I am enjoying watching this page evolve. Am especially interested in your GeoGroups because I would like to do something similar in the future for Jacksons in Colonial Carolina. But it will be several months before I can even start. I hope you don't mind copy-cats. You seem to be laying ground work for what may be a lot of similar projects. I don't think I'm up to doing a whole project like yours; I'll be happy if I can just do part of a GeoGroup study focusing on my Jackson line and others in the area that I happen onto. Thanks for letting me watch over your sholder.--Janiejac 23:40, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
Hi Janijac. Thanks for noticing! Yes, I'm trying out different things to see how they work---what works, what doesn't work, and what's too much trouble to sustain over the long haul. While I do have in mind other "projects", I don't know that I can spend the time on any but the SWVP---But if I lay out a workable format, my hope is others will follow suit, and focus on specific areas. DeliJim is in fact doing something like this with "Old Augusta County". There are any number of places that this could be done for--Old Augusta was one I had in mind and I'm glad to see Jim taking it up. I've also considered looking at one for "Old Germanna" and "Old Chester", both of which areas fed into SW VA. Then there's the "Cumberland Gap" or perhaps "The Dark and Bloody Ground" of Kentucky, not to mention the "Cumberland Settlement"---entirely too many neat projects for one person to do.---and that's not even scratching the surface.
The GeoGroup concept is, of course, and outgrowth of the SWVP. Untangling their lines often is helped by looking at the data for the areas from which they came. So there was a need to systematically collect data for those areas---helping to sort out who was, and who wasn't of interest for SWVP. If you do follow up with a Geogroup for "Colonial Carolina", let me know, as I may be able to help you get started. Q 09:26, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
How different from Surname-in-place pages? [19 February 2010]
Found my way here through a recent email exchange.
While I love the imagery of a tapestry, I'm concerned that adding new terminology will confuse users.
Similarly, you're also using "Registry" differently than most people familiar with genealogy terms use it. In fact, I'm not sure I can distinguish your registry pages from disambiguation pages or standard surname-in-place pages. See for example Register:Houston.
While I love the intent behind what you're doing, I worry that if I'm confused by how you're doing it, newbies won't have a clue.
At different times I've tried different things. The concepts are evolving. The disambiguation pages have their uses, but are entirely too difficult to create manually, so that approach has been jettisoned, though some Disambig's, that have been done will probably be allowed to remain--mostly because they have their uses, and the effort that went into them is worth preserving (now that they are there).
The "register" initially started out as a simple list of persons in an area---or rather in SW VA. That still has its uses and will eventually be tightened up, with a register for each major component of the Tapestry. The Surname Registers, are slightly different, though that term is usually abbreviated to simply "register", mostly because I want to keep the length down so that it fits into the menu for the Surname tapestry.
Your usage of the term seems to be that its something descriptive of a family unit. I'm not sure how many folks actually use that term. Its certainly not embedded in the usage on WeRelate....if for no other reason than that there's nothing like that on WeRelate. I'm not sure I've seen that term used that much in genealogy for that meaning; in fact, you are the only person I've heard use it that way. In anycase, the classical definition of a register is simply a listing of person in a given "community"---as a ministers register of his congregation. Might also be called a roster I supposed. A quick search of google turned up hits for "register" "genealogy", but interestingly enough, the usage seem to be quite similar to the way I use the term.
If WeRelate had in fact adopted the concept of a "register" to display this kind of information there might indeed be some confusion. WeRelated didn't, and I see no conflict.
In anycase, I'm always looking for better terms---terms more obvious as to their meaning, more intuitive, more accessible. If you have a specific suggestion I would be most happy to have your input. I always value your input, and appreciate your viewpoint. I don't, however, agree that there's a confusion over the term "register", as I don't see it being much used in the way you mean the term, and certainly it has no overlap with any standard term on WeRelate. Q 18:06, 19 February 2010 (EST)