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)
Size [15 March 2015]
I have since 2 hours a problem with the size of the characters on the pages of the site ! ... it's now too little ! But no problem with other sites (wiki or not). Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 10:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
George w Robinson 1800-1839 [27 March 2015]
Anyone know who is parents were and where and when they came from?--Patricia gross 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Preparing Family Tree Maker for import
I want to get my Family Tree Maker file ready to export to GEDCOM and then import into WeRelate. Are there any guidelines or cheatsheets on how to edit my sources in Family Tree Maker so they will import as smoothly as possible? (I'm a new user here.) I already am reading Help:Source page titles. Khqs 22:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
GEDCOM listing [19 March 2015]
The day after I uploaded my last GEDCOM, Jan. 30, my computer crashed. While most everything was saved, that was not. Is there a way to get the names that were in the Jan. 30 GEDCOM or the names added to my Bury family tree Feb. 1?--Diane Hosler 17:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
When the source is self or another person? [27 March 2015]
Hi, I am at the reviewing stage. Please tell me the best way to describe sources like "I was there" or "my cousin John". I have myself described as "daughter", "granddaughter" "niece" etc and by name. As I am alive, I won't be featured, so giving my name, or a cousin's name, seems futile. What makes sense and keeps it orderly?--Helen-HWMT 09:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Will junk places and sources delete when I delete GEDCOM? [28 March 2015]
Thank you for your instructive answer to "When the source is self or another person? [27 March 2015]" I've stored this answer safely.
Now I have found a worse problem! I have heaps of junk sources such as variant wordings of the same thing, and lists like "FreeBMD; census; cemetery records" and there doesn't seem to be any way to delete them. Excluding them results in them being marked excluded on peoples' pages which isn't nice.
Also -- worse -- most of the items on my Places list are not places at all but occupations -- and I can't delete them!
I can see I need to delete this GEDCOM and start all over again, BUT my questions are:
Will deleting the current GEDCOM result in this junk info getting deleted, or will it remain in the system ready to contaminate my new tree or GEDCOM?
Will I have to name the new tree differently in order to get free of it?
Also, how do you add parents to a person? And how can I re-unite a dislodged person to their parents and brother?--Helen-HWMT 12:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Rename place page [11 April 2015]
I want to get a place page renamed.
A while back the Place:Dabo, Moselle, France was named Dabo, Moselle, Lorraine, France and when a French user modified it I happily left it.
However twice now an additional page has been created for Dabo, Lorraine, France. So I would like change it to the full Dabo, Moselle, Lorraine, France but I can't because it has subordinates--JeffreyRLehrer 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I put a link in but not a redirect, and then added speedy delete but a redirect could work.--JeffreyRLehrer 03:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Accessing existing GEDCOM files [12 April 2015]
I have an existing GEDCOM file at WeRelate.org and it was unfortunately lost over the last couple of years due to some extenuating circumstances. Is there any way that the file can be retrieved so that I can recreate my research files? I had an old account but have no idea how to access it. the email address was email@example.com on that account. Any help would be appreciated. thanks Phil Larkin--Pel152991 05:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Family Page Events copied to the children's Person Pages [21 April 2015]
This may have been asked before. If so, my apologies as I did not find it. I have just entered the 1911 Census of Canada as an event on a family page. It shows up on both the husband and wife person pages. As there were 3 children in the family noted in the census, I was hoping that this event would also show up on their person pages without having to enter the info separately. Is there a way to make this happen?--Gsirwin 20:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
StickyNotes on the side of your screen are a boon in these situations. Once you have the info as you want it for one person in WR, copy it to a StickyNote (remembering to copy the reference and note boxes as well), open the edit screen for child 1, paste it in the appropriate boxes, check it, save it, and on to the next.
It is often suggested that you keep more than one copy of WR pinned on your browser. I work with three most of the time. Pinned bookmarks to your favourite sources also help.
/cheers --Goldenoldie 20:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
How in the world do I navitage [24 April 2015]
I can't find my gedcom file..Where is it? This site is so very confusing. I get a message and cant respond. There isn't a response space Crazy--Riti 03:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Gender box stuck on "unknown" [14 May 2015]
I am currently editing the placenames for the family of Johannes Boeg, contributed in 2007. I notice that all of the family are marked Gender:unknown. In addition to removing a lot of red-lined places in and around London, England, I would be glad to adjust the gender for those with common given names, but the multiple-choice box will not move off "unknown". What's the problem here? --Goldenoldie 15:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I was also having a problem with my anti-virus software and had to get support in to clear a glitch. This may have been what was causing the problem in WR. Now to attack more of the Boeg tree and its poor geographical knowledge.... --Goldenoldie 19:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Bug in Tree Management [17 May 2015]
It appears that there is a bug in tree management through FTE. I am pruning my Default tree, and I used FTE to remove a number of people from my tree, but when I went into View mode on that tree (which invokes SpecialSearch by keyword), they still showed up. When I used the Tree link (at the left) the checkbox for the Default tree was not checked. It appears that FTE is removing pages from the tree but not removing the keyword that causes the page to show up in the "view tree" function. I can't tell (without doing a controlled experiment) if this is 100% of the time or only some of the time.
My workaround is to check the tree box in the Tree link and select Update (that is, put the page back into the tree) and then uncheck the tree box in the Tree link and select Update (to take the page out again). That means that using FTE to remove a person from my tree tripled my effort. I'm lucky I quit using it after only a few families :) --DataAnalyst 13:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
For an example (until I get around to fixing it in the next month or so), see Person:William Castle (3). He shows up on SpecialSearch with keyword +Tree:"DataAnalyst/Default", but only in my Stewart tree according to the Tree link on the left.--DataAnalyst 13:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Further note: I don't think this is just a matter of the FTE updates waiting for re-indexing (at least I hope re-indexing is not turned off). At least 3 weeks have passed since I did the FTE updates and the pages are still showing up in the SpecialSearch by keyword.--DataAnalyst 13:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Downloading and using Image Revisions [2 June 2015]
Yesterday I uploaded a map which I am using in several Place: pages which I am currently working on. All went fine on the upload and I proceeded to add the map to a number of pages. Part way through I came upon some information that proved the boundaries on the map were wrong. I corrected the map and uploaded it again with the same title. This appears to be the purpose of the instruction "Upload a new version of this file" on the second page of the upload procedure.
The revised map is now on the Image page, but none of the Place: pages associated with it have changed. Even after "deleting all revisions of this file" and uploading the revised map again, the Place: pages are still using the old map. And, even if I delete the mention of the image on one of the Place:pages, save the text, and re-edit adding the image, it is the old image that shows up.
I know I could alter the name of the image and do the replacing on each page myself, but that is not what the instructions infer. The image in question is [[Image:Tandridge_District_before_1974.png]]. Comments, please. --Goldenoldie 09:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
In the half hour since I started to write this message (including time-off to answer non-genealogical questions from immediate family members), the revised image is now finding its way to the Place: pages. Why wouldn't this be an immediate update like an ordinary edit or a "#redirect" is? --Goldenoldie 09:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Browse feature [15 June 2015]
I'm puzzled as to how and when the Browse feature works. See example: Iva Jackson. The browse feature picks up most of the places on her page but does not pick up 'Clinton' County which is mentioned twice. It appears that browse has dropped that county info and that causes me wonder how often that happens???--janiejac 00:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah! That does the trick! Thank you both for helping me understand how to get what I wanted! --janiejac 21:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have information on the British Virgin Islands or only America [29 June 2015]
--Alice harewood 01:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Can't edit Sources: "Links to other websites are not allowed" [29 June 2015]
Any changes I try to make to a Source page will show up nicely in Preview, but when I try to save them I get a bold message at the top of the Edit page stating Links to other websites are not allowed and the changes are not saved.
First saw this when I attempted to add Ancestry.com as a new Repository and the URL of the item in its card catalog, but I get the same error even when I remove the Ancestry info and even when I don't touch the Repository. The Sources I have tried to edit all have prior Repository listings with URLs in them. (I haven't tried removing the existing Repositories because I wouldn't be able to add them back and then we'd be losing information.)
Is this expected behavior? User error? A bug?
--Bsktcase 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
ref name vs cite [5 July 2015]
Somewhere (cannot currently find it) on this site is format information about using 'ref name' rather than 'cite' for connecting text to references. However, when I used the ref name procedure, it did not connect correctly to my S1, S2 or S3 sources in the Personal History section of Person:Elmer Irwin (4). Can you kindly advise.--Gsirwin 19:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, solved the problem - was missing an operator.
East European geography knowledge needed [15 July 2015]
Could someone who has knowledge of the geography of Eastern Europe make corrections for the birth and baptismal places for Christina Weber and her family? The birthplace is linking to a hamlet in Devon, England and the baptismal place to a Wittenberg in the USA until I took out the link.
I just came across her when tidying up Culm Davy, Devon. --Goldenoldie 20:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
New User Name [5 August 2015]
May I change my user name? Thanks!--Frank 23:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Login not working [8 August 2015]
this is a test--KayS 00:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
creating cemetery place pages [11 August 2015]
I tried to create a cemetery page here: Place:Bethany Cumberland Presbyterian Cemetery, Coushatta, Red River, Louisiana, United States. It didn't turn out as I hoped. I don't know how to state lat/long correctly and the category isn't right. If somebody can fix this, I'll follow your example for the next pages I need to create. Thanks! --janiejac 02:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Guest Book [11 August 2015]
Is there a way to add a "guestbook" for visitors to sign--on my front page?--Cleonard 16:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there as guest book--or a "sign-in" that can be added to my front page? Colleen--Cleonard 01:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: previous entry inquiry re Guestbook-or guest log-in. This site would be seen by many whom aren't members or have an account. I would still like to add it to my front page (Herbert Edward Scarborough)--if someone can talk me through it. (I haven't added anything in a long time) Colleen--Cleonard 15:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Worcestershire, England--sources for two places mixed up [18 August 2015]
I'm not sure who is on the panel of administrators for sources, so I have decided to put this problem here.
There are two places named Churchill in Worcestershire. Until today they were Churchill (near Kidderminster) and Churchill (near Spetchley). The first was in Halfshire Hundred and the second was in Oswaldslow Hundred. I have found references to Churchill (near Kidderminster) being called Churchill-in-Halfshire in earlier times.
Churchill (near Kidderminster) has been renamed Churchill and Blakedown because the two places merged into one civil parish in 1888. When I went to adjust the places on the Sources pages I found one source that appears to be pointing to both places.
Churchill (near Spetchley) is not Churchill-in-Halfshire. I am not sure which Churchill is covered in the source. Is there someone who can check this out in some way, perhaps with an old LDS library catalogue? I cannot travel and our nearest LDS library is in the middle of London.--Goldenoldie 13:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Right. I shall re-point the source to Churchill (near Spetchley) and make a note at the bottom that the source may refer to Churchill (near Kidderminster). Amongst the Churchill (near Kidderminster) sources is a similarly named one with a longer span--this might just be a hint.
Thanks. --Goldenoldie 13:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
won't save changes when I click on "save page" [22 August 2015]
I have tried to edit and to send messages to others on WeRelate, and it shows the preview just fine, but after I click on "Save Page" the same page reappears and if I try to go to another web address or location in WeRelate, it says if I leave that page I will lose my changes. If I go out and come back in the changes were not saved.--Thurm 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I did remove all websites, and even the word website, but still got the message. Are you saying that a web address IS allowed if in brackets? I wanted to send: In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote (1855) on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings. The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater". I could not reference my source because I got the message "Links to other websites are not allowed." This was followed by the list of names. Then I had a second reference: Another listing of the signers "A comparison of Signatory Lists for the Call to Rev. Cummings" compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator . I had removed the webaddress for that comparison.--Thurm 19:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I limited my post to "In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855" and it still gave me the no links to websites warning.--Thurm 20:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Your message with the GoogleBooks link is beautiful, but I only half understand it and could never create such a link myself. Are you saying that I should be able to put that link into my posting to enable others to see my source?--Thurm 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The following did save to your page. It is the version without websites.--Thurm 18:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855 on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings.
The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater". George Blackburn, William Blackburn, John Vance, John Casey, Benjamin Logan, Robert Edmondson, Thomas Berry, Robert Trimble, Wm. McGaughey, David Dryden, Wm. McNabb, John Davis, Halbert McClure, Arthur Blackburn, Nathl. Davis, Saml. Evans, Wm. Kennedy, Andrew McFerran, Saml. Hendry, John Patterson, James Gilmore, John Lowrey, Wm. Christian, Andrew Colvill, Robert Craig, Joseph Black Jonathan Douglass, William Berry, John Cusick, James Piper, James Harrold, Samuel Newell, David Wilson, David Craig, Robert Gamble, Andrew Martin Augustus Webb, Samuel Brigg, Wesley White, James Dorchester, James Fulkerson, Stephen Jordan, Alex. Laughlin, James Inglish, Richard Moore, Thomas Ramsey, Saml. Wilson, Joseph Vance, William Young, William Davidson, James Young, John Sharp, John Long, Robert Topp, John Hunt, Thomas Bailey, David Gattgood, Alexr. Breckenridge, George Clark, James Molden, William Blanton, Chrisr. Acklin, James Craig, Joseph Gamble, John McNabb, Chrisr. Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, Jr. John Sharp, John Berry, James Montgomery, Samuel Huston, Henry Creswell, George Adams, George Buchanan, James Dysart, William Miller, Andrew Leeper, David Snodgrass, Danl. McCormick, Francis Kincannon, Joseph Snodgrass, James Thompson, Robert Denniston, William Edmiston, Saml. Edmiston, Andrew Kincannon, John Kelley, John Robinson, James Kincannon, Margaret Edmiston, John Edmiston, John Boyd, Robert Kirkham, Martin Pruitt, Nicholas Brobston, Andrew Miller, Alexander McNutt, William Pruitt, John McCutchon, James Berry, James Trimble,
THE CAMPBELLS OF HOLSTON.
Another listing of the signers "A comparison of Signatory Lists for the Call to Rev. Cummings" compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator. --Thurm 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is the version with websites: In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855 on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings. This is found at http://www.roanetnhistory.org/foote-virginia2.php?loc=Foote-Sketches-Virginia-Second&pgid=116 .
The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater".
George Blackburn, William Blackburn, John Vance, John Casey, Benjamin Logan, Robert Edmondson, Thomas Berry, Robert Trimble, Wm. McGaughey, David Dryden, Wm. McNabb, John Davis, Halbert McClure, Arthur Blackburn, Nathl. Davis, Saml. Evans, Wm. Kennedy, Andrew McFerran, Saml. Hendry, John Patterson, James Gilmore, John Lowrey, Wm. Christian, Andrew Colvill, Robert Craig, Joseph Black Jonathan Douglass, William Berry, John Cusick, James Piper, James Harrold, Samuel Newell, David Wilson, David Craig, Robert Gamble, Andrew Martin Augustus Webb, Samuel Brigg, Wesley White, James Dorchester, James Fulkerson, Stephen Jordan, Alex. Laughlin, James Inglish, Richard Moore, Thomas Ramsey, Saml. Wilson, Joseph Vance, William Young, William Davidson, James Young, John Sharp, John Long, Robert Topp, John Hunt, Thomas Bailey, David Gattgood, Alexr. Breckenridge, George Clark, James Molden, William Blanton, Chrisr. Acklin, James Craig, Joseph Gamble, John McNabb, Chrisr. Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, Jr. John Sharp, John Berry, James Montgomery, Samuel Huston, Henry Creswell, George Adams, George Buchanan, James Dysart, William Miller, Andrew Leeper, David Snodgrass, Danl. McCormick, Francis Kincannon, Joseph Snodgrass, James Thompson, Robert Denniston, William Edmiston, Saml. Edmiston, Andrew Kincannon, John Kelley, John Robinson, James Kincannon, Margaret Edmiston, John Edmiston, John Boyd, Robert Kirkham, Martin Pruitt, Nicholas Brobston, Andrew Miller, Alexander McNutt, William Pruitt, John McCutchon, James Berry, James Trimble,
THE CAMPBELLS OF HOLSTON.
Another listing of the signers at http://www.werelate.org/wiki/A_comparison_of_Signatory_Lists_for_the_Call_to_Rev._Cummings compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator. --Thurm 18:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Even that version did save to your page. Neither would save to http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person_talk:George_Teater_%281%29 --Thurm 18:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
no confirmation email for new account [24 August 2015]
A cousin tried setting up a new account yesterday and has not yet received a confirmation email that will allow her to activate the account. She could not sign in. Are you aware of any issues (something not working, or emails from WeRelate getting blocked) or should I ask her to try again? Thanks--DataAnalyst 00:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing and Citations [28 August 2015]
I recently uploaded a GEDCOM and volunteers have been kind enough to start transforming my "notes" into proper sources (since I never expected to be sharing the information outside the family, I took the easy route in my database of using my notes field for both the transcribing of information and the sources themselves - which worked for me since sometimes I had two sources for different data elements in one sentence/field.)
As I've started adding people individually to certain families, I find myself really unsure about how to input this information properly. First -- I'm a bit unclear on the difference between a citation and a source (the My Source, I get.)
Say I'm putting in someone's birth information from a town's vital records -- in my database, I'd put the whole thing in the notes field (e.g., Morris, Elisabeth, d. Edward and Elisabeth, Feb. 12, 1683-4. - Vital Records Of Roxbury Massachusetts To The End Of The Year 1849, Published By The Essex Institute Salem, Mass. 1925 [found on] http://dunhamwilcox.net/ma/roxbury_b8.htm) Split up properly, would this be a Citation or a Source? Is the presence of the transcription of the original information what makes the difference, or is it something else. What if I have information (such as a will) for which I don't have a legitimate source (perhaps it's from someone's personal website that no longer exists) -- would that just go in a notes field?
I'm sure professors from my past are howling that I've forgotten proper bibliographic format (although, when I went to college, computerized versions weren't yet a thing, so it's been a while!)
I think I have a lot of good research that I would love to share with anyone who is interested but I DON'T want to be "that person" who causes sighs and groans by causing extra work for people. I uploaded only a tiny portion of what I have and would like to share more and upload another GEDCOM sometime soon but don't know if I should go back into my system and fix all the sources there before I do more (which could mean I never get to upload any more) -- or if transforming my notes to sources isn't that hard for people who know what they're doing.
Also. I don't think it's come up in anything I uploaded yet (I'm not sure.) But is there a limit to how much information should be in a profile? For example, I have transcribed entire wills, inventories, and petitions relating to my ancestors. Should that appear in the notes for that person? Or is there a separate place where all wills, etc. are "filed"? Or do you not want them at all? (I know they're long, but I find them fascinating.)
If I do put them in, should they be in a particular format? (To save paper for the one time I tried to print out all the information on my direct line, I formatted the inventories (for example) so that they would appear in a paragraph format instead of a list. (I killed two printers and went through WAY too many ink cartridges -- I'll never do THAT again!))
In any case, if someone could give me some guidance, I'd appreciate it!
Lynda--TheTrefryTree 20:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I assume you are talking about the "Citation only" option. The only time I use that is if I don't know the original source (such as with a will). If you don't want to hassle with searching for the correct Source, you could just use the Citation option as long as your citation is good enough for someone else to later do the association. But searching for the correct Source can of course help a person get to know the sources in this database, and it gets easier over time as you may use the same sources often. As to the wills specifically, I use a Citation when I don't know where it came from. For example, here I found an image of the will and later found a reference that said it was only available by contacting the N.C. State Archives. I only abstract information from the wills, but others copy the entire thing, and it is up to individual preference. There is no one right way to do it. You can put the text of the will either in the Text of the Citation, or as a separate section in the Personal History box. -Moverton 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The advantage of determining the correct source page to specify is that it makes the citation less ambiguous. I have seen scholarly articles that refer to sources so carelessly that the description matched two or more sources. Read a few source pages to get an idea of how linking to a source page can help. For example, NEHGR has a table of links to where copies of the magazine can be found online. Some have commentary on the source, or hints on how to use it most effectively, or lists of repositories where it may be found. However the WeRelate source system is not strictly about being bibliographically correct. So for example, many different vital records sources tend to be covered by one source page, on the assumption that various iterations are as good as any other (which is sometimes not true, and undoubtedly violates some bibliography conventions).
As far as wills, etc., there are no rules, and plenty of pages have full wills, plenty have only abstracts. Both approaches have pluses and minuses. Consider the reader and consider that perhaps 90^ are only looking at the page to see if they are interested, while maybe 10% are interested and want to read everything they can get their hands on. So the best compromise is probably to put an abstract with a link to somewhere they can find the whole will. If the whole will doesn't exist in a freely-available linkable location, then creating a Transcript page or a MySource page may be appropriate. If a complete transcript is placed on a page, it should probably be done in a way that clearly identifies it, and makes it easy to skip, such as putting it in a section by itself with a descriptive heading in the narrative part of the page. --Jrich 02:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)