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)


Revert [11 May 2017]

Hello ! Quel est le problème ? ---> http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person%3ABuenaventura_Santiago_Rosado_%281%29&diff=23750458&oldid=23750182 - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 09:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Markus! Hope you are well. I would like to ask you the same. :) "ABT" "Abt" and "abt" are all acceptable. Most of the "ABT" that you see comes from the imported GEDCOMs, because Ancestry.com automatically changes all date entries to uppercase letters. Regards, --cos1776 10:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Question & comment [13 May 2017]

Could you contact me privately, I have a concern, I don't want to broadcast publicly. gardnerneal(at)live.com --SkippyG 18:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


Gosfield South [21 May 2017]

I removed the "from redirect" from your edit so that the three alternates are balanced. Gosfield North and the two Colchester townships need the same treatment. I think it's Colchester, but I am writing from memory. The list under Kent will tell. I think Kent County did its history a disservice when they decided to merge everything and call the county Chatham-Kent.

Am now working on New Brunswick. The Wikipedia editor provided a very good analysis from which I am trying to pick out the best bits historically. Interesting to find that Janiejac and I both have an interest in a little place named Maugerville which, until yesterday, was "unknown" in our list.

/cheers Pat --Goldenoldie 07:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


GEDCOM Export Ready [21 May 2017]

The GEDCOM for tree pedbye test 1 is ready to download. Click here.


Wikipedia inclusion [30 May 2017]

It is not like it is my preference to include wikipedia at all. That is my compromise. I would like to someone with a sincere interest in this person look at many sources and actually write a biography that would do more justice than the 3-line wikipedia summary that is more about her parents than her, and other than "educator, author and lecturer" tells us nothing about why she is prominent. There is a standard way for doing wikipedia inclusion. It has been in use for years. The way you are doing it is not it.

There is a whole separate argument about wikipedia as a source. It is not. It is not accepted in most college classes. It draws its information from other sources and has no original knowledge of the information. Originally it was posted because presumably that is where the original information was taken from, which was at the time appropriate, but now there are better sources, ones which if they differed from wikipedia would simply mean wikipedia is wrong. The gravestone alone gives all the information about birth and death posted from wikipedia. The baptism record shows her parentage. So wikipedia is not necessary as a source for the genealogy information. The inclusion offers historical context and belongs in the narrative and the standard way of doing it makes sure the legal notices are there, clearly giving credit to wikipedia.

It might be useful if you were to explain primarily why the standard inclusion doesn't suit you, and secondarily, why you think it should be a source when it is no longer being used in that way, now that more authoritative sources are cited. --Jrich 18:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. We agree on the quality of WP as a source, so no argument there. We obviously disagree on whether or not the WP intro text 1) must be transcluded when it exists and 2) must be placed in a certain location on the page.
Regarding #1, transcluding is not a requirement, but rather an available feature. I usually choose not to transclude WP, because of all of the reasons you have outlined above regarding WP as a genealogical source, and because our transclusion routine results in text that is not searchable (there are other methods by which it could be searchable). Also, a lesser concern is that WP text is dynamic. Our program only runs the retrieval once a year now, and the present method does not provide the retrieval date on the main page (standard practice for citing anything from a dynamic website). Finally, as you pointed out, the transclusion often includes extraneous info, which we usually trim from other cited sources, so transclusion is not always a good choice. Others have have been saying this same thing for a while for the WP transclusions we do on both Person and Place pages.
Regarding #2, placing WP transclusions in the "Personal history" field is also not a requirement. It is wholly appropriate to create a source citation when you are citing a source. The citation links to our internal Source:Wikipedia page, whereas the other method does not. Placing the cited text (even when transcluded) in the field designated for it is also entirely appropriate and allowed. There is no loss of legal notice or credit to Wikipedia, so that doesn't seem to be a valid argument. Frankly, I am surprised that you are advocating that the text from a source as unreliable as WP should be placed front and center on the page.
We could open up a discussion about whether or not we should retain WP citations when more robust sources have been presented. I do think there is value in the Wikidata project that is underway, so I also think there is value in providing a link to a WP page when one exists for the purposes of standardizing the identification of individuals and family relationships. --cos1776 20:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
As I said I do this as a compromise already, more or less in the community interest. If, like you, I adjusted the page to fit my way of doing things, the wikipedia inclusion would be gone, leaving at best a more-information link.
Sources were provided to support information on the page. That is currently done better by other sources on the page. Transcluding wikipedia was a process developed to provide narrative information, with little effort, to make the page look a little more mature. Obviously it is very limited in most cases, but suitable for seeding a page with quick information. Further, for well-known figures (say George Washington) it would be daunting to try and pretend one has the knowledge to write a credible biography. In other words, the only reason to reference wikipedia is exactly to provide a narrative. If one removes the narrative, there is no need to reference wikipedia any more: it has no useful function as a source, and the presence of a wikpedia page is indicated by the wikidata tag, or could be easily done with the more info template.
Regarding searching, your "compromise" negates that, but if you do keyword searching across all namespaces (i.e., the basic WeRelate search box in the upper right corner) it should search Wikipedia templates and find the text there. The cost of statically fixing the wikipedia text in a source, of course, is to lose the periodic updates since wikipedia text, like WeRelate, is not static. The updates are not run often enough - in my mind another reason why a convention based on using the more info template would make more sense. --Jrich 21:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Allow me to remind you that you are the one who started this by doing exactly that - adjusting a page to fit your way of doing things. Before the transclusion discussion came about, you removed a perfectly legitimate (and searchable, btw) citation and replaced it with citations of your own. I restored it (leaving your citations alone). You removed my citation again. That is a wiki etiquette no-no and is bound to cause friction. Had you simply added your citations without removing mine, there would be no problem here.
You say, "Sources were provided ...", yet, I didn't remove any sources, so I don't know what you mean by that.
I am fully aware of the history behind the decision to use WP text, and I agree that it is occasionally appropriate here for well-known figures. I disagree, however, that a WP link in citation has no value when the narrative is not being used. It can be compared to any other citation to a secondary source. The value depends on the quality of the source (or specific WP page) itself and whether the link can provide research leads. In fact, you yourself have argued in the past for the retention of old links and identification numbers from another website (the name escapes me), because the trees were usually well-sourced there, even when there was no narrative from that website actually posted on the page.
I don't object to the use of the more info template in certain cases either. It is silly for us to continue to go back and forth on this, since neither one of us is particularly interested in this individual page. Hopefully we do share a common goal, however, in leaving a page in place that provides accurate information and helpful links for future readers who may be very interested and willing to flesh it out. I believe that the "compromise" that exists now accomplishes that, so can we agree to leave this be now? --cos1776 00:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I started the discussion, so I suspect if there is a wiki-ettiquette non-no it is on your side. But that is not the issue here. There are 23548 person pages that transclude wikipedia. How many are there that copy the static text? I bet less than 23? I bet almost all done by you and only you. The same lack of requirement you throw at me applies to your approach but the numbers (if there was a way to count the number with static text) would undoubtedly not be in your favor. Like gender in the title field, and removing unknown from the name fields, you are inventing new ways to do things and then getting mad, when, surprise, people don't honor them because they don't understand why, don't agree with the changes, and they're not like other pages. --Jrich 01:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Please allow me to interject here - and forgive me for not completely following the thread above - there are quite a lot of things we could do with MediaWiki (Wikidata and the various language versions of Wikipedia). Since I'm in the process of establishing the Wikidata ids via template on every Person page that's associated with Wikipedia - we're going to be in a position to easily and systematically scan what's done for all of those pages, how often, etc. If someone wants to lobby for standard treatment then - we can do it on an informed basis. Until we have some objective information on what's presently done - as well as things that others want to try to accomplish - I don't think there's any point in getting wound up about this. --jrm03063 14:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Wanted pages [23 June 2017]

We have been discussing the "Wanted Pages" lately, but I can't remember where the thread was put. There are some entries on the list that make me curious, but I hesitate to inspect them further. If I can't fix them, how do they get back on the Wanted Pages list? One is #24: "Source:Westmoreland County e-services ‎(167 links)". Just where is this Westmoreland County? I know of two Westmorland Counties (without an "e")--one in England and one in New Brunswick, Canada, but the county name may have been used--with an "e"--in the States as well.

Your comments? --Goldenoldie 15:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Likely Westmoreland, Pennsylvania, United States. Oops. Westmoreland, Virginia, United States, also. Neal--SkippyG 15:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean the thread on WeRelate talk:Place patrol? I have found that these types of entry errors are usually made consistently by one or two users, so I will usually spend a little time browsing their tree(s) to get a general idea of the location of the families. Then I try to find some sources to corroborate their dates/places, and then go from there. I agree with you that it can be difficult to tell sometimes what the original poster meant. As a last resort, you could leave the Place field empty and move the text to the Description field with something like "Westmoreland County (state, country not specified)". But, I would be willing to bet that some of the attached pages can yield good clues. Hope that helps and thank you for keeping at it! :) --cos1776 15:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the help with "Source:Westmoreland County e-services". I just had a look at Wanted Pages again and noted all the crossed-through items. Congratulations on hard work. I did notice #82: "At sea." Several years ago User:Pgeekstra (apologies if I didn't get that right) decided that "At sea" was a reasonable place to include on the database. I hope it stays that way. --Goldenoldie 18:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"At Sea" is still legal; the red entries just need the case corrected. I just did about a dozen. And then I discovered a null edit suffices, just "edit" and "save". --pkeegstra 19:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The "Edit" and "Save" approach can be very useful. I often go through the redirects on a placename's "What links here" list and bring in a whole lot more links to People and Families that way. --Goldenoldie 05:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Someone in 2014 added Place: "Mediterranean Sea" as a dependent of "At Sea". The map cursor is planted in a large blue background.--SkippyG 20:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, "Mediterranean Sea" (or "At Sea") should be considered valid Placenames. They denote locations that are definable (in a generalized sense, such as a state or country) and are used to connote possible locations of key life events (such as birth, baptism, marriage, death or burial at sea during a voyage) that many not be known by another more specific location. --BobC 19:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed that among the top dozen Wanted Pages now are multiple MySources that were Speedy Deleted by one of the system administrators, but are still referenced in the linked person pages as source citations for the fact events entered. For the multiple person pages I checked, those linked person pages are still active, but because the MySource was deleted, the source citation now shows in red as containing no information because of the deletion action. So now the red-linked MySource becomes a Wanted Page.

So this brings up some questions in my mind:

  1. Were the referenced and imported GEDCOM files (identified as MySources) deleted because the data file itself was deleted (or removed) at the importer's request? Or is this a maintenance and clean-up action conducted independently by the system administrator?
  2. Relating to the SysAdmin action, is having only one user watching a MySource considered adequate and justifiable reason to Speedy Delete the source?
  3. Once deleted (if the action is considered valid), should it then show up as a Wanted Page?

Please opine or advise. --BobC 17:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you have to look at each case individually to find the answers to why a MySource page was deleted and whether or not it was the appropriate choice. Since most of these date back to the beginning, I would venture a guess that either the Admins didn't understand the process or there might have been a decision made way back when to use the Wanted pages list to flag pages in need of further editing to remove the undesired citation links. Nowadays, I examine all Sources coming in and exclude those that only refer to personal trees or files, so these types of MySource pages and links are not generated. However, I can not speak for all of the reviewers, so some might still be coming in. --cos1776 19:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't fault the sysadmins or volunteers from doing what they needed to do to perform maintenance and clean-up. I think it is a system fault that allows deletion of information that connects to other data or pages. The system then moves the deleted link to the "Wanted Pages" list because it connects to other pages without having its own content. --BobC 18:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Interesting thought! I could imagine either something like a pop up that warns you if the page you are about to delete still has links to it or the ability to remove all links at once from each affected page. The latter would solve the issue, and I think it is what some admins think is happening when they delete a MySource. Either that or, as I have wondered, they may have been told to delete MySources in this way, specifically so that they would appear on the Wanted pages list. I don't know the answer, so I asked an admin who has been around for a while. I am awaiting a response. --cos1776 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Re: #2 - I would say that the decision to delete any page should be based on the circumstances and not on the number of watchers. I have deleted some pages with multiple watchers if it came in via GEDCOM a long time ago, there were no sources, the watchers are inactive, and/or it is too far back, etc. --cos1776 19:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Understand. I agree that the circumstances should take priority over the number "watchers," but the level of activity of users watching these pages should be considered also. Relating specifically to GEDCOMS, the MySource Page Portal states: "When you upload a GEDCOM, all of your sources with title fields are listed as MySources, whether or not they meet the above criteria. You have the option when you review your GEDCOM to link your sources to the community Sources and to edit your MySource pages." So that tells me that GEDCOMs are and should be considered valid MySources. --BobC 18:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you may be reading too much into that quoted sentence which likely dates to before the auto-matching program was in place. I think it is simply explaining how the program used to work. Before being updated, all matching had to be done by hand. This can be a tedious task, so many people took the easy way out and simply left all of their sources as MySources. This is why so many older trees only cite MySources. It is also true that in the beginning, the admins doing the reviewing were hesitant to exclude any sources, regardless of the quality. That is why so many older trees cite things like personal GEDCOM files, Ancestry Family Trees, IGI, etc. Nowadays, the review program will do its best to auto-match the incoming sources to our existing source database first with relatively good success. Whatever it can't match gets left to the user (preferred) or to the reviewer (usually) to decide if it can be matched, if it should remain as a MySource, or if it should be excluded from entry. Citations to personal GEDCOM files are usually denied now, so there is no need to remove them page-by-page later. --cos1776 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Re: #3 - The best way to stop the creation of undesired MySource pages or citation links to them is to catch them before they are imported. If they make it in, there is currently no other way to resolve them, except to manually edit each page as we do now. Once all links are resolved, the MySource page will automatically disappear from the "Wanted pages" list, because there are no longer any other pages trying to link to it. I hope this makes sense? --cos1776 19:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Had to read this one a few times to digest and attempt to comprehend it. Not sure I do in full, but thanks for your response. --BobC 18:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I had to think about it awhile, but I came up with a way to remove the deleted MySource page links from the Wanted Pages listing. I redirected those old MySource pages to a new pages entitled MySource:Inactive or Deleted Data. Hope that helps clean up the listing without affecting the ability to restore those individual pages (if ever necessary or desired) or to further manipulate the person pages for which the deleted files were cross-referenced. --BobC 17:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the best approach. Unless there is a second step planned to fix the links, you are just moving the problem to a different page that most admins won't know about. Clearing page titles off the Wanted pages list is not the primary goal. The primary goal is to ensure that data is entered into the correct data field and in an acceptable format. If we resolve the bad data entries, the Wanted pages list clears itself.
Creating (or undeleting) and then redirecting page titles does not solve the problem of bad data entries on each linked page. This is especially true when redirecting Place page titles, because it lessens the efficiency of our search engine. (ex. click "Browse Smith in Neshoba" (left menu) for Person:Abigail Smith (55) - her page does not get returned because the search engine is looking for the redirect and not for the original entry that is still in her Place field).
For MySources, the concern is a little different. If it is not a valid source, then I don't think we should restore the link to a page that says that it may not be a valid source. That seems like an unnecessary middle step. Why is that better than removing the undesired citations from the linked pages? I get that it is easier, but it doesn't really solve the problem. --cos1776 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and while it may not have been the literally correct approach or ultimately ideal solution, at this point it may be better and simply more feasible than tackling that "second step" you mention which would be to evaluate individually and edit all 5,108 links related to these 17 deleted pages that really were of no concern to anyone besides the handful of us who monitor some of these more unknown special pages and perform maintenance on some of the problems areas identified in those WeRelate pages since the pages they point to seem to have been abandoned by the folks who submitted them and of no concern to anyone else.
While the process I used may have appeared to do so in an indirect way, the function I performed did not really restore the pages, only redirected the deleted source pages to one page reflecting the deletion action previously performed (which may or may not have been appropriate and functional since the page then appeared in the Wanted Pages listing, and actually may have been a valid MySource page at the time created as previously stated) and explain the systemic processing and linking problem inherent in the system. Only by removing the 5108 undesired source citations from all of the linked person pages would have truly allowed complete deletion of the MySource pages. Are any of us prepared to do that?
Appreciate your feedback. Thanks again. --BobC 03:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I know it is tedious work, but there are a handful of dedicated users who are actively pecking away at this all the time (even tracking the progress). Absent a programming improvement to make this process easier, we have to work with the current hand we are dealt. Since folks usually go to the Wanted pages list to see what needs to be done, let's see if we can come up with a way to "redirect" them now to the pages you have created, MySource:Inactive or Deleted Data and Place:Inappropriate placename usage (any others?), so they don't miss the ones that have been removed from the list.
For the Place name redirects, I would encourage you to either put them back onto the list (remove redirect and delete the page) or print out/screenshot the current list now, before the titles disappear this weekend, so that you/we can know which ones still need to be addressed. I made this same mistake initially with redirecting some Place names, so I have my own little list that I am slowly working to resolve - mostly Norwegian and German places.
I try to remain optimistic that we can eventually have a better method to fix the old bad links and prevent new ones from being entered. I have also put in a suggestion for an update to the left menu Browse search, so that we will be able to simply redirect the bad Place names. Please consider voting for this suggestion if you agree. Thanks, --cos1776 11:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Parents? [13 June 2017]

What is the source of this William being the son of Daniel Mays? According to Joseph Barron Chandler Jr, “The Reverend William Mease: Forgotten Hero of Early Virginia,” Tidewater Virginia Families, vol 10, this William was probably Daniel's brother.

Would be interested in further discussion of William and Mary Mattox. Much conflicting information online. --KayS 02:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a link for ease of locating the page you are referring to above? Thanks. --BobC 05:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

probably Family:William Mayes and Mary Mattox (2) --Jrich 13:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

KayS - please see Person talk:William Mayes (36) for response. Thanks, --cos1776 14:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

My Source Pages [22 June 2017]

Hello, I am curious where this discussion about Wanted pages has taken place. --Susan Irish 04:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Try Page Portal. --Goldenoldie 08:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Good morning! Yes, there is some here on my talk page and some on the WeRelate talk:Place patrol. Thanks, --cos1776 11:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Please review my note above relating to the MySource links. --BobC 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, BobC. I have inserted comments above. --cos1776 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)