User talk:B.holmes


Welcome [5 May 2010]

Welcome to WeRelate, your virtual genealogical community. We're glad you have joined us. At WeRelate you can easily create ancestor web pages, connect with cousins and other genealogists, and find new information. To get started:

  1. Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do.
  2. Watch the "Getting Started" tutorial video to learn how to make ancestor web pages.
  3. Explore the Step by step Tutorials, if needed.

If you need any help, I will be glad to answer your questions. Just click on my signature link below and then click on the “Leave a message” link under my name in the upper left corner of my profile page. Thanks for participating and see you around! Debbie Freeman --DFree 23:47, 16 February 2010 (EST)

B.Holmes seems to go to current e-mail rather than permanent e-mail. Which e-mail do you get yours from?--B.holmes 07:57, 19 February 2010 (EST)

I am a volunteer admin. I am a little confused about what sort of help you need. Are you the same user as B.Holmes? What can I do to help you? --sq 10:56, 19 February 2010 (EST)

Sure thing. I just have not figured out how to add sources yet. BK-124 and etc was my way of knowing what source to add once I knew how to add it. Happy to contribute in the joint manner you suggest. B.holmes--B.holmes 20:49, 24 April 2010 (EDT)

Jrich, Thanks for your insight. I see your points.--B.holmes 16:22, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

Great. Good advice again. May I ask another question. My hope to a WeRelate page was to have a readable narrative page that fills out more about the person or family than most genealogy programs. That is why o the family page I wanted to say a little about the husband and something about the wife then their marriage and their children. I agree that this means having multiple pages to update. Perhaps a way to accomplish what I was after could be to have the separate pages mirror on the family page? I noted that the John Bowne page is just a mirror of the Wikipedia page. Can this be done with WeRelate pages? ie. Can I have a family page that 1) mirrors the husband's page, the 2) the wife's page, the 3) the first childs family page? etc.?--B.holmes 23:22, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

The wikipedia feature is peculiar to wikipedia and only works if the person has a page in wikipedia. There is no way that I am aware of to pull in data from other WeRelate pages, though you can put in links to other pages, as you've probably figured out. You could certainly list the children as part of a description of the parents, but most WeRelate users expect to have to look at the child's page for more details. For an example of a page with a mature description, try looking at Person:Edmund Rice (1) or many of the WeRelate:Featured pages. --Jrich 23:52, 4 May 2010 (EDT)
Hello B.Holmes and Jrich, there is a way to accomplish this, though it is currently being used on only a few pages here. You can add a block of text on the child's page that you want to include on other pages. Surround this text with <onlyinclude> some text here </onlyinclude>. Now, on the Family page, you can place the following code {{:title of child's page}} where you place the title of the child's page within the brackets (note the colon). This will display whatever text is between the onlyinclude tags on the child's page within the family page. This has been used on an image page such as Image:Huwelijksregister 1875, Lemsterland, Aktenummer 012v.jpg that is transcluded onto this. See Wikipedia:Transclusion for additional details. --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:47, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

citing sources [24 April 2010]

It sure would be nice if you named your sources rather than simply asserting everything about the Feakes, or saying "other sources". I removed the sentence from Person:Hannah Feake (1) that said: "BK-124 states, “she had red hair as a child and was delivered by Telaka, a Siwanoy Indian Squaw.”" on two grounds: mostly that no other reader than you will know what BK-124 is, and secondarily because I wonder whether this is a fact versus a romanticization? Of course, we would have a better idea of the answer to item 2 if we knew what BK-124 was. This website is about collaboration, and because you are working with other people who don't necessarily know you, it is necessary to cite your sources. Thanks. --Jrich 22:41, 13 April 2010 (EDT)

I saw you added sources to Hannah Feake. I cleaned them up a little trying to illustrate how it works. In general, the Source page describes the book, so Source:Seton, Anya. Winthrop Woman will have the publisher, date, and stuff that applies to the whole book. This only needs to be put on this one central page, and then all the source citations that refer to it don't need to repeat that information. Notice that I redid the page so the author's name is last name first.
The citation on the Person page just names the Source page and then gives the page number where pertinent information where that person is discussed. The record field is used to hold the title of an article in a magazine source and date is used to give the issue of a magazine, but these fields don't really have much use with books (unless the book has sections each with their own page numbering and you want to put the section name in the record field, or something like that.) I like to include an abstract of what the source says about the person for the convenience of the reader but that is far from a universal practice (I don't have a copy of Winthrop Woman handy so didn't do that one).
The Winthrop Woman being actually a work of fiction, it is not clear to me if it is really suitable as a source, but I haven't seen it. It could have an appendix of what is actually true and known, but most historical novels I have seen play with the facts to suit the story and don't usually tell you which is which. It certainly could be of interest to a person interested the Feake family, and perhaps might be better in a note or in the text part of the page than as a source. --Jrich 23:30, 24 April 2010 (EDT)

Excessive commentary [14 May 2010]

I have been watching your changes to Family:John Bowne and Hannah Feake (1) and have to ask why you are putting all this information here? Let me give an example of why I don't think it is all that useful. There is basically a paragraph on each child which duplicates the information that should go on each child's own Person page. Now, if any of these facts change on the child's Person page, due to new research, will some future user have to remember to change it in both places? Why not keep the information about, say, Person:Mary Bowne (3), on her page, so if new information comes to light it only needs to be changed in one place? Why is it not sufficient to have the child listed in the family summary in the left margin? If some are missing, you can/should create them so you can store all this information.

Also, you have the issue that some of the sources cited are only there because they talk about the children, not about the marriage. Shouldn't these go on the child's own Person page? For example, the Field Genealogy is a reasonable source for Benjamin Field and Hannah Bowne, but does not pretend to have done any thorough study of her parents and does not provide any insight into when and where the parents were married.

Speaking of The Field Genealogy, a work I have often used, as pointed out in an earlier message, much of the information you posted in the source citation is merely duplicating information that is, and properly belongs, on Source:Pierce, Frederick Clifton. Field Genealogy page, yet it does not provide something so useful as the page number. Do I as a reader really care if you happened to read The Field Genealogy at the Georgia Historical Society (especially since the copy available on is more convenient to my California home)? I care more to know exactly what subset of all the information on this page you relied on this source for. In particular, it would be helpful to know it quotes Flushing Friends records (a primary source) and that the original record actually says Hannah "died 30th day, 10th m, 1707" because, sure enough, a quick search finds a website that lists her death date as the erroneous 30 Oct 1707 based on misinterpreting this Quaker date string. --Jrich 13:11, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Jrich, Not sure which way to reply. I see your points and appreciate your insight.--B.holmes 16:23, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

Thank you. I saw your reply. If you look on your main user page, you should see me listed as a watcher, so I will be notified if you update your user page or the associated Talk page. So when you replied on the Talk page, I was notified. Some people like to reply on the originator's Talk page, but that splits the post and reply on two different pages, which makes it hard for others who may be watching, so I think it is best to just reply in the same place as the post. Just for reference, another way to reply, is to go to the user page of the user you want to contact, and in the More menu there is an option to send them email (if they allow it-some don't). This email route is useful to carry on a more private conversation with just that user, and not anybody that happens to browse the Talk page. --Jrich 18:17, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

Continued duplication of data, and other points [20 May 2010]

  1. Your page for Person:Elizabeth Bowne (8) claims a third marriage for Elizabeth in 1711. You put no sources. Since her second husband lived until 1732/33, supported by two different cited sources, you are going to have a hard time proving that.
  2. You created a page for Family:John Prior and Elizabeth Bowne (1) when there already was a page for Family:John Pryor and Elizabeth Bowne (1). While there are arguments about spelling all the time, in the interests of collaboration, it is usually best to be flexible. Worst case, if you insist on a spelling that is different, it should be entered in the alternate name field and not as a separate page, because regardless of the spelling there was only one marriage, not two.
  3. You put back the red hair remark back on Person:Hannah Feake (1) citing a work of fiction. It strains credulity to think the author of a novel written roughly 275 years after she died knew what color hair she had. There probably weren't cameras for 150 years or more after she died. Unless you find a statement of this fact in the source you cited elsewhere, Source:Bowne, John. Journal of John Bowne, 1650-1694, or some other contemporary source, I suggest this be abandoned as the imaginings of a novelist.
  4. You continue to duplicate information in the Family History and Personal History section that is already listed in the left margin. A WeRelate user expects to find this stuff in the left margin, and expects the narrative section to augment the factual data, not to simply express it redundantly in words. The will that is given on Person:Mary Bowne (3) is a good example of augmenting the factual display. It is actually OK to leave these sections blank if you have nothing to add beyond the facts in the left margin.
  5. The last couple pages I have noticed you working on, such as Person:Elizabeth Bowne (8), are without sources. The sources for Elizabeth should be on her page, not her parent's page, so you can tag which facts each source supports with the S1, S2, tags.
  6. I am still waiting to see the page for Martha Joanna BOWNE, which hopefully explains how she had a middle name 100 years before they even started being used, and hopefully it will provide sources that show her husband's name was indeed the same as the husband of Person:Mary Bowne (3). Normally this type of coincidence is likely to be the result of sloppy bookkeeping, so providing sources merely helps ensure people don't assume the worst. --Jrich 21:41, 8 May 2010 (EDT)


Duplication of data:

I have tried to use the transclusion feature to add info to a page so that it is narrative and not just useful to a strict genealogist. The info with citations are to be on the persons page. There may be some that I have failed to get to yet. Please excuse.

You may speak for all WeRelate people when you say to leave the narrative blank if the only info is that in the left hand column. I suggest that there are others, myself being one, who would find the page more enjoyable if it were a readable narrative. The transclusion feature enables the related info from parents and children's pages to be pulled in for context without their own citations. I have tried to add links back to the individuals where sources are cited.--B.holmes 22:25, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

My belief is that you will not like it so much after you get used to the WeRelate format, and find few pages that are laid out the same way. I think it distracts from any added stories or detail that does belong there. Plus it increases the maintenance effort to anybody that subsequently changes the page, by requiring them to make changes twice. I can tell you that if I were to find good sources that contradict your data, as some of the items that I listed above hint that I could, I would not bother to make changes twice. Instead, I would merely delete the duplicate data. It is a waste of time to read through all your added text, with its surplus of headers, only to find it adds nothing to the page that wasn't known before.

Besides the fact that I think what you are trying to accomplish with transclusion is unnecessary, and even slightly detrimental, I personally suspect that transclusion is a bad idea as well. Mostly, because if somebody else wants to transclude a different part of Hannah Feake's page, they are going to have to move the onlyinclude's around to suit themselves, but that will destroy what you wanted. And Help:Advanced Editing Commands implies that the transcluded pages should be templates, that are designed from the start to be transcluded, not Person and Family pages.

I would be more interested in seeing the quality of genealogical material improve before worrying so much about the cosmetic presentation of it. This is necessary to ensure a reliable consensus about the facts that will make this site useful to other researchers. This requires the citing of quality sources. "Genealogy without sources is mythology." --Jrich 23:54, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

Regarding the page Help:Advanced Editing Commands... this is not an "official" WeRelate help page. Some of the concepts on this page, such as Interwiki linking, are not even applicable here on WeRelate. Since this is placed under the help category, I am going to bring it to Dallan's attention. It is my opinion that this page needs some serious editing, or integrating into our already existing help pages. I would not look to follow this page as it currently appears, as a guide on how to do transclusion.--Jennifer (JBS66) 08:08, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

I think I have a solution to this issue. The problem is that the basic information about people on person and family pages appears down the left-hand side of the screen, leaving the main body of the page blank. Blank pages are aesthetically unappealing. But duplicating the information on the left so that it also appears in the main body means that if something is changed, it needs to be changed in two places, which has disadvantages. A possibly-better solution would be for the software to list the basic information about people in infoboxes on the main body of the page instead of down the left-hand side. Coincidentally I've been working on exactly this, and should have it working by the end of this week.--Dallan 10:29, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

Thanks Dallen, I look forward to seeing your efforts. Need a Beta tester?--B.holmes 09:03, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

I've made the changes on the sandbox site. Here is an example page. I'm hoping to make the changes on the main site this weekend if all goes well.

I'm making this announcement on the watercooler. If you have some feedback, I'd love to hear from you. Please add a comment to the "New look" topic on the watercooler.--Dallan 09:28, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Dates and Gregorian Calendar [11 May 2010]

All the dates you added to Family:John Bowne and Hannah Bickerstaff (3) are wrong because they ignore the calendar shift of 1752. You should read and study wikipedia:Gregorian Calendar because this is something you must understand if you are going to do genealogy before 1752. Basically, when they switched from the Julian to Gregorian calendar in England and its possessions in 1752, the first month of the year was changed from March to January. So before this time, if you see a date that refers to the 9th month, it means November, not September, etc, etc. This is particularly crucial in Quaker records because of their fondness for using numeric months. --Jrich 11:17, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Census titles [7 August 2010]

Hello B. Holmes, I noticed that you are creating new census pages. WR's naming convention for census pages is: County, State, United States. YYYY U.S. Census Population Schedule (where YYYY is the year of the census). The pages you created had US instead of U.S. I renamed the pages you created, and changed the links on your person pages. Let me know if you have any questions. Have a great day! --Jennifer (JBS66) 09:16, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for your help again.--B.holmes 10:02, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Glad I could help! --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:04, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

an oops! [27 December 2010]

I'm glad to see some of your posting! I just saw your page Family:Joseph Hedger and Sarah Stevenson (1) and believe there is an oops where the link to Woodbridge, Colonial New Jersey doesn't link to the right place. I have Jacksons at Woodbridge, so was checking it out. I believe I also have info (not posted yet) that will tie in with some of your posting, so I'll be keeping an eye on your New Jersey work! --Janiejac 23:26, 26 December 2010 (EST)

Hello JainieJac,

Thanks for the note. I think I have corrected that and some more I have found. Like Flushing LI in the Bahamas? I look forward to working with you on Woodbridge connections. Cheers, Buddy--B.holmes 10:04, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Find a Grave images [7 October 2011]

I noticed that you have added photos from Find A Grave. Photos from Find A Grave are not public domain. Unless there is clear indication on the image page that you either took the photograph or have permission from the copyright owner to use it on WeRelate (including agreeing to WeRelate's licensing), it will need to be deleted. Please see our policy here.

The best way to include those types of images is to link to the memorial page. For example, on the page for Brutus Bourie, you could enter this in the text area: Photo of Brutus' gravestone on []. The link would look like this:

Photo of Brutus' gravestone on

Images can be deleted by clicking on More>delete from the image page. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:24, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

Hello Jennifer,

I do have permission from the FAG member who took the photo of the Bourie plot in Ft Wayne. I appreciate your help in how to link the photo but how do I state the permission that I have to WeRelate's satisfaction. Thanks again for your help--B.holmes 13:08, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

I've asked the admins to provide some clarification on the wording for permissions like this. I will let you know when I hear back from them. --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:25, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
Hi, the admins are suggesting text such as the following be placed on the image page: The <copyright holder name> granted permission to ____ for the use of this photograph for genealogy purposes. --Jennifer (JBS66) 07:36, 7 October 2011 (EDT)


Jennifer, I have tried to correct all the contributions of mine which are now assigned to the above category. Do you check the talk page on that category? Am I correct on why it was formed? Thanks, Buddy--B.holmes 08:20, 7 October 2011 (EDT)

I did see your note on the category page and responded there. Essentially, each item in the License drop-down box on an image page is connected to a specific category for administrative purposes. The Category:Review needed is the one we use when a user is unsure about copyright for their images. I had come across an image or two of yours because I was searching for images whose copyright holder was Find A Grave (hence my note to you). As long as those images reflect that you have permission, you should be all set! --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:30, 7 October 2011 (EDT)

Spelling of my name [25 September 2012]

Hi Buddy

Thanks for your input on the Driver tree. Just a quick note on the spelling of my middle name it is no"C" but E for Everett.

I will look into adding trees to this site, looks promising.

Sincerely David E Paulsen 15:59, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

Hugh Marsh family [21 November 2015]

Hi, I see that you are watching the Hugh Marsh (b.1763) page. Are you descended from him? If so, I'd love to know your line and am happy to shre information. Thanks!--Sheri 14:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)