Talk:Great Migration Study Project Sketches

Topics


Split or no? [19 December 2012]

This article seems to have originally been conceived to be later be split into A-L and M-Z. Should it be done now, or was it being held off until the list is completed? Ive worked quite a bit on it but I only have access to the first series (Great Migration Begins, not the 1634-5 work), but it does have poor loading time. I am neither for or against splitting it, just curious.--Daniel Maxwell 01:10, 18 December 2012 (EST)

The split was actually just for navigational purposes (being able to jump) and was not finer because I envisioned working more offline and copying and pasting (and the headers would get lost in my Excel file). But that didn't happen. I don't really notice the load time lag, but if someone wants to take on the project, fine by me.--Amelia 23:45, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Eh I think its better to have one, just wondered if was intended to be split. WR has other really long articles and its probably easier to keep these all together.--Daniel Maxwell 23:52, 18 December 2012 (EST)


"Some"? [4 January 2013]

Robert Shaw: Can you clarify your edit please? The list on this page was converted directly from the NEHGS pdf. Is that document missing some? Do you think some have been deleted? Either way, they should be added back in -- we should aim for a comprehensive representation of their list.--Amelia 01:05, 2 January 2013 (EST)


I already said something on his talk page. He thinks it should have some until we actually get around to having them all linked, though you and I have worked on and off on it for awhile now its probably going to be a bit before its done.--Daniel Maxwell 01:19, 2 January 2013 (EST)

But that's not what the edit says. The list is complete, it's just that not all of them have WP pages yet (or ever will since many are unknown).--Amelia 01:27, 2 January 2013 (EST)
Yeah youre probably right, but I swear eventually I will have this list finished. User:DMaxwell
Baby steps get there eventually! --Amelia 13:29, 2 January 2013 (EST)
Amelia, you said "The list is complete" but that's not at all what I see. Following the link at the top of the page to americanancestors.org, one can get the PDF they have listing (they say) all the pre-1636 immigrants. I just looked at the beginning of it, and it starts with four ABBOTT immigrants before giving Mathew ABDY, who is the first one listed on the project page here. Many more missing names follow. That looks to me like only some are listed here, hence my edit. (Whether linked or not wasn't my concern.) Do you think the list is actually complete? Is americanancestors.org wrong? --Robert.shaw 14:59, 2 January 2013 (EST)
Seems you're right. Amelia, where did the source for the original list come from? In addition to the Abbotts that are missing, I see many more Adams immigrants that are not listed either. But the solution here would be to simply add the missing ones, rather than just calling it some of the immigrants. We will want to have them all. Unsure what happened; at first I thought it might have been immigrants missing because they were from the second volume, but the immigrant John Adams from GMB was missing (I went ahead and added him; I previously had added his wife)User:DMaxwell
Ok, that's weird. The list was a conversion of that PDF to Excel to Wiki, so it should be identical. I'll see if I can dig out the older files and see what happened. -Amelia 15:15, 3 January 2013 (EST)
I can't find a local copy of the exact PDF that I used, but I did determine that my Excel file was created in March 2009 (cringe at how long this project has taken already!) So that predates 1) the current spreadsheet on AmericanAncestors.org, assuming the 522210 in the name is the date; and 2) publication of the last couple volumes of 1634-35 names. Most of the names in the list below would have been in the later volumes, and so probably were updated at the last minute. I've also seen it where later research enhances a previous profile, which could also account for some differences in spelling, for example.
I think it's also possible that at the very beginning before I had a clear idea what I was doing this for, I could have deleted people that had no descendants, which would include Dorothy Adams and one of the Richard Adams, for example.
So I think we should add all the names that are not there, and conform the spellings to those in the books. It seems that the greatmigration.org list is the best copy.--Amelia 22:04, 3 January 2013 (EST)
Amelia, thats one thing I actually wanted to mention. Your words: "I think it's also possible that at the very beginning before I had a clear idea what I was doing this for, I could have deleted people that had no descendants, which would include Dorothy Adams and one of the Richard Adams, for example" - one exception to this rule, and I think you'll agree, is when an immigrant who had no surviving issue married another immigrant or colonist who did. For those, I tend to make a page for them anyway. Is that the practice you've been following? I wanted to make sure on that. User:DMaxwell


I think you're mixing two different practices. When I first had this list, and didn't have a clear idea with what I wanted to do with it, I may have deleted some of the names that were unlikely to be on WR. As to what I do now, I personally don't bother creating pages unless they connect (closely) to someone who does have descendants -- children or a spouse, as you mention. For the rest I just leave a note on this list like "no record in New England" or "no issue." But if someone else wants to create pages for (some types of) these people, I don't think that's a problem. --Amelia 01:27, 4 January 2013 (EST)
No, I understand what you mean. Thats exactly what I do as well, I just wanted to be sure some they connect in that way werent being left out. Those that have no descendants and no connections, its pretty pointless to make them. User:DMaxwell

Differences from AmericanAncestors [3 January 2013]

I made a comparison of the contents of GM-GMB52210.pdf on AmericanAncestors with the article's contents (as of the end of 2 Jan). Here's what I found: --Robert.shaw 15:27, 3 January 2013 (EST)

[ [ the lists originally posted here have been removed now since they are made obsolete by the new comparison below. You can always see them via the History system. -Robert.shaw 23:15, 4 January 2013 (EST) ] ]

Some of those names are mistakes in the original coversion, it seems. The most up to date list is here: http://www.greatmigration.org/

There are some missing from the one on AmericanAncestors, such as William Ager. I would go by GM's own list.--Daniel Maxwell 21:07, 3 January 2013 (EST)


Thanks for bringing this to our attention Mr Shaw. I'll let Amelia sort out the conversion since it was she who did it originally, that is, unless she would like my assistance in adding the missing names.(As you can see, I added all of the Abbotts).--Daniel Maxwell 15:33, 3 January 2013 (EST)


Robert, which list are you looking at? I just notice a couple of the names we have that arent in that pdf...making me think it isnt up to date. William Ager isnt listed, at least under that spelling.--Daniel Maxwell 19:52, 3 January 2013 (EST)

If by "that pdf" you mean the PDF from Am Anc that I used in the comparison, then, yes, "AGER, William" is not listed in that PDF, which is why his name is the first one in the "Additional names" section above -- that section is a list of the names in the article that are included in addition to the names in the PDF. Naturally none of the names in that section are in the PDF. None of the names in the first section, "Missing", are in the article, but all are in the PDF.
As I said, the PDF I used was named "GM-GMB52210.pdf". It is the PDF one can get by going to the first sentence of WeRelate's article, Great Migration Study Project Sketches and following the link given there as "identified" (which goes to "http://www.americanancestors.org/pre-1636-new-england-immigrants/"). On that americanancestors.org web page there is, right after the author's name, a link from the text "List of Pre-1636 New England Immigrants(pdf format)" that goes to "http://www.americanancestors.org/uploadedFiles/American_Ancestors/Content/Articles/Mayflower_Research/GM-GMB52210.pdf", which is the source of the PDF I used to compare to. --Robert.shaw 23:38, 3 January 2013 (EST)



Differences from GreatMigration.org [5 January 2013]

Since the list on AmericanAncestors turns out to have been out-of-date, I have now compared entries to the http://www.greatmigration.org/ file "index_names.pdf" (which is linked on the GM.org main page under text "View an alphabetical list").

Ok. I will go through it, and add strike outs as I go along, so no one duplicates anything. Ive just noticed a mistake in the GreatMigration list though. Although there is indeed a 'John Coddington' listed, the article in GM corresponds, as does WR, to Gov William Coddington. I've just doubled checked it and no John Coddington appears (that I can find). Just a warning to double check these as we go forward in case there any other mistakes. user:DMaxwell
Thanks for marking up the list. I'm not too surprised that GM.org's list is not completely accurate. The comparison is just a set of things to check, the index_names.pdf can certainly be wrong. I don't have access to the GM volumes, so can't check against that. Sometimes it can be hard to figure out what's what: I just noticed that Smith, Francis 1635 is listed as missing, but appears on the article page. That's because there are two 1635 ones in GM PDF, a Watertown one as well as the Hingham one. Only the latter is in the article. The PDF does not have the 1630 Roxbury one. Without accessing the GM volumes, I can't tell where the defect is. --Robert.shaw 00:13, 5 January 2013 (EST)
Yes, this will take some time to finish. I hope Amelia might help me some. I noticed that one entry was missing from your missing list, to which I have added her both to the list and the article itself - the strangly named 'Truth-Shall Prevail Starr', who never made it to New England user:DMaxwell
Differences can have alternative ways of appearing in these sublists. A common one is if DOE, John is in GM and not article, and DOE, James is vice-versa, then John might be on Missing list and James on Added, OR they might both be on the "Names differing in spelling" list as Doe, John vs. Doe, James. That's the case with "STARR, Truth-Shall-Prevail 1635 vs. STARR, Thomas 1635". So be aware that Thomas Starr is not in the GM index. The placement is a bit arbitrary. --Robert.shaw 14:44, 5 January 2013 (EST)

Names in index_names.pdf and missing from article [17 February 2013]

ABELL, Robert 1630 <--added
ADAMS, Dorothy 1635 <--added
ADAMS, Richard 1635 <--added
ADAMS, Richard 1635 <--added
CODDINGTON, John 1630 <--not added [Mistake in PDF]
GRAVES, William 1635 <--added
HAWKINS, Robert 1635 <--added
KEDBY, _____ 1630 <---corresponds to [L] Kedby, already in article, changed name in article to conform to list and book
RAYNOR, Edward 1634<--added
ROOSA, Elizabeth 1634<--added
RUGGLES, John 1635<--added
RUSCOE, William 1635<--added
SHURTLEFF, William 1634<--added
SMITH, Francis 1635<--added
SMITH_ALIAS_BLAND, John 1635<--was already in list only as 'Smith'. Added 'Alias Bland to name in article, though Ive now noticed Smith entries in both the article and list are out of order alphabetically
STANTON, Thomas 1635<--added
STARES, Thomas 1635<---added
EDIT: One missing from your list - Starr, Truth-Shall-Prevail<--added
STEELE, Joseph 1633<----not added [Mistake in PDF, entry indeed corresponds to John Steele already in article]
STILES, Joan 1635<----added
STOUGHTON, William 1630<---not added [Mistake in PDF - entry corresponds to Thomas Stoughton already in article]
SWAIN, Elizabeth 1635<---added, BUT NOTE THIS COULD BE A DUPLICATE ENTRY IN PDF.  I dont have the 6th book to know for sure.
SWAIN, Richard 1635<---added
SWIFT, William 1634<---added
THOMLINS, Benjamin 1635<---in list under spelling 'TOMLINS', moved to correct spelling
THOMLINS, Edward 1635<---in list under spelling 'TOMLINS', moved to correct spelling
TIBBETTS, Remembrance 1635<---added
TURNER, Elizabeth 1635<---added
TYNKLER, Sarah 1635<---added
UPHAM, Sarah 1635<---added
WALES, Nathaniel 1635<--added
WATTLIN, Richard 1634<---in list as 'Robert Wattlin' changed to confirm to list
WEEKES, Francis 1635<--added
WELLES, Thomas 1635<----added, this is probably Gov Welles of CT (of whom I am a descendant)
WELLS, Ann 1635<---added, maybe a duplicate entry
WHITE, William 1635<---added
WHITTON, Thomas 1635<---added
WICKES, John 1635<----added
WILD, John 1635<---added
WILLIAMS, Richard 1634<---added
WOOD, Edmund 1635<----added 
WOOD, John 1635<----added
WYNDELL, John 1635<----added

Names not in index_names.pdf but present in article [3 March 2013]

CODDINGTON, William 1630 <--Error in PDF
CORBETT, ___ 1631 <-- Error (it's Cobbett in both)
DEWSBURY, Hester 1634 <-- Proper sketch title, error in PDF
FAREBROTHER, Susan 1635 <-- Proper sketch title, error in PDF
GRAVES, Richard 1635 <-- Proper sketch title, error in PDF
HAWKINS, Richard 1635 <-- Removed from article; no such sketch
HOUSE, Samuel 1634 <--Error in compare; in both documents
KEDBY, L[ewis] 1630<--Error in compare; in both documents
MOORE, Isaac 1634 <--Error in compare; no such person (Isaac More 1635 in both docs)
READE, William 1635 <--Changed spelling to Read; removed extra Read passenger record
RESCUE, William 1635 <--Removed from article; no such sketch
RICHARDS, Thomas 1635  <--Removed from article; no such sketch
ROBERTS, Nicholas 1635  <--Error in compare; not in article
ROBINSON, Elizabeth 1635   <--Removed from article; no such sketch
ROBINSON, Francis 1635  <--Removed from article; no such sketch
ROOKE, Elizabeth 1635<--Removed from article; no such sketch (probably Roosa)
ROWTON, Richard 1635 <--Removed from article; duplicate of Rooten
SANDERS, John 1635  <--Removed from article; no such sketch
SAYWELL, _____ 1635  <--Removed from article; no such sketch
SCOTT, ___ 1634  <--Removed from article; no such sketch
SHAVELIN, Michael 1634 <--Removed from article; duplicate of Shaflin
SHETLE, William 1634 <--Removed from article; mentioned in a GMB sketch in 1634, but no sketch of his own.
SIBLEY, John 1634 <--Removed Sibley of Salem; no such sketch
SMITH, Alice 1635 <--Removed from article; no such sketch
SMITH, George 1634 <--Combined George of Salem and George, passenger; later analysis showed the same
SMITH, John 1635 <--Changed details on 3 John Smiths to make consistent with pdf
SMITH, _____. 1635  <--Removed from article; no such sketch
SRAYNE, Richard 1635 <--Actual passenger rec, probably Richard Swain
STANLEY, _____ 1635 <-- Error in compare, not in article
STANTLEY, John 1635 <-- Error in compare, not in article
STEELE, John 1633 <-- Typo in pdf; Joseph for John
STEVENS, Alice 1635 <--wife of Henry
STOLACK, Daniel 1635 <--Removed from article; no such sketch
STORYN, Andrew& 1635 <--Removed from article; same as Andrew Story
STOUGHTON, Thomas 1630 <--Error in PDF; article is Thomas not William
SWAIN, Francis 1635 <--Son of Richard
SYMONS, Mark 1635 <--Removed from article; no such sketch
TINKER, John 1635 <--Removed from article; no such sketch
TINKLER, Sarah 1635 <--Removed from article; no such sketch
TOMLINS, Benjamin 1635 <--Spelling changed per above
TOMLINS, Edward 1635 <-- Spelling changed per above
TRUANT, Morris 1630 <--Proper sketch title, error in PDF
TUCHILL, Joshua 1635 <-- Removed; same as Joseph Twitchell
VEREN, Joshua 1635 <-- Removed; probably Phillip's son
WASSELL, John 1635 <--Removed from article; no such sketch
WATTLIN, Robert 1634 <--Richard in both
WAY, Robert 1635 <--Servant of Edward Burton in 1634, but no sketch, removed
WEAVER, Edmond 1635 <--Removed, no such sketch
WEAVER, James 1635 <--Removed, no such sketch
WEEKS, John 1635 <--Removed, no such sketch
WELLS, Joseph 1635 <--Removed, no such sketch
WEN, William 1635 <--Removed, no such sketch
WENDELL, John 1635 <--Removed, no such sketch
WHITTON, Audrey 1635 <--Removed, wife of Thomas
WHITTON, Jeremy 1635 <--Removed, son of Thomas
WILKINSON, Bray 1635 <--Removed, probably Wilkinson
WILLIAMS, John 1632 <--Removed - phantom file (no records til 1638)
WINCOLL, Elizabeth 1635 <--Removed, wife of Thomas
WINCOLL, Robert 1634 <--Removed, probably Winchell
WITH, Mary 1635 <--Listed as Mary With[ie] (Withie used to aid search)
WITHIE, Robert 1635 <--Removed, sketch of With/Withie's consolidated under Mary Withie
WITHIE, Susan 1635 <--Removed, sketch of With/Withie's consolidated under Mary Withie
WOODWARD, Richard 1635 <--Removed, = Richard Woodward 1634 passenger
WOOLCOT, John 1635 <--Removed, = John Woolcot 1634 passenger
WOTTEN, John 1635 <--Removed, no such sketch

Names differing in spelling between index_names.pdf and article [19 February 2013]

PDF vs. article
BEAMON, Gabriel 1635	 vs. BEAMON, Gamaliel 1635
BETTS, Richard 1634	 vs. BETTS, John 1634
BIDDLE, Joseph 1635	 vs. BIDLE, Joseph 1635
BLOIS, Edmond 1634	 vs. BLOIS, Edmund 1634
CHILD, Ephraim 1630	 vs. CHILD, Ephriam 1630<---'Ephraim' is the correct spelling
CLARK, Richard 1620	 vs. CLARKE, Richard 1620
COOKE, Francis 1620	 vs. COOKE, Frances 1620
COOKE, Josiah 1633	 vs. COOKE, Josias 1633
DENT, Francis 1633	 vs. DENT, Frances 1633
EATON, Francis 1620	 vs. EATON, Frances 1620
ELLENWOOD, Ralph 1635	 vs. ELLENWOOD/ELWOOD, Ralph 1635
FARRINGTON, Edmund 1635	 vs. FARRINGTON, Edmnd 1635
GRAY, Katherine 1634	 vs. GREY, Katherine 1634
HEPBURNE, George 1635	 vs. HEPBURN, George 1635
HILLS, William 1632	 vs. HILLS, Wiliam 1632
HITCHEN, Edward 1634	 vs. HITCHiN, Edward 1634
HULL, George 1632	 vs. HULL George 1632
INES, Matthew 1633	 vs. INNES, Matthew 1633
JEFFREYS, Edward 1635	 vs. JEFFREYS Edward 1635
JONES, Margaret 1634	 vs. JONES, Margarert 1634
KINGSBURY, John 1635	 vs. KINSGBURY, John 1635
LEACH, Margaret 1635	 vs. LEACH, Margarert 1635
LEACH, Margaret 1635	 vs. LEACH, Margarert 1635
LEKE, Anne 1635	 vs. LEAKE, Anne 1635
MARSON, Elizabeth 1633	 vs. MARSTON, Elizabeth 1633
NEWBEY, William 1634	 vs. NEWBY, William 1634
ORMSBY, Anne 1634	 vs. ORMESBY, Anne 1634
PATCHEN, Joseph 1635	 vs. PACHEN, Joseph 1635
PEASE, john 1634	 vs. PEASE, John 1634
PORMORT, Philemon 1634	 vs. PORMONT, Philemon 1634
RAINSFORD, Edward 1630	 vs. RAMSFORD, Edward 1630
RAYNOR, Thurston 1634	 vs. RAYNER, Thurston 1634
READ, Robert 1635	 vs. READE, Robert 1635
REDKNAP, Joseph 1634	 vs. REDNAP, Joseph 1634
REEVES, William 1635	 vs. REEVE, William 1635
RELD, Gabriel 1635	 vs. REID, Gabriel 1635
RICHARDSON, Mary 1635	 vs. RICHARDSON, Thomas 1635
RINGE, John 1635	 vs. RING, John 1635
ROGERS, James 1635	 vs. ROGER, James 1635
ROGERS, Simon 1635	 vs. ROGER, Simon 1635
SALE, Edward 1635	 vs. SALL, Edward 1635
SALLOWES, Michael 1635	 vs. SALLOWS, Michael 1634
SANFORD, John 1631	 vs. SANDFORD, John 1631
SAVORY, Thomas 1634	 vs. SAVERY, Thomas 1634
SAVORY, William 1634	 vs. SAVERY, William 1634
SAWKYNN, William 1635	 vs. SAWKIN, William 1635
SCARLETT, Robert 1635	 vs. SCARLET, Robert 1635
SELLANOVA, Peter_de 1635	 vs. SELLANOVA, _____ 1635
SENSION, Matthew 1634	 vs. SENSION, Matthias 1634
SHEWOOD, Thomas 1634	 vs. SHERWOOD, Thomas 1634
SIMKINS, Nicholas 1635	 vs. SIMKINS, Nichalos 1635
SIMMONS, William 1635	 vs. SIMONS, William 1635
SPENCER, Jared 1634	 vs. SPENCER, Gerald 1634
STARR, Truth-Shall-Prevail 1635	 vs. STARR, Thomas 1635
STROWDE, John 1635	 vs. STROUD, John 1635
STURGES, Edward 1634	 vs. STURGIS, Edward 1634
TABOR, Philip 1633	 vs. TABER, Philip 1633
TAYLOR, Dyonis 1635	 vs. TAYLOR, Dionys 1635
TAYLOR, Katherine 1635	 vs. TAILOR, Katherine 1635
THACHER, Anthony 1635	 vs. THATCHER, Anthony 1635
TIBBALLS, Thomas 1635	 vs. TIBBALDS, Thomas 1635
TIBBETTS, Henry 1635	 vs. TIBBOT, Henry 1635
TINKHAM, Ephraim 1634	 vs. TINKHAM, Ephriam 1634
TOLLER, Mary 1635	 vs. TOILER, Mary 1635
TOMPKINS, Ralph 1635	 vs. TOMKINS, Ralph 1635
TOMSON, John 1634	 vs. TOMPSON, John 1634
TROTT, Simon 1634	 vs. TRAT, Simon 1634
WATERS, Matthew 1635	 vs. WATTERS, Matthew 1635
WEST, Twiford 1635	 vs. WEST, Twyford 1635
WETHERELL, William 1635	 vs. WETHERALL, William 1635
WHITMAN, Robert 1635	 vs. WHITEMAN, Robert 1635
WHITMARSH, John 1635	 vs. WHITMARK, John 1635
WHITYEAR, John 1635	 vs. WHITTIER, John 1635
WILD, William 1635	 vs. WILDES, William 1635
WILLETT, Thomas 1630	 vs. WILLET, Thomas 1630
WINSLOW, Gilbert 1620	 vs. WINSLOW, Glibert 1620
WOODMAN, Archelaus 1635	 vs. WOODMAN, Hercules 1635
WOOLCOTT, John 1634	 vs. WOLCOTT, John 1634

Names differing only in date between index_names.pdf and article [24 February 2013]

PDF vs. article
ALLEN, Joan 1630	 vs. ALLEN, Joan 1631<------Confusion arrived because year in book is given as 1630/31 - changed to match PDF per discussion with Mrs. Gerlicher.
ASHLEY, Edward 1628	 vs. ASHLEY, Edward 1632<--------ditto.  Dual date confusion.  Actual (Gregorian) year is 1632, though he states in records he first arrived in 1628. Changed to 1628.
BAKER, William 1632	 vs. BAKER, William 1633<---------ditto. First appears in records 16 Feb 1632/33. Changed to match PDF
BOSWORTH, John 1630	 vs. BOSWORTH, John 1631<----yet another ditto to the dual date confusion.  Changed to match PDF.
BRETT, Isabel 1630	 vs. BRETT, Isabel 1631<-------dual date.  Changed to match PDF.
BRIAN, Thomas 1632	 vs. BRIAN, Thomas 1633<-------dual date. Changed to match PDF.
BULL, Dixey 1631	 vs. BULL, Dixey 1632<------dual date. Changed to match PDF.
CLARK, Daniel 1635	 vs. CLARK, Daniel 1634
COBBETT, _____ 1630	 vs. COBBETT, _____ 1631<----------dual date. Changed to match PDF.
COKER, Richard 1634	 vs. COKER, Richard 1635
COOKE, Margaret 1630	 vs. COOKE, Margaret 1631<---------dual date. Changed to match PDF.
EDMUNDS, John 1630	 vs. EDMUNDS, John 1631<------dual date. Changed to match PDF.
ELFORD, John 1630	 vs. ELFORD, John 1631<-------dual date. Changed to match PDF.
FEVER, William 1635	 vs. FEVER, William 1634
FLAVELL, Thomas 1621	 vs. FLAVELL, Thomas 1623<----confusion arised here because although first appearing in records in 1623, he was stated then to be a passenger on the Anne. Changed to 1621.
FOSTER, George 1630	 vs. FOSTER, George 1633<---changed to 1630 since 1633 will refers to a visit in the area of 1630.
FOSTER, William 1634	 vs. FOSTER, William 1635
GARDINER, Lyon 1635	 vs. GARDINER, Lyon 1620
GIBSON, Christopher 1630 vs. GIBSON, Christopher 1633<---error in article. Changed to 1630
HAMONDS, William 1634	 vs. HAMONDS, William 1635
HANBURY, Daniel 1635	 vs. HANBURY, Daniel 1634
HILL, John 1631	 vs. HILL, John 1630<-------dual date. Actual year in book is 1631/2, so changed to 1631.
HULL, Richard 1633	 vs. HULL, Richard 1634<------mistake in PDF.  Actual record is dated 1 April 1634
LANCKFORD, Richard 1632	 vs. LANCKFORD, Richard 1633
LEE, John 1633	 vs. LEE, John 1634<--------mistake in PDF. Record is dated April 1634.
MANNERING, Joseph 1632	 vs. MANNERING, Joseph 1631
MARSH, George 1633	 vs. MARSH, George 1635
MILLER, Sydrach 1630	 vs. MILLER, Sydrach 1629<------both dates seem wrong, the estimate given for the first in NE is 1631? or early 1632
NIDDS, Anne 1633	 vs. NIDDS, Anne 1634<---------error in PDF, date of record in book is 13 Apr 1634.
NODDLE, William 1630	 vs. NODDLE, William 1631<------error in PDF, date of record in book is 18 May 1631
OKERS, Rowland 1633	 vs. OKERS, Rowland 1634<-----error in PDF, date of record in book is 18 Jun 1634
PARKE, William 1631	 vs. PARKE, William 1630
POND, John 1623	 vs. POND, John 1630<-----error in PDF. Earliest record is a letter of Jul 1630.
RAVENSDALE, John 1630	 vs. RAVENSDALE, John 1627<---Conflict in sketch in book, but the John Ravensdale of 1627 is not 100% certainly the same man in 1635 (though probable).  Changed to match PDF
REYNOLDS, William 1633	 vs. REYNOLDS, William 1634<----error in PDF. Earliest record of the first man in this sketch is Apr 1634.
SALSBERY, _____ 1632	 vs. SALSBERY, _____ 1622<---error in PDF. Record is dated 'late 1622 and early 1623'
SAUNDERS, John 1634	 vs. SAUNDERS, John 1635
SAVORY, Anthony 1632	 vs. SAVORY, Anthony 1633<----dual date. changed to 1632.
SCOTTOW, Thomasine 1634	 vs. SCOTTOW, Thomasine 1635
SEARS, Richard 1632	 vs. SEARS, Richard 1633<----error in PDF. first record is 1633
SEWALL, Henry 1635	 vs. SEWALL, Henry 1634
SHERIN, Robert 1634	 vs. SHERIN, Robert 1635
SHERMAN, Edmund 1635	 vs. SHERMAN, Edmund 1634
SMITH, James 1635	 vs. SMITH, James 1634
STOWERS, John 1634	 vs. STOWERS, John 1635
THOMAS, Thomas 1632	 vs. THOMAS, Thomas 1631
THORNDIKE, John 1632	 vs. THORNDIKE, John [missing date] <----added date
THROCKMORTON, George 1630	 vs. THROCKMORTON, George 1631
TUBBS, William 1634	 vs. TUBBS, William 1635
TUCKER, Adrian 1630	 vs. TUCKER, Adrian 1633<----original record is for three years service in NE ending in 1633. Changed to 1630.
WAKELY, Thomas 1634	 vs. WAKELY, Thomas 1635
WARD, Nathaniel 1634	 vs. WARD, Nathaniel 1635
WILLIAMS, Thomas 1634	 vs. WILLIAMS, Thomas 1635
WINCHELL, Robert 1634	 vs. WINCHELL, Robert 1635
WRIGHT, Henry 1634	 vs. WRIGHT, Henry 1635

Great Migration at americanancestors.org [27 February 2013]

I just noticed that Vol. 7, T-Y, is now up on the site, making the entire run of ten volumes available to NEGHS members.--jaques1724 18:47, 26 February 2013 (EST)

That's excellent. Most of the errors in the list we are cleaning up are in the latter part of the alphabet, but we werent able to check against. Daniel Maxwell

Early New England Families Project [22 July 2013]

I thought I'd post this here as it's the best Great Migration talk page... if anyone else gets American Ancestors, you may have seen, they have launched the Early New England Families Project - basically the successor to GM (already - GM has another 10 years!), its focus is basically all families covered by Torrey that are not in GM. They estimate it will cover 35,000 marriages(!). --Amelia 00:16, 29 May 2013 (EDT)

Mrs Gerlicher, I was thinking of making a new page for the successor project, in the same style as the GM page. Originally I was going to add the new names to the GM page, but it isn't the same thing so I decided against it. What do you think? Daniel Maxwell 18:14, 20 July 2013 (EDT)
I agree it's a different project, so it should have a different page. Plus we've got to figure out a way to divide it up -- 35,000 couples can't be in one list. I think they are doing phases just like GM did, so perhaps we could divide along the same lines. And maybe just have family page links (since the focus is on the whole family instead of the head, at least in theory).--Amelia 13:38, 21 July 2013 (EDT)
OK. Maybe make an example of how you'd like it, and I will finish the rest of it (since IIRC they only have about 7 groups added now) Daniel Maxwell 13:39, 21 July 2013 (EDT)
I created a Source page, but I'm thinking that a listing of families like the GM sketches page may not be something to attempt. We don't, for example, attempt to have pages here mirroring Torrey or Savage, and those are static works that aren't under regular change like this would be. On the other hand, I think there is some benefit to marking and tracking. How about using a template and category instead? Something like,
Early New England Families Project
This family has been treated in the Early Families of New England Project by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, which means that the couple married before 1700 and lived in New England. The project surveys all available literature as of the time of the sketch, including parentage, and thus theories not treated by the sketch should be considered highly suspect.

 Phase 1 (2013) Couples married before 1641 and not treated by the Great Migration Study Project.

Then a category something like, [[Category:Early Families of New England/Phase One]], included with the template so it's universally changeable. We could also maybe track the first few, or recent sketches, on the category page, but not take on the burden of keeping up with the whole giant list. Thoughts?--Amelia 14:38, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

Well, the project (thus far) seems to be done in the same manner as GM, despite it's name. They are organized by the name of the husband, rather than the whole family (once again, despite its name and given purpose, to cover marriages). I think it is possible we could cover it in the same way we do GM sketches. I also noticed on the front page for it says GM will eventually cover up to 1640 - which would be great, but I havent seen any movement on a 1636-1640 work yet.
Granted that it's in the same style, but what marginal utility is there in a curated list vs. a list generated by categories? Particularly given the significant effort that would be required to maintain a list of that size? --Amelia 17:31, 21 July 2013 (EDT)
The same could be said for this list (which I'd have deleted over my dead body, considering the work I've put into it). Right now it is 7 or 8 people in the new project. Maybe it would be better to wait to see what comes of it, and just leave it as a category for now? I think it is just going to evolve to be the exact same thing as GM..this list here is already big, and I cannot imagine the other one getting that much bigger. Daniel Maxwell 17:34, 21 July 2013 (EDT)
The only reason I'm hearing you say for the new one is that this one exists, and that's a good reason not to do it. The GM list is still a work in progress after five years, and I would bet only about ten people know it exists. I'm not saying delete it, but I just don't think the effort makes a product markedly more useful than the category. And the New England Families Project is expected to be 35,000 couples -- more than ten times as big as GM.
But I do think that we should start whatever we're going to do earlier rather than later. The benefit of a template is that it's centrally changeable (including the category name). It could be a banner like above, or just standard language for the date/type of entry (which I think is important for source comparison purposes). --Amelia 18:46, 21 July 2013 (EDT)
Yes, that's part of it. I found the GM page (this page) very useful, which is why I started to edit it alot. The NEFP would also be for the same reasons. But if the number of sketches is going to be in the 35K area, maybe you're right. That is not practical to have as a seperate page. Maybe if develops more along GM lines (as in, a sketch only for the head of the family) I will bring this up again. Even so, the new project will be useful as a source - several of the lesser known early families are poorly sourced. Daniel Maxwell 20:37, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

I just hope it has the same level of detail. Anderson and Co. were good enough to make it so that every member of a family group is an easy addition to any tree with birth estimates for everyone, etc. But I thought the Puritan Great Migration went only to 1640 (officially?). At any rate, it will be nice see if the standards are the same as Anderson's. EDIT: Right now it is open to all (since I can see it), though it doesnt seem to have the same level as detail as Anderson, Im sure it will turn out to be interesting. Let's go ahead and add it as a source on WR! --Daniel Maxwell 03:19, 29 May 2013 (EDT)


I checked with the NEHGS webmaster after reading your posts (Thanks! I hadn't read the Am. Anc. article yet.) As the project goes forward they will entertain properly documented additions and corrections to their sketches. Those should be sent to the webmaster who will forward to the appropriate project person.--jaques1724 15:03, 29 May 2013 (EDT)