| Hi, welcome to my talk page!|
If you ask a question here, I will reply here (so please Watch this page). If I start a new thread on your talk page, I will watch the page and reply there.
Click here to add a new topic
Trying to merge [11 January 2014]
Hello Jennifer ! I have a problem with this ! Please can you make something ? Cleanup or unmerge ? Thank you ! I don't "work" about theses families, but I found ... "doublons" (duplicate records) ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 09:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please demonstrate sources and citations on one of my files so I can learn to do it. Many thanks for your help.
EKBDVA--EKBDVA 22:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The difference between Sources and Citations [19 January 2014]
I am still not clear on the difference between a source (I know it is global) and a citation. As an example: why is the Census year 1880 not the source; and the information about the city, county, state, and persons counted not the citation? An example would help clear it up for me.
EKBDVA--EKBDVA 20:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Along the same line, I've been wondering about the distinction between 'source' and 'citation'. Is there something in the Help section that spells out the distinction between recording a source and recording a citation? --janiejac 18:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- If what is being referred to is the drop down list of Citation, Source and MySource, it basically tells where the source is described...
- Source means you are creating a source reference to a work already described by a page of type Source. Source pages are ways of centralizing the creation of a bibliographic entry on an object that is likely to be used by many people. Its provides a centralized place where people can find information on what the object contains, locating the object, and have discussions about its merits and weaknesses.
- MySource is for sources described by a MySource page, which is a special form of Source page, but meant for objects that are not publicly available, such as a family Bible or other documents that other researchers are unlikely to be able to get access to, because they are privately held. Therefore, usually, the creator is about the only person able to provide input. It is desirable to provide transcripts of such documents on the MySource page if possible, or links, etc.
- Citations are used when there is no source page of any kind. Citation means you are writing the citation free-hand basically, which I rarely do. But occasionally, say for books like the history of pottery that are not likely to ever be cited by anyone else, except that it happens to give some information on one person of interest. I try to create the free-hand citation so that it looks very close to the standard citation for a Source page on books. If the book is a source of history or genealogy or biography or other subject likely to give genealogical information, and therefore likely to be used by some other researcher, and no source page exists, then, in that case, I don't use a Citation, I create a Source page and then use Source. I only use Citation when I feel it would probably be a waste to create a Source page. Unlike the other two types, no link is created to any type of descriptive page describing the object, so the citation you type in should contain all the information needed to identify and find the source object, i.e., more a less a full bibliographic entry, not just a title.
- Hope that helps a little. --Jrich 19:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for trying Jrich, but that didn't help me much. But I plan to copy it and save so I can refer back to it.
EKBDVA--EKBDVA 19:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it did help me! I keep seeing others use citation where I use source and I couldn't figure out the difference. For an example see bottom of Person:Hope Washburn (1). From your description, it looks to me like the author of the citations could have used sources instead and still put the extra info in the text window. Hmm but these citations are blue links to a source. So maybe I'm still confused. --janiejac 20:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- On Hope Washburn, all the citations are of type Source. So they all contain links to the appropriate Source page. If the field labeled Source is set to "Source", as all the ones on Hope Washburn are, the title field will be expected to match the name of an existing Source page. It it does, it is blue to show you can click on the link to see the Source page, which should give additional general information about the source. If a matching Source page doesn't exist, the link is red to show it is a broken link.
- When you know there is no Source page, but you want to identify where you got your information anyway, you set the Source field to "Citation". Then the title field is free-form and there does not need to be any matching Source page. The title is not blue because it is not a link. I can't find any good examples on the spur of the moment, but see Person:Mary Unknown (689). It has a source titled "The Brewster Book". The title is not a link. There is no source page for the Brewster Book (probably should be). The link that is there was given in the page number field and goes to an outside website (currently it is broken).
- It appears though that this wasn't the original question. The only thing I see that is any kind of specific question: "why is the Census year 1880 not the source; and the information about the city, county, state, and persons counted not the citation?" Which sounds like why is the US Census cited the way it is? The answer to that is because that is the way the system was set up. It was thought that there should be a separate Source page for each county within a census. Presumably this was done because it was thought discussions would might occur at the county level and so there needed to be a page for each one (I'm guessing here)? So when you create a Source citation, in order to provide a link to the appropriate Source page, you must identify the census down to the county level. It sounds like you, as I do in my home system, treat each census as a single source (common form, common sponsoring organization, just a different page from a single, coherent work, etc.) I don't know the exact reasoning behind going down to the county level, may not agree with it, but I recognize that it was done in a much bigger framework than my personal research has exposed me too, including considering censuses of different countries, slave and free censuses, state censuses, counties disappearing and being created, censuses getting lost or burned, etc., etc. Actually, my preference would be to have a dedicated citation type just for US census that would ensure census citations were built consistently, and even perhaps, someday, could be enhanced to help users link to the actual scanned image in archive.org or something similar. But for now, it is what it is. --Jrich 21:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Mary A. Drinkwater death date [22 January 2014]
It looks like someone edited the source after I changed it from "my source" to "Source". How does it look now? I made some edits too.
EKBDVA--EKBDVA 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looks good! You wrote the "marriage document was also found with this pension file", so you can use this source on the family page for Family:Humphrey Drinkwater and Mary Taylor (1) to document their marriage. --Jennifer (JBS66) 20:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia Template change [28 January 2014]
Hi Jennifer, I noticed you updated the page of Vincent Lombardi. With your change, will the wikipedia content populate on his Person Page on the next refresh? I was hoping that it would populate on his page prior to this Friday (I was going to put him as the Featured Page on Friday through the Superbowl). Otherwise, I'll manually add some of his wikipedia content on Friday....
Let me know.
Thanks and have a great week,
Jim:)--Delijim 23:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, according to JRM, the auto update of the WP templates hasn't been working properly lately. He went ahead and created the template pages and brought over the text from WP. Also, see his post below about his other additions. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Lombardi Page [28 January 2014]
I've sort of tossed the page together with a few WR goodies - place page for the Cemetery, GIS coordinates for the burial lot within the cemetery, and references to a number of WP pages associated with education and occupation events - but I'm most definitely not an expert here. Someone should review my work, and we should definitely get census records in where we can. --jrm03063 17:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for the updates:) I'll try to add a few records before I post it sometime tomorrow or Thursday. Thought it might be nice to have WeRelate get into the Super Bowl "hype", too... :)
Pietje Annes (Mug) (Zondervan) date of death [28 January 2014]
Regarding, Pietje Annes Mug Zondervan
death shown as; d.26 APR 1803 Sint Jacobiparochie, Het Bildt, Friesland, Netherlands
What is the original source of this date of death?
According to the inventory of Tresoar, registration of death (burial) in St. Jacobieparochie is only available in the DTB 118, Het Bildt - Burgerlijk book after 1806.
Het Bildt - Hervormde gemeente - St. Jacobiparochie
122. Doopboek, 1748-1812. Indices: DTB nr. 130c.
123. Trouwboek, 1650-1772. Indices: DTB nrs. 130a en 130b.
124. Lidmatenboek, 1760-1850.
Index: DTB nr. 130e.
N.B. Zie ook: Copie elders 6164 op de studiezaal.
Het Bildt - Burgerlijk
Registers van afkondiging en bevestiging van huwelijken
door het Gerecht, 1607-1717.
Indices: DTB 130a en 130b.
118. Register van overledenen, 1806-1811.
Index: DTB nr. 1025d.--John Terpstra 18:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi John, I didn't add the date of death for Person:Pietje Zondervan (4), another user Cabrioot did. I'll leave a message on Pietje's talk page regarding your question. Please go to Pietje's page and click "Watch" from the menu on the left so that you can be notified of his answer. --Jennifer (JBS66) 19:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jennifer, I will watch for a reply.--John Terpstra 21:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
A GEDCOM we might want to consider removing [15 February 2014]
I ran across a user who loaded a couple of GEDCOMs in 2008-2009 that, at least from the parts I looked at, were heavily influenced by OneWorldTree, which made a real mess of the data (e.g., James Board married his own mother, Thomas Stewart was the son of parents married 300 years before he was born and died in the US 30 years before he was in a census in Scotland). I started trying to find better data, and added citations to a couple of marriages in the Board family, but trying to straighten out this data appears to be more trouble than it is worth (it hasn't been easy finding reliable sources online). Can we get these GEDCOMs removed (other than where they merge with pages other users are watching)? I "unwatched" the couple of pages I updated so that they are not left as orphans (it doesn't bother me if my small contribution of adding dates and sources is deleted).
This data represents the worst of what OneWorldTree did to the genealogy world, and I'd hate to have people say that WeRelate is an unreliable site (or worse, that it is junk) because it contains this kind of garbage.--DataAnalyst 01:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- We talked about this during the Overview Committee meeting last Sunday. Dallan is going to create a report of users who uploaded a GEDCOM in 2007 (prior to WR's data validation) and have not come back to edit a page since. Then, he'd like to have a small team of users review the contributions of those users to determine if their trees should be removed from WR. This particular file was uploaded later, maybe we can add it to the list of considerations when Dallan creates the report (I will let you know when he does that).
- I agree it is detrimental to WR's image to contain such common error-filled "junk". Are you interested in being a part of that team to review files? Also, if there are other users watching this page that are interested, please don't hesitate to respond :) --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse my jumping into the thread - I would be interested in being part of that effort. May I presume that Dallan's report will indicate, not only the antiquity of any such GEDCOM, but also the implications of removal? (that is, pages that are not protected by virtue of other users as watchers?).
- While I'm generally in support of such removal efforts, at times I've found that such GEDCOMs contain valid connections between better pieces of content. I would like the opportunity to look for and perhaps protect such locations, before removal goes forward.
- Further, certainly for any GEDCOM that contains medieval content, I would ask that we solicit review from Werebear, who has been a strong contributor out there over the last year (or more - my sense of time is questionable...). --jrm03063 16:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I welcome you jumping into this thread! To my knowledge, his report will include the username and fit the criteria of 'they uploaded a GEDCOM in 2007' and 'have not edited since'. This will undoubtedly miss a few GEDCOMS uploaded then (say, if the user came back to leave a message on a talk page). I will message Dallan with your comments to see if he can make further refinements. --Jennifer (JBS66) 17:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would be willing to help with the review, as long as it is understood that it may take some (elapsed) time. I wonder if we might be best served by having at least 2 reviewers agree before we remove a GEDCOM - one could do the analysis and point out the problems and the other could do a "sanity check" to make sure that negative implications of removal were not overlooked.
- We'll need a way to traverse the GEDCOMs once they are identified - I am not sure I know a reliable way to do that other than viewing someone's tree.
- I agree about the medieval space - it was a mess a few years ago and a lot more work to correct than create new, but we wouldn't want to lose anything that has been corrected (or confirmed and that links trees together). If medieval records come up, I can help in the review, but I'd rather focus on more recent dates first.--DataAnalyst 23:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
What are the qualifications to help with such a review?
Thx, Ron--woepwoep 18:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will presume that the only real qualifications are interest and willingness to review and offer your perspective.
- I would be inclined to approach this as an exercise in triage - where any given GEDCOM will fall into one of three categories - Keep entirely, Drop entirely, or drop in part/keep in part. The quickest and most important step is probably to identify the first two - and the drop entirely cases are easy for Dallan to process. We could move through the remainder more as time permits. --jrm03063 15:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with JRM. To add a little back in 2007, WeRelate allowed GEDCOM upload, but had no data validation checks to keep out the "junk". It would be a matter of looking at the contributions of users such as this one or this one. Do they have a large number of living people, are there impossible family relationships (like children born before parents), are the only sources to OneWorldTree... I'm sure that DataAnalyst and JRM have other criteria too. We're trying to remove the obvious stuff that when uploaded today, would not be accepted. I almost wish we could somehow run these trees through the GEDCOM uploader to save having to randomly scan them. --Jennifer (JBS66) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- If I go to My Relate > Trees, I can see and download any GEDCOMs I uploaded. Would Dallan not be able to give someone access to be able to see and download the GEDCOMs that others have uploaded? If so (and assuming the site was tracking uploaded GEDCOMs as far back as 2007), then we could upload them again and run them through the GEDCOM editor (without, of course, doing the final submit).--DataAnalyst 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Don't forget - GEDCOMs of that age are apt to have been worked quite a bit around the edges at least. If for no other reason than to merge them with other content. Going back to the original GEDCOMs means repeating all that. Unless you're looking at something that's devoid of overlap - a re-upload is apt to be quite inefficient - and if it's devoid of overlap at this stage - why would we be keeping it? Let's see what Dallan reports out and what we learn - I'm pretty fast at deleting individual pages - and I can even write some code that would let us mark some sections for delete and analyze whether they were contiguous before deleting them. --jrm03063 20:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The report is now available at WeRelate:Old GEDCOMs. I like the idea of picturing this as 'triage'. How about we continue discussions on this talk page and be sure to watch that page if you are interested in participating in this project. --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Um, wow - that's a lot to look at. I'm pretty obsessive, but this is going to take some time... --jrm03063 22:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
How to find out which one is true? [13 feb 2014]
pls see Person:Hendrina_Heesen_(1)
i found two records, what do they mean?
is the first one birth and the second one Doop ?
thx, R--woepwoep 08:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Ron, they are both true :) My feeling is the first doop in 1698 is for a Hendrina that died before 30 Oct 1701. Then, Hendrina #2 was baptized in 1701. The links I posted here point to the actual scans for each baptism. However, for me, these links don't work in Chrome (but do in Firefox) --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
R--woepwoep 08:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
ps i use Chrome too, blank screen, clicking on Download PDF and then opening the PDF works for me.
Correct displaying of an image [20 February 2014]
Hello Jennifer ! Please, what is wrong ? ... Person:Armand Savard (1) --> The image does exist : Image:Armand Savard, fils de François.JPG
An other example : Person:Margaret Orr (12) - Thank you ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- At first, I was going to suggest changing the ç to c - but that does not explain the problem with Image:Group garden shot.jpg... hmmm - I will ask Dallan about this. Thank you for telling me about the problem. --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- And Person:Francois Savard (3) ... with Image:François Savard, fils de Louis.JPG - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
A relatively new user created a page for a member of a family of interest to me; he references an image which does not appear on the page. Could it be the same problem? Person:Clarence Ritsema (2). (I did not see an image in his recent uploads. So it might be a different problem.) --Pkeegstra 13:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- That appears to be a different problem. For the Ritsema page, the user did not upload a photo, but still tried to reference one on that page. I think you could delete the image reference with a summary that no corresponding photo was uploaded. --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense. I think he intended a screenshot of the obituary. So I would go ahead and do that, if it weren't for the copyright implications. Perhaps that's what I'll say. --Pkeegstra 14:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
can it be related to an error in mediawiki ?
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:PDFThumbnails--woepwoep 16:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Dallan has fixed this bug. In each case, the problem was related to "special" characters (such as the ç in François). Now, when images are uploaded, the file names will be automatically converted to change characters like ç into c. The only fix for existing images with errors, however, is for the user to delete the image and re-upload it. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
re WeRelate:Old GEDCOMs [21 February 2014]
Much as though getting rid of old GEDCOMs which are lacking in quality sounds like a worthwhile project, I don't feel I should get involved in a serious way.
As you know I am a bit of "geographical genealogist" and have been working on improving (hopefully) place pages for the past year and a half. Currently the location is Yorkshire, England, which could hold more places within it than any other state/province-equivalent in the world. Progress so far stands at about the 50% mark and I haven't lost my motivation yet.
When I need a break I look at "who links here" and start inspecting and correcting red-lettered places and reading other people's trees. That was how I found User:twestern yesterday. He/she knew about sources, but not how to add them. I had a feeling that if more research had been done some of the families found in the census would have been discarded. Because we can't see English bmd registrations without paying about $15 each for them it's difficult to back up census information with vitals. To do that for all branches of a family in the 19th century is a costly process.
With regard to the old GEDCOMs project, I feel I had better stay on the outside, but I know that if I come across a highly sus tree I can advise you. What are the next steps for those you have accumulated?
Regards, Pat --Goldenoldie 07:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Pat, the work you are doing with places pages is great, and I completely understand wanting to focus on your area of interest! The next steps... well, the initial list is just an automated report of users who fit a certain criteria. Next would be to analyze their trees to see if there are a lot of obvious problems (like living people, significant errors, etc). Then, we would propose to delete the troublesome trees. Users, if they wish, could reupload their files, but this time, there are data validation checks in place! --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Francis Cooke/Hester Mahieu [22 February 2014]
I'm looking for what I think is a Dutch marriage record. Here's the clue I have:
The marriage at Leyden in 1603 is recorded in the "Kerkelijke Houwelijke", Liber E. Folio 69. The date isn't given but it was probably 30 June 1603. It reads (translated into English), "Francis Cooke, woolcomber, unmarried, from England, accompanied bu Philip De Veau and Raphael Roelandt, his acquintances, with Hester Mahieu, unmarried, from Canterbury in England, accompanied by Jennie Mahieu, her mother, and Jennie Mahieu, her sister."
Can you give me any hints on where I might look? :-)--Frank 03:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- The source cited on their family page, Source:MD, Vol. 27: 145-151. It includes images, including the specific page you mention, plus a detailed discussion of the date, etc. --Jrich 06:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I had a look at http://www.archiefleiden.nl which has records of the DTB's. Franchoys Couck & Hester Mahieu's ondertrouw (marriage license) 4 Jul 1603
A scan of the certificate is here 069v I added a few notations below in brackets:
- Plaats: Leiden
- Datum ondertrouw: 04-07-1603 [date of marriage license 4 Jul 1603, not the marriage date]
- Bron: Nederlands Hervormd Ondertrouw (1575-1795)
- Bruidegom: Franchoys Couck
- Plaats geboorte: Engelant [birth place: England]
- Beroep: wolkammer [occupation: wool comber]
- Bruid: Hester Mahieu
- Plaats geboorte: Cantelberch Engelant [birth place: Canterbury, England]
- Archiefnr: 1004
- Inventarisnummer: 5
- Inventaris beginjaar: 1602
- Inventaris eindjaar: 1604
- Folio: E - 069v
- Opmerkingen: Getuigen bruidegom [bridegroom's witnesses]: Phillippe de Veau bekende - Raphael Roelandt bekende - Getuigen bruid [bride's witnesses]: Jenne Mahieu moeder - Jenne Mahieu zuster -
There are more scans available via genver.nl, but finding the right one here would require a lot of patience and time! --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the great input. The scan was exactly what I was looking for. Do you all think it would be of interest to put it on the family page as an image? Don't want to clutter things up, but I personally find these old images to be of great interest. Just wish I could read them - Google Translate doesn't read cursive so well..
UPDATE: Exploring the site further, I'm not sure if using the image is ok. Looks like they charge for large images and other formats, but no mention is made of the web version. Since my Dutch is non-existent, thought I'd better ask if you know...--Frank 14:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think these primary documents are of great interest to add to the page! I found the scans over at FamilySearch, so including a snippet of them here is ok. As far as reading them... these are especially challenging because they are in the old Dutch handwriting, not something I have experience with, unfortunately. Perhaps one of our Dutch users watching my talk page might jump in to assist :)
- Here is a copy of the Huwelijksafkondigingen (marriage announcements) - same that is indexed above, and this appears to be the marriage record 141r, 20 July 1603 --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Have to admit I was wondering if the translation in my original message to you was accurate so a "read" on that would be great if it happens at some point. I'd also like to include your notations with the image if ok with you. I think they help us English speakers out immensely.--Frank 16:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I don't mind you including the notations. Much of what was included in the English text above is reflected in the Leiden index. The 'unmarried' comes from the words jongman and jongedochter in both the marriage and marriage announcement. The marriage record may be pretty similar to the announcements, something like "Franchoijs Couck wolkammer jongman uijt Engelant met Hester Mahieu jongedochter van Cantelberch in Engelant" --Jennifer (JBS66) 17:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Bad marriage date [28 February 2014]
Hello Jennifer ! Please see this record : Person:John McMillan (4) ... first marriage 1858, death Jan 1901 and second marriage Aug 1903. What can we do ? Leave a message on the talk page of the contributor (his last edit = 8 January 2009) ? Add a "note in red" saying "bad date" ont the record ? Simply delete this date ? - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- The first wife died 1889 so one relatively safe approach is to change it to after 1889. --Jrich 15:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- You could also use the Template:Questionable to mark the page as inaccurate (along with a description of the problem). The user who added the page will be notified and it will also serve as a notice to future readers of the page. --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
An other problem [28 February 2014]
Jennifer ! I want to clean up this record : Other? 01 AUG 2004 Record Change
What can we do ? ... Parents to create ? but this family Thomas Watts and Jessie Dent (6) was deleted by an other contributor who gave no reason - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 17:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Users are able to delete their trees, as long as the pages have no other watchers. In Elsie's case, there are two watchers, so the page was kept. A user with Admin rights can undelete the parents' pages, but that really opens up more problems because there are more ancestors and siblings who would be red-linked. I think it's better to edit Elsie's page and remove the red-linked parents (you could put their names into the text field for future researchers). --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Ancestral File Number [2 March 2014]
Hello Jennifer ! I try to clean up all records with "Other : Record change ...". I saw many records with this tag "Ancestral File Number" that I have sometimes deleted ! I discover that it can be (but not always) a reference with the site of the Mormons ! I have 2 questions :
- Is it a credible reference ?
- If it is a reference, why is it given in WR among the list of the "events/facts" ? For me, it is not an "event" for the person ! (I found no explanation in the help pages.)
Thank you ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 15:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- We have also this tag in the list : "Reference Number" ... - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is in the list because it is in the list of tags in the GEDCOM specification so must be handled to import GEDCOMs. No, not credible: they communicate no source information and different AFNs often contradict. It is usually just a snapshot of some unknown person's research. --Jrich 16:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you ! So I can continue to destroy these lines, I suppose. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 17:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Many people do. The one caveat I can think of is that they do document where data comes from, so until better sources are provided, they serve some purpose. --Jrich 17:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- But do they serve enough of a purpose that we shouldn't simply write a BOT that goes through and wipes them away systematically? Along with any reference to Ancestral file as a source? Further "Record Change..."? I'm glad to see this discussion - I wasn't ever quite sure what to make of AFNs. But it might be better to open a slightly wider discussion of non-information that we want to purge on sight. This sort of thing is often more safely done by software... --jrm03063 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- PS - I would add the "Reference Number" tag to the above purge-on-sight list... --jrm03063 18:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- PPS - I would also note that many AFN facts originally got loaded as type "Other", with Ancestral File Number in the description, and the number landing in the Place field. Software to identify and purge AFNs should recognize both forms. --jrm03063 18:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Reference Numbers/RINs and UIDs are specific to a person's genealogy software and should be deleted on sight. They don't serve a purpose to a wider audience, and these are no longer imported with GEDCOMs. Regarding the AFNs, there has been talk, such as JRich said above, they serve a purpose to identify questionable data, describe where the data came from, and can be retained until a better source is added. There is a line on Help:Merging pages that says "Do not keep user ID numbers, reference numbers, and other single-user identifiers of the information. (But do keep Ancestral File numbers or other universal ID numbers, as they can be used to identify duplicates or find that individual in the AF.)". I still think that when a better source is found, they should be ditched :) --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I remember the line you refer to, which is why I asked whether they serve enough of a purpose. It's been years since an AFN helped me find a duplicate, so I'm pretty sure that benefit has run its course. These items certainly don't enhance our credibility. So I'm asking a comparative question - are the benefits of keeping such items outweighed by the benefits of getting rid of all of them reliably, promptly, and completely? --jrm03063 21:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Stupid link to a village in Aisne (France) [4 March 2014]
Hello, Jennifer ! Please see my message here ---> Why Place:Vailly-sur-Aisne, Aisne, France ---> problem with the automatic gedcom import ? Two months ago I found an other "stupid link" for plenty of records ... but I don't know more exactly what was this "wrong place" ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 07:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are right, those are stupid links :) Here are the pages that link to Vailly-sur-Aisne - it seems most of them are from the same GEDCOM import. If you want to fix them, begin with the Person pages (because most of the Family pages will disappear from the list when you fix the people). I would suggest deleting the (#)Photo. text because it is meaningless. --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
when names change in writing, what name to use when creating a person record? [7 March 2014]
i am working on Person:Hinnerse_Nieuwenhuis_(1)
her name is written in at least four different variations.
now i wonder what name to use as the WR official name?
(1) her name at birth?
(2) her name at death?
(3) her name as a mother of the bride or groom?
do you have a standard way of working?
thx, Ron--woepwoep 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- What I tend to do is use their birth surname if born after 1811 and their death surname if they were born without a surname name and died with a surname. If both of those don't fit - I use the surname most often used during their lifetime. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Comparing 2 Reitsma-Bakker families [16 mrt 2014]
Hi, I was working on the Duplicate Families backlog, and encountered this comparison of 2 Reitsma-Bakker families. It seems you uploaded all the people involved a few years ago (if I have read the history correctly). The one major relevant change not done by you was that Person:Jitske Reitsma (4) was placed as a child into the family Family:Liebe Reitsma and Idske Bakker (1), which was done by User:Kdrost. Kdrost did not remove Jitske from Family:Liebe Reitsma and Jelske Bakker (1) so Jitske has two sets of parents.
It may be that these two families are duplicates of each other and should be merged. But maybe Person:Idske Bakker (2) is distinct from Person:Jelske Bakker (2), and there are two distinct marriages, in which case I or someone should mark them "nomerge". I expect that you will have some insight into the situation and can indicate how this should be fixed. Thanks. --robert.shaw 05:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In the Alle Friezen (marriage record) the name of Idske Bakker is wrongry mentioned as Jetske Bakker. In the scan her name is Idske. Today I send a mail to Alle Friezen about this mistake. I think we can remove the name Jelske in werelate.
--paulsnip 10:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Paul Snip
Eerbeek part of Brummen? [17 mrt 2014]
in Person http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Everdina_Havekes_%281%29 the town of Eerbeek is gemeente Brummen (1871)
should Place http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Place:Eerbeek%2C_Gelderland%2C_Netherlands be renamed?
thx, R--woepwoep 09:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I renamed Place:Eerbeek, Brummen, Gelderland, Netherlands to add the gemeente. Many of WR's NL place pages have been renamed to add the gemeente as it was around 1900 (especially for Friesland, Overijssel, and South Holland). The rest of the county still needs a little work... --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thx !--woepwoep 11:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)