User talk:Dallan

Old topics archived: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013-16, 2017-18

Topics


Unable to Review GEDCOM [9 March 2019]

Could the reason I am unable to see my GEDCOM because I am trying to do this on my iPhone?. A message at the top of the screen after I open the link to review my GEDCOM says something about Adobe flash player. If that is why I cannot open the GEDCOM to review, please allow some time as I do not have immediate access to a laptop to complete this task. Thank you to whomever will answer this query. I am happy to be a part of werelate.org!--Mars 03:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, GEDCOM review needs to happen on a laptop, sorry. You have several weeks to complete it.--Dallan 00:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Response to my Inquiry [9 March 2019]

Thank you, Dallan. I’ll get to it as soon as I am able.--Mars 00:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


WeRelate problems [24 March 2019]

Hi Dallan, I'm taking this method of contacting you because for some reason the drop down menus on the top right side (Settings, Donate, Volunteer and Help) are not functioning tonight. I was trying to get to the Help menu and discovered none of these drop-downs are working. I'm using Firefox browser. So can't get to support to leave a msg there. --janiejac 05:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


I just clicked on all of them using Chrome and Firefox and they appear to be fine. Nothing has changed recently. Could you try refreshing your browser tab?--Dallan 09:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


It is all working fine this morning. Don't know what was wrong last night. --janiejac 18:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


New Reading, Berkshire, England template [17 April 2019]

Hi Dallan

I was advised by email today that the "Template:Wp-Reading, Berkshire-Government has been changed by WeRelate agent". I don't know who was responsible for editing or updating this template. If you know, perhaps you could forward it.

I had two sessions of tackling Berkshire and its divisions over the past four years. It is not an easy county to deal with because since 1996 it has not been a county but a group of five unitary authorities replacing an historic county. (This caused consternation amongst the local family historians because the county had had a very good archives department, and its future was almost forgotten about in the reorganization.) Reading is now a borough and a unitary authority as explained by Wikipedia.

In order to explain the town better to non-Brits and also to respect the 1900-rule I made two articles for Reading, one on the historic town Place:Reading, Berkshire, England and one on the modern borough Place:Reading Borough, Berkshire, England redirected to Place:Reading District, Berkshire, England. In doing so I rewrote and condensed the information from Wikipedia.

As a result, the update of the template which has just occurred is not reproduced in either of the articles on Reading. That template could have been deleted, but I was not daring enough to do so when I last worked on Reading.

An interesting aside in the later part of the Wikipedia article is that Reading is not a city. In Britain city-status has to be applied for to Parliament. Reading has tried three times since 2000 and failed each time. In the last effort in Jubilee Year 2012 there was a quota of two and it lost out to the other candidates. Since then the British Parliament has had other fish to fry ( :>( or :>) depending on your individual preference, but stress the word "individual").

Regards --Goldenoldie 20:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi,

The template was updated automatically. I re-started the process to update all wikipedia templates a couple of days ago. You can ignore the update. It's ok that the template isn't referenced anywhere. I expect that what you've written is better than what's in the wikipedia template. Thank you!--WeRelate agent 23:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


There will be others!

--Goldenoldie 07:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


The wikipedia refresh process completed. All templates should be up-to-date now. But feel free to ignore any templates that aren't meaningful.--Dallan--Dallan 20:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


Thanks, Dallan. --ceyockey 00:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


The Wikipedia template has been run again against Source:William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine and again has removed ALL content from the page while not adding any Wikipedia content. Is it really necessary to have the template on this page? .Heading back to rollback.--Judy (jlanoux) 13:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It isn't necessary; feel completely free to remove it.--Dallan 07:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Changing Username [26 April 2019]

Hello Dallan. How can I add a space in my Username? I would prefer that it be seen as Sitting Bear.

Thank you,

Greg--SittingBear 05:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure - I just renamed your user name to Sitting Bear.--Dallan 02:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Consultant needed [13 May 2019]

Hi Dallan,

I saw you offer consulting services on your LinkedIn profile and am wondering if you are currently available? I have plans on developing records.com and would be grateful if I could get your feedback.

Thank you, Steven--Urlsww 16:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


I'm happy to give you some free advice, but I don't have time to do consulting projects right now unfortunately.--Dallan 20:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Insulting behavior [8 June 2019]

Hi Dallan,

I'm new to We Relate and I'm not yet familiar with all of the protocols involved. I've created some profiles for members of my Lincoln family. I did this initially to complete the family groups ... some of the records already here on We Relate. In doing so, I didn't upload a Gedcom file, as I know they can be problematic. So I've added some profiles individually. I'm not yet learned how to properly create citations and sources here ... I'm still learning.

Another user, jrich, has been following me very closely, and immediately editing everything that I've been doing. He's a great researcher, and I have thanked him several times for finding new information, and clarifying information, but on the other hand, he can be very critical. For example, on one 'talk' page for Shubael Lincoln, I had cited a family bible. Instead of simply asking me if I could upload the transcription, he launched into a lengthy argument about the dangers of using family bibles, and how frustrated he was that I had only included a simple citation. At one point he said "except blind copyists who don't care what the source is as long as they get a date to put in their family tree.”

Family bibles can be really helpful in providing information ... information that is not often available from other sources. The information recorded in family bibles are often recorded by people who witnessed the actual event.

In any case, as a new user of the platform, I don't appreciate the tone of many of jrich's posts. Frankly, it makes me reluctant to post more information, for fear of what might be said. It's fine to disagree, but I think you need to disagree in a more courteous manner.

Are there any policies about this on your website?

I do appreciate his research skills ... and I have thanked him several times ... but some of his comments are rather overwhelming for a new user like me.

Thanks for your help, understanding, and guidance.

David

Here's the profile I'm talking about. jrich's comments are in the talk section. I have already responded to him.

https://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Shubael_Lincoln_(1)--Davidpeirce 16:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

[I deleted what I believe was a duplicate posting of this.]

I've been working on your pages for a couple of days because I have open on my computer the page of town records that affects your family. Which I looked up to check something you added to a page I was watching. Yeah, I could do just the one, but I have the data in front of me for all the families and anyway, they all need the same corrections like converting free-form citations into standard WeRelate citations that reference source pages, and using 3 letter abbreviations for dates, etc. I did post a message indicating some of these changes but can't tell if anything has been done in response, as the pages I am looking at still needed to be cleaned up. And I do it because I expect it is one way for new people like you to learn and it makes for a more consistent appearance of all WeRelate pages.

I upgraded your consistent use of the familysearch index of Barbour who himself is no more than an index of the actual town records into links to images of the actual town record, deleting two middlemen. Which is an upgrade in most people's eyes, and for example cleared up your Ebenezer/Eleazer question, an error that was introduced by a mistranscription by Barbour. Plus I am verifying other facts which are posted in many cases with no sources, an activity I personally find somewhat insulting since it implies we must should accept your word for things, and I don't even like even accepting published author's words for things. I get especially irked when a woman's death is posted without any indication of whether she had a marriage or not, so someone trying to find a source or verify the fact has no idea what name to even look for. One can only start over at the beginning and pretend they have been given nothing, which is effectively true. How many wrong death dates have I corrected in the 3 or so generations I've worked on (one admittedly helped by your addition of a note about Nathan Harvey, posted after my first comment): 3 or 4? How many Family pages did I add to document the marriages for people you created without their marriages? 6 or 8?

You have apparently misunderstood half of my post on the bible records, as I responded there. I am just trying to explain all the reasons why the citation of the Bible was grossly under-specified. It caused me frustration trying to locate what information you might have taken from it, and yet, prevented me from changing data thinking it might have some critical, unique content. Presumably, you had the information since you cited it, but I spent a couple of hours of searching before I was able to locate a transcription (though I can't tell if this is or is not the one you used, or if it has the same data). But in any event, if you found it insulting it is because you misread it, as I was explaining why the citation was inadequate, and not about you. --Jrich 20:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


Jrich, as you know, this isn't the first complaint we've had about your behavior toward others. I understand you mean well, but I agree with David. Your delivery method could be improved. What are we going to do?--Dallan 01:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know Dallan, you're going to have to decide. If a person can't state that they find something frustrating, then I guess you should say good-bye to me and my circa 100000 page contribution. There was no insult there and the citation not only did not describe the source, but actually was worse than no source. I would have just assumed no credibility if no source, but a family Bible, if legitimate, demands consideration - but the citation doesn't give you the tools to do that. Too often such stuff wastes the time of people trying to clean up this site, and the people that do this think all is okay, unless they get feedback, and then we find, surprise, they don't like it. --Jrich 01:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Talking offline with Jrich.--Dallan 15:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Request to delete an image (media file) [4 July 2019]

Dear Dallan,

After uploading a word document, I discovered it had several flaws in it. So I fixed them and also slightly changed the title. Then I uploaded the corrected file. This is actually an update of a much earlier file after new information had come to light. So now there are actually two files that would be good to delete. The earlier one was called: Image:Hermann Friedrich DORRIEN & his wife, Agneta WOLTERS And the new but flawed one: Image:Hermann Friedrich DORRIEN, merchant of Hamburgh and London, & his family.doc I would appreciate it if you could delete these two for me.

They have now been replaced by a good one, which is titled: Image:Hermann Friedrich Dorrien, merchant of Hamburgh and London, & his family.doc I changed his last name from all upper to lower case (except the D). And it is now linked to (by changing 'Image' to 'Media') on the two relevant Person pages: Person:Hermann Dörrien (1) Person:Agneta Wolters (1) as well as on their family page: Family:Hermann Dörrien and Agneta Wolters (1)

The new information that caused me to revise the word doc. was the discovery of an alternate name for Agneta. A thesis in the German language has her as Anna Maria Jacoba Wolters. I actually had discovered this a while ago now. And had placed notes on all three of those pages, indicating this and promising to update the linked document. Which I have now finally done. After some delay with the translations from German!

Kind regards, Robin (robinca).--Robinca 00:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Robin,

It's great to see you still posting. You can mark the pages you want to delete from to MORE item at the bottom of the left hand menu. I see that Jennifer left you some explanations about this back in 2011 on your Talk page. They will stay there for your reference. You can leave a message on my Talk page if you need help. Thanks for continuing to share your great work. --Judy (jlanoux) 13:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


City of London [31 July 2019]

I am in the midst of a reorganization of the City of London. This has started by removing all the parishes listed in London England that are geographically in the City of London into the City of London. This includes a large number given the type "unknown". I see the "WeRelate agent" has discovered my work.

Many of these parishes (some no more than church buildings) became defunct--some after the Great Fire in 1666, some merged with others during the 19th century, others were bombed and were never repaired after WW2. This will all be covered in the articles.

By using the box "also located in", the parishes should all be findable before 1889 under Middlesex and also after 1965 under Greater London if they survived to that date.

As I write this, the transfer step is not complete. Once the parishes are all in The City I may have time to mark them UNDER CONSTRUCTION but not now.

Types "Areas" and "Neighborhoods" also need some work (some could be dispensed with). I prefer to use "Neighborhoods" because it is further down the alphabet of types and therefore not so obvious. --Goldenoldie 22:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


City of London, part 2 [4 sep 2019]

I have made some progress with City of London parishes but, as usual, I have been sent down a different track.

Firstly, a comment on work so far. This is one place outside of North America where four-phrase place names are used. This is done because of the myriad of parishes within the old city (106 was the count), all of which have bmd registers available for inspection. About half the churches of these parishes were destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666 and the parishes merged with other parishes a few years later. With the steady decrease in population and other disasters (two World Wars and more localized events), the number of parishes has reduced even more over the last 200 years. My aim is to follow the mergers through, pinpoint their location, and briefly describe the churches with the help of Wikipedia. Two week's work and there are still an awful lot of unknown places within London. I am still considering deleting some or all of the non-parish places listed, e.g. Barnard's Inn, Mercer's Hall Chapel, Old Red Hand and Mitre.

In every parish I inspect the people linked to it and try to tidy up their events into WR style. The City of London was part of the county of Middlesex until 1889 when the County of London was "invented", absorbing a very large part of Middlesex, Surrey and Kent. It appears to have been decreed that WR's name for the City of London is "London (City of)", though the term "London City" seems to have replaced it in the suggested names that come up in yellow below. Coming out into the real (non-WR) world, no one (past or present) ever uses London City; it is always the "City of London". I have just built in a new redirect so that "City of London, London, England" or "City of London, Middlesex, England" can appear on a Person Page. These always revert back to Place:London (City of), London, England for our database.

BUT in working through Peoplepages I began to notice that the description "London, London, England" was redirecting to "Tower of London, London, England"! Not that many people lived in the Tower, though a good number died there. More important, the Tower is not in the City of London and never was. Geographically, it was on the eastern side of the city wall in the parish of Stepney (or sometimes it was extra parochial and separate from both London and Stepney). So, last night I looked at the "What links where" list for the Tower of London. Sure enough, there were between 600 and 750 people and families in the list. I am now pruning the list, sending those with no obvious link to the Tower back to the City. At this point I have finished the C's and the number living in the Tower is going down.

Goldenoldie now feels the stress is on the Oldie. I've had a decade-type birthday this month and the red hair has pretty well faded away.

Regards Pat --Goldenoldie 10:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi Pat,

Happy birthday (I hope it was happy). Birthdays seem less and less interesting to me as time goes on.

Thank you for your work on London! I had a couple of thoughts reading through your comments.

First, how would you feel about instead of creating redirects that point to "London (City of), London, England", we renamed "London (City of), London, England" itself to "City of London, London, England" and listed "Middlesex, England" as an also-located-in?

How would you feel about deleting "Tower of London, London, England", or maybe renaming it to "Tower of London, someplace else?"

--Dallan 04:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi Dallan

Many thanks for your good wishes.

User:Cos1776 and I are having an extended discussion on the naming of London parts at the moment. If you want to read it in full, see his UserTalk page.

Because of this discussion I would ask you to hold off making any changes at a higher lever in the software than we can make ourselves. It turns out that a change I made in redirects last year is what has caused people to find their way into the Tower of London when they were just going about their daily lives in the middle of the City. I am progressing with moving the hoi polloi back to their rightful place, but haven't finished yet. Until that is done, I don't recommend touching [[Place:Tower of London]]. And doing so might cause User:Jrm03063's to object. (A lot of the people in the list got there because "Tower of London" was mentioned in their Wikipedia template for some trivial reason.)

Renaming "London (City of), London, England" itself to "City of London, London, England" and listing "Middlesex, England" as an also-located-in is basically what I am doing. On a pre 1889 level it is historically correct. Between 1889 and 1900 the whole definition is fuzzy (maybe the authorities were having as much trouble sorting out the situation as we are at the moment with life after Brexit). In 1900 the County of London is adopted and divided into "metropolitan boroughs". The City of London then becomes a metropolitan borough with defined but slightly changed boundaries than what it had earlier.

There are some other problems with layout that I do wish could be changed:

In the London area, the basic problem is the long list of Contained Places on the right hand side on the County of London and Greater London pages. Guessing how much width to allow for a map or a table is very tricky because

(1) the width of the list pushes the remaining text down to its end if a map or a table is included.
(2) the width of Contained Places depends on the longest description within it, i.e., there is no fixed width at which items carry over to another line.
(3) Contained Places are listed under alphabetically ordered "types".

Could there be a maximum of 30% of page width devoted to it (including the cellpadding and margin)? I had considered placing Contained Places on the left, but don't like it.

I wish "types" were not in alphabetical order. I am reverting to "parish" rather than "parish (ancient)" and "civil parish" to reduce the length. I am also trying to turn "areas" into "neighborhoods" to give them less significance. As things stand, the statutory divisions (Metropolitan Boroughs and London Boroughs) get pushed way down the page. Other statutory divisions could go except for Registration Districts which are helpful to users who use FreeBMD as their only source). I am wondering if, in London only, we could add the borough after a neighborhood? i.e., "Archway, Islington"; "Bayswater, Paddington"; "Bloomsbury, Holborn"?

A completely different problem that I have noticed over the past year is that suggested descriptions for places in Wales include "United Kingdom" at the end. We don't use "United Kingdom" for the other three countries, why should it be added for Wales?

Thanks for listening, /cheers, Pat --Goldenoldie 10:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi Dallan and Pat - I probably should have commented over here as well after Pat reached out to me with a similar message on my Talk page. There are several layers to this issue that are combining to cause many of the links that should be going to the page for the city of London (and associated pages) to go elsewhere. This arises from a tangled web of redirects, application of the 1900 rule, and our auto place-matching program that runs whenever pages are created or edited. I could go into this in more detail and give examples, but I think you probably understand already, and I haven't had a cup of coffee yet :) Please just let me know if you want more explanation.
So, to get to the point - renaming the city of London page to "London (City of), London, England" did not come about by decree or consensus, it was just a choice that Pat made in 2015 that unintentionally set off a domino effect. This redirect is at the root of why the drop down menu shows "London City" (I think it is similar to Township in parentheses) and why links that should go to the city of London page end up going to the "Tower of London" page (explained on my Talk page).
IMHO the solution is not to add another layer by another redirect of the page to "City of London, London, England", but rather to undue the complexity and roll things back. Go back again to "London, London, England", which was correct before. Delete all of the unnecessary redirect pages that were created after cleaning up their What Links Here page. Then, systematically tackle all of the broken place links that have come about as a result of this and too many other redirects. This step is already in progress, and as you may recall, I have a bot that can clean a lot of this up. I haven't used it in a couple of years, but I could fire it up again for London.
Re: Tower of London and should it have its own Place page - Both Pat and I have been working already to clean up the bad links to the tower, so right now a lot of what links to the tower is correct. People actually lived and died there. Although, I agree that we probably could have skipped a Tower of London page in the beginning, fixing the problem above will also fix the problem of the place-matching program piping London places to the tower, so you should be able to leave the tower page title unchanged.
I'm happy to discuss and would like to hear your thoughts. I know it will take some time to work backwards, but I have used this same approach to other tangled Place structures here with success. Best Wishes, --cos1776 11:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
ps - I must have been typing this at the same time, so I had a bit of an edit conflict upon saving. This response was written before reading through the latest comment above, so please forgive me if I have to get to that coffee before I can think through any more of this. :)

Dallan,

It looks like we agree on what to do (thank goodness). I shall have my lunch before I say more.

This all sounds good to me. I'll let you two work it out. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Regarding the types and place list, it would be easy to make it a max of 30% of the page. Also, It's easy to not alphabetize types, but what other order would we use? Finally, I agree about Wales, United Kingdom. Do you want me to change that?--Dallan 04:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. We have been waiting to proceed further with London.
Re: list width (and length) pushing content too far down the page - I am not sure this is much of a problem outside of the places where extensive renaming has been done that significantly lengthens the subordinate page titles and/or too many Types have been entered for a single Place. The right-side ad banner may also be a contributing factor. I guess I am not opposed to limiting the width of the list as long as readability doesn't suffer. Would reducing the font size in the list help?
Can you give me a couple of place pages where the list is too wide? I'll experiment with setting a max width and possibly reducing the font size--Dallan 15:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This is Goldenoldie's original concern, so I'll look to her for examples. Personally, I do not think this is a problem outside of Canada or England. --cos1776 22:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Re: order of place types in list - I wouldn't mess with the order in our current configuration unless you can agree on something that makes sense across the board for every place in WR. Since Types are not controlled or clearly defined or tied to a timeline, their use on our static Place pages does not really work well and often ends up displaying confusing and/or inaccurate information. The list has also gotten out of control over the years, since there is little oversight or discussion about what gets added. Unless we are going to rework the role of the Type field in places overall, I would just leave it be and stick to only entering the 1 or 2 Types that most closely match what that place was ca. 1900. Put place Types both pre- and post-1900 in a discussion section on the main page. (Note: doesn't apply to places that only came into existence after 1900)
I'd agree with that.--Dallan 15:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Re: assistance with London - Yes please. My biggest concern about renaming the page back again to "London, London, England" is the effect (if any) on subordinate places that have already switched over to "London (city of)". Should we be concerned about this or will they all go back smoothly if the top page goes back? I don't want to break the Internet :)
I can make sure that happens. If that's the only concern, should we go ahead? Goldenoldie, what do you think?--Dallan 15:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you again, --cos1776 14:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm losing track who is speaking here. Particularly the para "Re: assistance with London.... Doesn't sound like my style.

I'm not sure how to respond, since it is common practice to indent and to use "Re:" when replying. I don't think readers will think that you replied with the "Re: assistance with London" paragraph. --cos1776 22:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

When I finish a place description, the next thing I do it go into "What links here" and make sure all Place entries are directed to the current Placename. That means all placenames in the list are at the left-hand margin. (Occasionally I make up new ones to allow for common spelling errors. (e.g., tonight I added "St. Mary Magdalene" to St. Mary Magdalen.))

I'm sorry, but I think you are continuing to do this incorrectly, and I'm not sure what more I can do to explain why creating new Place pages simply to redirect them is not a good solution. If you want to allow users to enter alternate names (spellings) for a place that will still create a direct link to a specific Place page, all you have to do is enter the alternate spelling in the "Alt names" field on that Place page. It is not necessary to create a new Place page title for the alternate, and it is especially not desirable to do so only for the purposes of redirecting it.
To demonstrate, type in "St. Mary Magdelene Milk Street" into any Place field now, and you'll see six different options in the dropdown for the same place. Three link directly to the redirect page (undesirable) and three link directly to the correct page for the parish. There are three of each due to the structure of the "London (city of)" page, which is a separate issue, but I would hope we can all agree that it is unreasonable to expect the average user to be able to distinguish between those 6 different options when trying to place their pre-1666 ancestor in this pre-1666 parish. --cos1776 22:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

London, London, England versus London (City of), London, England I disagree with cos1776 on this point. The brand new user hasn't got a clue why we would name a place London, London, England. The City of London has always had a separate local government to the boroughs surrounding it (before 1889, 1889-1965, and 1965 to the present). This is why I am adding (City of). Yes, it is like putting in township in North America. Not only that but before 1889 the surrounding place was Middlesex and that replaces the second "London" for entries in the 19th century and before. The pipe division works here.

My original suggestion was based on the instructions found on WR's main page for England where it says how we are to organize places in England. Since there is no other place on WR called "London, London, England", it could only mean the City of London and therefore should not use a descriptor in parentheses. However, I do understand the conundrum with the City of London and the independent status, so your reference may be pointing us to a good solution.
We have a similar situation with independent cities in the US, such as Place:Baltimore (independent city), Maryland, United States). Although the territory of the City of Baltimore has at times been located within the County of Baltimore, it is administratively independent and has been for a very long time.
What if WR structured the page for the City of London in a similar way, leaving off the geographical/historical county, i.e. as "London (independent city), England"? This would more accurately reflect the administrative structure, shorten the page titles for all contained places within the City of London to the more standard 3-parts, eliminate the County of Middlesex vs County of London choice problem for non-experts who just want to place their ancestor in the City of London, and decrease the number of choices and confusion in the dropdown menu. I read somewhere that the City of London is considered England's smallest county. --cos1776 22:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Width of Contained Places In [[Place:London (City of) some of the parish names are very long. I have been wanting to add maps but the width of the page after Contained Places comes into the equation is limiting. However, this may be a personal problem in that I keep my page width to about 2/3 of my screen because (a) it makes for easier/faster reading, (b) I always have a crib sheet ready to copy phrases from. Other people may be just as happy with a wider screen.

Types of Places I have been trying to think of answers to this problem for ages. We started out with most places being "inhabited places", but this gave users too much freedom. Farms, castles, mis-spellings, etc. got into the mix. Places need to have some kind of local government and a defined boundary around it to qualify, particularly when only three divisions is the rule. I am willing to take out some types of midway groups of places, such as rural districts, but they are very useful in keeping a group of geographically close places together when writing up descriptions.

What would you do with places that came into existence after 1900? And with types of places that came into existence after 1900? This didn't just happen in the UK; Ontario, Canada, also decided to reorganize commencing in 1974 and some places there have reorganized a second time, and have invented new names for old places into the bargain.

very true. My own place of birth Mariënvelde was named so from 1930 onwards. Before that it was named 'Achter Zieuwent' which means behind Zieuwent. More to the point, in 1900, part of what was to become Mariënvelde was Zieuwent thus Lichtenvoorde; and part of it was Ruurlo. And probably a third part was Halle-Heide. woepwoep 05:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
At a first glance, it looks like there is something wonky with the page Place:Mariënvelde, Ruurlo, Gelderland, Netherlands, especially since there doesn't appear to have been a WR page created for the 1900 name of "Achter Zieuwent" in Lichtenvoorde, and Wikipedia states that the village was not named Mariënvelde until 1964. [1] I'm no expert on the history of this village, so I would have to spend more time with it to figure out what to enter in the "Also located in" and "See also" fields and how to best structure a separate page for the "modern" village of Mariënvelde, if one should be created at all. --cos1776 22:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Any sorts of help is much appreciated !
See for example this page https://marienveldsbelang.nl/over-het-dorp-marienvelde/ where it is stated that the village was named in 1952.
Thx R woepwoep 05:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not being very creative tonight. --Goldenoldie 20:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing has to change for modern place pages when it makes genealogical sense to create pages for them. I'm not always convinced that it does. I also don't think our primary goal should be to incorporate all post-1900 administrative changes into our Place hierarchy as is, especially when it makes it harder for the average user to pick the correct place link for their pre-1900 ancestors. Including the applicable dates for the choices offered in the dropdown might help, but so many Place pages (not yours, GoldenOldie) still lack even that basic information. --cos1776 22:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

GEDCOM review backing up again [26 August 2019]

Hey, Dallan. There seems to be a problem with GEDCOM reviews again. None of those submitted during the past six days have been processed yet. Is this connected to the periodic Wikipedia scan, like last time? --MikeTalk 23:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had to reset the server.--Dallan 03:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Parish won't link to contained place [2 September 2019]

Just a small problem, I hope.

[[Place:St. Dunstan in the West, London (City of), London, England]] cannot be found in the Contained Places in [[Place:London (City of), London, England]].

I can reach St. D in the West with a Search and even tried to rename it in case I left a space or something, but it won't link. Can you take a look behind the scenes, please?

I'm just doing a checklist outside WR to see which London parishes have notes and which don't.

Thanks

Pat --Goldenoldie 06:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You must have fixed it. It seems to be showing up now.--Dallan 15:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorted it out yesterday. It was being hindered by a Contained Place. Five divisions won't work. --Goldenoldie 18:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Finally, I agree about Wales, United Kingdom. [2 September 2019]

Do you want me to change that?--Dallan 04:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes
Answers to the earlier part of this paragraph will come later.
/cheers
--Goldenoldie 07:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, please fix. Thank you, --cos1776 14:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I will fix it this weekend.--Dallan 15:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Clerkenwell in London, England [15 November 2019]

Hi Dallan

I see someone has been revising [[Place:Clerkenwell Priory, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, England|Clerkenwell Priory]].

I am in the midst of tidying up Clerkenwell itself. It has a problem similar to that we had to sort out for the City of London a month or two ago.

Clerkenwell was one of several civil parishes which joined together in the year 1900 to make [[Place:Finsbury (metropolitan borough), London, England|Finsbury, London, England]]. In other words it ceased to exist as anything more than a neighborhood or area at that time. On your side of the pond, Greenwich Village in NYC might fall into the same category. However, up to now Clerkenwell's main definition has been [[Place:Clerkenwell, London, England]]. I am trying to aim references that describe events in the 19th century or earlier to [[Place:Clerkenwell, Middlesex, England]] without bringing [[Place:Clerkenwell, London, England]] into the mix. This has already been done successfully with [[Place:St. Luke Old Street, Middlesex, England]], the former civil parish immediately to the east which also joined Finsbury in 1900.

Can the suggested placename [[Place:Clerkenwell, London, England|Clerkenwell, Middlesex, England]] be removed from the yellow dropdown hint? At the moment it is the dominant hint. Events that took place after 1900 should be sent to Finsbury (Islington after 1965). This will be done manually.

Areas and neighborhoods within London and Greater London are far too numerous in the WR database. They do not help anyone trying to link facts to sources. Many need to be redirected to the civil parishs and boroughs of which they were a part. This will be a long slow job, but it will keep me busy.--Goldenoldie 11:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


Since you had already renamed nearly all of the links to Clerkenwell, London, England except for a few, I renamed the remaining few to Clerkenwell, Middlesex, England and I removed the Place page for Clerkenwell, London, England, so only Clerkenwell, Middlesex, England remains. Now the drop-down only lists Clerkenwell, Middlesex, England.--Dallan 21:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


Thanks. I hope you liked the looks of the registration district page. I have been using it throughout Great London north of the Thames, so far. There were so many registration districts in the London area that the name of the district can often give the best description of where a person was born, married or died. This is not so in more rural counties where a number of parishes can come under one registration district. After 1900 and the invention of the typewriter and the telephone, the number of reg districts goes down.

I have drawn some maps based on the old administration divisions called hundreds which I shall copy to some of the major parishes within them as well.

There's one bug that gets me down when altering places on users' pages. I always try to get each redirected placename directly back to the placename to be used (e.g. Clerkenwell, Middlesex, England). Once this is done, on the "what links here" page, the redirected placename loses its indent from the margin. And the persons and families that follow retain their indent until each one is fixed. Fine. But, if I fix a marriage place and there are no other links to that place in the husband's or wife's history, the name of the wife or the husband or both stays indented. I go back and check the details just in case there is another use of the placename to be corrected, but they still stay indented instead of moving down to the long alphabetical list below. Grrr. Don't know what's wrong here. Maybe they would disappear in an update.

/cheers --Goldenoldie 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


Changes made by Goldenoldie [27 November 2019]

Changes made to two adjacent towns changed. They are different locations. They are #1 Leytonstone, Essex, England #2 is Leyton, Essex, England. At the time I entered them I used the correct locations for both. Why were they changed?--Ivanhoe 05:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


GEDCOM import stuck [23 December 2019]

Hi, Dallan--

I uploaded a not-large GEDCOM this morning and did all the usual review stuff. And then, about 7:00 a.m., I clicked the "Ready to Import" button. And it said it would show up shortly, as usual. But nothing has happened since. It's now about 2:00. I went back to the review screen, but the "Import" button is now grayed out, so I can't click it again. This is the first time I've seen this particular problem. Any ideas how to shake it loose? --MikeTalk 20:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


System Down? [12 March 2020]

Dallan, can't add Persons or Families right now.... May need to restart the server...

Thanks much:)--Delijim 13:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


Thanks. I rebooted the server.--Dallan 21:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


GEDCOM review stuck again [18 April 2020]

Hi, Dallan---

I saw on the Support page that the system apparently went down on April 4th, but that you had rebooted the server. Well, there's a list of uploaded GEDCOMs that have waiting for review since that date, too. (As I discovered when I just uploaded one.) Can you give that system a kick, or whatever? Thanks--- --MikeTalk 18:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I kicked it :-) --Dallan 19:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Vol/Pages [18 April 2020]

Glad that got fixed. Proves WeRelate still has some customers.--Goldenoldie 21:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


How do I merge two pages? [28 May 2020]

I inadvertently created a new page for a page that was already created. It’s been a while since I worked in WeRelate and can’t figure out how to merge two pages.

Many thanks.--cowantex 16:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. On either page, select the "more" menu on the left and then "Find duplicates". Once the results come back, check the box beside the duplicate and hit the Compare button. Check to make sure you have the right two pages, and then click the Match box at the top and then Prepare to Merge button at the bottom. The rest should be pretty straightforward if you created both pages, but if you need more help, let me know. I can also do the merge for you if you feel uncomfortable completing it - just let me know which pages. Thanks--DataAnalyst 17:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Error importing example.ged [18 June 2020]

We had an error while attempting to import your GEDCOM. This is most likely our fault. We will review the error and should have your pages ready tomorrow (or Monday if tomorrow falls on a weekend). There is no need to re-import your GEDCOM file.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.


--WeRelate agent 21:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Error importing example.ged [18 June 2020]

We had an error while attempting to import your GEDCOM. This is most likely our fault. We will review the error and should have your pages ready tomorrow (or Monday if tomorrow falls on a weekend). There is no need to re-import your GEDCOM file.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.


--WeRelate agent 22:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Error importing example.ged [18 June 2020]

We had an error while attempting to import your GEDCOM. This is most likely our fault. We will review the error and should have your pages ready tomorrow (or Monday if tomorrow falls on a weekend). There is no need to re-import your GEDCOM file.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.


--WeRelate agent 22:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [18 June 2020]

You're not done yet!

Now that you have uploaded example.ged into our review program, it is time for you to match your data to ours. Your next step is to review and resolve any potential warnings that your file might be showing and to match place names, source names and families to pages that may already exist in our database.

Notes:

  • You must complete all the steps before your GEDCOM can be considered for import. - We will keep your file in the queue for two months to give you time to finish, and you do not have to finish all at once.
  • If you did not follow the instructions for preparing your data before uploading your file or if your file does not contain at least one date and place for each person with sources, it is likely that your file will be rejected.
  • Volunteers are here to help. Please read the instructions first, but if you get stuck or have any questions, you can leave a message on the page for the GEDCOM review team. One of our volunteers will respond shortly.
  • Once you have completed the review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import on the last screen, one of our volunteer administrators will review the file again and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24-48 hours. Please allow a little extra time around the holidays. When the import is finalized, you will receive a follow up message here on your Talk page.

Click here to enter the review program
You will see more instructions once you are in.

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing here you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.


--WeRelate agent 23:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Access to raw GEDCOM [30 August 2020]

As I was finishing up my second GEDCOM review, I realized that both of the ones I've worked on would have benefited from my being able to view the raw text of the file (which I don't believe is currently accessible to admins). (In one case, I was trying to figure out what had generated a problematic result to know how to advise going about fixing it; in the other, I wanted to see what source program was declared, in hopes of helping the user in a more specific way.) I'm sure most reviewing admins wouldn't want to bother with the raw text, but maybe it would be occasionally useful. If it's simple to just send the GEDCOM as plain text to the browser when an admin clicks something, or whatever, it might be a small improvement to include "while you have the hood up" for Flash replacement. Hmm... maybe that wouldn't be quite in the area of code you'll be digging around in, in which case it can just be another item for the unfunded suggestion list. It was just a thought. Thanks for reading in any case. --robert.shaw 18:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


Thank you for the suggestion - I will keep that in mind.--Dallan 18:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


Next step: Review your GEDCOM [12 October 2020]

You're not done yet!

Now that you have uploaded TestTree.ged into our review program, it is time for you to match your data to ours. Your next step is to review and resolve any potential warnings that your file might be showing and to match place names, source names and families to pages that may already exist in our database.

Notes:

  • You must complete all the steps before your GEDCOM can be considered for import. - We will keep your file in the queue for two months to give you time to finish, and you do not have to finish all at once.
  • If you did not follow the instructions for preparing your data before uploading your file or if your file does not contain at least one date and place for each person with sources, it is likely that your file will be rejected.
  • Volunteers are here to help. Please read the instructions first, but if you get stuck or have any questions, you can leave a message on the page for the GEDCOM review team. One of our volunteers will respond shortly.
  • Once you have completed the review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import on the last screen, one of our volunteer administrators will review the file again and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24-48 hours. Please allow a little extra time around the holidays. When the import is finalized, you will receive a follow up message here on your Talk page.

Click here to enter the review program
You will see more instructions once you are in.

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing here you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.


--WeRelate agent 23:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorting family members no longer working [14 okt 2020]

hi Dallan,

a user on the Dutch helpdesk page notified us that the sorting of family members by birth date is no longer working. i tried it for myself, results see Example family

pls look into it and tell me what has changed?

thanks, Ron woepwoep 02:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


User:DataAnalyst has been making some changes to date sorting. I'll let her know.--Dallan 02:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent !

Hi. I fixed the defect and Dallan implemented it for me tonight. Unfortunately the bad sort order remains in the stored data. It can be fixed by changing the birth date of any of the children, saving the page, and then changing the date back. Thanks for letting us know.--DataAnalyst 03:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Janet. woepwoep 03:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Abraham Crow [25 October 2020]

First of all, thank you so much for figuring out the Abraham situation. I've been working on it for a very long time, but have given up till later many times and now it looks like you've made later come. Thanks to you, I hope all my distant relatives can get it right too.

I don't know how to make the needed changes, but I've got a book and I'll try to get it right this time.

Mary Jean (Crow) Jaynes--Jaynes935 15:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


Copy | Remove [28 October 2020]

hi Dallan,

just now i noticed that there is a new option Copy next to the existing Remove for a source citation. i don't know who did this but this is a wish come true for a long time since i came aboard the WR family.

thank you *very* much ! warmest regards, Ron. woepwoep 06:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have taken on making enhancements to WeRelate now that I am retired. You're very welcome - I appreciate this new feature myself in the cleanup I do. BTW: There is a roadmap of recent and upcoming changes. No promises on fast progress, as I have other volunteer responsibilities as well.--DataAnalyst 14:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)