|
|
Details of any recommendations on the project page
These are the recommendations and actions taken on GEDCOMs that are listed on the project page (Old GEDCOMs Archive).
GEDCOMs that were recommended to be retained [28 December 2016]
- 3133 view deletion impact --> 72 persons, all places originally in red, but I began for some days to clean up ! I use WP:en to verify if WeRelate has no place-page. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I find no information about "Fern, Angus" --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus --> see please this record Person:Janet Prophet (3) - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 09:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- This may be Fern Angus: Place:Fearn, Angus, Scotland
- And for "Gateside, Argus" (see Person:Peter Millar (5)) --> problem for me : 2 places in Scotland : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateside - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 09:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Muirhead, Angus" --> not found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus --> please see Person:Elizabeth Hanton (2) ... but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muirhead,_Angus ! What can we do ? create a new special place page for this village, or replace with Birkhill and write "Muirhead" in the description field ?- Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 09:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Same problem with "Alyth, Angus" --> Person:Claude Millar (1) ... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyth and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_and_Kinross .... Place:Alyth, Perthshire, Scotland - Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 10:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Only 2 persons are declared as "living" --> Family:Charles Millar and Elizabeth Hanton (2) --> See what I wrote today about removing "theoretically living persons" --> parents married in 1905, 2 brothers died in 1980 and 1985, the gedcom was imported in 2007, we are in 2014 ... I think that, in such a case, the limit of 100 years (and not 120 years) is really enough ! Do we effectively want to win/obtain new contributors ? Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- For the two children of Family:Charles Millar and Elizabeth Hanton (2) - In the past, the GEDCOM software created pages for these possibly living people, but removed all identifying information from the page (name, birth dates/places). So, the two Living Millar pages need to be deleted because they are empty. Also, having pages with Living in the title encourages new users to create new pages for Living people, which we don't want. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Jennifer ! I perfectly understand your opinion ---> "not encourage new users to create/import records with living people" ! I propose a "solution" in that case where the persons are clearly no more living : 1) replace "living" with "unknown". 2) add a line for the last family/generation saying the number of children. I will modify this records in this "direction" --> If it's bad or stupid for you, you can naturally "revert" what I wrote. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 09:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- 4Foster - 1400 pages, full families, many full dates and places, a lot of sources (not great sources, but there nonetheless). --Amelia 06:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- A-Marsh - 1400 pages, over 1/3 of which have been connected into other trees. Some reasonable portion of what's left has full families/dates/places, and much of that is partially hooked in, which means the families would lose a lot of information. Unfortunately, there are also several hundred "unknown" pages - orphans, and just inserted in families, but I don't know what to do about that other than keep deleting them by hand.--Amelia 06:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up the "unknown" pages - there are a handful of unknowns left, but this is normal. I have also merged some duplicates and done some other cleanup.--DataAnalyst 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- AVolker - 270 pages that appear to be generally connected, with dates and places, and sourcing on the earlier families. Pages are pretty clean.--Amelia 06:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have finished cleaning up Amballasis.--DataAnalyst 01:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have finished removing living individuals from Ambar.--DataAnalyst 16:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have finished cleaning up Aunthoot.--DataAnalyst 19:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have finished cleaning up Auralierose.--DataAnalyst 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Acts2:3 - 200 pages connected to a couple common earlier families; deletion would break those up. Pages have dates and places, some sourcing, reasonably clean. --Amelia 15:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Adohner - 2000 people, not a ton overlapping, but pages generally clean, places, dates, some sourcing. A couple hundred "livings" need deleting, however.--Amelia 15:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have deleted all the "living" persons that I could not find name and death info for. However, there are still a number of individuals without birth year who are likely living. I will continue to work on these.--DataAnalyst 02:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have finished deleting living individuals in this tree.--DataAnalyst 02:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- All the Ahitzemen trees are well done, sources, images, etc.--Amelia 15:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:Amatter - mostly New England colonial, some unsourced material but not a huge amount of it, only a couple people missing dates and no 'Livings'. Daniel Maxwell 09:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- User:Antayaje - very well documented small family (half the pages are sources).--Amelia 23:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- User:Azion -- Over 5000 people, over 200 of which intersect, and a number of branches appear reasonably complete. But there's a lot of sloppy - whole unconnected branches with very little info from the middle ages (one Dalton branch of a couple hundred I marked Speedy Delete already), random living unknowns scatted in 18th century families, very few good sources. I'm divided. Perhaps we delete what's before ~1700?--Amelia 05:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- This tree has been cleaned up. Some pages removed, others reviewed. Some early info taken from books is questionable, but no more so than in other trees. Living individuals have been removed.--DataAnalyst 14:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Bartsimpson I vote to delete this file. Deletion impact=0, total Person/Family=16, most pages have no dates (those that do have only year) --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Only one person with dates : Person:Alexander Schmidt (1) (only the year is for me in princip not so "bad")
- but absolutly no place for all the persons and families ... and no "source".
- persons not "related" : I wrote a "note" --> Person:Herman Schmidt (6) + Person:Peter Schmidt (9)
- and "bad name" problem Person:Alexander Schmidt (1) --> Alexander or Merle ? and see, please Person:Merle Schmidt (1) --> and what about Alexander : Person:Alexander Schmidt (2) and Person:Alexander Schmidt (1)
- Delete or write first an "alert" message to the contributor on his talk page ? If no answer after 2 mounths, delete ! My option is always 1) to try that old contributors come back and 2) to motive/attract the potential new contributors with these uncomplete/poor records that are perhaps in their family/genealogy ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 09:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Marc.--Beth 13:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- re: Bartsimpson - Please don't remove. I can clean it up. I've easily identified 3 out of the 4 family groups and most, if not all, are deceased. One family group is not identified yet, so I'll report back about that one. I'm on vacation now, so I'll fill it in tonight or on bad weather days before next week. Regards, --Cos1776 16:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- FOLLOW-UP re: Bartsimpson - Livings marked for speedy delete and the rest have been sourced, extended, connected and merged where appropriate. Dates, places filled in, etc. I'll mark it as "Sourced and connected" on the project page. --Cos1776 19:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Should this tree still be deleted?--Dallan 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, there is no need to delete it now. I "fixed" most of the pages in the tree and those that were living were marked for Speedy Delete. --Cos1776 20:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks.-Dallan 21:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- User:Bartyen82 - Half of pages are sources, needs some mysource conversion, but most people are reasonably complete.--Amelia 04:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I updated/deleted living pages. --DataAnalyst 15:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Becwith, Beejayel, Brannon all have tens to hundreds of person pages with no birth year. Some of these individuals are living, and the pages should be deleted.--DataAnalyst 12:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have started working on the Brannon trees.--DataAnalyst 12:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have finished deleting living individuals from the 4 Brannon trees. --DataAnalyst 02:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Becwith tree had numerous errors (as well as living individuals). I have fixed the errors I found, and deleted living individuals.--DataAnalyst 20:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Living individuals have been removed from both Beejayel trees, and some cleanup of records, particularly older records, has been completed.--DataAnalyst 21:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Bcordon tree has a tendency to identify women by their married names instead of their maiden names. This applies to only parts of the tree, and can be found by looking for husband and wife surnames being the same. This needs to be cleaned up (and where the woman's parents are not identified, change her surname to Unknown). Also, this tree has a significant reliance on OneWorldTree and much nonsense (e.g., children born to parents much younger than themselves) as a result. I am doing some cleanup but might not complete it.--DataAnalyst 16:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up both issues in this tree.--DataAnalyst 19:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Brian89 - no overlap, 65 people, most of which are in small unattached groups with no information. What does have dates/places is unsourced.--Amelia 15:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- User:In_genealogist - huge tree, 90% overlapping with other users, deletion would split families that appear generally complete and pretty clean.--Amelia 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed this one should be kept, but I made an attempt at a cleanup with it and it is a huge mess. A large number of livings, blanks, etc. Many of the good data is for obscure families. Daniel Maxwell 17:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have completed a cleanup of this tree. Living individuals deleted, inverted names (an artifact of the GEDCOM) corrected, pages merged where duplicates were obvious, families cleaned up, etc. The tree is not perfect, but it is in reasonable shape now. --DataAnalyst 01:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just Alf - fairly large tree (5800 persons) of decent quality - I have removed living persons and added missing dates--DataAnalyst 21:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Living individuals removed from Kaipix--DataAnalyst 14:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Mayflowermadam - as her username suggests, her tree has a large number of New England lines. Overlap is huge. Not many modern lines in this tree. I cleaned up most of the livings she had in her tree last night. Daniel Maxwell 17:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the rest of the living pages today. --DataAnalyst 03:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Mizeguy [1] - 19 people, tree doesn't go into any wild directions, I will clean this one up. Retention recommended. Daniel Maxwell 10:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
GEDCOMs that were recommended to be deleted [12 May 2017]
- Special:Contributions/Abolcen - We can compare the problematic with above (Bartsimpson), Person/Family = about 70, absolutely no date, no place, and no source ! No idea about the country ! Maximal number of generations = 3 and only 2 persons declared as "living", here. No errors and all records related (linked with others). But each wife is with the spouse's name ! I can immediately modify this "detail". Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 13:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- deleted--Dallan 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/Amjadfarooq --> absolutely no date, no place, and no source ! But several generations --> 8 and 5 ... No declared "living persons", but the 2 newest generations are probably "living" ! No idea about the country --> Tunisia ? Egypt ? ... Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 15:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- deleted--Dallan 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Angelina Erickson - 70 people, all disconnected from each other, no sources, states only, mostly recent.--Amelia 04:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- deleted--Dallan 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Arcadium - These don't render in a font that I can read on a Mac/Safari. There's only 40 unconnected people.--Amelia 05:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- All alphabetics are corrupt. Years (only) are often given and persons are connected. Looks like character-set translation misinterpretation. A random name from it, like "Ïóøêèíà" has many Google hits, so not a unique mistranslation. As it stands, it's garbage and warrants removal. --robert.shaw 18:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- deleted--Dallan 02:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bonnid - 300 people, at least a quarter Living Something, no sources, no full dates, mostly no places.--Amelia 05:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- deleted--Dallan 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- User:Firmware -- 230 people, about 180 of which have no dates or places, and most of them are descended from the handful of people with dates in the last 200 years. Amelia recommended that this tree be deleted (21 August 2015)
- Most pages have been deleted, leaving about 35 person pages in 2 small trees, that are reasonably well-documented. What is left should be kept.--DataAnalyst 19:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- This user deleted their tree today. --Jennifer (JBS66) 17:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- deleted--Dallan 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- deleted--Dallan 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- deleted--Dallan 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- deleted--Dallan 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Since I didn't get a response to the guidelines, and I admit that even as an admin I don't know how to delete these trees all together. I've wanted to help this group, and this one here looks like a no brainer. Daniel Maxwell 01:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- deleted--Dallan 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted 22 Apr /2015
User:Danitra55 [2] - mostly empty names, very few places given, many livings. Daniel Maxwell 20:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Felipep [3] - very few dates, what little data is entered is low quality, another tree where many or most may be living but there is no way to know. Daniel Maxwell 11:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Gusriobr [4] - no dates, no data. Small tree. Daniel Maxwell 18:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Kirstythestar [5] Tiny, just a couple of dates and the rest are livings. Daniel Maxwell 12:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Mune72 [6] - Absolutely no dates, no data. Daniel Maxwell 11:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Nitemares [7] - Only one I see has dates, the rest (186) are blank. Daniel Maxwell 12:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Neuman5022 [8] - no dates or data, tree is written entirely in Hebrew and near impossible to verify anyway. Daniel Maxwell 18:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Pc-keving [9] - not many dates. What is entered is low quality, and the number of livings and blank people pages is high. Daniel Maxwell 18:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:RainbowOzGrl [10] - has 'dates' but the whole thing is small and incredibly low quality. Daniel Maxwell 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Ryandwayne [11] 8 people, low/no quality. Daniel Maxwell 18:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Rush00121 [12] - no dates, no data, not possible to verify anything, small at 12 people Daniel Maxwell 10:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:SRDA [13] - Almost no dates, many (almost all?) livings, blanks - delete Daniel Maxwell 10:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Stevenkoolen [14] - tiny, no dates, several livings. Daniel Maxwell 18:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
User:ThomasWorman [15] - 'Tree' is nothing but a bunch of blank unknowns, the single 'source' is this user citing himself. Seems like Vandalism or trolling. Daniel Maxwell 11:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)re
User:Charzycat - Only overlaps on 3 pages, nearly all the people are living, have no information, or only have places that are in a user-specific format.--Amelia 15:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Al Beitchman - Largely recent, empty and/or orphan pages. No overlap with other users.--Amelia 15:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Jayso [16] - all blank, perhaps all living, but impossible to tell. Daniel Maxwell 17:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Treks [17] - almost all living Daniel Maxwell 22:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Richardwelchcolumbus - nearly all are either living or blanks Daniel Maxwell 11:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Angelbaby276 -- Very little overlap, 7 sources, I put in 7 speedy deletes for entire families in the first 200 people. Most pages have no info other than name. The cleanup effort is not worth it.--Amelia 18:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Baborge -- No overlap, very little information, mostly collections of blank relatives of living people.--Amelia 22:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Bassani -- 300 people, most of which are subject to speedy delete for entire families born after 1900 with no dates or places.--Amelia 05:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
User:SandManMattSH - about 100 people, most have no dates, probably the majority are livings, what has dates is low quality. Daniel Maxwell 12:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Kalpeshptl - no dates or places, all recent, many living.--Amelia 05:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Bluesqueenbee, User:BluesQueenBee - FIrst is 65 people, all last 3 generations, only a couple with any facts, many placeholders. Second is 10 other people, same issues --Amelia 06:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Cfmartinez - As noted on main page, mostly living and/or no information. Probably fewer than 20% have dates or places, and the only overlap is on partially living families, probably created by previous deletions.--Amelia 06:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Christopherjperez - As noted on main page, 64 people with no dates or places. A number of names seem pretty modern, and thus many are likely living or recently so.--Amelia 16:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
|
|
