User:Khaentlahn/Talk Archive 2013

editing categories [2 January 2013]

Thanks for your work on my Jackson pages adding the appropriate categories. As you can tell, they are confusing to me. But here is one that now doesn't look right - I think maybe this was used before you added 'United States' but I'm not even sure of that. http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Jackson_in_Morris%2C_New_Jersey --janiejac 22:29, 2 January 2013 (EST)

I guess the question I should be asking is, were you wanting the Jacksons broken down further than by State? I notice there are a few Jacksons that are broken down by county, but I'm uncertain how that was intended. I have simply been adding them based on the "red" broken links that I see on Person pages. Breaking them down by county would take more work, but it is doable. Putting the Morris, New Jersey page I edited back to what it was before I edited it doesn't appear to change the page about which you are asking, so I'm uncertain what it used to look like to you.

When I first started posting to WeRelate I thought I wanted them broken down by county. But now I see that is major work for all I'm wanting to upload. I still like the idea but it is just not practical, so I dropped that idea. Since that Morris County NJ page has nothing linking to it now, can you just delete it? And if you happen to run onto more red links that I've categorized by county, it's OK with me to remove the county category. If they don't one day automate county categories, those category pages will get huge, but right now they still haven't got parent categories automated. And I still struggle with them. --janiejac 23:43, 2 January 2013 (EST)

Sure, I'll do what I can as I find them. :)

Cemetery transcriptions [2 January 2013]

Hi there,

Regarding cemetery transcriptions -- please don't create Source pages for individual transcriptions. It's kind of an odd rule, but we basically decided long ago that they don't fit the definition. If you want to discuss who's in the cemetery and transcriptions of stones, there needs to be one page for the cemetery, and that's the Place page, not a Source page. To cite an individual transcription, use Citation Only and include the URL. Thanks!--Amelia 23:45, 2 January 2013 (EST)

Corrected.

Category pages [6 January 2013]

I have noticed that you have changed many of my category pages. What rules are you following? I don't know everything about category pages but none of the changes you have made are listed in the help section on categories. If it is an improvement that is fine but I just do not know. The latest was to Category: Gone to Texas. You added a pipe and * to Category: Texas, United States. I appreciate your enthusiam and help but need to know the reason for the changes. Thanks, --Beth 19:22, 4 January 2013 (EST)

I am attempting to work on all the "red" Category pages, while trying to improve and standardize them somewhat. I am afraid I haven't found anything in help pages to indicate a normal standard, which was why I had a hard time navigating through most of the pages I found prior. If there is a help page that indicates a different standard, I would be more than happy to change to that standard instead, but as I said, I couldn't find one. The only reason I added the * pipe to that particular page was to make it easier to find in the list which was primarily (if not completely) Texas counties. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you.

No need to apologize; you have not caused me any inconvenience. The question is what is the standard and why? The examples in the help pages and the portal category do not include some of the changes that you have made. Some of the red links that I changed which I thought were correct; you have edited. Now I have quit changing the red links until I can establish the correct procedure; because I do not wish to cause additional work for you or anyone else. I assume this | * makes the category sort to the top under the *. Is that correct?--Beth 08:56, 5 January 2013 (EST)

Yes, the * pipe sorts it to the top under the *.

After more digging, I believe I have found the help page to which you're referring, Categories (If not, I would like to see your page instead, perhaps there is a conflict somewhere?) This help page coupled with Category:Surname in place, where it is requested that Surname in place be added to all Surname-in-place files, the State surname pages (for U.S. concerns), should, if I'm understanding this correctly, read as follows:

{{SurnameCategoryTOC}}

[[Category:SURNAME in United States|*STATE]]

[[Category:Surnames in STATE]]

[[Category:Surname in place]]

My personal standard had been as follows:

{{SurnameCategoryTOC}}

[[Category:Surname in place]]

[[Category:SURNAME surname| STATE]]

[[Category:Surnames in STATE]]

[[Category:SURNAME in United States| STATE]]

I have all the same categories, though they are not in the same order (something I will work on rectifying), but I included one to the basic Surname page as well. Since it is not included, I will remove that from what I've been doing. The other difference is the * pipe, which in mine I used a <space> instead. I should change that back as well. I had originally started using the *, but the <space> made the page look nicer to me than the *, but I will change my procedure to the * instead. At any rate, if you used the above example and I changed it from that, I will do what I can to change things back to what they were as I go through pages. There are many surname pages and I doubt I've even scratched the surface. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Does this clear things up?--Khaentlahn 09:44, 5 January 2013 (EST)

Why don't we examine one surname and correct all of the pages and then use this surname page as an example? One of my recent edits is Category:Price in Texas. We could use the Price surname page and all of the other related categories for a consistent and standard example.

The surname portal is Portal:Surname and one of the featured pages, the Doering surname page does not even follow the instructions on the portal page. Corrections needed on this page also. Have a busy day ahead so probably will not get back to this until tonight. Thanks. --Beth 10:19, 5 January 2013 (EST)

The page to which you're referring Surname:Doering is a Surname page and not a Category page, which is confusing, but I understand the concept for why they were put there was to bring together different spellings of surnames. I personally don't touch those pages, just the Category pages, but I expect that the rules for them would be different to some degree.

Using what I wrote earlier about the Category pages, here is the Cowan's United States page, where I changed all the pages to reflect the model from the Category help file and Surname in place category. It would be fairly simple to do the same to the Price pages so they may be used as an example, but where were you proposing the example be posted?--Khaentlahn 10:58, 5 January 2013 (EST)

Headed out of town for day. Never mind about the Price page. I will correct all of my recent edits to make sure they conform to the standard. We just need to make sure that all of the examples and instructions on Help:Categories, Help:Surname in Place, and Portal:Surname follow the standard. Thanks,--Beth 12:06, 5 January 2013 (EST).

Drat, I am still confused. That is why I copy what I think someone else has done correctly. Trying to edit the Price surname and category pages. First question; See Category:Cowan in Alabama and Category:Price in Maryland. I don't feel comfortable changing Sandra's entries to agree with yours. Which is the best method? Second question: In Category:Cowan in United States why is the one family page on this page? Doesn't seem logical to me since we have many Cowan family pages and this is the only one on the page. They should be on the state page correct? Also if one does not enter the |* will the surname in state pages sort correctly. To me the * is not the most appealing. Thanks. --Beth 18:23, 5 January 2013 (EST)

Others seem to be using the basic surname page also. I believe we should include the basic surname page and add this to the help pages. What do you think? One may discuss this on the talk page for Categories. WeRelate is still in beta so now is the time to make changes and standardize.--Beth 18:44, 5 January 2013 (EST)

Concerning the Price in Maryland page, I created that page, Sandra started watching it. That's all. I haven't gone back and changed all the pages I did yet. I've started, but I haven't finished them by any stretch of the imagination, I'm afraid.

Concerning the single family on the Cowan in United States page, it is there because the "United States" was used in the place field without a state designation, so it doesn't have anywhere else to go but on the Cowan in United States page.

Concerning the *, I agree that it isn't the most appealing, that's why I was using a blank space after the pipe, but the * is in the help file, so I don't have a problem using it. It also brings the States and Countries to the top of the Surname page, which is what I believe the point was.

I'm afraid I've made quite a few of the "in PLACE" pages with my original idea of a standard, so you will likely find quite a few of them already. After doing a few pages with the standard from the help pages, it makes more sense to remove the basic Surname page from the State pages, because it keeps the basic Surname pages cleaner allowing you to click on the link for the United States and find all the states there instead of cluttered with all the countries. Whether that was the original intention for why it was structured the way it was, I have no idea, but it makes sense to me now that I'm using it.

If you wish to take this to the Category talk page, by all means, go right ahead. If the standard is changed, I can change what I do to accommodate that. I do enough "Copy/Paste" that it isn't as much effort to fix them as it might appear. It just takes doing it. :D Let me know what you choose to do.--Khaentlahn 19:36, 5 January 2013 (EST)

I am fine with leaving the standard as is and copying your entries to edit my edits. You have a much better understanding of the purpose of the categories than I do. So I will just continue editing my edits and others and if someone complains will confer. --Beth 20:30, 5 January 2013 (EST)

That is kind of you to say, but if you hadn't called me on it, I would still be "doing my own thing" instead of maintaining standards that actually did exist. Thank you for that.--Khaentlahn 20:41, 5 January 2013 (EST)

I have standardized the pages for Price, Potts, and Stephens. Next will be Fridell, Reece, Reese, and Windham. Finished those plus Puryear and Shull. Working on Coker and have a question. What is the standard for Coker in Texas, United States?--Beth 10:53, 6 January 2013 (EST)

I haven't seen a standard for user created pages as opposed to site generated pages, so I tend to leave them alone and let the original creator or someone else connected with that family deal with how to handle it, since that's an area where I really have no idea.--Khaentlahn 15:06, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Completed Jackson, Phillips, Holloway, Berry, Milliken, Powell, Townsend, McGuire, Doyal, Ellison, Coleman and Caddell. That completes all of my edits for this category.--Beth 12:46, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Excellent job!--Khaentlahn 15:06, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Conjectured Information Template [21 January 2013]

I happened to be looking at your page, and noticed your template for Conjectured information. A couple of us are presently experimenting with a set of templates meant to augment WeRelate semantics. Included among these are templates for speculative information - which I think is pretty much what you're trying to do with the Conjectured information template.

Since you've already been trying to deal with information of this sort, we would really appreciate your impressions. Our goal is creation of a community standard.

Thanks!

--jrm03063 12:27, 21 January 2013 (EST)

I'm afraid I've only utilized someone else's template, therefore I'm uncertain what input I could offer that would be of any use.

Impressions are always useful! WeRelate semantics, so far, are pretty much limited to what exists in the GEDCOM format. The idea here is to be able to augment that information in way(s) that are both humanly-useful and software-useful. While the document remains a moving target, I think it's pretty honest and complete at present. But whatever you do, thanks! --jrm03063 12:35, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Ancient spaces... [14 February 2013]

Saw you wandering around in Ancient Rome! No problem with that - but one of the things that I've been meaning to get to is to tag such pages with the Too Old for WeRelate template. The point is that Dallan doesn't want us to do active genealogical research earlier than about 700 AD. I was however, able to convince him that when things are well enough known that Wikipedia actually has corresponding pages, that we're better off having the pages so that we notice when someone is out there! So if you've a mind to, feel free to add that template...thanks! --jrm03063 10:44, 14 February 2013 (EST)

And here I was only cleaning up improbable and messy surnames. Thank you for the head's up!

Please, feel absolutely free to continue! I think we're always well served by having things in a tidy state of affairs - and there aren't nearly enough folks willing to take on work (even infrequently) - in such regions! --jrm03063 11:13, 14 February 2013 (EST)

What is your opinion? [21 feb 2013]

Khaentlahn, what is your opinion. Groetjes, --Lidewij 08:30, 21 February 2013 (EST) http://www.werelate.org/wiki/WeRelate_talk:Watercooler#Category_surname_-_geographic_location__.5B21_feb_2013.5D

Edmund Faulkner [2 March 2013]

Presumably not two spouses named Dorothy for Person:Edmund Faulkner (2). I see this comment (on a secondary source of course) "Most secondary sources give Dorothy's surname as ROBINSON, but that was the surname of her first husband."

Perhaps the first generation got confused with Family:Edmund Faulkner and Dorothy Robinson (1), which appears later?

??? - --jrm03063 15:37, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Actually, this one somewhat confuses me and Abbott's book doesn't always mesh quite right, so it wouldn't surprise me, but I haven't found other records to support anything else yet.

Well, I'm more of a collector than an analyzer, so take it where you will! :) ! --jrm03063 15:44, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Thomas Taber, jeweller [4 March 2013]

Dear Khaentlahn: I appreciated your measured comments about the possible family relationship between Thomas Taber, jeweller (1778 - 1842) and Thomas Constantine Taber (1806 - 1879). I am the great great great granddaughter of the older Thomas Taber. I am puzzling over their relationship. I too wonder about "Richard" Taber, born on June 30, 1806 and Thomas Constantine. I wondered if there could be an error in the original record. It lists three christenings (two boys and one girl) for that day, July 20, 1806, and it appears as though the author sat down at a later date and wrote his entries all at once. The entry below Richard Taber is for a Thomas, son of John and Sarah Pevey. I wonder if the author confused the names of the male infants he christened that day. The possibility of twins doesn't seem likely, as the two would be christened at once. The possibility that there was an uncle/nephew relationship seems plausible. There is a Thomas Taber & Co, Jewellers listed on the London Street Directory, at 49 Compton Street, Clerkenwell from 1813 - 1824. This address is not far from St. Bartholomew the Great where the family went to church. If I can find some kind of census for the area that far back, perhaps I can find a relationship. When Thomas and family emigrated in 1830 there is no Richard listed as emigrating with them, and there is no Thomas, but we assume the younger Thomas and family couldn't travel at that time as his wife was pregnant. Both Thomas Taber, jewellers are listed on the in Longworth's 1839 - 40 Directory as Thomas Taber, jeweller & c. 52 1/2 Carmine Street & Hudson Street, and Thomas Taber, jr, jeweller, 56 1/2 Carmine Street. They were literally next door to each other. Thomas Taber, jr is found on the 1850 Census in Van Vorst Township, Hudson County, NJ. That is now a neighborhood of Jersey City. Alexander Taber, jeweller and family was living in Jersey City in 1857, as his third through thirteen children (1870) were born there. So these two Taber jewellers had moved to the same NJ town from NYC. I wonder who could have taught Alexander all there was to know about the jeweller's craft, as his father died when he was seventeen. I speculate that Thomas Taber, jr could have taught him. We know Thomas, jr was still in New Jersey in 1855 as two of his children were born there. The only other possible link I find between the two Thomas Taber families is the repetition of the family surname "Groom." I see that Ellen Taber, born November 10, 1857 in Jersey City, NJ was given the middle name of "Grooms." The extra "s" could be an error. It seems she believed it was her mother's name, when, it was her grandmother's name. It was highly likely that Thomas Taber, jr, jeweller would want to pass on his mother's family surname, as she had passed away some time after June, 1850. But all this is speculation. I hope to get my brother to do the Y-chromosome DNA test. Then we can match it up with the Thomas Taber, Jr descendents and get some more speculative proof of a relationship. I do have photograhs of the possible brothers of Thomas, jr. I have one of William and one of Alexander. If there is a photograph of Thomas, jr or of his sons, perhaps a comparison could be made. Thanks so much for your efforts. I hope this information will add to your research. Cheers, Judith Taber, Manhattan, NY--JCTNYC 08:58, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Thank you so much for contacting me and I'm hoping the information you've provided will help sort this out. Have you by chance researched the John and Sarah Pevey family to see if this possible error becomes more apparent? As a side note, my sister and I were doing some research while entering information last night and she found a death notice for a Richard Taber which matched enough of the information for this Richard Taber to make the issue more challenging. He died at age 9, which means he would not have been on the boat when they crossed in 1830, if he was in fact their son. I'll see if she still has that death notice and we'll try to substantiate that information.--Khaentlahn 10:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Dear Khaentlahn ... What a great idea to research the John and Sarah Pevey family in the effort to track down a possible first name error. In my research, and speculation, I am relying on information handed down to me from my great grandfather, Clarence Wilbur Taber (1870 - 1968), author of Taber's Cyclopedic Medial Dictionary. His aunt, Mary Ann Taber Shentley (August 1, 1821, London, England - October 5, 1914, Chicago, Illinois) lived with Clarence most of his life, helped to raise him and to raise his children. She would have passed down to Clarence information about her parents, brothers and sisters. For the most part, the documentation I have found has shown it to be essentially accurate. In a history written by Clarence in 1952, the oldest brother of Mary Ann is listed as Thomas Taber, jr. In 1952 Clarence got all the progeny of Thomas Constantine Taber from a T.C. Taber at B.C. Taber, Norwalk, Ohio. T.C. Taber didn't have any first hand knowledge of a relationship between the two Thomas Tabers. All he knew was that a cousin reported to him that research showed there were two Thomas Taber, jewellers who emigrated from England to NYC in 1830. I'll keep on looking! Thanks for your thoughts and time. Judith Taber--JCTNYC 13:36, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Was the history written by Clarence in 1952 ever published that I may find a copy of it? I would be very interested to see it.--Khaentlahn 17:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Additional Comments: Clarence Wilbur Taber knew his two uncles well. They would be William Taber (March 7, 1811 London, England - approximately 1908) and James Taber (December 19,1812 London, England - aproximately 1911 Bronx, NY). They would have known the name of their older brother. Goulding's NYC Directory for 1877 - 1878 lists William and James as confectioners at 237 Bleecker Street, NYC. This address is a few buildings away from Carmine Street. It seems that the original Tabers didn't move far from their first NYC address. All of the above information leads me to a strong suspicion that Thomas Taber, jeweller and Thomas Taber, jr, jeweller could be father and son.--JCTNYC 16:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

I am, personally, still leaning toward this same conclusion, because there are too many coincidences for this relationship to be a coincidence. Considering that I fall under the Thomas Tabor, Jr lineage, it is reasonably important to me that I can in some way document this connection. My sister and I are currently attempting to track down the Pevey family to rule either in favor of or against the theory you proposed. I'm hoping for the former.--Khaentlahn 17:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

The genealogy was typed up by Clarence Wilbur Taber in 1952. I'll gladly send you copies of whatever I have, original and otherwise. Email me directly at jctabernyc@hushmail.me or look me up in the white pages for Manhattan, NY as Judith Taber. I took your advice and started looking up "Pavey" (I originally misinterpretted the spelling) under St Bartholomew the Great. Besides the suspect Thomas Pavey, 1806, I found William, 1797 and John 1799. So I've got to research this further. I'll speak to my brother, Anthony about getting the Y-chromosome testing. I made additions and corrections to all of the original Thomas Taber children on this site. Good luck to us all in our endless quest!--JCTNYC 19:45, 3 March 2013 (EST)

John Taber the First vs the Second [12 March 2013]

Doggett's NY Directory posted to the incorrect first John Taber. It belongs on the second John Taber! Great information though.--JCTNYC 11:16, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Okay, fixed. Thanx!--Khaentlahn 11:22, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Places ("communes") in France [11 avril 2013]

I saw your recent modifications ! Thanks ! ...

1. No possibility to modify quickly all "not correct" places with a "programm" (bot) ?
2. They are places in France, and the Wikipedia pages in french are better ! Is it a good idea to write the 2 wikipedia (english + french) ? But I know, each contributor can read the french WP-page direct from the english one.

Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 10:49, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

To be honest, I have no idea if a bot can make the changes automatically or not. I don't know whether you can search for "Unknown" places and find them all at once, but then the question is, whether they would be changed to the correct place type. I made changes on what I knew I could do, but I know nothing about the server side of this system. Sorry!--Khaentlahn 10:54, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

Thank you ! Perhaps an other contributor knows better ... There is a method to find the "not correct types" of places, without the search tool. It works per "département" ... list on the right of the page ... example, my département. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL ---Markus3 12:18, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

Utz brothers Civil War Bible [12 April 2013]

I have the Utz Family Bible. It has personal accounts of the Civil War from Jeremiah and one of his other brothers, I believe they were killed in the war. If you are interested, or know someone who might be, please contact me a G_Clore@hotmail.com.--Gclore 18:18, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

Coonradt Surname Changes [23 April 2013]

I have been watching the modifications you have been making to the "Coonradt" database. Especially, with the uppercase (COONRADT). All of these record anomalies are a result of the GEDCOM that I uploaded back in 2007. I have been making changes to my direct line as I add/edit info. The uppercase surname is how I entered all my data into my 3rd party Legacy Family Tree program (where the GEDCOM came from). A suggestion for WeRelate, if you haven't already done this (since 2007): can't the uppercase surname be detected and translated to lowercase, when the GEDCOM is uploaded?--Coonradt 12:02, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

My assumption would be that it should be possible, but that is beyond my knowledge of the programming aspect of this website. My personal perspective is that if a bot hasn't been setup to handle this aspect of editing to this point (since 2007), then manually is likely the only way it will currently get done. Hopefully this will change in the future. It also brings up "random acts of research" occasionally, which I have been prone to entertain when I need a break from personal family connections. My actual goal in editing these various person pages has been to clean up the "Categories" that appear at the bottom (ie, surnames in parenthesis, double surnames on page titles, etc.) and to clean up various minor things that aren't necessarily wrong, but fall outside standards (ie, erroneous place names or place names that need to be fleshed out, fully capitalized names, married surnames for maiden names, etc.). I've been given to understand that eventually Categories will go away, but until then I've been using them to help standardize random pages if at all possible.--Khaentlahn 15:24, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Volunteering to review GEDCOM imports [5 May 2013]

Hi Khaentlahn, thank you for your offer to help with GEDCOM reviews! I left a message for Solveig and she should be contacting you soon to talk about procedures for reviewing GEDCOMS. --Jennifer (JBS66) 17:24, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Thank you most kindly. --Khaentlahn 21:30, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Search engines, categories, etc. [7 May 2013]

What an interesting problem you raise in the name of Elizabeth Seaver. I hope the Search Engine developer will consider it--and be able to explain the vagaries of the search process to those of us forced to use it.

I was going to write to you earlier today in the light of your comments on Categories, but in going back to the Watercooler part way through composing the message and finding more comments from others, writing in response to them came first. I read through your User page and your User Talk page this morning. Most interesting. Among other questions that came to mind was how would you define "conjectured information"? I too enjoy cleaning up other people's work and one giant tree I work on from time to time employs the terms "possibly" and "probably" preceding placenames with great regularity. Is this where you would use the template Conjectured Information? Where would you place the template?

The Conjectured template that I posted I've only used when I've found an individual that could possibly be the person on which I'm currently doing research. See: Person:Benton Rice (1) I have no doubt it could be used for the trees which have produced "possibly" or "probably" markers, for I have found a tree as you did which seems to have all their place names superseded with "prob". At the time, I simply moved the "prob" to the secondary field as "Probably" and edited the place name to reflect places that exist in the database. I could see using the Conjectured template in these instances, but I haven't played with this template on pages with this in mind yet, so I do not currently have an answer about where to place the template.

so far I have used probably and possibly as you have. It can be a bore.

On 4 April I wrote a piece on the Category Talk page suggesting a different automated category which I titled Places First, Surnames Second which received little comment and that mostly negative. I put my head back down behind the parapet and went back to editing Places in Scotland. But with the demise of Surnames in Places, I wonder again whether my proposal might be of use. Unfortunately the one spokesperson for the Overview Committee seems to think that searching is the only way to go. Without some automated method of naming categories, I can't see much use for their existence at all.

Regards (Pat) --goldenoldie 14:47, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

I'm afraid that I could not find the "Places First, Surnames Second" suggestion with the search, so I can't speak to that suggestion you made, I'm sorry.

I believe that there are positive and negative aspects to both the search engine and the categories. I also believe that neither one will fulfill all the needs for discovering or finding the individuals on this website. In my opinion, the main drawback to losing the Categories is that stumbling on a "diamond in the rough" is now much more challenging and, quite frankly, not as fun.

<Side Tangent> While writing this, I realized something that was missing and might replace an aspect of the category pages... a "stumble upon" feature. Right there on the main page, have a button which would allow an individual to click on it and the site would send you to a random person page (or a page which allows for more options, like choosing a Family page, or a time frame or general place). The Categories helped me find random Person pages without actively searching for them and this might at least do that to some degree.</Side Tangent>

Can't see our conservatively minded Overview Committee going for that one.

I'm not sure if I completely agree with that, but you never know until you ask. :D Besides, I have gotten the feeling that concerns outside WeRelate have taken priority over this website, which is completely understandable, especially since this is a free website without a subscription cost. I've worked with Volunteer organizations in the past and it is a challenge to say the least to get everything to work smoothly let alone get people to work together amicably.

Well, I for one like the idea. And it shouldn't be all that difficult to implement. Maybe drop-down lists for century and country (or portion of a continent). Would you be willing to construct a suggestion page for this? --Pkeegstra 19:52, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

I have never made a suggestion page proposal and I am not quite certain I would know how to go about it. Is there an example of a well-written suggestion page to which you could direct me? I would greatly appreciate it and would be willing to at least consider doing so if my writing skills are up to the task.--Khaentlahn 21:45, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

In any case, I am saddened that the Categories are gone, but if they hadn't been there when I first started working with this site, I may not have considered they were missing except that all other Wikis have them and they make site navigation easier.--Khaentlahn 16:04, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

[janiejac, I'm afraid this post you made erased other posts that had been made, so I copied it and reposted what you wrote so yours wouldn't get lost in the shuffle. --Khaentlahn 21:45, 7 May 2013 (EDT)]

Back in early 2010 several of us worked for quite a while on categories, getting user created categories in better order. WeRelate talk:Categories project. Now I read that categories will be eliminated. And how is such a decision made? It appears that WeRelate can't decide what it wants to be when it grows up! Has this change ever been put on the suggestion page where users could comment and/or 'vote' on it? Or is it just something we will find out gradually as categories go away? I seem to have a love/hate relationship with WeRelate. I want so badly for this concept to work but eliminating categories is just one more function that contributes to my high frustration level! .... Pat, could you give a link to your suggestion mentioned above? --janiejac 20:25, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Unfortunately, communication, or the lack thereof, and miscommunication are what tend to cause the greatest difficulties when dealing with a group of people, especially if decisions need to be made and they are to some degree unpopular decisions. I believe we can determine a way around this situation, though I had really hoped we wouldn't be required to do so.

What are other ways we can propose changes that would provide some of the same results to which we're familiar? What about an option on the regular search results page that would change the results to look like the old Categories pages? Not exactly the same, obviously, since they wouldn't be on the Person/Family pages, but being able to change them so that they showed up to 200 people on a page is very appealing, especially if they also showed the Person number in parentheses as the Category page did. (This view always helped me to easily distinguish one person from another, but I'm a numbers person at heart.) If the options in the search engine indicate a specific place, then the simplified view would also only have that particular place. I don't know how easy that would be to implement, perhaps a secondary drop down beside the Exact/Close/Partial that would allow Simplified/Expanded/Detailed options? Simplified would look similar to the old Categories, Expanded may include their vitals and Detailed may include what the search shows now, but might include the vitals of the parents/spouse? I'm writing as I'm thinking, so this is very rough.

Any other ideas?--Khaentlahn 21:45, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Thoughts for new search page and categories [10 May 2013]

I decided to put your thoughts and what I have been considering down in point form. As you will see I had to start at the beginning--with what comes in when we introduce an ancestor to WR. Having seen the results of other people's gedcoms (particularly those produced before WeRelate put rules in place), I am in favour of strict but kindly discipline at this point. After all, this is what led to messy categories in the first place.

What we’ve got to work with:
STAGE 1
From a Person page (from cell information)

• surname
• given names
• prefixes and suffixes
• gender
• birthdate
• birthplace
• baptismal data
• death date
• death place
• burial details

In addition from Family page

• father (incl birthdate and place, death date and place)
• mother (incl birthdate and place, death date and place)
• parents’ marriage date and place
• siblings (incl birthdate and place, death date and place)

In addition from Marriage page

• spouse’s name plus birthdate and place, death date and place
• children’s names plus birthdate and place, death date and place

Oblige people to convert gedcom information to a standard format before the people in the gedcom are accepted into WR. This should also be obliged for a member’s entries made within WR.

Standard format means

• all dates xx yyy zzzz (with April being Apr not apr; “bef”, “aft” and “abt” allowed)
• what isn’t known is left as a blank cell, but urge people to make a guess on birthplace based on baptismal place, if infant baptism
• all places written according to WR rules (country must be included, no abbreviations),

in the form:

• settlement or township, county, state/province, country for North America
• settlement or parish, county, country for the United Kingdom
• agreed order for other parts of the world

(Question: should country come up in a separate cell, like surname does? Should state/province do so as well?) Otherwise, they come up in red. If this is the case, an automated but friendly explanation should appear, with a message to contact some specific helper if the new user is having trouble. Suggest omitting the settlement/township/parish if unsure (or if it is unrecognized), putting this information in the additional description box. (Helper should be advised of this, too.)

Stage 1 Commentary: Some genealogy programs do not allow you to change their format, unless you want to do a lot of work before you ever upload to WeRelate. To someone new to WeRelate, this could be off-putting enough to indicate that WeRelate isn't worth their time when ultimately it is a fabulous collaboration system. I believe WeRelate has been attempting to balance this aspect of the site for years. Where do you actually draw the line between what is required before someone can upload to this site and what the system can do?--Khaentlahn 12:06, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

STAGE 2 Adding sources. I don’t want to go into this here.

STAGE 3. SEARCH PAGES DISPLAY (minimum visible list 50).
We could have (simplified)

• surnames (with a filter for surname variations), given names (and gender as m or f)

• birth and death years

or we could have (expanded)

• surnames (with a filter for surname variations), given names (and gender as m or f)

• birth and death years

• birthcountry (+ state/province?)
• deathcountry (+ state/province?)

or we could have (detailed)

• surnames (with a filter for surname variations), given names (and gender as m or f)

• birth and death years

• birthplace in full
• deathplace in full

• initial user (no other watchers)

One of the things that bugged me on both the categories list as was, and on the search pages, is that persons and families were presented given names first. This doesn’t allow for any quick eye scanning of differences in surname spellings (if they are even allowed in the search parameters). It was a long time before I got my head around Person and Family numbers.

Stage 3 Commentary: It would definitely help if there were more sorting options for the end results of the information provided in the search also. These could be Date (recent to early or vice versa), Surname, or Family. I am uncertain how much effort it would take to add these features or if the powers that be would indicate they were even possible.--Khaentlahn 12:06, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

STAGE 4. CATEGORIES We could have

surnames (with a filter for surname variations, and perhaps by gender?)

or we could have

surnames (with a filter for surname variations), given names (with a filter by gender?)

birthcountry (+ state/province?) and/or deathcountry (+ state/province?)

or we could have

places from the Place pages (country)

surnames (with a filter for surname variations)

or we could have

places from the Place pages (country + state/province)

surnames (with a filter for surname variations)

or we could have

places from the Place pages (country + state/province + township/parish)

surnames

Stage 4 Commentary: Is this indicating putting the Surname Categories back into the system? If so, I doubt they would do that after removing them. If not, then I'm not certain I understand Stage 4.--Khaentlahn 12:06, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

My brain is now going to return to my own family genealogy for the next few hours. Janiejac is also getting a copy of this.
--goldenoldie 06:41, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

This is a lot of information for me to absorb all at once, but if you'll give me a day or two to sort it out for myself, I will be more than happy to help/comment then.--Khaentlahn 11:16, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Overall Commentary: A suggestions page was started to help bolster the search engine and make it more useable. Perhaps some of this should be posted there and those in a position to do something can benefit from your hard work.--Khaentlahn 12:06, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Gedcom review committee [8 May 2013]

Hello and thank you for volunteering to help out. It's great to have you on the team. Several people check gedcoms so it isn't onerous for anyone. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I was in a car accident but everything seems fine now.

We'll give you admin status so you can review gedcoms. I'll walk you through several until you understand the procedures. We'll do this on WeRelate talk:GEDCOM review. So what you do is select "Gedcom Review" from the Admin menu. Look for any gedcoms that are tagged with "needs gedcom review". I will review the first ones tonight on the gedcom review talk page. Then tomorrow you can review the next set but do not upload. I will do that for a while and we can discuss the gedcoms on the talk page. Occasionally, a gedcom will need to be refused and we will go over that when the opportunity arises. How does that sound?

I noticed that you have opted out of email. This means I can't send you a private email through WeRelate which might prove helpful on occasion. You can send me a private email by going to my home page User:Solveig and clicking on the "more" in the sidebar. Select "Email this user."

Thanks again for volunteering, --sq 10:37, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Thank you most kindly and I am sorry about your car accident. I hope all is well. I have changed my options to allow e-mail. The e-mail option was simply not something I had given much thought prior to this. So far everything sounds great and I hope I can prove useful in this area.--Khaentlahn 11:14, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Deleting Living pages [12 May 2013]

Hi Khaentlahn, now that you have admin rights for GEDCOM review, you would also be able to delete Living pages. If you are interested in doing this, I would suggest watching and reading the instructions on the WeRelate:Speedy delete page. There are more details there on which pages we delete right away (ie the empty Living Surname pages) and the ones we put a 14 day SD notice on. If you have any questions, just let me know! --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:34, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

Are you needing more hands to get through the Speedy Delete pages? If so, I would be more than willing to help out. Thank you for the invitation!--Khaentlahn 21:09, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

More hands would be very helpful, thank you! Originally, I was thinking that instead of adding SD templates to the empty Living pages you could delete them (thus saving work for the SD committee). If you are interested in also volunteering for the Speedy Delete committee, I can certainly add your name to the list of volunteers. --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:41, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Certainly, I would be happy to help. --Khaentlahn 15:01, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Thank you for being willing to help! I added your name to WeRelate:Speedy delete, when you have a moment you can head over there and Watch the page to be informed of future updates. --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:04, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Family talk:Richard Whitt and 1730 South Carolina, Usa (1) [4 June 2013]

Thanks for pointing out that I had Richard Whitt married to South Carolina! Since it stands alone, and I know the guy I was trying to marry off, he is elsewhere, I will just get that page deleted. Thank you : ) --cthrnvl 21:48, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

Betty Dore [4 June 2013]

Hello Khaentlahn, Received your message about Betty who married George Dore born 1725 in Somerset, but as I do not know her maiden name I have called her Betty (Dore). If and when I find her real maiden name I can transpose it instead of (Dore).

What part of the family do you fit in, I notice you have George Hancock born 1913, do you relate to him?

I live in Manly, NSW, Australia. Would like to know more about the families.

Regards Ernie--Farthing 21:48, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

I'm afraid I have no relation whatsoever. I was only working on some site maintenance and I do random bits of unrelated research from time to time.--Khaentlahn 21:52, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

Gedcom review instructions [5 June 2013]

Hi, I added some instructions to the Help:Review GEDCOM. would you please look over it and see what you think. It probably needs editing. There is a link there for the spouses name template. If you want to draft it, that would be great. Otherwise let me know and I will. Thanks, --sq 14:25, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

I believe you covered the subject quite well. I would be happy to attempt putting a new template together. I will send you an initial draft as soon as may be. --Khaentlahn 14:54, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

Thank You... [16 June 2013]

I just want to thank you for all the work you do! I appreciate it very much... Sheila--Sthurston 12:04, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

That was a very kind comment. You're certainly welcome.--Khaentlahn 12:10, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Re faulty Gedcom [9 July 2013]

Hi Khaentlahn, Sorry for the messy state of my gedcom. Do I re load it once I have rectified the problems? Regards Mark--Markb4951 23:14, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

Yes, by all means, when your Gedcom is repaired, please upload it again. It will be a pleasure to approve it for inclusion in this website.--Khaentlahn 23:24, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

Esther Priebe [4 August 2013]

I am one of Esther priebe's children. Are we related?--juliejane 17:54, 4 August 2013 (EDT)

As of this moment, no. There do not appear to be any connections between my family and the Foot(e) generations.--Khaentlahn 17:56, 4 August 2013 (EDT)

GEDCOM Husbands and Wives Import Issue [18 August 2013]

I stumbled into the gedcom talk page this evening and read several messages from you about Gedcoms that I submitted that contained marriage dates for which there were no husbands and wives. I hope you remember this issue - I think one time it dealt with the Bluford Hawkins Family GEDCOM. I am contacting you because this has been of concern to me as well. Let me explain: I use MacFamily Tree 7 to generate the GEDCOMs I submit to WeRelate. To make the process manageable on my end, I submit one family at a time. The drop down menu that best describes the group of people I want to export, only allows me the option of the focus person, partner, and children -- this excludes the children's partners which leads to the missing husbands and wives you see when reviewing the gedcom. There is a marriage date generated for every couple, but no partner to go with the date. To continue: as I review the gedcom before sending it to you, I have tried (without success) to manually add the husbands and wives but the system won't let me do it -- this is probably due to my ignorance of the system, but, nonetheless, I haven't been able to add them before submitting the gedcom. The only option that has worked is to add the missing wives and husbands after you all import the file. I'm sure this is clear as mud, but thought I'd get it out on the table for discussion. I have a gedcom for the Dillman family pending that is chock full of these "missing" wives and husbands... :-)--Frank 22:12, 17 August 2013 (EDT)

Yes, I do recall and am familiar with the issue, but I have noticed that the family trees which are submitted appear to overlap enough that the wives and husband eventually do get connected or that you have been adding them manually later. Unfortunately, I have no knowledge whatsoever of MacFamily Tree. Are you able to edit the GEDCOM before you submit it to this website? Include the husband and wives from that point? If that is not feasible, perhaps there is someone else who may know and would be able to figure out what is causing the issue. A general note on the water cooler may bring in more feedback than I can provide. At present time your files have been imported, because I know they don't stay orphaned or "missing" for long. Should a different reviewer reject your files, until you can figure out how to repair the imports, you are free to direct them to me and I will sort it out from this end. Beyond this, I'm not certain what other help I may be able to provide, but if I may be of service, please, contact me again and let me know what you need.--Khaentlahn 09:21, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice. I will continue to look for a resolution on this end. In the meantime, I'll keep plugging away. Take care...--Frank 09:28, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

Not sure I agree with this practice [12 November 2013]

Hi, I noticed that you in your capacity as a member of the Speedy Delete team you changed a number of 'livings' to 'unknowns', but they still represent a living person. You said yourself on the talk page awhile back that you keep them in the cases where they are a 'bridge' to a living person but I cannot remember reading this exception anywhere else.

It seems to me the best thing to do would instead create a tag similar to the 'SpeculativeParent' where we could instead put 'grandparents:____ and ____ ' to allow them to be linked up without keeping the living-in-all-but-name persons on WR when a child is dead but the parents are not.--Daniel Maxwell 23:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, the Oversight Committee assented to the use of an "unknown" as a bridge person solely for the case of a deceased child with one deceased parent. We also talked about the more general case of linking deceased and exempt well-known people with their grandparents jumping over living and non-famous parents, so I encourage a proposal for a template along those lines. --Pkeegstra 01:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

When to keep family pages intact was the policy being followed. While the example used has only one living parent, the bulleted items did not specify only one living parent though it may have been assumed. If only one parent was the intention, would someone revise the policy to reflect that? If that was not the intention, then the policy should be modified to remove ambiguity in cases like this.

The suggestion concerning utilizing a 'Grandparent' tag similar to the 'SpeculativeParent' option would be useful should the policy mentioned not apply and implementing it would be fairly simple.--Khaentlahn 14:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I added a clarification reflecting the policy as I understood it. If the missing capability involves tracking deceased siblings with two living parents maybe the tag should be "Sibling" (since "Grandparent" does not distinguish siblings from first cousins). --Pkeegstra 19:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A 'Sibling' template sounds like another option beyond what Daniel mentioned, which is a good idea as well. These two tags could possible help alleviate the 'living' individuals problem without causing more difficulties. As an experiment, Grandparents and corresponding Grandchild templates have been created modeled after the SpeculativeParents template. A 'Sibling' template can also be created if these appear useful.

Thinking on this further, 'Son-in-law', 'Daughter-in-Law', 'Father-in-law', etc. could also be useful as there are families where, for example, the son-in-law passed away, but not the daughter of the family.--Khaentlahn 22:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it was actually my initial idea that the 'grandparent' tag could be expanded to have a 'double tag' for both the paternal and maternal grandparents. I think they are already using something like this with adoptive children, it seems wise to use this to replace 'bridges' and I am glad people seem to like the idea Daniel Maxwell 01:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Errors and Solutions: Reverting to a Previous Revision [19 November 2013]

Your edit of the past 24 hours was advised to me by email and led me to read the whole article.

I wish the instructions on using a previous version of a page were as clear as what you have written here (complete with the confirmation by Dallan). --Goldenoldie 07:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you happen to know where the actual WR instructions are located?--Khaentlahn 13:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I was speaking of the wording on every History sub-page. This ought to have brief instructions, such as you have given here.

See if this helps.--Khaentlahn 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I am equally stymied by the Image-download page every time I read it. It has a lot to say about copyright, but not much about downloading images, especially replacement images. I draw maps and I never get them right the first time. Care to have a go on that one? --Goldenoldie 20:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I can try at least. Would you give me a link to a page you're referring to so I know what I'm working with? Just to be sure I am following what you mean.--Khaentlahn 21:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

THOMAS PATTERSON AND ELLA BUTTERFIELD PAGES [25 November 2013]

Hi,

My name is Thomas Patterson (age 88) and I live in Florida. I noticed that you have made some changes in the family history pages for my relatives. The Thomas Patterson and Ella Butterfield that are mentioned are my Father's (Thomas Patterson) parents from Meadville, PA. I have not been very active in providing information but would be interested in knowing if we are related and if so, I will be happy to provide further information. Please advise.

Thank you,

Thomas Patterson (ernatomfl@gmail.com)--TPATTERSON 21:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

To my current knowledge we are not related, but I have found that the more pages I work on, the more connections I'm finding. Perhaps given time we will find a connection. I'm sorry I can't be of more help to you. --Khaentlahn 13:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your prompt response but I still have a question..If you are not related to Butterfield or Patterson, what sources are you using to change their data?

Thank you,

Tom Patterson--TPATTERSON 16:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

None of their core data was changed. Their cemetery event was modified to connect their actual cemetery's place page with their page. Thomas' occupation was moved from the place slot to the description slot. MySource Census sources were linked with sources already on WeRelate. The only new data which was added was their entry in Meadville's 1920 census schedule. I hope this clears up any confusion.--Khaentlahn 13:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the GEDCOM review [4 December 2013]

Thanks for reviewing my GEDCOM. I'm actually glad you rejected it. After I submitted it, I looked through the wiki further and saw that my GEDCOM wasn't up to snuff at all. I have since found several more sources and ancestors which should have gotten matched up. I have a lot of work to do, but look forward to eventually getting my stuff into the wiki. Thanks again.--Trentf 18:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)