User talk:Cos1776

Topics


Welcome to my 2017 Talk Page

If you have a comment or question about a specific WeRelate page (Person, Family, etc.) that I am watching, please leave your message on the Talk page there. That way anyone who shares an interest can be included in the discussion.

I am happy to correspond on this page about general things or other pages that I am not watching. To leave me a message, select Add topic from the menu on the left.

If you leave a message here, I will respond here as well, so that we can keep the messages together.

If you wish to send me a private email, please select more> Email this user from the menu on the left.
Thanks and Best Wishes! --cos1776 02:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

My Talk page Archives (2009-2015)


Support patrol text 20 Jan 2017 [21 January 2017]

The following point needs stressing:

"For sources found at Ancestry.com or other commercial websites, add a link to the relevant Ancestry page. This is especially important if the source cited is exclusive to Ancestry.com."

"Relevant" is a very important word here, particularly when it comes to census quotations. Too often users have copied the reference at the bottom of the Ancestry page (the one that leads to the image). When used, this leads to the Ancestry home/welcome page (which isn't very useful). We need a form of words for getting around this. People should be reminded that if they quote the details on the top of the census, then it should be able to be checked using any agency. "Data obtained through the facilities of Ancestry.com" really ought to keep Ancestry happy. Perhaps we should suggest that users quote the Ancestry "Collection Name", just like they ought to with FamilySearch.

There are no census templates for any other countries than the US. Canada and UK censuses ask for fewer details and templates might be easy to set up by someone who knows how to make them.

This may or may not have to do with sources: Some users don't understand the citing part of the Person page and use the text area instead to add biographical detail. But no one has told them that, in our software, double, triple or tabbed spaces are equivalent to a single space and a space at the beginning of a line leads to printing the data in Courier script. I expect these facts will be going into our new users guide, but it might be worth considering duplicating it under Source patrol.

Please don't ask me to join the Source Patrol. I'm busy enough with Places. But fixing red-lined places on Person pages (something I do to break the monotony) leads to all sorts of problems that have to be sorted ad infinitum.

regards, --Goldenoldie 21:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The link to ancestry.com is hardly more than a free ad for Ancestry. Personally I think every link to ancestry.com should be flagged comparably to no sources at all, i.e., help improve WeRelate by replacing this link. In the U.S. where I do most of my work, the vast majority of Ancestry citations can be replaced by links to free websites. Documents before 1923 are not copyrightable. Even if ancestry owns the scanned image (doubtful, probably borrowed from the Mormon Church, Ancestry only providing an index in many cases), they don't own the content which they did not author, and was actually written so long ago it is not copyrightable, and therefore it can be transcribed verbatim without violating copyright. --Jrich 03:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I am going to venture a guess that the original suggestion is referring to content on WeRelate:Source patrol. Please correct me if that is not the case. I couldn't agree more that the content there and on most of the other patrol pages is due for an update. There is currently a large scale project underway to revise and reorganize Help content across the site. It is not quite ready to be open for comments yet, but it includes this type of instructional text, so your suggestions are timely and welcome. As we finalize the reorganization plan, we will turn our attention to the content details of each page. We intend to review all previous comments and ask for new ones to incorporate what we have learned over the years. To make sure that your suggestions are not overlooked, could I respectfully ask you to re-post them onto the talk page for that patrol? That way we can discuss and incorporate them there and the history stays together. Respectfully, --cos1776 12:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I was quoting from your draft on the new introduction to Source Patrol that you put up yesterday. --Goldenoldie 16:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not my text. It dates back to the 2012 beginning of the page. I did edit the page yesterday, but it was only to add a new volunteer to the patrol. --cos1776 17:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Date Format [6 February 2017]

I've seen that work was being done on date format specifications. Forgive me for not paying detailed attention on that - am I correct in assuming that it's a subset of the last non-XML GEDCOM format? I didn't think anything else would really cut it...

--jrm03063 22:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Still within 5.5.(1) limitations (and ambiguity), but then again, aren't most other g-programs as well? --cos1776 23:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Kind of what I thought - just wanted to be sure. It seems like WR relies on GEDCOM's extent (and limitations) - which I think is fine for the most part. --jrm03063 23:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [6 February 2017]

You're not done yet!

Now that you have uploaded William Thomas 2.ged into our review program, it is time for you to match your data to ours. Your next step is to review and resolve any potential warnings that your file might be showing and to match place names, source names and families to pages that may already exist in our database.

Notes:

  • You must complete all the steps before your GEDCOM can be considered for import. - We will keep your file in the queue for two months to give you time to finish, and you do not have to finish all at once.
  • If you did not follow the instructions for preparing your data before uploading your file or if your file does not contain at least one date and place for each person with sources, it is likely that your file will be rejected.
  • Volunteers are here to help. Please read the instructions first, but if you get stuck or have any questions, you can leave a message on the page for the GEDCOM review team. One of our volunteers will respond shortly.
  • Once you have completed the review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import on the last screen, one of our volunteer administrators will review the file again and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24-48 hours. Please allow a little extra time around the holidays. When the import is finalized, you will receive a follow up message here on your Talk page.

Click here to enter the review program
You will see more instructions once you are in.

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


--WeRelate agent 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

William Thomas 2.ged Imported Successfully [6 February 2017]

Congratulations! The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully.

Now you can:

For questions or problems, leave a message for the volunteers on our GEDCOM review team.


--WeRelate agent 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

New contributor ... but [17 February 2017]

Hello ! Please, see this : http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Aphrodip

Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

ok, thanks. --cos1776 14:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Keffer family [1 March 2017]

You have been making changes to the Ephraim Keffer family of Hespeler, Ontario.

I thought you might be interested in a bit of background information. A few year ago I discovered this Ontario branch of the Keffer family in WeRelate. I am not related to them (at least, I didn't think so when I started) and decided that since I knew where to find all the sources, perhaps I ought to clean up and expand the entries which had originally been hazily entered by an American member of the family.

In Ontario genealogical circles the name Keffer is well known because Marian Keffer was one of the founding members of the Ontario Genealogical Society. She was a single lady who died a number of years ago, but she is remembered in a prize given annually by the OGS in a contest to find the best essay on family history, with citations being one of the most important parts of the presentation.

The Keffer family arrived in Ontario from Pennsylvania in the late 1700s. There were two brothers, each with a large family and when the grandchildren couldn't find any other settlers to marry, they married their second cousins once removed! I was able to trace them up to the early 20th century and then was forced to stop, not only because of WR's deceased only rule, but because Ontario BMDs and Canadian censuses have secrecy rules that forbid publication of more recent details.

Looking at the date of birth for Unknown/Living Keffer (female), I am quite sure her name could be found in the 1911 census, but that wasn't available when I did the research. But if her name turns out to be Marian, you know why I left her out.

How did I find the Keffers were related to me? The sister of my 3x great grandmother married a man named Quantz and two of his sisters married Keffers. You see what I mean about second cousins once removed.

If the Overview committee has been communicating lately, I'm afraid I have missed it. Computer problems have erased vital information from time to time.

Regards --Goldenoldie 17:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. It is nice to hear from you. Thank you for the background. It is interesting and always fun to learn about these folks. I am not related. I just stumbled upon the family group while trying to resolve one of the "Living" pages. Since I had the other family members right in front of me, I thought I would go ahead and enter the records for them. I was hoping to be able to figure out which sister was the one who married, but no luck there in the shallow digging I did. Please feel free to have a crack at it. Your knowledge on the family (and the Canadian records) far surpasses mine. :) Best wishes, --cos1776 17:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

John / Jehu Hawkins & Sarah (Hawkins) [8 March 2017]

I am assuming that you entered this families data. Please contact me re additions & needed changes. Phil Hawkins, phil_hawkins@sbcglobal.net--PA 15:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure to which page you are referring. Can you provide a link? Thanks, --cos1776 16:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit of Person:John Rogers (43) [10 March 2017]

I was just glancing at the edit(s) that led to the automatic email received a couple of days ago. I am glad to see that some changes have been made given the glaring errors I found on discovering the page a couple of months ago. But I am wondering if Smithfield should be considered as a place in our database. It is basically a meat market (still there--aroma evident on the walk from the Underground to the Society of Genealogists), but notorious for the capital and corporal punishments which went on there centuries ago. Our places database can include cemeteries and some castles, but should we include places of execution?

I had a look at our entry for Tyburn (which took over from Smithfield by the 18th century) and have altered its location, but nothing else. Tyburn is a little bit different because it was a village.

I must get brave and have another look at London sometime soon. When I got to the old City of London and its myriad of churches (each was a parish with a parish register, most still available), I was stymied as to how to present them. Some churches were just up the street from the next one--and then they merged using the names of both churches jointly, and then added a third, etc.

We should be persuade our users to follow the timeline:

  • until 1899 outside the City of London: "place, [name of the county (Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Essex)], England",
  • from 1900 to 1965: "place, [name of] Metropolitan Borough, London, England" for the areas that were absorbed then. (See the [[Image:Greater London.png|map of Greater London]] available on many pages)
  • since 1965: "place, [name of] London Borough, Greater London, England"

I can't see how to follow the three-part rule that we are supposed to use outside the US and Canada for post-1900 era unless we insist that areas and localities within the boroughs are omitted.

Just some thoughts. I'll get back to sorting out the county of Kent now.

/cheers, --Goldenoldie 11:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you re: Smithfield. Let's turn it over to the Place patrol for a decision.
Re: the naming of Place pages in the London area post-1900 - I understand what you are saying, and it makes logical sense, if you were to go down the road of creating Place pages for the many nuances of the local government authorities in the London area since 1900. I was not aware of a decision made by the Place Patrol or the OC to treat England differently from other countries with regards to the geographical 1900-rule. I can not find that decision discussed on the Patrol's talk page or Help:Place pages. Can you fill me in? Thanks, --cos1776 14:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Yes, Smithfield needs to go to the Place patrol (of which I am a member).

The Metropolitan Boroughs of London and the later London Boroughs were given their places in WR about a year ago. They are set up properly so that both Westminster, Middlesex, England, and Westminster (London Borough), Greater London, England, go to the right of the pipe and the left of the pipe automates to Westminster, London, England. This is a problem that work on the US hasn't had to contend with. Because I cut my teeth in WR working on places in Ontario, Canada, which had name changes in 1840 and 1867, I gradually figured out what had to be done. What was bothering me earlier today is what happens when a user wants to refer to an area in Greater London that is not a London Borough, but part of one. If the event occurs in, say, Highgate before 1900 the user can say Highgate, Middlesex, England, but if the event occurs after 1900 the user really ought to say St. Pancras, London, England (for 1900-1965) or Haringey, Greater London, England (for after 1965) and shift Highgate to the description box. Yes, it's getting confusing.

Problems like these do not only apply to London or even to the UK. Have we ever tried to tackle what I still think of as Yugoslavia? And one of our French-speaking users has been confounded with a post-WW2 reorganization that occurred in France.

I tried to interest the Place patrol in this problem when it first came up a year or two ago, but no interest was shown so I decided to sort it out for myself. When I was working on London, Dallan came along and asked if I was having any problems and I pointed out that a list of sources for, say, Highgate, Middlesex would not link to the continuing group for Highgate, London, without relocating every source individually (I am talking about lists of over 100 sources for each well-populated area.) He rewrote a bit of program and now they do.

This same bit of programming now allows hamlets anywhere to be redirected to the township or parish in which they are located. In "What links here" there are redirected placenames. If one of these is clicked and then re-saved, the name shows up in the "Also known as" box. This is a very handy way to indicate variable spellings. Some of the Family History Library Catalog variables shown in the "Also known as" box have never been redirected. I amend these as I find them.

We may tend to think that most entries people make will consider events of the centuries before the 20th. But as time goes on this is getting to be less so.

/cheers, Goldenoldie


John/Jehu Wilson & Sarah (Hawkins) [10 March 2017]

Re John Wilson (432), Alt. name Jehu

I assume(ed) you originated this family. Sarah is my 1st cousin 6x removed.

All Hinshaw records refer to this family a Jehu & Sarah (Hawkins) Wilson. John should be changed to Jehu, and Maybe John has an alternate name, though I think that that would be incorrect. My feeling is that the cursive Jehu in the old records was incorrectly recognized as John. A rapidly scribbled letter e can look very much like an o, and the letter u like an n. In a family Bible copy sheet that I have it would be very easy to have misread it for "John."

It is my intention to add to Sarah's personal area data that I have later today, including the Hinshaw references.

A side note, is it possible to word wrap around picture in that area. If so how or where are instructions.

Phil Hawkins--PA 15:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Now I understand. I will respond on his talk page, Person talk:John Wilson (432), in a few minutes. --cos1776 15:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Cateogry Links [13 March 2017]

Please take note of my discussion topic I sent to User:Khaentlahn on his Talk Page under the topic entitled Categories for Speedy Delete. A page edit he performed recently removed over two dozen active linked Surname Categories that I made when I created the page 8 years ago. He has also performed a number of other edits related to WR cemetery pages that seem to be useful improvements but for which I have not fully evaluated yet due to my time constraints. His comment that surname category pages are "obsolete" also seems to me to be a personal observation rather than a community or management decision, and should not be used as a basis for making multiple edits affecting pages created and used by others. Was there a separate discussion on this topic for which I am not aware? --BobC 13:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well... setting my personal opinions aside ... I am not aware of any official decision to actively remove Categories from pages where they already exist. Categories have been discussed before, and, as a I recall, the only decision made was to leave them alone for now, since there are still a few users who want to use and maintain them. Is Khaentlahn or anyone else aware of a decision otherwise? --cos1776 14:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

GEDCOM stuck again?? [26 March 2017]

I've just posted a query on Dallan's talk page because a GEDCOM is taking so long again. But I don't know how often he even reads his talk page notices anymore. Should I send a direct email instead? Once a GEDCOM is delayed, I find something else to do and it is sometimes hard to get back to reviewing it. I wonder how many folks try to upload and then never get back for the review process??? Any statistics on that?? --janiejac 19:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would recommend that you send him an email. That is usually a better way to reach him now. I wouldn't say that this is a common occurrence, at least not until this week when it has happened twice to you. I'm sorry you're experiencing some difficulties. The other times it has been fixed with a server reboot, so hopefully that is all that is needed again. Since I began working with the uploads, I have frequently reached out to Users who never return to do the next steps to actually get the pages created. Most never respond or take the help that is offered to them, so it certainly isn't for lack of outreach or support. I am happy to help anyone who needs it. --cos1776 20:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The parents of John Langdon (1747-1793) [30 March 2017]

Hi--

Just wanted to say, as a brand new user, thanks for looking over my material and helping me to integrate it here.

When I was doing my initial review of possible matches, it was suggested that the John Langdon, husband of Mary Walley, was a possible match. I didn't know quite how to respond, as yes, that is the John Langdon, and Mary Walley, from my Gedcom, and upon whom I have done much detailed research, but the parents as listed on WeRelate are wrong. The true parents, per multiple resources, are Nathaniel Langdon (1695-1757), and his wife Abigail Harris (1717-1792). Because the WeRelate page states his parents were a Lewis Langdon and his wife Rachel, I put "not a match" and figured I'd bring attention to this after my Gedcom was accepted. But since you're looking at this now, there's no time like the present. Note, aside from any question of sources, quality of citations, etc, John's daughter was Abigail Harris Langdon, showing a clear tie to his mother, Abigail Harris. Hence, not Lewis or Rachel.

I have an extensive ancestry of these people, but did not upload it out of respect for your policy of not importing people who date before 1750. I can also point interested parties to a detailed article from the NEHGS Register on this couple.

To recap, thank you very much for your help, and with your guidance, together we can clear up this error.

All best,--W4h2t7c6 17:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

EDIT TO ADD: A quick internet search reveals that Lewis Langdon and Rachel Cooley, the parents listed on WeRelate, indeed had a son John, born 1745, and who probably died in 1828. So it appears someone confused the two Johns. I have removed the John noted above, i.e. the husband of Mary Walley, from the incorrect family, and added back in a new John, b. 1745. I also found Nathaniel and Abigail in the Werelate database and have added them as parents to the proper John Langdon, i.e. the husband of Mary Walley, to prevent this mistake from being repeated.

Hello and welcome! I am in receipt of your message, but cannot delve into the particulars too much at the moment as I am traveling. Finishing up the review and upload of your file was one of the things that I wanted to get done before going out of town, so I am also glad that it was completed. Your file was one of the better ones that I have seen lately, so thank you for taking the time to include your sources. I will try to take a closer look at the pages surrounding the families above in the next couple of days, but from your description, it sounds like you handled the resolution of the incorrect parents appropriately. If I see anything amiss, I'll let you know. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions. Best Wishes, --cos1776 01:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"Links to other websites are not allowed" [8 April 2017]

In response: I have seen this message in response to various attempts to add sources, either within the articles or using any other method. Actually I even get it when trying to mention an example URL editing here on your talk page. For some time the first article I have tried working on has been on William Hastings (1). I attempted to make the sourcing more clear by referring to the Early English Books project website run by Michigan University, which is the handiest way to cite Dugdale, who should be indicated as the main/only source for some of the facts on that article. Today I made a return to make a new effort and eventually succeeded, to make a repository entry for that website, but even to cite using that repository entry you should cite a URL.--Andrew Lancaster 12:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Cemeteries for Leeds [19 April 2017]

Hi
I see you have added a cemetery to [[Place:Leeds (metropolitan borough), West Yorkshire, England]]. As is explained on said page the Metropolitan Borough of Leeds only came into existence in 1974. The two cemeteries listed are far older and would be better linked to the [[Place:Leeds, West Riding of Yorkshire, England]] page which deals with the city for the greater part of its existence.

At least I hope the two cemeteries were in Leeds before 1974. Without doing a fair bit of researching on a part of the country I don't know well, I can only hope so. They may have been in one or two of the outside parishes that became part of the "big city" in 1974!

This is one of the difficulties for family historians of the huge reorganization of administrations that occurred throughout the island of Great Britain 3/4 of the way through the last century. It's taken ages for me to get my head around it, and I can sympathize with those of you living in different countries where there hasn't been such significant change.

I'll try and alter the place of these two cemeteries later in the day, but I can't get around to it immediately. Personally I tend not to add cemeteries to lists of places.

On another topic, I am trying to draft a different way of presenting UK county pages--grouping together all the administrative districts that occurred over the centuries (hundreds, registration districts, county and municipal boroughs, urban and rural districts, and the post-1974 non-metropolitan and metropolitan districts); and then listing the local ancient and civil parishes in one long alphabetical list, possibly as a table to show the various districts they were in over the centuries. There are too many different types of places on county pages. Mis-spelling places has led to numerous duplicated entries. The draft is in its very early stages. I welcome comments, but don't expect a completed task any time soon.

/cheers, Pat --Goldenoldie 09:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems exactly why the 1900 rule was set up and this problem seems to be a direct result of abandoning that rule. After all the location on earth hasn't changed, only the ephemeral names assigned to that place by man. The question is, are we naming the location of the cemetery as it was when the person was buried, or when the descendant visits/visited the grave, the latter event very possibly occurring sometime after 1974? --Jrich 14:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
For reference, the pages in question were part of the place matching exercise that is done during a GEDCOM import. We would have to do some digging and re-read all of the discussions that took place regarding the 1900s rule to see if cemeteries were specifically addressed. I've spent time this morning doing some of that and was not able to find a definite answer. Most of the titling discussions concern whether or not cemetery titles should be restricted to the county level, but all discussions indicated that modern/current location names were used in the title and that matches pretty much everything that I have seen here. If someone did specify that cemetery page titles should also be restricted to their 1900 place name, that must not have been very well thought out. From a practical standpoint, we should title cemetery pages in such a way as to make them easiest to find and link to, since that is the whole point of creating them in the first place. By far, the majority of place names coming in for cemeteries (both manually and via GEDCOM) are those that match the title in Find A Grave (i.e modern place name), which is also the most-cited source for internment locations and photos here now and most likely going forward. This is not an endorsement of the reliability of general cemetery information on Find A Grave, but rather an observation of the reality following years of cleaning up pages and importing GEDCOMs that are produced from many different types of genealogy programs and sites that cover the globe. Cemetery pages with titles that differ too much from the Find A Grave title are more likely to remain hidden from our Search results and therefore inadvertently duplicated. So, you then have time spent searching for and not finding the correct page, followed by time spent creating a duplicate, followed by time spent finding and cleaning up the duplicate later. If we keep this in perspective and remember that we are talking about the page title and not the actual contents of the WR page (which can and should note and correct errors posted at Find A Grave), it seems to me that it is logical to avoid re-inventing the wheel and keep it simple and easy for our users to do what we want them to do. These would all be good topics to discuss on either WeRelate talk:Place patrol or Portal talk:Cemetery, if anyone would like to start some discussions there. --cos1776 16:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Amsley family [28 April 2017]

Thanks for your help

EKBDVA--EKBDVA 13:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)