikimedia projects. I was thinking it may help us petition to become an official Wikimedia project someday.--Dallan 00:36, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
That looks pretty cool. It looks like there is a MediaWiki extension for Wikibase, which looks like it would put us in good shape for using WikiData? -- Jdfoote1 14:18, 10 July 2013 (EDT)
I've been investigating this group of extensions a bit lately, and am playing around with a system for dynamically importing (as in, it traverses family trees and pulls what it can) data and files from werelate. Nothing to show yet though! :-) I'll post on the WR software page if I have anything. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:45, 29 July 2013 (EDT)
I'm curious - do you mean that you're walking the werelate tree and trying to pull data into a secondary database? In this case, WikiData? --jrm03063 10:51, 29 July 2013 (EDT)
Yep, exactly that. Well, not that it's functioning yet in the case of Wikibase, but I've been doing the same for other uses for a while. Basically, selecting two or four people and fetching all their ancestors and/or descendants. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 19:13, 29 July 2013 (EDT)
For what it's worth, I've been thinking that an additional way to rationalize our membership in wikimedia would be to demonstrate that we're the most wikipedia-hip genealogy environment going (not just another user of media wiki software, but a cooperating user/contributor respecting content. So, as a personal goal, I'm trying to get us to the point of being source-attached to 100,000+ WP articles (we're presently at about 98,500). Of those, about 21,000 relate to people/biographical pages, while most of the rest are places. There is however, a small but very interesting and growing group that relate to things that make for sensible genealogical categories (Houses of Nobility, Battles-Campaigns-Wars, Civil War Regiments, and more). The idea for the last sort of thing is something Amelia had quite some time back, but I've tried to run with it more actively since the beginning of this year. --jrm03063 15:57, 10 July 2013 (EDT)
"Low five figures" sounds like a figure that could be raised from a mixture of a grant application (e.g. the Wikimedia Foundation), a fundraising among site readers and perhaps some sponsorship. Is that something you would be prepared to consider? AndrewRT 19:07, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

I've found my way back to this discussion of "Wikidata" - in the context of language neutrality. In past discussions of use of English Wikipedia - concerns were raised that other languages might provide better pages than English.

It appears that language-independent Wikidata human "objects" are the way that different language versions of Wikipedia relate biographies of common individuals. To my mind, this suggests that we might want to move from an English Wikipedia orientation for relating pages between WeRelate and Wikipedia - to something that relates pages between WeRelate and Wikidata.

For example, for Louis XIV of France, the English WP page is perhaps less desirable than the french. However, this wikidata page represents both. It's also easy to see why Dallan thought the database might be a particularly appropriate way for us to represent our database of people - since the Wikidata pages seem to represent genealogy simply be some ordinary properties.

Anyway - thought that this might be a useful direction to go for the many Person pages currently related to English Wikipedia. Perhaps what we really want - is to relate Person pages to the Wikidata object - and somehow indicate one or two preferred language forms for an extract? Or something like that... --jrm03063 03:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

An additional idea - since user profiles include a language preference (which is presumably recoverable as a wiki variable) - perhaps there's a natural way to dynamically provide users with Wiki extracts from their preferred language wiki? --jrm03063 22:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)



Foul language on other's talk page [26 September 2013]

I have just had a new user add vulgar and foul language on my talk page over a disputed point on a family line. Although I have admin powers, it isn't clear to me how one should proceed on this, or if there is even a given rule about this. I would have never thought that a geneological website this would be a problem, but I guess it takes all kinds.--Daniel Maxwell 19:41, 4 September 2013 (EDT)


Mediation might be a good strategy, no matter how disruptive the dispute becomes.

If a particular genealogical issue has potential to be disputed, I think it needs to be recorded somehow. If werelate becomes successful as a go to reference, others are likely to rediscover the issue in future. It would save future wasted energy.

Good luck with that, by the way--Dsrodgers34 19:48, 4 September 2013 (EDT)

This was with a line I wasn't currently working on, but that isn't the point. The user was adding unproven information on an important line (Kenelm Winslow, the oldest known member of the Winslow line). In stuations like this, he should have made a comment on the talk page before making major changes and from there discussed it. But that wasn't my point in commenting about this here. I have had disputes with several other people on unproven/etc information, but they also don't leave disgusting language on my talk page over it. That is why I brought this up here, what WR policy is toward this kind of behavior. Daniel Maxwell 19:51, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
In theory, this is a matter for the oversight committee, but don't hold your breath...
With respect to the issue at hand - and presuming constructive engagement among the parties - a number of templates have been created to help mark things like this. Situations such as no known parents, no known mother, speculative relationships and more. So if the present state of the genealogical art does not offer an accepted set of parents for Kenelm Winslow, then you can mark his page as such. If one or more families are offered as possible, as a matter of speculation, then templates exist to indicate such tenuous relationships.
Speaking as one of the parties that developed the templates, we saw the practice of limiting decisions to absolutes as a potential (and pointless) source of conflict. Instead of forcing decisions to be absolute - parties should be able to indicate alternatives that represent reasonable speculation (not pure guesses mind you - but informed conjecture). Likewise, assertions about a negative state of information (the no accepted connection templates) - also represents a kind of information that we wanted to be able to capture. Perhaps the unfortunate situation here would never have occurred, if Kenelm had been marked as having no accepted parents with some backing documentation indicating as much. Then the person adding that information might have been on notice and been able to avoid possible embarrassment.
In any case, good luck.... --jrm03063 21:19, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
I am of course aware of the 'alternate' tabs, although still new. That isn't the problem. I want to know if users who use vulgar language can be warned/blocked/banned. I just about pre emptively banned him for it I was so upset. Daniel Maxwell 21:32, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
Also, I want to be able to keep his edit of my talk page but have that revision hidden to anyone but admins - at wikipedia this is called 'oversighting' but I am unaware of how that works here.
I found a precedent (from 2009) that says that profanity is not allowed on WeRelate, and the user was blocked. I fully support blocking any user who is verbally abusive. Abusive behavior is upsetting and harmful to emotional and mental health (as recognized by all workplaces I have been in in the last decade or so), and none of us should have to put up with it. If you want to see the precedent, search WeRelate for "profanity" and check out the Talk page hit - the profanity was posted by another person on this person's talk page.--DataAnalyst 21:56, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
Thanks Data. I take it then the user should be blocked now? I was uncertain of this because there is no clear policy as to length of ban, etc. On Wiki it is for set lengths. Daniel Maxwell 22:00, 4 September 2013 (EDT)
I don't know the policy. Try asking User talk:Beth - she did the block in 2009.--DataAnalyst 23:12, 4 September 2013 (EDT)

I have nothing to say on the language issue that others can't say better.

The use of UNKNOWN can come across as capricious and arbitrary. There are plenty of cases where the leading experts present facts for which there is no primary documentation and which evidence actually argues against. Family:John Parkhurst and Abigail Garfield (1) is one case. There are others. I guess this should really be John Parkhurst and Abigail Unknown. But I figure anybody that is serious about this couple will read this page, and so does it really hurt to leave it as it stands? There are many cases where an answer is accepted by some number of researchers, so not considered unknown, but in truth they are based on a string of coincidences that may at some point turn out to be wrong when new evidence is presented. So to me, that is the key: present the evidence. This goes for the people who want to make the hypothetical case, and the people that apparently don't like the hypothetical case. If you can't disprove it, maybe the better policy is just to add a note registering that some author in year xxx said that as far as that one author was aware at that time, the fact was unknown, or that so-and-so authority thinks differently. But assume a person that is really interested will read the page, and don't insist that your personal understanding is the only correct one to display. It seems to me the goal is to collect more evidence and get rid of the unknowns, not to erase possibilities that aren't wrong only to add unknowns.

Arguing against me, of course, is the fact that people put outlandish facts with no sources, and these kind of submissions are almost always wrong when confronted by the need for proof, making it very hard to argue that we should try to respect them. So I can't stress that all this depends on both sides giving the primary basis for anything they think is true and clearly labeling as assumption anything that is not fact. But as a guideline, I suggest: if you can't disprove it, leave it. Register your objection, but no more, until you can earn your right to change it by actually proving the right answer. --Jrich 23:26, 4 September 2013 (EDT)

I know. We've been over this before. I don't mind differing opinions - that's why we have those little templates for weak lines that some might want to note. But this doesn't apply here. What I objected to in that case was that he deleted the unknown earlier wife of Kenelm even though the later wife Catherine was probably not the mother and that is what is believed by the current Winslow knowledge. There existed a page for that marriage (since Catherine is named in his will), but with no children listed because Winslow researchers believe the children were by an earlier wife as I said. So it was the other way around - he deleted it for HIS vision and objected when I reverted it, then used foul language. But if this were merely a simple dispute I wouldn't be posting this here. WR needs a clearer policy on vulgar language and abusive comments, there was one example of this in the past from 4 years ago but nothing is set in stone. Daniel Maxwell 23:49, 4 September 2013 (EDT)

How to handle user behavioral problems is a thorny area, but one aspect about it is clear to me - the involved parties shouldn't decide on and implement any sanctions. An admin who is the target of perceived abuse should avoid taking action like suspension or banning as they often are too close to the situation to make a wise decision. Someone who is targeted by abuse should raise the matter with uninvolved admins or experienced users. Just how to do that, and to whom, I'm not sure, and what guidance about abuse issues they should follow is also murky to me. --Robert.shaw 02:04, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

I'd agree, except that WR doesn't have enough admins for a large body of people monitoring this kind of thing. This is actually the first discussion of this issue on the site at all far as I can see, so this might be a discussion worth having. It sounds as though there is no disagreement with blocking/banning of someone who does it, just on how to implement it. I have not taken any action except for removing the offending remark from my page (which for now is viewable in the history). Daniel Maxwell 02:07, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
Per User:Beth, who dealt with a potty mouth before, I have blocked the offender for 1 week and I will post a warning on his talk page. In the future, when a more clear policy is arrived at, I will put it in the hands of other admins Daniel Maxwell 07:52, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
I awoke to this situation this morning and started a private discussion with the Overview Committee regarding creating a policy for this type of behavior. There are a number of issues here the committee will need to address and clarify for future situations:
1. Abusive communication. This type of conduct cannot be tolerated and a clear policy needs to be created.
2. The action of admins reverting edits before engaging a user in discussion. There are times when reverting a user's edits is warranted, but I believe this process needs to be better defined.
3. I agree with Robert.shaw that "the involved parties shouldn't decide on and implement any sanctions". The manner in which we block users needs to be in keeping with professional standards. When a user is involved in the situation, they are not impartial.
I will post back here when the Overview Committee has drafted a policy. --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:27, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
Let me explain myself. I only reverted the first time, and right after posted a notice on said user's talk page. I assumed I would get a reply and we could discuss it. I only reverted again when he put back the changes I had just explained the problem with. I did not do it without comment on my part. I also hesitated to act myself. As I said, in the future, I am happy to let uninvolved admins do the blocking/banning (unless someone is asking me to help in arbitration). Daniel Maxwell 08:31, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
The primary issue here is, without a doubt, the abusive communication. That needs a strong policy and perhaps even a committee under Portal:Maintenance to help manage. I will make sure this happens, because no user deserves this type of treatment. Secondarily to this, I feel that looking at what may precipitate this type of outburst would be good. I am not at all trying to blame your actions for this behavior! Recently, I have seen a few instances where users with admin rights have reverted then posted on the user's talk page - and the results were angry and unproductive. I am just trying to look at the big picture, so that we can prevent and deal with abusive communication in the future. --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:46, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
You're kidding, right? It's just coming to you now that abusive communication and arbitrary edit reversion needs to be dealt with? --jrm03063 09:02, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
OK, thank you. The user was making other unsourced edits to other sourced pages (see comment by jaques just before mine), 'fixing' things by looking around on rootsweb and the like. Lines before about 1750 or so are some of the better sourced (if not best sourced) material on WR, and those of us that have worked on them get a little territorial especially when unsourced information is added (though I admit, I hadn't cleaned up the Winslow line yet). I had considered asking Dallan to consider some kind of user guide for new users in editing people born before the earliest date the GEDCOM upload will allow (1700?) - in other words, pages where the user has to create them by hand. Daniel Maxwell 08:52, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
Wikipedia has a page called ANI - Administrators Noticeboard / Incidents. Do we need the same here, or is this watercooler followed by enough Admins? Given that there are only 30 sysops on this site, is the easiest process just to contact a handful of them to take action? As to an Oversight Committee policy - would this really be useful, or should we just adopt wikipedia:WP:NPA AndrewRT 16:25, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
I don't think there will be many incidents to justify an entire section like WP, where this kind of thing is probably constant. We are not THAT big, in fact not even close. I think JBS66 is right, this should be part of the rest of the Portal:Maintenance and just another aspect of their job.

A policy regarding "Profanity and lewd language" has been added to WeRelate:Policy and linked to from Help:Wiki etiquette as well. The policy states "WeRelate is a family-oriented genealogy site. The use of profanity and lewd language is not allowed. The first offense will result in a 1 week block with the offending language being removed from the page. The second offence will result in a permanent block from using WeRelate. If a complaint is lodged with the Overview Committee, they will use their discretion to address the situation."

I've also added text on the Help:Administrators' guide asking users with Admin rights to refer requests for blocking to the Overview Committee so that an impartial team can address the situation. --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia updates [8 September 2013]

Will there be an update of places from Wikipedia tomorrow? I have been incorporating Wikipedia data to a number of English places in the past two weeks. Thanks. --Goldenoldie 09:57, 7 September 2013 (EDT)

For whatever reason, it hasn't run for at least a couple weeks. I wasn't pestering Dallan about it because the current wikipedia extract we're working off is pretty old (there are several hundred that didn't resolve the last time it ran) and we really need an overall update. Don't worry though - hooking things to WP when possible has such a great upside long term! I've made a career of this for the last four years or so. --jrm03063 10:32, 8 September 2013 (EDT)

In the past week I've found several WP entries that have been altered since they were originally downloaded to WR. These allow me to ask for {{source-wikipedia|place}} again, along with selective requests for the remainder of the article, now split into sections. So much for trivial bits of late 20th-century "history". --Goldenoldie 11:36, 8 September 2013 (EDT)


Swedish farm location type? [12 December 2013]

In Swedish genealogy, a country side location typically will include the "Gård", or farm that the person lived at. This is highly useful information as many records will be ordered by Gård, and it's also highly useful to distinguish people from each other as people tended to be quite unimaginative with names. The same place also will naturally recur many times in a family tree, so I do think these should be places, not just notes or comments.

(I have an ancestor whose father, both grandfathers, two great grandfathers and two great-great grandfathers were called Per Matsson or Mats Persson, all from just two farms in the same parish during the 18th century. It's quite confusing.)

So the question then is what location type to use for these locations? It's not a farm. Originally a gård would most likely have been one farm, but by the time the record keeping starts they are typically split into several farms. It's not an estate, because it doesn't have a single ownership. And in any cases none of these words are in the list of location types anyway. It's not a village, because although the houses tend to be located together, it's usually just a question of three-four houses.

The Swedish word "gård" comes from proto-indo-europan *gardaz, meaning "enclosed area", but I don't know if that helps either.

Here you can see how one of these places look i real life.

Any opinions on this? --Lennart 08:37, 9 September 2013 (EDT)


My commiserations. My family comes from a rural area of Scotland that has the same kind of divisions (and the same lack of creativity in naming children). When parishes or townships or areas of other parts of the world are fairly large, it would be handy to have another level of "place". Nineteenth century censuses can show numerous individual dwellings on a single farm. --Goldenoldie 11:21, 9 September 2013 (EDT)


The gård sounds fairly similar to the Irish townland - a subdivision of the large parishes that isn't its own political or administrative entity, but does tend to be used as the basis for organising many of the records. Townland is allowed as a place type and many Irish townlands have place pages on WeRelate - on my own tree I know I've linked to several townlands, including: Place:Skirteen, Monasterevin, County Kildare, Republic of Ireland.--RichardK 11:55, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

I have some familiarity with this, and I do agree with Lennart that a gård distinction can be very helpful in differentiating between individuals and that Swedish records often group individuals living in the same gård together within a parish or locale. However, I am not sure it is necessary to give each gård a separate place page. I think it is just too small of a designation that only applies to a handful of individuals. Saying that someone lived in a particular gård is not much different than saying that they lived on a particular farm or small group of farms or on a particular block. I am curious why the desired differentiation can not be accomplished by putting the gård in the description field or the "name suffix" field in the same way that it is done on other pages (i.e. saying "of Beverly Manor" or "of Pike's creek")? --Cos1776 13:24, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

Indeed, a Townland seems very much like the same subdivision, and is of a very similar size, judging from this and this list of townlands.
We *could* put this into the description field, but it is a stable division that doesn't change much over the centuries. The "handful" of individuals are indeed less than a thousand in recorded history per gård, and of course it's not likely that we record the full history of a parish like that any time soon. But as an example, in the GEDCOM I have that's waiting for review there are 38 individuals, and Uddvide, Grötlingbo appears 14 times, Ronnings, Grötlingbo 13 times. For some individuals it appears twice, as the both die and are born there, but still. (The extended tree for Gotland I'm using as a base for my research contains 247 people born or died in Uddvide, btw).
However, I think the more important question here is searchability. You can search for persons on location, but not on the location description.
I'll defer to the general view of this here, but using Townload as the type would probably be acceptable. --Lennart 14:02, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
I have a similar situation to Goldenoldie - my ancestor's family are from Place:North Ronaldshay, Orkney, Scotland, where the so-called "House" was routinely used as the location for people, often contained several households and is actually a very useful tool in tracking family histories. Indeed in North Ronaldshay there are examples of people like "Person:Thomas Tulloch (36)" from Garso who was normally referred to as "Tommy Garso". Can I ask the question the other way round - what is the rationale for the current restriction on places to aggregations above a particular size? AndrewRT 15:43, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

Norway is similar to Sweden, and as far as I can tell, a Municipality in Norway (which appears to be the smallest division currently recommended in WeRelate) is not necessarily like a city in North America. It might be a city, but in rural areas, it is more like a township. I believe that it is the smallest division with an official administrative body (which I assume guides WeRelate policy), but I don't think that that is sufficient reason to make it the smallest division in WeRelate place pages. For one thing, tax lists have been organized by gård (see this example from 1950), making them of at least some administrative importance (at least as much, for example, as a census division, which is supported in WeRelate). I would like to see the gårds added as well - for the same reasons as given above.

I would draw the parallel with the Town of Hempstead in Nassau County, New York (which appears to me to be like a township) which includes many villages and hamlets (although you can't see that in WeRelate, because each hamlet or village just says that it is also in Nassau County). These villages and hamlets have their own place pages - not necessarily because they have/had their own administrative bodies (although they may have), but because they show up on maps, in VRs, etc.

As for the number of people living in a gård - there can be anywhere from 2-3 families to about 40 families - easily as large or larger than many of the villages and hamlets in North America that are recognized in WeRelate with their own place pages.

Lastly, there are at least 2 more-or-less authoritative sources for the list of gårds in Norway. A list begun by Oluf Rygh in the late 19th century (Norwegian Farm Names) is considered a standard, and there is also an updated version from the draft land registry of 1950 (link above).

I would also like to see a place type of "Gård" added, so that we don't have to characterize these as "Townlands". It would help to show that WeRelate is aware of other parts of the world besides the English-speaking world.--DataAnalyst 21:33, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

Gård has been added to the list of place types.--DataAnalyst 03:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: People interested in this topic might also be interested in the discussion on place page names for Norway, as there appear to be similarities between Norway and Sweden.--DataAnalyst 03:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Importing early ancestors [13 September 2013]

I just noticed this:

"The Early column is checked for people born 1750 or earlier. Early people are excluded from GEDCOM import."

Ho hum.

"WeRelate already has wiki pages for many early ancestors"

Yeah, that may be, but not for mine. Or is this site only for Americans?

OK, fair enough, these early ancestors often have bad sourcing, but I think the exclusion in that case should be for people who have no sources, not because they are early. --Lennart 17:16, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

This was a big problem when the site first started. Worsening GEDCOM duplicates of Mayflower passengers or other early immigrants were piling up badly, and when people who didn't know what they were doing merged with someone elses you ended up with a jumbled mess. I still run into these on occasion. But jrm03063 is probably right that certain instances it should be able to get waved when approached by an admin, but I still think our policy on this is the correct one. Daniel Maxwell 14:10, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
There's actually more reasons than simply the past transgressions of various GEDCOMs creating a bad impression. The further back you go, the more researchers you potentially intersect with, and the more appropriate it is to be careful in entering data. And of course, yes, everybody think their sources are appropriate. People that use no sources don't think they're necessary, people that use bad sources do so because they think that's all that needed. In previous discussions, no way to automatically assess source quality could be settled on. --Jrich 19:28, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
I am emphatically opposed to deleting unsourced people pages. Working on early New England families, I have often found data, usually from drive-by gedcoms, which is accurate but unsourced. If the source is relatively easy to find and add, it seems counter-productive to delete it only for some one coming along days or years later to have to start over. Even in cases where the sources aren't apparent (just because we don't know about a source does not mean it does not exist), the data sometimes furnishes clues which are helpful in putting families together.--jaques1724 20:35, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
different topic, I think. --Jrich 23:41, 9 September 2013 (EDT)
Definitely different topic, but might be worth bringing up. IMO unsourced people who has had no edits since import could be deleted. The information is typically easily found on other sites. But, no biggie. --Lennart 14:35, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
I agree with jaques. Eventually hopefully someday somebody will come along and clean up all those pages. But they are part of families that have been linked to, so form a junction in a big mesh that is our unified tree, and to create holes by deleting them is just as disruptive. For example, when somebody deletes their tree, it will often delete 2 or 3 children out of a family of, say 8, leaving the family incomplete, etc. Also, occasionally, the source is posted on the family page, and so it's there, just in a different spot than might be expected. Better to let the cleanup on existing problems be done in a thoughtful, careful manner, just limit the amount of new problems that can be created as much as possible. --Jrich 16:20, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure that any of these policies can be waived if someone thinks they have a special situation, or their GEDCOM content is particularly well done. The policies represent what seems to be good practice in the general case. Folks should feel free to appeal if they think it appropriate. --jrm03063 11:25, 10 September 2013 (EDT)

Help with a Transcript [10 September 2013]

I'm making my first attempt at creating a Transcript page and am not really clear on the most efficient/useful way of doing it. I'd appreciate it if some of you who have experience with transcripts would take a look at the initial part and provide suggestions on how to improve it.

Transcript:Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts:Wise, John, 1673

--jaques1724 23:00, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

I would be happy to help. Let me know where you want to converse... --jrm03063 11:27, 10 September 2013 (EDT)
[1]. --Jrich 11:51, 10 September 2013 (EDT)

New logo [12 September 2013]

What happens next with the Logo Suggestions? AndrewRT 17:03, 10 September 2013 (EDT)

The next step is a vote, but I will bring this up at the Overview Committee meeting on Sunday. --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:05, 12 September 2013 (EDT)

WR needs clarification of the 'Famous person' living exception [26 September 2013]

I apologize if this was discussed elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything in a quick search. I noticed that several siblings of President George HW Bush were tagged as speedy delete, which I have deleted. But I think WR needs to clarify what persons fall under the famous living person exception. Being the brother or sister of a famous person doesn't seem like a good enough reason, but this isn't defined anywhere I noticed. I suggested something else related to this to Dallan, but I want to bring it up here. Person:George Bush (2) has an ugly 'after 2010' in the death section so he could be added. Could this instead be replaced by a 'famous person' tag which will then enter him and anyone else with it into a category so it can be checked to be certain the person meets WR's criteria for 'famous'. Merely having a wikipedia page doesn't seem like a good enough rule for famous but before I go on a deletion spree of the siblings/nephews of George Bush I want to be sure.--Daniel Maxwell 13:54, 13 September 2013 (EDT)

When you say "clarification" do you mean that or do you mean "change"? My understanding was that the rule was clear cut: no living people unless they have a Wikipedia page. The rationale is simple: the website excludes living people in order to protect privacy. If you are the subject of a Wikipedia article then the information is already in the public domain so there can be no objection to having the information on here. Adding an extra rule trying to define "famous" would be a futile exercise and just lead to endless disputes. What possible advantage could there be in deleting this information? All it does is degrade the quality of this website and annoy the people who have spent time adding it in the first place. AndrewRT 16:47, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
I don't see anything 'clear cut'. In fact I see zero actual stated policy. I am not suggesting deleting George Bush, British royals, or other clear exceptions obvious at all. But what about border line cases? Brothers of famous people, nephews, etc. What about their spouses and children? Many of them are not considered notable enough for wikipedia, why here? And I also don't like the idea of being wedded to the hip of wikipedia policies. Alot of people on Wikipedia I do not believe are famous enough for their public information to be widely known and discussed. A wikipedia article is a pretty low bar considering what passes for 'notable' over there. But assuming that they are, why are non notable nephews of George Bush to be left intact? Daniel Maxwell 16:54, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
I think that the Wikipedia policy explained here makes a lot of sense for us to adopt as well. They say that people's private information (e.g., birthdates) should only be on WP if that information has been widely published or if the person has made it clear that they don't mind that information being known.
Wikipedia has a much larger community, and receives a lot more scrutiny. I definitely don't think we need stricter criteria than they do, and I think it makes a lot of sense to piggyback off of the natural scrutiny that pages there receive (especially pages about living people) - I vote that our criteria for including living people is that person must have a Wikipedia page with a birthdate. That seems both straightforward, and easy to "enforce". -- Jdfoote1 17:08, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
We are not a branch of Wikipedia. Let's get that out of the way first off - not to mention that Wikipedia condones the storing of large amounts of porno on their commons site - including some absolutely unspeakable images. Wikipedia is not a good example of a 'responsible' site. But let me given an example related to my point- perhaps a certain author, or military personnel, or reporter, notable enough for wikipedia - can we really say that some of the Generals added there are notable to have the names of their spouses, children, etc added to WR? +
Actually, this is a sidetrack about my actual point in my first post that AndrewRT flipped out over. Are the non notable siblings and relatives of Presidents now OK here? That is all I was talking about deleting. If there is notability, it should be on a case by case basis. Daniel Maxwell 17:16, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
I start to see the issue. I was just looking at the father of the Duchess of Cambridge. While he doesn't have his own WP page proper, he is discussed explicitly in a section on her WP page. So being absolutist about whether there is or isn't a WP page may be missing the mark a bit. But it does get dicey if we start letting people make an argument on a case-by-case basis. What if the requirement is that there be a WP page dedicated to the person, or that contains discussion of a person's genealogy - and further - that such WP page be provided as a source in support of a death fact/living person exception? --jrm03063 17:51, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
See this page as a for example - Person:Michael Middleton (3) --jrm03063 17:56, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
On the other hand, the page for his father seems more problematic. --jrm03063 18:01, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
It's quite possible that this is one of those things that was discussed to the point of a conclusion - but nothing was ever recorded in a way that we're able to find just now. That said, my understanding is that the only exception is for people with a Wikipedia page - and even then - the only thing we allow is the mechanical extract of the wikipedia content. When I've created such pages, I leave the death date and place empty, but add a description to the death fact that says "wikipedia notability excepetion". I suppose we should get this policy written down somewhere, and I should go back turning those descriptions into a template that takes people to a policy statement... --jrm03063 17:25, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
I think that it's simplest to understand and enforce if it's a hard and fast rule - living people must have a WP page of their own in order to be included here. -- Jdfoote1 17:59, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
But then it can ONLY be for that person. That is what I meant by case-by-case. General so and so's wife is not famous, and neither are his children, or his possibly still living parents. That is where I see the problem and where I believe it steps into invasion of privacy, or could. Under this rule, GWB's nephews are not famous and will be deleted unless they become notable in their own right. Daniel Maxwell 20:47, 13 September 2013 (EDT)

The policy is at WeRelate:Policy#Living People, and says;

Information on living people will be removed unless the person is a notable individual documented on Wikipedia whose shared ancestry is likely to be of interest to the community. (This exception is used primarily for heads of state.)

There is this guidance, which is similar but not the same, on Help: Person pages:

The exception [to "no living people"] is for famous and notable people whose ancestry is of interest to the general public. The general rule of thumb is that if someone has a Wikipedia page listing their birth information and/or parents, a WeRelate page may be created for them. This exception is used primarily for heads of state.

So having a Wikipedia page is a prerequisite, but they also need to be someone "whose ancestry is of interest to the general public." There is much discussion from 2006 to 2012 at WeRelate talk:Living people.--Robert.shaw 18:13, 13 September 2013 (EDT)


I'm going to chime in since I'm pretty sure I wrote both those help pages ... they express the original rationale for the exception that's described above: there's no point in deleting information about (originally, extremely) famous people who happen to be living, and a greater benefit to leaving it because it shows the common ancestry people might be interested in. The policy was defined when it was pretty much only used for Bill Clinton, the George Bushes, and Queen Elizabeth. I didn't expect at the time it would be as widely used as it is now (hence the head of state reference), but that goes to show that different people find different lines interesting. Since it's no longer true that the exception is used mostly for heads of state, that should be deleted.

While ideally I would argue that interest in the ancestry should also be its own criteria, as a practical matter that's impossible to enforce. The only way to have a clear enforceable rule that is something other than allowing or banning all living people is to refer to some external standard to define what's famous. Wikipedia, faults included, is the best thing I can think of -- it's readily accessible to all, it covers all types of famous people, it has a policy on this (that's arbitrated by far more people than we are), and it's constantly updated. It also has a benefit of making this a very easy question to answer--George W. Bush's siblings and one nephew get pages, if people so desire to create them. In relatively rare cases like the Duchess of Cambridge where there are living parents/grandparents not themselves famous, they can be links in the chain listed as "living" for now.--Amelia 01:35, 14 September 2013 (EDT)


I don't have anything more to offer on what the policy is or ought to be, other than running with an idea from User:DMaxwell to provide a common practice for labeling the situation. See this template and this category. Check out any of the pages listed in the category for examples of use of the template. --jrm03063 09:04, 14 September 2013 (EDT)


The Overview Committee discussed this today. The exception to the living person policy is only for people who themselves have a page on Wikipedia (on any of the language versions). The exception does not extend to living people who are mentioned in a Wikipedia article. In the example given above for the Duchess of Cambridge, she would have a page on WeRelate since she has a page on Wikipedia. However, her parents would not have pages on WeRelate. WeRelate no longer allows empty placeholder pages titled Living - so it is advised to place a link on the Duchess' page to her grandparents' page in the free text field as well as a link to her page on her grandparents' pages. This follows the policy that states "If you would like to link pages to others that would otherwise be linked through living people (in-laws with living children, for example), do so by creating direct links in the body of the pages. Do not put information about the living people on the pages."

I have not heard of any requirement that "the only thing we allow is the mechanical extract of the Wikipedia content." I will ask Dallan for clarification on this. --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:30, 15 September 2013 (EDT)

I encourage the committee to review this category. It collects Person pages of the living that I have found, entered by a variety of folks (oddly enough, mostly NOT me...). A number will be found to be without directly corresponding WP pages - but none of them strike me as an intrusion upon privacy. I expect to continue my search and tagging efforts.
My memory as to whether anything other than a mechanical extract is allowed may very well be flawed, as it may simply be my imperfect memory of a good way to prevent misuse of these exceptional pages for the living, and not a policy as such. --jrm03063 20:15, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
The policy states there must be a corresponding WP page for the living person exception. I wonder if it would be wise to add a few parameters to the exception template, namely the page title and language version. Then, the link in the death field could go to WP. The page could still be placed in the FamousLivingPersonException category, but there would be only one link to it on pages instead of two. --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:44, 16 September 2013 (EDT)
I'm not usually in favor of revisiting policy, but this is a case that may be justified on grounds of improved information on the issue. In particular:
  • We now know that the domain we're talking about is relatively small (the current category is just shy of 100 - assuming we double that - it's still pretty small).
  • It's clear that WP won't have a separate page for every person that is openly discussed. Spouses, parents, and other immediate family of a really famous person are often very explicitly discussed in WP - even though they may not justify a WP article in their own right.
  • The value of being able to add pages for a famous person is going to be seriously diminished if we can't also allow entry of linking people that connect to that person to their genealogical past.
I'm not going to try to suggest exactly what the policy really ought to be - beyond the (it seems) generally accepted principle that we should have a common practice for marking this situation. At present, I'm working through the category to see how many don't have their own exactly corresponding WP page. I'll bring those names forward when I have them for wider review. --jrm03063 15:44, 18 September 2013 (EDT)
Ok, I've walked the entire category, adding WP sources where needed, and all I've come up with is Person:Michael Middleton (3), (comment added by User:Jrm03063)

I'm glad that the Oversight Committee has given us a definitive policy on this now - as I said before, the main risk is that the website infers that a category of pages is acceptable, someone like me comes along and adds them and then some time later someone else comes along and deletes them because they have interpreted the policy differently. Now I hope we can all agree to implement the policy that's been agreed.

It's a pity, however, that Jennifer's explanation of the policy chose a bad example that was factually incorrect: "In the example given above for the Duchess of Cambridge, she would have a page on WeRelate since she has a page on Wikipedia. However, her parents would not have pages on WeRelate". Actually, Wikipedia has pages for both at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Middleton and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole_Middleton. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by this - should we follow the words of your agreed policy or the specific example you gave?

As for her grandfather Person:Peter Middleton (3), he is clearly allowed on WeRelate as he died in 2010. The key thing about this family is that they are a notable family in their own right as they are descended from minor nobility, hence the interest in their ancestry. AndrewRT 20:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, slight correction: Based on this discussion it seems that there are divergent views on Wikipedia as to whether or not they qualify for separate pages and the situation is currently still fluid. AndrewRT 21:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
When I wrote the above message it was factual ;) I checked WP to make sure pages did not exist for Michael or Carole. At that time, I am certain they were both redirected to Catherine's page. It's odd, because Carole's history on WP says it was un-redirected before I wrote the post. Anyway... it would be correct to follow the words "The exception to the living person policy is only for people who themselves have a page on Wikipedia (on any of the language versions). The exception does not extend to living people who are mentioned in a Wikipedia article." --Jennifer (JBS66) 21:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Tree Delete Nomination [2 October 2013]

Been a while since I found anything quite as unhelpful. The GEDCOM upload of User:Wuiske on 7 Jan 2008 - not a large one - but seems uniformly disconnected and utterly unhelpful. I could delete it by hand on my own, but the few dates that it has put it outside the medieval spaces where I'm usually operating. --jrm03063 03:09, 15 September 2013 (EDT)

This tree also contains a large percentage of pages without dates, many of which may be living. Since these types of pages would be rejected in current GEDCOM upload standards, Dallan will delete the tree and inform the user. --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:32, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
The tree has been deleted.--Dallan 02:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Too many DAR GRS Source pages [6 November 2013]

Please excuse this post if this has already been discussed elsewhere. I could not find mention of it.

I have been noticing that there are a lot of different source pages which all seem to be for the same source, namely the online DAR Genealogical Research System, so I did a little search and came up with the list below. It looks like all parties were going for the same thing, but had slightly different approaches and used different page titles which resulted so many duplicates.

What are the opinions on combining them ALL (yes, I did say "ALL") into one source page and what is the favored approach? This may cause some waves with some of the originators, but others seem to have moved on.

Did I miss any? --Cos1776 01:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


Well, "Applications for membership" seems more specific than the others. But otherwise, yes, merge. --Lennart 09:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WELL! Please excuse me - I've merged the two "Genealogical Research System" sources and opened a discussion on this below. I'm not sure whether the Descendants database is really the same as the list of ancestors. I also seem to remember seeing a note somewhere that Applications for Membership do not appear online (and some of that material, which may be ordered, remains copyright to the DAR who explicitly refuses having it reproduced on line). So hmmmm! --jrm03063 15:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Signing in [21 September 2013]

Until yesterday it was usually the case that one sign-in was enough for a day. Suddenly I am having to sign in every time I reopen my browser. This is a bit of a pain, but, okay, security is security. HOWEVER, I was just leaving a message on someone's talk page, went to preview it, and was told I had to sign in before editing. The message, which I had spent 15 minutes on, has disappeared. Grrr. --Goldenoldie 10:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What browser & version are you using? --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I am experiencing this as well using Chrome. It used to only happen when i stepped away for several hours which was understandable, but yesterday it was happening every 15 min or so. I feel your frustration goldenoldie. My workaround to avoid losing text is to open a new tab or window, sign on in the new window. Then go back to the old window, hit the back button and an alt-p (preview) and you should be able to continue editing. This is not a fix (which is still needed), just a salve to help you avoid losing your work in the future. Best wishes! --Cos1776 13:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've alerted Dallan to this problem. --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I am using Firefox, latest version as far as I know. So glad to know I'm not the only frustrated one. Speed of upload has improved as the day wears on. (I am in the UK so I have been using WR for 8 hours already today.) --Goldenoldie 14:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

On another issue, Dallan said some hardware was changed out recently, perhaps some configuration wasn't quite preserved. There seems to be some changes with patrolling too. --Jrich 15:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with images? [22 September 2013]

Is anyone else having issues with some images loading? Like [Image:LibraryBook.GIF] or [Image:Letter from Fanny Cook to Catherine Munday, 29 November 1875, page 2.png]. I'm getting 404 errors for both. (The actual image files, I mean, not the description pages.) Most other images are working though. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

At least I now know it's not my computer or server. Lots of problems with loading thumbnails -- presumably to be fixed soon?
Of greater concern, I can't get the Duplicate families report -- it's "Not Found". --GayelKnott 01:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the site seemed altogether down for a while there. When systems come back up, they sometimes don't immediately return with their full complement of filesystems. It's pretty easy for me to believe that images live on a different filesystem from the wiki database proper. Other reports? Also possibly somewhere not currently up/accessible. So I'ld say hang in there for now... --jrm03063 01:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Search server also seems down - so if you can tear yourself away - it's probably time to call it a night... :) !
Yes, let's see what happens in a few hours or tomorrow. I assume Dallan knows what's up? As for calling it a night — I've only just had breakfast! ;-) Sunday morning in WA... — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wikipedia Update! [9 October 2013]

To Dallan et. al. - thanks for the wikipedia (WP) update of 9/22. It hadn't run for several weeks and the accumulated backlog of pages waiting for a WP extract was approaching 500. So let me start by saying I'm most appreciative...

However...the extract we're working from is getting a bit tired. Even after the refresh, 120 "source-wikipedia" templates were not resolved. Also, more and more I'm starting to notice that useful internal cross-links aren't resolved. By that I mean - if WP page "A" is extracted and has a reference to some yet-unreferenced page "B". Then, we add a new correspondence that creates a correspondence for "B". The extract present on "A" doesn't get the local cross link to "B" until we perform the full update. It's possible that there's value in having an intermediate WP update to pick up such cross-links - even if we don't go to a new full WP extract (I defer to those who do that work to know whether it's just as easy to do the full update with a new extract).

So thanks again, and please forgive me for asking for yet more! (BTW, our overall correspondence set w/WP is approaching 100,000 - which starts to make us look like we're serious about making use of WP content. I don't know of anyone else that has tried to bring open scholarship like this into genealogy on this scale - between WR native content and integrating WP content. I really think this matters - but then, I always did...). --jrm03063 14:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


I would like to second the vote of thanks for the wikipedia update of 9/22. My personal backlog of place pages was about 100--yesterday my email letter box was very large.

A couple of things I noticed: (1) distances appear to be coming across from Wikipedia to WeRelate--is this the end of place A being "about south of" place B? Sure hope so. (2) sometimes the Wikpedia page writers change their titles between our making an original request and the time the request is acted upon (for instance, writing separate sections for "History" and "Geography" when we had noted a single section entitled "History and Geography". In this case the update cannot be made--and worth checking if a section update is still sitting there untouched after several months. --Goldenoldie 19:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


New Logo Suggestions - please vote [19 January 2014]

It was suggested back in July that WeRelate could use a new logo. The Logo Suggestions page was set up to collect ideas. Now, we would like to put this to a vote. Please take a moment to view the logo ideas at Logo Suggestions. Then, sign your name here to vote for the logo you would like to see represent WeRelate. Please note that due to attribution requirements, the final logo may need to be tweaked a bit. --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


  • Votes for Single Tree
--Lennart 08:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Votes for Collaborative Forest

I wish I could see where to sign my name. My vote is for Collaborative Forest--if the belt was deeper and more visible. --Goldenoldie 09:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Votes for Delijim's Suggestion
--Jhamstra 16:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
--Cos1776 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
--Q 19:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
--User:janiejac Though the tree could be just a tad smaller; but NOT small like 'single tree'.
  • Votes for Relating
--AndrewRT 20:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC) My choice (assuming I can't vote for my own), although as per Jrich, I would prefer they were narrowed down and then iterated.
  • Votes for Sharing (color)
--Daniel Maxwell 22:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
--Lidewij 08:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Votes for Sharing (gray)
  • Votes for keep the original logo
--RichardK - I'm not particularly inspired by any of the suggestions. The current logo may not immediately shout 'genealogy' at you, but it's distinctive, bright and slightly eccentric. I say stick with it unless and until someone comes up with something truly worth changing for.
--Prcb 17:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I actually kind of like it, it's abstract, simple, and active. The very clean look of WR is enhanced by this logo. I'd vote for change if an alternative were a clear improvement.
  • Votes for none of the above
Nothing strikes me, nor do I think the old one great. No real ideas, I might combine Relating (interconnected) and Sharing (puzzle) ideas? --Jrich 19:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I do want to express my appreciation for the efforts invested so far, but I don't feel like we're there yet. I would rather see the interested parties continue to work the issue. Changing when we're not ready - leading to another change too soon - would be very unfortunate. --jrm03063 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
While I did vote, I do think this could use some more work. A ton of other genealogical sites use some kind of tree/branch/forest for a logo. I cannot say I am a fan of the 'pawns' logo, either though. Daniel Maxwell 02:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with users Jrich and jrm 03063. --Beth 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I prefer to keep the existing logo while we keep working on something unique to WeRelate. --Susan Irish 17:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. I like the idea of Relating (prototype), but it is definitely a prototype, and doesn't suggest genealogy. The Trees, however trite, are recognizable as genealogy. So, relating (connecting), collaboration, and quality -- all in one? --GayelKnott 18:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we aren't there yet, but I think that we can't just let things die here. I think that almost any of the suggestions would be an improvement to the current logo, but I think that it's not worth changing until we've found something we love. My worry is that we'll just push this off forever. How do we move forward to actually get closer to a new logo? -- Jdfoote1 20:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we leave it open for a couple more weeks to let everyone have their say and then see what the verdict is, although the current prevailing view seems to be that more work is needed. AndrewRT 20:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
--Artefacts 03:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)"Sharing Genealogy" and "Sharing Genealogy Through Collaboration" could be tighter: "Collaborative Genealogy" or "Genealogy Collaboration". Or, there is an opportunity to really globalize the site with "The World Family Tree" as the second line, like how Wikipedia has "The Free Encyclopedia". If that is considered taken, maybe "The Free World Family Tree" of "The Free World Genealogy"? The font in the wordmark seems slightly less professional than possible, given that Wikipedia itself uses an open-source Libertine font: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_of_Wikipedia. To get people to fully associate WeRelate with the idea of a wiki like wikipedia (an online collaboration that goes beyond a database and includes articles), I would go with an all-grey logo and the puzzle piece does seem to draw that association as well -- is it possible to take the puzzle piece globe from wikipedia and stick a tree on top of it?

--Artefacts 05:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)I don't have Adobe Photoshop c5 but if somebody does: http://psd.tutsplus.com/tutorials/3d/create-a-spherical-3d-puzzle-with-photoshop/ --Artefacts 06:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Put my money where my mouth was and built what I could Talk:Logo_Suggestions#Implying_the_Collaboration_with_Wikipedia_elements_.5B10_December_2013.5D


Howdy, I thought I'd take a stab at a "compromise Logo" combining two of the logos that may be a good alternative (combined 5 votes so far):

Jim--Delijim 16:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


A good logo is a really hard thing to do. It needs to be identifiable when it's shrunk down to be the tiny left-hand side icon on a browser URL type-in field (perhaps 8x8 pixels?). It also needs to look nice when it's grown to a much larger size. You probably can't just rely on automatic algorithms to do the growth/shrinkage - you will probably have to create a number of different explicit sized versions for tiny, medium, large, and extra-large variants. Somewhat perversely, the different versions will be needed in order to get different size images that will be perceived by a human as, in fact, the same image (the next set of candidates should be shown at different sizes).
If I had a really expensive Madison Avenue firm designing a logo for us, I'ld ask them to try to come up with a design that suggests as much of the following as possible (in no particular order):
  • a single shared space/tree
  • A collaboration environment that isn't just optional - it's fundamental/required
  • We're a wiki
  • We're the cool way to do genealogy.
  • Your information is safely in the care of a real library
  • We're free - and so is your information - now and forever
  • trees (as images) suggest genealogy well enough, but I'm not sure identifying us as another genealogy site/software system is what we need from our logo. I feel like people will already know that - what they need to know is how we're different from the others.
  • Words or a motto can be nice in/underneath the larger versions of the logo, but it would be unfortunate if a wordless version (required in the tiny form) didn't suggest any of the key features/differences about WeRelate versus non-collaborative approaches
Some rough ideas that try to break/expand the trend of trees and individual puzzle pieces -
  • people holding hands suggests collaboration - people working together and making one of those pyramids that we made in HS gym classes years ago suggests something about collaboration and yet a single entity.
  • It wouldn't be a sin to use elements of the existing logo to create the new one - in could be a benefit. Could a different arrangement of the people do a better job suggesting key themes of our site? Different people working on the same puzzle? One of our existing logo's "people" on one side w/a puzzle piece below them, another adding a second piece to the first. Or even - two such people looking down from different sides at two linked puzzle pieces.
Like I said - I'm pretty sure that this is the sort of thing that's really hard to do well. I'm pretty sure I'ld be awful at it. So the people making this effort have my respect and gratitude. That said - if we go to a new logo - I hope we're really sure that it's an improvement, lest we do more harm than good. --jrm03063 17:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure how we'd possibly be able to accomplish communicating everything you've listed above without coming up with a logo with way too much text or way too busy.

My take is as follows:
  • the Logo needs to be fairly clean and not cluttered with "mixed messages", IMO.
  • The collaborative environment of a wiki is still an unknown to many, that is I believe the most important aspect of what wiki sites like WeRelate "bring to the party", and needs to be emphasized most, IMHO. I still run into people that are working on their family tree that are unaware or somewhat unaware of the positives of a wiki environment.
  • Althouth I didn't come up with the puzzle piece logo, the more I thought about it, genealogy is like trying to assemble a very large puzzle, where some pieces fit, but many do not, so I think the puzzle part of the logo works for most serious genealogical researchers, unless they just don't like puzzles. :)
  • As one person noted above, the tree symbol may be sort of over-used, but it still remains the "universal symbol" of genealogy.
  • I'm not particularly big on logos with people "holding hands" and the whole "cumbaya" thing, but maybe that's just me.
  • Finally, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to reach a consensus on this since we have so many varying opinions, which reminds me that a camel was a horse designed by committee, so if anyone wants to step-up and give it a better try, then I'm not sure we'd ever get total agreement.

Anyway, just my $.02. Best regards to all,

Jim

I entertain no illusion that all of what I note could be accomplished - like I think I said - if I had a ton of money and could ask for the sky, the moon, and the stars - it might look something like that. Still, there is something there that I'm wanting to stress: we should know what we're trying to communicate in a new logo. The extent to which a new logo does or doesn't do a better job of communication, is the extent to which it should be favored. I don't favor new for the sake of new - because that costs you whatever market identity you already have - without any clear idea that you're going to improve something.
Maybe the holding hands thing isn't your thing - and I'm not sure it's mine - but I think there are more female genealogy enthusiasts than there are male - and maybe it would reach them? Maybe a different image - one of our current WR logo "people" handing a puzzle piece off to another WR "person"?
If you think that people don't know that WeRelate is a genealogy site, then a tree makes sense. Still, a tree on its own is pretty weak and we ought to be able to send a bigger message. Maybe a tree with a trunk that looks like a big number "1"? Suggesting that we're working on one tree? Maybe a tree in front of an obvious background containing a big "1"?
When I see another round of logos - I'm going to try to imagine how they do (compared to what we've got) - on communicating ideas like those in my notes above. They could be subjectively great art and beautiful even - but this is art with a purpose. I mean no disrespect to the people who are working on this - I think this is really, really hard - but I felt like I couldn't vote on other people's efforts without being clear about how I'm measuring them. --jrm03063 19:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Just thinking about process here, there isn't a clear favourite here so it sounds like there needs to be another "round". I suggest the process needs to include some kind of "reward" for the people who have spent the time to develop their logo suggestions, so how about we say the three logos that got more than one vote (i.e. sharing, relating and Delijim, counting jrich and GayelKnott per their comments) should go through and people should be able to submit logos that are developed from one or more of these three? Given the small voting base here, should we try to sample non-users of the site as well? AndrewRT 20:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of a Logo is that it is simple so it is easily recognised. This is a good example, the banks logo is well know by all Australians but what does it have to do with banking? [2] I like the tree and jigsaw idea but keep it "symbolic". Use the KISS method of design! "Designing a good logo is no simple task" quote from Wikipedia but it doesn't have to be a complicated design.--burgjoh 23:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am a terrible artist but I am quite good at visualization. Here are my thoughts:

1) A slogan and a logo are not the same thing - they are processed in different parts of the brain. I dislike any verbiage in a logo. It takes too long to read whereas a distinctive logo can be instantly grasped by the visual part of the brain without having to invoke the language processing center.

2) I think that if we simply put hands on opposite sides of the puzzle piece(s) it will convey collaboration. Two hands, each on a separate piece with the pieces interlocking, should convey the concept.

3) I would flatten the tree into the puzzle piece(s) and leave it incomplete - branching off the edges.

I can see this in my head but I cannot draw it: two interlocking side-by-side pieces each held between thumb and forefinger, thumb and forefinger on opposite sides (and rotated) - one above and one below, tree spreads across the two pieces. --Jhamstra 00:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a snipped of the hands from "The Creation of Adam" - but with the hands a little further separated holding interlocking puzzle pieces? Sacrilegious I know - but struck me a little funny! :) --jrm03063 16:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This graphic and this site is a good place to look for inspiration

http://www.123rf.com/photo_18407421_jigsaw-pieces-being-joined-shows-teamwork-and-assembling.html

Would be nice to convey yhe concept of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts and high quality (Gold standard) maybe one of the pieces could be golden and just connecting mahes the others turn gold (graduated fill)--Dsrodgers34 03:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


Based on the hands and jigsaw pieces, how about a dynamic logo ?

Three pieces are already there, could have symbols on them.

A hand adds a fourth gold piece, and the other pieces turn gold

An alternative could be to have the tree or a plant growing out of it--Dsrodgers34 00:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The graphic is a bit of a thought bubble. Im imagining it put on a sphere like wikipedia. The vine represents the connectedness, the interlocking pieces represent exactness and scholarly work


I like this - I think a jigsaw of a tree could be a cool logo - puts together the ideas of collaboration (via puzzle) and genealogy (a tree) -- Jdfoote1 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what jrm and others have said above, but I'm not sure a puzzle on its own is enough to communicate "collaboration". This is what I had in mind with the shaking hands, although I do agree that the 123rf logo does this better with different people putting pieces into a puzzle. AndrewRT 21:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
That is why I suggested different fingers putting different pieces together from opposite sides of the puzzle. Working on jigsaw puzzle with someone is a good way to learn to collaborate.--Jhamstra 22:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

My thought was we could leverage of the wikipedia jigsaw globe, which does suggest the collaboration, th exactness. I m suggesting the vine draped over the globe instead of the wikipedia symbols the vine is closer to the pando idea than a single tree symbol--Dsrodgers34 22:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Cool! Maybe we could go with my mash-up for the Wikipedia inclusion project! :) (ok, probably not...)



Suggesting:

Image:WeRelateLogoProposal.jpg

Talk:Logo_Suggestions#Implying_the_Collaboration_with_Wikipedia_elements_.5B10_December_2013.5D --Artefacts 06:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This logo seems a step forward to me. But the tree is too small, which I assume is to allow the features of the globe to be seen, so I would probably make it green to increase it prominence. Actually an animated gif going from the proposed picture to a smaller puzzle and bigger tree would also work, i.e., showing progress. Further, I don't like the word "free". Advertises the wrong message, imho, attracting people who want to dump their GEDCOM and invest nothing. I would prefer long-time participants because genealogy is an ongoing process: you never know if you have the final answer. I would prefer something like "Finding Out How We Relate". Personally I find the parallels with wikipedia overdone, but this would be most easily accomplished by calling it WikiRelate instead of WeRelate. --Jrich 15:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I really like this. I mentioned a few concerns on the Talk page for the logo suggestions. I just wanted to chime in here to say thank you for getting this conversation going again - let's keep thinking and working on this, and get a new logo! :) -- Jdfoote1 02:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I love the globe covered with puzzle pieces. Could we overlay a tree on this globe? The tree planted on top looks a bit tacky and out-of-place to me. --Jhamstra 05:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm aesthetically challenged, and plan to abstain from the next round of voting on that basis. I did want to offer a couple ideas though (maybe they're horrid - but I wouldn't know...). What if it weren't a globe with a tree on top - but instead - a tree trunk that reached up into the globe? (a sort of lolly-pop tree). Alternatively, what if it were an incomplete puzzle piece globe (only the northern hemisphere with a handful of pieces missing) - with the trunk stretching up and starting to fan out - before it disappears into the northern hemisphere of a puzzle globe? --jrm03063 16:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

My vote would be for the single tree (with the poodle cut) in green on the gray puzzle piece. Also, fewer words would be better, so just "Sharing Genealogy" or some such below the image.

I never did quite get the original logo.--KayS 20:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


Lost GEDCOM matches [29 September 2013]

I'm in the middle of going through the errors and warnings on a GEDCOM and when I opened it today I noticed all the work I've done on it seems to have disappeared! Is this linked to the problems that other people have been having recently? Is there any way of getting it back? AndrewRT 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

From my view of your file, 120 families are matched and 143 are not matched and only 2 are updated. 249 places out of 251 are matched. Had you matched or updated more families than this, or are the matched families not appearing in your GEDCOM review? What other work had you done that is missing? Just trying to get more details so I can message Dallan. --Jennifer (JBS66) 21:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - seems to be ok now. AndrewRT 20:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Full source code for WeRelate available on github [10 December 2013]

The full WeRelate source code and installation scripts are now available on GitHub. This means that developers can now use the WeRelate source code to create custom family wikis and wikis for genealogical societies. In addition, it means that anyone can now help implement new features for WeRelate.org. If you have experience developing software and would like to help us move WeRelate forward, I'd love to have your help! See WeRelate talk:Website features for more information.--Dallan 02:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

--Artefacts 03:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Hi, I have no programming experience but was wondering how to start, if possible, with creating a feature that would post a summary table to a family page (or person page??) that counts the number of grandchildren, greatgrandchildren, and great-greatgrandchildren from that point and lists their birth and death locations (in summary format so that places are no duplicated?) based on pages entered. Something like this:

Grandchildren: 16 Greatgrandchildren: 42 GGGrandchildren: 108 Birthplaces: Toronto, York, Ontario Canada; London, London, England; etc. etc.


Sandbox is back [14 October 2013]

The Sandbox is back. The sandbox is a bare-bones playground that runs the same software as WeRelate but with a nearly-empty database. New features will be tested on the sandbox before they are moved to WeRelate.org. If you want to play around with ideas that you don't want to become a permanent part of WeRelate, create an account at the sandbox and try them out there.--Dallan 02:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


Bye for Now [27 October 2013]

This is a bit of a swan song because you may not see my contributions on the place pages for a while--I have the first of two much-needed cataract operations this afternoon. Hoping to get back to "work" in a few weeks, --Goldenoldie 09:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes for a successful operation and speedy recovery :-) --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes for a successful operation and speedy recovery.--Lidewij 14:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Get back ASAP and bring back a few more as helpful and competent as you. All the best.--HLJ411 19:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


Get well soon! (and maybe a large monitor and large fontsize? :) ?! --jrm03063 20:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for all your good wishes. The first cataract was very bad and when the dressing first came off yesterday morning I realized what the expression "seeing though a glass darkly" was all about. Now everything is bright and shiny and blue is BLUE. The screen is still pretty bright, so my not be fixing many p;ace pages for a while.

For your information, Jrm03063, I bought the bigger monitor back in August and fiddled with all kinds of settings. When I opened my computer yesterday I first headed to Excel 2007 where I can now see the upper part of the ribbon--I had been depending on lengths of words to get down to the second choices.

Hoping to get back to work on Yorkshire fairly soon (BYW I started with the West Riding). --Goldenoldie 09:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Which to keep? [7 November 2013]

Two repository pages for the same thing. Which name follows conventions?

???

--jrm03063 15:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Absent guidance, I've merged to Repository:England and Wales. General Register Office. --jrm03063 15:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
According to Help:Repository_pages#Is_there_a_format_for_repository_page_titles.3F, "WeRelate automatically creates a Repository page title that uses the fields you've entered to create a unique Page Title". I can't exactly work this out but I think this means it uses the place.title format, similar to sources, which would indicate that your redirection is the consistent one. AndrewRT 21:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

DAR Genealogical Research System [6 November 2013]

I've started working with content from this source. For starters, I found that the source was duplicated as both the "DAR Genealogical Research System" and "Daughters of the American Revolution. Genealogical Reseach System". I merged to the latter (hope that was the right choice!). After the fashion of the Find A Grave templates, I've also created a template to conveniently create references to the site's pages for ancestors (those would be folks with an assigned "Annnnnn" number). For example, for Daniel Boone, the record name for this reference contains {{dargrs|012096|BOONE, DANIEL}}, which displays as BOONE, DANIEL.

As I've worked through more pages with this reference, I've noticed that some folks cite member numbers and other sorts of pages on the DAR site, so there may be a need for several templates (and "dargrs" maybe should be "darancestor" or similar).

I'ld like to hear from anyone familiar with that site, on whether there are different types of pages worth citing from WeRelate.

I'ld also like to hear from anyone with an opinion of whether "dargrs" is a sufficient name, and/or whether the "Annnnn" number should be exposed when the template displays - I could make the above noted example display "A012096 BOONE, DANIEL", "A012096: BOONE, DANIEL", etc., etc.

Also - a quick note to the purists out there - I KNOW - this is a secondary source! But it's of a lot of interest to average folks, and it can be the basis for someone looking further.

Thanks! --jrm03063 15:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Free Census [7 November 2013]

I have been asked to post this, though undoubtedly others know more about this than I. Images of all the censuses are available at archive.org for free. Some are available for free at familysearch.org (at least 1850, 1870, my favorite 1900, also 1940, maybe others). familysearch is much easier to use because they have a search engine and then just click on the link to get to the image. You can simply copy the address from the browser navigation bar to the source citation. However, the familysearch.org search engine can also be used to make archive.org easier to use (as could other search engines, such as heritagequest.com, and yes, even the ancestry search engine). As a result of this, it should be possible to totally avoid links to fee-based census images, or to convert existing links to free alternatives.

I assume using familysearch.org is easy enough to need no explanation. Then I hop over to archive.org to find the actual page. For example, search historical records at familysearch.org, I ask for Name: Theodore Roosevelt, Birth: New York 1855-1860 (he was in early 40's when became President in 1901), Residence: New York 1880-1880 (because I want 1880 census).

Usually I use the reel and image number to get close in archive.org. The familysearch film number usually has the reel number as the last three digits. In the above example, 1254895, so reel 895. Event Place is New York (city), New York (county), New York (state), United States. Image is given as 256, page 426B.

So in archive.org, I search for "1880 New York county Census" in archive.org, then find the desired reel number (895) in the list returned by archive.org. For small counties, there may be only one candidate and you can find the reel simply from the description. If you don't have the reel number, the enumeration district (ED) can also help you locate the correct reel since the description given on archive.org may list the enumeration districts covered by each reel. Click on the reel and select "view online" to browse the actual images.

Drag the slider button at the bottom over until it is on the desired image, 256. I use one up viewing, just one page at a time, for simplicity. It is my experience that the image number given by familysearch is off by one or two. So then use the page number they give, 426B, stepping forward and back until you find the desired page. In this case, page 426B turns out to be image 255. You often have to find the "A" page to find the page number, then backtrack to the "B", "C", or "D" page as necessary. Page numbers are not consistent, usually at the top, sometimes at the bottom, sometimes they have been renumbered, so this is not always this trivial, but most of the time it works well. In this case, page 426B turns out to be image 255 according to the slider, one off from where I started: dwelling 236.

For the most part, page numbers are ordered within an enumeration district, which is identified at the top of the page. So if you are not getting the right town, etc., check that the page you are viewing is in the right enumeration district. It seems like most of the time, the enumeration districts are on the film in order so you can usually jump forward and back if the first attempt doesn't put you in the correct location. I seem to recall some of the older ones (pre-1850) didn't use enumeration districts, rather alphabetical by town, but this becomes obvious pretty quickly as you page forward and back.

Most of the time I find this to be a quick process. One or two cases involved lengthy explorations. Not sure if this was pilot error, or just inaccurate or inconsistent indexing. But experience seems to make this easier. --Jrich 16:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Question: Does archive.org support censuses from other countries, or just from the United States? --Goldenoldie 17:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't know. You would have to try searching from the main screen. --Jrich 17:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok! This is great information. I'll have to take some time to digest it. I've been wanting to fix my fee-based links for a long time - since I left ancestry years ago because I didn't want to be a shill for them. Hope there aren't any hitches due to [this]! --jrm03063 20:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So now I'm looking at some of my "ancestry.com" generated census cites. The first one on the page for my Grandfather comes with the usual ancestry stuff. The question - how much of this is worth keeping? The standard stuff present there is:
I'm going to start by assuming that the two ancestry.com URLs are worthless outside the ancestry.com universe (I think they may code up individual lines in the census document, but they're not doing it in a way that seems worth reverse-engineering).
Since the source title is Source:Carroll, New Hampshire, United States. 1930 U.S. Census Population Schedule, 1930, Caroll, and New Hampshire seem redundant. Enumeration district on the actual image shows as "2-5", not simply "5". Sheet No. does correspond to "Page: 5B". "Image: 548.0" seems not to have any relevance for the archive.org content - which itself is reached on page "555". I suspect that those numbers are specific to ancestry.com and archive.org respectively.
A minimal, but absolutely specific, reference to the archive.org image could be {{USCensus1930|1298|555}}, line 52 -

[[Transcript:1298, United States. 1930 U.S. Census Population Schedule/555/{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}]], line 52. But I'm reluctant to drop things like the enumeration district - which presumably had some meaning even if it isn't needed for this purpose. Likewise the sheet/page number.

 ???? --jrm03063 23:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Very interesting question - I have been thinking about this myself as well, not just for the ancestry generated cites but also for the FreeCEN citations I've added myself. Given modern indexing, I suspect much of this is redundant if you know the name and location of the record in question, although I would appreciate any other views on this. As a related question, is there any benefit in splitting up the source pages into the individual areas rather than just linking them all to the generic country/census year source? AndrewRT 21:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm starting to think that there's a role for either a translation table or even a limited (very sparse) transcript. The hierarchy for 1930 seems like this: state/county/enumeration_district/sheet/line. We've already decided that the sources for 1930 go down to the level of the county - so if you create a transcript for any given 1930 census source, you could create a hierarchy of enumeration districts, and beneath them, their pages. While each page could be a full transcript, it could also be as simple as a list of the 52? lines on that page - and a header that points at the image(s) available from various providers. Of course, the value of having the names on such pages is to link them where possible - which starts to give you a reverse-citation process that could be processed by software into nice back-links. What I don't really like is to populate the individual (person) page records with items that are artifacts of someone's scanning process - and not actual census reference parameters. --jrm03063 21:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia - over 100K pages correspond now - time for a fresh extract? [11 November 2013]

We've reached a bit of a milestone with inclusion of wikipedia content. There are now over 100,000 WeRelate pages that correspond to individual Wikipedia pages. They come in a number of forms, so I'll break it out a little bit:

  • 76,822 Place pages - (including 5084 cemeteries or burial locations, 83 castles)
  • 22,374 Person pages
  • 877 Category pages (battles, campaigns, wars, military units, royal dynasties & houses of nobility)
  • 72 Surname pages
  • 53 Repository pages
  • 47 Source pages
  • 12 Givenname pages

Among the more extensive and interestingly nested categories are Wars and Houses of Nobility.

Remember, the point of "attaching" to a WP page in this way is to try to derive whatever benefits we can from the WP community of contributors and content - both as it exists presently and as it may exist when currently modest WP articles are expanded. It doesn't mean WeRelate won't provide unique content - but we need to use care to remain engaged with as wide a community of contributors as possible. When we provide alternative content to that present on WP - we should do so because it is specifically appropriate or necessary for genealogical research. --jrm03063 19:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)



An overly done page....! [16 November 2013]

I've taken a small but notable historical document and done everything with it that I can imagine. The document is known as The Exeter Combination, and the group can be best understood starting from the corresponding category. It has:

  • A template (transcribed text of the document, with links to appropriate Person pages)
  • A source
  • An image (which includes the template)
  • A transcript (which also includes the template)

The Person pages referenced, themselves refer to the source and include the image (which is attached to the source as an appropriate "I<n>"). The Person pages fact lists contain entries supported by the source - containing a fact that is described with a reference to the category. The only actual bit of category syntax is found in the template page.

It's much more than the situation requires, but I thought it might be an interesting example of some of the possibilities.

--jrm03063 20:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Jrm, I think you've just demonstrated what WeRelate could hope to be some time in the future. --GayelKnott 20:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this example! I've been trying unsuccessfully to get my head around using Categories / Templates / Transcripts / Sources and what the relationships between them all are intended to be. Your example is fantastic and I've bookmarked it for future reference. One question, though - to my way of thinking a Transcript is the purest form of extract - the very words to be read. You use the Template for this function, and then refer to this from the Transcript. Is there a reason it is done this way (and thanks in advance).--Wongers 10:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
In principle, you're exactly right. However, I wanted the same text to appear on a transcript page and the text box for the image - but I wanted only one "live" copy for maintenance purposes. The fundamental wiki item for doing that is a template - even though we more commonly think of it as a way to do orderly parameter substitution and handle nasty little bits of syntax. An alternative approach would be to let the text live on the transcript page, and transclude that into the text box of the image. I havn't tried that (feel free to try and see what happens) but I think you would wind up with a mish-mash of transcript-specific items mixed in on the image page.
All that said, as I've continued to reflect on this, I think the approach I took creates more problems than it solves. I agree that the transcript ought to be pure and we don't want to distract from that. Instead, I might put a small "See transcript" active link in the image page's text box (perhaps also a link to the source page). The image page already has a separate mechanism for creating bi-directional links with the person page - so the hyperlinked text is semi-redundant in that respect. I'll be changing this shortly. Stay tuned and let me know what you think!
Thanks also for your kind words and observations! I had hoped a small example could bring together some of the nuances of how the different page types can be made to relate (pun intended) usefully! --jrm03063 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Following up on my prior remarks: I've made the changes that I contemplated. I think this makes the group easier to comprehend and doesn't cost anything in terms of capabilities. Only a minor cosmetic - on the presentation of the image page - at least on my browser - the bullets of my bullet list are overlaid by the image. Can anyone offer some syntax that will cause the text to be shifted below the image - pretty much regardless of browser circumstances? --jrm03063 15:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I've added some HTML into Image:Exeter Combination.jpg which I think does what you wanted. It uses style "clear:left" which causes following things to come only after the lefthand side is clear. I got the relevant syntax from Wikipedia's {{Clear}} template. (If there's a general need, we could have that template here). --robert.shaw 08:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --jrm03063 17:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Early rule [2 December 2013]

The pre-1700 "Early" rule is a major turn-off from WR. The stated purpose - to save time from duplicates since almost every documented human before 1700 is already in WR - is demonstrably, clearly, starkly, and obviously mistaken. Perhaps there were multiple uploads of Mayflower passengers, however there were 150,000 to 200,000 other pre-1700 immigrants, including over 5000 enslaved Africans, besides this. (see http://www.zanran.com/preview/pdf/113151005.010101?q=north+american+immigration+history) Not to mention the millions around the world who missed their chance to immigrate to America before 1700, and the millions of Native Americans who were already here to greet the Pilgrims. And not to mention the millions of pre-1700 descendants the immigrants produced.

This rule wastes so much human time and effort. And it contradicts the stated aim of WR to link genealogies. It works squarely against that purpose. I've taken to listing pedigree outlines to link early northern Clevelands with more modern ones. Someone else can hand-enter the thousands of early Clevelands not in WR. I've done my share, thank you.

I have a pending GEDCOM upload with about 1/3 rejected because they were early. There was one semi-famous family - Richard "Bull" Smith of Smithtown, LI - that I deleted from the GEDCOM before I tried to upload it.

This amount of rejection turns the GEDCOM into a disjointed, unmanageable mess. What's the point of having a GEDCOM upload at all?

I understand the desire to control quality and merge GEDCOMs. This is not the way to do it. How about having at least one reference not to an amateur website or GEDCOM? There a thousands of WR persons without any refs at all!

Similarly the "One Date" rule is misguided. Some people - like my hillbilly southern ancestors - didn't leave many written records. This does not mean they didn't exist. Again, having some sort of source for these people would be more helpful than forcing manual entry and linking of their family members, which may entail a substantial effort for even one rejected person.

In summary, I simply don't understand why these onerous and senseless rules are tolerated. I hope they can be changed.

Prcb 21:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In respect, were it not for a rule like this, WeRelate would probably not still be here.
In the early days - there were no rules. Enormous amounts of unsourced content was dumped by users who then disappeared. Those of us who want the site to succeed, have spent years trying to clean up and de-duplicate content that was loaded back then. To get an idea of the scale of the problem, I invite you to look at the page for Charlemagne. From there, go to the "what links here" page. Count up the number of "redirect" pages. Each such redirect represents a GEDCOM with lineage to Charlemagne - and many thousands of intervening individuals - every one needing de-duplication and individual editing.
You are quite right that many pages don't have references of any quality at all. That is unfortunate - but it too is a product of the early days of no rules at all. It's not a great reason to continue an unsound practice.
We have found that the larger the GEDCOM - the greater the reason to be concerned. The best use - and only one I would suggest for a GEDCOM - is to use it for your personal and immediately documented family. Perhaps a few thousand individuals at most. If you are determined to bring a large amount of material to the site - then we would suggest breaking your GEDCOM into chunks.
Finally - if you feel that your content is of an unusually high quality - you can ask that the rules be waived. You would need to justify that - but it's a possibility if you really have some good content. --jrm03063 21:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are perpendicular to my criticism.

I quite agree with breaking the GEDCOM into chunks and merging small pieces. This would be my my plan.

Likewise, I understand that regulating GEDCOM imports to WR is essential and important. I am remarking that you are doing it wrongly and harmfully.

It is rather astounding that you would allow this criticism, which illustrates how unnecessarily painful WeRelate is to use for many people with substantial new content to contribute, to pass without some cogent response.--Prcb 22:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Simply for clarification, all but one of the excluded individuals within your GEDCOM already have Person pages represented on WeRelate. Peter and Alice Wright and Nicholas Wright and Margaret Nelson are two of the families which represent many of your Wright family ancestors. It is unfortunate that the upload system did not match the pages to show you this fact, but hopefully this will help to at least resolve the immediate issue, if not the far-reaching issue you describe.--Khaentlahn 22:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed the rejected ones are in WR. This casts doubt over my impression that many of my uploads are being spuriously rejected. Are matches not shown for pre-1700 uploads? If so, in my case it gave a negative impression about WR.

Also, please forgive my use of the word "senseless". I believe your policies and procedures are for good purpose and intentions.

Prcb 23:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone with experience on the back-end of this system can answer your question about the way individuals are matched in the upload system (that would not be me, sorry). All the best, --Khaentlahn 23:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Point taken about the vast number of people before 1700 not in WeRelate. I have made the same argument myself in the past, and was granted the right to upload people prior to 1700 (after demonstrating the quality of post-1700 data I was uploading). I recently uploaded a number of German Mennonites living in Prussia in the 1600's, with just a handful of matches. However, I support the WeRelate rule because I believe that it gives us a reasonable balance between efficiency of uploading information and effectiveness in getting it right. I spent 6 months cleaning up medieval data in WeRelate and just scratched the surface (luckily others have taken up the work), so I am well aware of the garbage that was dumped in WeRelate through GEDCOM uploads prior to the establishment of the rule.

Once you prove yourself to be a careful contributor (well-researched and cited data, good citizen about matching and not adding duplicates, etc.), and if you still find that you have a significant amount of pre-1700 data that is not in WeRelate, ask for the right to upload it.

A note about the absence of dates: While you might not have dates for some of your ancestors, a GEDCOM with no dates at all is usually a sign of unsubstantiated poor quality data (hence the rule). If it is truly impossible to find any dates for a whole tree, it should be at least possible to estimate some years, which adds greatly to the value of the information. If this is not possible, that particular tree might not be ready for sharing. My personal approach is to add at least an estimated birth year to every record that has no dates, as it is extremely useful in searching (and has also helped me to discover errors in family groupings).

Welcome to WeRelate. I hope you find that through collaboration, you find information to add value to your own personal family tree.--DataAnalyst 15:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


I felt I had to offer a defense of the measures taken to avoid GEDCOM dumping. While I'm sorry for the burden that some people feel they impose, I remain of the belief that WeRelate would have died without them.

The measures taken to avoid bad GEDCOM dumps can, and should, continue to be reviewed and discussed.

Were it up to me - the real measure wouldn't be on any GEDCOM - but on the user offering the GEDCOM. I would allow new users a tiny amount of total GEDCOM upload content - perhaps a few hundred people. I would expand it as a function of the hand-edits/contributions that they made, and/or on the basis of the quality of the work they were seen to be doing. I'm not concerned if a GEDCOM starts out as weak content - as long as the user is committed to WeRelate and to the ongoing integration and improvement of whatever they're adding. --jrm03063 22:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


I'd like to second Jrm's reasoning for NOT allowing pre-1700 gedcoms. I too have spent perhaps hundreds of hours cleaning up many inaccurate and unsubstantiated lineages that were "dumped" here, left for many of us to cleanup the "mess" left behind. It is certainly easy for some to criticize what has evolved here (perpendicular or not), especially when they have no idea how much time has been spent by many here making sure WeRelate doesn't turn into what most of the "Ancestry Member Trees" have become, poorly researched, poorly sourced and questionable lineage at best. There have been way to many "gedcom dumpers" that have come here and left for us to turn back the clock and go back to how it was. We've learned from this, and frankly, even though it is somewhat more difficult, we don't need to repeat the mistakes we've already learned from. Those who think otherwise have not "walked in our shoes"..... --Delijim

A bit late to this party, but I have to agree with the pre 1700 rule, which can be waived in certain circumstances. I have spent the last year cleaning up alot of unsourced pre 1700 ancestries. I've started to make a crack at nobility/visitations, but the going there is slow. The amount of garbage that was dumped here in 2007-9 is STAGGERING. Between myself and about 4-5 other admins, we have deleted about 25,000 'living' person pages, with over 90,000 left to go, and another unknown number of 'livings' that are simply undated. The early site was pure chaos. JRM is right. Without these 'strict' rules, this site would probably today be a parked godaddy webpage. Daniel Maxwell 13:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to say I'm also a bit frustrated about this rule. It can be particularly annoying to have the "heads" chopped off a GEDCOM upload - the temptation is to leave them off rather than going through and manually adding them back in again. It's interesting that people are open to "waivers" for experienced contributors and I think this would be a positive thing to publicise more - it would give an incentive for people to stay around and contribute more! I wonder if it's worth have something more formal and more explicit about saying that experienced users - maybe ones who have already been here x months and uploaded y GEDCOMs - are allowed to upload GEDCOMs with an earlier date cut-off or ones that are larger in size? AndrewRT 22:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The rule for it probably needs to be formalized. I think if you are an established user, and you are able to show that 1) the material you are adding is of a high quality, and 2) that there not many (or any) duplicates (this is key I think), then on a case by case by basis it could be waved after checking by an admin. I would never want to see 'auto-waving' because it would bring back the old problems, particularly with royals/nobles/unsubstantiated lines going back to 100 BC.. But I don't know that I would publicize it so much - when the general public hears something like that they may think "WR is dropping their standards" Daniel Maxwell 23:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Content Language Neutrality via Wikipedia/Wikidata [5 December 2013]

Moved this item to WeRelate:Suggestions/Content Language Neutrality via Wikipedia/Wikidata, and follow up discussion to the associated talk page. --jrm03063 18:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)



Policy update regarding inclusion of obituaries [5 December 2013]

The Overview Committee has updated WeRelate's policy regarding the inclusion of Obituaries. This policy is similar to those found on other websites (such as Find-A-Grave). As with other texts, if an obituary is published after 1923, it may be subject to copyright and should not be added to WeRelate. However, some of the facts contained in the obituary such as name, age, birth/marriage/death/burial dates and places, names of parents/spouse/siblings/children are not copyrighted. You may include a link to the obituary (if published online), a brief summary of the facts (please exclude names of living relatives), the name of the newspaper, and date of publication. The full policy can be found here.--Jennifer (JBS66) 11:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The policy was revised slightly to be more in line with guidelines that appear on Help:FAQ that say "On pages for People/Families who are deceased, information about still living people that is publicly available (ie, 1940 census data) - can be included on the pages." That is why I crossed out a bit of the text above. --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear - I'm not seeing a policy change per se. This seems only to be a revised description of practice, calculated to better help people to avoid inadvertently infringing. Right? If not, then I'm missing something... --jrm03063 14:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Savage Transcript Contents Updated! [9 December 2013]

The contents page for the WeRelate transcript of Savage's Dictionary has been rebuilt.

The former version was obtained from direct processing of Dr. Kraft's ASCII files, using logic that was necessarily imprecise. The result being that section names were sometimes abruptly shortened (leaving out alternate name forms) or even missed altogether. The new version is built directly from the WeRelate transcript pages, processed through a program that recognizes the section marking template. While not strictly a part of the transcript (Savage's dictionary had no such table), I hope others will find it as helpful as I have.

For example, the following:

OAKLEY OAKMAN OATES OBBINSON OBER OCKINGTON or OKINGTON ODELL or ODLE ODERIC ODIORNE ODLIN OFFITT

Became:

OAKLEY; OAKMAN; OATES; OBBINSON; OBER; OCKINGTON or OKINGTON; ODELL or ODLE; ODERIC; ODIORNEODLIN, ODLYN, original. AUDLEY, or AUDLIN; OFFITT


And, this:

UFFORD, UFFOOTE or UFFIT UMPHERVILE UNDERHILL

Became:

UFFORD, UFFOOTE, or UFFIT; UMPHERVILE, UMBERFIELD, HEMPEHREVILLE, UMFREVILLE; UNDERHILL


Besides offering a more faithful representation of Savage's section names/introducers, the new index also creates a single link entry per transcript page (combining all the sections that begin on a particular page into a single link - hence a larger individual text/mouse target). Since we don't have anchors that allow addressing within individual pages, there is no value in having separate links that all head to the same page. Separate links are also now set off from each other with bullets, while sections on the same page are set off with a semi-colon.

Questions, comments and corrections welcomed!

--jrm03063 17:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


I hope you all have a Happy New Year [1 January 2014]

It has been a happy Newyear for me. My great-great grandmother's maiden name has been a brickwall since I started family history in 1981. Her husband is in my direct paternal line and I had traced two generations beyond him, so it was very frustrating to list her simply as Martha with dates of birth and death from her tombstone. In the past few years I had picked up her birthplace from a two-line obituary and a possible surname from someone on Ancestry. Yesterday I decided to take the plunge and feed the information into FamilySearch. The first line to come up was Martha Maw, baptized 30 Jun 1807, Settrington, Yorkshire, England, dau of Newyear and Elizabeth Maw. I could hardly believe it. My Martha's eldest son was also named Newyear.

Happy New Year everybody! --Goldenoldie 10:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! A few years back, I spent a bit of time trying to figure out how New Year Maw's family was connected to my Maws from neighbouring Thornton Dale, but I didn't come up with anything.--Werebear 01:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
What a wonderfully timed discovery! :) -- Jdfoote1 02:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
My smile of the day - what fun! Happy New Year!--DataAnalyst 03:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Werelate on the rise [4 January 2014]

This article notes that Werelate.org had the second biggest jump last year in Alexa ranking of any large genealogy site. I was a bit disappointed to see it described as an "English-only" genealogy wiki, though. --Werebear 06:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that WeRelate is the only wiki in the Top 100.--Jhamstra 07:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Not so. WikiTree is in that Top 100 too (at 31).--Enno 21:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Great news, but does anyone know why? Our number of records or users don't seem to have grown that much. Do we know which pages are getting the hits or where they are coming from? AndrewRT 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Based on this article, readership seems to have nearly dounbled - from ca. 650 visitors per day to around 1,000. Is this consistent with the page view stats our site admins can see? Has there been a step change or just a gradual rise? AndrewRT 23:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleting "discussions" and messages of other contributors [5 January 2014]

Hello ! I do as proposed by Jennifer ! Please see my "thought" on her talk-page. My english is so poor and it's for me not easy to explain (that I think and what I observed on some wiki-sites) and to understand precisely the arguments in their details. GoogleTranslate is truly catastrophic ! I became a new message from an WR-administrator, but I saw I deleted also several messages of others on his own talk-page ! Of course I can answer him on my page, but ... I think, this (problem ... for me) should be discussed and explained. Why is the only solution not an implementation archive, also an archive without destruction ? Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 09:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Je crois que peut-être certaines de vos idées était <<perdu en traduction>>, mais je pense que je comprends. J'essaierai d'expliquer en anglais, et vous pouvez me corriger.
As I understand it, the problem is that some administrators are simply deleting revisions of pages, instead of removing the information and leaving it in the revision history. Is that correct? If so, then I agree with Marc, and think that the only information that should be deleted are copyright violations or privacy violations, and generally the revisions should still be available. -- Jdfoote1 22:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with jdfoote, better to leave discussions in the page history. Editors should be given more freedom on their own Talk page histories, but should still leave discussions in the history where possible so that others can refer to them if they need to. AndrewRT 23:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, deletion of a talk page (deleting all its history), or deleting items from the revision history, should I think only be done in extraordinary circumstances. Circumstances could include extreme language, attacks, defamation, etc. but should not be used to just get rid of "old stuff" that is thought not to be needed. Go ahead and edit the page to remove the stuff, but deleting the old revisions should pretty much be avoided if at all reasonable. --robert.shaw 22:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

People with one name [4 January 2014]

What about when someone has only one name? An example is Redhawk. Should Redhawk be entered for the first name or the last name? --cthrnvl 03:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I favor first name because that is the "given" name, the one identifying the individual, whereas the surname or last name (in Western usage) is the family name and identifies the family. Since a single name does not identify the family, it belongs in the given name position to my way of thinking. --robert.shaw 06:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Loss of TITL events during GEDCOM import [12 January 2014]

I have the impression that during my GEDCOM import all TITL events were lost and the titles were simply copied to the prefix of names. Is this a feature or a bug ? The loss of TITL event looks to me pity, as the TITL event may content not only the title itself, but the date of attribution, place, comments etc. Is there a list of events which are supported and not supported during the GEDCOM import ? --Alexandre 10:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's throwing away information? Or is it just dropping stuff it doesn't understand into the narrative body of the page? --jrm03063 19:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I mean that the TITL event is lost. The title value itself is not lost, it it is copied into the prefix of the name of the person, which i personally do not mind, but some GEDCOM purists may argue that the title should not be part of the name. The date, place and comments of the TITL events are copied to the general notes, not related to attribution of the title. For example, the following GEDCOM record:

1 NAME Petr /Tolstoi/ 1 SEX M

1 BIRT

 2 DATE 1645
 2 PLAC Moscow, Russia

1 TITL Comte

 2 DATE 7 May 1724
 2 PLAC St.Petersbourg, Russia
 2 NOTE title retracted 22 May 1727 after deportation to Solovky

1 DEAT

 2 DATE 17 Feb 1729
 2 PLAC Solovky, Russia

is transformed in WeRelate into "Comte Petr Tolstoi (M) born in 1645 at Moscow, Russia and dead 17 Feb 1729 at Solovky, Russia". With general comments: "7 may 1724", "St.Petersbourg, Russia" and "title retracted 22 May 1727 after deportation to Solovky".--Alexandre 13:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alexandre. I've brought this to Dallan's attention. The TITL Title (Nobility) field is relatively new to WeRelate's events list, so there may be a GEDCOM import bug. I appreciate you letting us know about this! --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I reformulated my example in more correct way. Thanks for reporting this issue.--Alexandre 21:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


Integer Math in a Template - Parser/String Functions Extension [15 February 2014]

I was just looking at trying to write a template, where I need a little integer math. It looks like something I could do with the expression handling part of the parser functions, but they don't seem to be present. I'm looking at creating a template to create something like the following:

   [http://www.thepeerage.com/p10214.htm#i102139 Henry Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Lancaster]

I'ld like to create a template that looked like {{Lundy|102139|Henry Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Lancaster}}, but I need to be able to take the second parameter, divide it by 10, and if there's a remainder, add 1 - to create 10214. It seems a waste to have the second integer parameter, if it's a simple function of the first.

Anyone have any clever ideas? --jrm03063 16:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

We're on an old version of mediawiki. Chances are math functions were introduced in a more-recent version.--Dallan 17:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Weird Category Sort Behavior [4 February 2014]

I'm getting some weird behavior associated with sorting items in a category. The specific category is the Salem Witch Trials, and the strange sort behavior is the appearance of Rebecca Unknown in a second "W" section after "^". Rebecca is assigned to this category by way of a template (which provides a reliable category sort in many other situations - for example William Stoughton). The sort parameter I've provided is "Unknown, Rebecca". I would have expected her to show up under "U".  ??? --jrm03063 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's the template that is providing the sort - it is the [[Category:Salem Witch Trials|witchcrf.]] in the S3 source citation. The sorting follows ASCII sort - so all of the upper case letters come before ^ which comes before all of the lower case letters. --Jennifer (JBS66) 17:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh.... --jrm03063 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible Next Steps for WeRelate [15 February 2014]

I recently created a discussion page about possible next steps for WeRelate and the possibility of becoming a Wikimedia Foundation project. Would you please take a few minutes to review that page and add your comments (on that page, not here)? Your feedback is greatly valued - thanks.--Dallan 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I refuse to contribute to anything involved with Wikipedia. At this point I will be ceasing my editing of WR, and will have to look elsewhere for collaborative genealogical work. Daniel Maxwell 17:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, would you please add your comments to the discussion page? I'd like to keep all of the discussion in one place. Thank you.--Dallan 17:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A language half-measure - wikipedia inclusion alternative [24 February 2014]

On the various language wikipedia, people expect to find alternative language versions of the page (if any), listed in the lower-left hand column. For our pages, that section of screen real estate is usually empty, presenting a an opportunity. What if we populated the same space with the same language-specific WP links (not particular alternative languages - rather - all that are defined for a Person, Place, or whatever). I previously wrote a suggestion that would try to present an appropriate language extract depending on the user's language preferences. That idea is orthogonal to this, but would likewise rely on a language-neutral Wikidata address to establish a page association (from that, you can get the list of different language WP versions that have a corresponding page).

As I'm contemplating this - I'm wondering if we could arrange to have our corresponding pages WP<->WR established in Wikidata? That would make WR quite unique and interesting technically...  ??? --jrm03063 23:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand. Do you mean that the list of alternative language versions for a Wikipedia page would appear below the "Watchers" and "Browse" lists, and if you clicked them, it would bring up the alternative language versions of the Wikipedia page? That sounds like a step forward in making Werelate more welcoming to foreign language users, at least for pages with a Wikipedia component. --Werebear 15:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly the idea. --jrm03063 15:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The previous suggestion alluded to was for wikipedia pages and how to include them from the different servers, so that people could choose to get their native language - though perhaps different content that the builder of the WeRelate page read when they decided to use wikipedia in the creator's native language. Not sure that is good, but if readers understand that risk, who knows? They may actually get better material in their language. Of course, that is possible because wikipedia does all the work of providing the foreign language version. It is the production of the foreign language version that seems completely lacking from this current proposal. That is the hard part, is it not?
Ignoring cultural issues, such as different events being of interest, and naming issues, for which various workarounds seem to be progressing as needed, just the presentation of foreign language offers several problems that have been glossed over, I think. I assume that internationalization/localization can be applied to facts to make them reasonably easy to understand to a foreign language reader, which at least gives a skeleton view of the page that is understandable. So this problem seems to be centered on the narrative, notes, and other free-form text.
If one person produces a Japanese narrative, who is going to produce an English one so that there is an alternative to offer in this little list on the side of the page? Who is going to ensure that they remain in sync? I would assume that many of these may be team efforts where one researcher writes in one language and another provides a translation, like some of the discussions on various Talk pages. What if one member of the team becomes inactive? Now the translation gets out of synch and probably should be deleted. Or are you suggesting using translation software to provide machine translations? If so, then no list is needed, it could just adjust based on user preferences.
It is nice to talk about foreign languages. Nobody want to make this English only, which is predominant because most of the users are probably from the United States, but could have and may still develop otherwise. But how exactly do you imagine a researcher of one language writing so a reader in another language can understand? That is the process that needs to be defined. Where to put links on the page, if links is even the best way to offer different languages, seems like the least of the problems. --Jrich 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

GEDCOM disappeared [23 February 2014]

I had a GEDCOM in admin review and now it appears to be gone. If it was deleted/rejected, I assume I would've gotten a message, correct? Colby Farrington 06:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked to see if the data was successfully imported? Maybe the 'Imported Successfully' message was dropped or delayed. I see recent contributions of things like "Family:Zechariah Eddy and Mercy Morton (1) (Add data from gedcom)". --robert.shaw 07:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Those were done while matching/updating families. When everything is accepted, the contributions say "gedcom upload", like this: http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:Ella_Ellsworth_%283%29&diff=prev&oldid=20360924. It should have been hundreds of edits with that comment. Colby Farrington 14:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As to your first question, yes, you would ha