User talk:Bgwiehle

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 Wiki basics tutorial video to learn how to make ancestor web pages.
3. Explore the 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! --Ronni 12:13, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Deleting redirects ok?

Hi, I wanted to make sure you saw the proposal I just wrote on WeRelate talk:Place review about automatically deleting place pages that redirect to other places within the same country. The reason for the proposal is that it will be helpful to delete pages that got redirected because they were named incorrectly originally. However, I believe you're creating redirects for historical place names to redirect to their current place name. Are you just planning to redirect historical places to current places in different countries, or also to current places in the same country? For example, before the automated renaming in a couple of weeks, are you planning to create redirects for historical places in Austria to point to current places within Austria, or just to places outside of Austria? I don't want to delete any redirects that you want to keep, and I'm wondering if deleting only redirects that point to places within the same country will accomplish this goal.--Dallan 01:22, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Place:Schwenningen [2 November 2007]

Hi, We really appreciate your work with the place index. It's wonderful to have your help. I have found the page Place:Schwenningen. It lists 4 different names for the same town that is now called Place:Villingen-Schwenningen,_Baden-Württemberg. Since you are working on Germany, I didn't want to redirect these pages without your input. Please tell me how you want to handle these types of situations. Thanks, :)--sq 10:08, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

If you know where it should go, you can redirect. So far, I've gotten the most obvious errors and Berlin done. Working on Saarland (a small state). I'm still learning as I go, so some places will get edited more than once. I am trying to apply at least one level of organization below State for Germany - prob. Kreis (district), as it is referred to most often. (Regierungsbezirk is less used). --Bgwiehle 12:44, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Administrator log [20 November 2007]

Hi,

I just wanted to thank you for all your hard work on the place directory. We really appreciate your efforts. Would you mind making an entry on Werelate:Administrator log for the time you have spent. I need to track volunteer hours for the IRS. We need to show public support to keep our Charitable status. Thanks.--sq 13:20, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Austria [20 November 2007]

I just re-reviewed Austria. (I'm making a final pass over the 20 most-important countries.) It looks great! I added links to wikipedia articles for the former provinces and renamed a few of the states to use their Austrian name (Kärnten, Niederösterreich, Oberösterreich, and Steiermark), which is what the Family History Library Catalog does. --Dallan 16:15, 20 November 2007 (EST)

I'm glad you like the result. Much of WeRelate uses English names for places (Germany is another prime example) and for place types. I thought that was how it was intended to be, despite the issues associated with (English) placenames that are not likely to be found on any genealogical documentation. --Bgwiehle 17:07, 20 November 2007 (EST)

It was an unfortunate mistake. When I merged the FHLC places with Wikipedia places, I used the wikipedia place name when I should have used the FHLC place name. I'm going through the most-common countries right now, trying to correct the mistake for at least the first-level administrative divisions, and the second-level ones as well when there are not too many of them.

By the way, I also added ", Former province" as a type to modern states that were also part of Austria-Hungary. We're going to show the list of contained places grouped by type once we finish the renaming, and I'm thinking of displaying places under multiple type headings if they have more than one type. So for example we could list the "Former provinces", followed by the "States" of Austria on the Place:Austria page, and places that were both former provinces and also current states would show up under both headings.---Dallan 21:09, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Germany [21 November 2007]

Hi again, Germany is much more complicated than Austria! :-) I've been doing a little reading up on German history to better understand what happened. Here are some thoughts on Germany.

1. What if we pulled out the former states (the ones active during the German Empire) that the FHLC includes from under the modern states and put them directly under Germany (like you've done for Austria), with see-also links between the former states and the modern states that they contributed to? We could automatically add also-located-in links to the inhabited places in the former states that would link to the modern states that they are currently located in (if the modern state can be determined definitively). For example, all inhabited places in Baden could be also-located-in Baden-Württemberg. But inhabited places in Place:Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha, Germany couldn't be given also-located-in links to a modern state automatically, because some went to Thuringia and some when to Bavaria.

2. When we do the renaming, what do you think the title of a place page should be in the case when we know both its former and its modern state? For example, should the title of Place:Aach, Baden be "Aach, Baden, Germany" with an also-located-in link to "Baden-Württemberg, Germany"? Or should it be "Aach, Baden-Württemberg, Germany" with an also-located-in link to "Baden, Germany"? The question really has to do with what title shows up in the drop-down list when you enter "Aach," and whether you want people and families and sources and images for Aach to show up in a "Baden-Württemberg, Germany" category or a "Baden, Germany" category. I'm planning to re-do place categories to be based upon the last two components of the place title for German places. So all person and family and source and image pages referencing towns in Bavaria would appear in a "Bayern, Germany" category. The question is whether pages pointing to towns that used to be in a former state and are now in a modern state should be categorized under the former state or the modern state.

I lean toward having the titles use the former state instead of the modern state, since we know the correct former state for most places, but we don't know the correct modern state for many places that are listed in the FHLC since the former states were split between multiple modern states and other countries. And since we don't know the correct modern state for those places we'd have to use the former state for their title anyway. But I could go either way. The people doing Scotland would like to see Scottish places be titled according to the historic county instead of the modern county, since that's the way most of the Scottish genealogy records are organized. But the person doing Sweden would rather see Swedish places be titled according to the modern county, and the correct modern county can be determined for all places in Sweden. What are your thoughts on this?

3. On this same topic, how should the national districts under East Germany be titled? It appears that most of them were national districts under East Germany, and are also national districts under their modern German states? Should we end their titles with "Deutsche Demokratische Republik, Germany", or with "<<german state>>, Germany"? Or should we create two separate pages for these districts - one under East Germany and another under the modern state, with see-also links between them?

4. What should we do about local districts? I see you've placed a few towns into their correct local district, but most towns are directly under the state or Regierungsbezirk. How important are the local districts? Should we remove local districts and put their contained places directly under the state or Regierungsbezirk so that we're consistent (placing all towns under the state or Regierungsbezirk), or is placing towns under the correct local district a worthwhile long-term goal?

--Dallan 23:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Feedback sought on final place review [21 November 2007]

Hi, I wanted to make sure that you saw the proposal I left for a final place review on WeRelate talk:Place review. I'd love to get your comments on it. It's basically addressing some things we're already talking about.--Dallan 11:36, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Hungary [22 November 2007]

Just finished the final review. It looks great! I'm amazed how much information you were able to find and add to the places (see-also references, etc). I added Wikipedia links to the former county pages and moved Place:Szabolcs, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, Hungary directly under Hungary. Also, I think I incorrectly merged Place:Komárom (county), Hungary into Place:Komárom-Esztergom, Hungary when I did the initial merge, so some of the places listed under Komárom-Esztergom should also be under Komárom, but I'll take care of fixing that.--Dallan 15:30, 21 November 2007 (EST)

I had noted the latter possibility in Place talk:Hungary. I'm preparing some comments to your various postings but there's a lot to digest :)

Remeschatis [28 January 2010]

Thanks so much for your insight into the surname Remeschatis! I've moved your comments to the Surname:Remeschatis page, as I think they could be quite useful in my future research.

My grandfather told us his family was from Alsace Lorraine, so for some time we speculated that somehow Remeschatis was an amalgam of French and German surnames. But further research indicates it is most likely to be his maternal line (Waeldin, Sevin, Albrecht) who was from Alsace Lorraine. Besides my immigrant ancestor, CARL LUDWIG FRIEDRICH REMESCHATIS, the one earlier Remeschatus (note alternate spelling) I have found, Johan, is born in Rostock in 1792. He's listed in the 1819 Mecklenburg-Schwerin Census in Rostock. His occupation is "hautboist," a musician playing a woodwind instrument, probably similar to the modern oboe, but possibly a flute or even some other instrument, if he was a musician for a military regiment - at least that's what my research indicates.

Anyway, I'll definitely look closely at what I can find from the Remscheid/North Rhine area. It would be terrific to discover something more about the family's ancestry. And at this point, any common link or similarity in place name/surname is a vast improvement over the brick wall we've had for so many years. --Brenda (kennebec1) 11:39, 28 January 2010 (EST)

The problem with geographically-derived surnames is that they are acquired elsewhere. I did a quick check through some of the free German sources and your WeRelate tree. I think that Person:Carl Remeschatis (1) is the person referenced at [1]. This addressbook reference may not add much to your knowledge, but it may extend the timeframe of the family's residence in Bremen. --Bgwiehle 13:39, 28 January 2010 (EST)

German place pages [19 October 2013]

Hello - I ran into a little problem with a German place page in my own research, which sent me down the road of examining the organization and hierarchy of all of the German place pages here at WeRelate, which has kept me busy for a few days now :) You seem to be the main person who was spearheading this effort way back when, so before I jump in and try to contribute, I wanted to touch base with you to see what the status of this project is? I have been reading a lot of the old comments spread out across various pages and as best as I can figure it out, it looks like there might still be a lot of organizational work to be done. I am happy to help. Can you give us an update on where you left off? Best Wishes. --Cos1776 20:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I participated in the WeRelate placename cleanup that took place in 2007, and completed the entries listed on the project placename lists for the countries I signed up for, including Germany.

There was a decision to use circa 1910 placename hierarchies for Europe to match FamilySearch's catalog, but that was complicated by all the Wikipedia-sourced entries using modern hierarchies - a rather significant inconsistency. I started matching historical or other language and modern placenames, but that was primarily for Silesia and Transylvania where I am familiar with the variant names and have reference works. I was discouraged when some of my work was reversed or co-opted by others. Not that they were necessarily wrong, but the instructions weren't consistently applied or were changed.

There is probably a lot that still could be done especially with historic names and hierarchies but it's hard to track something like this. You are certainly welcome to work on any places you choose. Since I am only watching places I am actually interested in, I won't be notified if my only link was the 2007 project. I see from your Contributions list that you have worked on Niedersachsen. Which other German states are you interested in and what resources are you using? Let me know if you need help with a specific placename or want suggestions for on-line resources.--Bgwiehle 15:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I can see how organizing Germany for the purposes of this environment can be very complicated. I think I can sort it out using the policy of the 1900-place. I haven't done this yet, but I was thinking that I might add a template to each place page which briefly explains why each page is set up as it is - hoping that if folks understand the policy they might be less likely to throw cogs in the wheel (one can hope, right?). Also, any policy changes that would affect all of the German pages in the future could be handled via a quick update to the template.

My biggest resources right now for organization and titling would be GOV and gemeindeverzeichnis.de since it handily organizes the places as they were in 1900 already.

I think I am clear how to handle the "former" places, but I am still not 100% sure if I am handling "modern" places correctly. I have tried a couple, and my inclination is to create one page titled as the "former" place (in 1900) and one titled as the "modern" place (post WWII) and then to use the "also located in" and "see also" boxes to link them together based on the timeline. I am also inclined to use multiple "Type" classifications for similarily titled places vs. creating separate pages for them since we are supposed to title places with a geographic hierarchy (Stadt & Kreis) vs. governmental or religious hierarchy (- a good decision, I think).

So, for example, Bröckel is/was both a municipality and a parish located first in Celle, Hannover and then, post-WWII, in Celle, Niedersachsen, so it gets 2 pages:

• Place:Bröckel, Celle, Hannover, Preußen, Germany (Type = Former Municipality, Former Parish)
• Place:Bröckel, Celle, Niedersachsen, Germany (Type = Municipality, Parish)

both with their applicable associations to Kreis, Province, Stadt, Regierungsbezirke and, in the case of the modern place, Samtgemeinde Flotwedel (after 1971).

I probably should also mention, that I am not a fan of piped Wikipedia content sitting first and foremost on a werelate page, so I am more likely to use it as a reference further on down the page after the "more relevant" genealogy-related content. :) I think doing this along with adding the policy template might help to avoid some of the confusion surrounding the inconsistencies between how we view a place vs. how they do.

If this sounds reasonable to you, I thought I would dive in and tackle Place:Preußen, Germany top-down with its contained places in a similar fashion which would lead me into Niedersachsen. I can see that this will take awhile :) --Cos1776 16:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approach, but a lot of work. You already have good resources; in addition I often check the German-language Wikipedia. The pages in the local language are usually the most complete, especially for smaller places.--Bgwiehle 03:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)