GEDCOM import - More than 24 hours for review [23 January 2015]
Didn't note the time when I uploaded my Gedcom but its got to be more than 48 hours ago. This is poor, especially when the purpose of this exercise is to compare WeRelate to Wikitree before making a choice. The people at Wikitree are very responsive.--Innesaj 14:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I still new to this site. I think I done everything right but I am still waiting for more than 24 hours for Admin review of my gedcom. Can some advise me what may or maynot have done wrong?--Myfamilytree 15:31, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
WeRelate relies on people volunteering their time and effort to ensure a degree off quality in the genealogy you find here. This means that sometimes it takes longer then we would like for gedcom reviews to occur but there are positives to this. One of the greatest things about this site is that on werelate you are truly collaborating with others and not just duplicsting the same people as you share information.--JeffreyRLehrer 16:10, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
Perhaps the admins could think of something that could be done to manage this situation - perhaps agreeing some kind of target "service level" or messaging people if the delay is over, say, a day, to say "please be patient, we are busy and have x GEDCOMs above you in the queue" AndrewRT 17:35, 30 May 2013 (EDT)
I am curious about a specific lineage. How can I find out who the contributors are so as to collaborate with them?--Pjceditor 14:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Did my GEDCOM 'fall thru the cracks'? It's been 4-5 weeks.--Diane Hosler 19:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I am having problems opening the ged file I downloaded. I need a copy on my desktop for making corrections, as I am informed there are too many errors too complete my work on your site. Where will I receive an answer to this question.--Bob3453 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to review my newly-uploaded DURGEE 4G .This replaced my previous DURGEE LTD, but when I try to review the new one I get a message that you can't locate my old one (I deleted at your request)--WAJoyce 19:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
FHL microfilm [2 January 2015]
Is there a way to put in microfilm as part of the citation? I use quite a bit from Salt Lake.
Lee Martin--Fastwarhorse 18:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Deaneries in the Church of Norway [2 January 2015]
A bit of clean-up is required in the place hierarchy of Norway. I am in the process of sorting out the former and current municipalities in my own county Møre og Romsdal, and moving smaller places into their correct jurisdictions. This is, although a bit confusing at times, not very complicated, as all the administrative units are included in the place categorization and the smaller units are mostly just inhabited places. Ecclesiastical units are also important in genealogy, and it is my opinion that the dioceses and parishes should be included in the place hierarchy (and of course, be placed within their correct "civil" places by using "also located in..." or "see also..."). The Church of Norway does, however, operate with three administrative levels, with the prosti or deanery between the diocese and the parish. This is, as I understand, also the case with the Church of England. There is, as far as I have found, no suitable place categorization for this type of unit.I suppose I could use a general term, like community or something like that, but I would think that could cause some confusion. How does the community propose I solve this problem? --Kaffilars 12:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
You can always put more than one type of place in the Type box. I do this all the time in working with places in England. In England "civil" or "state" or "political" registration provides a better geographical description than "church" or "ecclesiastical" data after 1837, but sometimes it is easier to depend on the ecclesiastical sources even after that date.
Data on ecclesiastical sources tends to be scarce and dioceses cover too much territory to be very helpful in pinpointing where an event took place, particularly baptisms, marriages and burials. Ownership of land and wills, however, may be better described using the broader descriptions before 1837. I am not familiar with the place of deaneries and have not come across much reference to them.
The type "community" tends to be used for a monastery or an early North American religious community that settled in one specific place.
Regards, --Goldenoldie 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
In England, at least in Lincolnshire, I have found that parishes usually share a name with the village where the church is located. I just use that village for the place. An exception is the civil parishes within Lincoln for which I created individual pages to use with the census records. I don't see much value in creating ecclesiastical units when the records can be traced back to certain churches. (I don't know how Norway compares to this.) —Moverton 04:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Little problem with a link and/or given name with 2 words [8 January 2015]
Hello ! Begin December 2013 I had a problem with this record Person:Edmond Bouchon (1). I tried some times to find an explanation. But also now I can not understand the exact cause of this bug. I find interessant to have 2 givennames. "Jean Baptiste" is a very common givenname in France. I know, one solution is to write "JeanBaptiste" or "Jean-Baptiste", but when we refer exactly to the original records ... I can also use the special field "alt name", but ... I have put a "stupid" link from Edmond Bouchon to Jean Baptiste Guidé, only for testing. The real link is to Louis Éloy Pascal. Using only one given name seems to me a bad thing. Persons with "Louis" or "Jean" as first (not always official) givenname are so many. And the automatic number, which is added by WeRelate, don't make a quickly differenciation. Thanks for your help and "ideas" ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 07:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Merge process [17 January 2015]
Forgive me if this is a well-trodden topic, but I am fairly new here. As I have been working on my family tree I keep running into duplicate people (I suspect most of the date back to the "drive-by GEDCOM" era I've heard about). I've gone through Help:Merging pages and all that makes sense. Most of the duplicates I have run into were pretty obvious duplicates, but there are some cases where it is ambiguous. In one case I tried starting a discussion on the talk page, in others I just put a note on the page itself. But keeping track of these is tricky.
I am thinking that it would be useful to have a template we could place on a suspected duplicate page, in other words, a standard mechanism for marking these suspected duplicates and initiating discussion on fixing them. I found Template:Merge but it seems unused and I think it needs work. Are there any objections to me fixing up that template (or creating a new one) so that it can be used to mark any suspected merge candidates? Then, perhaps, this could be added to the aforementioned merge instructions as another tool available for dealing with these ambiguous cases. I am willing to do the work on this assuming nobody has objections.
++thanks --Trentf 20:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Years ago, we had a merge project and volunteers merged thousands of pages. As far as I know, no one has been checking for duplicate pages except the ones they are personally interested in. Most of us just merge duplicate pages when appropriate. If someone objects, they can restore the pages or ask me to do it for them.
There are still a few duplicates, but they should be relatively rare. Although another merge project may be in order, it's not something I can take on right now. If you would like to organize it and make it happen, that would be great. Feel free to bring it up on the watercooler.--sq 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I've done an initial round of work on the template and related things, and marked a couple sets of pages as possible duplicates. You can see what I've done at Template:Dup. Let me know what you think (perhaps on that talk page?) --Trentf 01:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Place page for a forest ... [18 January 2015]
I am working on this page, and I created this : Place:Forêt de Mormal, Nord, France. I know the place pages are for towns, villages, ... and cimeteries. Is this new page correct or must we delete it ? Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you insert the name of a nearby town next to the name of the forest and leave the forest name in the ordinary font? If you put the insert in single square brackets [...], everyone will understand it is not part of the actual transcription.
Having looked over the page in question, may I suggest that you omit the bold font from placenames. They are jumping out of the text excessively.
Keep up the good work. --Goldenoldie 19:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Categories [25 January 2015]
I have problems with my very poor english. It's for me not easy to write and understand the answers of other contributors. (see above). I'm sorry !... And Google Translate is catastrophic ! I wish to create new categories. I saw Help talk:Categories and WeRelate talk:Categories project ... and this but I found no effective help. The search tool (browse) is good for names and places, but very bad for other datas. I think we can use categories to quickly find some informations ---> example : Category:Filles du roi. What do you think about creation of categories facilitating the search "cause of death". (I began such a work on ... Rodovid, but this site became stupid, incompetent and "dictatorial" since 2010.) My options for sub-categories... would be : Killed at war / Holocaust / Drowned / fall (from a horse, from a roof) / by storm (lighting) / crushed by a wall or a house / explosion in a mine / died in childbirth ... Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not fond of categories. The problem is that most categories cross the line between family history versus history and/or demographics, so creates problems that this website doesn't have any protocols or features to support. Further, too many categories end up reflecting personal interests, which doesn't scale well in collaborative environment.
From a genealogy standpoint, I see little use for Categories. A person researching their family are primarily interested in their descendants. So other people that served in the same military unit, or died of the same cause, or occupied the same town office, are usually not of interest in their genealogical research. Finding such a category may occupy a minute of idle browsing, and then probably be of no further use or interest. Certainly, discovering such a category is unlikely to cause somebody to go out and thoroughly research the other members of that category. Now that grouping is certainly of historical interest (very useful to a person researching a book on that subject, for example) but probably not of genealogical interest to individual readers who are only descended from that single member...
Categories tend to get over-used until they become pointless. There is traditional categories like Filles du Roi, or Mayflower Descendants, but without some discipline, this quickly becomes ridiculous: founder of this town (founder or early settler?), passenger on that ship (all 3 of them), left-handed fence viewers, etc. It is hard not to find some justification for this or that grouping, but the question is, who else finds it truly significant? Such types of categories ought to be defined by, and recognized by, significant outside groups to avoid the creeping micro-categories that tend to come into being.
There are all sorts of questions one has that probably could be at least partially answered by categories if they were set up appropriately: is seven marriages the most? who are all the people that lived to be 105? who are all the people from my town who died in World War II? But is that what we are here to answer? Doesn't this type of question require codification and software help? Not to mention this is adding another item requiring proof and documentation (on what authority do you know he died of dropsy?), and we don't even do a good job proving dates, yet.
Categories seem to be good ways of grouping pages, but the cost is that they can become intrusive and arbitrary. Good categories need clear definitions where anybody can tell who belongs based on provable fact without needing to consult the creator of the category. Forbidding categories for personal collections seems like the only real guideline we have, but many current uses seem to be exactly that. And of course, categories tend to lead to banners, decorating select pages like a tapestry, loudly calling attention to the thing that is important to the banner-maker, while distracting from all the other important facets of a person's life.
A link in the narrative to an article would serve essentially the same function as a category, providing a place to give more information on the subject, and the What Links Here would give a list of associated pages. So one suggestion would be, for example, instead of creating a category for Dropsy, every time you write the word dropsy, use [[Article on Dropsy|dropsy]]. --Jrich 17:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, although I like categories generally, and create them often (I think they are useful labels, and enjoy finding unexpected connections as I work on a category), I think cause of death is not a good category. A category that will have millions of people in it at build-out is not useful. The navigation and filtering for categories just isn't up to it. Really, dozens is about the limit -- meaning cause of death would only be useable if only a very small group of users do it, and only to those users, which is the exact opposite of the community purpose.--Amelia 05:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I recently started adding Categories to English Places within WeRelate--and found that the Sources that go with each Place are still there. This means that if you inspect a parish's category you find the list of sources from the Family Search Library Catalog that goes with it. Much of this data will now be hiding online in FamilySearch--no need to visit a Family Research Center.
In addition to giving each parish its own category, I am giving it further categories based on the higher levels of government in which it was grouped. At the end of the day a category titled, for instance, [[Category:Cheltenham (hundred), Gloucestershire, England|Cheltenham Hundred]] will list all the parishes originally in the Cheltenham hundred--an area fairly large but much smaller than just Gloucestershire. Registration District areas (used in censuses and bmd's since 1837) and rural and urban districts (20th-century areas) can be used to pinpoint an even more locallized group of places.
Pin-pointing a place in relation to neighbouring places is easier in parts of the world where a four-tier description is used, but when there is only a three-tier description available, using categories can be helpful. --Goldenoldie 10:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I skimmed through the arguments presented here after being asked to come and share my opinion.
Hope this helps. --ceyockey 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
CRACKING BRICKWALL [28 January 2015]
investigating the David Dial brickwall. If I find ancestry, do I just edit the profile or post the info here for the profile originator to handle?--SHIVES 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The Scottish surname DALZIEL is pronounced DIE ALL. Colonial Virginia and Tennessee were settled largely by the Scots. Variations in spelling for your David's surname include DYAL and DEAL [various renderings of Dalziel] I wander through the settlements of Augusta County VA and Greene County TN with my own Scots bygones--the McGregors, McKenzies, Douglas, Campbells. I've seen Dyals etc in passing. I hope I can help. It may take a while.--SHIVES 14:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Category Indexing [28 January 2015]
I wonder if someone could tell me why, in Category:Thornbury Registration District, Gloucestershire, England, is Place:Thornbury Registration District, Gloucestershire, England placed under "P" and Place:Almondsbury, Gloucestershire, England is placed under "T"?
This often happens in category lists. I could understand if all places and persons went under "P", but sometimes, as in this case, there doesn't seem to be any logic to the alphabetical designation at all. --Goldenoldie 09:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Aaah. You didn't give me the right answer, but you pointed me towards it. Thanks. There shouldn't be a pipe or anything beyond it in a Category. I had copied and pasted from another part of the page in preparing the Category list. It's all straight now. --Goldenoldie 08:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
GEDCOM denial [7 February 2015]
Hi-- I submitted my DURGEE 4G gedcom a few weeks ago, and your reviewer "Solvieg" did NOT follow-up on my detailed query about what I might do to revise it. (attached below). If I re-submitted, I fear it would also be denied for the same reasons.
There's nothing I can do about, for example, George (Fielding) Durgee's adoptive father being "too young" to be a natural father (when women died in childbirth the baby was given to a relative or neighbor, with no formal adoption records); Ellen Maley being "too old" to be a mother (I have copy of her baptismal record, and don't know who else the mother might have been); siblings who, probably unknowingly, told Social Security that their births were less than 9 months apart; folks unlucky to have died in deep winter with a foot of snow and frozen ground in the graveyard forcing burial to wait for spring, etc. I'm NOT in this game to share with "cousins", as most in my generation are already dead. My daughter is childless and my son, being missionary in the jungles of Bolivia, believes the only thing important is how you live your life after being "saved". Rather, I'm hoping that great and great-great nephews or nieces will someday wonder... QUERY TO SOLVIEG BELOW:
The event that happened before Uncle Ralph's birth was his family's arrival from Italy. Maybe not directly related to his birth, but I think it's significant.
If you'd like to talk in person, my home phone no. is 360-754-8625.--WAJoyce 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand you--
You want me to submit a NEW GEDCOM because the other one has too many errors.
To do this, I need to 1) copy my current database so I can work there without disturbing the original
2) strip out the offending dates; should I leave off just the date of an offending delayed burial, or cut out the cemetery also?
3) would it help to delete all the LIVING people?
4) create a revised GEDCOM from the copied database and submit it
5) would I need to repeat all the People, Places etc. edits that I've already done?
PLEASE REPLY It would be a shame for all my People/Places editing work to be wiped out.--WAJoyce 22:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)--WAJoyce 18:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)