User talk:Dallan

From WeRelate

Edit this page to leave me a message.

Old topics archived in User talk:Dallan/Archive 2007 and User talk:Dallan/Archive 2008

Topics

[add comment] [edit topic]

Multiple uploads [8 April 2008]

Dallan. User Jrm3063 has been editing some of my pages so his/her talk page is on my watch list. I noticed that he/she had started merging pages for Richard,I of Normandy and Gunnora. This piqued my interest so I took a look at them and I discovered that a user, Tjlamb had uploaded a Gedcom including this family some 80 times during a 3 hour period on Nov 14,2007. Is there some way to remove this stuff in one fell swoop rather than merging thousands of articles? In addition to this, the information is badly flawed. I believe the genealogy of ancient and/or historical persons should be restricted to scholarly constructed data, if it is to be included at all on this site. What is your opinion on including mythical genealogies such as that from the Anglo Saxon Chronicles, Merovingian descents and descents from Adam and Eve, etc.? I firmly believe they should be excluded or relegated to their own site. Rather than repeat the work of others more capable than we, I would for example, simply include a source reference. A wonderful example is Steward Baldwins "Henry Project" at http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/henry.htm this is a competently researched and well documented work. Rather than copy it or compete with it, it seems better to reference it. It might be worth archiving it just in case something happens to Stewarts site.--Scot 18:17, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi, I tried searching WeRelate for user "Tjlamb", but the only reference I could find to tjlamb was on this page. Could you check the spelling and let me know? We're supposed to detect and stop a single user from uploading overlapping GEDCOM's, so I'm interested to check into this. If it turns out that we didn't detect the overlap in this case, I can delete entire trees at a time pretty easily.

Good, this is the sort of thing that could cause this site to end up a jumble of misinformation like most of the the other online databases. I am hopeful that doesn't happen, and that it becomes a data base of constant improvement.--Scot 12:50, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
If I could jump in for a sec. The "Tjlamb" being referred to (not sure of the spelling either) is the user that had a large gedcom (17.5 mb) that wouldn't upload and you had to increase the size limit for him. That could be part of the problem perhaps. He uploaded his gedcom and haven't seen him online since. --Ronni 12:19, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Sorry it's Thomasjlamb, somehow I shortened it in my mind. He uploaded every few minutes for over 3 hours on that one afternoon.--Scot 12:26, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
I think rather than uploading every few minutes, you're seeing different timestamps on the pages because it took the GEDCOM uploader several hours to import the GEDCOM.--Dallan 12:33, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't think so,user jrm03063 commented "How could 4 submitters generate 70 pages for a single family?, arrgh" I then looked at a single person, "Gonnor De Crepon" (properly Gunnora) and found 88 pages for her, 80 of them submiited by thomasjlamb with time stamps spread over the 3 hour period. I noticed several othe individuals with lots of duplicates as well, but didn't delve into them. I see that jrm03063 has already redirected alot of them, but I am not sure if he/she realizes the magnitude of the task before him/her. If you look at the page Family:William Longsword and Sporte De Bretagne (3) ( Guillaume/William I "of Normandy" Sprota) you will see multiple alternates for each family member all submitted by Mr. lamb.--Scot 13:18, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

User name is User:Thomasjlamb --Ronni 12:20, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Ok, I see this now, but it looks like he uploaded just one GEDCOM. Is the issue that there are a lot of duplicate pages for the same individual within this GEDCOM, or that the GEDCOM contains one duplicate page for a lot of different individuals? Could you give some example duplicate page titles?--Dallan 12:29, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

As far as including mythical or biblical genealogies, I like to let the community discuss questions about content. Perhaps you could initiate a discussion on this topic on the watercooler?

Regarding including well-documented early genealogies, I'm all for that, although I'd prefer to create wiki pages for them so that people could link their genealogies to those wiki pages. There are a number of possible options. I know that the LDS Church has/had a "Medieval Unit" whose responsibility was to come up with a "gold standard" for pre-1600 genealogies for certain European countries. If there's a way to get a hold of that and generate wiki pages based upon that information, or generate wiki pages based upon other well-documented sources so that people could merge/replace the early genealogies that they upload with well-documented wiki pages for those people, that seems ideal. We could possibly even mark those pages as "protected" so that they couldn't be edited except by system administrators if there was a group of people willing to manage these pages.--Dallan 11:15, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

The only way I know how to access the data from the Medieval families Committee is from the Ancestral File submitters info which is buried in the AF. They provided no source documentation when they uploaded the data. I know that Paul Reed resigned over the"Gold Standard" issue. Some Committee members were willing to include anthing that could be found in a book, and we all know that a lot of spurious information has been published. Paul insisted that that criterion was not good enough. Perhaps someone there in Salt Lake knows how to get a hold of their work and the source documentation for it. I have seen a lot of data in the AF on Medieval Portugal submitted by a Pat Ward of the "MDC" As far as creating Wiki pages from sources such as Stewart Baldwin's site, I'm not certain how that would work due to copyright issues. How much is fair use?--Scot 12:50, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
It looks like all of Thomasjlamb's duplicates were all part of the same GEDCOM upload. He only uploaded the GEDCOM once, and we don't check for duplicates within a GEDCOM. Based upon the large number of duplicates within the GEDCOM, I'd be ok with removing the GEDCOM. I'd just need to let Thomasjlamb know what I'm doing and why.
Regarding creating pages from other sites, you can't copyright facts, so I don't think it's a matter of copyright. We ought to get permission though, and we would want to provide a link to where we got the information from. Regarding the Medieval Unit, I'll try to contact someone in that group.--18:56, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

Norman genealogy and the lamb upload fiasco... [15 April 2008]

I meant well, in trying to merge all this junk down, but I'm afraid it's a total beast. I've certainly merged over a 1000 pages already, and there seem to be plenty left. It looks to me like what the user in question did, was to fully duplicate Norman genealogy for a number of his ancestors that may have gone back that far.

I'm afraid that my efforts at merging may actually get in the way of you clearing things away. I don't want to "unwatch" my complete set of stuff, but if you wanted to unwatch any page of mine that was in a lamb tree (so the delete would go through) that would be just fine.

How about if I delete the pages in his GEDCOM that you are not watching? That should remove all of the pages you haven't already merged, right?--Dallan 18:56, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, it couldn't make things worse...
The tree is being deleted right now. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. I hope to have "match" and "merge" buttons for individual people and families (not for entire trees - that will take longer) by the end of the month.--Dallan 13:38, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Any chance we can leverage the code that detects whether a person is living to detect whether they have a pre-1600 birthdate? I don't think we need to preclude pre-1600 genealogy altogether, or require a committee all the time, but purging it from any inbound GEDCOM seems pretty reasonable (unless by special arrangement).--Jrm03063 17:39, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

We could do this, although rather than precluding people from creating pre-1600 pages, I think it would be a better experience if a user's pre-1600 pages that matched existing pages were merged into those pages as part of the GEDCOM upload. The match/merge code should be implemented sometime in the summer; if we felt that we had a pretty complete set of pre-1600 pages for a particular country, we could automatically merge pre-1600 pages for that country in GEDCOM uploads. (This would be an exception to the usual policy of not automatically-merging pages, but if we felt our existing set of pages was already pretty complete, I think the exception would be justified in this case.)--Dallan 18:56, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Whatever you're comfortable with. I wish there was some way to ask folks not to upload data they really aren't seriously working on.
I agree. Once I get match/merge working as part of the upload process, I think that extra step will help filter out non-serious users.--Dallan 20:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
I just wrote a long response here and somehow lost it upon saving the edit. I am afraid the problem is much greater than that created by Mr Lamb. I found a page for Richard Normandy (126) one for unknown Richard I, one for Richard Gunnora and so forth. Because surnames were not in use at those times but people feel compelled to put something in the surname field.This invites any number of variations for a single person even more for a family making match merge virtually impossible. Perhaps all data for persons prior to 1600 should be purged and entries be limited to single articles with source documentation, thereby avoiding massive uploads of junk genealogy gleaned from questionable sources and making it easy for a monitor to evaluate the quality of the entry.
If we had a group of people who were committed to create a "gold standard" of pre-1600 genealogy I could see doing that, but without such a group I think I'd rather see how good we can get at matching+merging them first. If we realize that there are records for only a few people before 1600 and that names for these people tend to vary, we can relax the match threshold for pre-1600 data. I'm not saying I'm unwilling to block pre-1600 genealogy; it's just that we haven't even tried to match them yet and deciding to block at this point seems premature.--Dallan 13:38, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Similarly I sense a problem with source entry. the default seems to be mysource which I interpret to be private papers in the possession of the submitter. For example there are 75 entries for Savage under mysource. I had problems with this at first. Also for a Source entry if there is the slightest change in the title it appears a new source is created. Sometimes when entering a source reference, a drop down list appears and if I am quick, I can select from the list, but usually it rapidly vanishes and I can't get it to return. Even so often when I test the link, I am taken to an unedited page.--Scot 20:26, 8 April 2008 (EDT)--Scot 20:20, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

MySource's are created for private papers and also for the sources in GEDCOM uploads because most of them are nearly devoid of citation information and attempting to match sources in GEDCOM files to Source pages is a task for next year. Regarding duplicate Source pages though, I realize this is a problem. Once I get the new search functionality working, I'll be able to add a function to check for near-duplicate existing Source titles when you're about to add a new Source page and ask you if one of the existing Source pages is what you're looking for. But the existing search functionality doesn't allow that.
What browser and OS are you using? The drop-down list isn't supposed to disappear, although I've heard that others have had problems with this as well.--Dallan 13:38, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
I am using Firefox and windows XP.
If I enter a source on a person page it sometimes creates a new source even when the source exists. I've even tried visiting the source first, copying the name and pasting to the webpage and it still created a new source. I have tried renaming a Mysource changing to a Source and a duplicate My source is created. If I try placing a redirect in the notes field as you suggested, It givs the errror message about being outside of the Namespace.--Scot 13:34, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
I wish I could peer over your shoulder to see what's going on. Could you give me an example of a Person/Family page that you've saved where you've copied the title of a Source page into a source citation and it doesn't link to the Source page? Also, when you redirect a MySource page to a Source page, are you sure to include the "Source:" part of the source title within the brackets after the #redirect?--Dallan 18:01, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
That's it, I left off the "Source:" from the redirect.--Scot 19:55, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Just a note on the pre-1600 genealogy -- If we're going to do something to limit gedcoms with people before standard sources are generally available, I think a better "flag" date is 1550 or 1500. There are lots of parish registers and other information that's revealed births and parents for Great Migration era immigrants; that data shouldn't be lumped in with the medieval line problem. Many of those registers started sometime in the 1500s.--Amelia 22:39, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. I knew the "cutoff" date was in 1500-1600, but wasn't sure exactly where. If we do something to limit GEDCOM's, I'll make it 1500, not 1600. Another thing is I'm not sure the limit would apply equally to all countries. I've heard that extended genealogies are more common in Asian countries, but I'm not sure how well documented they are.--Dallan 22:48, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

Source problems [10 April 2008]

My data base was created in PAF over a 16 year period. because, PAF(and I)changed the way sources are entered thru the many iterations of PAF, when I uploaded my GEDCOM many if not all sources are entered as mysources and most should be sources. Is there a way to list all pages that list a particular mysource so the source reference can be edited?--Scot 20:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

There are two things you can do:
  • Erase everything in the big edit box at the bottom of the MySource page and replace it with "#redirect [[Source:title of the source page]]" (without the quotes). That redirects the MySource page to a Source page so that every time you click on a link to that MySource page you'll be automatically directed to the proper Source page. If you do this, please note that Source pages are generally for entire collections, not individual records. So you wouldn't create a Source page for a single individual's birth record. You would create a Source page for the collection of birth records available at a county courthouse and record the birth certificate number as part of the source citation on the Person page. This way Source pages can be re-used by others.
  • You can get a list of all pages that link to the MySource page by clicking on the More menu for the MySource page, then on "What links here". This works for any page.--Dallan 13:38, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

When I do the procedure #1 I get an error message that says redirect outside of namespace--Scot 16:53, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Are you sure you're redirecting a MySource page to a Source page? I just redirected MySource:Scot/Ancestral File (R) to Source:Ancestral File as an example. Being able to redirect MySource pages to Source pages is an exception to the general rule that you can't redirect a page to another namespace.
When I did the redirect, I didn't copy everything over. If you want to unredirect it, click here, click on the "edit" link next to the revision on the left, and press "Save". Otherwise, feel free to edit the Source page and add the additional information. You can also click on that link to see exactly how I redirected the page.--Dallan 17:29, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

Redirect problems [18 April 2008]

Never mind, I figured it out. sorry.--Scot 16:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT) Sometimes when I try to do a redirect it won't work eg I entered the following: "#redirect Person:Joanna Blessing (1)" when I previewed the page I get this error message "Redirect is outside of namespace" What am I doing wrong?--Scot 16:48, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

[add comment] [edit topic]

Hi again [23 April 2008]

Been a long time; I wanted to reach out and say hi, and see how you are doing! -- Brad Patrick 01:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi Brad! I keep thinking about you. I always plan to contact you once "X" is done, but then it seems like there's always another "X" to be done before the website is ready to show you. Since we last spoke,
  • A group of volunteers spent several months reviewing and correcting the place wiki pages. We now have pretty good wiki pages for places.
  • We created a few video tutorials, and volunteers reviewed and corrected the text help pages.
  • We greatly improved the pedigree maps (example).
  • The website has undergone various usability enhancements.
  • We've decided upon and partially implemented a better approach to source pages.
  • We just launched a limited early-release digital library.
  • We're now at just under 2 million person and family pages.
Still to do,
  • I'm in the middle of re-doing search.
  • Matching and merging pages for duplicate individuals and families.
  • Match needs to be integrated in with add, so that when you add a person/family page you're presented with a list of possible existing matches.
  • Gedcom re-upload needs to update the wiki pages with any changes made in the GEDCOM file, and notify the uploader of conflicts with online edits.
  • We need to review and correct the source pages just like we reviewed and corrected the place pages last fall.
Search should be done in the next couple of weeks. The rest are scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. I'll send you an email with further details.--Dallan 16:21, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

(waiting to be cached) [27 April 2008]

I see this on all persons in my tree except for the home person and I can't seem to find out what it means (waiting to be cached)--Davrchy 18:07, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

That message is displayed while the system is trying to cache the pages locally on your hard drive for improved performance. Normally it's displayed for only a few seconds while the page is downloaded, so I'm not sure why it's not going away in your case. Do you see a dialog box pop up asking to use some hard disk space? Answering "yes" to that should address the issue.--Dallan 10:06, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Problem went away when I closed Mozilla Firefox and used Microsoft Explorer.--Davrchy 11:52, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

That's very odd. I'm not sure what would cause it to work in one browser and not in another, since the Flash player (the family tree explorer runs in flash) should be the same for both.--Dallan 14:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

[add comment] [edit topic]

FTE caching problem [3 May 2008]

Hi there Dallan... I seem to be having a caching problem with the FTE. I'm using Firefox. New pages that I add to my Tree don't seem to want to stay. I'll see the colored box in the left side frame, but when I click on it, it turns grey and says the page is not part of the tree. The only way for me to get it to stay is to clear my cache. But the next page I add will do the same thing and I'll have to clear my cache again. This problem has been occurring for a couple of days now. In the meantime, I'm still enjoying WeRelate! Hope you are too. <g> --Ronni 10:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Argh. You're right. There does seem to be a problem. I'll fix this tomorrow.--Dallan 20:01, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

[add comment] [edit topic]

Notifications [28 May 2008]

Nope i havent received any notifications yet to changes bye email. I know my provider doesnt have reverse lookup set up so could this be causing a problem on the email?--Jeffjahn 11:08, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

I just sent you a separate email on this. I think the problem is due (at least in part) because your "Email me when..." options in Preferences are unchecked. You can turn them back on by clicking on Preferences in the MyRelate menu, then checking the boxes in the "E-mail" section and saving the page. Please let me know if you're still not getting emails after you do this.--Dallan 12:52, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

[add comment] [edit topic]

Place Deleted [30 May 2008]

I need to have this place page deleted. Had it listed in the wrong township. Place:St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Cemetery, Van Buren, Keokuk, Iowa, United States Thanks--Jeffjahn 15:05, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

done.--Dallan 19:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

nFS [19 June 2008]

Dallan, I just heard about nFS today, can you tell me how this will affect what you are doing? It seems that they are proposing to create another database with massive amounts of misinformation. I am being told it will render all other Wiki sites obsolete. Why are they re-inventing the wheel? We will be having our Austin Family convention in SLC July 25 thru the 27th, [[1]]. Is there a chance you or someone fro your organization could speak to our group about your project?--Scot 15:17, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

nFS is an interesting project. Here are some differences:

So I wouldn't say nFS will render wiki sites obsolete. They're taking a different approach. I think that the recently-added ability for anyone to change the information that appears in the summary view without notifying other contributors of the change or keeping a history of changes could be a problem. We'll have to wait and see what develops.--Dallan 13:39, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

BTW, one of us might be able to come to Austin; would you be willing to pay for airfare from Minneapolis? Send me an email and we can talk further.

[add comment] [edit topic]

Bug in FTE [31 May 2008]

Hi Dallan, I am not able to add a page to my tree by selecting the + sign in the FTE window. I can however still add a page by selecting the tree and + on the menu bar. --Beth 17:02, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Sorry about that. I'll fix it on Monday.--Dallan 21:37, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

[add comment] [edit topic]

Children showing up in red [7 June 2008]

Am I doing something wrong? When I make a new person page and add them as a child to an existing family, the new person shows up in red on the family page even though that person has a page. For example, on Family:Henry Kingery and Nancy Dillon (1), McCager Kingery is showing up in red even though he has a person page. When I'm creating the person page I choose the family page rather than typing in the title of the family page. I've also had it happen that the link to the family page from the child's page shows up in red although the family page exists. I've refreshed my browser (Firefox) but it has not had any effect. Any ideas? Thanks! --Ajcrow 10:55, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

The red links happen every once in awhile. I believe the problem is that the old version of the page (the one with the red link) stays in the server's cache even after you've created the other page. Eventually the red links "turn blue" once the old version of the page stops being cached by the server. It's an annoyance but doesn't cause any real problems, which is why it hasn't made its way to the top of the ToDo list yet. Someday after search is complete I promise I'll fix it.--Dallan 23:47, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Dallan. I was afraid I was messing something up! --Ajcrow 06:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

[add comment] [edit topic]

Location in the wrong county [9 June 2008]

If you look at the Google map on the Place:Franklin, Ohio, United States page, you'll see an arrow way to the east. It's Rock Haven Park, which is in Licking County (almost to Muskingum County). It's listed incorrectly in the Getty Thesaurus. I went to edit its page, but couldn't find a way to take it out of Franklin and into Licking other than putting a reference in the "Also located in" field. --Ajcrow 22:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

You can change the place a place is located in by renaming it (click the "Rename" link at the top of the page). So you'd probably want to rename it to "Rock Haven Park, Licking, Ohio, United States". Thanks for finding the problem.--Dallan 11:06, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, Dallan. I knew I was making it harder than it needed to be! --Ajcrow 15:45, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

WeRelate Software Distribution [11 June 2008]

Wondering if I can get a copy of the mods for mediawiki that you made so I can run a genealogy wiki on my home web site? Just thought that I would ask. This would, of course, open up a whole weird and wonderful world of distributed genealogy wikis, some with better reputations than others. Dunning 03:37, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps someday, but not now. The purpose of WeRelate is to encourage people to work together on their genealogy. Having a large number of online genealogy wiki's before there is a mechanism in place to interconnect them would defeat that purpose.--Dallan 09:44, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Come on! Step up the pace! I need the distributed wiki software now. I am sure you can just slip it into one of your many free moments when you are doing unimportant things. Meanwhile, if I embed PhpGedView inside of PhpBB and add Gallery... But then compatibility would go out the window completely. I sure am glad you are a software architect. Takes a burden off my mind. Dunning 02:44, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
 :-) --Dallan 10:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

adding new spouse when the spouse already has an existing page on WeRelate [10 June 2008]

Hi Dallan,

If you are around I could use some help here. I have a question from a user on my talk page. The spouse window does not have an option to select existing person. I can give a work around or do it for her but would like your input. --Beth 20:41, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm around this evening. I'll check out your talk page and answer as best as I can.--Dallan 22:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, Ronni replied and we have not heard from her so you can relax and wait until later. Enjoy the B game and your family. --Beth 22:19, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

Family Search [19 June 2008]

Hi Dallan,

I assume from the following that we can upload images from FamilySearch. But wanted to check with you first. --Beth 21:01, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

FamilySearch Licenses. This site is owned and operated by Genealogical Society of Utah (GSU), a nonprofit organization created by The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Church"). GSU is dedicated to family history and genealogical research. All material on this site (including text, images, databases and other information) is owned or licensed by GSU. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use unless we specifically indicate that other uses are permitted. You may not use this site or information found at this site (including the names and addresses of those who submit information) for selling or promoting products or services, soliciting clients, or any other commercial purpose.

Here's another quote from their Conditions of Use page:

This site is owned and operated by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All material found at this site is owned or licensed by us. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use or, if you are a professional genealogist, for use by a current client. You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission. You may not transmit or distribute material from this site to others. You may not use this site or information found at this site (including the names and addresses of those who submitted information) for selling or promoting products or services, soliciting clients, or any other commercial purpose. If you have questions or desire permission to post information, send e-mail to: fhd-copyright@ldschurch.org

I think based upon this second quote, you'd be better off uploading either a small portion or scaled-down version of the image so that you can upload it under fair use.--Dallan 13:39, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay and thanks. --Beth 17:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Dallan your quote is not from the conditions of use for the pilot Family Search Records Search. This is from the original site, correct. In any event I have used the fair use and reduced the image size and resolution. --Beth 20:31, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Ah, I see now. I didn't realize the terms were different on the pilot search site. I'm glad to see that FamilySearch has relaxed the terms of use on the pilot search site.--Dallan 23:58, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

Footnote system [19 June 2008]

Hi Dallan,

I have discovered a problem with the footnote system; it is one directional. I noticed this when entering deaths on the Coleman Deaths page for Texas. My list is alphabetical by given name. For now it is correct; but the initial entry must be the first one; so if a contributor edits the page and tries to add a footnote with the shortcut above the initial entry; that does not work. --Beth 22:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

That's true unfortunately. You could re-enter the footnote content for every reference, but that's kind of a pain. The footnote extension is from Wikipedia; I haven't looked to see how difficult it would be to change.--Dallan 13:39, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, Dallan, I am going to enter the earliest person in the alphabet on that page and try and get around the problem that way. --Beth 17:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

terminal tags [19 June 2008]

Dallan

I notice that you modified template:Speedy Delete by adding terminating line tags in the table e.g. </td></tr> I know that's proper form for formal HTML tables, but I also think believe those ending tags are unnecessary. Ditto </br> or </ br> Is there a reason for including these terminators beyond "good form"? Q 11:43, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Belay that question. I now see that its necessary to make the table-within-a-table trick work. That's helpful, as I can make use of this to simplify table organization---Ie, I think I can use it to group entries by column rather than by rows---much easier to see where things belong this way. Thanks. Q 12:02, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

Re Price 1904-1913 [19 June 2008]

I'm probably particularly bad about filling in those text boxes. My personal preference is for a card layout such as you see with Price, but I've certainly no objection to someone else filling in the text boxes. Eventually, I'm going to have to go back in and do text boxes all the way around, but since I'm focusing on specific individuals at a certain time and place, the longitudinal relations (grandparents, parents, children, etc) are less important to me,so the text boxes don't come into play as much in person articles---so unfortuantely, I tend to ignore them. One of the reasons I focus on the article itself, and including information in a "Personal Data" Table, is because I'm trying to explicitly show the rationale for everything that's said. That's where the "Comment" area in the Personal Data table comes into play. Here I've tried the text boxes, but didn't like the way they worked for me, so went back to my long term approach of the Personal Data table. A philosophical thing I guess. Q 17:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

That's fine.--Dallan 23:58, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit topic]

GEDCOM upload warning page [20 June 2008]

You've probably already seen the changes on your watch list, but I've revised my draft GEDCOM upload warning page along the lines you suggested. I'm not at all sure that a warning will be enough, but it's definitely a good start. I added a comment about using the digital library, which I presume could be revised with an appropriate link. Maybe there's a standard and free GEDCOM to PDF report tool that we could suggest so that people can put a PDF file out there next to their GEDCOM. Or maybe we just mention that there are such tools.

Anyway, onward and upward...--Jrm03063 13:41, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

The warning is looking pretty good. Please give me a few days to finish up the search code and I'll work on this change and the others that we talked about. I'll need to defer recommending the digital library until we get that better integrated later this year. But the expectations paragraph and trial paragraph are good.--Dallan 22:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

[add comment] [edit topic]

Roots Magic 4 [22 June 2008]

Hi Dallan,

This is interesting.

RootsMagic version 4 will be released later this fall with full capabilitie to seamlessly interact with the new FamilySearch website to share your family tree with others. YOu will be able to retrieve content that you don't have from new FamilySearch as well as upload data you want to share. You will can receive notices that alert you to any changes or additions to your family tree members linked to new FamilySearch. RootsMagic 4 will also allow you to do things not possible with the new FamilySearch website alone such as print charts and books, keep private information that you do not want to share, and more.

From here: [2].

--Beth 14:29, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I believe that this is the future of genealogy - a desktop program coupled with an online website. Eventually we'll get there. It will be interesting to see how well RootsMagic works.--Dallan 22:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User_talk:Dallan"
Menu
Views
Toolbox
Personal tools