Old topics have been archived: 2011 2012 2013
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)
- It could be noted that Rakirkwood has now waited for a week for his first import to be reviewed. I've waited less than 24 hours, so I'm not complaining for myself, but it doesn't look hopeful. ;-) Maybe more Admins are needed? --Lennart 12:24, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
- Additional volunteers are always welcome! I would like to note the date on the GEDCOM review page is the date the user uploaded their file, not the date it was submitted for admin review. Users generally take some time reviewing their file and processing Family Matches before submitting it for upload. WeRelate does strive to process GEDCOM files within 24 hours, but, since this site is volunteer based, that can take a bit longer in some instances. --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:33, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
- Aha. That looked like a big import as well, so maybe things aren't as bad as they looked. That's good to hear. --Lennart 12:40, 7 September 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)
- Select History in the left-hand panel and you will see all the user names who added or edited a page. Select a user link, then select their Talk page and leave a note there.--DataAnalyst 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Did my GEDCOM 'fall thru the cracks'? It's been 4-5 weeks.--Diane Hosler 19:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like it did fall through the cracks. I'll follow up on this. Thank-you for letting me know. I apologize for the wait.--Dallan 22:07, 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)
- You should cite the Source page for the source you used. The FHL microfilm number is usually on the Source page automatically, or you can add it there if you wish to. It does not need to go in the citation itself, as these are cites for where anyone might find the information (independent of the repository), as opposed to where you personally found it.--Amelia 19:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- You can include a large amount of text in the "Volume/Pages" field of the Citation. I don't know what the limit is. Just add the specific FHL number for your citation, eg. here. —Moverton 03:53, 3 January 2015 (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)
- There some chance the problem is with the accents, not with the compound names.
- When I click on the broken link, I get an empty page with this url: www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Louis_%C3%89loy_Pascal_%281%29
- When I search and select a page, I get the right page with this url: www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Louis%C2%A0%C3%89loy_Pascal_%281%29
- Reagrding Jean, same problem in other languages, i.e., German with Johan.
- The page title is a different entity than the name, i.e., [[Person:Jean Guide (16)|Jean Baptiste Guidé]]. --Jrich 15:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jrich ! But the problem is not caused by the "french" accent on the letter "e" --> é, è, ê, or also à, ù. I tested this possible interpretation of the bug more as one time since December 2013. And now, one more time ... see what I added here Person:Edmond Bouchon (1) --> The link with "Jean Baptiste Guidé" is red, but for "Eugène Guidé" it's OK. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's now OK ... I had forgotten, to obtain the space between the 2 words (given name) I tipped "alt-255". Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strikes me as a bad idea to type in a visually indistinguishable character that most people, as you yourself did, would think is a space, so you can get around a rule built into the software. --Jrich 05:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Peuvez-vous décriver le problème en français? Je ne parle pas bien, mais je crois que peut-être je peux mieux comprendre en français, et puis, je peux traduire à anglais pour les autres. --Jdfoote1 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I thought he explained it well in English, much better than I could do in French. He used an escape sequence to enter a non-breaking space so the system would recognize Jean[space]Baptiste as a single word, and then couldn't build a link to it because what looked like a normal space, wasn't. Spaces are normally converted to underscore by URL rules, but the normal rules didn't work right when a non-breaking space was involved. The problem is that everybody else is going to make that same error. American readers are going to have even a harder time, at least based on my personal experience, because I don't even know how to enter those special characters even if I realized they were needed. In colonial USA, the town clerks entered the early records having middle names with a dash, i.e., Jean-Baptiste Guidé, which would at least be visibly obvious to subsequent readers of the page. I suggest either following the rules, or use a more visible separator than a non-breaking space. After middle names became common, the dash was dropped by town clerks, based on the assumption that the surname was the same as the father's. Now that assumption is no longer valid. So modern interpretations sometimes don't agree with what the ancient writer thought was unmistakably clear. There is a lesson in there somewhere. --Jrich 04:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jrich - that makes a lot more sense. So, the problem is in trying to create the page title with both names? It seems like we could potentially modify the page title creation code to accept non-breaking spaces, but I agree that that seems like a non-intuitive solution. I don't know how much work would be involved, but maybe it would be possible to create a check box that would force the page title to use all middle names, or to create a way to manually edit/enter the title of the page? --Jdfoote1 04:41, 8 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'm sure the merge project from years ago got all the low-hanging fruit. I've seen nothing to indicate there are any widespread problems requiring another such effort. The ones I'm finding are pretty obscure (usually due to sparse data and/or wild variations in names). I have already merged several. But sometimes I'm not quite sure if they are duplicates; more research is needed to be sure. So all I'm saying is that having a standard template to mark such suspected duplicates would make my life easier, and maybe it would be useful to others. Is it ok if I create such a template and try it out? Or should I just "be bold" and do so? --Trentf 01:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- To put my 2 cents worth in, I'd say go for it. I sometimes just add a note and a link to the page but a template would be good (especially if it is reasonably aesthetic - there have been complaints about ones that were too glaring).
- BTW: There is a duplicates report for ongoing monitoring and resolving of potential duplicates (and there are people periodically checking and resolving these), but it focuses solely on family pages (much easier for automation to identify potential duplicates without too many false-positives). I believe this is the same report used by the merge project, and that there has been no automated reporting of potential duplicate individuals.--DataAnalyst 02:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- The key to resolving duplicates is research. The information on many pages, if unsourced, is of marginal quality, so assuming duplicates based strictly on that is risky. The problem with the project to remove duplicates was that few people did research - they guessed, and guessing can make a marginally recognizable page bear no resemblance to any reality. Be bold, but always err on the side of being correct. When in doubt, do nothing. --Jrich 03:26, 9 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)
- This help page gives no information : http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:Place_pages#What_kinds_of_places_can_I_create_pages_for.3F - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 15:02, 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 [24 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)
- Yeah, Google Translate can be catastrophic! I wonder what value there would be in adding those categories? I don't know how you are searching, but if for example I wanted to know how many of the people I am watching have died of "dropsy", I can do a "Person" search for "Watched only" with keyword "dropsy", and it returns a list of four people. -Moverton 18:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with user Moverton that you can get the same results without creating a complex set of categories that could soon get out of control. Using a structured set of keywords on your pages would achieve the same result. I would suggest that instead of Killed at war, you consider "Killed in Action," "Died of wounds" and possibly "Died of illness." You could also include key words such as WWI, WWII, etc. However, your suggested Category of "Filles du roi" could prove of broader interest, but how do we get the word out?
- PS - you handle English way better than I would with my high school French from many years ago. Keep up the good work. - Rick----RGMoffat 06:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Moverton and Rick. Thank you very much for your time and opinions. But I don't agree with you. I tested the browse tool before I posted my request. And I did again after you answered, Moverton. The result is not what you describe and hope, I am sorry ! Rick, no ... creating some categories is clearly not a complexification and such a "set" of classification has no reason to "get out of control". Putting some structured keywords on my pages don't allow what I search. I will explain why, in details. Be patient ! Rick, I don't understand what you mean with "...how do we get the word out?". Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Moverton ! 1) WeRelate is a collaborative site, and the datas have to be reached by everyone. A browse tool working only on the (very limited) watch pages of one contributor is interessant but very poor for a collective work/project. 2) For your example : "dropsy" --->
- a) I work about french famillies, villages and registers. Using also the informations I find in the acts, I never type "dropsy" (not a french word).
- b) Trying your method to find who died of "dropsy" ("Person" search for "Watched and unwatched" + "Exact match only" with keyword "dropsy") it returns ... this ... I can naturally develop and explain why the result is not my ... "hope/waiting". Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Moverton, 2 first arguments as proof that your method is not ... the best.
- 1) the request returns persons who died not of "dropsy" ! It gives also records where this word appears in the text ---> example : Person:DeForest Severance (1) did not die of dropsy, but his sister Person:Emily Severance (2)
- 2) Dropsy is also a surname ! Your method does not "remove" of the result all these records. ---> examples : Person:Lambert Dropsy (1) and surname given in a note : Person:Jean Bouillot (8). Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 11:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- An other example for the absolute necessity (for me) to work with (and use) categories : How do you can (now, without categories) obtain a list of all persons died in the different nazi concentration camps ? ---> so, with "extermination camp", 16 items ... + with "concentration camp", 58 items ... + with "shoah", 31 items ... + with "holocaust", 146 items. Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- And now, what is returned with filter "drowned" ? ---> first comment : why does it appear Person:Living Drown (1) ? and a long list of members of a family Person:John Drown (1)
- This record Person:William Taylor (1) does not contain the word "drowned" but "drowning" ... fine ! We have to initiate a next request with filter "drowning", and I alert here to search with words in other languages (so, for me french, "noyé" + "noyade")
- What do you think of this result Person:Germain Doucet (2) ? ---> this person did not died in water, only the word "drowned" appears in the long (narrative ?) text and it concerns another person.
- idem Person:Mahonri Fish (1) and Person:Eleanor Garner (2)
- Another pitiful example : Person:Susan Coffeen (1) ... Organisation by categories seems to me the best and the only solution ! - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 15:07, 22 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)
- P.S., I meant Mayflower Passenger, above, a relatively non-controversial category. As opposed to Mayflower Descendant, which is often a contentious issue. An interesting angle though. Beyond the propriety of marking Mayflower Descendants, it may be that it would be annoying to others, whose pages don't/can't get so marked? - jrich
- Jrich, thank you for your argumentation I share only partially (but I don't understand some details ... because my bad level in english). In the next hours I will try to explain my different analysis, experience and "need".
- I am very surprised that other contributors do not come on this page to give their opinion and share their experiences and methods.
- I tried again to find some "rules" and concerned talk pages. Nothing ! ... only WeRelate:Categories project and WeRelate:Category index, both pages not modified since 2012. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 07:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Jrich, you wrote :
- 1) "most categories cross the line between family history versus history and/or demographics, so creates problems " ---> what do you mean exactly ? Can you give examples ?
- you mentioned cause of death. these categories are not due to people being related, it is demographics. The people have little connection except the coincidence of cause of death.
- we have categories for presidents of the United States, for example. These people are not necessarily related. Few users of WeRelate are related to more than 1 or 2. The interest in this group is purely because of historical significance. It has no genealogical basis.
- 2) " too many categories end up reflecting personal interests, which doesn't scale well in collaborative environment." ---> What is for you the limit of a maximum of categories ? And what is your criterion for this "maximum" ? For me, the "secret" ist only the logical and (if possible) perfect hierarchy to organize the categories (and naturally with their good chosen "names".
- some pages are people with millions of descendants. If a large number of people create their own category, these pages could belong to thousands of categories. There has to be some universal importance to justify bothering all the other readers of the page with a category. In general on this website, any manifestation of personal, as opposed to universal, interests, is an imposition on other readers.
- 3) In the same sentence, you seem oppose "personal interests / collaborative environment". A site as WeRelate is only a tool allowing to work (collect, browse, display, organize ...) the datas/informations we can find in the original documents/registers. I think, each visitor or contributor of the site is always free to use only some parts of the browse possiblities or more, and why not the complete list of categories (the only crtierion being the quality of the navigation and hierarchisation, without duplicates and redundances).
- See above. Also, how often do people really use this navigation, and could they not do it other ways? Do I use the Presidents category to find George Washington's page? (no) How often do I jump from George Washington's page directly to Abraham Lincoln? (never) In my personal experience at WeRelate, I find myself going to categories almost always to maintain the category itself, not because the category is useful, i.e., to make sure the new page is displayed in proper sorted order,e tc. I almost never find it easier to use a category than a properly targeted search.
- The rest of my (long) argumentation I will give and develop tomorrow ! Be patient ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wish I could write in French, but it is decades since I did anything. No chance to practice, and not as good as your English in my best days. Good job with your English! --Jrich 19:48, 23 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)
CRACKING BRICKWALL [23 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)
- Always add what you have, citing your sources, and quoting from them where possible.--Amelia 05:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)