User talk:AndrewRT

Topics


Welcome

Welcome to WeRelate, your virtual genealogical community. We're glad you have joined us. At WeRelate you can easily create ancestor web pages, connect with cousins and other genealogists, and find new information. To get started:

  1. Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do.
  2. Watch the "Getting Started" tutorial video to learn how to make ancestor web pages.
  3. Explore the Step by step Tutorials, if needed.

If you need any help, I will be glad to answer your questions. Just click on my signature link below and then click on the “Leave a message” link under my name in the upper left corner of my profile page. Thanks for participating and see you around! Debbie Freeman --DFree 01:09, 13 August 2009 (EDT)


Next step: Review your GEDCOM [12 August 2009]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded Jacob v8 no living.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.

--WeRelate agent 20:50, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Place:48 Vanburgh Hill, Greenwich, Kent, England [13 August 2009]

Hi, volunteer admin here. I patrol the place pages. I am sorry but we cannot have place pages for homes and roads. I had to delete those pages. Hope you understand.  :) --sq 21:35, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

ok i understand. AndrewRT 04:29, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Jacob v8 no living.ged Imported Successfully [14 August 2009]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 15:06, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Image Licensing [8 April 2010]

Hello, I am a volunteer admin and it's my job to help people learn the system. You asked for help licensing your images. I can't license your images but I can give your guidance. There are numerous licensing options, but most images fall into one of these categories:

  • Original published in US before 1923
  • Low resolution copy of an historical photograph. (When you reduce the image before upload, the resolution is reduced.)
  • Snippet of historical document
  • Work of US government--Public domain
  • If you took the picture, select the CC-BY-SA
  • If you know the photographer, get written permission.

Hope this helps. Please be aware that images left in the "Help needed" category for longer than two weeks will be deleted. If you have any more question please leave me a message. :)--sq 20:31, 8 April 2010 (EDT)


Next step: Review your GEDCOM [18 December 2010]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded US Turveys.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.

--WeRelate agent 19:10, 18 December 2010 (EST)

US Turveys.ged Imported Successfully [19 December 2010]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 10:44, 19 December 2010 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [19 December 2010]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded Essex Turveys.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.

--WeRelate agent 19:06, 19 December 2010 (EST)

Essex Turveys.ged Imported Successfully [19 December 2010]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 20:09, 19 December 2010 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [26 February 2011]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded US Turveys.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.

--WeRelate agent 21:21, 26 February 2011 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [9 June 2011]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded Ancient Tullochs.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.

--WeRelate agent 18:49, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

Turvey family of Rylstone [31 July 2011]

Hi Andrew

I have just found you are following the various Turvey pages on this wiki and hope you are researching the Turvey family of the Mudgee and Rylstone area of New South Wales, Australia. If this is so I hope you may be interested to learn the Rylstone Historical Society has set up a wiki for the recording of information which relates to the greater Rylstone area. The wiki is only in its infancy, despite this it has already proven useful to a number of researchers.

A number of wiki members are also researching the Turvey and Sheumack families and have added a great many photographs and other information relating to these families. I hope you may also be interested in adding some of your information to the wiki. With this in mind I would like to invite you to join the wiki, which is free to do, and is open to everyone. Once a member you would need to apply to be made a writer which means you can then add to, or create other pages to suit your Rylstone area interests.

Some pages which may interest you are:

Turvey Album

http://rdhsrwgroup.wetpaint.com/photos/album/193338/Turvey+Album

George Turvey

http://rdhsrwgroup.wetpaint.com/page/Turvey%2C+George+%281818-1862%29

Other individuals can be found at:

http://rdhsrwgroup.wetpaint.com/page/District+Pioneers+and+their+Families

Links to pastoral properties can be found at:

http://rdhsrwgroup.wetpaint.com/page/Pastoral+Properties

The main index to the wiki can be found at:

http://rdhsrwgroup.wetpaint.com/page/Index+to+all+pages+on+the+wiki

To search the content of the pages go to Google and use the following search parameters:

site:rdhsrwgroup.wetpaint.com your search term

E.g., site:rdhsrwgroup.wetpaint.com Dunagree

If you have any queries regarding the wiki please do not hesitate to contact me at rdhswiki@gmail.com

Regards,

Fiona--Rdhswiki 06:14, 19 July 2011 (EDT)


Thanks for letting me know about this! AndrewRT 18:07, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [7 August 2011]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded Stafford Turveys.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.

--WeRelate agent 18:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Stafford Turveys.ged Imported Successfully [9 August 2011]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 04:22, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

DNA project [20 May 2012]

I completed categorizing the DNA pages. Most are empty source pages created by the bot initially. The Morrow source page does have DNA information. I did not include the surname pages. A few have one name studies but only found links to DNA projects on the surname pages.

If I ever post my Coker Y-DNA results on WeRelate, I would post the DNA results for lineages on the DNA Project page with links to oldest ancestor person pages if they exist. To date we have 4 established lineages but the person pages on WeRelate only relate to 1 lineage. There are some person pages for people that no lineage has been established. I would probably put these results on the person page if a page exists. But not sure. Looking forward to your input. Thanks.--Beth 17:46, 20 May 2012 (EDT)


Next step: Review your GEDCOM [7 July 2012]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded Abel Turvey.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.


--WeRelate agent 18:26, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

Abel Turvey.ged Imported Successfully [7 July 2012]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.


--WeRelate agent 21:43, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [22 July 2012]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded Bedfordshire Turveys.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.


--WeRelate agent 18:18, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Bedfordshire Turveys.ged Imported Successfully [23 July 2012]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.


--WeRelate agent 00:59, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

And I thought "crap" was a technical term! [2 October 2012]

Thanks! --jrm03063 17:46, 2 October 2012 (EDT)


Hehe AndrewRT 18:07, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

GEDCOM Export Ready [18 November 2012]

The GEDCOM for tree Tullochs of Westray is ready to download. Click here.


Abel Turvey [18 November 2012]

Dear Andrew i spoke to you before, my name is John Turvey Grandson Of Herbert charles Turvey. His parents were Abel Turvey, Annie Turney, i think you will find that Abel was not buried in Australia. I have his funeral cards with his grave no.

He was buried with Annie Turney in islington cemetry in 1924 London.


Re John Turvey--Johnturvey 18:22, 18 November 2012 (EST)

Hi John, many thanks for the correction and welcome to WeRelate! Do you know the exact date of death and also when his wife Annie died? AndrewRT 18:41, 18 November 2012 (EST)

Abel Turvey Annie Turney [19 November 2012]

Dear Andrew ty for message Abel died on 8th November 1924. Annie Turney Died on September 21st 1943 both are buried in Islington Cemetry London.

re John Turvey--Johnturvey 18:58, 18 November 2012 (EST)


Thanks - added AndrewRT 19:22, 18 November 2012 (EST)

Abel Turvey senior [27 November 2012]

Dear Andrew, i just wondered Abel Turvey senior had a brother called william and if you trace Back some of the Turveys, they had Hebrew names biblical names. There was a Eskiel Turvey Amos Turvey are these are Jewish ? i'm not sure ?.

Cheers John Turvey--Johnturvey 17:17, 27 November 2012 (EST)

I think there was quite a trend to name children after old testament characters, so I'm not sure it's any evidence of Jewish connections, no. I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that, anyway. AndrewRT 17:22, 27 November 2012 (EST)

Thanks Andrew i didn,t think there are Jewish connections. as we are christian people.--Johnturvey 17:46, 27 November 2012 (EST)


Turveys Islington [27 November 2012]

Thank you for changing the place where My Grandfather herbert Charles Turvey was buried Bethune France. I appreciate your help. I agree we are not Jewish.Andrew do you have any photos of the Turveys or do you know where i can get any.Once again thank you very much for your help.--Johnturvey 17:57, 27 November 2012 (EST)


You're welcome - good to collaborate on here and glad to help where I can. Unfortunately I don't have any photos but will let you know if I find any. AndrewRT 18:05, 27 November 2012 (EST)

Thanks--Johnturvey 18:09, 27 November 2012 (EST)


Next step: Review your GEDCOM [29 November 2012]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded Tullochs of Westray Hugh.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.


--WeRelate agent 17:18, 29 November 2012 (EST)

Tullochs of Westray Hugh.ged Imported Successfully [30 November 2012]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.


--WeRelate agent 23:17, 30 November 2012 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [1 December 2012]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded James Tulloch of Westray.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.


--WeRelate agent 15:29, 1 December 2012 (EST)

James Tulloch of Westray.ged Imported Successfully [3 December 2012]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.


--WeRelate agent 20:43, 3 December 2012 (EST)

How to measure...??? [16 December 2012]

I know I've been wondering and talking about this a little, and I see you've picked up a similar thread. For all sorts of reasons we want to know how we're doing - in both general and specific ways - but havn't put much thought into objective metrics. In no particular order (and this is hardly complete) we seem interested in knowing:

  • How are we doing on attracting new members?
  • What particular challenges are most frustrating to rookie members?
  • How are we doing on keeping members?
  • What does our user retention look like now, compared to when we had liberal (reckless?) standards for GEDCOM upload?
  • To what extent are the challenges of GEDCOM import affecting people's choice to use or stay with WeRelate?
  • Is our database growing (page counts of various types)?
  • Is the quality of our database improving?
    • More sources per person page?
    • More sources per family page?
    • More fact entries?
    • More fact entries that have source support?
    • Better consistency results? (fewer mutually exclusive facts)
  • Is werelate's influence growing as measured by other sites linking us?
  • Is werelate's influence growing as measured by search engine results?
  • For non-members who are at least aware of werelate - what is their impression?
  • How useful do non-members consider werelate, compared against other sorts of free web resources?

I'm sure you can think of many more. I just looked to see if there was a relevant administrative group for metrics - and while I see lots of groups that would have interests and be consumers of such data - there really didn't seem to be any that has this as a core responsibility.--jrm03063 09:29, 10 December 2012 (EST)


Yes, I agree with all of this, although there could be a danger that you end up with a very long wish list which we're unable to fulfill. Could we take a two-pronged approach - firstly, trying to whittle it down to some key half dozen performance indicators, where if we're doing all that we know we're on the right track and secondly developing some tools that can do the analysis for us? AndrewRT 13:56, 10 December 2012 (EST)
I wasn't suggesting that all of this be done - or even that you take on any of it. I meant only to make the case that it's worth thinking about this systematically. So sure - I agree with a multi-prong approach - but there might actually be three prongs. 1) what does success look like? 2) what measures would give us an idea if we're succeeding (your 2nd prong) and 3) what are the most straight-forward tools or metrics to get that info? --jrm03063 14:38, 10 December 2012 (EST)

Can I play? I help organizations with this type of thing in my "real" work. (ahem)

My contribution would be in the area of helping articulate your hypotheses about what leads to success. Makes it easier to identify what to measure. Would also help you wittle your list down to those things that will most help you measure success.

Jillaine 17:37, 16 December 2012 (EST)


Please do! The page is at User:AndrewRT/Metrics - please either edit the page directly or comment on the talk page. AndrewRT 17:42, 16 December 2012 (EST)

We Relate Featured Page - Week of February 4, 2013 [9 February 2013]

Hi Andrew, just wanted to let you know that your article/project page, Tulloch in Westray, Orkney, Scotland, has been nominated and selected as the WeRelate Featured Page for February 4th (it will be Featured until the week of February 18th). It certainly is a great resource for researchers looking for information on the Tulloch family. Congratulations on a job well-done, and keep up the good work!

Best regards,

Jim Volunteer Administrator, WeRelate.org--Delijim 13:47, 8 February 2013 (EST)

Fantastic news - many thanks! AndrewRT 17:16, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Your ideas are rather ambitious.... [4 April 2013]

While it's very interesting to think about systematically mining genealogical data out of public domains sources, that effort is substantial. I've been working on a project of my own for a year or so - and while I hope to live many more years - I don't expect to see it done in my lifetime.

If you're serious, I wouldn't consider it wise to try to pick a source and then extract research from it in the ordinary way. Instead, I would try to work from something that already had a pretty good transcript, or a functional equivalent, and - instead - focus the effort on linking the transcript back to people in the WeRelate tree.

In the Savage transcript, I've been designating sections and sketches with special templates, besides adding Person page links in the ordinary way. I've also been able to write programs that walk through that information, presently only for reporting purposes, but I know I could mechanically generate source citations for Person pages, if I were so inclined.

You might consider working on the History of Parliament, focusing on the members for which a biography is now present on-line. I've already added some 350+ pages from there, and the WP page claims there are more than 20,000 (though many are not yet available on-line). I think the functional equivalent of a transcript in this case, would simply be a long table (or set of tables) that give the names of the members in the groups and sequence that they're presented on the site.

My thoughts anyway... --jrm03063 15:52, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Yes it's certainly meant to be ambitious! The pages I've quickly brought together come to around 20,000 pages which I think would take 10 people, working an hour a day, a couple of years to complete! The key I think is recruiting more people to the project, working on it together and prioritising the most important pieces. Managing to automate some of the work is key too.
I will take a look at what you have done as it sounds very interesting! Thanks for sharing. AndrewRT 15:57, 6 March 2013 (EST)

I'm taking another look at the History of Parliament. It consists of more than 20,000 individual member biographies (all online), which seem to be of a generally very high standard - professional quality. We already have over 400 Person pages that link to their corresponding History of Parliament page, and I've got some ideas on how to start adding this material relatively easily and systematically. Since part of what I've got in mind reproduces the layout and look of some index pages on their web site, I've reached out to the organization to get guidance on doing what I want without running afoul of the law or, more probably, causing offense. Interested? --jrm03063 12:59, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

McCutcheon Talk Page [7 March 2013]

Hi Andrew, got your message on my talk page regarding the McCutcheon Talk Page. It was my understanding that the discussion regarding your suggestion had been resolved, so I deleted it. Not sure I understand your concern. Since I started the Article Page, I didn't feel it added anything by leaving it thers. Was there some other thing that you wanted to discuss?

Thanks,

Jim--Delijim 16:19, 6 March 2013 (EST)

I've added a response to the talk page discussion - I feel my point remains. AndrewRT 16:21, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Your point has been noted, and I've responded again. Regards,

Jim

Thanks Jim. AndrewRT 14:01, 7 March 2013 (EST)


History of Parliament [8 April 2013]

I have presumed to create the beginnings of a new project page, and to transfer the discussion, formerly located below, to the corresponding talk page. I hope everyone will feel comfortable continuing to contribute there. --jrm03063 13:59, 8 April 2013 (EDT)


New user [3 May 2013]

Bonjour ! Pourrais-tu lire ma question ici ? - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 15:04, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

J'ai écrit à un administrateur, ici. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 03:16, 10 April 2013 (EDT)
Remember our discussion ! ... Please see this ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 10:56, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [13 April 2013]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded North Ronaldshay Tullochs.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.


--WeRelate agent 17:45, 13 April 2013 (EDT)

North Ronaldshay Tullochs.ged Imported Successfully [13 April 2013]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.


--WeRelate agent 19:06, 13 April 2013 (EDT)

Newbie advice for avoiding living person pages [18 July 2013]

Hi Andrew

I said I would have a go at extending the FAQ "Can I create person pages for living persons?

At the moment, it states:

"No, with one exception. Posting vital data for living persons is against the law in many countries, and WeRelate focuses on sharing ancestry, not information about living people. We therefore do not permit the creation of pages for most living people, and pages will be deleted when found. 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."

Here's a couple of paragraphs that you might consider:

Many people feel that providing data about living people, even their names and dates of birth, is an infringement of privacy. In some countries it is against the law. WeRelate wants to focus on sharing details of people of past generations. We therefore do not permit the creation of pages for most living people, and pages will be deleted when found.
We suggest that you consider who made up your family in 1900 or 1950 and work out which of these people is still alive. If a family group still has one living member (or a member with a still-living spouse), that family should only be represented by the parents. It is perfectly okay to put a note in the body of the family page: "This couple had a sons and b daughters[, andx grandchildren]." Be careful not to add places with any great specificity. Remove any street addresses that might have been obtained from censuses unless you are sure no one you know has lived there for a long time.

I am having trouble with the second last sentence myself. But cutting back to the parents of a family group may cover it, not sure.

Goldenoldie is a fair description of yours truly. I am still redheaded, but am old enough to have been included on the 1940 census had my family lived on the other side of the US-Canadian border. For people of my generation 1900 could be a good cut-off. For a younger generation 1950 might be better.

BTW the videos didn't contain any references to the "no living people" rule and one of them seemed to stop short in the middle (Part 2, I think).

I'll be glad to talk about any other problems that newbies might have. I've only been a member for 18 months and WR is definitely my genealogy program of choice. (Pat) --Goldenoldie 06:57, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

I certainly support your effort to improve our help pages. However your suggestion regarding a family in 1900 or 1950 should not be included in the help pages. This would be a major policy change and should be submitted to the overview committee for consideration before including this in our help pages. --Beth 07:54, 17 July 2013 (EDT)
Thanks for coming back to me Goldenoldie. I'd second Beth's comments - we need to draw a sharp distinction between a change in policy or a clarification in what we present to new users to explain our policy. Could you clarify please which you are after? AndrewRT 14:23, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

I consider it clarification. Currently WR states that we don't want members to create pages for living people. The would-be supplier of information is going to ask "why?". Our current response (deep in a FAQ): "In some countries it is against the law." We should at least preface that statement with something to the effect of "Many people feel that providing data about living people, even their names and dates of birth, is an infringement of privacy." and place it in a prominent position. (Many financial institutions use a birthdate as a check on security if you lose your password.)

My suggestion of looking at one's family from 100 or 50 years back is simply an exercise I carry out myself to measure whether I want to follow a family group forward or not.

Something else I just thought of. We think nothing of adding the contents of a will for people who died in the 1800s. But to add equivalent information for people whose wills are barely out of probate could really be a breach of security for the heirs to that will.

Sometimes I feel that people can get over-worried about security. Then I read another newspaper article about someone who has been scammed and lost their savings.

Doing genealogy involves walking a very fine line with maintaining one's own security and that of others that we mey not know at all.

Regards --Goldenoldie 03:15, 18 July 2013 (EDT)


Person/Family page names [1 September 2013]

You recently posted a question on this on my talk page, and I gave it rather short shrift. I'm working on a more detailed answer that leads to some additional questions I would have in turn for you - but since I'm allegedly employed - I may not get to it for another day or two! Hope that's ok.

Just wanted you to know! --jrm03063 10:52, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Many thanks - I found your initial reaction helpful, although a more detailed answer would also no doubt be helpful too! I suspect the value in changing, for instance, Person:Sir Alexander de Neville (1) to Person:Alexander de Neville (5) is indeed rather marginal, although I'd like to look into writing a bot that could automate this and that may make the benefit exceed the effort. On the other hand, I worry that changing, for instance, Person:William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke (1) to Person:William Marshal (x) could actually be counter-productive, notwithstanding the WeRelate naming convention, because the title can actually quite useful in contexts where you only have the page name to look at. AndrewRT 13:10, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

As I mentioned before, I wasn't happy with the brevity of my original reply. I also wanted to engage you a little more completely. I particularly appreciate that you've worked harder than most - and been much more understanding of my intentions (at the very least patient). I took a look around and realized that I've been contributing around here since 2007 - So there's some history - here goes..

I don't think there's a software/technical reason to modify the Person and Family page names to follow WR standards. It's built on media wiki after all, so I presume the underlying software is happy with page names that are more or less arbitrary strings. Presumably, the more arbitrary the better (generation of hash keys and such) - but of course - that's not how humans work.

As to searching - I don't think page names play all that much of a role. At least - not within the limits of the various search entry screens that are easily accessible. I did found that consistent naming conventions - in the early days especially - were a big help since you could find duplication simply by noticing that the sequence number of a family page was "(2)" or greater. It's been a while since that sort of crude approach was systematically helpful, so I don't think that's all that compelling as to dictating adherence to naming rules either.

(Note: As it happens, I would love to be able to to perform searches on fragments of page name strings - but I don't know how! I've seen search forms that let me examine transcription pages on the basis of keywords that make up the page name - so presumably there's a way. I should look at that query and I could probably figure one out - but I don't see that as something of general utility).

I could imagine that there may be some benefit from the perspective of search engines - but I havn't heard anyone make that claim. Also, the page names may play a role respecting what appears in a resulting GEDCOM - but I havn't looked at that closely enough to say.

So - without any technical rationale - why bother changing the person and family page names to be more standard? In particular - why do it for the spaces that I'll call the "legacy area" (content that arrived along with large initial GEDCOMs, with uneven quality content in the medieval and noble spaces)? I think it all boils down to appearances.

  • Consistent appearance suggests care, hopefully encouraging folks to do a better job and encourage those of like mindset to join.
  • Nicely done content - particularly for the legacy spaces (which are often pure crap on other sites) - may be more effective in encouraging folks to stop when they reach a gateway ancestor (at least if they don't stop - they're on the hook to do something as well or better than wikipedia).
  • Finally - I sort of promised I would do this eventually.

Back when I was first pulling the legacy spaces together, I started making use of Wikipedia to get things sorted out. The initial content was the result of a number of massive GEDCOM amalgamations - themselves a product of repeated GEDCOM load/unload/reload cycles across all manner of pieces of software. That software imposed a variety of well and ill conceived default behavior - but the result was that the content was a thoroughly scrambled ruin. Use of the wikipedia page names, when present, was a huge help in starting to impose a basic level of sanity on the existing content - without wholesale deletion (which the community had repeated voted not to do). I started that practice before there was an accepted community standard.

However, even after the page naming standards were accepted, I continued to willfully violate the convention (and was nominally approved to do so by Dallan). My reasoning was that what I was doing was a necessary step in getting things to a better state of organization - and it would be easier to rename things to standard later - that it would be to inflict the standard at too early a stage. It was a consistent approach in dealing with a space that was otherwise devoid of consistency, so it was a great help then.

Things are of course much better now. Earlier this year I figured the time had come to start thinking about how to get to better page names systematically - and for situations where the current conventions didn't obviously apply. So I foolishly decided to offer a somewhat radical proposal on the handling of unconventional surname situations for consideration. I was stunned by the vituperative response - particularly since (it seems to me) the only reason that the spaces we were talking about had any value at all was because of the years of work I was well recorded to have invested! Moreover, while I was unafraid to defend my own ideas, I was also entirely happy to work with other ideas whatever they might be - and regularly said as much. All to no avail other than to have a member of the oversight committee offer to effectively take over (I really thought their job was to encourage and moderate discussion - not to inflict their own views - but no matter).

So I fled from my effort to work with (at it now seemed) "the common clay of the new west" and decided to focus on wikipedia-backed genealogy in more recent history (post 1400s/1500s generally). This amounted to a fresh round of added wikipedia sources and Person pages for various nobility. This also involved beginning to transition to the standard - since more recent names are much better behaved as to convention. After a couple months of that, new additions started to become fewer and farther between - and my efforts began to be more and more dominated by the renaming pass. I've been resolving obvious departures from the standard pretty much whenever I came across them.

So far, my renaming pass has been essentially random. That process too, however, has starting to be exhausted. As you suggest - we're going to need to come up with some software to support more systematic searching for non-standard or problematic situations.

A few more thoughts for the present:

  • Feel free to perform renaming modifications to standard if you're struck that you have an opportunity and the choice is obvious - but don't get hung up on it. We'll want to think about nuances of this in the context of a bot to search things out (I know we can build a search bot - even if it doesn't directly perform changes).
  • I share your concern about slavish adherence to standard - it may be unwise to turn "Henry VIII of England" into "Henry of England (73)" (or whatever number was randomly assigned). We're going to want to mull what we do with respect to royals (who almost never have a real surname) and historical nobles (who often seem to have more or less random names). If it becomes necessary to engage the wider community on this - I trust you'll be much more effective in the effort than I was.
  • I've taken the view that early proto-surnames such as "de (name)", "de la (name)"/"de La (name)" and "of (place)" ARE surnames if the sources at hand seem to treat them as such - either for specifically named people or for members of that same generation.
  • Almost never are the linking terms "de", "de la" or "of" appropriately capitalized, even though GEDCOM load/unload default behaviors seem to have often made them so.
  • Transition from the anachronistic to modern forms - disappearance of leading "de", "de la" or "of" occurs in history ONCE. That is to say - if sources for the children of a person show that the surname still routinely appears as "de <name>", then it shouldn't appear simply as "(name)" in prior generations.
  • Transition from the anachronistic to modern forms occurs for all the children of a particular anachronistically named person in a single generation. Reality may have been more subtle, but so far this seems a workable rule of thumb.
  • I recall seeing an anachronistic form return - after established use of a modern form - but once. While I don't recall the exact situation, I do remember it was a person of common birth who was ennobled for something or other (probably for being filthy rich). Their birth name was absolutely without panache - something like "John Smith" - so that became something like "Jean de Smythe, Earl of Smythe".

Ok, I'm exhausted. I'm sure I've forgotten something - but I hope this helps...best regards.

--jrm03063 10:36, 26 August 2013 (EDT)

Hi Jrm, many thanks for your response here. I've been aware of some of the story regarding nobility naming - something that I'm sure will come back again and again! I'm by no means convinced that I would be any more successful in engaging the debate than you have been previously but I'm willing to try as and when this becomes necessary. I've always been impressed by your contributions and I'm sure others are too. In my mind nobility is one area that many people are interested in, so is a natural focus for a sight like werelate and would be great if we could establish a reputation in this area.
Regarding the benefits of name standardisation, it would seem to make some sense that the matching systems are more likely to work better if there is some kind of naming convention that is applied. However, I don't understand them well enough to know if the kind of changes I'm making actually make a real difference or not. My current aim is to write a bot and removing the "Sirs" off the start of names would seem to lend itself as one of the first jobs for this bot to do (although I did come across a "Lord" where this was actually his forename!)
On a separate note, I'm far from convinced that the standard of [Forename] [Surname] ([Index]) is at all fit for purpose for a site that is seeking to build a pando. As I've set out on my userpage User:AndrewRT/Size, the current 2.5m people is a small fraction of the size it needs to be. I'm currently up to Person: John Tulloch (119) on my fairly obscure surname subject, so presumably the John Smiths will end up in the thousands. (I've just checked and we're up to Person:John Smith (1159)). However, that's a debate for another day!

AndrewRT 13:59, 26 August 2013 (EDT)

I've been considering your remarks on the [in]adequacy of the Person page name standard. By implication, I think we're also discussing the Family page name practice, since that's defined in terms of the two Person page names with a connecting " and ".
In many cases, we already do not present the actual Person page name (searches for example). So what are the various names? Are we following reasonable conventions? Are we using them consistently? Are they sufficient?
I think the key purpose for the person/family page name, is the creation of a short but reliable string that makes sense in a URL. I would argue that the Person page name probably shouldn't appear for any other purpose. Any structured display or report should focus predominantly on the initial/preferred name form - leaving the page name proper in plain sight, but implying reduced importance.
Family page names may actually be more of a problem, since a more appropriate form isn't readily available. We could take the view that the preferred family name is the composition of the preferred names of the two parties, linked with an " and ". That however, is plainly not preferred in genealogy. Instead, the preferred name consists of the names of the two parties AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. Figuring that out from information on the two Person pages is not utterly impossible - but probably not worth it. Perhaps a family page fact should be created, indicating the preferred name (as opposed to the page name, which would remain as it is). Then, when Family pages are listed anywhere, the preferred name form could be used - instead of the page name.
I think these steps would be improvements, but we're still not dealing with another annoying issue. We general tolerate the "preferred name" for males, as inclusive of titles that they did not acquire until later in life. Kings, Earls, Counts, etc., etc. I have found myself tolerating this for men because, in many cases, the added title is a pure addition - leaving their given and surnames otherwise intact. Women typically do not enjoy this exception, because their titles almost never properly appear with their maiden names.
There's a good deal to think about... --jrm03063 12:31, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [1 September 2013]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded William Jackson - 763.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.


--WeRelate agent 15:26, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

Featured place: Hulcott, Buckinghamshire [17 September 2013]

Hi Andrew

Shock! Horror! You want this for a featured page? Hulcott is one of those "dead" parishes that I would love to have left on the cutting-room floor. I have lived in Buckinghamshire for more than 40 years and had never even heard of it!

Seriously, though, this is a compliment. And I thank you. But I do suggest you cast your eye through the rest of Buckinghamshire (every parish done as of this afternoon), many of the counties of Scotland south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde (i.e., south of Glasgow and Edinburgh), and Ontario, Canada--which I worked on first. Some parishes and townships have outline maps of the county being covered, many don't. I am sure you will find others better than Hulcott. Maybe, Haddenham, Buckinghamshire.

Regards, Pat --Goldenoldie 15:57, 1 September 2013 (EDT)


Did a page ever go forward? --Goldenoldie 03:45, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

I've asked Jim so hopefully he'll respond. AndrewRT 14:07, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

I still wish you had changed the featured page to Haddenham which has somewhat more detail about the town itself. The Research Tips are a group of templates which vary very little from one place to another within the county. Regards --Goldenoldie 06:46, 17 September 2013 (EDT)

I did! See WeRelate:Featured_page_nominations. AndrewRT 14:07, 17 September 2013 (EDT)


Living person 'disagreement' [17 September 2013]

Sorry if I upset you earlier in the discussion, I realize now that we probably didn't really disagree on the issue at all but I failed to state exactly where the problem was. WR's policy was buried on years old talk pages and I was just hoping to see a more formal statement on what it was. I promise you I was never going after your British royalty/nobility pages! Obviously, Kate Middleton and her son are perfectly fine exceptions to the rule.--Daniel Maxwell 21:00, 13 September 2013 (EDT)

You're right I was upset - it's always a fear when contributing to something like WeRelate that someone is going to come along in a few years time and delete it all. I don't see the distinction, personally, between someone like Michael Middleton - a secondary person in a prominent family, but personally notable nonetheless and, say, Jonathon Bush, scion of a prominent political family who is also notable in his own right. More to the point, in these discussions neither you or anyone else has actually set out any value to WeRelate in deleting these marginal cases. What problem does it actually solve? What issue does it improve? AndrewRT 14:12, 17 September 2013 (EDT)


Featured Page Nomination [17 September 2013]

Hi Andrew, got your message on my Talk Page. I've got your nomination in "the on-deck circle", so it will run at the beginning of October. If you find any more good ones, please be sure to add them to the list. Besides you, me and Jennifer (BJS66), we haven't had much in the way of Featured Page nominations, so whatever you add would be appreciated. Sorry the response is a little late, I've been swamped at work (year-end and budgeting for next year).

Best regards,

Jim:)--Delijim 17:14, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

Thanks - good to hear! I'll keep my eyes open for any other candidates and might have another of my own soon too. AndrewRT 14:13, 17 September 2013 (EDT)

William Jackson - 763.ged Imported Successfully [29 September 2013]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.


--WeRelate agent 02:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [8 November 2013]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded pearce and meador.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.


--WeRelate agent 00:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [17 November 2013]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded Sanday Tullochs.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.


--WeRelate agent 21:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sanday Tullochs.ged Imported Successfully [17 November 2013]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.


--WeRelate agent 23:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

In case you are wondering .... [7 January 2014]

why I added notes to the Talk page of Thomas Tulloch and Mary Tulloch (5) after already adding notes to their son's talk page, it was just because I forgot where I added the original notes and had to go hunting for them, and then decided that anyone else reviewing potential duplicates might not think to look there. So I added notes in a more obvious place. :) --DataAnalyst 02:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - makes sense! AndrewRT 13:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [17 February 2014]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded Turfus Family Tree.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.


--WeRelate agent 23:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)