Person talk:Llewellyn ap Owen (1)

The source indicating that the wife specifically is not de Bar, runs counter to Cawley. But then, Cawley says little on the subject. Do you want to bring this to his attention? --jrm03063 18:22, 22 January 2013 (EST)

That sounds like a good idea. I had never thought about doing this, since Cawley is obviously working at a much higher level than me, and I figured either he knows something about the sources I don't, or that he just hadn't had time to look much at Wales yet.

An update - thanks for the suggestion. I emailed Cawley and he says he was sceptical of the marriage, but hadn't seen any sources to prove or disprove it. He will look at Bridgeman and the sources Bridgeman cited when he has time. --Werebear 07:41, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Great! I've exchanged e-mail with him in the past and found him a very helpful and decent fellow. Quite unlike some others I regret to say. I've generally taken the view (in the Medieval clean-up) that Cawley was the best combination of scope, quality, and accessibility. In some sense, it probably would have been better to just create a standing-alone tree of his work, match it up against what we had, and junk anything that didn't line up. I make no claims to specialist knowledge in this area myself - I just don't want the WeRelate database to be a total embarrassment with respect to older stuff. --jrm03063 12:22, 23 January 2013 (EST)

If we're going to use the FamilySearch database, we'll want to create a proper source page and templates for a good citation. Also, while these looks like a pretty good piece of work, we will want to make sure that the source committee won't have a problem with this. --jrm03063 18:37, 22 January 2013 (EST)

I can try and do this. I haven't had much experience creating source pages yet, which is why I have been copping out using "citation only". Is there a procedure that the source committee follows to evaluate a source? I have been using the FamilySearch database since it is available for free online and seems to be pretty good at citing its sources.

I've touched base with someone from the source committee. Creating the source page proper is certainly no big deal, but we want to be somewhat sure that people are on-board with use of that database as a source, before we start running wild and tagging pages all over the place (something that I've pretty much been guilty of W.R.T. Wikipedia, Cawley and Lundy - the initial uploads here at WeRelate were awful!). We may actually want to reach out to the people managing the Family Search content - just to see if they intend to maintain the current "Person ID" structure if/as they update those databases (if they don't - then all our sources could suddenly be lost - in terms of being able to be re-reviewed at some point).

In fact, if we really wanted to do this in a big way, we might want to pull the whole Wales GEDCOM - reprocess it so that every source for every person is replaced with a source that's just like what we plan to use here (pointing at the Family Search tree - with an address that includes the right Person id). Then upload THAT whole thing, which should line up pretty nicely with the content we've presently got. The process of merging an uploaded GEDCOM, if we do it right, should let us systematically attach the IDs for that database all over our existing content for the same space of people. We could keep or jettison information for "people" that don't already exist over here.

I've thought a lot about ways to improve the content and in large genealogy databases, by bringing together results from multiple databases. --jrm03063 22:28, 22 January 2013 (EST)

Cool. So, should I hold off on citing it as a source until the committee has looked at it? --Werebear 07:41, 23 January 2013 (EST)

You should feel absolutely free to use it as you find that it helps you. I wouldn't invest extra time populating the database more widely with citations - nor with adding material that exists there and not here - on the presumption that your noble efforts will be seen as such! Beyond that, at present, we have no objective way to say that "page A" in WeRelate corresponds to "page B" in some other database. We have some rules for the correct use of Wikipedia, that allow us to infer that correspondence - but only for Wikipedia. I really feel that we need a capability to nail that down more objectively - not just for wikipedia - but for other sources besides. This strikes me as a perfect example of a source, where knowing a page association would allow us to write software that compares and contrasts our content with other databases. Inconsistencies that are found would be flagged for human review. We can then either fix a problem we find on our side - or engage with people elsewhere to see who has the thing right - then we all benefit - WeRelate and the other database too. --jrm03063 12:23, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Just to make sure I understand, I should go ahead and cite the Wales database if it helps me with a line I am entering because I am interested in it, but I shouldn't spend time adding pages just because they are in the database but not on Werelate, or adding the database as a source if the fact is already sourced. Is this right?--Werebear 18:10, 23 January 2013 (EST)

That's my recommendation - for the moment. --jrm03063 18:47, 23 January 2013 (EST)

BTW, thanks for starting the source page off. Please look over what I've done to it, which I hope, only adds useful information (it should also give the source committee a little more to work with). I made the layout a little more like what (I think) we've tried to do in Source pages generally. By all means, feel free to continue revision, as you seem more knowledgeable on the subject. --jrm03063 12:26, 23 January 2013 (EST)

You have definitely made improvements.--Werebear 18:10, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Llywelyn's wife [23 June 2013]

I am going to change Llywelyn's wife to "unknown". Cawley, after reading Bridgeman, has backed away from Eleanor de Bar, and wonders whether she even existed.--Werebear 21:57, 22 June 2013 (EDT)

Actually on second thought, I think I will just change the adjust the sources.--Werebear 22:10, 22 June 2013 (EDT)