Talk:About the WeRelate Transcript of the Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England


Errors in the Kraft files [7 March 2012]

"The transcript appearance should not change from that of the original Kraft ASCII files. Line breaks, punctuation, capitalization and abbreviations should be preserved as is. Repair of clear typographical errors - such as use of lower case 'l' when arabic '1' was intended - are acceptable."

COMMENT: my experience with these files is that there are quite a lot of OCR errors that were not picked up prior to their posting the files. There enough of these that we really need to compare with the original from Savage on a consistent basis. I think (hope) you're telling us that if we compare the Kraft file to the original version in Savage, we should edit out the differences and note that we've done so, which usually will fit on the Summary line without a problem.

It would also be helpful to have an example of how to handle factual errors in Kraft/Savage when they are in agreement with each other. A good example would be John Strong (52); Savage had him marrying Hannah Trumbull. Jacobus later refuted that.

Savage (4:227) - John, Windsor, s. of the preced. m. 26 Nov. 1686, Hannah, d. of Joseph Trumbull, it is suppos. had Mary, b. 1688; Eliz. 1689; Hannah, 1692; Jonathan, 1694; Abigail; Esther, 1699; Sarah; David, 1704; and John, 1707; and his w. Mary prob. 2d d. 4 July 1747.
Should be - John Windsor; s. of the preced. married Mary Pinney, daughter of Samuel [see The American Genealogist, 35:1-2, 151]; had Mary, born 1688; Eliz. 1689; Hannah, 1692; Jonathan, 1694; Abigail; Esther, 1699; Sarah; David, 1704; and John, 1707; and his wife, Mary, probably second, died 4 July 1747. He died 29 May 1749. - Savage, IV:227.

And a example of how to handle an error that Savage later caught and fixed in his Additions and Corrections:

Savage (4:56) l. 5 from bottom, "Mehitable m. Thomas Robie. Gr. serv. this Stephen render, in 1704,"
P. 56. I. 5 from bot. aft. Robie. add, Aft. 1686 he liv. at Salem.

Doing the transcripts of all, or even a substantial part of Savage is a daunting task. Good luck!--jaques1724 15:07, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Great observations!
  • What I think we're going for, in appearance of the narrative, is the result that Kraft was trying to get. As I understand it, that would be a faithful reproduction of the original four volumes - merged with the additions and corrections from the original volumes as well as the notes and errata from 1873 (see the title page). Typographical and OCR defects should be resolved, and the media-wiki infrastructure makes it easy to track steps in that process.
  • We need to work out a way (or ways) to very clearly mark where the Savage content is believed to be in error. A good procedure should make it clear what is considered wrong, what is considered right, and a discussion of why the item is believed to be an error. My first thoughts on this were that we would simply mark points of error with something like ##1##, ##2##, etc., where each numbered tag would be a link to a section on the corresponding discussion page, where the specific error could be described and discussed. In that way, we're still being somewhat faithful to Savage when we grab a portion and drop it in a citation. If new content appears in-line, alongside the former content, it may start to be lost what information is what. That all said - I'm definitely open to different ideas.
I'm trying to immerse myself a bit in use of the transcript, to work out matters of process like these. I think that if we can nail a good process, the community will be able to carry this forward as opportunities present. --jrm03063 16:16, 7 March 2012 (EST)
I much prefer the strikethrough and tag. The italics aren't eye-grabbing enough. It needs to be obvious that there's an issue with a particular statement and it needs to be equally obvious how to get to the discussion of that issue. I also agree about the need to avoid cluttering up the original Savage/Kraft info and instead pointing to the correct data rather than putting on the original transcript page.--jaques1724 15:40, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Help me understand the defect template [18 May 2012]

I looked at the edit page of one of the examples and couldn't figure out how to place the template such that it ends up striking thru the appropriate text. I'd like to work on savage errors that I've researched. Jillaine 06:28, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

Great! The defect template takes two parameters, the first is simply the "number" of the defect on that page (usually 1). The second is the content you consider to be defective. The defect template is meant to do several things (the second one being most important to you):
  • To very obviously mark content that is considered to be in error.
  • To make it easy to systematically get a list of errors in Savage (go to the template, and see what links to it - you'll get links to all the pages with errors - I'm sure you'll find examples that help.)
  • For pages containing multiple errors - to associate each error with the appropriate rationale (found on the talk page associated with the page in error).
I assume you'll be able to find some examples that show you how it's been used so far.
There are 30 or so pages that indicate errors of various extent and with various levels of documentation for the rationale. While the analysis of what is considered an error in Savage will be subjective - it's pretty much like any other error in prior practice. Call it like you see it... --jrm03063 13:47, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

More Assistance Please! [7 January 2013]

I'm currently working on Robert Porter of Farmington. There was one minor defect on page 462 of Vol. 3 (last line) which I addressed, I hope correctly. However, there were several edits identified on page 696 of Vol. 4 concerning this sketch as follows:

P. 462. l. 6 from bot. bef. 1644 ins. 7 Nov.
" l. 4 from bot. strike out young; and ins. without ch. soon aft, his f.
" last l. strike out a — also, aft. wid. ins. of Stephen of Newark,
P. 463. l. 1, erase his br.—also, aft. Thomas, ins. not his br. of Milford,— also, aft.
Eliz. add, and Ann m. 1 Apr. 1685, John Brown of Middletown.

I don't remember (if I ever knew) what was the final determination on how we integrate the additions and corrections with the original text. Thanks,--jaques1724 14:38, 1 June 2012 (EDT)

Sorry I didn't get back to you on this. In theory, Kraft has already made the corrections. At least those that were published by Savage. --jrm03063 16:58, 7 January 2013 (EST)
That wasn't my point. If one has hard copy of Savage and compares it to Kraft, it's not easy to follow the trail from the original to the version including Savage's corrections. What complicates things even more is that in some cases Savage points back to the intermediate Additions and Corrections rather than back to the original sketch. It thought at some point you had come up with a relatively easy way to document that trail.

Italics [7 January 2013]

I just noticed that the "savagetranscriptsketch" template appears to render the baptismal name in italics. Savage used italics on the baptismal name specifically to indicate members of the clergy, so across the board italicization can be somewhat confusing. Construction of templates is a skill which I'm not inclined to learn (my experience is that they are clever and useful, and I'm content to leave it at that), so I didn't poke around the innards of the template. Thanks for any clarification.--jaques1724 15:28, 7 January 2013 (EST)

That was a subjective decision on my part. I didn't find the sketches to be very obvious as they were originally laid out. So sections are bold, while sketches are bold/italic. Since Savage didn't have colors to work with - maybe it would be better if I used color? --jrm03063 16:56, 7 January 2013 (EST)