Old topics have been archived: 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016
Toldijk, Gelderland, Netherlands. Burgerlijke Stand [7 January 2017]
Hallo, good evening
The above town seemed to have been added to the system once, but when I wanted to use it
it did not come up. Can anybody help me with this problem please? Thank you - Beatrijs--Beatrijs 09:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have found this entry: Place:Toldijk, Steenderen, Gelderland, Netherlands
- If you perhaps typed Toldijk, Gelderland, you might have missed it. Is this the place you are looking for?--Judy (jlanoux) 13:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Judy, thank you for answering! Toldijk, Steenderen, Gelderland, Netherlands came up, was okay, but not together with
"Burgerlijke Stand" that was the problem. In the meantime I received a reply from Pkeegstra, explaining why I have to use
Steenderen, Gelderland, Netherlands. Burgerlijke Stand instead.
Pkeegstra wrote: Place:Toldijk, Steenderen, Gelderland, Netherlands|Toldijk]] is a dorp and has never been an independant gemeente; the Burgerlijke Stand is kept in Steenderen. So the citation should reference the source page Steenderen, Gelderland, Netherlands. Burgerlijke Stand
Thank you Judy, kind regards from Beatrijs; 7 Jan 2017
Duplicate place pgs?? [8 January 2017]
I'll bet these two place names are duplicates. Can someone check and merge?
Place:Harford (township), Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, United States
Place:Hartford (township), Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, United States
I believe the one without the 't' is correct. --janiejac 20:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Verified that DeLorme and Wikipedia agree, and on that basis redirected Hartford (township) to Harford (township). Note that DeLorme does show an unincorporated community of Harford, so having both that and Harford (township) is valid. --pkeegstra 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Place Page created erroneously [8 January 2017]
I seem to have made a mess when trying to create a place page for Tamaqua (Borough), Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, United States.
But the system wouldn't let me do that; system insisted the title should be
Place:Tamaqua, Schuylkill Haven, Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, United States. I thought I could outsmart the system by accepting the erroneous title and then renaming it. But no, it won't let me do that. So I have created a page that I don't believe is correct and I can't delete it. Frustrating! I have no idea where the Schuylkill Haven came from. I tried it twice without it and it just kept putting it in there. Can someone either fix it or delete it? --janiejac 21:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I placed a "Speedy Delete" on the incorrect Place Page. An Admin will see the template and delete it for you. FYI, if you click the Admin category on the top bar, you can copy "Speedy Delete" and place this in the Text section, give the reason for the delete and the date. Regards --SkippyG 22:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Deleted. Note that the page for Tamaqua with no explicit qualification specifies that it is a borough, so there is no need for an additional page Tamaqua (borough). --pkeegstra 02:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Information on my father [9 January 2017]
If I give you informatiion on my father can you updated his information? --Caverly 00:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Making a table problem [13 January 2017]
I am trying to edit the table I have made on page [[Place:Bedford Rural, Bedfordshire, England]]. The titles currently include a cell saying "Duration<++++++>". I added the plus-marks in order to stretch the title so that the year ranges below would always print on one line. Needless to say I don't want the plus-marks. I've been teaching myself html5, but haven't figured out all the markup yet. Can someone tell me how to sort this out? Thanks. --Goldenoldie 14:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am not really up on what is html5 and what is old stuff you shouldn't use. You can add [non-breaking space] instead of plus signs. Also, noticed this on a tutorial website: The width attribute of <td> is not supported in HTML5. Use CSS instead. CSS syntax: <td style="width:100px">. and a quick test with <td style="width:20%"> seemed to work. --Jrich 14:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. A series of   didn't work on a previous attempt. I shall try the width:20%. It's pretty hard to estimate the width of a page in pixels when the page can be squeezed and stretched like an accordion. --Goldenoldie 15:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I added six and did a preview on what the saved page would look like and it worked. Not sure what you did. But clearly the nowrap suggestion below works. --Jrich 03:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- At first glance I would suggest learning Wiki table syntax, but I digress.... To solve your pr oblem, you can simply add the CSS style "white-space:nowrap;" to any of your <td> elements that you want to keep on a single line. -Moverton 17:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
How to change my email? [16 January 2017]
How and where do I change my email? --Nancygrs 23:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- At the top of the page, just after your user name, it says "Settings". Click that and it should take you to the page that has your email address on it. You can change it there. --GayelKnott 00:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleting all caps in surname problem [17 January 2017]
I've tried to fix this but there is still a minor problem. Look at Person:LaVerne Jackson (1) and look to the right to see his father's name in all caps. But when I click on the family page, it's already been fixed and the name is properly 'Jackson'. This is NOT a big, bad problem, but I don't find a way to fix it so that the all caps don't show on the children's page. Perhaps I shouldn't fret the small stuff! --janiejac 03:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Some combination of conditions, probably due to the system getting busy so that some timeout gets exceeded, causes propagation of changes to fail. Resave the page, in this case saving the father's page made the difference, and the system will bring everything up to date. --Jrich 03:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Unsourced Person/Family Pages [19 January 2017]
Is there an easy way to view all the pages in your tree that are still in need of sources being added?--sstults 06:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd call it "easy", but you could open up 2 windows and view your tree in both. This takes you to a search window with the keyword field filled in. In one window, leave the keyword field as it is, and in the other, type the word source at the end of the keyword field. Sort both searches by page title. Then look for persons and families in the first search window that are not in the second. You can filter by namespace (Person or Family) in both windows if you choose.
- Hope this helps.--DataAnalyst 00:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, there is an easier way. You only need one window; just add a "-" (minus sign) in front of source in the
Keywords field of the search page, like this:
- It's also good to select either
Family in the
Namespace drop-down menu (so that other kinds of pages don't pop up). Here's a link to an example. --robert.shaw 19:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Robert.shaw--sstults 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Properly sourcing Family Search record w/o link [19 January 2017]
I have a "cousin" who uses a lot of Family Search items that do not link to an original record, all are RED at this time. I've searched Help looking for the proper way to cite these, but found nothing. I vaguely recall a discussion, but can't seem to find that either. Can someone point to an example ? or relay the proper WR way to handle these ? --SkippyG 19:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- These days FamilySearch entry results usually have a Collection Name following the name of the person you are search for (e.g. "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975" or "Canada Census, 1881". These Collection Names should be in our WR sources. Make a note of a FamilySearch Collection Name (letter for letter), and then enter it in the WR source box. Click on the (edit/add file) at the end of the line. This should send you to a list of files with similar names to the one you found on FamilySearch. Select the closest one and click again to bring it in to your WR entry. This should provide you with a source in black. However, some of our WR source files may need updating. If you think so, contact the Source Patrol. --Goldenoldie 20:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.--SkippyG 21:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Help Setting up Czech sources/repositories [28 February 2017]
I have recently started documenting the Czech side of my family. A cousin has dug through all the archives to find birth records and such, I am now trying to add all this to WeRelate, but I'm not sure I'm doing it right. There are regional archives run by the Czech Republic, which have a variety of records (thus far I have only been looking at church records). I suspect I should set each of those up as "repositories" and then create a source for the church records.
For example, [Person:Joseph Vopalensky (3)|Joseph Vopalensky] has a birth record in the parish registers at http://digi.ceskearchivy.cz/en/6075/146. I suspect I have done this incorrectly. I am guessing that I should cite the source as "Parish Registers" (or perhaps "Sbírka matrik Jihočeského kraje, 1587–1949 (1952)", which is, I think, the exact name) within the repository of "Digital Archives, State Regional Archives Třeboň."
Also, should I be citing these in Czech or English? [clarification: should the titles of these repositories/sources be in Czech or English? e.g. "bírka matrik Jihočeského kraje" or "Register Collections of South Bohemia"?]
--Trentf 16:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be if you quote content from your citations, to quote them in their original language. People who want to check your sources will have to deal with the language anyway. You can provide an English summary if you find it necessary.
- You have touched upon the reason why I do not generally cite Dutch sources for the 75%+ of my ancestors who hail from that region. I am able to decipher these references, but I have very low confidence that I could cite them correctly 8-(. --Jhamstra 16:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Jhamstra, please add a citation for your data, even if it is in "incorrect" form. The correct form is a nicety, the important thing is to allow others to find and evaluate the source by giving clues as to where to find it. You don't have to add a new Repository:, or Source:, or even MySource:. You can just use the default source type of "Citation Only" and type in the directions to the place you found the data in any words you care to use. Just that fulfills 99% of the point of sourcing; having "proper format" would just be a pleasant but unnecessary wrapping for the information about the source. --robert.shaw 19:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Robert, an "incorrect" citation is *far* better than none at all. I try to provide enough information in my citations such that someone else could verify what I have found. Formatting can always be fixed later, by you or others. In fact, others have made corrections to the work I've done here, and I have found it very enlightening. That's one of the things I like about WeRelate! --Trentf 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Trentf, I think you're on the right track: Citing the actual individual records or group collections as sources (if publicly available - such as the Parish Records you mentioned - as Sources, if privately held - like the individual copies of birth records your cousin has sent you - as MySources), and the place where these records were housed or found, as Repsitories.
- Quite a find for you. Good luck in your further research. --BobC 18:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think there are different ways of doing this. After figuring out how the records are organized in the archives, I worked up an example for that particular series of parish records to see what it could look like Source:Nový Rychnov, Pelhřimov, Vysočina, Czech Republic. Parish Registers, 1785-1917. Note that I did not complete the repository yet. If you used a Source page like this, you could use the citation fields on the page to zero in to the exact record you are citing. In this case it would be Book 15 which is "B 1864-1877", so you could enter something like "15 (B 1864-1877):144" in the Volume/Pages field (which could also be a direct link to the image) and "last accessed 28 Feb 2017" in the Date field.
- As far as language goes, any original language and translations you can provide will be searchable and therefore very helpful to future researchers, so I would encourage you to add both when it is reasonable to do so. Hope that helps, --cos1776 19:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! That makes sense; I'll reorganize my sources that way. However, there is one tricky bit: Those parish registers often cover many villages, so I would assume I would widen the place prefix out to the district. That would be much like the New England vital records, those sources are state-wide. The really confusing thing is that there are two senses of "region" in the Czech Republic: so the Vysočina "region" is actually covered by three different "regional" archives (and my ancestors are in all three); I'll use the former since that reflects the actual political divisions in the country. If anybody sees me doing something really dumb/wrong, let me know. Thanks again! --Trentf 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Wrong Information [7 March 2017]
People should really do their research and find out real facts before posting. I noticed it said create page for non living people but someone (Caverly) took it upon themselves to creat a page for my part of the family and post wrong info. There never was and never will be a Brenda Balodis born to Hans Balodis and Marion Zimmerman. I am the child of Marion Zimmerman and Balodis was NOT my father. I am not about to give the right info. as I do not wish to have it plastered all over the internet. There really should be some rules enforced instead of allowing any idiot to post whatever they believe or create.--Doogie 03:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Since all of the "What Links Here" pages to Brenda Balodis and connecting persons seem to have been created by User:Pcaverly back in 2008-2009 (with no activity on WeRelate since then), I suggest you post a note to that user advising them of your issue with the information they posted. Creating pages on Living Persons is clearly against WeRelate policy, but that would not have stood out to the casual user because not enough information was shown on that individual for it to be clearly recognized as a living individual. And since collaboration is the foundation of WeRelate, feel free to add, change, or recommend deletion if the information is incorrect or if the individual is known to be living. If you need further assistance, please let us know. --BobC 03:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- The offending pages were removed yesterday. All pages for living individuals in the same tree have been removed as of today. We appreciate this being brought to our attention so that we could remove these pages. --DataAnalyst 00:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- The question that lingers with me, this X (Doogie) telling the truth or they wanted to the family tree of the Web network? --Lidewij 13:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Actually an excellent point that Lidewij makes, in my opinion. That is why I advised Doogle to change, comment or recommend deletion rather than relying totally on their unsubstantive claim and unsourced objection. Doogle's claim of direct relationship is persuasive, but not backed up by substance. If the claim of parentage is accurate, I can understand the feeling of individual ownership of the information, but that is not how WeRelate works. Community ownership, quality of the evidence, and reliability of the sources should take precedence. --BobC 13:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have seen cases where one part of a family have tried to suppress the connection to the other part. So in a single-tree, to be fair to all parties, the presentation has to be simply the truth. Given that everybody is basically anonymous, this has to be demonstrated with sources regardless of how one is, or claims to be, related to the page. All pages should have sources. But sources work both ways, and there were no sources originally, either. I had investigated this post, some, when it was first came up, and couldn't find anything conclusive because the individuals are too recent (alleged grandparents of Brenda). The original poster Paul Caverly had published a book that has the same sparse presentation (here, online db). Somebody with some Canadian expertise probably could find more. But the point being there is still access to the data - the deletion does not mean anything is lost, and since there was little data on the pages to start with, deleting them based on risk of living was probably the right move. Their sparseness means they would be easy to recreate if the people were not living, hopefully with the appropriate sources. --Jrich 14:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
To lay any concerns to rest, in this case, deleting the pages was the only option consistent with WeRelate policy. No death information was entered (or found online) for Marion Zimmerman, and since her mother was born in 1903, she clearly falls within the "assumed living" category (born within the last 110 years with no death information).
It was clear once I dug into the tree that much of the information came from obituaries, including names of people who survived their loved ones. There were a few obvious inaccuracies - clearly assumptions were made. Where I could find death information online (or evidence of birth more than 110 years ago), I entered it, but in most cases there was no such evidence. Most of the people whose pages were deleted were born within the last 80 years and many within the last 50 years. If WeRelate policy had been enforced at the time this tree was loaded (back in 2008), these pages would not have been allowed.--DataAnalyst 00:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not to belabor the point, but just to be clear, I think the point both Lidewij and I were making and the concern we expressed in our remarks was the initial reasoning behind so quickly deleting the pages: Was it because the person page and it's connecting family links were offensive to another user? Or was it because the page violated WeRelate rules (after it was calculated the person was probably a living individual upon more detailed investigation)? That's a big difference and one that should cause everyone concern. --BobC 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- My concerns were somewhat the same as yours, so I spent some time looking for evidence to respond either pro or con to the complaint, without much luck, which I tried to indicate in my post. Part of the problem the "offended" user has, is that this information exists in other places, so to counteract the spread of this, at this point, they need to somehow publish more information and documentation to demonstrate the falsity of it. Ironically, to do so at WeRelate, they could conceivably be hindered by the living person policy. Both the original post and the complaint against were devoid of sources, so unless there was some back-channel communication with an administrator, neither is credible.
- I think there is more than enough information to say that this page violates the living person policy regardless of the issue raised, since her grandparents were born around 1900. Clearly she was born less than 110 years ago, hence a death date is required (and something more convincing than a recent example where a death date of 2020 was used). I think the original complaint became immaterial due to the living person policy.
- If somebody were to show the living person policy does not apply (i.e. there is a suitable death date), and recreate this page with credible sources (i.e., not based on the unsourced Caverly book above), I am sure that would be acceptable. I would even suggest it for the genealogy contest except my strong suspicions that the living persons policy would prevent all of the answer from being posted. --Jrich 17:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Access to Lebanon, CT VR ? [13 March 2017]
Could someone with access to the Lebanon, CT Vital Records check for the birth of Mary Clark 11 Jul 1720. Two other sources claim her as dau of William Clark/Bethia Williams and Joseph Clark/Rebecca Huntington. A citation would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.. --SkippyG 17:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Connecticut Vital Records to 1870 (Online Database: AmericanAncestors.org, New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2011.) From original typescripts, Lucius Barnes Barbour Collection, 1928. https://www.americanancestors.org/DB414/i/13153/40/234494471
- Lebanon, p. 40
- Clark, Mary [d. Joseph & Rebeckah], b. July 11, 1720, vol. 1, p. 44
- Clark, Mary [d. William & Bethia], b. Aug 9, 1720, vol. 1, p. 40.
- Hope this is what you are looking for -- --GayelKnott 19:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much Gayel. Just what I needed ! Neal--SkippyG 21:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
In need of Lebanon VR lookups...again [17 March 2017]
In need of birth lookups in Lebanon VR again..
Children of Ezekiel & Elizabeth (Bliss) Lyman (years may be approximate)
Ezekiel Jr. 1760
Also the marriage of Ezekiel & Elizabeth in 1757 or 1759.
Thanks. --SkippyG 01:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not so lucky this time -- they aren't in the records as reported in the Barbour Collection (which is known to be incomplete).
- What I found for Lebanon -
- p. 20, Bliss, Martha, dau. of Nathaniel and Mary, b. 30 Oct 1709 (Vol 1, p. 29); Martha, m. Jabez Lyman 29 Jan 1730 (Vol. 1, p. 171)
- p. 110, Lyman, Ezekiel, son of Jabez and Martha, b. 23 Oct 1733 (Vol. 1, p. 171); Jabez, son of Samuel and Elizabeth, b. Oct 10, 1702; Jabez m Martha Bliss 29 Jan 1730 (Vol. 1, p. 171)
- I also checked under Liman/Limon, just in case, but nothing.
- Since you are getting into the Bliss family, I had a look at Genealogy of the Bliss family in America (1881) and found the following:
- p. 58, No. 378 -- Elizabeth, b. Oct. 31, 1730. "Sup. m. Feb 10,1757, Ezekiel, 2nd son of Jabez and Martha [Bliss] Lyman, [b. at L. Oct 23, 1733,) of Canterbury, Conn., and Royalton, Vt., 1783."; Elizabeth is the dau. of John Bliss and Anna Terry.
- Back to the Barbour Collection for Lebanon:
- p. 19, Bliss, Elizabeth, d. of John and Hannah, b. Oct 31, 1730? [sic] (Vol. 1, p. 19)
- Maybe someone who knows more about the Barbour Collection and Connecticut records can chime in.--GayelKnott 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)