User talk:Khaentlahn

Archived Talkstreams 2012, 2013

Topics


Floyd Knapp [16 January 2014]

Hello. I am very new to WeRelate. I have been checking things out and came across my grandpa, Floyd Knapp Sr in your tree. Wondering if you are related? Look forward to hearing from you. Kelly Knapp Yeomans--KellysFamilyTree 02:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


Categories in Kirkcudbrightshire [5 February 2014]

Your amendments are coming up on my watchlist. Can you tell me what your purpose is? I have no criticisms--I am just curious.

I have ancestry in Kirkcudbrightshire, but I have not got as far as putting the whole KKD family into WeRelate yet.

regards --Goldenoldie 18:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Simply adding the main category links at the bottom.--Khaentlahn 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

‎ZachariahEddy1712.ged [9 February 2014]

I modified one of the daughters, but the 1900 census does support the impossible birth dates. Weird... Colby Farrington 17:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


GEDCOM uploaded? [23 February 2014]

There is a message on the watercooler about a GEDCOM file uploaded by Colby Farrington. Do you happen to know if the file was uploaded, or might this be something I need to check with Dallan about? --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself, because, from this end, the file importation was run normally, but it appears to have somehow disappeared. If you would be so kind as to check with Dallan, that would be great.--Khaentlahn 16:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Will do! I'll post a response on the Watercooler when I hear more (probably not until tomorrow). --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

GEDCOM in review [2 April 2014]

There is a GEDCOM file in review that you've claimed and I'm not sure of the status on it. Diane Hosler left a message here about her import. --Jennifer (JBS66) 19:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Starting tutorials [26 May 2014]

Thank you for your efforts in rewriting the tutorials. They are much easier to follow. I am not that familiar with entering information in a wiki, so I much appreciate the help you and others have given. Maybe someday I feel comfortable with it. Genehuntr--genehuntr 00:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


Person:Kate Pegg (1) [22 August 2014]

I have adjusted the death place and burial details for Kate Pegg. Lindsay was in Victoria County (now City of Kawartha Lakes); Lindsey was a township in Bruce County (now in a municipality with a different name, but still within Bruce County). Found by noting the co-ords for Riverside Cemetery, which did not match with Bruce County.

Riverside Cemetery was already listed under Victoria County.

Regards --Goldenoldie 07:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


Tom Schoening gedcom [30 September 2014]

Hi, it looks like you're in the middle of reviewing Tomschoening's GEDCOM. He just left a message on my talk page wondering how it was coming along. (I glanced at it quickly and it looks pretty good to me.) Would you mind importing it or returning it to Tom with a reason why it can't be imported? Thanks!--Dallan 17:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


I apologize. I started the review earlier today and was called away due to illness. It has been imported.
Thank-you! I hope you are feeling better.--Dallan 04:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

empty pages [16 October 2014]

I have noticed you adding empty person pages to Family pages I have created. I purposefully do not create those pages because they tend to be very confusing when displayed in search results. I believe the page should not be created until you have something to put on it: a birth, a death, a location, parents, a second marriage. Chances are it would only take a few minutes to find something about that person so the page is distinguishable when it shows up in somebody's search results, or simply do not create it and let the name on the family page, which is all you know, speak for itself. --Jrich 17:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that if you do search for a particular person which has no page but is shown with only the Add function, it does not show up at all in searches. Your experience with this may be different, but if you are unable to find the individual, how can information be added? Before adding any more pages which you have left in this manner, I will be sure to do the necessary research so that something can be added to those pages and they aren't left in limbo.--Khaentlahn
I am not sure I understand what you are describing. If I do, the answer is you simply add it, when you have information to put on the page. If you add a husband or wife to a existing Family page in order to populate the data fields, the new non-empty Person page will then be attached to the Family page. If you add a person from scratch, then when you go to add Spouse and Family, the duplicate screening step should show you the Family page already exists. In fact, this matching tends to work very well because the search results matching a husband and wife name combination are usually pretty small and well-targeted. You select the existing Family page and your new person is inserted as the husband or wife into the Family page you weren't aware was there. No duplicates.
An empty page is just a name. That function is fulfilled by the title of the Family page. Yes if you have more information, create the Person page. But if not, why? It is quite likely that an empty page for Benjamin Hinds attached to Tabitha Holland would not be recognized as a match to a query for Benjamin Hinds born Shrewsbury, Mass. 1725, anyway (especially if the name was John Smith instead of Benjamin Hinds, or if the searcher knew about his first marriage but not his second). So the person searching for Benjamin Hinds born in Shrewsbury 1725 will probably create what ends up being a duplicate page. The other issue is that having a bunch of empty pages come up in search results with no dates, no locations means I can't just scan the results, I now have to click on links until I find an ancestor or descendant with a date, then estimate back what county and era the Person lived in. Often, I am looking in US and they're in England, I want 1700's and they're in the 1900's. It can be frustrating. Best in my opinion to delay creating the Person page until enough information can be put on it to distinguish it from other Person pages having the same name.
If people know the marriage details, a tip is to search the Family namespace because matching is more precise, as noted. --Jrich 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

West Virginia [5 November 2014]

Hey there,

Can you point me to a decision that source pages should be titled using the 1900 place rule? I thought it was the opposite -- i.e., sources are titled based on what the purport to cover, not wherever that is now -- but I can't find the discussion. This came up because I fixed an 1850 West Virginia census page to say Virginia then saw that you had retitled some of them. If there's not a discussion, we can open one. Thanks.--Amelia 01:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, to be honest, I don't recall. Those were done long enough ago that I don't recall which ones I did or didn't do or the reasoning why they were done that way at the time. I'm sorry for the difficulty and that I can't be of more help. If they are an issue, you're welcome to change them back or to whatever is necessary if you can find the discussion on it.--Khaentlahn 01:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

GenWeb [28 February 2015]

Hey there - so, why on the GenWeb sources? I notice they are linked to the relevant place pages, but I can't think of any reason to make them separate Source pages when they should never actually be cited...? --Amelia 17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Why should they never be cited? Many contain very good data not available online elsewise: transcriptions of primary records made by concerned or otherwise thoughtful people, sharing their own access to the data that may require traveling far distances for other people to view. Just as valid as many of the family search sources that indexed films: transcriptions of a primary source by a volunteer. I have cited them in the past, and recently reviewed a few cases, and the data appears good based on fitting what is known by other sources, and I couldn't find it on any other site giving that information, even with all the records recently appearing on familysearch.org. Unless an alternate approach is being suggested, I strongly reject the statement "they should never actually be cited". --Jrich 18:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So, not wanting to get into a debate with Jrich, I will withdraw the "never" in that statement and say "very rarely". The vast majority contain either transcriptions of other sources (which should be so cited separately, just like the individual collections at Ancestry or FS) or just research tips, queries, and the like. In other words, they're usually repositories, if anything, and encouraging people to cite them instead of the actual information used doesn't seem helpful. The ones being created that I saw today aren't linked to anything but the county page as "resources", which means they're just adding an extra step vs. adding the link to the county page, which could also house any comments about the usefulness or lack thereof. I'm just wondering why?--Amelia 05:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Simply put, uniformity and ease of maintenance.
Debating whether GenWeb pages are Sources or Repositories is, quite frankly, irrelevant, because regardless of how GenWeb pages are characterized, they are used by individuals in genealogy research. On WeRelate, GenWebs are installed as Sources. Should they need to be converted to Repositories, then they will be converted, but the GenWeb pages are not uniform. Their current lack of uniformity would make mass conversion by a computer difficult, should that be a necessary step. Also, a single uniform page system could, in theory, have a computer script run through the pages to find broken GenWeb links and create a simple report for attention, which would lessen individual hands-on attention toward finding and fixing broken links. This same task would be nearly impossible were the links put on county pages (and individual person pages for that matter) as the resulting report would be too cumbersome to navigate or maintain effectively. Therefore, the attention to GenWeb pages is simply for uniformity and ease of maintenance from a computer perspective, completely ignoring the genealogical debate over Repositories vs. Sources.--khaentlahn 13:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand, and this discussion doesn't give, any justification for the position that genweb should never, or rarely, or seldom, or with any reservation, be cited as sources. All I can find is a discussion that goes back and forth, from which, if anything, I think one would actually find more support for using them as sources. For example, Dallan saying "But I think I'd generally want to see GenWeb sites because they're generally good quality and because most of the pages they link to are probably not large enough to warrant their own source pages.", and "Yes, I'd keep the RootsWeb county pages (the GenWeb pages) as Source's", and "I'd like to restrict repositories to describe physical buildings and organizations".
I sure don't understand calling Genweb a Repository. They aren't a physical location. They aren't a monolithic major institution with a long lifetime. They are basically websites run by volunteer individuals who occasionally drop-out, that vary greatly from county to county, and run the full gamut from fluff to serious research. Far more than the census, it would seem that each county genweb is a different beast, and needs its own source page. Making a Genweb a repository would mean that each webpage within a county would be cited as a separate source? This means the citation may break every time the county genweb gets a new administrator who wants to re-organize it. Further, given that "genweb" is the title users may well use in searching for a source, having it as a repository makes it unavailable and unseen, since repositories are only named on the source page, and do not show up as search criteria for sources, or in the citation.
Further I think genweb pages should be cited when that is where one's information comes from. We cite a book of inscriptions, even though a gravestone presumably exists, because all we know is what the book of inscriptions says, the gravestone has never been seen. We are taking the author's word for it, and as it turns out, published inscriptions do with some regularity, contain errors. Transcriptions are not as faithful as scanned images of actual records. It is not like genweb is a microfilm of local record books. It is an amateur transcription, or worse, an abstraction, of what is hopefully a real record. It is not the real record or a photographic copy of the real record. Besides potentially mis-representing the real record, it may be difficult to determine what the real record is, which may well be an off-line source that is hard to access, may not even have a source page describing it, and may not be fully identified on the genweb site.
Recently a user was citing ma-vitalrecords.org. This is clearly "an index" with every entry containing a link to the scanned images of the underlying source. So it should not be cited, right? But the Watertown entries in ma-vitalrecords.org have been enhanced with additional information (in red), such as the mother's maiden name in birth records, even though that information is not given in the published Watertown records. So if you use the maiden name, you cannot cite the underlying vital records, since the mother's maiden name is something that it does not say. If you cite ma-vitalrecords.org, you are citing an index, but at least you have accurately indicated what you based your data entry on. Now when people disagree with the mother's maiden name, they know they are only refuting the contributor to ma-vitalrecords.org, not that they are refuting a contemporary record.
The reason the Source system is the most misused and least understood part of WeRelate is because it imposes an organization on sources that is not based, in any way, on how things look to a single researcher who only knows the one source in front of them as they enter their information, without being aware of all the other sources they don't have, and how those others may happen to relate to the one they do. In this case, it is pretty obvious to even a casual user that a county genweb has an administrator, much like an editor of a book, and provides a bunch of webpages with information, and so the intuitively analogous approach to typical sources, is that the county genweb should be cited like a book, and the link to the specific webpage used goes in the page number field, possibly if you like, with the title of the specific webpage as the record name. Possibly even with this intuitive approach, and certainly with any non-intuitive variation, the source system would be greatly helped if data entry had a wizard that guided users through source specification, until they learn enough, that they can activate and use various shortcuts and still build a citation of their source of information in the desired form. --Jrich 17:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Khaentlahn - got it, thanks. That makes some sense. Jrich, we'll have to agree to disagree (again ;-))--Amelia 19:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Child born after parent's marriage or before? [4 March 2015]

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Family:James_Russell_and_Maude_Elder_%282%29&diff=0&oldid=21647916 Regarding the above family. There is a comment that the child was born two years before the parent's marriage. Is this correct?--Stoney7path 14:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

To be frank, this comment was placed before anything I edited and I am uncertain to what it is supposed to be referring. I have yet to find a child born for this couple before marriage.--khaentlahn 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, doing a little further research, the 1910 census on which this family appears indicates that Maude was the mother of 1 child and Mildred is on the record with James and Maude as parents. The goofy thing about this record is that James is listed as a widower and Maude is listed as his wife and married. I believe this was a census taker error, but I will have a link to this record on all their pages shortly if you wish to go over it yourself.--khaentlahn 15:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Last addendum (hopefully), James was listed as a widower, because his wife had died 4 days before the census was taken. She was listed, because she was still living in that house as of the 15th of April 1910, which is what the census record required.--khaentlahn 15:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. This page http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Family:James_Russell_and_Maude_Elder_%282%29&diff=next&oldid=21647916 shows when it was added. Was this not your addition? Is the website hacked?--Stoney7path 20:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The website wasn't hacked. Tracing it back further, the addition came from the merging of duplicate families, Family:James Russell and Unknown (4) & Family:James Russell and Maude Elder (2). The James Russell and Unknown (4) page contained the warning notification. The notification was in reference to Cecil William Morphew born 1906, who was erroneously linked as that families' son. Cecil was the husband of Mildred, that families' actual child. In any case, the warning flag is not needed from what I can tell, so it can be removed if you wish to do so, or I can if you would rather.--khaentlahn 20:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to complete the merge. You probably have more info than I do.--Stoney7path 21:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Am I being too hasty? [11 March 2015]

I noticed you went back and undeleted and then corrected a few of the Livings I deleted from 'Jonjay's tree. That's fine, though I wonder if you believe I am being too quick to delete. After a little digging, I found that JonJay's tree has more livings than anyone else's (about 10% of the livings actually) so I try to work quickly. I don't usually look it up unless it is borderline cases, such as one dead and one living spouse.--Daniel Maxwell 18:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, not at all. Regardless of who deletes them, I like to go over some of the recently deleted livings to do a little more in depth research just in case they are deceased and not living. I don't do many and I only find that I restore maybe 1 in 10 that I view. Call it a personal quirk, nothing more.--khaentlahn 18:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want to stab at cleaning up his tree, be my guest. I think it is probably the biggest tree on here (nearly 70K people in it) and most of it is low quality; very few places, many missing dates, more livings than any other tree, etc. Daniel Maxwell 18:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I have cleaned up some of Jonjay's pages in the past, but I haven't made an effort to only clean up one person's tree. Can't say I ever really considered it, actually, but I can take a look at least. :) --khaentlahn 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
DataAnalyst spent several months if I remember correctly cleaning up 'JustAlf's tree, which was around 5000 people. Something like JonJay's is probably way too big for that kind of cleanup but now it's one of those situations where the tree is so large we CAN'T delete it. These dump and run trees would have killed the site eventually, and I am glad they are now limited. Daniel Maxwell 18:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Now this is interesting, though I'm sure somewhat irrelevant, Jonjay's tree shows 70324 people, but if you actually look at the listing of people in the tree, it only shows 52884. So there has either been quite a bit of culling already, or somehow the information isn't in sync. I'm going to assume the tree showing on his page is from the original upload...? In any case, there are still a lot of people to sift through.--khaentlahn 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it may possibly be counting families and 'sources' in the userpage total. Daniel Maxwell 19:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

‎Project Warner.ged [16 March 2015]

Cos1776 left a message on my talk page about their recent GEDCOM upload. I see you've already claimed the file, so I didn't want to jump ahead and import it. Based on Cos' message, do you have any concerns about importing it at this stage? --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it will be able to be imported, but I would like to make sure more items (sources and places) are matched before importation. I am willing to do this type of work beforehand without concerning the user any further.--khaentlahn 14:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to work on the source/place matches. I'll follow up with Cos1776 on my talk page to let them know the status. --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories for speedy delete? [30 March 2015]

Khaentlahn, are the (surname) in (place) categories now considered obsolete? I noticed you've deleted a bunch like this, some yours, some other people's. I had never considered that categories need cleanup. Is there a backlog of many of these, or other problematic categories that are speedy delete material?--Daniel Maxwell 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

With the change to how categories were displayed on person pages back in 2013, Surname in Place pages were made obsolete as Categories. They no longer collect, as they once did, all of the Person, Family, Source or Place pages which may reference a particular surname and are, therefore, empty, or slowly becoming empty as the Person and Sources pages are edited. The only Surname in Place pages that still have Persons and/or Surname pages connected to them are pages which haven't been edited in the past 2 years. Also, if a category page has data (information pertaining to a particular surname, origin and what not), it gets left alone in case aspects to the Surname Portal are being utilized.
In theory, fewer junk pages that a website has to sort through, the faster and more efficient it will run. There are a LOT of Surname in Place pages which are or will become empty as the other pages are edited and since I recall creating a bunch of these Surname pages originally, I am willing to go back and remove them by hand, though if an automated system will do that without deleting the useful Category pages, I'm okay with that too. As to other Categories which need cleanup, there are some Place Categories which were created for places which were redirected and are no longer being used as well, but those are much fewer and far between than Surname pages.
In any case, does this long-winded response answer your question? :D--khaentlahn 13:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing "also located in" links on all cemetery pages [31 March 2015]

We've touched base on this before, so I have already stated that I disagreed with removing the county links, but since I was not that intimately involved with the geographic area of the other cemetery pages that you edited in this way, I haven't pressed it too much. I also chose to ignore it as you changed every Find A Grave link that I have entered to your preferred text (even though there was nothing wrong with it the first way). But Wayne County, Indiana is a different story. I have spent countless hours on the cemetery pages in this county, providing history and dates, and organizing them correctly in their proper towns and townships, etc., and now you are systematically undoing those connections and erasing those dates. This is supposed to be a collaborative environment, so before you go any further, can you please provide the proof that it has been collectively agreed upon that cemetery pages should not link to county pages and only your Category method should be used? I am not objecting to your desire to create Cemetery Categories - that is your preference. But I am objecting to undoing all of the county links that others have established and losing the researched dates that were there, simply because you don't like to see a long list of cemeteries on a county page. Are you planning on removing all of the towns and townships on each county page as well? Why are they any different than Cemetery links? WR designates all of these as geographic Places that can be contained within each other. Respectfully, --Cos1776 18:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If research dates or links to town/city and townships have been removed, they were removed unintentionally and I apologize for those possible mistakes. I cannot bring to mind when town/city or township links were removed, but perhaps we are discussing different things and I am lacking understanding of your meaning. It is not intended for any town/city or township links to be removed at all.
According to Cemeteries as Place, each cemetery should be linked to their respective Category "Cemetery of [County], [State], United States". The secondary category modifier simply sorts cemeteries on the county's Category page. It isn't necessary, nor does it make a difference to the main cemetery pages, it was simply for organization.
The FindAGrave cemetery template allows for one cohesive form of linking to Find A Grave cemeteries. It gives WeRelate an easy method for correcting redirects in the future should FindAGrave change their website file structure, which has happened in the past. A simple copy and paste of individual Find A Grave cemetery website pages is difficult to maintain on a large scale, should Find A Grave's structure change. Perhaps it was not this aspect that was your concern when you stated "your preferred text" and I'm misunderstanding your meaning here as well.
The overall changes are not intended for any information to be lost, but to give all cemetery pages a more cohesive, organized appearance. They should all have at least basic elements in common with a basic appearance order so the pages are more professional to the public at large.
Would you be kind enough to direct me to the policy which indicates that adding redundant "Also Located in" County links was decided and agreed upon collectively? I haven't found one, but would be happy to change my method should there be one and I've missed it. I will also go over all cemetery pages I've edited to correct this should that be the case.
If I have overlooked one of your concerns and have not addressed it, by all means, let me know. Does this help?--khaentlahn 19:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW when I started working on counties in West Michigan, I attempted to gather a consensus on whether cemeteries should have "also located in" links to counties or not, and the closest I could come to such a consensus was that any objections to the practice applied only to urban counties with lots of cemeteries, and it was fine for rural counties. As I recall, the only county in West Michigan I construed as an urban county for application of that principle was Kent County. --pkeegstra 19:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
To your knowledge, was there a policy developed from it? I would like to see the discussion in any case if you have a link to it.--khaentlahn 19:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Since I did not sense the existence of a consensus I did not push for the development of a policy. And I can no longer recall where any discussion may have taken place. --pkeegstra 20:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the pause in the editing. I wanted to get a comment out, before all the cemeteries in Wayne County had been affected, but then had to leave before I could answer your response. I will work on digging up the conversations I recall about linking to counties tomorrow and get back to you. 'Til then - --Cos1776 00:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)