User talk:Jdfoote1

Topics


Thanks [15 February 2012]

Hi, Thanks so much for adding the people list. It is a great addition.--Beth 18:44, 15 February 2012 (EST)


That's very kind of you, Beth. We have some other projects in the pipeline that should be pretty exciting. :)--Jdfoote1 18:56, 15 February 2012 (EST)


Nice Pickup! [9 March 2012]

Thanks for catching my astonishingly weak media-wiki formatting practice! Any comments on the Savage Transcription effort and the practices that I'm proposing would be greatly appreciated. It's an effort that's obviously beyond any individual - so the methods need to be reasonably simple so as to appeal to a wide audience. --jrm03063 11:36, 8 March 2012 (EST)


You'll have to give me a little bit more time to get my head around what the project is, and how I might be able to help. It looks very cool, and it looks like you have done some great work to get it on here!--Jdfoote1 17:04, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Thanks. The about page for the project is the place to start. While it can be looked at simply as an attempt to work with the Savage Dictionary - it's also our first attempt at a larger scale transcript. Figuring out how to do this sort of thing sanely could be of more general benefit. --jrm03063 19:45, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Featured Page Nomination [21 September 2012]

Hi Jeremy, I noticed the Featured Page nomination of John Redd. Thanks, there's good information and narrative on his Person Page. I did some minor editing and added some "section headings" to make it a little easier to read.

Thanks again, It will definitely be in the rotation as the Featured Page in a few weeks. If you see any other good pages worthy of consideration, feel free to add them, too.

Best regards,

Jim:)--Delijim 18:08, 17 September 2012 (EDT)


Oh good - I'm glad I put it in the right place - it isn't terribly clear how you're supposed to nominate pages. Your changes look great - this isn't actually a page that I've worked on, I just came across it. - Jdfoote1 21:16, 20 September 2012 (EDT)


wp angst [22 October 2012]

There's a lot of latent angst about WP in the genealogical world. I think it has more to do with a traditional "wikipedia is bad" thought process - that doesn't spend two seconds thinking about why a WR page would fundamentally be better than a WP equivalent. The answer to the second question of course, is that there really isn't any reason to believe that one is better than the other - but the discussion usually doesn't get there. Even if the discussion does get there - then folks grab at straws and make claims about differing community standards, intentions, focus (as if WP standards are weaker than those that are generally in place around here!). There's always a chance that there is information better suited to one than the other - say a will or something of that nature - but I've never seen a situation where the WP inclusion precluded doing anything anyone wanted to do with the WR page.

The thing that really gets me though - is the idea that somehow we're in a position to discount the useful content and contributions of nearly 100,000 WP pages and the contributors behind that. I mean - where are the contributors going to come from on WR that will replace that content? We've been parked at a little over 2M person pages for quite a while. That's not a hugely bad thing - I think it means we're adding content instead of bare names - but I don't see that we're so flush with contributors that we can jettison things for no better reason than genealogical arrogance.

Oh well - I guess we'll see... --jrm03063 23:41, 22 October 2012 (EDT)


Language variants of WP and WP<->WR [18 April 2013]

Wikipedia (WP) seems to generally have a good handle on when there are language variants of "the same" article present in different versions of wikipedia. But of course, these aren't really the same articles - they can have different development paths, contributors, sources, and even, present different conclusions. This leads me to a few questions:

  • Since WP doesn't lock together development of pages in different languages, the model of relating one language version of WP with another, is very much like what we have in trying to relate WR person pages with WP biographies. Is there something about the way that WP does this, that should guide us creating the same sort of logical connection between WeRelate (WR) and WP?
  • When different language versions of WP are available for the biography of a given person, is there any need to indicate more than one of the correspondences? If not, presumably, we should choose the language version most "native" for the person (presumably, Louis XIV would be preferred in French, Henry VIII in english).

???

--jrm03063 19:42, 14 April 2013 (EDT)

I think that's a good model to follow, and a good point. Just like different WP language pages have different ways of presenting the same topic, WR may want to provide a different lens into these people. In the WP interface, AFAIK, the only thing linking pages is a language link. Something similar could probably be placed at the bottom of WP pages to link to the WR person, and on WR pages to link to the WP person.
Perhaps it's worth just thinking of a way to effectively import people from the WP Biography project into WR, and thinking of a good way to link back to WP for people on WP (maybe a sidebar link, or even like a "notable person" template?) -- Jdfoote1 18:08, 18 April 2013 (EDT)

In the news [29 July 2013]

Hi Jeremy, thanks for your support for this idea. Would you be interested in contributing? I figure it would need a core group of at least three people to maintain the section. AndrewRT 18:25, 22 June 2013 (EDT)

I think I could do that - sounds like fun! -- Jdfoote1 21:03, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
Great news - thanks. I'll have a think about the roadmap we need - I guess at least one more volunteer first and then agreement for a space on the Main Page. I'd like some way of measuring site traffic - have you ever come across anything for that on WeRelate? AndrewRT 14:21, 24 June 2013 (EDT)
Hi again. The oversight committee has given their green light to this and I've created a page at WeRelate:Current_news_nominations as a starter. Would be very interested to hear what you think and please come along and add in extra stuff there! AndrewRT 18:18, 25 July 2013 (EDT)
Looks great - I think what you have on there looks good, but I'll keep my eye out for other stuff to add. -- Jdfoote1 15:39, 26 July 2013 (EDT)
Seen a few stories in the news that might be worth adding if you're interested? Indian princesses win £2.5bn inheritance - China's Bo Xilai charged with corruption AndrewRT 15:24, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Re Template:Buckinghamshire unions of parishes [16 August 2013]

Many thanks for working on the template. I am surprised that you can use abbreviations in the "formulas" without defining the abbreviations.

As I said, I have gone back to working with the See Also box, but I do follow your explanation. There are plenty of places where a series of tables like this would be so appropriate.

Unfortunately, since I put my query forward, life with living relatives has suddenly come up the priority stakes. How much work I can put into PlacePages for WeRelate in the next while is an unknown.

Regards --Goldenoldie 17:16, 15 August 2013 (EDT)

Ah - I should have read your comments more carefully. I didn't realize that you had given up on the template idea.
As far as the abbreviations - they are actually defined in the template itself - text within {{{}}} is considered as a parameter name. Hopefully that makes sense. It's kinda fun to make these templates - let me know if there are any others that would be helpful. -- Jdfoote1 20:04, 15 August 2013 (EDT)

Giving up on the template was a matter of impatience. I wanted to get down to the nitty gritty of tackling the place pages themselves.

I should think there would be plenty of census templates possible--not necessarily for users who insist on the full 30 columns or so, but for those of us who like to provide maybe half a dozen salient facts for each member of family group. I know some of these have been built for some United States census, but British and Canadian ones would be helpful. In both cases the censuses are nationwide with no changes to the questions from area to area (except maybe Scotland 1841). Person:Elias Arnold (5) was done using "templates" built on Sticky Notes.

A lot of my genealogy files are compiled in Excel and some in Access, but getting around html code is something I have never tackled. --Goldenoldie 02:31, 16 August 2013 (EDT)


White Hall School help [25 November 2013]

Thanks for showing me how. I guess i steer clear of the Box at the top for entering names. thanks Mike M--Mm103 03:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


GEDCOM Export Ready [19 December 2013]

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