Please ask clarifying questions on this page.
Thanks!--Dallan 16:36, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Several random comments from Tom [21 November 2007]
I've got a few questions. If I'm understanding correctly, the "placelist" and "placehighlight" pages enumerate all of the places, and each line is of the form "proposed new name <= current name". So unless we make changes, the names on the left side of the <= are the ones that we'll end up with, come the big auto-renaming on Oct 27, right? And what we really need to focus on now is not the name, so much as getting the "located in" containment relationships right, yes?
So during the renaming, the new title of a place will become the name of the place (text of the title up to the first comma and removing any "type" words at the end), followed by a comma, followed by the new title of its located-in place.--Dallan 13:44, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
On your list of place type words to be stripped out of the name, you should probably include "Parish" as well. Are you also going to look for "City of X" forms, i.e. prefix as well as suffix? Just to make it harder, in Scotland, we've been putting all parish names as "X (parish)", so maybe you'll need to look for parenthetic forms too. In some cases, the parenthetical types were necessary for disambiguation, although that may cease to be an issue if all names are going to be fully qualified. Actually, what would obviate the reason we were putting "(parish)" in all our names is making a change to the auto-complete drop-down menus of place names. If those menus included the place type, as well as the place name, that would accomplish our purpose. That way, at a glance in the menu, you could see whether you were getting the parish or the town with the same name. (Had you thought about changing the drop-downs as part of this upcoming change? Currently, they show the actual name of the place, and then underneath, they show the fully-qualified name of the place based on the containment hierarchy. After the change, this would be redundant, wouldn't it?)
On the format of the place pages, I just noticed it now, but it appears that when the layouts were changed (e.g., when the place attributes moved from the right-hand side column to the left-hand side column), there was also a change in the way the "contained places" are presented. Unless my memory is playing tricks, I thought that the contained places used to be broken out by "type" of place, but now they appear to be all lumped together in one long alphabetical list. I think the previous organization, broken out by type, was more useful, especially when lists are long. And especially when you have multiple overlapping containment hierarchies (e.g., civil, ecclesiastical, historical, etc). My example is of course Scotland, where the contained places include "traditional counties", "synods", and "unitary authorities" (three different systems for dividing up the country). It'd be much nicer to see those contained places in three separate lists rather than one big one.
--TomChatt 02:57, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Am very impressed. This ought to make things more easier for those of us who are computer illerate! Thanks.--StevenLewis 12:09, 21 November 2007 (EST)
Omitting Type Words [19 October 2007]
I just need some verification that "county" is a type word that is to be omitted from the title, but only if it comes at the end of the word. For example, the word "county" in County Antrim, Ireland would not be omitted, correct? --Ronni 17:11, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Leaving a "located in" field blank [14 October 2007]
What happens if we leave the "located in" field blank? I am unable to properly add the "located in" place as it now stands, but in the morning when the update occurs, I should be able to. Will it be ok to leave it blank until then? If I do leave it blank, will I be able to find this particular place on my list when the update occurs? --Ronni 12:40, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Historical / current placenames encompassing different countries [14 October 2007]
I'm a new addition among WeRelate users, but I'd like to help in the Place Review project, at least for my areas of interest.
Place names in both areas (Silesia and Transylvania) are indexed by the various online sources in multiple countries. For instance "Dunesdorf, Austria", "Dános, Hungary" & "Daneș, Romania" are the same location. Few not familiar with that region would be aware of these redundancies.
However, the direction to place re-directs to the current placename may be problematic, as the various placenames have always been used primarily by a specific (ethnic) component of the community regardless of the national affiliation, and sources tend to be specific to that community. Comments?--Bgwiehle 16:21, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Alright. Knowing that much of Europe has been affected by border and nation changes, it makes sense to organize places according to today's maps. Including headings on place pages describing sub-communities, whether religious or ethic would preserve any needed distinctions.
Would it be fair to say that everyone working on this project should be aware of past changes and leave historical locations outside current borders to the person volunteering for the current country? Is there a best way for a reviewer to identify such locations if no alternate names are yet applied? (Example someone reviewing German locations should leave Alsatian locations to the reviewer for France - how would they know that? Should they place some indicator on the page to flag that no current German location matches?)--Bgwiehle 12:56, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
I think this is an excellent suggestion. How about if we use the country talk pages (e.g., Place talk:Germany and Place talk:France) to leave notes for the people who are to review those countries, where for example someone who knew about the history of Germany and France could advise the person reviewing Germany to leave places contained within certain high-level places in Germany for the person reviewing France, and could advise the person reviewing France to include in their review places contained within certain high-level places in Germany. These talk pages could be listed next to the corresponding countries in the country list, similar to the pages we already have for Sweden and Scotland. I know for someone like me at least, this information would be very helpful.--Dallan 23:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
Merging and deleting [20 October 2007]
I'm running into a number of extraneous pages I'd like to delete, and also redundant place pages that need merged. On the instructions on the Place Review page, it says that when merging, if the one you decide not to keep has no contained places, we should delete it. However, don't you also need to check that no other pages LINK to it? In some cases, I've got redundant place pages where different people have created Person/Family/Source pages linking to both of them, so I don't think I should delete either one (even after I've cleaned up the containment). I figure at best, I should make the one redirect to the other one. Will the redirects get consolidated by the automated process (ie patching up the pages that link to the redirecting one?).
In the case of some pages I'd like to delete, they are very clean (no links), so I go ahead and delete those. But in other cases, there are no user-created links, but there is a small tangle of cross-referencing wikipedia templates. I hesitate to just delete those, and am not sure what to do. For the moment, what I'm doing is changing the "type" to "DELETE-ME", changing the content to "This page should be deleted", and changing the "located in" to be the top-level country. That at least gets them out of the way for now. What do you recommend? Is there a "tagged for deletion" template we could/should be using instead? ---TomChatt 02:36, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
That's a good point. It might be simplest overall if I changed the instructions so that instead of asking that the place to replace be deleted, that it (always) be redirected to the place to keep. If we redirect the place to replace instead of delete it, then after the automated renaming I can automatically delete places that redirect to places within the same country and that aren't linked-to by Person/Family pages, and I can also detangle them from the wikipedia templates.
How does this sound? Is anyone creating redirects to other places within the same country that they'd like to keep after the automated renaming?--Dallan 01:44, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
In the Algeria list there are departments (now obsolete) and provinces. In most cases, the name of the department and province have the same name. When the stuff in the parentheses gets taken out, e.g., "(department)" and "(province)", both places will have the exact same title. Will that cause a problem in redirecting? When auto-renaming happens, will one page overwrite the other? What I've been doing is transferring all info and contained places onto the province page and then deleting the department page.--Ronni 09:06, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
There are about 1000 places like this (see http://www.werelate.org/placelist/duplicates.html) located in about 20-30 countries. I figured that I would take care of them, either merge them and make one redirect to the other has you have done, or make one located inside the other if that's called for. So in general you don't need to worry about it.--Dallan 11:39, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Making sure I'm doing this right [17 October 2007]
I'm starting with Kenya and want to make sure I'm doing this right before I go ahead and make some changes. According to Wikipedia, Kenya is divided into 8 provinces, which are subdivided into districts and then into divisions (which seem to correspond to the inhabited places). For example, Bungoma District is in the Western Province. Shouldn't the page be Bungoma, Western, Kenya rather than just Bungoma, Kenya? Then the city of Kimilili (which is located in Bungoma) be Kimilili, Bungoma, Western, Kenya?--Ajcrow 19:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
If you set the located-in field of Place:Bungoma District, Kenya to Place:Western Province, Kenya, then after the automated renaming, Bungoma's title will be "Bungoma, Western, Kenya". And if you set Kimilili's located-in field to Place:Bungoma District, Kenya, then after the renaming Kimilili's title will be "Kimilili, Bungoma, Western, Kenya". The automated renaming will create the new title of the place from the words in the current title of the place before the comma (minus any "type" words to be removed), followed by the new title of the located-in place. This means that the text that follows the first comma in a place's title will be ignored during the renaming, so you don't need to worry about correcting it. So if you set the located-in field of Place:Bungoma District, Kenya to Place:Western Province, Kenya, then you could also rename Place:Bungoma District, Kenya to "Bungoma, Western, Kenya", but the automated renaming will take care of doing that so you don't have to. I hope that makes sense. I'd be happy to review the changes you make to Kenya when you're done to make sure they look good. Thank-you for helping out!--Dallan 01:44, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Removing a division that is no longer in the hierachy [18 October 2007]
I thought I would take Azerbaijan because it looked like something simple I could review while at work. The country is divided into districts (or "rayons") and then cities. But there is one division that WR has included called "Central" and it has put the majority of the rayons under it. I cannot find any reference to a Central division (except Getty) and thus do not want to include it in the hierarchy, but how do I put the cities under the rayons without including the Central division when all the rayons fall under the Central division as WR now has it? Thanks! --Ronni 03:44, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Missing level in hierarchy [19 October 2007]
Currently working on Austria. Placename hierarchy should be Nation:State:District:Municipality. However, the District level placenames had not been created for any of the approx. 2500 placenames. I've created 2 but need some direction as to whether this is a desirable task. Or even whether there is an automated way to handle this.
Also contained in [19 October 2007]
I'm running into a number of occasions where I'd like to have an "also contained in" list on the Place page. I seem to recall a discussion a while ago about possibly changing the "Previously contained in" section of the Place page to be an "Also contained in" instead, so I've been putting my "also contained in" entries into the "Previously contained in" box without any from/to years associated with it. Is that the right thing to do? (As an example: the parish of Kilmuir is in the county of Inverness, but it is also "in" the Isle of Skye. It's not a "previous" kind of containment, it's just an "also" containment.) --TomChatt 11:20, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
Will do the automated renaming in a week or two [27 October 2007]
It looks like we'll miss the original date of the 27th (today) to do the renaming, so let's plan on another week or two. Thank-you for doing a great job everyone! We're almost half-way there!--Dallan 08:32, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
Historic counties in Wales [1 November 2007]
In Wales, there are about 13 "historic" or "ancient" counties that no longer serve any administrative role. From what I read at Wikipedia, and if I understand their function now, they mostly have a cultural or geographic role. Kept around for nostalgia it seems to me. Their boundaries are no longer shown on offical Wales maps. WeRelate has a few of these ancient counties in the hierarchy with probably 300-400 places listed under them (Glamorgan, Monmouthshire, for example). BTW, the ancient counties are different from Wales' other counties which are principal areas and do have an administrative role. Do I leave the historic counties in the hierarchy?--Ronni 11:52, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
Historical designations unconnected with current countries [1 November 2007]
Started on Germany - I am finding a lot of historical designations (no surprise). Those I'll label as former whatever or attach to another defunct entity, etc.
My question has to do with placenames
I've been un-attaching them from the Germany hierarchy (often with an explanation left in the text section) but that may not be the preferred solution.--Bgwiehle 23:28, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
Almost done! [10 November 2007]
It looks like the place review is almost complete. There's an interesting discussion going on at Place talk:Scotland about whether we should list places under their modern jurisdictions or their historical jurisdictions for Scotland. The jurisdictions changed significantly in 1975. This has prompted me to compare our place structure with the FHLC place structure to see how different they are for each of the European countries. I expect that we'll finish up with the review this coming week, and I'll spend a bit more time the week after comparing WeRelate with FHLC, and then we'll be ready for the renaming in about two weeks (finally)! Thank-you everyone for the terrific amount of work you've put in over the past several weeks. And if you have any thoughts on listing places current vs. historical jurisdictions for places, please leave them on Place talk:Scotland. (If there's a lot of discussion I'll move the entire thread over to this page.) And don't worry, we should be able to find an option that can be implemented automatically during the renaming and doesn't require re-review! :-).--Dallan 12:40, 10 November 2007 (EST)
Proposal for final place review [21 November 2007]
We're just about done with the place review. I'm in the process of making a final pass over 20 or so of the most-used countries to address the issues I'll bring up below. These issues can generally be automated during the renaming, so I'm not asking anyone to go back and re-review their countries, just give thoughts to what we should do.
Thank-you again for your terrific support in reviewing the place index!
--Dallan 11:28, 21 November 2007 (EST)
Titling place pages [23 November 2007]
Some countries, like Germany and those in the UK have had significant changes to their first-level administrative divisions (e.g., states or counties) during the past 100 years. The question is, when a town like Aisgill was located in the historic county of "Westmorland" up until 1974 but is now located in the modern county of "Cumbria", should we title the place page "Aisgill, Westmorland, England" with an also-located-in link to "Cumbria, England", or should we title the page "Aisgill, Cumbria, England" with an also-located-in link to "Westmorland, England"?
Here what it will affect:
For practical reasons it seems that we probably have to go with historic counties instead of modern counties for England and many other countries, simply because we have a lot of places listed under historic counties for which we don't know the modern county, and relatively few places listed under modern counties for which we don't know the historic county. If we went with modern counties in the titles, then a town like Aisgill, for which we know the modern county, would be included in the modern county category, but a town just a couple of miles away for which we do not know the modern county would be included in the historic county category. It seems like this outcome would defeat the purpose of the categories, which is to list pages of people, families, sources, images, etc. that are near your page.
It seems that we should pick a date and title places according to the county/state they were in on that date. But when we have a choice of dates, which should we prefer?
For most countries I think we'll leave them the way they are. It's the European countries that seem to have undergone so many changes recently. Here are some examples:
Speaking for Scotland, I heartily endorse going with the historic counties (the "magic date" being 1891), as that provides the best alignment with the vast preponderance of sources, not just FHLC, but also GENUKI and others. Commenting on some specific points you raise:
--TomChatt 01:46, 22 November 2007 (EST)
I'm also going to suggest we go with historic places vs modern. My thinking has changed on this somewhat after I saw a comment, either from Tom or one of his group helping on the Scotland pages, in that a good deal of our sources and the ancestors we are dealing with are pointing to those historic places. Someone researching a "modern" ancestor, existing in a country where boundary changes have occurred in the last 50 years or so, is probably not going to have a problem locating the place and/or finding the resources to go with that place.
The "magic date" of when to cut off the changes I suspect will be different for each country. I would like to suggest the following site just as a reference -- Statoids. While Statoids' goal is to keep current with country changes, he also gives historical data on the countries that I found very useful. Wikipedia is good, but sometimes the information is incomplete or scattered across several pages.
I also agree with Tom in that I would like to see the parish level as well, especially in England, Ireland and Wales.
England (including Wales): my preference is pre-1888 changes
--Ronni 05:58, 22 November 2007 (EST)
I'm thinking that every entry in the drop-down list has two lines: the first line shows the title of the place, and for non-redirects the second line shows the type. For redirects, the second line would show the title of the place that it redirects to (instead of the type). So "Aisgill, Cumbria, England" would show that it redirects to "Aisgill, Westmorland, England". We wouldn't want every redirect that we created for places to show up in the drop-down list, since many redirects are just used to redirect a place page that someone has created into its "standardized" place title. So we'd have to distinguish the redirects that we wanted to show up in the drop-down list by adding a special word or template link after the "#redirect". Also, I'm hoping that we could wait to create the redirects for a few months until after match/merge was working.
We can create categories at the parish level in Scotland because you and LSnellgrove have gone to the effort to organize places down to that level. For most countries (including England, Ireland, and Wales), most places are listed directly under the first-level administrative division (the county for England, Ireland, and Wales) because that's how they were organized in Getty and FHLC. So for those countries the best we can do is create categories at that level. But after the renaming if someone were to go through a country and move places into their second-level division, then we could re-categorize everything for that country into second-level categories.
Wow, Statoids is a really nice site! I'll have to start using this as well.
--Dallan 10:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)
What to do when two places have the same name [23 November 2007]
"Aberdeenshire" is the name of both a former county and a modern "Unitary authority" in Scotland. Both the former county and the modern unitary authority are directly under Scotland. The question is: Do we
The issue is, when someone lists "Aberdeenshire, Scotland" as a place in their GEDCOM, which Aberdeenshire should the GEDCOM uploader link to? If we have two place pages for Aberdeenshire, we have to choose one.
We could potentially choose one approach for one country and another approach for another. For example, in France, towns are generally inside Cantons, which are inside Arrondissements, which are inside Departments, which are inside Regions. But both Getty and FHLC put towns directly under Departments, so that's where we have them. So we're listing towns, departments, and arrondissements all directly under departments, and appending (canton) and (arrondissement) to the titles for cantons and arrondissements so the GEDCOM uploader will match the towns by default since they have a shorter title.
Or we could choose to merge place pages when they both refer to same-level jurisdictions for different time periods (e.g., pages for a former county and unitary authority are both first-level jurisdictions under England), but not merge pages when they refer to different-level jurisdictions (e.g., pages for counties and towns in Poland are at different levels in in the place hierarchy -- we have them listed at the same level only because nobody's put towns inside counties yet). I'm leaning toward this approach, but I could be talked out of it.
I like option 3 or 2 (I understand option 3 as a further elaboration of option 2). That being said, I think that we'll eventually end up at option 1 taking a long view over time, when there's enough critical mass of data having occurred within the new jurisdictions that they must be accounted for. But with Scotland's changes being so recent (1996), I think it's fair to say that that point is at least 5 or 10 years or more in the future. Given the nature of wikis, and that there will always be opportunities to revamp and improve later, I don't think we should be concerned now with what will be useful 10 years from now.
For the time being, I think the challenge with option 2, i.e., people wanting to enter recent facts using the current jurisdictions, is best answered one of two ways. If we have redirects (e.g., "Aisgill, Cumbria" -> "Aisgill, Westmorland"), then people can simply choose those. If we don't, they can enter it manually as the need arises (e.g., when somebody dies this year, on that person's page, the place of death is entered as "Place:Aisgill, Westmorland|Aisgill, Cumbria") using the "pipe" notation when they enter the event. (Keep in mind that this need will arise relatively very infrequently for quite some time.)
(Something I'm wondering about the redirects... what will things be like after the grand renaming happens? Will things continue as before, such that people could start to rename things against the convention of the place page title reflecting its containment? Or will the editing be modified to enforce that convention, such that you can only edit the place name itself, and the full title gets automatically formed? I think the latter would be a good thing. But what would that mean for redirects? Would you be able to create a "Aisgill, Cumbria" -> "Aisgill, Westmorland" redirect, without a "Cumbria" page actually existing?)
Re the challenge with option 3, multiple historical containments, I recommend not over-complicating it, and letting the text on place pages do a lot of the explanation. We should explain on the place pages for containers that the containment only represents one hierarchy. The Aberdeenshire page only shows the places that 1891 Aberdeensire contained. It can explain that post-1996, there was also a unitary authority called Aberdeenshire, and it can explain the differences, and provide "see also" links. I think where this matters more is on the specific town and parish pages, where you can explain how they got shuffled around. A given parish page can explain that it belonged to one county until 1891, then another until 1975, then a district, and then a unitary authority. This will give researchers the information they need in a convenient location, without overly complicating the number and containment relationships of place pages in the wiki.
You also mention the Wikipedia linkage, and that under option 3, the page for Aberdeenshire might have two Wikipedia links if Wikipedia has separate pages for Aberdeenshire the traditional county and Aberdeenshire the post-1996 unitary authority. That's definitely a good thing. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not rigorous in how it handles the changing hierarchies. Sometimes there are separate Wikipedia pages for the traditional county and equivalent unitary authority, and sometimes the two are described on the same page. When there are two separate pages, the other Wikipedia pages that may link there are not always thoughtful about which one they pick. Thus, when we map Wikipedia refs onto WeRelate place pages, I think it will serve us well to have separate pages there map into one "combo" page here.
Re the merging, we definitely shouldn't merge two things with the same name but at different levels in the hierarchy. "X (county)" and "X (town)" are two different things.
In any event, with regard to your specific examples above, can we all agree that Aberdeenshire in any of its incarnations belongs in Scotland, and not in England? :-) :-)
--TomChatt 02:25, 22 November 2007 (EST)
I am totally undecided on which option to use. I can see instances where I would prefer option #1 and other times, option #3. It probably would vary from country to country, situation to situation. I always prefer less complicated though. <g> Having said that, I agree with Tom in that option #1 is probably what we'll have in the long run. Isn't that how the township naming convention got created? Town vs township, both with the same name, but one being more specific than (or contained in) the other?
I also second the idea that somehow "enforcing" the new naming convention or automatically modifying it to fit the naming convention after its created would be a good thing.
--Ronni 06:43, 22 November 2007 (EST)
I'm thinking that after the renaming we'll remove the "preferred name" and "located in" fields from the edit screen, since that information will be determined from the title. If you wanted to change either of those two fields, you would have to rename the place page. We would treat redirects specially and allow a "Aisgill, Cumbria" -> "Aisgill, Westmorland" redirect page to exist without the "Cumbria" page existing, but my guess is that eventually we'll want the Cumbria page to exist anyway; I've already come across cases where someone has attached a modern death date to a modern county/district instead of a to specific city inside the county/district.
The challenge with having the Aberdeenshire page show only the places that 1891 Aberdeensire contained is that I'd like to have contained places show up on the contained place list for both their primary located-in place as well as their also-located-in places (which is how things work today). This allows us to show places that are also-located-in a presbytery in the contained places list of a presbytery place page for example. A similar situation happens when counties change boundaries. Suppose a place X was located in county Y from 1800-1900, and suppose we have chosen to title place pages according to the 1881 county so its title is "X, Y, country". But then suppose county boundaries were modified somewhat in 1910 and county Y lost the land containing X to county Z. In this case I think we'd want to show X in the list of contained places for county Z as well. It seems to me that including the year range next to each place in the list of contained places addresses this problem, but perhaps there's a better way.
--Dallan 10:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)
Using native-language place names [23 November 2007]
I think it would be better to title places according to their native-language name. So Place:Lower Silesia, Poland should be "Dolnoślaskie". When I did the intial merge two years ago, when there was a Wikipedia article for the place I got the name from the Wikipedia article, instead of keeping the title from the FHLC, which uses the native language. In hindsight this was a mistake. I'm planning to rename places during the final review to use the native-language title for the first-level and possibly also the second-level administrative divisions unless someone feels strongly otherwise. Also, we'll create non-accented redirects for each place with accented characters so that you can create links to it without having to enter the accents. So "Dolnoslaskie, Poland" would redirect to "Dolnoślaskie, Poland".
What are your reasonings for going with the native-language name? Why was it a mistake?
Creating non-accented redirects is definitely a good idea.
--Ronni 06:46, 22 November 2007 (EST)
I think it was a mistake. The genealogical records (including the Family History Library Catalog) generally refer to places using the native-language name, so I'm thinking it would be less confusing if we used the native-language name as well. At present we have a mix: when the index was intially created, if we found a place on Wikipedia we used the Wikipedia name for the place, which is in English; otherwise we used the FHLC or Getty name for the place, which is generally in the native language.--Dallan 10:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)
Mythological or really ancient places [23 November 2007]
A new user has just uploaded some data (Greek gods, Roman gods, Bible genealogy, etc) that deals with mythological and biblical places. This looks like a very interesting project and I'm anxious to get involved in some aspects of it myself, however this got me to thinking about the place names. Are there any problems with creating pages with names like "East of Eden" or "Hades"? --Ronni 07:45, 22 November 2007 (EST)
I don't think there's a problem with it. We're talking in the neighborhood of 100 places, right? Just a few extra places wouldn't clutter up the drop-down lists.--Dallan 10:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)
We're ready! [4 December 2007]
The place review is complete! I'm just making a final pass this week to make sure that everything is ok and to generally put places in European countries where they are according to the FHLC. The renaming should start on Saturday and will take several days. During this time I'm going to restrict editing the place database, since it could cause problems for the automated updater.
A huge THANK YOU to everyone for all of your hard work on this! The place index looks so much better than it used to. It will be a huge help to people who do genealogy research in countries outside of their own. Next year we'll re-do the source index and do a better job of matching sources to places so that you'll be able to see quickly for any of your ancestors what sources are available to you.
--Dallan 18:18, 4 December 2007 (EST)
The automated update process has begun [16 December 2007]
After a few false starts on the test system, the automated update process has begun. It's making 50,000-70,000 edits a day. We have to rename and update nearly every place page (430,000 pages), so the update process will probably take two weeks. But when it's done, we should have a terrific place index! Thank-you again for all your hard work!
A few of points of interest: