WeRelate talk:Support/2017

Toldijk, Gelderland, Netherlands. Burgerlijke Stand [7 January 2017]

Hallo, good evening The above town seemed to have been added to the system once, but when I wanted to use it it did not come up. Can anybody help me with this problem please? Thank you - Beatrijs--Beatrijs 09:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I have found this entry: Place:Toldijk, Steenderen, Gelderland, Netherlands

If you perhaps typed Toldijk, Gelderland, you might have missed it. Is this the place you are looking for?--Judy (jlanoux) 13:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Judy, thank you for answering! Toldijk, Steenderen, Gelderland, Netherlands came up, was okay, but not together with "Burgerlijke Stand" that was the problem. In the meantime I received a reply from Pkeegstra, explaining why I have to use Steenderen, Gelderland, Netherlands. Burgerlijke Stand instead.

Pkeegstra wrote: Place:Toldijk, Steenderen, Gelderland, Netherlands|Toldijk]] is a dorp and has never been an independant gemeente; the Burgerlijke Stand is kept in Steenderen. So the citation should reference the source page Steenderen, Gelderland, Netherlands. Burgerlijke Stand

Thank you Judy, kind regards from Beatrijs; 7 Jan 2017

Duplicate place pgs?? [8 January 2017]

I'll bet these two place names are duplicates. Can someone check and merge?
Place:Harford (township), Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, United States
and
Place:Hartford (township), Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, United States
I believe the one without the 't' is correct. --janiejac 20:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Verified that DeLorme and Wikipedia agree, and on that basis redirected Hartford (township) to Harford (township). Note that DeLorme does show an unincorporated community of Harford, so having both that and Harford (township) is valid. --pkeegstra 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Place Page created erroneously [8 January 2017]

I seem to have made a mess when trying to create a place page for Tamaqua (Borough), Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, United States. But the system wouldn't let me do that; system insisted the title should be Place:Tamaqua, Schuylkill Haven, Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, United States. I thought I could outsmart the system by accepting the erroneous title and then renaming it. But no, it won't let me do that. So I have created a page that I don't believe is correct and I can't delete it. Frustrating! I have no idea where the Schuylkill Haven came from. I tried it twice without it and it just kept putting it in there. Can someone either fix it or delete it? --janiejac 21:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Janie, I placed a "Speedy Delete" on the incorrect Place Page. An Admin will see the template and delete it for you. FYI, if you click the Admin category on the top bar, you can copy "Speedy Delete" and place this in the Text section, give the reason for the delete and the date. Regards --SkippyG 22:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. Note that the page for Tamaqua with no explicit qualification specifies that it is a borough, so there is no need for an additional page Tamaqua (borough). --pkeegstra 02:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Information on my father [9 January 2017]

If I give you informatiion on my father can you updated his information? --Caverly 00:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Making a table problem [13 January 2017]

I am trying to edit the table I have made on page [[Place:Bedford Rural, Bedfordshire, England]]. The titles currently include a cell saying "Duration<++++++>". I added the plus-marks in order to stretch the title so that the year ranges below would always print on one line. Needless to say I don't want the plus-marks. I've been teaching myself html5, but haven't figured out all the markup yet. Can someone tell me how to sort this out? Thanks. --Goldenoldie 14:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not really up on what is html5 and what is old stuff you shouldn't use. You can add &nbsp; [non-breaking space] instead of plus signs. Also, noticed this on a tutorial website: The width attribute of <td> is not supported in HTML5. Use CSS instead. CSS syntax: <td style="width:100px">. and a quick test with <td style="width:20%"> seemed to work. --Jrich 14:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. A series of &nbsp didn't work on a previous attempt. I shall try the width:20%. It's pretty hard to estimate the width of a page in pixels when the page can be squeezed and stretched like an accordion. --Goldenoldie 15:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I added six &nbsp; and did a preview on what the saved page would look like and it worked. Not sure what you did. But clearly the nowrap suggestion below works. --Jrich 03:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

At first glance I would suggest learning Wiki table syntax, but I digress.... To solve your pr oblem, you can simply add the CSS style "white-space:nowrap;" to any of your <td> elements that you want to keep on a single line. -Moverton 17:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

How to change my email? [16 January 2017]

How and where do I change my email? --Nancygrs 23:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

At the top of the page, just after your user name, it says "Settings". Click that and it should take you to the page that has your email address on it. You can change it there. --GayelKnott 00:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleting all caps in surname problem [17 January 2017]

I've tried to fix this but there is still a minor problem. Look at Person:LaVerne Jackson (1) and look to the right to see his father's name in all caps. But when I click on the family page, it's already been fixed and the name is properly 'Jackson'. This is NOT a big, bad problem, but I don't find a way to fix it so that the all caps don't show on the children's page. Perhaps I shouldn't fret the small stuff! --janiejac 03:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Some combination of conditions, probably due to the system getting busy so that some timeout gets exceeded, causes propagation of changes to fail. Resave the page, in this case saving the father's page made the difference, and the system will bring everything up to date. --Jrich 03:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced Person/Family Pages [19 January 2017]

Is there an easy way to view all the pages in your tree that are still in need of sources being added?--sstults 06:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call it "easy", but you could open up 2 windows and view your tree in both. This takes you to a search window with the keyword field filled in. In one window, leave the keyword field as it is, and in the other, type the word source at the end of the keyword field. Sort both searches by page title. Then look for persons and families in the first search window that are not in the second. You can filter by namespace (Person or Family) in both windows if you choose.

Hope this helps.--DataAnalyst 00:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is an easier way. You only need one window; just add a "-" (minus sign) in front of source in the Keywords field of the search page, like this:

+Tree:"Sstults/Stults" -source

It's also good to select either Person or Family in the Namespace drop-down menu (so that other kinds of pages don't pop up). Here's a link to an example. --robert.shaw 19:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Robert.shaw--sstults 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Properly sourcing Family Search record w/o link [19 January 2017]

I have a "cousin" who uses a lot of Family Search items that do not link to an original record, all are RED at this time. I've searched Help looking for the proper way to cite these, but found nothing. I vaguely recall a discussion, but can't seem to find that either. Can someone point to an example ? or relay the proper WR way to handle these ? --SkippyG 19:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

These days FamilySearch entry results usually have a Collection Name following the name of the person you are search for (e.g. "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975" or "Canada Census, 1881". These Collection Names should be in our WR sources. Make a note of a FamilySearch Collection Name (letter for letter), and then enter it in the WR source box. Click on the (edit/add file) at the end of the line. This should send you to a list of files with similar names to the one you found on FamilySearch. Select the closest one and click again to bring it in to your WR entry. This should provide you with a source in black. However, some of our WR source files may need updating. If you think so, contact the Source Patrol. --Goldenoldie 20:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--SkippyG 21:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Help Setting up Czech sources/repositories [28 February 2017]

I have recently started documenting the Czech side of my family. A cousin has dug through all the archives to find birth records and such, I am now trying to add all this to WeRelate, but I'm not sure I'm doing it right. There are regional archives run by the Czech Republic, which have a variety of records (thus far I have only been looking at church records). I suspect I should set each of those up as "repositories" and then create a source for the church records.

For example, [Person:Joseph Vopalensky (3)|Joseph Vopalensky] has a birth record in the parish registers at http://digi.ceskearchivy.cz/en/6075/146. I suspect I have done this incorrectly. I am guessing that I should cite the source as "Parish Registers" (or perhaps "Sbírka matrik Jihočeského kraje, 1587–1949 (1952)", which is, I think, the exact name) within the repository of "Digital Archives, State Regional Archives Třeboň."

Also, should I be citing these in Czech or English? [clarification: should the titles of these repositories/sources be in Czech or English? e.g. "bírka matrik Jihočeského kraje" or "Register Collections of South Bohemia"?]

--Trentf 16:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion would be if you quote content from your citations, to quote them in their original language. People who want to check your sources will have to deal with the language anyway. You can provide an English summary if you find it necessary.

You have touched upon the reason why I do not generally cite Dutch sources for the 75%+ of my ancestors who hail from that region. I am able to decipher these references, but I have very low confidence that I could cite them correctly 8-(. --Jhamstra 16:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Jhamstra, please add a citation for your data, even if it is in "incorrect" form. The correct form is a nicety, the important thing is to allow others to find and evaluate the source by giving clues as to where to find it. You don't have to add a new Repository:, or Source:, or even MySource:. You can just use the default source type of "Citation Only" and type in the directions to the place you found the data in any words you care to use. Just that fulfills 99% of the point of sourcing; having "proper format" would just be a pleasant but unnecessary wrapping for the information about the source. --robert.shaw 19:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Robert, an "incorrect" citation is *far* better than none at all. I try to provide enough information in my citations such that someone else could verify what I have found. Formatting can always be fixed later, by you or others. In fact, others have made corrections to the work I've done here, and I have found it very enlightening. That's one of the things I like about WeRelate! --Trentf 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Trentf, I think you're on the right track: Citing the actual individual records or group collections as sources (if publicly available - such as the Parish Records you mentioned - as Sources, if privately held - like the individual copies of birth records your cousin has sent you - as MySources), and the place where these records were housed or found, as Repsitories.

Quite a find for you. Good luck in your further research. --BobC 18:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there are different ways of doing this. After figuring out how the records are organized in the archives, I worked up an example for that particular series of parish records to see what it could look like Source:Nový Rychnov, Pelhřimov, Vysočina, Czech Republic. Parish Registers, 1785-1917. Note that I did not complete the repository yet. If you used a Source page like this, you could use the citation fields on the page to zero in to the exact record you are citing. In this case it would be Book 15 which is "B 1864-1877", so you could enter something like "15 (B 1864-1877):144" in the Volume/Pages field (which could also be a direct link to the image) and "last accessed 28 Feb 2017" in the Date field.

As far as language goes, any original language and translations you can provide will be searchable and therefore very helpful to future researchers, so I would encourage you to add both when it is reasonable to do so. Hope that helps, --cos1776 19:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That makes sense; I'll reorganize my sources that way. However, there is one tricky bit: Those parish registers often cover many villages, so I would assume I would widen the place prefix out to the district. That would be much like the New England vital records, those sources are state-wide. The really confusing thing is that there are two senses of "region" in the Czech Republic: so the Vysočina "region" is actually covered by three different "regional" archives (and my ancestors are in all three); I'll use the former since that reflects the actual political divisions in the country. If anybody sees me doing something really dumb/wrong, let me know. Thanks again! --Trentf 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Information [7 March 2017]

People should really do their research and find out real facts before posting. I noticed it said create page for non living people but someone (Caverly) took it upon themselves to creat a page for my part of the family and post wrong info. There never was and never will be a Brenda Balodis born to Hans Balodis and Marion Zimmerman. I am the child of Marion Zimmerman and Balodis was NOT my father. I am not about to give the right info. as I do not wish to have it plastered all over the internet. There really should be some rules enforced instead of allowing any idiot to post whatever they believe or create.--Doogie 03:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Since all of the "What Links Here" pages to Brenda Balodis and connecting persons seem to have been created by User:Pcaverly back in 2008-2009 (with no activity on WeRelate since then), I suggest you post a note to that user advising them of your issue with the information they posted. Creating pages on Living Persons is clearly against WeRelate policy, but that would not have stood out to the casual user because not enough information was shown on that individual for it to be clearly recognized as a living individual. And since collaboration is the foundation of WeRelate, feel free to add, change, or recommend deletion if the information is incorrect or if the individual is known to be living. If you need further assistance, please let us know. --BobC 03:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The offending pages were removed yesterday. All pages for living individuals in the same tree have been removed as of today. We appreciate this being brought to our attention so that we could remove these pages. --DataAnalyst 00:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The question that lingers with me, this X (Doogie) telling the truth or they wanted to the family tree of the Web network? --Lidewij 13:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually an excellent point that Lidewij makes, in my opinion. That is why I advised Doogle to change, comment or recommend deletion rather than relying totally on their unsubstantive claim and unsourced objection. Doogle's claim of direct relationship is persuasive, but not backed up by substance. If the claim of parentage is accurate, I can understand the feeling of individual ownership of the information, but that is not how WeRelate works. Community ownership, quality of the evidence, and reliability of the sources should take precedence. --BobC 13:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I have seen cases where one part of a family have tried to suppress the connection to the other part. So in a single-tree, to be fair to all parties, the presentation has to be simply the truth. Given that everybody is basically anonymous, this has to be demonstrated with sources regardless of how one is, or claims to be, related to the page. All pages should have sources. But sources work both ways, and there were no sources originally, either. I had investigated this post, some, when it was first came up, and couldn't find anything conclusive because the individuals are too recent (alleged grandparents of Brenda). The original poster Paul Caverly had published a book that has the same sparse presentation (here, online db). Somebody with some Canadian expertise probably could find more. But the point being there is still access to the data - the deletion does not mean anything is lost, and since there was little data on the pages to start with, deleting them based on risk of living was probably the right move. Their sparseness means they would be easy to recreate if the people were not living, hopefully with the appropriate sources. --Jrich 14:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

To lay any concerns to rest, in this case, deleting the pages was the only option consistent with WeRelate policy. No death information was entered (or found online) for Marion Zimmerman, and since her mother was born in 1903, she clearly falls within the "assumed living" category (born within the last 110 years with no death information).

It was clear once I dug into the tree that much of the information came from obituaries, including names of people who survived their loved ones. There were a few obvious inaccuracies - clearly assumptions were made. Where I could find death information online (or evidence of birth more than 110 years ago), I entered it, but in most cases there was no such evidence. Most of the people whose pages were deleted were born within the last 80 years and many within the last 50 years. If WeRelate policy had been enforced at the time this tree was loaded (back in 2008), these pages would not have been allowed.--DataAnalyst 00:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but just to be clear, I think the point both Lidewij and I were making and the concern we expressed in our remarks was the initial reasoning behind so quickly deleting the pages: Was it because the person page and it's connecting family links were offensive to another user? Or was it because the page violated WeRelate rules (after it was calculated the person was probably a living individual upon more detailed investigation)? That's a big difference and one that should cause everyone concern. --BobC 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

My concerns were somewhat the same as yours, so I spent some time looking for evidence to respond either pro or con to the complaint, without much luck, which I tried to indicate in my post. Part of the problem the "offended" user has, is that this information exists in other places, so to counteract the spread of this, at this point, they need to somehow publish more information and documentation to demonstrate the falsity of it. Ironically, to do so at WeRelate, they could conceivably be hindered by the living person policy. Both the original post and the complaint against were devoid of sources, so unless there was some back-channel communication with an administrator, neither is credible.

I think there is more than enough information to say that this page violates the living person policy regardless of the issue raised, since her grandparents were born around 1900. Clearly she was born less than 110 years ago, hence a death date is required (and something more convincing than a recent example where a death date of 2020 was used). I think the original complaint became immaterial due to the living person policy.

If somebody were to show the living person policy does not apply (i.e. there is a suitable death date), and recreate this page with credible sources (i.e., not based on the unsourced Caverly book above), I am sure that would be acceptable. I would even suggest it for the genealogy contest except my strong suspicions that the living persons policy would prevent all of the answer from being posted. --Jrich 17:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Access to Lebanon, CT VR ? [13 March 2017]

Could someone with access to the Lebanon, CT Vital Records check for the birth of Mary Clark 11 Jul 1720. Two other sources claim her as dau of William Clark/Bethia Williams and Joseph Clark/Rebecca Huntington. A citation would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.. --SkippyG 17:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Connecticut Vital Records to 1870 (Online Database: AmericanAncestors.org, New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2011.) From original typescripts, Lucius Barnes Barbour Collection, 1928. https://www.americanancestors.org/DB414/i/13153/40/234494471

Lebanon, p. 40

Clark, Mary [d. Joseph & Rebeckah], b. July 11, 1720, vol. 1, p. 44

Clark, Mary [d. William & Bethia], b. Aug 9, 1720, vol. 1, p. 40.

Hope this is what you are looking for -- --GayelKnott 19:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much Gayel. Just what I needed ! Neal--SkippyG 21:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In need of Lebanon VR lookups...again [17 March 2017]

In need of birth lookups in Lebanon VR again..
Children of Ezekiel & Elizabeth (Bliss) Lyman (years may be approximate)
Ezekiel Jr. 1760
Daniel 1761
Samuel 1764
Sally 1766
Eliphalet 1767
Asa 1769
William 1770
Betsey 1772
Jabez 1774
Also the marriage of Ezekiel & Elizabeth in 1757 or 1759.
Thanks. --SkippyG 01:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Not so lucky this time -- they aren't in the records as reported in the Barbour Collection (which is known to be incomplete).

What I found for Lebanon -

p. 20, Bliss, Martha, dau. of Nathaniel and Mary, b. 30 Oct 1709 (Vol 1, p. 29); Martha, m. Jabez Lyman 29 Jan 1730 (Vol. 1, p. 171)

p. 110, Lyman, Ezekiel, son of Jabez and Martha, b. 23 Oct 1733 (Vol. 1, p. 171); Jabez, son of Samuel and Elizabeth, b. Oct 10, 1702; Jabez m Martha Bliss 29 Jan 1730 (Vol. 1, p. 171)

I also checked under Liman/Limon, just in case, but nothing.

Since you are getting into the Bliss family, I had a look at Genealogy of the Bliss family in America (1881) and found the following:

p. 58, No. 378 -- Elizabeth, b. Oct. 31, 1730. "Sup. m. Feb 10,1757, Ezekiel, 2nd son of Jabez and Martha [Bliss] Lyman, [b. at L. Oct 23, 1733,) of Canterbury, Conn., and Royalton, Vt., 1783."; Elizabeth is the dau. of John Bliss and Anna Terry.

Back to the Barbour Collection for Lebanon:

p. 19, Bliss, Elizabeth, d. of John and Hannah, b. Oct 31, 1730? [sic] (Vol. 1, p. 19)

Maybe someone who knows more about the Barbour Collection and Connecticut records can chime in.--GayelKnott 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Having trouble adding source [28 March 2017]

I'm unsure of the best way to add a source. System wouldn't let me add as a regular source; said I didn't fill in enough info. So I tried to add MySource and find that someone else has already used it as his 'mysource'. I'm sure others will be using the same website as the info is very good, tho second hand. It is impossible to give an author as it appears to be a compilation from various well recognized authors. What do you suggest when someone wants to use the website "http://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/index.php". Will someone please add that free website as a source so that it can be used? Yes, I know, would be better to use original sources, but when one doesn't have access to original sources, we'll use the next best option. --janiejac 14:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I use Citations for these kinds of web sites. And that includes the various state genealogy web sites which can contain excellent raw information, and the online obituary databases. Maybe we should be creating Sources for some of these? Unfortunately, some of these web sites tend to go away, including some very good ones where my previous Citations from just a few years ago now link to nothing. This is one of the reasons why I have been loath to convert them to Sources. To me a Source connotes some reasonable presumption of permanence.

I use MySource for privately published information and other documents and records which are not generally available (ie you will not find them in a library nor be able to purchase or link to them online). If there is a risk that a MySource may go away (eg I have the only copy) then I try to capture the images or transcriptions within WeRelate.

In creating Source pages I have found that if you enter enough information in the original Source search (eg is it a book?) then you can run the Source creation process to completion. If you do not, I have found no way to supply the missing information later. Basically you have to back-up to the search and start all over again. Not a very nice "feature" but with a little practice you can get it to work 8-(.

--Jhamstra 14:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Janie, looks like an interesting site. Also, as Jhamstra suggests, looks like it might not be all that stable. Even though someone else has used it as a MySource, you can also add it as a MySource, since you are a different user. If it were me, I'd probably name the "MySource" something simple, like Northern Neck Counties (easier to type in repeatedly), then give better information on the rest of the page. And thanks for bringing this to my attention. --GayelKnott 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't fix import error re incorrect first name [1 April 2017]

Hi all-- I recently imported my gedcom, and as part of the process a family member's name was erroneously switched from "Betty" (correct) to "Elizabeth" (incorrect). I'm sure someone thought I was using a nickname, but "Betty" was the person's actual legal given name, for taxes, driver's license, etc. I have managed to change her name back using the edit function, and have added a note about the issue, but the web slug remains "Elizabeth," and it also says Elizabeth at the top of the page. Would love some help in rectifying this. Many thanks in advance!--W4h2t7c6 22:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. In the menu at the left, select option Rename. Replace "Betty" with "Elizabeth" and select the button to rename the page.--DataAnalyst 22:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Appreciate the help!--W4h2t7c6 22:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

rename place with subordinate places [7 April 2017]

Please rename Place:Minburn (county), Alberta, Canada to Place:Minburn County No. 27, Alberta, Canada. This uses the same format as other counties in Place:Alberta, Canada

There are two included places now. After the rename, I will edit the towns in "see also" so they list the renamed country in "also included in" places.

Thanks. dhenderson359 15:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Follow up note: Thank you to Goldenoldie for response on User's talk page. --cos1776 15:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"Links to other websites are not allowed" [8 April 2017]

I have been a member of WeRelate for some time but never managed to do anything significant because I keep getting the above message. I have searched through support archives and seen that this happens to people sometimes, but never found a solution? I understand that the message is not correct and that edits should be supported with sources, and that sources can use URLs so that they are easy to check, which is good and something I would be happy to help improve. To give an example, one of the first articles I tried to work on should be sourced to Dugdale's Baronage, but WeRelate had no links to the "Early English Books" website (Michigan University) which has the full text. I finally managed to create a Repository entry for Early English Books, but keep hitting that same message when actually trying to make specific source notes.--Andrew Lancaster 10:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Let's take a look at what you are trying to do specifically, so that we can figure out where the linking problem is occurring. I will leave you a message on your Talk page in a few minutes, so that we can walk through it. Regards, --cos1776 11:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

How can I add a marriage event? [9 April 2017]

(The following question and answer are copied from a WeRelate suggestion)--DataAnalyst 22:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've looked high and low, but I cannot see a field to add a marriage event. Yes, I clicked on the Event dropbox, but it does not list a marriage.

The marriage information is stored on a Family page, which connects two Person pages: the husband and the wife. After editing the Person page for, say, the husband, and saving, there is a link on the right side to "Add another spouse & children". If you click this link it will allow you to create a Family page corresponding to one marriage. You may need to create multiple Family pages if the person had multiple marriages, one for each. On the family page is where you will find a field for the marriage date (or divorce) and where you add children for that pair of parents.

This is standard computer design for what is called a many-to-many relationship. A husband may have multiple wives, and any or all of his wives may have multiple husbands, i.e., many to many. The Family page documents their relationship just to each other, while the Person page documents the facts that are true about just the person, such as birth and death and other Family pages document their relationship to other wives or husbands. Some genealogy website hides this design but it makes the software more complicated and would make it more likely that there would be edit conflicts in a multi-user environment like WeRelate. It becomes second nature with a little practice. --Jrich 00:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Data Quality Improvement [16 April 2017]

I think I found some Help pages that need updating but I'm not sure where/how on that Data Quality Improvement page to add it. I managed to get to the Help page that said how to change my time zone. It said to go to My Relate and click on Preferences. But there is no drop down option named Preferences at My Relate. Should it be there? Or do the instructions need changing? Now I don't know how I even got to that Help page! --janiejac 02:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where it is documented, but it is relatively straightforward. Look at Settings in upper right hand corner next to your log-in name. Subcategory date and time, under Time Zone, change the offset or tell it to fill in from your browser. You probably have to update this every time daylight savings time goes on or off. Feel free to change the help page yourself. Anywhere it's wrong is bad, so it can't hurt. --Jrich 03:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The Help page to fix is Help:Preferences. If one of you would take the time to fix it, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll try to remember to come back in later and update it. Thanks--DataAnalyst 19:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

what is wrong with my links? [19 April 2017]

I am trying to correct some 404 links on Edward Jackson's page. Way down the page is this:

In 1973, a descendant found the family burial plot on Edward Jackson’s old homestead overrun by farm animals. The headstones were cleaned and then moved to the Seventh-Day Baptist Church Cemetery, in Salem, Harrison County, West Virginia. Edward Jackson and the other family members still rest in the family burial plot on the old homestead. For a study of the moving of the tombstones and those buried in this plot see http://jacksonfamilygenealogy.com/pages/chapterthree.htm.

Also, please read http://jacksonfamilygenealogy.com/pages/conflictingSarahandAbigailJackson.htm for discussion of the conflicts circulating about a daughter supposedly named Sarah Abigail who married Jonathan Hughes. This idea that Abigail is Edward's daughter has been disproved.

I can't figure out why these links are bad. I copied and pasted them; tried both with and without a space after the | but they are still bad links. I originally had them saying 'this page' without the actual URL showing; that didn't work either. --janiejac 22:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC) OK, I'm really losing it! The links on this support page work fine; the whole paragraphs are copy/pasted from Edward's page - and they don't work on Edward's page! --janiejac 22:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The pipe was causing the problem. Pipes are not used in links to an external URL. Links to external pages use the space as a separator between the URL and the alias because spaces aren't allowed in a URL. So when the software sees a space, the URL is done and anything else it sees must be an alias to display. So [http://jacksonfamilygenealogy.com/pages/conflictingSarahandAbigailJackson.htm this page] (with no pipe) works.

The pipe '|' is used to add an alias to werelate links such as [[Person:Edward Jackson (43)|Edward Jackson]] because spaces are allowed in WeRelate titles and cannot be used as a separator.

When you cut and pasted, it only copied the aliases, and since your last iteration was trying the URL as an alias, you happened to cut and paste a valid destination. But the text on this page was missing the alias mechanisms you were testing. It was not identical to what was on Edward's page.

Hope that's clear. --Jrich 22:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Those links work fine for me from the original Edward Jackson Person page, probably because Jrich fixed them?

There were some other "naked" URLs farther-up on that page that I cleaned-up a bit. I hope you don't mind. Otherwise feel free to revert these changes. --Jhamstra 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind a bit!! I seem to need all the help I can get! Thanks to both of you - for the good explanation and for the cleanup! --janiejac 02:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Place pages redirect [10 May 2017]

Having trouble redirecting Place: Coddington Cemetery, Newport, Rhode Island, United States to the more accurate Coddington Cemetery, Newport, Newport, Rhode Island, United States. I emptied and tranfered all text boxes of the page to be redirected and placed #redirectlink on the first line of the Text section. Doesn't seem to be redirecting. Am I reading instructions incorrectly ? Neal--SkippyG 02:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi - you were using the url in the link, when you needed to use the WeRelate page title (Place:Coddington Cemetery, Newport, Newport, Rhode Island, United States). I have fixed the redirect.--DataAnalyst 02:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to edit the Help page. It implies to use the link. Neal--SkippyG 04:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Adobe Flash [23 June 2017]

Hi, I have just logged in for the first time in six weeks or so, and cannot access FTE. A message in the top left of the page says I need Adobe Flash. None of my browsers have flash because of the security risks!

When did this change happen? --Helen-HWMT 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

where is help on downloading GEDCOM [30 June 2017]

I did a search in Help for downloading GEDCOM and didn't find anything. Can you tell me where the instructions are? --janiejac 18:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Here you go - http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:GEDCOM#Can_I_create_a_GEDCOM_on_WeRelate_to_export_to_another_application.3F

Google searches also work pretty well! I entered werelate "GEDCOM download" --cos1776 18:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

For the audience: It's on MyRelate, Trees. Note that most software uses the word "export" for spitting out a gedcom rather than download. --Judy (jlanoux) 18:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate User Names [9 July 2017]

Is there a way to combine duplicate user pages?

I joined a few years back and forgot that I had an User name already.

Julia Hogston is the older name. I love getting email, but from myself it's not really nessicary :D

Thank you for help on this matter. --Julie 03:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Julia. There isn't an automated process to merge, but there are steps we can take that will effectively merge the user ids, and I can help with that if you do not remember the password of your older account.

Before we merge the accounts, though, I assume you want to combine your watch lists into your new account. This is a manual step, but it looks like it shouldn't be too time-consuming. If so, let me know if you remember the password of your older account. I will give you instructions based on whether or not you can sign in using your older account. - unsigned comment by user:DataAnalyst, 16:57, 9 July 2017

Thank you for your quick reply. Yes I know my old password. The account must be old! It was one of my first passwords that I used in general. Await your instructions. --Julie 19:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

OK - then what I would suggest is that you sign on to your old account and select "Search > All" from the menu at the top. When the Search window comes up, select "Watched only" from the dropdown on the top right where it defaults to "Watched and unwatched", and 200 from the "results per page" dropdown. This will give you the list of the first 200 pages you are watching from your old account. At the right of each page, you will see a list of Watchers. If your new account is one of the watchers, you don't have to do anything. But if not, you will want to watch this page with your new account (or maybe not, you can decide for yourself).

The problem is that you cannot watch the page with your new account until you sign off from the old account and sign on with the new account. Therefore, you should keep this window open and open a new window where you sign off and sign in again with your new account. Using your new account, access each page you want to watch and select "Watch" from the left hand menu.

It doesn't look like you made a lot of edits with your old account, so I don't think you will have a lot of pages to go through. If you are watching more than 200 pages with your old account, you'll have to repeat the process, and scroll to the second screenful the second time through. If this is the case, I would suggest sorting by Page Title, because otherwise the sort order will change the second time and it will take you longer to review everything.

I hope that all makes sense.

Once you have completed this step to watch the pages you want to watch, sign on with your old account. Before you merge, we'll get you to disable emails to this account - do this by selecting "Settings" from the top menu and uncheck all the boxes under "Email" (on the first tab). Click "Save".

To do the actual merge, select your user id (old account) from the top menu, and select "Edit". In the text field (which is currently blank), enter

#REDIRECT [[User:JuliaHogston]]

Save the page. This should redirect anything (such as contributions) from your old account to your new account, so that people can still find out who edited pages that you edited using your old account.

Keeping my fingers crossed that this all works - it should, but it is not something we routinely do. Good luck and let me know if you need more help, or if it all works satisfactorily.

A note to anyone else attempting to merge accounts - sometimes there is an easier way to watch all pages from another account. It depends on how trees have been used. If you need help, please ask.--DataAnalyst 20:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have copy, pasted, and printed directions...off I go, keeping my fingers crossed.

Everything worked like a charm! Like you said thankfully I didn't have a lot of edits on the other name.

I found it easier to write down the pages I needed to watch from the old account and then closed that and working from my new account visited all those pages one at a time until I had them done.

You can see if it takes when you save. The menu at the left that says Watchers will now show both names. I noted that one could also copy and paste the watch list from the old account to a text file and print or just use that a reference to make the changes. Instead of messing with the two accounts being in two different windows. This might work better with someone that a many many changes to make.

Thank you,

You're welcome. I'm glad it worked easily.--DataAnalyst 00:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

WR "acting up" [11 August 2017]

Some odd things are going on. When I use "Search" whether Source or Person, etc. I'm getting that long form with multiple lines. Also as I was accessing "History of Woodstock...by Bowen" not only would the volumes not load, but when I went back to this source's page, there were multiple copies of the page all stacked one after the other. Is this happening to anyone else, or am I the only lucky one ? --SkippyG 03:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am experiencing the first issue you have reported. I don't understand your second comment about multiple copies of the page. There are several sources with "History of Woodstock" in the title, but they seem to be different books (with one possible duplicate on the first page of search results). There is also an issue with place name drop downs as well, which has been reported to Dallan.--DataAnalyst 03:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The unified search page and broken autocompletion are things I used to see on some of the broken NAT internet access I sometimes use, so I would not be surprised if somehow that got tickled by the HTTPS conversion. Both of those work fine for me right now (on non-NAT internet). Are they still acting up by you? Another thing which may have been tickled by the HTTPS is the "Family Tree" option on both person and family pages, which opens for me but doesn't show any boxes. Kudos for Dallan and team for the HTTPS rollout; it "just worked". I never saw unconfigured certificate or any other sort of warnings; my only clue that there had been a change was that I had to re-enter my password in my browser when the link changed from HTTP to HTTPS. --pkeegstra 10:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to explain, sorry for the previous explanation. If you looked at any WR source page, then copied everything except the header 3 times, starting at the end of the original, that's what I saw on one page. Now, the place auto-fill is not completing places that I'm trying to correct, too. Poltergeist ? Neal--SkippyG 03:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I am NOT seeing the same issue with the source page that you are - a source page looks normal to me. For the place auto-fill, I found that if I did a preview, the place lookup worked okay - then I just remove the piped name. Temporary workaround until Dallan can fix this problem.--DataAnalyst 03:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Issues with Adobe Flash player [11 August 2017]

There is a serious issue with Flash Player. Flash content is now blocked by most browsers. I am about to post on watercooler on the topic. --Helen-HWMT 13:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Besides the large long-term issue with Flash that Helen raises on the watercooler, there seems to be a shorter term issue that may be due to the conversion to HTTPS. The GEDCOM import review Flash and the Family Tree Explorer Flash both seem to fail with "securityError". The message for the former says: '[SecurityErrorEvent type="securityError" bubbles=false cancelable=false eventPhase=2 text="Error #2048"]' --robert.shaw 17:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, robert shaw. As WeRelate places much emphasis on citing and evidence, could you please post evidence for your view that the Flash Player issue is a long term one? Do you have knowledge of how long we have got to fix it?

The coding of the site appears to be generally old. The Internet evolves.

The new problems triggered by the HTTPS server could possibly be related to the Flash issue. The troubles with Flash over the years have been security issues.

--Helen-HWMT 21:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

A number of issues have arisen from the switch to HTTPS. Dallan has been busy fixing them. GEDCOM import and FTE now both work, as does the search screen and manual reordering of a person's marriages.--DataAnalyst 21:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

FTE doesn't work, and has't for some time. This isn't an issue from current upgrades. --GayelKnott 16:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Helen, ideally WeRelate would replace Flash-based modules like FTE immediately. I believe however, that it will require a substantial amount of work to replace them, as I presume it requires re-implementing them in a different programming language. I only said "long term" because getting that work done given current resources seems over the horizon, not because it isn't needed. I think the "drop dead" date is the end of 2020, as that is when Adobe drops support of Flash (and therefore security becomes an even bigger issue), and one can expect some or all browsers to drop even the limited support they now have for Flash. HTTPS is not a closely related issue. Flash's security problem is simply that it has obscure bugs that, when they become known by evil-doers, can be exploited to do bad things to browsing users. --robert.shaw 23:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that answer, robert shaw.

Could we take stock of what resources - human and financial - we have?

Could I ask how old the site is, and where the original templates and data system came from, or who they were created by?

If more and more members are unable to use the site comfortably, income will fall, so we can’t assume that our resources will increase.

WeRelate holds email addresses for all members, right? If so, I would propose that we do a very simple survey of all members to find out whether they are currently experiencing issues with FTE. This could be within the site, in simple HTML, or we could use Survey Monkey, for instance.

We could also find out how other Wiki sites are coping, and whether anyone would share their solution.

Yesterday, I set my Google Chrome to override the Flash content block for WeRelate. Initially, all that I gained was a different error message on a fuzzy, empty FTE background. But today I finally have FTE back, after a fashion. However, it is no longer possible to open pages via FTE, whether in tree or list mode. In a fuzzy way, it is there, but it does not work. If I open FTE from the top menu while on a Person page, that page is replaced by one on getting started with family tree explorer!

--Helen-HWMT 14:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Helen - Your concerns are valid. I wanted to let you know that we are aware of the need to upgrade the Flash areas of the site in the near future, so it will eventually be addressed. We are an entirely volunteer site, supported by user donations and some ads, so our resources for upgrading the site depend on the amount of time our volunteers can spare in between their work and family responsibilities and their access to the network. This ebbs and flows. The best way to gain an understanding of the history of the development of the site over the years is to explore the pages and read over the past discussions.

We recently held a poll of our users to ask them to prioritize their upgrade requests by voting on them. This poll was heavily advertised on the Watercooler. The resulting work list can be found here. These items will be our focus for the next month or so. We would welcome help in polling the users about their use of FTE. Please feel free to champion that effort. You could conduct the survey on your original WeRelate:Suggestions/Replacing Adobe Flash (with a pointer on the Watercooler), if you'd like. That way, all the related posts would be together. Does that sound like something you could help us with?

Regards, --cos1776 15:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, cos. First it is a relief to be able to report that FTE and other Flash-powered features are now working correctly for me - on Google Chrome with WeRelate exempted from the blocking of Flash content. Thank you to Dallan and others who fought to get functionality back.

I would like to help with a poll to take stock of the extent of FTE problems, yes. But I think it should be done by emailing all members, otherwise it could miss the people worst affected - who may have given up on us - and the casual family historian also. Is this technically possible? Can the system mail everyone?

I get polls by email eg “Are you satisfied: yes or no?”, and when you choose an option you go to a webpage which either just thanks you, or asks a couple more.

How many members are there, and how many people voted on the upgrade choices poll?

I wondered whether any website training facility would give us a special rate for a new site? - Supervised students. Could there be any grants or special deals because of our valuable historical data, after all, most digitising of historical records is done by volunteers? I know that charities etc do struggle with websites, and often have inferior ones as a consequence.

On my exploration of WeRelate archives the other week, I couldn’t find posts on how it all began.

--Helen-HWMT 15:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

more 'acting up'; GEDCOM upload?? [11 August 2017]

I uploaded a GEDCOM this morning at 10:17. When I hadn't heard anything by noontime, I checked and it didn't seem to be available. So I uploaded it again at 12:21. The msg told me it was sucessfully uploaded. I double checked by trying to upload again and rec'd msg that I already had one in process and couldn't load another until this one was reviewed. But now it is 1:26 and the system apparently lost it again because now it will let me upload again. So what is happening to the GEDCOM(s) I uploaded?? I am waiting for a notice that I can review it now. --janiejac 17:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Just double checked again and system will now let me upload another GEDCOM; so apparently my 2nd upload today has gone astray also. No point in uploading a third time until someone figures out what is happening. --janiejac 19:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have happened to me today - it's been 4 hours, and nothing.--Amelia 22:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I've tried this a couple of times in the past few days. At first the GEDCOM Review page lists it with status "Waiting for analysis". Later it is listed with status "Analyzing". Finally it disappears without a trace. --robert.shaw 03:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Dallan thinks it was another hiccup associated with the switch to https. He made the correction late last night EST, and I saw a bevy of files go through, so hopefully your files were included in that group. Please let us know if you encounter any other problems during the process. Thanks, --cos1776 11:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Family project and Ways to restrict editing pages to a 'trusted list' [20 September 2017]

I am working with a few 'cousins' on a genealogy for a certain family whose surname we will call "Jones" (just for example). I am looking for a way to create a 'Project Page' for this family group, and for a way to restrict editing of those pages within that family group to a certain small group of users. Does WeRelate offer this kind of control? Or do I have to use WikiTree (whose Edit page format I do not prefer)?--CC 17:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The short answer is no, WeRelate does not have that feature; however, even on WikiTree you can't restrict editing for anyone born over 150 years ago, and unless you have an unusual family, there probably aren't going to be many people who will try to edit your pages unless there are good reasons -- and you can communicate with people. --GayelKnott 22:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ref Number not at end of Facts List [25 September 2017]

I just added the Wikidata template and wikipedia-source templates to Person:Edmund Gaines (1). The Ref Number entry has appeared in the middle of the Facts and Events list instead of at the end as usual. I did the same thing to Person:Alexander Martin (15) immediately before Edmund and his page looks like usual with Ref Number at the end. What did I do wrong? or has the WR program changed? --Judy (jlanoux) 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Need Error Correction [7 October 2017]

Boyd A. Booth I don't know who wrote the comments in my late husband's page nut they are incorrect and hurtful and would like them removed as it appears I don't seem to be able to.--Petunia125 04:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the personal comments. They have been there since a gedcom was first added in 2009. People often don't realize that everything in a gedcom will wind up in public when they upload. We now require a review before creating the new pages. You can see the page history by clicking the history link on the left menu. I encourage you to practice editing. You can begin with small changes adding a new fact or source to a person's page. You could, for example, add your husband's obit by typing in the large text box. we hope you enjoy WeRelate --Judy (jlanoux) 11:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Mysterious error message [9 October 2017]

Error message: can't open socket to search.werelate.org: 110 Connection timed out

I keep getting the above error message when I try to correct the places listed in the Sources for Berkley, Somerset, England. There is also a Berkeley, Gloucestershire, England and the sources give both places for the Berkley, Somerset ones.

"Add a Place" and Searching for People are also not working. --Goldenoldie 18:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I am having the same problem - have not been able to search for people all day. I can edit a person page, but not add a place name to the person page - gives me the socket error you got. I sent an email to Dallan a few hours ago.--DataAnalyst 19:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not alone. Also, I think the server has been slower today. Has anyone else noticed? --Goldenoldie 21:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is extensive on Watercooler, seems as if ALL of us are affected. Wish we had an update; if this fix takes a while, I'll log off.--SkippyG 21:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Search functionality has been restored.--DataAnalyst 16:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes made to Henry Jackson undone [9 October 2017]

Reference: Person: Henry Jackson and His Early American Family (1). I, Normiejac would like to have changes that I made on August 10th undone.--Normiejac 18:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I am a bit confused. The page you reference does not exist and does not appear to be a deleted page. Can you clarify which page you are referring to and whether you did an edit or a delete? Thanks.--DataAnalyst 18:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I found the page from her contribution list. I did a rename. The title is now Person:Henry Jackson (113). I'm not sure if we would create circular links by changing it back to Henry Jackson (58). Does anyone know how this works? --Judy (jlanoux) 21:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirect help [11 October 2017]

I'm having trouble with a redirect (again). I placed #redirectPlace:First Presbyterian Churchyard on page Presbyterian Church Yard, Elizabethtown,NJ... to Redirect to First Presbyterian Churchyard, Elizabethtown,NJ... Get error message targeted "Place does not exist." It does exist. What am I doing wrong ? --SkippyG 17:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Just so I understand this, you're trying to get Place:Presbyterian Church Yard, Elizabeth, Union, New Jersey, United States to redirect to Place:First Presbyterian Churchyard, Elizabeth, Union, New Jersey, United States?--khaentlahn 17:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know why I can't get this right. Just not tech-savvy, I guess. Sigh..--SkippyG 17:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It's okay. Redirects can easily be confusing. In the main text box for Presbyterian Church Yard, just enter #redirect [[Place:First Presbyterian Churchyard, Elizabeth, Union, New Jersey, United States]] --khaentlahn 18:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a limit to reference citations on a page? [25 November 2017]

I'm adding references to a person page, George Banks (1) before writing the full biography, but I seem to have reached a limit on the number of references. There are a lot of references needed, since it's an extensive biography. I made a research and planning page for the page HERE. I am getting near the end, but have some more sources to add, such as Kansas state census sources. When I try to add a new source now, all the information in the Personal History box disappears, and I get a red error message: Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try signing out and signing back in. I did sign out, to no avail. Is there actually a limit to the number of citations? Parsa 05:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Unknown if there is an upper limit. Usually that message occurs when there is too much time between when you start an edit and you actually do the same. Usually just retrying the save works as the failure seems to act to re-establish sessions credentials, or something like that. How many sources are you using? Hard to believe there aren't many redundant ones that aren't necessary but have seen pages with 20+ sources. --Jrich 05:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. for the narrative, sources can be "entered" as ref tags. If there is a limit (can't imagine why there would be, at least until past 99), I don't know if this method would allow you to bypass the limit? <ref>Fairbanks, Lorenzo Sayles. <u>Genealogy of the Fairbanks Family in America, 1633-1897</u>. (Boston: Printed for the author by the American Printing and Engraving Company, 1897), p. 40</ref>. --Jrich 05:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The limit I seem to be running into is 104. I found one duplicate source, deleted it, then the edit page did indeed allow me to add another source. However, when trying to add number 105, it failed again.
I may have to delete all my sources for the Kansas GAR except one, and add the specific citation into the text note. The question is, if the limit is 104, why does it let me attempt to add number 105 without some kind of warning message? Parsa 06:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The footnote reference maxed out with 104. I started using the "advance" ref tag form, but it has the disadvantage of not working with the Facts and Events section. However, now I seem to have maxed out the Fact and Events section as well. I keep getting the above red error message when I try to add new events to the list. So, this page seems to be very stuck. Can something be done to check the software to see if there is some kind of limits on the Person Page form entries? I'd really like to complete the page. — Parsa 02:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

As a temporary measure, why not create a MySource page to record your sources (or a group of them) until a fix is found, made, or clarified. You should be able to link to them individually or in groups. Then you'd be able to link the MySource page as the fact on the person page. Just a thought. --BobC 23:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps all the citations to various forms of Source:Journal of the National Encampment Grand Army of the Republic should be consolidated into one with the individual "encampments" being listed in the text/transcription area with their appropriate links. It looks like that would free up lots of source citations to be used for whatever remains. If the goal is to make it work, that is, because if there's an upper limit, chances are changing the software changes aren't going to happen soon. This is the first time I've heard of this in 10 years, so probably not a high priority issue. --Jrich 01:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

To expand on Jrich's idea, perhaps adding a note for each separate page citation for the same particular source used could be an appropriate way to overcome the issue. For example, the citation for the 37th national encampment, San Francisco, August 20–21, 1903 on page 23 could be used at "Note 1" of the source citation of the Journal of the national encampment of the Grand Army of the Republic; the citation for the 40th national encampment, Minneapolis, August 16–17, 1906 on page 52 could be used at "Note 2"; the citation for the 45th national encampment, Rochester, NY, August 24–25, 1911 on page 372 could be identified at "Note 3"; etc. etc. etc. for each separate page use of the same source. --BobC 01:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I kind of thought of consolidating some of the sources. The biggest chunk are actually the Kansas state encampments. In WeRelate it is one source page. However in reality, these are all separate volumes, from different years, with a wide variety of events. I'm not sure how I'd cite each occurrence to make sure I am properly citing the origin of the information. The citations and events span about 25 years. I suppose I could do some sort of specific in-text citation followed by the same numbered WeRelate citation. It fills the biographical text with a lot of parenthetical references, however. I'm not sure notes would work, since it seems the Person Page form boxes are maxed out. At least the references boxes and Facts and Events entries appear full. I would appreciate it if the web developers at least knew of this issue.... — Parsa 08:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Spam pages [12 December 2017]

Happened to notice a user account "VVHCynthia" apparently being used by a bot to add nonsense pages, as shown by the contributions page [1]. Seems to need some blocking and cleanup, and perhaps additional measures. --robert.shaw 06:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

p.s. Found a related spam acct [2]. --robert.shaw 06:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like these were the accounts that came in with ten dot IP addresses ("this should never happen") which broke the site when we tried to block them in August. So I'll need to defer to people who know more about the site IP topology than myself. --pkeegstra 11:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The two accts have been blocked again, and the associated spam pages deleted. Dallan has been notified. We don't think there will be any additional problems, but we are keeping an eye on it. Thank you for the alert. --cos1776 15:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hoornschedijk,NLD - gemeente? [16 December 2017]

The place page for Hoornschedijk indicates this "buurtschap" is in gemeente Groningen; but it is really in gemeente Haren (wikipedia.nl). I'm still new here; so I don't know how to fix this?--Fbax.ca 14:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I've made the changes -- you may want to check them to make sure they are correct. For future reference, there is a Help page for place pages that you might find useful. --GayelKnott 17:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Marriage Sources in Person Pages and Tagging Multiple Facts/People in One Source Citation [24 December 2017]

I'm sorry if these things have been asked before, but:

1. Is it common on the site to duplicate sources and tag names in person pages when the same sources are already used to support marriages in the family pages? For instance, do I use John Smith's marriage source on his person page and tag his name and/or date of birth there when it is already on his family page supporting the date of his marriage to wife Jane Brown?

2. Can I tag multiple people and not just facts in one source citation? For instance, can I tag the name of a father listed on a birth record from the page of a son the record primarily treats?

Thank you.--Jordan1975 20:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jordan, Several years ago I requested variants on (1) to propagate sources from Family pages to Person pages, and also (2) to allow a single Source entry to propagate to multiple Person pages. This was never implemented. I have adopted the practice of entering Source information that applies to multiple family members, on the Family page, rather than manually re-entering it on each Person page. --Jhamstra 23:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to give a somewhat different answer, because we normally want to see sources on the page where the facts exist.

Sources can be used wherever they provide value. If a birth date is listed in a marriage record, by all means include the marriage record on the person page as a source for the birth date, unless there is already an adequate source on the person page, such as a birth record.

Where a source shows a relationship between a parent and child, it should be included on the child's person page to support the child's relationship to his/her parents. However, if the source also includes a middle name or birth place (etc.) for the parent, the same source can be used on the parent's page to support the name or birth place (etc.). You would have to add the same source to both pages. You might choose to include different parts of the text on each page - e.g., the child's name and birth date on the child's page, and the parent's full name and/or birth place on the parent's page.

Does that answer your questions?--DataAnalyst 00:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I like this site best of the public tree sites because of its seriousness of purpose and solid sourcing system. --Jordan1975

I was not disputing the value of showing a source citation with multiple pages. The point of my request was for some assistance in associating the same citation with those multiple pages without having to manually re-enter all of the same data multiple times in order to make this happen. --Jhamstra 00:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi DataAnalyst; Listing the same source on multiple pages is a lot of work; here is an example of christening records where father's name and mother's name are spelled many different ways. Unless you see them all together; we would never believe these children were all siblings. Are you suggesting that every one of these sources be attached to both the father and the mother?? Feel free to check my source; I did not make these up! Fbax.ca 12:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Fbax, In this situation I would show the entire summary table on the Family page. I would show only the individual birth records on the Person pages. (FYI 80% of my ancestry is from the Netherlands. So I have encountered the alternate versions of many names in my own family trees.) --Jhamstra 14:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Link to example please? 100% of my ancestry is Netherlands/Belgium.Fbax.ca 00:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If you are using the information as proof, say of the mother's maiden name, you could just create a note on the mother's Person page that explains where the name(s) came from. You could include links to the other pages that have the sources or just be clear enough in your explanation to allow people to find them without confusion. (This is one example where I used a note instead of the multiple source citations that would have otherwise been required.) -Moverton 20:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You can embed links to other WeRelate pages anywhere in the narrative text, including under Sources and Notes. But these are one-way links. The linked page will not carry any back-link so if you want the links to go in both directions you will have to embed a return link in the narrative text on the other page. Here is an example of how to embed references to other WeRelate pages. You will find links both in the narrative and also in the details of the References. --Jhamstra 00:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have had this same concern about the inability to copy entire source citations to multiple pages for at least a couple years and included it as a suggestion for a programming improvement at the "WeRelate:Suggestions/Ability to Copy & Paste Source Citation During Edits" page and added it to the "WeRelate:Suggestions" page. Another similar suggestion by another user was posted to "WeRelate:Suggestions/Attaching the Same Source Citation to Multiple Pages" topic. The consolidated idea was added to the "short list" of prioritized suggestions and improvements being made in the future here. Thanks for raising the issue again, and feel free to add your comments and experience to one of the pages mentioned. --BobC 05:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Like Bob C and many others I have always wished it were simpler to copy and paste source citations and other duplicate material from the page of one person in a family to another. Placing the transcription of a census on the marriage page of the parents does not carry forward to the adult lives of their children and we may want to tell the "whole" story of one or more of the them on their own pages.

May I suggest this work-around. Set your WeRelate page to cover about two-thirds of your screen and use the remainder for a note-making app. I used to use Sticky Notes, but the program seems to have disappeared and I now use Simplenote (which has the advantage of an index page). I have considered Evernote and Notepad, but they can be OTT. Set up your source-note on the note-making app and cut and paste your data on as many WR pages as you want. Repeating dates, places and page refs can also be copied to the note-making app for pasting again and again. When one family or one set of census entries are complete, the same note can be adjusted to fill out the details for a decade later or for another family (don't forget to change the dates, if necessary!). Entries on the note-making app will remain there until your next entry session UNLESS you inadvertently forget to wipe the copying highlight off a section--omitting this step will turn it into a frustrating empty space.

Some of you may have used this method so long that it's old hat. But I'm hoping that it's not "old news" to all of you.

Merry Christmas Everyone! --Goldenoldie 11:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

German translation needed [25 December 2017]

I would like some help with translation of a ]letter] typed in German. The letter relates to this [family]. If I made typing errors during transcription; corrections are appreciated.--Fbax.ca 14:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this letter is actually formal German. It seems to be more likely a German dialect, or even "Luxembourgish." I made an attempt at rough translation with the help of Google, but hopefully someone with native tongue will be better able to assist. Interesting letter in any case. Good luck. --BobC 05:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making an attempt Bob! My step-father comes from Groenlo, NLD which is nearby. I sent an email his brother, who still lives there. His reply was surprising ...Fbax.ca 14:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This language is not ‘real’ German but a north-German dialect called Plattdüts or Nether-Saxon.
Lage is a little village about 55 km from Groenlo and their dialect is similar to the dialact spoken at the Netherlands side of the border, though its writing is very different from ours, I can read it easily.

Very interesting. Glad you were able to get a knowledgeable expert to translate it and not ride with my Google version which was had a completely different slant, meaning and connotation to it. --BobC 22:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi BobC this letter is easy to read by a Dutch person..

Cemetery a place or source or both? [29 December 2017]

I'm still fairly new here; so please be kind. I have several questions.

There is already a source for Gore Cemetery transcriptions. I've never seen this document.

Why the URL needs to be so long is a mystery to me. I suspect there are more letters in URL than there are bodies buried in this cemetery.

Why is the current placename in the URL? The place where this cemetery is located changed over time. The cemetery was originally (1834) in London township; the land annexed by City of London in 1905 or later.

What if I go the the cemetery and make my own transcriptions? Is my work an alternate repository of the above source? If not, may I create a new source page? What would name be? Can't have two page with the name name can we?

I've seen some person pages where burial is in a town; with name of cemetery in description; I can find cemeteries as "places". Is there a standard for this?

What I'd like to see is a page where I can click "what links here" and get a list of everyone buried there. I'm not fussy if the page that does this is a place or source; which is preferred?--Fbax.ca 23:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Cemeteries are being entered as places, as WeRelate users are motivated to, such as Place:Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cambridge, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States and entered in the burial location field. The Source you cited is a source because it is a published list of inscriptions and thus is one of many possible sources from which one might acquires the information of where the person was buried. But the source here is not equivalent to the cemetery as it may not contain all the persons buried there. Incidentally Find A Grave is a source. The WeRelate source database was initially loaded from the familysearch catalog and your example source appears to be one such item. Somebody has apparently judged it to be Government or Church Records and naming conventions for such sources is "Source:<place-name>. <title>". If you can understand why it is considered government or church records, instead of a set of transcribed inscriptions done by an author, as is, say Source:Brown, Francis H. Lexington Epitaphs : A Copy of Epitaphs in the Old Burying-Grounds of Lexington, Massachusetts please explain it to me... :-) --Jrich 00:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A Source: page is used to describe a source of information, such as a book or article. A Place: page is used to describe a place, such as a cemetery or city. So if you want a page to centralize information about a cemetery, a Place: page (like the Mount Auburn Cemetery page Jrich mentioned above is appropriate.

A Place: page can be used in any of the Place entry boxes for events on Person: pages. A place page for a cemetery is usually useful only for the Place box of a burial event, naturally. Many burial events, however, have a town or city place referenced in the burial Place box instead of a cemetery place. Probably more use a town type of place reference than a cemetery place reference. Often the cemetery name will be present elsewhere on the Person: page, such as in the Description entry box of the burial event.

If you made new transcriptions of a cemetery and published it, that book or web page or whatever could have its own Source: page. The name and URL for it would depend on its details like title, e.g. a book might be "Source:Ca, Fbax. Gore Cemetery: a new transcription"

Using the "what links here" function is probably not going to be an effective way to find Person: entries of people buried in a particular cemetery. You'd probably do better by using a Person search (found via the Search dropdown list) and looking for the town in the burial place, perhaps with the cemetery name in the Keywords entry box.

--robert.shaw 03:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Most people probably aren't going to publish their own manuscript of transcriptions, so using "Citation only" or "MySource" would be appropriate in most cases. -Moverton 19:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)