User talk:Jaques1724/User talk:Jaques1724-2013

Minor please! [8 January 2013]

When you just add sort keys, please hit "minor edit." I have 26 messages from those changes in my inbox, and growing by the second... --Amelia 19:59, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Sorry. Two left to do--jaques1724 20:00, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Check out your "Settings" - you can set minor as the default. I've been running that way for some months now. - Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm03063

Didn't pick up on that, but it's probably better that I just keep it mind. Some of my edits are whoppers, and I would expect some spirited feedback if some of those slipped through as minor. --jaques1724 21:02, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Actually, marking all edits minor by default is not always preferred. If a user chooses to not receive emails for minor edits, they would not be notified of your changes. Either way, whether you mark all as minor by default (then unmark for major changes) or do not mark all as minor by default (then mark minor changes) it requires a choice by the user performing the edits. --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:12, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Your merging of the Warner family [19 January 2013]

Jaques, Im curious what is going on with your merging of John Warner and family. Hes been placed in a family with a couple who married after his appx birthdate when his origins are unknown, and in the process a number of citation that I added were deleted. Has new information come to light on him, or could this be a different John Warner?--Daniel Maxwell 19:03, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Parental assignment was not intended-good catch. As far as the citation from Ackley-Bosworth, during the merge I chose to delete it since it was stated verbatim on his person page and cited on hers. I don't feel strongly about it either way--jaques1724 19:39, 8 January 2013 (EST)

I see that now. I dont feel strongly either, its just that I thought you might have done some of it accidently in the merge process. I didnt intend to imply malice on your part. I also mistook you adding an additional FindAGrave memorial (a duplicate) for Dr Ebenezer Warner as having deleted the old one. No worries. Carry on. There is another John Warner who is frequently confused with John Warner Jr, son of John Warner of the Increase that I have intended to clean up for awhile and you've reminded me of him, since I hadnt done much with Warners in awhile. User:DMaxwell

As a result of this conversation, I am as we speak working on the family of Andrew Warner of Cambridge, Hartford, Farmington and Hadley starting with his Great Migration sketch. His eldest son John is sometimes confused with the second John Warner of the medical family.--jaques1724 20:25, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Actually, thats why I was confused. The 'parents' of John Warner that were added were completely sourced; I knew something wasnt right. The other John Warner has a couple of entries on WR you might want to search out. I didnt touch it at the time because the only source I had was a paper from about 1915 that didnt cover all of the children. I've been working on the GM sketch page, a huge task, but I'll probably take a break soon and see what kind of projects youre doing in case you need some help. User:DMaxwell

Austen links to Harris [9 January 2013]

Jaques, I noticed you were watching this page:

Person:Joan Harris (2)

She is supposed to be the daughter of Henry Harris and Joane Austen. I am doing the Austen family now (the same as the immigrant Jonas Austin), working with an excellent older article in the Register. It doesnt give the Harris children but I would be curious if this Harris family did have links to the new world. Joan's 'parents' seem to match the same Henry Harris and Joane Austen that married at Staplehurst 25 Oct 1579, but before I merge them I want to be sure. Did you have a source for this Harris family, or were you watching it a place holder for some future work? Dont want to distract you much, so if you are aware of a source linking to this same Harris family point it out and I will clean it up. This is not a family in my tree so I am not that familiar with the particulars.--Daniel Maxwell 01:30, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Samuel smith [19 January 2013]

Thanks for the great cleanup on Samuel smith page

Jillaine 08:11, 19 January 2013 (EST)

(Person:Benjamin Spaulding (1) renamed to Person:Benjamin Spalding (3): Maintain uniformity of surname in early generations.) [25 January 2013]

And how did this accomplish your stated goal this since his father is spelled Spaulding, and 5 of his 9 siblings are Spaulding? Help:Naming conventions say "When the surname of a family has multiple spellings, the most commonly accepted spelling should be used", which would seem to suggest Spaulding might be the preferred spelling since it is stamped all over vast quantities of sports equipment in circulation. Certainly one might suspect that an author of the Spalding Memorial who is named Spalding might very well have a hidden agenda to promote his chosen spelling. But his book contains plenty of early will transcriptions where the name is written Spaulding. According to the author, the u is seen in the name of several children of the immigrant, suggesting even in early generations, there is mixed usage. --Jrich 10:18, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Context-I'm trying to work my way through the first three generations or so, using the Chelmsford VR as a starting point. So we have Spaldin, Spalden, Spalding, Spaldyng, Spaulden, Spauldin, Spauldine, Spaulding, Spauldinge, Spauldyng, and Spolding as choices. The immigrant ancestor was admitted freeman of Massachusetts Bay 13 May 1640 as "Edward Spolden." The only birth record for any of his children of which I'm aware was for Benjamin at Braintree in 1643, where he is called "SPALDEN Benjamin s. Edward." The published Chelmsford vital records include the baptisms of the six surviving children on 1 : 12 m : 1656 as Andrew, Benjamin, Dinah, Edward, John and Joseph "Spalding," those records being "extracts from Rev. John Fiske's note-book, now (1911) in possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society." As I'm sure you're aware, the spelling of names in colonial era documents was often, if not usually, whatever the writer thought it should be, and it's not uncommon to have a given person's name spelled more than one way in particular document.--jaques1724 21:45, 24 January 2013 (EST)

That's why I don't understand (and disagree with) your fascination for changing already-existent spellings that are not demonstrably or confusingly wrong [which has generated multiple discussions here (Inconsequential Changes, Thomas Minor/Miner)]. The perception that comes across is that whatever source you happen to like is the only one that matters. It seems to me that the only argument that could possibly be advanced to argue that one spelling is more right than another is an actual signature, since town clerks, and the lawyers that drew up wills, etc., can be shown in many cases to be wrong. And even in the case where signatures exists, one could argue that the utility of agreeing with modern spelling, while noting the authentic spelling elsewhere, is actually more useful. I am not sure that before the Revolution, maybe even as late as Webster's dictionary (around 1820), that anybody even thought that one spelling could be considered more correct than another (in America, at least). --Jrich 22:36, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Obviously I don't know how to spell the sporting goods company. And obviously I get annoyed at receiving a dozen or two watchlist notifications of what seems like an arbitrary and unnecessary spelling change, as it propagates through all the marriages and children and parents. If the goal was to make the family consistent, more children were already Spaulding than Spalding, so why go to Spalding? Benjamin's children are not entered yet, but how far does consistency of spelling go, and which generation (parents or siblings or children) overrides the others. It seems to me that both spellings effectively identify the man, that any researcher of more than 5 minutes standing is going to be used to working with both, that somebody else obviously liked the existent spelling since they entered it (maybe they were looking at the marriage records which spelled it Spaulding), and WeRelate's spelling mechanism allows searches to find either. So, because it seems so unnecessary, it seems like there should be a particularly compelling reason documented for insisting on one spelling over the other. --Jrich 10:06, 25 January 2013 (EST)

What is your opinion on using sources such as this? [7 March 2013]

Jacques, I wanted to get your opinion on using one of those small privately published 'books' as a source.

In trying to track down the source for the will of John Allen, grandfather of Sgt. Roger Alling the immigrant (quoted on his page but source not given), it seems to originate with this work here:

Source:Brest Van Kempen, Ann. Our Doolittle Line Revisited

..and upon opening it, you'll see that is much better researched than most privately published works, but I dont know what WR policy is on using them as sources. I dug around the entire internet and could not find the wills/probate listed anywhere else, and though I would like to finish the Alling/Allen line, I hesitate to use these. What do you think?--Daniel Maxwell 07:46, 7 March 2013 (EST)

Forgive me for butting in. WR's policy is to encourage sources but there clearly is no requirement. There is no universal convention for what a good source is, though, in general, the mass websites are frowned upon because they are generally unsourced, or circularly sourced with no foundation under the layers of sources. I believe it is possible for mere mortals to do good work, that many people work hard traveling to city halls, etc., or reading films and can discover things not generally known, and through shear focus and determination, even exceed the results of professional genealogists in particular cases. So any source is capable of providing unique, breakthrough information that is reliable if they describe the basis for believing it. Any source, being a product of human effort, is susceptible to error, so no matter how reputable, no source is always safe. It all depends on the peculiar evidence given, the analysis, and even then, everything may be turned upside down by the addition of new sources and information. If information in the source is based on will contents, for example, it is generally going to be reliable (wills are contemporary, first-hand documents, were reviewed by courts, and participants were financially motivated to make sure things were done right). Plus once found, wills can usually be verified (it may not be easy but knowing a will exists is half the battle). Those considerations generally matter more than who wrote the source, or what form it was published in. --Jrich 10:09, 7 March 2013 (EST)

Crewkerne, Somerset [30 March 2013]

I see you have added Britain, A Vision through Time as a reference. It is an online source I have stopped using.

I have been working on updating WR Place pages--attmepting to provide details of boundaries, changes in boundaries, previous names of the locality, population growth of the particular place (not the county), local industry, a brief history--the bits and pieces family historians need to know about a place to get further in their research on someone who came from there. As you may know, parts of the UK have gone through two stages of municipal reorganization since the early 1970s. We have got to get passed that first reorganization to describe the places where our ancestors lived. But because so many organizations are providing geography not history, it is often very hard to realize from their descriptions that places were not always what they are today.

The "Vision" organizers do not supply the answers I am looking for 90% of the time. Instead they provide (in a form of words that really tempts one to go and look) urls to other sources which don't provide the information either and which many times are dead links. Unfortunately, the "Vision" is that of a university geography department which has probably lost its funding and the graduate students who were doing most of the work. All those templates are there merely to disguise that the website has been left "under construction".

To top it off--I can't see the print (pale grey 7.5 point is useless to someone with growing cataracts)--and, yes, I know about Ctrl-and-"+". Once in a while I don't mind. To have to use it repeatedly is a real bore.

The National Library of Scotland has provided a similar website for Scotland with the emphasis on maps. It's worth comparing the two websites. --goldenoldie 02:52, 9 March 2013 (EST)

Apologies for not responding sooner. I realize that Britain, A Vision through Time is far from perfect. However, for those of us in the states who are not that familiar with the geography and history of the UK, it can be useful in allowing us to link through to other pertinent pages. As far as the political reorganizations that have occurred over there, I know just enough to know that I don't want to tackle the task of trying to organize that content in the context of werelate place pages. Thanks for your input.--jaques1724 15:36, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

Your comments are appreciated. I am now working on southern, perhaps I should say, Lowland Scotland--organizing and expanding the Place pages, learning the new and the old administrative structure as I go, and linking them together. Each parish page of the old counties will be illustrated by a county map showing the parishes and the new council areas. --goldenoldie 04:15, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

fyi [29 March 2013]

You may not have realized why HALE was capitalized in the citation of the Ipswich VRs, when you changed it to lower case. If you look at the page of the published VRs, it does not say "Hale, Joseph, of Boxford, and wid. Joanna Dodge, int. Sept. 19, 1708." as you have changed it to say. "HALE" is only at the top of the page and is implied in to belong to each record (it is in capital letters, but that's not why). The records are alphabetized so we are not reading the original text of the record. To reflect that the records have been sorted by the author and filed by the author under the name HALE, it was written in capital letters. This is different than some of the (IMHO, better) arrangements like Concord Births where they transcribe the actual record in chronological order. Thus I feel the capital letters convey information, and am going to change them back. Perhaps there could be a better way to indicate this, but I have been following this convention a long time after seeing others using it. --Jrich 13:05, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

Perhaps, if you took the time to rewrite the above incorporating sensible grammar, you might be able to convey a reasonable point of view to the ordinary reader.

Thanks for using Savage! [6 April 2013]

I wanted to thank you for continuing to make use of the Savage transcription. It is my humble opinion, that our version is the best version of Savage/Kraft - on account of maintaining the original page organization and having a built in ability to absorb OCR and other fixes as they become known. I had hoped that more people would make direct use of the transcript, but perhaps folks are more apt to use it in the conventional manner of a source, simply consulting it and leaving it at that.

Interested if you've developed any opinions of the effort. Thanks! --jrm03063 17:19, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

Savage has its downside. Most folks don't realize that information in those four volumes are not all his research, but was gathered from numerous correspondents throughout New England and the results are somewhat uneven. Having said that, I attended a one day presentation by Robert Charles Anderson at NEHGS in Boston right after publication of the fifth volume of TGM. One of my takeaways was that while he recognized some of the weaknesses in Savage, when he was preparing a GM sketch, Savage was where he started. Because Savage is so widely known and used, I think it's prudent to include his sketches, even when incomplete or inaccurate, rather than ignoring them.--jaques1724 18:41, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

Whatever it's flaws, it has to be dealt with. But there's a back-handed compliment in there too - that the work managed to get so much right - that it can't be discounted. It has to be dealt with.

But I guess my interest here is a little more narrow. Savage is what it is - but is this presentation as helpful as it might be? I sometimes wish that I had links on each page that would correspond to both the "original" version as last published in Savage's life, along with the errors/modifications that were published in his lifetime as another link. There are some things that I think are sort of cute - being able to easily track all the pages where a particular individual is named and all the places where known errors have been marked. Pages that mention particular great migration ships and voyages as well. The value of some of these seems clear enough - but others remain to be seen. --jrm03063 21:51, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

How would you handle this family group? [5 August 2013]

Jaques, you've been around WR longer than I have, and I value your opinions, so I was wonder if I could get your advise on how to handle a certain family group. Person:William Holbrook (14) married an Elizabeth, daughter to a widow Elizabeth Bates who estate was probated 1 Aug 1655. Right now, this Elizabeth (the daughter) is left as Elizabeth Pitts under the assumption that she was also a Pitts, and that her father was an _______ Pitts. Some trees, some works on the Holbrook family, instead, will have her as Elizabeth Unknown, daughter of another Elizabeth Unknown who later married a man named Pitts. Unsure how to finish them, I've left it alone in my own tree until I fix it on WR. Just wonder how'd you proceed on it.--Daniel Maxwell 08:35, 5 August 2013 (EDT)

I would be inclined to stay with unknown. Future research may solve the problem, but for now there's just no way of knowing.--jaques1724 11:24, 5 August 2013 (EDT)

You mean widow Elizabeth Pitts, not Bates? Further, only the system's name for the page says Pitts, a vestige of how the page was created, and only visible in links, not in display. The actual name field is already blank, i.e., Unknown, and there is a note in the source citation noting that we don't know if Mrs. Pitts was married only once, or more than once. Unless you know more about the marriage to a "man named Pitts", like when it happened, etc., you also don't know that Pitts is not her maiden name. So it seems like there is not much to do, except possibly rename the page, but that will have very little visible impact, and which may have to be undone, creating a renaming link of Pitts->Unknown->Pitts if it happens to turn out that widow Pitts was only married once. --Jrich 11:30, 5 August 2013 (EDT)

Bates was an accident. I didn't say how I leaned, in fact I agree with having two Elizabeth Unknowns (one for the mother), which is what I have entered (but sourceless for now) in my tree. That is the main reason, actually, so I can then create a page for the mother, who doesn't have one. I stated both postions because some genealogists who have looked at the Holbrooks feel differently. I was going to finish the Holbrook immigrant (and the first generation) line and this was one of the loose ends. Daniel Maxwell 12:47, 5 August 2013 (EDT)

I think both are "Unknown". Just make sure you capture your logic on their respective talk pages if it's not clear on the person page.--jaques1724 11:40, 5 August 2013 (EDT)

your edits on Thomas and Samuel Williams [23 August 2013]

Hi Jaques, I may have erroneously undid your edits on these two men. The second Werelate message ended up in spam so I did not see the whole story. Rather than mess thing sup more I will let you refix as you wish. Sorry to have undone your work.--Sheri 18:42, 23 August 2013 (EDT)

I'll take care of it. Additional info: according to Inscriptions from the cemetery of the Presbyterian Church at Westfield in New Jersey from the year 1740 to the year 1899, San Francisco, 1923, p. 27, one Miles Williams was buried there 27 October 1747, aged 50. I find no mention of a Miles Williams in any published Connecticut vital records and believe it unlikely that he was closely connected to any of the Connecticut Williams families. The Jonathan Williams listed could be one of the two sons of Samuel and Elizabeth Williams who died very young. That Samuel may be the Samuel son of Amos son of Matthew Williams, who married Mary Belden in 1697, by another wife, Elizabeth _____. As is evident from the Harris/Ingham article in TAG, Samuel son of Thomas and Rebecca (Waterhouse) Williams died s.p. and probably had not married by the time his father's will was written--jaques1724 21:41, 23 August 2013 (EDT)

Thank you for all of the work you have done. [8 September 2013]

Hi Jaques1724 just wanted to take a sec to say thank you for your edits/revisions & help. I wish more people in my family line were as passionate about our family genealogy. It's like reading a really good novel that never ends lol. It's exciting to see what is going to happen next in the story of my family.

Jules--JulesLonghurstStiles 00:56, 8 September 2013 (EDT)

Your Transcript... [12 September 2013]

I have some pretty concrete ideas about how to do a transcript like the one you have in mind. Even though you aren't starting from a complete transcript, my thinking is that you want to create a structure that can embrace any subset of the content - up to and including the entire thing. So I would be inclined to use a structure very much like what I've created for Savage. The fact that you're starting with only a handful of pages isn't important - you just transcribe the ones you care about and they drop in where they belong. But in fairness, that's a fairly heavy-handed approach, and it presumes that there will eventually be interest in adding many more parts of the document.

A much more simplistic approach would be to create a MySource for each biographical sketch, and then hook a transcript page to that MySource. The MySource would, of course, cite the full source. This wouldn't be the approach I would take - but it might seem a little more immediately accessible.

The full-up approach I've used on Savage supports programs that I run to scan that content - and could eventually support automatic generation of citations. I've been intrigued by the idea of source-driven genealogy work for a while. Few people will ever have the time to gain the needed breadth of knowledge to work effectively across the many sources that can be relevant in genealogy. On the other hand, any of us can focus on a single source and become knowledgeable of its particular strengths and weaknesses - potentially even exhausting the information content located there. This seems to me an ideal approach well suited to a wiki.

Anyway, I would be very happy to help and consult in any way I can... --jrm03063 10:19, 12 September 2013 (EDT)

What do you think of the Bradleys that have been added to WR? [15 October 2013]

Jaques, awhile back I posted something here about the Bradleys of New Haven, several children of widow Elizabeth Bradley. Here at WR, they seem to have found a pretty plausible set of baptisms in Bingley Yorkshire that may correspond with this family. I've held off on adding the two separate Bradley lines in my tree until it's sorted out here. Do you think the whole thing is plausible ? I remember you added a comment from a source that stated nothing was known about the family but it was removed. The parish registers from Bingley are added but it still needs a little work. What do you think? Daniel Maxwell 22:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I still think the evidence is to thin to even state that the Yorkshire baptisms apply to the Bradleys who showed up in New Haven. I think I made that argument and was shot down. Until someone with FASG (or equivalent) status is willing to sign off on that theory, I thinks it's "possible" but not "probable."--jaques1724 02:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That is what I thought also. It seemed possible, but it needed more research to be certain. I would be curious what the local will and probate record shows. I personally am not very comfortable with 'original research' (in the wikipedia sense) on these very old lines unless it is vetted as you say, by someone with FASG status. Daniel Maxwell 07:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

So, considering you both are discounting the baptisms, marriages, etc that line up fairly well with known American Bradleys, does anyone have other probable Bradley origins ? Or is this because no Brand Name genealogist has put their "Stamp of Approval" on this theory ? Seems to me that time would be better spent testing the possibility that this may be correct, rather than immediately dismissing it as trivial.--Neal Gardner 21:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that I called it "trivial". Certainly the correspondence between the dates relating to the Yorkshire Broadleys and the New Haven Bradleys is a significant clue. However, I am not comfortable calling it a certainty until a piece of evidence definitely connects the two families (or one family, if you will). It's entirely possible that that evidence will never be found and we'll be in the position of calling the relationship "probable" or "possible" or whatever you choose to call it. Certainly, my opinion is no better or worse than anyone else's.--jaques1724 22:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My problem with it is that while the Bradleys were said to be from Bingley even in very old works, and despite the fact that parish registers have been available in book form for over 100 years, it's strange that no genealogist who has written on the Bradleys put it done as proven or even probable or even 'possible'. I have a hard time believing none of them ever looked into it. It makes me think there is some problem with making that connection, maybe something not apparent from looking at the registers. The only thing that I could say from looking at it is that it seemed possible that there may have been two Daniel 'Broadleys' having children baptized since the gap between the first and second group of children is large enough, but it's possible they are the same. And relax Neal, this is just something I was asking him in a private capacity as someone just as careful as I am with with I put in my tree, you got your way on this family so there is nothing to worry about. I am completely happy to be proven wrong here, BTW. I like nothing more to be able to have another proven origin of an English colonist, but yes, this is something that professionals should be the ones to make a call on. Daniel Maxwell 22:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I get just a wee bit flabbergasted when Genealogists with accompanying letters after their names, are considered "the only experts" in validating theories. I am the one who started the dig into discovering William Bradley's parentage along with Amelia Gerlicher...trying to sort out all the records available online. While I don't consider myself an expert (sans letters), neither am I a plebe.

My hope was that others would examine the records and backup or question my "take" and perhaps have other sources that I can't currently financially afford. So....I and Amelia posted what we felt were very plausible records for the known Bradley/Broadleys, inviting others to explore and expand. As to 2 Daniel Broadleys, online-available records of the Bingley and Shipman area reveals only one Daniel in the right time period reaching manhood. And the gap between the first and second marriages of Daniel Broadley are somewhat filled by the birth & burial of an illegitimate female child. I agree that further direct evidence, ie will, estate need to be read in order to line up the family of Daniel Broadley, but I believe the framework has begun. If anyone can point me to where wills/estates can be obtained, I'd be happy to pursue when I get my next SSI check. --Neal Gardner 00:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

First, the Bingley possibility was already known in 1903. NEHGR Volume 57 mentions it but doesn't give the dates. That parish book, I believe, was published in 1908 - which would make it strange if no one bothered to follow up to see if the connection was true. And as far 'initials after their names' - the problem is that there is a ton of bad genealogy and guesses for the English origins of colonists. If one were to look the IGI for various immigrants, alot of amateurs have 'discovered' nearly all of their origins. Extra care therefore is required when crossing the ocean with origins of a colonists. Merely finding a baptism for John Smith somewhere in England isn't always real proof, just evidence. Now, I realize that this Bradley connection is much more plausible than those, but we still have to exercise the same level of caution. Listen, if I really thought this was spurious I would have deleted it and removed the connection. Because it seems to possibly be correct, I haven't touched it, though I might source up the first generation of Bradleys a little better. Daniel Maxwell 00:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

GEDCOM Export Ready [29 November 2013]

The GEDCOM for tree Brainerd Ancestry is ready to download. Click here.

GEDCOM Export Ready [1 December 2013]

The GEDCOM for tree Test is ready to download. Click here.

Savage Progress! [26 December 2013]

I want to thank you again for your regular use and improvements to the Savage Transcript. I recently completed working through all the pages of the transcript, marking the beginning of individual sketches with this template. There are slightly more than 21,800 altogether, and about 1600 of those are already linked to a corresponding WeRelate PERSON page.

I see that when you've engaged in annotation, you've focused primarily on people who are the subject of a sketch, while I've gone somewhat further within individual sketches, adding links for children and various categories. As I try to expand the scope of correspondence between the WeRelate tree and Savage - I think your approach is more immediately helpful - and I've started to adopt that when convenient.

If you have ideas on how to make the Savage content more useful going forward, please let me know.

Thanks again!

--jrm03063 18:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. With regard to the links, I think linking everyone you can on the transcript pages is useful, but on the person pages it becomes redundant once you've got added all the children of that individual, since you then have those same links on the parent's person page. On a related note, although it's very early in the life of WR, I am trying to link from the narratives to non-family people when pages exist for them; e.g., heirs named in wills, officiating clergymen or officials (performing marriages, baptisms and the like).--jaques1724 18:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a strong believer in links whenever they can be found. Knowing that someone officiated at a ceremony, or witnessed a document, can be very useful information indeed. It's possible that anyone might serve as a witness to a document - but of course - such folks are often acquaintances and therefore give us some insight into the lives of the people we're investigating.

I'm particularly interested in both large and small scale transcriptions as well, because they facilitate creation of two-way links between the source material and the actual Person page. There also may be potential for software to support and/or verify information when connections of this sort start to be common. As a non-primary source, Savage is of course a bit limited in this sort of role, but the coverage is so huge and the availability of good starting content was too good to pass up.

I've wondered if we should consider trying to adopt some standards for citing Savage? Such that we could semi-automatically generate source entries on appropriate Person pages? Since I know when a sketch corresponds to a particular Person - we should be able to automatically drop an appropriate Person page source entry - based on the contents of the transcript sketch. You indicate, for example, that redundant citing of children on a parent's page has dubious utility. I tend to agree - but didn't really want to mess with the text by hand a second time. Maybe a more useful sketch quotation would omit links to direct children - while leaving those with an indirect relationship? Sons-in-law, categories, and other things - but not children who already have a link elsewhere on the page? I could easily write code to drop extracts like that. --jrm03063 19:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You should stop thinking of automating the linkage of Savage to pages, there are too many errors. You'd get too many pages like Family:Andrew Alger and Judith Howard (1) where Savage not only misidentified the wife in a marriage, but also the husband. --Jrich 20:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Automation is not an all or nothing choice. Full automation may be an impossible (and unnecessary) step - there is much that can be done in a semi-automated manner - without directly editing the database. A script could review transcript sections, looking for those that are attached to a Person page. Then examine the indicated Person page, to see if a corresponding Savage source entry is found (indicating the origin page). The result would not be any automatic edits at all - but instead - a report of pages where a human could review the situation and add what they considered an appropriate Savage reference. That could be extended to create a similar report that also included a prepared extract from the transcript that could be pasted in during an ordinary edit session. I suspect that any process of automation, for any given reference material, would be established incrementally. Only as additional levels of automation were shown to be helpful, would they actually be considered.

I doubt that Savage will be a reference where really great work can be done completely automatically - simply because you can't readily infer specific facts from the source material. It's a useful large prototype since it could be quickly bootstrapped from the Kraft transcripts. Vital records, where it is known that you're looking at a birth with particular parents, or a marriage of two particular people at a particular place and time. Those will have some real power - but even then - the best role for automation might not be to make any database changes - but instead - to indicate lack of a connection or facts that do not appear to be consistent - flagging a situation for human review. --jrm03063 22:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)