Deleting pages [6 November 2013]
I was notified on my watchlist that you deleted Family:Ambrose Meacham and Ursula Perrie (1) giving a summary "Ancient and unsupported". I am not sure what the justification for this is, as the page is deleted. I do not know what information is on the page, as it is deleted. Personally, I wouldn't call people living in the 1600s "ancient" since there were written records available for that period. Further, while the sources are not what I would call quality sources and may be wrong, there are plenty of sources available that say this page had possibility, including over 50 Ancestral Files and 2 books published in the last 20 years, so "unsupported" is not obvious, and not really much help to a reader wondering about this family.
There were at least two people that contributed to this page (don't know the details since the page was deleted, but their contributions did not say "propagated", so appear to be directly to the page and not merely to one of the children of this marriage, as some of the other contributions were). Since this page was not deleted by Speedy Delete, these people had no chance to voice their concerns, and the page has been deleted solely on your characterization of it as "ancient and unsupported". I do not feel that a good process was followed. It would seem that it would be preferable to merely add a note to the page saying there appears to be no evidence, or to explain why it appears to be an error. It would next appear to be better to use the Speedy Delete process since there were other people who might have been interested in the page to give them a chance to offer their perspective. And I am not sure deleting the page was the right answer, as it perhaps should have been redirected to Ambrose Morgan and Ursula Perrie ( matches the marriage date given on various AFNs)? --Jrich 10:08, 3 April 2013 (EDT)
- I have deleted close to 6000 pages since Nov 2007, and nearly 1000 in this calendar year alone. I assure you that I am careful with this authority. Indeed, I believe your comment to be the first time anyone has questioned me on the subject. Let me respond to a couple of your remarks and describe my process.
- Multiple watchers can mean that the pages arose from different GEDCOM uploads with the same weak content, that was then merged, or that people have automatically added watch/tree pages, and the pages in question were swept onto their watch lists in that manner. Sadly, it doesn't really mean that people are actively watching and participating.
- When cleaning about the database, I look for several hallmarks that I've learned suggest content that is weak and untouched since being uploaded years ago. Among these:
- * Linking to the place "Burundi" (apparently, at some point, a "Y" in a place field was auto-resolved to Burundi)
- * Gray Pratt's <n>th Grand Parent
- * Special characters such as "^" in names
- * GEDCOM load error dumps in the text body
- * Personal "MySource" sources, that correspond to nothing known, and lack any cite-specific content on a per-page basis
- * ..and of course, history that consists only of GEDCOM load and the odd redirect
- When I find a handful of such pages, my first approach is to just clean them cosmetically. Fix the things that are broken but fixable (like name strings) and remove links to Burundi, meaningless GEDCOM messages, random non-AFN id strings, etc. I'll try to add a source if I can easily find something, but that's not easy in the ancient spaces if you're not looking at nobility. If I find that a weak page is part of a larger contiguous space of similarly weak content, that appears to be a product of the same upload(s), and that doesn't connect in a reasonably short number of "hops" to something substantial or active, then I start thinking delete.
- Once I've decided that the area is a candidate for delete, I'll try to find the limits of the space, so that I don't wind up leaving behind orphaned valueless pages. Starting from the oldest part of the content, I'll begin to systematically delete my way down/forward in time. Since I'm dealing with swaths - and not individual pages - I can say that it is beyond impractical, to use "Speedy Delete" for this sort of delete. Indeed, I think that the reason I was originally nominated as an administrator, was because I was swamping the speedy delete list with content that was so obviously in need of delete, that it was easier to give me the authority to just act. A two step process of marking and then, after time, deleting, makes sense for individual pages where there may be active users - does it make sense for large inactive swaths - and if so - who would want to be the lucky contributor who would review the space in question - and then - go back again in order to perform the delete?
- As an aside, a great deal of the salvage that I've done in the Medieval Spaces, didn't come as a result of working to save content that was weak. Instead, it came as a purely incidental side effect of improving things where source content was present and could be expanded upon - and then discovering that an unsourced tree fragment represented a known and easily source-able piece of genealogy. While this may potentially be gratifying to people who's pages were thus saved, I generally doubt that they were still around on WeRelate, and I can say with certainty that such salvage didn't help with the content that was being worked. Rather, it simply created a better place to attach/redirect pages that were otherwise in need of delete.
- While patches like this sometimes are truly "detached", that's generally not true. Eventually, as I work forward in time, I'll start to find pages that actually contain sources, watchers, and other signs of life. There isn't any perfect way to know how far to go, or when to stop, but hard limits are real sources and/or anything that looks like real activity. I also ask myself with each delete - does this page contain anything that wouldn't be trivial to recreate if even the weakest on-point source were consulted in re[creating] the page?
- So when I'm doing a delete, I am certainly not representing that the content was non-factual. Instead, I'm saying that the content is part of a large, very weak swath, where the facts alleged are systematically devoid of support, and the cosmetics are embarrassing. I am also saying that the content present does not appear to be significantly more helpful than knowing nothing whatsoever, if one were seriously interested in working on the ancestry in question.
- I am sure, that over my history of cleaning and deleting, there are pages where I didn't choose the right comment to indicate why the delete should occur, or perhaps that there are pages that could have been salvaged if I had put in somewhat more diligence. Still, I am very sure that on balance, I've hit this about right. Others may disagree, but so far at least, they havn't.
- --jrm03063 14:26, 3 April 2013 (EDT)
What I get out of this is a big "trust me" without any attempt to provide an evidence-based basis for your deletion. --Jrich 12:34, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
- I don't think I care to add to the explanation that I've already offered at length above. --jrm03063 15:20, 19 August 2013 (EDT)
I'd like to add here that I had to leave Wikipedia because I had hours and hours of my research deleted by men. Most of my research is on women or people who are not white-European and therefore have less documentation than white European men, for example. Many women of all races don't have the documentation that men have. There are several women in my tree that the only thing we have for them is their first name. And we (we being a cadre of female cousins of mine) are working on these people ALL THE TIME. But if we don't find anything for years we will not be changing the entry for years. Does not mean the woman is not important to us or that we are not working on her. And if any of the women I am working on right now are deleted my head will just pop off from rage. If that happens I'll try to get video I can put on Youtube, lol! signed Catherine dee Auvil, inclusionist.--cthrnvl 16:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I became "a deleter of swaths" as a result of trying to rehabilitate our medieval and ancient spaces. When I found large amounts of dubious content, that A) wasn't supported (AT ALL), B) I couldn't support and C) it didn't at all look active - I would then ask myself - what if this were gone? Would it be harder to re-create (with a source in hand) from scratch - or just as easy to create fresh?
- Believe me when I say that I'm an inclusionist too, but I'm one of the few that took on the job of trying to bring sanity to huge spaces that resulted from GEDCOM dumping in the early days - made even harder because the community wouldn't consent to delete of some pretty bad GEDCOM uploads. Hard decisions had to be made. I've deleted a lot - but I've saved a lot more - supporting it variously with WP, ThePeerage and Cawley. I generally don't employ this approach for content more recent than 1600 or so.
- I hope this puts you at more ease - and I assure you - I'm too harried to contemplate discrimination on any arbitrary basis! While I am a man, I think I've learned enough in life to know not to trifle with women - it can be....hazardous. --jrm03063 16:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
GEDCOM Export Ready [5 April 2013]
The GEDCOM for tree HistoryOfParliament is ready to download. Click here.
GEDCOM Export Ready [5 April 2013]
The GEDCOM for tree HistoryOfParliament is ready to download. Click here.
History of Parliament [5 April 2013]
SOunds interesting! Would like to know more and how I could help? AndrewRT 15:21, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
GEDCOM Export Ready [6 April 2013]
The GEDCOM for tree HistoryOfParliament is ready to download. Click here.
GEDCOM Export Ready [6 April 2013]
The GEDCOM for tree HistoryOfParliament is ready to download. Click here.
WeRelate growth [14 April 2013]
Your following comment:
- "I think the real risks for the site lie in doing what its been doing - and hovering around 2.4M person pages with very little upward movement"
reminded me to upload a graph I've been working on for a while on this topic - I've started a discussion at WeRelate_talk:Watercooler#WeRelate_growth_.5B6_April_2013.5D. Looks interesting! AndrewRT 17:51, 6 April 2013 (EDT)
- That's a little more optimistic than my gut feel for the matter. My sense has been that the genealogical domain wasn't expanding with any rapidity, but that the quality of content to be expected for any given page seemed to me like it has been on the way up. But I suppose that my perspective is too narrow to be useful for drawing conclusions. --jrm03063 21:56, 6 April 2013 (EDT)
- It's a little encouraging although in my mind still much too slow. Bearing in mind ancestry.com is in the hundreds of millions, it puts WeRelate well above other wikis but well behind the commercial alternatives. AndrewRT 06:51, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
- I agree. While I don't begrudge the larger commercial sites their size and the opportunities that a lot of money offer - I'm constantly frustrated that the WeRelate community doesn't embrace our own unique opportunities, for example:
- When I first joined, new users would often had a perception that WeRelate was sort of the "wikipedia" of genealogy. Instead of embracing that, and saying to folks - sure, we use media wiki software, we have a compatible licensing arrangement, and we're non-profit. They would instead CORRECT people and focus instead on the differences. While I wouldn't ever want to appropriate anything from wikipedia unfairly, why attack a positive association that lets people relate to and understand what you're doing? Of course it even goes beyond this - and gets us to a recent re-vote on whether WP extracts should even be allowed on pages that didn't have any other content. The idea was voted down - but the fact that it is even still entertained as a measurable minority point of view strikes me as appalling.
- What we should really be doing is making common cause with the Wikipedia biography project. Instead of me having to keep my eyes open and pick up biographies wherever I can, in ones and twos by hand (14 new ones this week alone! it's only taken me 4 years to get us up to 20,000 of the 600K-1M biography pages that exist on WP - at this rate, I'll get them all in 106-196 years!). That is crazy. We should automatically have new biography pages added over here. Not only that - but when a page is voted off the WP island because it's only reason for existence is genealogical - we should just hoover up the entire body, history and all - and the page delete log on WP should indicate - "transferred to WeRelate".
- The History of Parliament effort is a little like this (though I don't think pages will be voted out of the project!), since I wouldn't think that a commercial entity would have quite as much "license" (at least in an informal sense) to make use of the content without abridging copyright. Hopefully, it will be better received by the community because it doesn't have the genealogical negative connotations of WP, but I view the effort as not fundamentally different from what would be done w/WP.
- Oh well, I guess that's as much belly-aching as I want to do today.... :) --jrm03063 12:52, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
- Amen! I have likewise been surprised at how anti-Wikipedia many people here have been. I think that a Wikipedia to WeRelate project would be awesome - I would be interested in helping out on the software side. -- Jdfoote1 12:43, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
- Great to hear at least one other vote for sanity! Once, I would have thought that software to do some of these things would be the hard part. Now that I've seen what a wiki-culture is like, I see that software would be the easy part.
- There are a few things I can imagine doing to start - figuring out how to identify biography pages that are in line to be deleted by Wikipedia would be one. I know there are sites that simply contain deleted WP content, so they must do it somehow. Maybe they just look at pages that exist in adjacent dumps of the database, and look for any that are deleted.
- Wikipedia has some templates for creating family tree displays of related ancestor pages. To my mind, every such instance is potentially a little GEDCOM. Since we already have a lot of wikipedia genealogical content, we'ld need to figure out how to avoid re-reloading pages. Or maybe - we could just look at each such fragment on wikipedia - and see if we have corresponding pages for all the WP biographies noted in the tree display template.
- It would really be nice if WeRelate had something other than the current implicit correspondence between WeRelate pages and wikipedia pages - at least for Person pages. Maybe the anti-wikipedians would go along with this - because it would mean that they would be free to leave wikipedia more or less entirely off of a WR biography page.
- Anyway, an effort of this sort will have my support, but I'm not sure how many more times I want to have the "but every genealogist knows - WP is crap!" discussion. Or the more recent and subtle variant - where you get stony silence while doing four years of the most odious grunt work - interrupted every so often by a complaint that you're spamming people's inboxes with change mail - followed by a vigorous and personal attack when you dare to try making changes to further improve the content that was formerly unusable and embarrassing crap! (and by the way, since you've changed from sending e-mail with each change, to not sending e-mail, your recent changes will be labelled as an effort to work BEHIND the community's back). --jrm03063 14:54, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
I can definitely be guilty of trying to solve everything with technology, but I wonder if there might be a way to make everyone happy. Here are a few (crazy?) ideas:
1. Import people from WP, but auto-add a template that explains that it's from WP, and asks people to add sources, check for duplicates, etc.
2. Create a page that's just a list of WP people, that can be used just to keep track of which ones have already been added to WR (e.g., they would be deleted by people when they have been added).
3. Create a true sync, where data moves back and forth between the two systems.
-- Jdfoote1 15:05, 14 April 2013 (EDT)
- Not crazy - just be ready for slings and arrows that are not rational - and don't be surprised if some separate idea or practice of yours - is attacked with a vigor that is inexplicably disproportionate.
- So, having fully warned you...
- * "1. Import people from WP..." - I formerly avoided this by the certain (I thought) defense of adding pages that connected with existing trees. However, you might do a small preemptive load of the 200 articles indicated as "Core", or even, the 1000 (or so) indicated as "FA" (featured article?) quality. One approach might be something like what I'm thinking of doing with History of Parliament. Create a degenerate GEDCOM consisting only of the people you're trying to add, and no genealogical connections whatsoever. Create the GEDCOM in such a manner, that it contains a proper cite of the corresponding WP page, and a category that labels the page as corresponding to a WP Biography, and use the name of that WP biography as the category sort key. I would also suggest creating a legitimate meat puppet (is there such a thing?) that exists for the purpose of doing the uploads and "owning" any tree(s) thus created. After the needs for being able to log in to that account pass, presumably it can be blocked from further logins, until or unless it is needed again.
- * 1A - pages that are biographical, but are facing deletion on grounds of not meeting notability standards, seem like a place where a semi-heroic effort is called for. Still, I'm a little perplexed on how this could be detected with certainty. It seems like the threat to delete is relatively common - but I havn't yet figured out when a WP biography is actually at the moment of being deleted. Perhaps this is somehow detectable by looking at pages in consecutive drops of the WP database (and noticing that the page in one no longer exists in the next).
- * "2. Create a page that's just a list of WP people,..." - probably the least controversial idea. Perhaps the most valuable thing that could be done here, is to try to cross reference some subset of WP biographies with the existing WP-referenced set on WeRelate. While 21,000 is small, compared against the 600K/1M claimed biographies on WP, it can be enough to be a bit of a problem when trying to pre-emptively add.
- * "3. Create a true sync..." - now, you are dreaming. Still, I can't resist thinking about it myself. Obviously a long term goal, and one where it's hard to be sure what it might look like, but laying groundwork isn't out of the question. For example (as implied for "1."), a category that explicitly marks a "Person" page as corresponding to a particular WP Biography page. --jrm03063 18:08, 14 April 2013 (EDT)
GEDCOM Export Ready [10 April 2013]
The GEDCOM for tree HistoryOfParliament is ready to download. Click here.
[9 May 2013]
Hey, Jrm03063, I'm inputting a bunch of Welsh pages to connect a couple of lines and I can't remember if the talk page you created on the subject suggested that the "ap" and "verch" go in the fore or sur name fields. Consensus?--New.incarnation 20:02, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
- The consensus was that I was an arrogant idiot for daring to make a proposal on the matter - and even worse being counter-wiki for actually attempting to try out my ideas on a thousand or so pages I'ld been editing (my promises to restore things to whatever standard the community adopts not withstanding). I refer you to the various folks who attacked that proposal yet refused to offer anything within that discussion thread (though, in fairness, one member of the oversight committee did offer to appropriate the matter in favor of her own, unstated preferences).
- For informed discussion, I suggest you seek out Werebear. For villagers with pitchforks, you can see this.
- Good Luck! --jrm03063 16:58, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
Home page [1 June 2013]
Hi Jrm, I noticed your name appearing on the list of admins. Would you be able to do something about the "news" box on the main page? There are at least three comments on the Watercooler about how embarrassing it is that we have "news" on our Main Page that is coming up to a year old. As an immediate step, I guess the entire box can be removed unless someone wants to add in a new item. Many thanks! AndrewRT 17:54, 30 May 2013 (EDT)
- Well, I suppose I could, but I've dabbled in enough changes that raised the ire of folks around here. Seems like a matter for the oversight committee! :)... --jrm03063 09:22, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
Civil War categories [17 June 2013]
The sorting scheme for the Civil War categories is outlined on American Civil War Veterans Project and Category talk:American Civil War veterans. Ajcrow spent a lot of time organizing and laying out this project. It seems you have alternate ideas for sorting the categories, so I would suggest leaving a message on the project's talk page. --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:33, 14 June 2013 (EDT)
- I'm afraid I didn't recognize the sort scheme in place as something that would be explicitly intended. I'll confer.
- The folks on that project seem not to have been active in some time... --jrm03063 13:45, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
Hello - I got the email saying you had made the change and in taking a look, I think we may have both erred. I created that page a few years back and I guess I somehow overlooked the convention at the time. Per Help:Source page titles it looks like for US newspapers, the citation should read "Title (city, state)" - but now since we are both watchers, I can no longer rename the page. May I impose upon you to use your admin powers to correct it? Much Thanks.--Cos1776 13:36, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
- Since the name of the paper has changed, I just recreated it new and redirected the old name. Does the result seem correct to you? --jrm03063 13:44, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
- Yes, I understand your intention, and I agree with your logic, just not the solution. I think redirects are better suited to duplicate source pages or reprints with the same name. In this case, instead of a redirect, the original source page should include dates of publication under that name, a note about the name change and a link to source page for the new name. As it is now, we have lost access to the original source page and any unique information that might have existed on that page (granted there wasn't any in this particular case, but that is not always true), and more importantly, the citations calling the source are now incorrect. Ex. Person:George Ayd (2): his obit citation now says "Tampa Bay Times" which was not the name of the newspaper at the time his obit was published and not the name that you would look under if you wanted to see the original article. Thoughts? --Cos1776 14:53, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
- I can't say that I have a preference...see if you like it now... --jrm03063 15:21, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
- Yes, I think it results in a more correct citation that way. --Cos1776 15:39, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
Advice [19 August 2013]
Can I ask your opinion please? I've been going through intermittantly changing pages like Person:Thomas Berkeley, 5th Lord Berkeley (1) to align with the standard naming conventions on WeRelate (e.g. no titles, in this case just "Thomas Berkeley"). I know you are active in this area and wondered if you thought there was much tangible benefit in this? Thanks AndrewRT 14:07, 19 August 2013 (EDT)
- I try to review the parents, children, and siblings to see if there's something that passes for a consensus (and across the various sources). I also generally assume that a more antiquated form "de Berkeley" doesn't recur when the more modern form "Berkeley" starts to appear. I would say it's very much a judgement call on the specifics of what to do.
- Beyond that, I would say that if something more like the WeRelate convention can be created, then I presume that's better because the community has decided it's better... I'll mull this some more. --jrm03063 15:20, 19 August 2013 (EDT)
Deleting my comment on the water cooler [15 September 2013]
Was there some reason you deleted my reply to JDfoote on the watercooler? Or was this an accident?--Daniel Maxwell 17:28, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
- That would definitely have been an accident - please accept my apology.... --jrm03063 17:29, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
- Oh Ok. Sorry I didn't mean to sound heated there. I can kind of sense this will be a heated topic. Since you've done some work on the technical side, I was wondering if you might look into my tag idea for the 'death date' of famous exceptions. I can explain further if you need me to.
- Thanks so much for understanding. Maybe your idea is overlapping the one I'm creating in response to this discussion? See mine at Template:WikipediaNotabilityException... --jrm03063 17:35, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
- That is 100% exactly what I meant! Great minds think alike ? This should become a mandatory for all living person exceptions - this way we wont have anything ugly in the 'death' column while the auto-category can be checked for someone borderline. But I would say get rid of the Wikipedia part and just make it famous living person exception. Daniel Maxwell 20:50, 13 September 2013 (EDT)
- Ok, I'll tidy it up a bit more. Keep an eye out!
- Part of the reason I forced this issue on the water cooler is because I have been trying to get Dallan to adopt a 'valid date' policy on WR, he agreed, but further details will need to be worked out. Perhaps WR could also adopt how the site would prefer dates to be written at that time. Once a policy is had, we can then ping the site looking for invalid/empty dates (empty dates for people whos birthdate is too late to be allowed on the site without a death date). On the other hand, this will help people who have accidentally entered incorrect dates, but it will also help in finding livings, often hiding under 'N' or 'living' or 'private' written in the date column. I was hoping that this new tab (good so far) could go in the date field instead of the description field for the death column, and maybe somehow the 'pinging' of the site would ignore ONLY this tab while looking for bad dates. I don't know if this is possible, but that was my purpose in trying to get your tab added as policy for famous livings - I recognize that pinging for bad dates may have giving these people problems. Daniel Maxwell 15:17, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
- I completely agree that we need to adopt practices that can support software-driven audits. This is something that I've been interested in for some time, though I admit to having made scant effort in realizing it. --jrm03063 16:59, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
Alice Norreys (1) [15 September 2013]
Alice Norreys has references in the text to [[Place:Upton, Berkshire, England|Upton, Berkshire]]..
Upton is a pretty common name for a place and there are two with connections to Berkshire.
The first is now named Place:Upton (near Slough), Buckinghamshire, England in WR. It only became a part of Berkshire in 1974 when the town of Slough was transferred from one county to the other. This Upton became part of a later parish named Upton-cum-Chalvey which in turn was the original settlement for Slough itself.
The second--Upton, Berkshire, England--is a village and civil parish in the mid-west of Berkshire which was transferred to Oxfordshire in 1974.
Other details for Alice Norreys refer to places in the vicinity of Slough. I recognize her husband Bulstrode from his manor between Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross which still exists.
I didn't know anything about the Upton that moved to Oxfordshire until I started looking at the geography of this part of England for WR, but I actually used to work in Upton (near Slough)--way back in the 1960s when it was in Buckinghamshire.
Hope I haven't confused you. --Goldenoldie 10:11, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
- I would encourage you to feel free to modify things for that person as you think most appropriate. I think that's a person that I worked with only on account of my general efforts of clean-up and de-duplication.
- For my part, I often find myself cleaning up places entered for people in New England, because I've lived here for very many years. I'll often find people with fact locations indicated in places that the locals hadn't yet surrendered at the time indicated - and recognize that what was intended was a similarly named location of greater antiquity (and proximity to the Atlantic!).
- I'm sure you can bring the same kind of knowledge for folks who lived in your area, and would heartily welcome anything you might offer. Thanks! --jrm03063 17:06, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
There are some people whose toes I will step on. Yours aren't in that category. (smile) --Goldenoldie 17:37, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
Back channel email [25 September 2013]
JRM is there a way to get ahold of you via email? WR says your settings for this are off.--Daniel Maxwell 17:07, 19 September 2013 (EDT)
- I've tried to reach you on your e-mail w/o success, please let me know if you've not seen those... --jrm03063 15:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Alt birth date for Lydia Parker (19) [25 September 2013]
You added an alternate birth date of "23 Feb 1716" to Person:Lydia Parker (19) and no source says this. Both the given sources say 28 Feb. One would assume it is a typo, given the similarity of 23 and 28. Care to provide a source? --Jrich 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
John Pickering (8) [7 October 2013]
I have been researching on the Pickerings from Portsmouth area. I noticed that you have connected
(John Pickering (8) died 18 Jan. 1669, married to Mary) to a family from England...John Pickering and Susan Dryden. What source did you find that supports this information. It would be great if I could finally connect my John to England.
S. Pickering--Picksuza 17:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just took a look at that stuff - I'm afraid I don't have anything solid on that. I tried to be a little optimistic about what I found on ancestry (back in '07/08 I guess) and then figured that things would either play out and get support over time - or not. While the stuff you're looking at hasn't been disproved - the fact that support isn't turning up should leave you highly dubious. It's the sort of thing I would even start to consider for deletion.
- At some point, I'll work back through the pages I've had contact with, and try to find those that are weak and seem to be remaining that way. I just want to find a way to do it somewhat systematically.
- Still, rather than worrying much about stuff that's weak - I think it's probably better to focus on pushing as much solid supporting/reference material where we can. Everyone has to be critical of what they find - from any source.
- Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Good luck! --jrm03063 22:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- . Age 30 in 1615 for Sir John Pickering makes him 15 in 1600 and therefore not likely to be the father. This source also says the son John died unmarried. Another source says he married Susan Dryden in 1608, while this source indicates Gilbert, b. 1613, is his eldest son, and since Gilbert seems to have inherited the estate, seems reasonable. I assume somebody familiar with visitations could find more stuff on this family pretty easily. --Jrich 14:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit the appropriate pages.... --jrm03063 17:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- No thanks. I was just trying to offer help. I have other things to do, and I don't want to spend enough time to research this as much as is needed to input good data. --Jrich 18:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Battle of Point Pleasant Page [8 November 2013]
Hi Jrm, got your message on my Talk Page. No issues with the merge, thanks for letting me know.
Have a great week,
Jim:)--Delijim 13:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know what you are doing because it is really important to me. Each person listed as a participant in the battle of point pleasant represents hours of reading on my part. SO thanks for respecting that. Catherine --cthrnvl 15:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- You are both very welcome - please let me know if you find yourself in disagreement with anything I do. --jrm03063 15:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your update on the battle of point pleasant work. I have been working on this in sort of a backwards way - if I read any mention that the person was at the battle I add them to the category with the plan to go back later and enter the reference or lack of reference. I guess I came up with this plan on my own because I created the category and I think I am the only one adding to it. Now I see that a better plan would have been to have a list of believed participants and then only add them to the category when a reference is found. At this point I'll stop adding people and start working on the references. After I add Alden Williamson. I couldn't help it - it is so addictive! Thanks again! --cthrnvl 20:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. I hope that what I've done will help you moving forward.
- I don't think there's anything wrong with an approach that starts from the facts on individuals or one that starts from a roster. I would encourage use of both. If I had the interest in this event that you do, I would probably take the approach of creating sources and transcripts for the key materials on the battle. I would annotate the transcripts with references to the various WeRelate Person pages, using them to support the military event of participation at the battle. I even have a small example of doing this (besides this enormous ongoing effort...).....
- Exeter, NH, was founded by a religious splinter group led by the Rev. John Wheelwright. Somewhat after the fashion of the Mayflower Compact, the group found itself operating beyond an existing charter or legal framework, so they created a very basic form in a document now recalled as The Exeter Combination. It has an interesting history of its own, but for our purposes, it is a short document with a list of signatures of many of the adult males of the community. Further a reasonably good image of the document is available. Using that, I created this transcript. Ideally, everything hooks to everything else. The Person pages for named individuals cite the source and also present the image. The transcript annotates the list of signatures with links to the actual person pages.
- All the best.... --jrm03063 22:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
New tab idea for you [11 November 2013]
Jrm, since you were the one created several of the useful tags (such as speculative parent, disproven parents, etc) I want to shoot something else by you that will help with another issue I have noticed. I wonder if a 'grandchild of _____ and ______' tag could be created. The reason for this is that in the long process of removing the livings from the site, a handful have come up where there is a dead child but living parents, and a couple of users were keeping the living person pages but renaming them 'unknown' to allow them to 'bridge' to the dead grandparents. A grandchild tag of some kind could allow these children to be linked up through the family that is still living but skipping a generation so it doesnt give obvious clues of who the living people are, which is my problem with renaming livings but keeping them.--Daniel Maxwell 00:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen that issue - I think you're onto something. Ideally, you would hope to be able to link a grandchild to either a maternal or paternal grandparents family. But failing that, you might sometimes have to carry the connection between individual grandparents and a grandchild. As with all such tags - you want the resulting connection to be bi-directional. So I think you wind up with:
- * At the child/person, paternalgrandparents and maternalgrandparents match up with paternalgrandchild and maternalgrandchild respectively (in the family).
- * Alternatively, in the child/person, paternalgrandfather, paternalgrandmother, maternalgrandfather and maternalgrandmother ALSO match up with paternalgrandchild and maternalgrandchild (in the person).
- Very interesting. I'll mull it a bit more.... --jrm03063 01:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- The user I was talking about, Khaentlahn, has got something worked up here: Template:Grandparents Template:Grandchild. On his talk page, we're hammering out some other ideas - in laws, etc so we can complete alleviate the 'living bridge' problem. Daniel Maxwell 01:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Great! I'll just let you guys fly with it then.... --jrm03063 01:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I just duplicated your Watercooler article? [12 November 2013]
I'm not sure how to best clean it up...--Wongers 10:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'll look - please don't worry! --jrm03063 15:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I must have missed a discussion on Re: title pages of nobility [15 November 2013]
Hey JRM, I noticed in the log that you've been changing the page names of many nobles from 'John Smith, Duke of XX' to just 'John Smith'. Is this considered WR policy now? I wonder because if there was a discussion somewhere about it, I missed it. I don't object at all, in fact I completely agree with it. What I am curious about is if there is a guide to how this supposed to work re: royalty. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be consistency on the royal names. Does 'James V of Scotland' become 'James Stewart' since that was his 'core' name, or do we have a different gameplan there since royalty didn't always have regular names.--Daniel Maxwell 07:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- There was a disaster/discussion for people who didn't have a last/surname, "in the ordinary sense". I meant it as a discussion of what to do with folks like James V, but it got tangled up in parochial interests relating to patronyms and various favorite toponyms. Since folks didn't care to articulate a workable idea of their own - they did the only other thing they could think of - which was to attack my ideas and ways of working. I almost left over it, but I decided the people doing the loudest and most mean-spirited complaining would just go away if the discussion were abandoned - which I did. So royal names from antiquity (modern royals seem to have a generally accepted surname for the most part) are still in an up for grabs kind of state.
- For people who do have proper first/last names, there hasn't (in a number of years anyway) been a discussion of what to do with pages that don't follow the "first last (n)" convention. Back when that discussion occurred - and there was a fairly lively debate - I eventually accepted the convention - but with a caveat offered by Dallan. For purposes of doing the heavy-duty medieval and noble de-duplication, by way of mass inclusion of wikipedia biographies, it was considered acceptable to create pages identically named to the WP biography, on a temporary basis. Implied in that, was a promise that some day, I would come back and normalize thousands of page names.
- So, Earlier this year, between the value of such names diminishing and the venom that was hurled my way in the related "what's a surname" discussion - I decided that time had come. I don't want people to be able to say that I'm not playing by the community's rules. I also wanted to be seen as remembering and keeping my promises. Since then, I've done many thousands of renames - but not in a strictly orderly way. Eventually, I assume I'll need to write some software to perform a proper search, but for now, I'm still in the mode of picking off targets of opportunity.
- So that's the story! --jrm03063 17:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- So then I am understanding you, James V of Scotland would become 'James Stewart' and his daughter would become 'Mary Stuart'? It is similar to how I add kings in my own tree but I have a bit more detail - Edward I is for instance written 'King of England Edward I Plantagenet' in my tree, but his name does sound strange written as just 'Edward Plantagenet'. Anyway, that's the main reason I came here, so I don't rename a bunch of King pages too soon. Daniel Maxwell 02:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Categories [18 November 2013]
Hi Jrm, got your message regarding Categories, etc. The Early Settlers of Augusta County are in the following category: Category:Early Settlers of Old Augusta. Bill (Quolla6) added most of the specific surname categories included, that were of particular interest to him. I'm assuming this is what you were suggesting, if not then give me a bit more detail and I'll take a look at it.
Thanks and have a great week,
Jim:)--Delijim 13:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Semple Clan [25 November 2013]
Hello...What is needed? Could use a little help here...Thanks--Samples 59 19:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Sempill Clan [25 November 2013]
Hello...Let me know if I'm doing this right? Or, discontinue this effort. Thanks--Samples 59 20:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Clan Semple [26 November 2013]
Thank you for all your help with creating a Clan Sempill site. To answer your question of the siblings the most distant relative in my collection, who are believed/held to be of the clan, that are attached to that Clan Semple page are John Semple of East Pennsboro, Pa. a brother of Samuel Semple the Pittsburgh Lawyer (same page). And, Sir Francis Semple who brought roses to Pittsburgh, Pa. from his Rose Cottage, estate overseas (same page). I'm looking to keep John and Samuel as (brothers) and Sir Francis (a cousin, or brother) together. But need to attach them to an unknown father for them. Elizabeth Semple (same page) I can find no relationship to the two brothers John and Samuel, or Sir Francis. Should I tie John & Samuel (brothers) to an Unknown Semple father page? What would you suggest. Again, thanks for your help.--Samples 59 17:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. Compared to other places, I think that WR has some really outstanding capabilities for displaying and organizing information, but it can be a trifle bewildering at first....
- An unknown parent page is perfectly fine - but you want to make sure that it serves a purpose. For example, if you know that two or more people are siblings, then there should be a family page tying them together - even if nothing at all is known of the parents (because there actually IS something known - which is that they had at least the indicated children). When a person has no known parents or siblings - such a page would serve no purpose. --jrm03063 17:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)