User talk:JBS66/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Village of Lengeler [15 December 2010]

Hi Jenny,

Could you merge the two place pages, Lengeler, Liège, Belgium AND Lengeler, Burg-Reuland, Liège, Belgium together please? The second one is the correct one.

T.--Tiger 09:13, 9 December 2010 (EST)

Hi, this might get a tiny bit complicated... Let me ask first, are Place:Burg-Reuland, Liège, Belgium and Place:Burg Reuland, Rheinland, Preußen, Germany the same place? Then, I can figure out how to proceed...
WR titles its places as they were historically, around 1900. From there, each place (well, optimally) has alternate names and also-located in places listed. The goal is to have one place page for one location. Two items you may want to take a look at are Place:Germany (see How places in Germany are organized) and Place:Belgium (How places in Belgium are organized). Also, one other item to keep in mind, you can have an alternate place name appear on a page, but still have it link to a differently titled place page. For example: Burg-Reuland, Liège, Belgium by using the format [[Place:what it is titled|the term you want to appear]]. --Jennifer (JBS66) 09:46, 9 December 2010 (EST)

They are definitely the same place. I had created the Lengeler, Liège, Belgium because I was having trouble creating one with the county of Burg-Reuland (since it wasn't created yet).

I'll take a look at how German and Belgian places are categorized. It 1900, Lengeler was German. I believe it was part of the Rheinland in Preußen. Before that it was Luxembourgish. Should the name always be what it was in 1900 or what is is today?

Thanks for your help! :)

T.--Tiger 10:40, 9 December 2010 (EST)

For most countries, pages are titled as they were around 1900. The geography of this area of the world is not my specialty... so I left a note for one of our other admins. I'm confused on how WR has set up pages for Germany. I know they are titled as they were around 1900 - but I am not sure about the hierarchy levels (ie if they should be town, historical kreis, province, historical Stadt, Germany or town, historical kreis, historical Stadt, Germany). --Jennifer (JBS66) 17:21, 9 December 2010 (EST)

It would appear that the town names are recorded as "Town, Kreis, German state, Germany." So, the village of Haard would be: "Haard, Bad Kissingen, Franken, Germany" or today: "Haard, Bad Kissingen, Bayern, Germany." I'm just not sure how they would be recorded for Belgium. I've tried googling the "proper" way to record Belgian place names, but didn't find anything. :(--Tiger 14:01, 14 December 2010 (EST) EDIT: Sorry, just realized you had already given a link. :)

I left a note for Dallan hoping he could shed some light on this. He's not responded yet. Perhaps this list may be of some help as well: Germany placelist. I see that we have some places like Place:Pattensen, Winsen, Hannover, Preußen, Germany or Place:Osterode, Zellerfeld, Hannover, Preußen, Germany with 5-levels. In those 5-level instances, what do you think is the additional item, would it be the province? --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:21, 14 December 2010 (EST)

The additional item would probably be the Gemeinde (smaller than a US county). So: Haard, Nüdlingen, Bad Kissingen, Bayern, Germany.--Tiger 14:44, 14 December 2010 (EST)

However, most cities and some towns are their own "Gemeinde." So: Nüdlingen, Nüdlingen, Bad Kissingen, Bayern, Germany. Another example: Bad Kissingen, Bad Kissingen, Bad Kissingen, Bayern, Germany. :) Bad Kissingen has villages (such as Hausen) that belong to the city and share the same zip code and use the name Bad Kissingen (Bad Kissingen OT Hausen), and Bad Kissingen is also a Landkreis, which is like a county which encompasses a dozen or more Gemeinden, which each encompass up to five or seven villages. :) Let's just that before GPS came along, it was sometimes difficult to find a house (because each address uses the name of the Gemeinde - not the village). lol--Tiger 14:48, 14 December 2010 (EST)

lol :-) Well, let me see if we can work on an example for a place that we have in WR (since it appears we don't have Haard in the database yet). Haard is near Place:Münnerstadt, Kissingen, Unterfranken, Bayern, Germany, but this title makes little sense to me if Kissingen was "established in 1972 by merging the former districts of Bad Kissingen, Bad Brückenau and Hammelburg." That's certainly not following the 1900 rule....

Then I move to Place:Bad Kissingen, Kissingen, Unterfranken, Bayern, Germany... Germany is the country - that's correct at least! Bayern is the state, good I think... Unterfranken is an administrative region (should that even be in the place title?)... Kissingen is supposed to be the Kries, but is was called Bad Kissingen around 1900...

The more I look into the German place pages on WR, the more frustrated I get :-) I hope Dallan can shed some light, because the way I see it, the German place pages are an inconsistent mess. Thank you for all your patience with this Tiger. --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:30, 14 December 2010 (EST)

Bad Kissingen is still, to this day, called Bad Kissingen. I'm not sure where you have your information saying that it's now called just "Kissingen." I live in here in the county Bad Kissingen and am often in the city. "Unterfranken" is the region, but that is almost never included in anyway, shape, or form in the place name. Münnterstadt would be (at the least): Münnerstadt, Kr. Bad Kissingen. That's it would be noted in German documents. Of course, you still wouldn't know what state it was in. But that's why the Gemeinde is important as well, that way you know where all the records. For example: the villages of Burghausen and Althausen are part of the parish of Münnerstadt and are in the Gemeinde of Münnerstadt. :) I would suggest the following format: Village, Gemeinde, Kreis, State, Germany. Finding out the Kreis of a historical place name may be challenging, but I know of a few websites that could be helpful.

Or they can just be noted as Village, Kreis, State, Germany. There's usually never the same village name twice in a Kreis. Otherwise it would defeat the purpose of the German way of noting place names: Village, Kreis, Germany.--Tiger 00:42, 15 December 2010 (EST)

Let's see... the information that says "The district was established in 1972 by merging the former districts of Bad Kissingen, Bad Brückenau and Hammelburg." is on our Kissingen page, which in turn comes from a wikipedia page for Bad_Kissingen! That is funny...

I live in Connecticut, which happens to be in the region of New England. The concept of Village, County, State, Country is familiar to me. Writing Münnerstadt, Kissingen, Unterfranken, Bayern, Germany is just as silly to me as writing West Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut, New England, United States. Do the websites that you know of have information on the historical placenames? --Jennifer (JBS66) 07:45, 15 December 2010 (EST)

Do we have to delete pages after merging? [4 January 2011]

Jennifer, I see you are deleting pages after I merged them (only the old inactive ones of course). Do after merges remain 'orphan' pages? And in case there are, is there an easy way to check and eventually remove these orphans?--Klaas (Ekjansen) 05:52, 4 January 2011 (EST)

Pages that are merged into another become "redirects". An example of a redirect page is Place:Ferwerd, Netherlands. I am deleting the ones connected to my project mainly to keep track of the merges I've entered into my home database. If I see a red-link next to your merges, I know I've processed that one. Generally redirects are ok to keep, and even advisable to keep in the case of Place pages. Orphan pages are a little bit different. They are pages with data that link to nothing else (parents, spouses, etc). I vaguely recall a conversation about Dallan creating a report of orphan pages, but that isn't being done yet. --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:07, 4 January 2011 (EST)

2011 [7 jan 2011]

Dear Jennifer, all bode well for 2011. Thanks for your answer. I hope you don't mind, I ask my questions to Klaas. It works this way just fine. I am lazy and use also quickly a translator. With kind regards, Lidewij 06:56, 7 January 2011 (EST)

Lidewij, best wishes to you as well for 2011! I don't mind at all. I also don't mind if you write to me in Dutch. I hope it is ok that I respond in English. Is reading English more comfortable to you then writing English? --Jennifer (JBS66) 07:00, 7 January 2011 (EST)
Jennifer, This way, it is a good thing. I expect of you no Dutch. Wkr, Lidewij 07:13, 7 January 2011 (EST)

GLAS [13 January 2011]

Hoi Jennifer,

Groet, --Lidewij 20:20, 12 January 2011 (EST)

Bedankt Lidewij! --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:21, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Jansenk [13 January 2011]

Jennifer, searching old mails I found my former user-activity in WeRelate. Jansenk was the user name, there is atill a talk-page, but the trees and gedcoms are removed. I even could check in and added a small text into the talk-page. This user and user pages (only talk I think) can really be removed.--Klaas (Ekjansen) 12:58, 13 January 2011 (EST)

In order to delete this account, you'll need to send an email to Dallan at letting him know that it was an old account that you'd like to delete - and that you would like to keep using your Ekjansen account name. --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:15, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Diltsgd [13 January 2011]

Hi, two of the places I added were intended to be townships. Bird City Township is in Cheyenne County, Kansas but it is NOT the same thing as Bird City. Likewise, Richmond Township is NOT the same thing as Richmond, Ray, Missouri. Is there any chance those two places could be changed back to townships to show they are not the same as the city-town within the rurual township? Diltsgd 17:38, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Hi Diltsgd, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I removed the redirects and created pages that follow our naming convention, with the word township in parenthesis: Place:Bird City (township), Cheyenne, Kansas, United States and Place:Richmond (township), Ray, Missouri, United States. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:53, 13 January 2011 (EST)

doubles [21 January 2011]

Hoi Jennifer, I thought I was wrong, but you were so fast.

This family has multiple doubles. I'm not at home in the sources in America.

Groet, Lidewij 16:23, 15 January 2011 (EST)

Hi Lidewij, believe it or not, I am not 100% comfortable with U.S. genealogy either :-) Both my husband's and my families came from Canada and the Netherlands relatively recently. I posted this question on our WeRelate talk:Watercooler, so maybe somebody can help out.

Somehow you have a gift for finding duplicates that do not appear on my duplicates list or the main duplicates list. The project I imported had way too many duplicates :-( I have been merging a little bit every day.--Jennifer (JBS66) 16:41, 15 January 2011 (EST)

Pff, You're your family not to burden. ;-). A lot of work. Do you want to check my merging work? Groet, Lidewij 17:42, 15 January 2011 (EST)
Ja, it is a lot of work - more then I imagined! Your merge was goed. I did notice that some of the namen were lost in the merge. I think you may have un-checked a box (a haakje weg I think). Also, it is easier if you merge Families eerste.
Regarding "You're your family not to burden" - I'm sorry, I don't understand exactly what you mean. Can you possibly repeat this in Dutch, and I'll try again :-) --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:12, 15 January 2011 (EST)
Hoi Jennifer, my merge was not good. Many names were lost in the merge. Another time (with a clear head) I will give it another try.
“You are your family not to burden " Je bent je familie niet tot last.
Wanneer kinderen zoet aan het spelen zijn, zijn ze niemand tot last.
When children happy at play, they not bother anyone.
It was more teasing. Met vriendelijke groet, --Lidewij 20:53, 20 January 2011 (EST)
I see know... it almost sounds like our phrase "Leave well enough alone" or "let sleeping dog lie"
Bedankt voor het lijst, I merged them all. MVG, --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:06, 21 January 2011 (EST)

Redirect Urk [18 jan 2011]

Jennifer, can you redirect Urk, Overijssel to Urk, Flevoland. I am still unsure howto. Thank you.--Klaas (Ekjansen) 13:19, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Which province was Urk under around 1900?
It looks like it might have been Noord-Holland - should we direct both to a new Urk, Noord-Holland, Netherlands page? --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:21, 18 January 2011 (EST)
It was Noord-Holland till 1950. So yes you are right.--Klaas (Ekjansen) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (EST)
Both pages now redirect to Place:Urk, Noord-Holland, Netherlands (using the #REDIRECT [[...]] code). You are doing a great job with the place pages! --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (EST)
Een bijzonder geval is de gemeente Urk, die tot drie verschillende

provincies heeft behoord: voor 1950 tot de provincie Noord-Holland, van 1950 tot 1986 tot Overijssel en ten slotte, sinds 1986, tot de provincie Flevoland. Pagina 30

NB: Hoewel Urk op 7-8-1942 feitelijk onder het gezag van het ministerie van Binnenlandse

Zaken werd geplaatst (Dienst der Zuiderzeewerken) is de gemeente tot 1-4-1950 formeel bij Noord-Holland gebleven. Pagina 299

Groet, --Lidewij 16:25, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Duplicate source pages [17 June 2011]

Here are the sources I have encountered with multiple Wiki pages. Some are reprints:

  1. Magazine of Virginia Genealogy; Virginia Genealogical Society Quarterly; Virginia Genealogical Society Quarterly; Virginia Genealogical Society Quarterly
Explanation: these all reference the same publication. It is currently called the Magazine of Virginia Genealogy. It was formerly known as the Virginia Genealogical Society Quarterly.
As periodicals, these should be titled Title (Publisher). With periodicals, I've been keeping the different titles over time as different sources, while using cross references to show how the titles relate. Obviously, the three with the same name should be merged.... I'll tackle this group, and when you take a look at them later, you should be able to see what I mean as to how I link them. --Brenda (kennebec1) 15:05, 22 January 2011 (EST)
I'd add that a case could be made to put all the various titles under one source, because they are one continuous (more or less) publication (i.e. the volume numbering does not restart). So I'd be fine with combining them all in to one source as well. Do you and Murphynw have strong opinions? --Brenda (kennebec1) 18:10, 22 January 2011 (EST)
I like the idea of combining them into one source. Perhaps title it as it is currently, with references in the text to previous titles. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:28, 22 January 2011 (EST)
See Source:Magazine of Virginia Genealogy (Virginia Genealogical Society)
  1. Historical Register of Virginians in the Revolution; Historical Register of Virginians in the Revolution; Historical Register of Virginians in the Revolution
  2. List of Emigrant Ministers to America; List of Emigrant Ministers to America
  3. Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia; Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia; Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia;
This is an index to the same book and should be cross-referenced: Index to Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia
  1. Virginia Wills and Administrations; Virginia Wills and Administrations; Virginia Wills and Administrations

These have all been merged into one publication that is now released online at Note sure how you want to handle merging these: Free African Americans of Maryland and Delaware; Free African Americans of North Carolina and Virginia; Free African Americans of North Carolina; Free African Americans of North Carolina, Virginia and South Carolina

Jennifer and Nathan, I've kept each of these, and added a "related sources" section that emphasizes that the web version is the most current. My thought is that because the titles are different, someone who is importing sources and seeking to match an existing source with one of our source pages would benefit from having each of the titles available as a source page. --Brenda (kennebec1) 12:27, 23 January 2011 (EST)

How do I add a new repository (see red link)? Or is this one already listed by a different name (the website was formerly known as "", but is now "":

Mind if I continue sending these to you as I encounter them? I'm planning to take a look at Tennessee sources next.

Murphynw 17:49, 18 January 2011 (EST)

I merged a couple of these sources tonight - I'll work on the rest tomorrow. Regarding adding a repository - generally you can just go to Add>Repository and follow the titling instructions on that screen. In this case, I see there is a comment on the Repository page about whether to title it or You can either use the existing, or add to the discussion on that page.

I don't mind if you send more duplicates my way. As long as you can confirm they are duplicates, the merging process is fairly straightforward. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:36, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Goodspeed's History of Tennessee presents an interesting case of duplicate pages. It has been split up and reprinted a dozen times. To try to tackle this situation, I first created a new source page:


Then I added information to it on all the duplicate reprint pages and related indexes.

I would recommend merging all of the following pages into the new source page (URL above) that I created:

Source:Goodspeed_Histories_of_Fayette_and_Hardeman_Counties_of_Tennessee Source:Goodspeed_Histories_of_Giles,_Lincoln,_Franklin_and_Moore_Counties_of_Tennessee Source:Goodspeed_Histories_of_Lawrence,_Wayne,_Perry,_Hickman_and_Lewis_Counties,_Tennessee Source:Goodspeed_Histories_of_Madison_County,_Tennessee Source:Goodspeed_Histories_of_Maury,_Williamson,_Rutherford,_Wilson,_Bedford_and_Marshall_Counties_of_Tennessee Source:Goodspeed_Histories_of_Montgomery,_Robertson,_Humphreys,_Stewart,_Dickson,_Cheatham,_Houston_Counties_of_Tennessee Source:Goodspeed_Histories_of_Sumner,_Smith,_Macon,_Trousdale_Counties_of_Tennessee Source:Goodspeed's_General_History_of_Tennessee Source:Goodspeed's_History_of_Hamilton,_Knox_and_Shelby_Counties_of_Tennessee Source:Goodspeed's_History_of_Tennessee_Containing_Historical_and_Biographical_Sketches_of_Thirty_East_Tennessee_Counties Source:McDowell,_Samuel_R._East_Tennessee_History_:_Reprinted_from_Goodspeed's_History_of_Tennessee

Source:Dean,_Vera_L._Family_Name_Index_to_Goodspeed's_History_of_Wayne_County,_Tennessee,_1886 Source:McNamara,_Billie_R._Index_to_Goodspeed's_History_of_Tennessee Source:Waller,_Jane_Warren._Index,_Goodspeed's_History_of_Tennessee,_Lincoln_County_Chapter,_Pages_767-784_and_876-924 Source:Wimberly,_Vera_Meek._Goodspeed_Histories_of_Sumner,_Smith,_Macon,_Trousdale_Counties_of_Tennessee_Index

Murphynw 12:11, 21 January 2011 (EST)

Jennifer, I've asked Murphynw for some clarification about the original source(s). Clearly this new source ought to exist as the "master" source compiling all the subsidary sources/reprints. I'd like to add some specifics on the titles of the original volumes in this multivolume set, and on the structure of the original work(s).
But I'm thinking that at least those reprints that have different titles and/or combine different portions of the original, and thus have a literary "life" that is separate from the original source, should probably remain separate sources as well, so users of those particular sources can find them. That appears to be how WorldCat has handled these titles, anyway (which has made it hard for me to determine exactly what the original set of volumes were). I do think that all the reprints that are kept as sources should have cross references to the master (i.e. referencing the original 1800s publication) source page. Any reprints we have Source Pages for that are directly reprints of intact orginal volumes can probably be eliminated (using the multiple editions language).
The indexes Murphynw suggests be combined into the master page raise an interesting question. In the Source Page work I've done, I've retained Indexes to a work, when separately published, as a separate Source Page, and just added cross-references on both the original work source page and the index work's source page. But really, a work that is entirely an Index to another work is never going to be a Source for WeRelate purposes -- meaning, one isn't going to use the Index in a citation linked to a particular fact. Really, the index is a very specific finding aid (only to one title), rather than a source itself. So, the approach of keeping information on an index solely as "additional info" on the primary source page may well make the most sense for WeRelate users.
Maybe I'll copy this to the Watercooler and see what others think... --Brenda (kennebec1) 14:50, 22 January 2011 (EST)
I agree with you Brenda. I think that sources that are distinctly different warrant their own source page. You reference "the multiple editions language", can you point me to a page where this appears? I want to copy it to my cheatsheet.
See Source:Öfingen, Baden, Germany. Kirchenbuch, 1550-1965. I can't tell you how many times I've opening up a new search tab to look for the language "multiple editions" in order to cut and paste it...--Brenda (kennebec1) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (EST)
Brenda, I created a template for the multiple editions phrase. This can be used by putting {{MultipleEditions}} on a page. --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:08, 4 February 2011 (EST)
I wonder if the title of the master source should be renamed as well. Goodspeed looks to be the publishing company listed on the title page, but I don't see a specific reference to an author. The current title also includes only a portion of the subtitle. Should this be titled Source:History of Tennessee from the Earliest Times to the Present instead? --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:09, 22 January 2011 (EST)
I think probably the title should be renamed due to the author, and due to the "title" vs. "subtitle" question you raise; that is one of the questions I asked Murphynw to comment on. Even tho this is in theory an out-of-copyright title, I haven't had an easy time getting a complete understanding of the original publication (how many volumes, what were their titles). I don't know if there was no author cited? or an editor cited for different volumes? Many WorldCat listings do list Goodspeed Pub. Co. as the author...
Take a look at this Goodspeed info; I think it may clarify how the books were originally published - I think I can use this to fix the combined source page.--Brenda (kennebec1) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (EST)
One more set of questions regarding the Goodspeed books. Do you have any thoughts as to how to handle the Goodspeed reprints? The dilemma is that they are reprints with slightly or significantly different titles than the originals. They could remain as separate sources, and just be cross-referenced on the main page, or they could all be combined into one source page.
If they are combined, it will be essential to warn users that they must specify the specific reprint they are using and add appropriate page references to ensure an accurate citation. The disadvantage to combining is, of course, a user importing a citation to a specific volume of the work in the reprint or the original edition would have to recognize the combined title as including the particular volume they used, and will have to go back and update the citation to give the specific information (volume, publisher, page) they used.
If they are not combined, each source page for one of the reprinted county groups should point out that there are several reprint editions available for that county group (the multiple editions language), as well as the original. I'm thinking each reprint page should start with something like: "This title is a reprint of a portion of the 1886/87 History of Tennessee from the Earliest Times to the Present. See Source:Goodspeed._History_of_Tennessee_from_the_Earliest_Times_to_the_Present,_Together_with_an_Historical_and_a_Biographical_Sketch_of for more information on the original source and on available reprints."
The advantage to leaving these separate sources is that the variety of titles where one might find/look up a portion of Goodspeed's work will be preserved (tho if the original source pages are redirected, then the alternative titles will still remain in the dropdown box, right?). The disadvantage to leaving all these reprints as individual sources is that they are, in most cases, facsimile reprints (albeit of only a portion of the original work), and thus we end up with multiple source pages that really reflect only one source.
Moreover, there are several county groupings in the original publication that are not yet in our source pages with a reprint edition. Those reprints do exist; Family History Library just hadn't acquired copies yet at the time of our import. New users may well add these reprints of other county groups as new sources.
Murphynw hopefully will see this; I'd like his comments on why or why not these should be combined. Look forward to your thoughts on this, Jennifer - I've got to run to the dentist now, tho.--Brenda (kennebec1) 15:37, 24 January 2011 (EST)
Sorry Brenda, I've never seen the originals. All we have out here where I work (Family History Library) are the reprints, as far as I can tell. Most of what I've learned about the original editions has come to me through the TNGenWeb pages about the work.Murphynw 11:01, 4 February 2011 (EST)

Another duplicate:

Source:Ramsey,_James_Gettys_McGready._Annals_of_Tennessee_to_the_End_of_the_Eighteenth_Century Source:Annals_of_Tennessee_to_the_End_of_the_Eighteenth_Century

Murphynw 12:37, 21 January 2011 (EST)

Hi, Jennifer - this one duplicates a Quolla page; I've left a message to get some buyin from him before I merge the two pages. In general, Q's page is linked to and used, and should be the "keeper," but the bibliographic data and repositories need to be copied from the new page. However, the page name should be the new one (with the author), not the title with no author. Maybe I'll redirect Quolla's page to the new page; that way he can keep using the Title alone in autocompletion? Do you think that will work?
I'm also going to add a link to Source:Fain, John Tyree. Fain's Critical and Analytical Index and Genealogical Guide to Ramsey's Annals of Tennessee as a cross reference/related source.--Brenda (kennebec1) 14:48, 22 January 2011 (EST)
Redirecting Q's to the correct title is probably the best choice. It means that the "inline citations" (ie Source:Ramsey. 1853) he created for it won't work because of the double and triple redirects. But they don't work currently anyway since the source renaming in 2009... I can go in later and fix the redirects so they'll work again. When you rename sources, do you delete any of the redirects because it clutters the drop-down box? I know that some people wanted to keep the pages with title-first so they could find text easier. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:53, 22 January 2011 (EST)
I decide on a case by case basis. If I can easily eliminate all the links to a page by fixing the existing redirects to the correct page, I delete the dupe source page. If no one has used the source page in any form, I try to at least eliminate the double redirects and sometimes will delete all the "other" source page options. If a dupe source page has been used as a source, I am more cautious. If possible I fix all the person and family page links so that they show the corrected source page. But I think it is probably reasonable to keep a "title-first" redirected source (rather than deleting it) so that an autofill will find a title as well as an author.
Truly, it rarely comes up. There are probably a couple dozen sources in real life that are well known enough to be used often and to be referred to solely by their title.
However, I've only recently begun having confidence enough to be "ruthless" in eliminating earlier duplicate source pages that are already redirected (to a page that has now been redirected yet again, created a 2nd or 3rd generation redirect). I'm generally conservative in deleting pages. But I dislike having a lengthly autocomplete drop box, with no idea which option is actually correct.--Brenda (kennebec1) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (EST)
  1. Duplicates of 1835 pension roll. Three reprints of this source are currently in WeRelate. I turned one of the reprint pages into a page representing the original source: Source:United_States._Pension_Roll_of_1835_(287874)#References. I recommend merging the following two pages into this page:
Brenda merged this one 6/17/2011 - done--Brenda (kennebec1) 19:09, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
  1. These all lead back to the same resource. Someone has already started to make the first page a master source page for this resource, its reprints, and indexes:

  1. Additional duplicates, with proposed master source page first on the list:
Combined all into the newly titled: Source:Ansearchin' News (Tennessee Genealogical Society) --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:55, 4 February 2011 (EST)
  1. These should be examined as possible derivatives of one original source:

Are they all indexes to this resource?? Source:Tennessee._Board_of_Pension_Examiners._Confederate_Pension_Applications:_Soldiers_and_Widows,_1891-_Ca._1965 Murphynw 13:49, 4 February 2011 (EST)

  1. Duplicates:
  1. Duplicates:
Combined into newly titled: Source:Head, Thomas A. Campaigns and Battles of the Sixteenth Regiment, Tennessee Volunteers, in the War Between the States --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:41, 4 February 2011 (EST)
  1. Duplicates:
  1. Duplicates:
Combined into newly titled: Source:Morton, John Watson. Artillery of Nathan Bedford Forrest's Cavalry --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:52, 4 February 2011 (EST)
  1. Duplicates:
  1. Duplicates:

  1. Duplicates:

These three pages refer to one source and an index

I merged the two duplicate sources and cited the index back to the original source. --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:09, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Murphynw 17:17, 11 March 2011 (EST)

English or Dutch [22 January 2011]

Hoi Jennifer, At the places I see in upper box English and Dutch by each other so Buurtschap and Hamlet. What is the preferred English or Dutch. Groet, Lidewij 13:59, 22 January 2011 (EST)

Hoi Lidewij, my preference is for the Type to be in Dutch. I think it is more helpful for people new to Dutch genealogy to see - for example - gemeente rather than municipality. I'd rather users see the words they will encounter in their research.
For the Types, I think it would be good to use standard wording: Voormalige gemeente, Dorp, Gemeente, Buurtschap, etc. That makes me think... I need to go and change the Type for each Province to Provincie now :-) --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:13, 22 January 2011 (EST)
Jennifer I think it is true that Dutch more Dutch attracts. I already had a list created. User talk:Lidewij/Plaatsnamen. It is important for the new places. Groet, Lidewij 14:35, 22 January 2011 (EST)
Jennifer there is actually another point. Places are now sometimes a former municipality, but were not anno 1900, for example; Place:Hoogezand, Groningen, Netherlands Katendrecht is in 1900 a former municipality.
11401 Katendrecht ZH
Bestaan van 1-4-1817 tot 1-1-1874
1-4-1817 ontstaan uit Charlois
1-1-1874 opgegaan in Charlois
CBS-code(s) 10
Opmerkingen Katendrecht was op 1-1-1812 toegevoegd aan Charlois.
Hoogezand-Sappermeer (1949) is maybe then a new town/Nieuwe Gemeente.

Groet, Lidewij 16:45, 22 January 2011 (EST)

I am looking at how Klaas organized Overijssel as a guide. He called a place a Voormalige gemeente when it used to be a gemeente (at any time) and no longer is. An example is Place:IJsselham, Overijssel, Netherlands which existed from 1973-2001.

When a place is currently still a gemeente, then he put the type as Gemeente. The title of the page is around 1900, but I think we can be more flexible with the other details of the page. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:15, 22 January 2011 (EST)

Uploading Gedcom [24 January 2011]

Dear Jennifer,

Referring tour emails about my GEDCOMS. In the meanwhile I changed the places with provinces and countries. I removed the patrimonium names. But I have a question about the first and surnames. A lot of Jewish families in 17th and 18th centuries used different names and combinations of names for different situations. The question is for example the first 4 names of

Keetje Knendele Levie Liepman

Is this accepted by the WeRelate software?

Other samples are: Sluizer-Levie

or with a back slash : Levie Barend\Yissachar-Ferli

Is this accepted ?

Please let me know, because it's really a problem what to do if this kind of writing is not accepted.

Awaiting your response, sincerely yours Reginald--Redzji 12:58, 24 January 2011 (EST)

Hallo Reginald,

Let me offer an example to explain: Arendina Geertruida Catharina Bengen (who, by the way, appears to be listed as Male in your gedcom). In your database, you have this:

  • Given name: Arendina Geertruida Catharina
  • Surname: Bengen

The page will be titled Arendina Bengen (1), but her full name will appear on the page. You can see an example of that here Person:Bontje Halbesma (2), where her patronymic name Halbes is not in the title but is in the blue box on the page. This is perfectly ok. This helps to ensure that page titles are consistent and possible duplicate pages are matched better. The software takes the First of the given names and the full surname to create a page title.

Sluizer-Levie: May I assume that is a surname? If you have Sluizer-Levie in the Surname field, that will be ok.

Levie Barend\Yissachar-Ferli: The \ will cause problems - however - if you only have a few of these, I can edit that for you after you have uploaded your final gedcom.

The names in your gedcom that were most problematic were the cases where you had alternate spellings such as: Johanna Maria IJssen ( van IJften, Heijfte) Van Heysten (Van Heijfte). Since the software takes the First given name and the full surname, your page would be titled Johanna Ijssen Van Ijften Heijfte Van Heysten Van Heijfte... I know that Aldfaer does not have specific fields for alternate names. The solution would be to put the "Primary spelling" in her name field, and the alternate spellings in a note field.

You mentioned that you removed patronymic names. Patronymic names are ok. If there does exist a surname, the patronymic name can be in the given name field like this:

  • Given name:Bontje Halbes
  • Surname:Halbesma

If there is no surname (ie: pre-1811), the name can be listed like this:

  • Given name:Bontje
  • Surname:Halbes

I am going to ask one of our new administrators to take a look at this as well. He is well-versed in Dutch genealogy, speaks Dutch, and may be able to offer additional advice that I have not considered.

Regards, --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:43, 24 January 2011 (EST)

Nicknames [25 January 2011]

Jennifer, could you tell me how nick-names (this is called a roepnaam in the Neterlands) are handled in WeRelate, Gedcom Tag NICK--Klaas (Ekjansen) 15:23, 25 January 2011 (EST)

I have a sample gedcom in the queue if you'd like to take a look. It appears that it imports the nickname as an alt name. The only difference is that with a primary name, in the gedcom text, it appears like this: 1 NAME Jan/Sluizer-Levie/ with the / indicating which part is a given name and which is a surname. With the nickname, the gedcom text has this: 2 NICK Anna Channa Abraham Aberle Weisner. It seems the software takes the last non-hyphenated word as the surname and puts the rest in the given name field. You can delete the gedcom if you wish after you're done looking at it. We could check with Dallan to double-check how he programmed this. --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (EST)

Agnes Nicolai [26 January 2011]

Jennifer, As you can see I edited Agnes Nicolai, please have a look. As I understand it, people got a latin name on their birth certificate (Agnes' father being Nicolaus), but were actually called their Dutch name in everyday life (for Nicolaus that is Klaas, also spelled as Claas). So it seemed appropriate to call her both Agnes [patronym] Nicolai and Agnes [patronym] Klaas. I don't know if that is customary on WR though. I manually follow the pages you mentioned. I'll have a look at the rest in the coming days. John--Govegus 10:33, 26 January 2011 (EST)

This looks good - alternate spellings/versions can certainly be listed like that. --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:56, 26 January 2011 (EST)

List of Duplicates [27 January 2011]

Jennifer, during my lunchbreak I found the following (possible) duplicates:

--Klaas (Ekjansen) 07:48, 27 January 2011 (EST)

Thank you Klaas. I know that I still have a lot of duplicates :-( but not all of these appeared on my duplicates list, so that is very helpful. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:01, 27 January 2011 (EST)

Kramer Family [11 March 2011]

Hello Jennifer, could you please add for me a child of Carl Friedrich Kramer (DOB) 24/1/1888. The child to be added is Catharina Jacoba Antonia Kramer DOB 14/6/1912. You advised earlier that the site you were looking for the Kramer family was down, have you had any luck yet?? Thank you Pat & Frank Kramer--Fkramer 04:41, 29 January 2011 (EST)

Hello Pat and Frank, the site is back up (the pages in particular are at FamilySearch). It is pretty tough to locate additional documents, however, without dates. Have you found documents at the Amsterdam archives yet? I can see that they will have some that will be useful in your search such as:

  • Record Card for Kramer, Carl Friedrich - 24-01-1888
  • Family Card for Kramer, C.F. - 24-01-1888

I added a page for Person:Catharina Kramer (3), just be sure to visit the page and press Watch in order to be notified of changes to the page. You'll also want to Watch Family:Johannes Van Delden and Adele Andriessen (1), Family:Carl Kramer and Catharina Van Delden (1), and Family:Carel Kramer and Hendrica Wesenberg (1).

Lastly, regarding your previous comment that Person:Carl Kramer (4) and Person:Willem Hilgers (1) had second spouses: it's possible that they did marry again, but the public records for marriages generally stop at 1922. --Jennifer (JBS66) 09:42, 29 January 2011 (EST)

Thijs Stad [29 January 2011]

Jennifer, while working on Dutch immigrants I found this one: Thijs Stad. All children are attached to the wrong mother. Is there an easy way to move all 10 ore just one by one.--Klaas (Ekjansen) 06:55, 29 January 2011 (EST)

There is no way that I can think of to move all 10 at once. I believe the best way will be to edit via each child (rather than from the family page). CTRL-C (copy) the correct family title, and then CTRL-V (paste) over the wrong family. Good catch! --Jennifer (JBS66) 07:24, 29 January 2011 (EST)

Possible duplicates [3 February 2011]

Jennifer, why are these duplicates after days stll displayed?

Changes made in the past 24 hours are not reflected

  • Person:Gerrijt Roelofs (1) (open in new window)
  • Person:Gerrit Roelofs (2) (open in new window)
  • Person:Grietje De Vries (58) (open in new window)
  • Person:Grietje De Vries (60) (open in new window)
  • Person:Grietje Jaalstra (1) (open in new window)
  • Person:Tyets Sybedr (1) (open in new window)
  • Person:Tyets Sybesdr (1) (open in new window)
  • Family:Hendrik Van Der Wal and Antje Postma (1) (open in new window)
  • Family:Jacob De Vries and Jitske De Vries (1) (open in new window)
  • Family:Jacob De Vries and Jitske De Vries (2) (open in new window)
  • Family:Jan Kingma and Geeske Van Der Wal (1) (open in new window)
  • Family:Jan Tuinstra and Trijntje Van Der Wal (1) (open in new window)
  • Family:Jelke Kuipers and Dieuwke Van Der Wal (1) (open in new window)
  • Family:Roelof Hoogland and Trijntje De Jong (1) (open in new window)--Klaas (Ekjansen) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Dallan shut off the updating of these reports a few days ago. He was testing to see if the site would run faster in the early mornings (well, early for the U.S :-) I thought he said that he would turn them back on - it appears he has not gotten around to that yet. --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:40, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Vanderheide Hoekstra geneology [3 February 2011]

Hi Jennifer

My name is Rita Jones Maiden name Vanderheide. My Grandfather was Rintje Vanderheide and Grandmmother Richtje Hoekstra My father was Lolke Vanderheide and Mother was Alie Elzinga My father had two sisters named Anne and Hotske . I have one sister and three brothers. My mother passed away in 1997 and my father in 2003 ; I do have some old pictures of the grandparents and parents. Is your husb and somehow related to the Vanderheide family? I was born in Leeuwarden but later lived in Wirdum Friesland until our family immigrated to canada in 1957.--Sorro 13:09, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Hello Rita,

My husband is not directly related to your family. I have been working on a project to add the inhabitants of Ferwerderadeel and Leeuwarderadeel to WeRelate. If you are able to add details and photos to any of the pages for your family, that would be much appreciated! WeRelate doesn't allow pages for people who are still living, however.

If you would like to be notified when pages for your family are changed, you can create a tree of your ancestors by going to Family:Rintje Van Der Heide and Richtje Hoekstra (1), click on Trees, and choose to add relatives under Include relatives. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask. It's nice to hear from descendants of this project and I look forward to your additions! Regards, --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:31, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Thank You Jennifer [8 February 2011]

Hello Jennifer,

Thank you for your help today. I really appreciated it. Hope all is well & Take Care. Debbie Freeman --DFree 23:11, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Hi Debbie, it was my pleasure! I'm glad that you didn't mind my 'butting in' on your talk page :-) I saw the question, and it made me curious... I hope all is well with you too. Have a great day, --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:12, 8 February 2011 (EST)

Thanks [8 February 2011]

Hi Jennifer, thanks a lot for your edits on Marinus Goossen and Coleta Raman, apparently the first four had two Coletas as their mother but it didn't show up in the software.--Govegus 04:42, 8 February 2011 (EST)

You're welcome. These types of edits were a puzzle that is right up my alley! --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:18, 8 February 2011 (EST)

Kramer family [12 February 2011]

Hi Jennifer, I have discovered that Carl Friedrich Kramer DOB 24/1/1888 also had a daughter Maria (or Marietje) DOB 31/3/1925, she married a man named Antonius Sinkeldam (born 1822). I know they lived at Kr Distelstraat number 9 ground level with her parents then in 1953 they left and went to Zaandam. From there I have hit a brick wall!!! I don't know anything further. Could you please assist. Regards Pat & Frank Kramer--Fkramer 04:51, 12 February 2011 (EST)

I was able to find this: That site shows that Maria married Antonius in 1953 and had two children. It also shows Antonius' ancestors. The creator of that website is a Sinkeldam, and she providers her email address here: (at the bottom right above her photo), she may be able to help you a bit further. Best of luck, --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:18, 12 February 2011 (EST)

Bartons of Barton Ridge [13 February 2011]

Thanks so much for the help. I am just learning to us this site. Will try to learn how to use so you won't have to always clean-up after me.--Sandralpond 09:31, 13 February 2011 (EST)

You're welcome. I know that WeRelate can take some time to learn - and I don't mind helping out at all! --Jennifer (JBS66) 09:35, 13 February 2011 (EST)

source versus mysource for wills [15 February 2011]

I tentatively agree, but I think there are a few questions that are worth tossing around before moving my ancestor's will off into the MySource-verse.

This page was created before the current understanding had stabilized. As I recall, the idea was that a "MySource" would be something that was not generally available. In this case however, a transcript has been created and images of the will are available right here. I think there was another critieria that suggested that a MySource might also be something that applied to only a handful of people - which might imply that this should still be a mysource.

I've just looked at a mysource page, and it does allow for a single repository and address, which I suppose would serve in this situation. I was a little worried about not being able to point to a repository.

There's another question that has been tossed around from time to time - that's whether a transcript and/or images should go directly on the source/mysource page in a situation like this. I'm thinking that such transcripts should probably be separate, leaving the source/mysource page content for the limited/standard content that is currently being worked out elsewhere (overview, usage tips, usage examples).

I suppose that choosing to host this as a mysource now doesn't prevent us from revisiting the question in the future. If a lot of wills were uploaded to WeRelate, and hyperlinked like I did with this one, there might be a case to be made for moving them over and letting them be real sources.

--Jrm03063 14:56, 14 February 2011 (EST)

I re-read your remarks a little more carefully. I see what you're saying about articles "for a specific purpose". I gave the page a psuedo-namespace partly because it felt weird to do otherwise. I don't know that I like the idea of making a MySource page so different from a Source that it is difficult to turn one into the other down the road. Hmmm..... --Jrm03063 15:03, 14 February 2011 (EST)
What do you mean when you say "making a MySource page so different from a Source"? Is turning an Article into a Source any less difficult? I know that Judy has some nice examples of MySources, some that include images (like MySource:Jlanoux/Funeral File of Anna Parish Woody or MySource:Jlanoux/Will of Robert Madison, 1858), so I don't think attaching images to it is a problem.
I know that you've been around here longer then I have, and it must be frustrating when the "rules" and preferences change so much. If a new user were coming aboard to WR and asked you "I have this will for my grandfather - where is the best place to put that here?" what would you be inclined to say? Since it's scope is limited to one person/family, I'd tend to say MySource. I can see the point, however, about the MySource space being cluttered with junk from gedcom uploads that it seems like a less valued resource. --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:24, 14 February 2011 (EST)
I'm not averse to changing stuff around as the rules change. The perils of early adopters and all. I agree it's not that hard. I just want to be sure we've thought it through. Do we believe that a MySource would be appropriate for other sorts of transcriptions? I have a transcription of a genuine source - SourceTranscript; Tuttle, Charles W. The Tuttle Family of New Hampshire. It seems a little weird if there was both a Source for the article and a separate MySource for the transcript. I also use headers in that source as HTML anchors for citations. I wonder if those would hold up if the transcript were presented on a MySource page? --Jrm03063 15:39, 14 February 2011 (EST)
I wonder if we should pose this question at the Watercooler or even the Support page. Essentially, we're looking for the definitive decision on the proper placement of various transcriptions (wills, transcripts of articles, etc). One thought on your Tuttle transcription is to add it directly to the source page (or perhaps its talk page - not sure about that...) Otherwise, WeRelate needs to expand upon the written definition of Articles which I'm certainly not opposed to. Sometimes it seems like users talk and make decisions on various talk pages - but then fail to put the decisions into writing on a help page so it can be found later! --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:52, 14 February 2011 (EST)
Other Considerations: Do someone else's MySources show up as a potential match during GEDCOM upload? Early wills are going to have a lot of folks using them as a source... I have a lot of will transcriptions that I copied or typed to put on my web site. But where I got them all is probably not noted as many are copies of someone else's posted transcription and who knows how many times it had been copied before he posted it! Only the original recording location is mentioned and not where each transcription was found. This was probably not the best way to handle it; but it is typical of what you will be dealing with. My instinct was to make them articles so I've been following this discussion with some interest. --Janiejac 19:50, 14 February 2011 (EST)
An afterthought: I also have transcribed biographies published in County History books, some published by Historical Societies. I'm wondering now if these biographies would be articles or MySources. The original book the bio was published in would be a Source, but what about my transcription of the individual bio? Where would it go? Some of these might go well in the text of the person (or family?) page, but some maynot. --Janiejac 20:18, 14 February 2011 (EST)
I realized a while back that WeRelate is probably a great way to present transcriptions. There's already a decision that interviews and wills, if transcribed, belong on a MySource page. I think it would be too confusing to say that other sorts of transcriptions go other places, so my current inclination is that we should always create transcriptions as a "MySource". If the original document is in your posession, then it's a MySource under your user id (addition of readable scans would be a very nice touch). If it's taken from a published source and being transcribed so you can hyperlink it, then I'm suggesting we create it as a "WeRelate/MySource" (see comments on the watercooler and example page: MySource:WeRelate/Tuttle, Charles W. The Tuttle Family of New Hampshire). The MySource transcription should refer to the best available source so that the quality of the transcription can be reviewed by others. Like anything else on the site - we do it to the best of our ability but we're human. If we provide enough information that the transcriptions can be subsequently reviewed by others, I think we're doing our duty and shouldn't worry too much. --Jrm03063 21:47, 14 February 2011 (EST)

The Copying from the FHCL [19 February 2011]

Thank you for this Question I have felt it should be totally free to all. I have sent the Question to my supervisor. The material was given to Dallan and some even thought he had the notes already. The material is really out there in the form of hyperlinks on both our site and on Family search and the FHCL itself. I will get the answer to you and put it on the talk page as soon as I can. Thanks--Sandralpond 21:34, 18 February 2011 (EST)

AS I and my fellow workers search we have found that all the notes except for some very long notes from the FHCL have already been included in WRelate and so I don't see any problem at all.Sandralpond 09:53, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Sandra, thank you so much for looking into this! These notes are sometimes quite informative, and being able to bring them onto the WR pages will be helpful. --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:00, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Source author Hughes, Twiford Eagleson [14 April 2011]

Thanks for adjusting my edit to this source. Is there a reason why authors do not have their own pages? It would be useful to click an author to find a list of his works.--Brear47 13:55, 23 February 2011 (EST)

You're welcome. I recall reading somewhere (though I can't seem to locate it now) that links were not recommended in the author field. As far as finding a list of an author's works - since WR's sources are those of a genealogical nature, I think that would limit the value of your suggestion a bit. You can find a list of an author's works that are on WR by conducting an Exact Search with the author's name filled in. --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:35, 23 February 2011 (EST)

I think you have to read an awful lot of stuff everyday, so forgive a little more. I'm not much more experienced at WR than I was six weeks ago, but I'd like to question a couple things in your response. 1) "I seem to recall" seems to fall short of a "reason" for removing the author link:). The suggested workaround is exactly what computers are designed to obviate, unnecessary steps. 2) I'd like to quibble with your comment on the limited value of my suggestion. The sources on WeRelate are not limited to genealogical sources, they are sources that have a genealogical use. The sources document any info on the page, including the "bio" section, places, categories, all sorts of things, not just genealogical data. And that is one reason WR's value goes beyond genealogy, who gave DNA to whom. It's biography of individuals buiding the history of many. Don --Brear47 01:47, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

Don, as a result of discussions here and here, Dallan has edited the software and links to other WeRelate pages in the author field are now allowed. Thanks for checking back on this issue. --Jennifer (JBS66) 05:21, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [2 March 2011]

You're not done yet!

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

Now that you have uploaded TEST.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.

--WeRelate agent 14:46, 2 March 2011 (EST)

unmarried mother [11 March 2011]

hi jennifer,

i hope you can help me with the next probelem. Grietje Ebels Dopsema(1) had a child in 1863 (girl: Frouktjen Dopsema) when she was stil unmarried. I have made a famely-page for that, because i dont know how to do it the right way. Can you explane to me what's the way to do it?--Paulsnip 10:56, 11 March 2011 (EST)

Actually, you did this correctly. Family:Unknown and Grietje Dopsema (1) shows that Grietje had a child, and the name of the biological father is Unknown. Perfect! --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:01, 11 March 2011 (EST)

thanks! [14 March 2011]

OK, thanks for the tip Jennifer. I'll start adding the duplicate pages there.

Murphynw 13:26, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

London Links [26 March 2011]

Thanks for that, looks so much better, I must brush up on my skills.--Chel 14:45, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Category additions [29 March 2011]

Thanks for the info I will go back and limit my additions to a couple of clear statements about the place location.Sandralpond 12:54, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Could you check to see if I did this correctly. MY intention is to put in a short discription and a link to Wikipedia page for futher research. Place:Hinton, Summers, West Virginia, United States. Sandralpond 13:25, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

My thought is that category pages are intended for navigation. What we try to do is add a "parent category" to the page. For example, on the Hinton category page, I added [[Category:Summers, West Virginia, United States]] Now, when you look at the Summers category page, you'll see Hinton listed. Categories aren't really there to describe a place or to duplicate information on a Place page. Since the place page for Hinton already does a good job at describing the place and linking to Wikipedia, we don't really want to duplicate that effort on the category page as well.
One additional thought, it appears that Dallan is not even sure he is going to keep these types of category pages. He is considering opting for better search features instead. --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:57, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

I had in my head that I needed to fill these because they are listed down the right side of my User page and are in red. Now I realize I can get the info I really need on the Place Pages on the same names. Thanks for your help and time.Sandralpond 21:08, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

You are welcome. I think there was a small misunderstanding about what text to put on these categories, so I made a few edits to the cats. you added. You don't need to put Subcategories and a link to the place page - that will happen automatically. What you want to do is assign a "parent category" to it, essentially it tells the category where to be filed.
For example, on Category:Stanberry, Gentry, Missouri, United States, you would place the following text: [[Category:Gentry, Missouri, United States]]. By doing this, you are telling the Stanberry page to be filed under Gentry. Then, on the Category:Gentry, Missouri, United States you would place [[Category:Missouri, United States]]. and so on. Again, at this point in time, I wouldn't worry too much about categories. --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:10, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Question re list numbering [1 April 2011]

Hi Jennifer, When you have time to spare, would you take a look at my project outline User:Jlanoux/Descendants of Symon Jansen Van Arsdalen? My question is how to handle numbering the deeper levels. Right now I just used 1, 2, 3 over again which is really adequate. But style manuals usually call for parens in deeper levels (1) (2) (3). Is there a way to specify this format in the html? Any other suggestions for improvement are welcome. I need to do several more of there so willing to learn new tricks. Thanks!!! --Judy (jlanoux) 11:36, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

I don't believe (#) is an accepted type for ordered lists. Another possible option is to use indents like this:
I. Aeltje van Arsdalen b. bef1687.
II. Jannetje van Arsdalen b. 1688-1691, m. Dirck Van Barkelo
III. Dirck van Arsdalen b. c1694, m1. Catalyntje van Voorhees, m2. Gysbertje De Graw
IV. Jan van Arsdalen b. c1696, m1. Jannetje Dorlandt (#9, pg 166), m2. Sarah Wyckoff
A. Cornelius Van Arsdalen b.c1721, m. Femmetje/Phebe Van Nuys (#i, pg 167)
B. Marretje Van Arsdalen b. c1724, m. John Van Nuys (#ii, pg 168)
C. Gerrit Van Arsdalen b. c1727, m. Lucretia/Gracey Hegeman b. c1723 (#iii, pg 169)
D. Johannes Janse Van Arsdalen b. c1731 (#iv, pg 171), m. Eleanor Petersen
(1). Martha Van Arsdahl b. c1767,(#(7), pg 173) m. Lambert Darland
i. John Darland b.c1789, m. Parthena Strother (#a, pg 223)
ii. Abraham Darland b.1796, m. Rebecca Reynolds (#b, pg 224). Children: Catherine/Kitty Darland, William H Darland, Lambert Darland, Mary Jane Darland, Martha Darland, John Darland, Alsey Darland, Abraham Darland, Isaac Morrison Darland
iii. Isaac Darland b.1798, m. Alsey Reynolds ((#c, pg 224). Children: James Berry Darland, Martha Darland, Samuel Reynolds Darland, John Darland, George W Darland, Martin A Darland, Mary Jane Darland, William Lambert Darland, Catherine Darland
iv. Gerret Darland b.c1800, m. Edna Daniels (#d, pg 225)
v. Catherine/Kitty Darland b.c1802, m. Thomas Hawkins (#e, pg 226)
E. Jannetje Van Arsdalen b. c1735 (#v, pg 175)

--Jennifer (JBS66) 12:59, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

Authors of vital records [11 April 2011]

I think it was not a good idea to remove Thomas Baldwin as author of the Cambridge Vital Records. He is not in the title of the page, only in the author field so I don't see that it hurts, and the inclusion of his name in the author field may be useful for people searching to find this work, since his name is probably listed on the title page, and when I look it up in World Cat, it says "by Thomas W Baldwin; Cambridge (Mass.)" indicating that outside WeRelate, the citation will usually be seen with his name in it. Especially, for a newbie who is not familiar with the place-oriented naming style of WeRelate, and are trying to reconcile this style with what they see in a card catalog or on the title page. --Jrich 10:24, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

I'm not opposed to putting the author back, please do if you'd like. I was following changes that I saw Amelia making yesterday with another Mass Vital Records source. I notice that removing the author does change the citation from Baldwin, Thomas W. Vital Records of Cambridge, Massachusetts, to the Year of 1850 to Cambridge, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Cambridge, Massachusetts, to the Year of 1850, not sure which is preferable. I'm not as familiar with these sources as you and Amelia are. You may be interested in this - we're working on a template to add to these sources to unite them a bit. --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:29, 3 April 2011 (EDT)
Thanks. I will put Mr. Baldwin back. From what I saw, Amelia was removing Boston Record Commissioners from some records. These were old pages left over from before the big source rename that never got updated and hence are now hard to find in the drop down list ... unless she was doing something to a different source I wasn't watching. But I believe the Help page only says not to put "(compiler" after the author's name, nothing about not listing the compiler. For example, Source:Woburn, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Woburn Records of Births, Deaths, and Marriages. Here is one that should probably be renamed Source:Nourse, Henry Stedman. Birth, Marriage, and Death Register, Church Records and Epitaphs of Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1643-1850 to a place-oriented name, but the author should remain the author. --Jrich 12:16, 3 April 2011 (EDT)
Hi. I was actually struggling with this yesterday because I couldn't find the rule we settled on, if we ever did (since citations rolled out without the hullabaloo of page title definitions). There's a line I'm having trouble defining between records that were published because of the efforts of a recognizable person, and records where a name appears because they were the town clerk or something - FHL will put in everyone who was even connected to a reprint in the author field. But basically I've been trying to remove institutions that were paying for the compilation and individuals who were not primarily responsible for the work. If anyone has a different view on how the cites should look, we should absolutely discuss, or if a specific case is wrong I'm happy to have people fix.--Amelia 12:39, 3 April 2011 (EDT)
Well, maybe it would be a good idea to formulate a rule and state it first, rather than doing it by feel based on ???? Me, I tend to like the title page rule. I was taught in school to take the information for a bibliography off the title page, not the cover, etc. We can't possibly know who did what work on this kind of a project. And, having transcribed some documents, I know that there is inherently a lot of decisions to be made every page, and anybody that does this deserves some credit even if they are simply transcribing exactly what was written. So, especially if the title page says something like "Compiled by Deloraine P. Corey" (Malden Births), perhaps they should be left in the author field (agree they don't need to be in the title of the source page)? Heck, I personally don't even have a problem if it is a company that published the book as a money making venture. The fact is, they had the vision and did (or paid for) the work, and now we benefit from it. --Jrich 22:53, 3 April 2011 (EDT)


Yes, a rule would be awesome, but I was on the pages today trying to make them better, and last time we opened a general debate about source citations it consumed pages and took months (I'm sure you fondly remember the source page title fun). In the Malden case, I removed Corey because neither Ancestry nor NEHGS considers her to be the author, and she seemed to be on the title page because she chaired a town committee. Personally, I don't think compilers and editors (much less the town clerk at the time of publication) are the same as authors and would stick them all in a different field, but not having that option, I've been trying to figure out which nonsense added by FHC is actually nonsense not recognized by anyone else and remove it or put it somewhere else on the page. Corey was a weird case, and if not for seeing the other citations that left her out I probably would have left it based on the title page.
We can always use what's on the title page, we can do so only if it's a human credited with effort (i.e. compiler or editor), we can follow the page title rule ("authors" only in prominent cases like Barbour or Arnold), or ... I'm sure one of the many watchers probably has another relatively absolutist and easy to follow rule. Anyone else want to chime in?--Amelia 00:34, 4 April 2011 (EDT)
At first, I had problems with calling these sources "Geographic" (with place first), but their citation appeared with author first. I was going to suggest that citations be created differently - that if Type=Government/Church then the citation is built from Place. Title. If the Type=Book, then the citation would be built from Author. Title. Then, I took a look at Evidence Explained (I know JRich... not your favorite resource...) I found the following items helpful:
  • "In library catalogs, the word author is often used synonymously with creator. Many works used by historical writers involve other creative roles, as with abstractor, compiler, editor, indexer, translator, and transcriber"
  • When birth, marriage, and death records are abstracted, compiled, or transcribed and then published, you are no longer citing the original vital records, you are citing a publication. You should use the standard format for printed books, journal articles, or electronic data, depending upon the medium in which it appears."
This would mean that sources such as this would be cited as books, following the Author. Title format. What I think is confusing, is having one rule for page titles, and a different method for citations. I know the page titles are not meant to be a citation - but the conflicting rules of titling these pages and "creating" their citations (by entering/not entering information into certain fields) is awkward. --Jennifer (JBS66) 07:04, 4 April 2011 (EDT)
This is why I was so opposed to having citations auto-created based on the fields just rolled out with no discussion. We had that ridiculous discussion about page titles taking into account usability and findability and the tradeoffs based on how titles were used in the system in search and on pages, and the changes in citation and search have now undermined some of that and made things even more confusing. Even worse because the citations are built on fields full of incorrect information - even if we settle on a title page rule, FHL appears to use an "every name, title, and organization remotely connected with publication of any edition or volume" rule and that still needs cleaning up and requires us to make these decisions. --Amelia 11:47, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

I think the title page has to be given primacy in this issue.

Who are we 100+ years later to decide that this person deserves their mention on the title page, and that person doesn't? That Barbour and Arnold pass some test, and Corey doesn't? Because there is the obvious need to enunciate whatever that principle is, that Barbour and Arnold have and Corey doesn't, so that other people can use it and reach the same conclusion; and hopefully that principle is simple enough that one needn't study the history of each project to determine all this.

The fact is, that the people working on the original project presumably had some input what went on the title page, and I think we can only honor it. Second, I think that test is simple enough that it can be done quickly by a researcher in a library without doing much extra work or reading a long Help page to understand it. It is objective in that multiple people will come up with the same answer. Finally, somebody searching for the source page may very well start by using the information on the title page, so it is probably a good idea to make sure that information given on the title page is on the source page to facilitate them quickly finding the correct source page.

The length of the the previous source page renaming discussion is partially a result of missing infrastructure at WeRelate, namely no well-defined decision making body, no consensus measuring mechanism, poor documentation of the principles and decisions that have been made, and lack of a process for addressing such issues in a formal way. Everybody wants to believe the Internet was some magical anarchy, but it was governed by the IETF and there was a very formal RFC procedure for developing and changing how email gets sent, etc. WeRelate really needs the same. It will only get worse as more users pile in. --Jrich 09:15, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

100 cheers for your last paragraph :-) You and I can argue about this - and I don't think we're that far apart really, we're just coming at it from different directions of original rule v. trying to clean things up that don't fit in a neat rule - but, then what? We could just change the help pages and declare it has always been so...--Amelia 11:47, 4 April 2011 (EDT)
As far as the compiler just writes off the source, even by investing a lot of time in this, I should not think of putting his name as the main source entrance. I myself do compilation-work of Swiss church records, my name will not appear. Looking for genealogical sources I will search for familynames, countries or places, journals and only in case I know already the source, for authors.--Klaas (Ekjansen) 10:02, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

The project that lead to work on the Mass VRs has generated this template. Comments welcome.--Amelia 00:53, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Can you actually read this ? [5 April 2011]

Hi Jennifer,

I saw the message and link you posted on the talk page of "Libbe de Jong" You placed the following link :$dist

As a native Frisian and Dutch speaker even I find it hard to actually read this documents, how on earth do you manage ? Do you need any translation of those kind of scans ? or do you allready know what they say ?

I find it pretty amazing how much effort you put in to this website, you earn my deepest respect for that.

If I can help you in any way with translations, or other stuff, don't hessitate to ask... I'm a busy guy, but I live right in the middle of the area you do research on, and I have some relatives alive who still know a lot from the old days ( my grandmother is 94 and in great health, so are some of my aunts @ +90 years old ).

regards, Johan Dijkstra--cabrioot 12:47, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for your offer to help! I manage pretty well to extract the important pieces of the certificates (dates, parents, ages, places, etc). Sometimes I get stuck with more unique cases such as when a declarant was not really the father, or when there is tiny little writing in the margin :-) I've been working on a project (Ferwerderadeel and Leeuwarderadeel Project) for some time now - it's bound to drive me crazy soon... Really though, I do love working on it and collaborating with the Dutch users on WeRelate. Groetjes, --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:01, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Marking pages as patrolled [5 April 2011]

I got to thinking about marking place pages as patrolled. More often than not, when I review a cemetery page, I make changes to it. I don't think I should mark those as patrolled... or should I? I've often wondered about that. -- Amy (Ajcrow) 15:54, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

I vaguely recall reading somewhere on Wikipedia (though I can't find it now) that admins patrol other's edits, but not their own. I haven't been marking my own edits as patrolled either. --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:45, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
I've seen the same discussion here, but couldn't recall what was actually decided. I guess I'll just keep refraining from marking my own edits as patrolled. Between the two of us, we'll keep those place pages in shape :-) -- Amy (Ajcrow) 16:58, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Repository Dropdowns [9 April 2011]

Thanks for the info about how to use the Repository dropdowns. Will be more careful.````--Sandralpond 08:40, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

Hildred DeYoung [9 April 2011]

I think i solved (a part) of my problem. Hildred DeYoung was married to an Albert Slagter, but he was the son of Antjes Slagter's brother Johannes and his wife Annechien Klaasen. He died in the USA in 1985. I found the link trough Next problem for me is when they married.--Paulsnip 09:29, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

This does make more sense, considering both Albert's birth dates. I made a note on Albert's page - he may have been married before Hiltje. It also appears that Albert and his first wife (Frances) were together at the time of the 1930 census. That will make finding Albert & Hiltje's marriage date a challenge! --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:15, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

thanks for joining my contest [13 April 2011]

Thanks for joining my genealogy contest. I am not so good at cheerleading people on but I learned some things from my first run and Amy (Ajcrow) has asked me to help plan an official WeRelate contest. So let me know if you have any suggestions. My plan, to keep interest, is to run a new contest starting every Friday and ending the next Thursday. So that's where I am at in planning. Thanks again! Catherine --cthrnvl 14:13, 10 April 2011 (EDT)

Hi Catherine, I can't pass up a good puzzle :-) Plus, I wanted to try out the system. I do like the idea of moving away from Google Docs, I found that a bit awkward to add images to. I also think part of the benefit of contests will be for users to learn how to source on WeRelate, so adding the information here directly will be good. When users do enter their "contest entries" onto a person's page, how will we keep track of the points? Also, should our first weekly contest be open to a small group of users, such as admins and yourself, so that we can work out any remaining glitches before we advertise widely on FB or Twitter? --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:01, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

Welcomes [11 April 2011]

Hello, Thank You for your message on the increase in the new WeRelate Users. I have time today so it should be OK. If you have time though I could use help on Wednesday. I have a family commitment that will take the whole day basically. Can you and be willing to do the Welcomes on Wednesday? I would appreciate it. If not I will send Dallan & Solveig a message today to see if they can help on Wednesday. Debbie Freeman --DFree 14:37, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Not a problem, I'll plan to do the welcoming on Wed! --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:42, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
Great. Thanks I appreciate it. Debbie Freeman --DFree 15:01, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Military categories [22 April 2011]

Hi, Jennifer. I see that User:BobC has added Category:Veterans to Category:Military. Makes sense to me. Considering the project to create the various source categories (Category:Military records of Maine, United States, for example), I don't see a need to include the sources in Category:Military. Do you know if a category can be in more than one other category? Could Category:Military records be listed under both Category:Sources and Category:Military? If not, then I think a paragraph at the top of the Military category with a link to Category:Military records would be in order. -- Amy (Ajcrow) 07:49, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Another thought. I just noticed that Category:Military is under Category:Sources. If we remove the sources, could we just leave Category:Military as its own top-level category? -- Amy (Ajcrow) 07:55, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

I have an appointment soon, so I'll take a look at this when I return. One thing I noticed is that we have Category:American Civil War veterans and Category:U.S. Civil War Figures which may need to be combined. There are a few other cats under Category:Military figures that seem to duplicate yours as well. --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:02, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
You can definitely have more than one parent category, I do it all the time. On Figures v. Veterans, that's on purpose. Figures is the category for notable people, veterans is for everyone else. That's actually the reason I brought up doing the Veterans categories on the Watercooler - the Figures categories aren't really intended to hold thousands of people; they're already several levels deep and the long-term plan is to key off of the "notable people" category to show people their famous relations, which would get significantly muddied if all the vets are in there--Amelia 10:37, 12 April 2011 (EDT).
I find the Figures v. Veterans situation confusing, especially when they both link back to the same parent category. Category:American Revolutionary War Figures says it's a category "for people who fought/participated in the American Revolutionary War", but then we also have Category:American Revolutionary War veterans.
I agree with moving sources to a subcategory of Category:Military records since this title matches the source subject. That will then be correctly directed up to Sources. At that point, I suppose Category:Military could go under Genealogical content, since it doesn't seem to fit underneath any one of those subcats. --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:38, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
Yes, Figures v. Veterans is confusing, but we've only had Veterans for two days :-) The note on the Figures page is what prompted me to raise the issue - it was put there after the Figures categories were created for their original, different purpose. I've added a note on the page that I'm going to change it if I don't hear objection, but Debbie hasn't responded. I also am not really comfortable with Rev War regiments, so I'd like some input before I set up a structure, but so far it's not forthcoming. A lot of what's in the Figures category now are sources, so if we're doing something different it would be nice to figure that out too.--Amelia 14:08, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
Do you mean the note you left on the Category talk:American Revolutionary War Figures page? It looks like Debbie did respond and she had no problem with you moving over the non-notables. Brenda is working a lot on the sources, I'll leave her a note to join the conversation here. --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:06, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

Coming in late to this discussion, is one aspect of the issue the question of handling war-related sources vs. war-related people? Should these be overlapped in the same category (either the same parent category or the same actual category)?

Military records (with subset of "x geography") would seem to work for general military records. But many military records are specialized to a war/time period, and that's more relevant to a search than the geographic orientation of the records. So I kept using "American Revolutionary War Figures" as the only available subtopic that allowed me to specify the war period.

How about treating military records as we do census records and Ethnic and cultural category - meaning, we either create or allow creation of specific subcategories of military records for specific war periods. "U.S. Civil War veterans" or "U.S. Civil War Figures" would apply to individuals. "U.S. Civil War records [of geography]" would be like the "1850 Maine census" category - a subset of census records. In American history, the "American Revolutionary War records [of geography]" would be the other major category (and subcategories).

One issue is that not all military-related sources are records (books that are Military Unit histories are a good example, and very common from the Civil War). So "Military Units [of geography]" would be another source subset of Military records?

This ends up creating nested categories, I think. I'm imagining a sort of Venn Diagram of source categories under the master category Military records - there would be general military records, some specific to a place geography. Alternately, a military related source could be a specific war related, and/or a specific military unit related source. I don't think a specific source would have overlapping categories of both the general "Military records" and one of the specialized military records categories (war-specific or unit-specific), but a source could be both (and is now) U.S. Civil War related and Military Units-related.

But I still think both are under the rubric of a source-related category.

So, does "U.S. Civil War veterans" suffice for what someone would want to add to a person page for a category? Or do Military Units also need to be a person/genealogical category as well as a source category? and if so, how should that be done?

I apologize if I've gone over ground already discussed. I'm tired and a bit distracted (by Bones, which is on TV in the other room). Sorry to be so wordy...--Brenda (kennebec1) 23:20, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

I like the idea of having Figures/veterans for people and sources for sources. You're right, Brenda, that not all sources are records, especially when it comes to military. But there are other things than just military units. What about the collected biographies of veterans of an area? That's not really a "record." Rather than try to think of all of the possible subcategories of military sources (records, units, biographies), what if we were to refer to them collectively as "resources." That way you could still have American Civil War Resources [of geography] or American Revolutionary War Resources [of geography] without splintering it further. Think about it from the end-user's perspective. They don't care if it's a "record" or a "unit history" or a "biography" or whatever. They just want all the "stuff" for [x] war for their county. I'd hate to make a user have to visit multiple categories to cover all the sources for one war for one county.
In Maine, I haven't gone done to the county level for Military records, since the military tends to act on a state (or national) basis and a regiment, for example, is rarely exclusively one county. It seems much more useful to organize by war period or regiment than it does to organize by anything more divided than state geography, and there aren't enough records in this category to make "Military records of [State]" overwhelming, at least in Maine.
I see your point regarding records vs resources. There are a couple of problems with replacing records with the word resources - it is inconsistent with other categories for sources. However, in other categories, records is expected to be translated loosely and be inclusive of other types of source material (as in Church records, which includes narrative church histories as well as church records). This theory can be applied to military records as well.
If "records" is being loosely translated for other pages, let's be consistent and do that here, too. -- Amy (Ajcrow) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
I'm noting, tho, just as with persons (veterans), the "Military records" category does need some subsidiary categories so that when the source is specific to a particular war period, and/or a particular state, and/or (possibly) a military unit(s), it can be identified. The more I think about it, the more I think that Military Units (for sources) does not need to be broken down to be specific to a particular regiment, because for any given regiment there isn't likely to be more than a handful of sources. Maybe Military records of [geography] just has subcategories for "[War period} records of [geography]." If that got too large or unwieldy, then maybe one would add additional subcategories...--Brenda (kennebec1) 19:03, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
For larger states, I think leaving everything at the State level would hinder finding resources. For example, Ohio has 88 counties; Indiana has 92. You don't find many war-specific records, but you do have general military records, such as graves registration cards, soldiers discharge records, and a growing number of publications of "Veterans of [x] County." I'm going to have to mull this around for a bit, as I can think of so many permutations of arranging this. -- Amy (Ajcrow) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
Brenda, I'm not sure what you mean by "Does 'U.S. Civil War veterans' suffice for what someone would want to add to a person page for a category?" Are you asking what would be the category to put on the Person page? We're using the unit as the category level for the Person page. Here is the structure that's in place. -- Amy (Ajcrow) 07:36, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
I meant to ask, are Military Units being used to organize people (the answer is yes), and thus can/should the same categories be used to organize sources?
Based on my thinking above, I think the answer is no (tho on the other hand, perhaps it would be convenient for searchers to be able to find people in and sources about, say, the 20th Maine in the Civil War in the same search?)--Brenda (kennebec1) 19:03, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
But then we're back to mixing people and sources in the same category. Speaking only of the Civil War, very few units have multiple histories. There's nothing to say that at the top of the Category page you couldn't put a link to those sources. If there's that many, make an article with a list of them and link it there. Scot expressed an interest on my Talk page about having a short unit history at the top of each category. As he and I discussed, if it's extensive, make an article and link it there. -- Amy (Ajcrow) 07:40, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Is this the hierarchy that we're thinking of? Feel free to edit as necessary:


--Jennifer (JBS66) 14:35, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

I'm suggesting, I think, a parallel military records category structure - one by locality and one by war and locality. Thus many source pages would have two military-related categories. I'm trying to figure out how to integrate this. One possibility would be to do this:
    • Category:Sources
      • Category:Military records
        • Category:Military records of Conflict
          • Category:American Revolutionary War records of the United States (also goes under Category:Sources of the United States)
            • Category:American Revolutionary War records of State, United States]]
              • Category:American Revolutionary War records of County, State, United States]]
          • Category:American Revolutionary War records of England
        • Category:Military records of the American Civil War
          • Category:Civil War records of the United States (not needed? no other country involved...)
            • Category:Civil War records of State, United States
              • Category:Civil War records of County, State, United States
        • Category:Military records of World War I
          • Category:World War I records of the United States
            • Category:World War I records of (etc...)
        • Category:Military records of the United States (used for records without a defined conflict) (also goes under Category:Sources of the United States)
          • Category:Military records of State, United States (used for records without a defined conflict) (also goes under Category:Sources of State, United States)
            • Category:Military records of County, State, United States (used for records without a defined conflict) (also goes under Category:Sources of County, State, United States)

Does that work? I think that, as with veterans, the conflict is a high priority category. The difference between the first option (your proposal modified, jennifer) and the 2nd is that under 1) many military sources would have two categories and 2) it would remain possible to show via category ALL military records for a geography and all military records for a specific conflict for a geography.
The second option limited the "military records of Geography category to only those records not associated with a particular "conflict of significance." Thus War of 1812 sources could have their own hierarchy added, or could be unspecified and placed into the "Military records of Geography" category scheme.--Brenda (kennebec1) 08:29, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
Any thoughts on this, Jennifer? I'm inclined to use the 2nd design - do you have any objections? Let me know so I can implement, clean up, and move sources... --Brenda (kennebec1) 11:41, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
Let me take a look at this. I work better visually, I'll put this into my flow-charting program so I can see how the layout works with the other categories. I'll post back ASAP. --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:46, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

I don't know that categories would get two sources. Generally, you'd put a page into it's lowest level category. For example: Source:Orland, Hancock, Maine, United States. Town and Vital Records 1765-1892 wouldn't go into both Category:American Civil War records of Hancock, Maine, United States and Category:Military records of Maine, United States, because one category is a child (or grandchild) of the other.

Here is a sample visual format. I tweaked a few things so that it would fit into the format we're using for things like Vital Records. The veterans categories are named differently in the flowchart just so I could keep the pattern something of place intact (it doesn't mean I propose changing them here as well). This graphic is pretty easy to edit, so let me know if you'd like me to make any changes.

Honestly though, I'm concerned that categorizing to this level of specificity is not workable here. Dallan has been clear that categorizing is something that would need to have the ability to be automated, and I don't know that this is. --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:51, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

For what it's worth, I think the hierarchy makes sense, although I would delete as unnecessary categories like "Veterans by Conflict" (just mix them together) and "Civil War Veterans of the United States" (to the extent there are other countries, they can be mixed together just fine). Six levels seems better than eight. I don't really know what Dallan means by automating categories - I think that's an unfeasible dream for categories to be added to people, and it should be easy to automate creating the hierarchy whatever we want to define.--Amelia 18:36, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
Dallan's last conversation about categories is here which included a comment "Not automating category creation and maintenance doesn't work for me. I don't want to require admins to create and maintain categories." So, my concern was that we'd all be going through this effort to define and attach categories to sources and/or people, and have it replaced by search-based navigation instead. I happen to like categories myself, but I don't know how these categories would be easy to automate. You'd need a person to define what war a source is about, or what war a veteran served in. --Jennifer (JBS66) 19:09, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
Ahh. Well, I understand why it doesn't work for him, but I think this is one of those quintessential user-generated jobs that happens on a wiki. The possibility of search does significant diminish my interesting in categorizing sources, but I don't know how we'd get a good search for veterans, or Great Migration people, or famous writers (for example) if we don't categorize them first.--Amelia 19:17, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
I like what you did, Jennifer... I think you captured what I was looking for. Regarding the project of creating categories and a structure, as I've noted elsewhere, the problem for me with the subject field (the "search-based" alternative to categories) is that at this time you have to pick one subject for each source record. Many sources have multiple subjects, even tho one usually predominates.
Good key word searching will work for many possible searches (within people and/or within sources), for "veteran," for example, but since the content on any given page is not consistent (by definition, because it is ultimately editable by users), search will have limitations as well. Anyway, this issue (the need for a human mind/eye) is one reason why there continue to be jobs for librarians in the world, despite the advent of the internet and google. Categories are a taxonomy - a consistent "key word" structure that when applied to either people or sources, allows someone to group like records in a convenient and meaningful way. Even if categories do little more than provide the useful "names" for an effective "key word" search tool, they are still a worthwhile effort, because they provide (hopefully) consistent and meaningful results.
Search tools can and should be automated, and I encourage the creation of a robust search tool (already improved!). Categories should remain relatively simple, and ideally consistent, but may always need a human eye to apply the more specialized types of categories...more than "subject or surname [of/in] place." The autogenerated categories that now exist (surname in place) are comprehensive, but not always accurate; only a human eye can decide that in fact that particular source refers to surname Smith in Maine, and surname Jones in Tennessee; the autogenerated categories assume that if Smith and Jones are surnames, and Tennessee and Maine are places, all possible permuations are applicable.
It is a dilemma - which makes continuing to generate a critical mass of users a valuable thing to add to WeRelate, because hopefully a handful or so of them will decide they are crazy enough to be interested in how we catalog and organize our sources, persons, and families...--Brenda (kennebec1) 14:08, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Jennifer -- I love the graphic you did! One thing I would encourage everyone to do on the lower-level categories would be to add a link at the top of the page reminding users to check the page of the next level up. For example, if there were a category for American Civil War Records of Fairfield, Ohio, United States, have a note at the top of the page saying "Records from other conflicts as well as general military records can be found on Category:Military Records of Fairfield, Ohio, United States." Even though there would be the link to that page already at the bottom, I've found that people need multiple ways of finding the same information. (We realize that the categories are hierarchical and that other things could be found under Category:Military Records of Fairfield, Ohio, United States, but some users need it actually spelled out for them.) -- Amy (Ajcrow) 14:29, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

I couldn't visual this conversation without the graphic, so I'm glad others benefited from it as well! I agree with all of the above comments about the importance of categories. I hope that a well thought out and implemented structure will show that categories are actually respected and valued here at WeRelate. Search is good - but categories are just another way to find what you need, and as WR grows, that becomes all the more important. --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:44, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

It gets back to the fact that different people approach the search for data in different ways. Some people like to search, some people like to browse, and some people like to do both. Search alone won't serve everyone's information needs; neither would categories by themselves. By having well thought-out categories, we are supplementing the search function on WR, not seeking to replace it. I'm so glad that others see this! (And I agree with Brenda -- we need to arrive at that critical mass of data and users... ) -- Amy (Ajcrow) 14:35, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

I just noticed something on the graphic. Under "Veterans," do we really need both "American Civil War veterans" and "American Civil War Veterans of the United States"? We're basing the "location" on the veteran's unit, not where he lived. If he was in the 1st Indiana Infantry (why do we keep picking on them? <g>), his category would be 1st Indiana Infantry (Civil War), which would fall under Indiana Civil War veterans. Since there were no foreign units, there wouldn't be any other country-level categories. (There wouldn't be a category for American Civil War Veterans of Canada, for example.) The same would be true for the American Revolutionary War. I realize it doesn't make everything line up perfectly, but I don't know that having a category that can only have 1 item in it is very user-friendly. -- Amy (Ajcrow) 19:36, 20 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Amelia that Veterans by conflict could be removed. As for removing American Civil War Veterans of the United States, if we did that, then American Civil War veterans from each state would be mixed into the Veterans of the United States category. Regarding American Revolutionary War veterans of the United States, there could be American Revolutionary War veterans of England. If the structure makes sense for most other conflicts, we may want to maintain a consistency among the categories to avoid confusion. --Jennifer (JBS66) 17:03, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

A few more category questions

While we're on the subject of categories, I have a few questions. I know they're not military categories, but I thought this was as good a place as any to post this...

  1. Census records category at the state level: Category:1850 Texas census. It goes to Texas census records, but that isn't tied into the Texas, United States category. There is also no structure at the county level. If we followed what we are developing for other sources, we'd have Census records of Texas, United States going to both Sources of Texas, United States and Census records of the United States
  2. Sources at the county level: Do we want them organized at the county level as well? For example Category:American Civil War records of Hancock, Maine, United States goes to Category: American Civil War records of Maine, United States. Should it also go to Category:Sources of Hancock, Maine, United States? --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:09, 22 April 2011 (EDT)

Surnames [29 April 2011]

Hi Jennifer,

I have commented on Surnames on WeRelate, so I won't duplicate that here. In summary, my name, Vornlocker, originated in 1600 as Fachenlueger. I know for certain of relatives living today, named Farnlacher and Vornlocher and, having found records for about 3 dozen other spellings, I would like to improve the odds for connecting with other relatives. My intention in putting the wildcards in the other spellings field was to test whether a reverse wildcard search would work; in other words would someone entering Rehrig for a surname search find my Roehrig surname. I diidn't have the chance to finish the test, which I would like to do, with the promise that I will delete it after the test. By the way, I don't know to whom to write, but wildcards are not working for searching dor Surnames. I just tried D*rm*n and couldn't find Dohrmann.--Bob 12:24, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

Hello Bob, sure you can go ahead with your test. What I would suggest is that you write a note in the summary field when you save your edit so that other admins will know not to revert it too soon. The changes you make on that page does take a few hours to generate. To clarify how surname pages work, the Related names that you enter there are then used to improve searches. For example, on the Surname:Roehrig page, since you added Rehrig, Rohrich, Rohrig, and Rorig - a search for any one will return results for the other variations as well.
Regarding the wildcards not working, I tested D*rm*n just now and it does return Dohrmann. It is at the end of the 198 results (limited to Person). My thought is that sorting by relevancy should have moved those results up to the top of the list... but they are there nonetheless. I'd say the best place for concerns of this type is the support page. --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:51, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

Consider using the sandbox for testing? --Jrich 15:18, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
I did consider suggesting the Sandbox, but I wasn't sure if Dallan updates that software regularly. Since he just fixed/updated search here, I thought there was little harm in this user testing ideas out temporarily on one page. --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:22, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

Hi Jennifer,

I guess I must be mistaken. However, I checked all the emails I sent/received from Dallan and I said in them that, after he fixed the wildcard search, I was able to retrieve it. I was under the impression, based on what he said, that a Surname page is created when a gedcom is imported. So, when does a Surname page get created? And, if not when a gedcom is created, how does one create Surname pages? Please un-confuse me?


Bob--Bob 17:23, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Hello Bob, Surname pages such as Surname:Roehrig are not created at the time of a gedcom upload. Person, Family, and MySource pages are created (for example Family:Charles Frey and Elisabetha Farnlacher (1) and Person:Elisabetha Farnlacher (2)).

Surname pages are created manually by going to Add>Other Page>choose Surname from the Namespace drop-down box and enter a surname in the title box. Surname pages are explained a bit more on the Portal:Surname page, along with some examples of its use. In addition to serving as a page to house general information about families & resources about a surname, it also has the purpose of improving WeRelate's search (as I described above). I hope this helps, --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:05, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

washington times [14 April 2011]

Hi, I'm working on the washington times - there are two different ones - not sure how you will name them - but I added the dates of operation to the new one I created (1893 - 1939) the one that already existed in werelate was created in 1982 --cthrnvl 15:56, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

You are doing a nice job adding clarifying information on both of the new pages! My suggestion would be to follow the WR titling guidelines for Newspapers Title (Place issued) - but, add the year range after to disambiguate it from Source:Washington Times (Washington, District of Columbia, United States). When users are looking for a source in the drop-down box, it would be helpful to see how your Washington Times differs from the other one. So, maybe Source:Washington Times (Washington, District of Columbia, United States) (1893-1939)? --Jennifer (JBS66) 16:06, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

OK, I just used the automatic process that creates the name for you. I haven't done advanced things like name changes! But I think I can handle it. That is what I will do (add the dates). I'll work on that. I am finding a goldmine at the new (to me) LOC newspaper search. --cthrnvl 17:03, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

This person seams to be a joke [19 April 2011]

Please have a look at this: Person:Penelope Kent (1)
I am not even amused--Klaas (Ekjansen) 05:06, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

It seems this is a result of a series of messy merges on this family. Originally, Penelope's page showed her born in 1622 with her name Penelope Van Princis. This site shows her name as Penelope Van Princin born 1622. Is this a family you're interested in cleaning up a bit? I can lend a hand if you are. --Jennifer (JBS66) 05:53, 19 April 2011 (EDT)
I think the message on the talk page about Penelope Prince should be taken more serious. I don't think this person has anything to do with Holland, but I don't see sources and I don't have them, so what should be corrected into what else?--Klaas (Ekjansen) 06:06, 19 April 2011 (EDT)
The message may be noticed, there is at least one active user watching the page (in addition to you :-) Some books are saying she was born in Amsterdam, others say England. I'll put notes for what I can locate on the talk pages. If a source better than Ancestral File can be located, the Ancestral/Gedcom junk sources can be discarded. --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:26, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

To JB66:

I am swamped with a number of things right now and don't have time to fully attend to this, but at some point I would hope to be able to turn my attention to this question about the identity of the person that you are merging into files for Penelope Kent.

I don't have that time right now but let me try to do my best to save you a little time and others a little headache and suggest that there is no historical basis whatso-absolutely ever for merging all of these files into Penelope Kent but that there is a better reason for merging them into Penelope Prince.

Again, at some point I will try to source this better for you and everyone, but for now and off the top of my head this is the best I can do. I'm not suggesting that you HAVE to do this until then but I'll let you decide.

After many years (approximately 10) of obsessive research about the identity of the person known in legend as Penelope Van Princis/Van Princess/Kent and Thomson before deciding that I needed to get on with actual life on this here Earth, it is my strong opinion that her name was Penelope Prince; that she was English, that she came to Kent Island (note, "Kent" Island) in the Chesapeake under indenture by Robert Vaughan (note the similarily in pronunciation to the "Van" in one version of the legends about her; that she was the same Penelope Prince whom Robert Vaughan testified in court records in about 1656 and who ran away from her indenture in 1646-7 or so during the time of troubles on Kent Island; that she was working out her indenture in the service of William Cox and his wife Frances on Kent Island and that they lived near Richard Thompson/Thomson (note the "Thompson/Thomson" in some versions of her name) on Kent Island who was involved in a big old major way in the "Time of Troubles" that led to her running away; that another version of her surname that pops up in some versions is "Lent" and there was a man named "Lent" living on Kent Island and who figured in that "Time of Troubles." It is also very possible (though by no means proven) that she was the Penelope Prince who was born in 1629 in Stepney and baptized at St. Dunstan's.

Penelope Prince ran away from Kent Island in 1646-7 (according to the testimony of Robert Vaughan); the Penelope who marries Richard Stout appears in the historical record as "Penelope Prince" in 1648 on Gravesend in Long Island. It is an educated guess on my part, and based on extraordinarily strong circumstantial evidence contained in the legends about her, that the Penelope Prince who married Richard Stout is the same person who was the Penelope Prince living on Kent Island from 1644-6.

Take this and run with it or ignore it, I don't much care at this point, but anyone who wants to see this for themselves can look at Filby's at the entry for Penelope Prince which references the court testimony of Robert Vaughan in 1656, and read about the history of Kent Island during the time of troubles with William Claiborne, and read the various versions of the legends of Penelope Van Princess in all of those old histories of New Jersey, and consider how it is that legends take shape over time and names become misunderstood, and begin to understand how it might be that those who wrote down the stories of Penelope Prince many years after her death might have misunderstood how a young English girl on "Kent" Island in the 1640's, who was brought to the island by Robert "Vaughan," and who ran away during a war in which her neighbor Richard "Thompson" figured prominently as did her neighbor "_____ Lent," and might have merged all of these names into hers in print, making it almost impossible to determine her identity without careful consideration.

At another time I will try to explain all of this and source it better, including why I believe there is a strong chance that she was the same Penelope Prince born in England, but at least for now I offer you Filby's for Penelope Prince and the Gravesend Town Records for someone of the same name. And for whatever it's worth, the records of St. Dunstan's in the East where Penelope Prince was baptized in 1629, the child of Mary Kilburn and Lawrence Prince. (unsigned User:Norajames).

Thank you very much for your detailed response. I am going to copy this to the Person talk:Penelope Kent (1) page so that others watching can benefit. --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:55, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

unindentified pages [24 April 2011]

hi jennifer

i have a problem; i cant make any pages (person and family) anymore. when i try i only make pages with unidentified persons. can you help to solve this problem?

paul--Paulsnip 05:29, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Hi Paul, it appears this happened when you added pages yesterday (23 Apr), could you try to add a page today to see if this might have been fixed? Dallan was working to fix a bug in the system last night (I am not sure if the problems are connected though).

If you are still creating Undefined pages, please let me know what browser and version you are using (for example, Internet Explorer 8 - let me know if you need help determining this) and I will pass along this message to Dallan. Also, if you could provide a brief example of the steps you are taking to create the page. Thank you for letting me know! --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:30, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

hi jennifer

thanks for your quick reply. the browser i am using is explorer 9. i also tryed today to make mew pages, it dit not work. after your message i tryed to make pages with google chrome; it worked, so the problem is with explorer 9.

i made the pages the mormal way, first: add --> person --> filling in the name and information i know --> add page --> make a new page --> after that the page in unindentified. i also hapens with adding a family.

n.b. a was able to change an unindentified page alter in a page with a name.

i hope you understand what i mean. fore the moment i will work on werelate with chrome.

greeting paul--Paulsnip 07:02, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Dank u wel Paul! I made a note on Dallan's page here. You may want to watch his page so that you can be notified of updates to this problem. I will also pass along any information to you directly. I am glad that Chrome is working for you! Groetjes, --Jennifer (JBS66) 07:17, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Sorry about that; thank you for reporting it! I just made a fix that should work cross-browser. I don't have IE9 readily available and I have to leave soon for most of the day, but this change should fix the issue in IE9.--Dallan 11:33, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
Thanks Dallan! It appears to be working on IE9 for me now. --Jennifer (JBS66) 17:53, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Thank You so much [25 April 2011]

Hi, Thank You, Thank You so much for your more correct response. I really appreciate it. Debbie Freeman --DFree 13:02, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Surname Categories [1 May 2011]

Jennifer, I see that you are altering the surname categories to a different structure. I didn't see any discussion on this in the Surname Portal or elsewhere. Did I miss something? I have no real problem with the new arrangement, but wonder where the idea came from. —Parsa 11:04, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Hi Parsa, there was a long discussion about categories in general here last year. I based the structure upon comments on that page where users requested that surname categories not be placed directly in the main place category. As part of a recent Source categorization project, I began cleaning up the surname categories in keeping with this request. I also added a set of directions here. Your feedback is welcome as there are few users that categorize their surnames! --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:21, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

There are sure going to be a lot of entries on the Surnames in the United States category if every surname variation shows up there! — Parsa 12:41, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Exactly! Which is why they shouldn't be put directly under the Category:United States (or any other place category for that matter). I think the TOC helps, which is in use on the Category:Surnames, as well as the Category:Surnames in the United States. The TOC can be further refined in the future to limit by Aa Ab Ac instead of ABC as well.
One small note is that pages like Category:Barnett in United States are already "Wanted", meaning they are being automatically created on the bottom of person/family/source pages. Category:Surnames in the United States is just a container to hold them all. --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:48, 27 April 2011 (EDT)


Not quite sure how this works, but I'm wondering what happened to my surname, Vornlocker. Also, Dallan and I have been corresponding with regard to how Surname is used in WeRelate. Where do I look to understand wht you're doing with Surnames, thanks--Bob 23:26, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Hi Bob, the category for Vornlocker had not been created yet, so I created it this morning (see Category:Vornlocker surname). From there you can see all of the Vornlocker's on WeRelate. There are also categories for Category:Vornlocker in Germany and Category:Vornlocker in United States to further refine your search. These surname categories appear automatically at the bottom of every Person and Family page, though they are often red-linked (thus not created yet). You can find more detailed instructions for creating them here. --Jennifer (JBS66) 05:52, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Hi Jennifer,

I guess I'm not getting through to you. I can no longer find my Surname, Vornlocker, though the Search All, Namespace: Surname search. It was there and it was pertinent to my work with Dallan on some ideas relating to the use of "Related Names" in linking family trees. Rather than repeating all the threads of our conversations here, would you mind checking with Dallan as to the progress of our discussion. I'm concerned that something is going on that will preclude what we've been discussing. Basically, if two gedcoms are imported to WeRelate, one with a Vornlocher, born in 1750 and another with a Vornlocker born in 1750, the Related Names field would be the catalyst for joining them.


Bob--Bob 23:24, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Bob, the Surname:Vornlocker page has never even been created - it is not something that went missing with any process relating to surname categories (which is a separate entity). My advice for you is to continue your discussions with Dallan directly.--Jennifer (JBS66) 05:39, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

It occurs to me that it is VERY easy to confuse Surname pages with Surname categories because, technically, a surname category "page" can be edited. While Surname pages are not automatically created, Surname categories *are*-- i.e., on a given person page, one will see an automatically-generated link to the Surname(s) included on the page. Jillaine 07:35, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

Place categories [28 April 2011]

Hi, Jennifer. Sometimes when I add a new cemetery page or review a recently created one, I notice that the county category is in red (like Category:Monroe, Indiana, United States). Would it help you at all if I go ahead and create the category? -- Amy (Ajcrow) 20:14, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Hi Amy, extra hands organizing categories would be great. I try to tackle them whenever I become a little burned out from my project! For the place categories, we've been putting them into the next higher "parent", so Monroe, Indiana, United States to Indiana, United States.
There is one thing I've been thinking about the cemetery categories. I notice that at the county level they don't link back to the place categories. For example, Category:Cemeteries of Orange, New York, United States isn't under Category:Orange, New York, United States. Do you think we want them to be? --Jennifer (JBS66) 20:29, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
Jennifer, I do.
Also, I was thinking, how do we compile our own cemetery lists without actually making a cemetery list such as the ones on USGenWeb? If the cemetery place is also a cemetery category, perhaps all the Person pages of people buried there would be listed. Right now, you have to click on "What Links Here" in the cemetery page to see the Person pages. That's not bad, but also not incredibly transparent to many users. — Parsa 23:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
Parsa, the cemetery itself is not currently a category, the lowest level we go to is Cemeteries of County, State, United States. We could show the cemeteries in a place via a category, but not the people buried within a certain cemetery. For that to happen, a cemetery category would need to be placed on every person page with burial information. So, What Links Here from the cemetery page is really the best way that I can think of to answer the question "Who is buried in this cemetery". There may be creative solutions that I've not thought of yet, but perhaps a note on the Portal:Cemetery may help to make this more known to users. --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:25, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
I agree with Parsa that the county Cemetery category should also fall under the "general" county Category. Though it would take quite a bit of work, I'd like to see the link to the county Cemetery category be placed in the text region of the county Place page so it would be highlighted a bit better. Jennifer -- the best way I've found to find the people buried in the cemetery is using "What Links Here". I'd love to know of a way to make that a wiki link so that we could add that as a link in the body of the cemetery page. (Something along the lines of "Click here for links to people in this cemetery.") Do you know of a way to do that? -- Amy (Ajcrow) 07:24, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
Amy, you can include a link to What Links here like you would for a URL, for example Click here for links to people in this cemetery if you want to remove the outside link indicator, you can enclose it with a span tag like <span class="plainlinks">[ Click here for links to people in this cemetery]</span> which will produce this: Click here for links to people in this cemetery
Regarding the cemetery categories, we would need to edit our template for cemetery categories so that pages like Category:Cemeteries of Orange, New York, United States go into both Category: Cemeteries of New York, United States and Category:Orange, New York, United States (we already do this at the state and country level). Then, perhaps as new cemeteries are added, we could add a Cemeteries heading to the place page with a link to the category. Cemeteries show up on the town's page already, are you thinking that since they don't show up on the county page, adding the category would be helpful? If we decide to go this route, just let me know how I can help. --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:53, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Mexico City [6 May 2011]

I get that Mexico City and Ciudad de México are the same place. I didn't notice the duplicate when linking my place to it.

However, Getty lists the English Display as World, North and Central America, Mexico, Distrito Federal, Mexico City

The Vernacular Display is listed by Getty as World, North and Central America, México, Distrito Federal, Ciudad de México Note the accent over the é in Mexico. These are also the Preferred Names for both the City and Country.

If the WeRelate policy is to list the place names in vernacular then shouldn't we be consistent and list both the city and the country in the vernacular. If the WeRelate policy is to list place names in English then both the city and country names should be in English.

If the WeRelate Policy is to use the Getty Preferred Name then the city should be Ciudad de México and the country should be México.

I suggest that either the city name or the country name be corrected to conform to WeRelate policy.--Rick 01:31, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Rick, WR does not have a policy to follow the Getty Preferred Name for place titles. Getty and Wikipedia were two sources that WR gathered place data from. The policy is to title the WR place page in the country's native language except for the name of the country (so Mexico would remain as such). I don't know the history of this decision, nor do I necessarily agree with it, but that is the policy as it stands now. --Jennifer (JBS66) 05:59, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Berlin, Brandenburg, Preußen, Germany [6 May 2011]

OK, I find this one bizarre on many levels. I don't know much about German geography but every source I've consulted puts Berlin in the Berlin State.

1. Getty (World, Europe, Germany, Berlin state) [7003712]

Wikipedia says that Berlin is a City State.

The Berlin web site:

    "On the day of German reunification, October 3, 1990 Berlin became an independent city-state like Hamburg and Bremen."

WeRelate policy is that the independent cities in Virginia be listed on their own instead of in the county where they happened to be enclosed. Berlin should be treated the same? I could understand a listing of Berlin (city), Germany or perhaps Berlin (city), Berlin (state), Germany but not a listing of Berlin, Brandenburg, Germany.

2. Preußen is not listed at all in Getty. Wikipedia says that Preußen is the German word for Prussia. Getty lists Prussia as an independent nation which no longer exists--not as a state within Germany. The Germans themselves do not list Prussia as a state at

3. It would also be incorrect to list Prussia as a state within Germany. Prussia encompassed territories within both Germany and Poland according to Getty. According to Wikipedia Prussia covered parts of Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Denmark, Belgium, Czech Republic, Netherlands, and Switzerland at different times.

4. In any case Prussia is no more and should have its own listing much like the American colonies, e.g. Place:Connecticut (colony), Kingdom of England.

5. Why are we using Preußen instead of the English Prussia and Germany instead of the German Deutschland? We shouldn't be shifting language from German to English in the middle of a place name. As WeRelate policy is to use the word Germany then we should be using the word Prussia for the place name.--Rick 02:44, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

As I'm sure you've noticed, the place pages on WR are not perfect. Various users over the years have taken a country as a project and begun renaming/reorganizing projects (mine is the Netherlands). Germany is one of those countries in need of work! I cannot speak for what the titling rules should be, as I've not researched this area yet. Two policies that would be carried through to Germany though are: 1)That places are titled as they were around the year 1900 (or thereabouts) and 2) that places are titled in their native language except for the country.

Regarding Berlin, when I compared your page to WR's version, I found them to be the same - so I merged them. I don't know what the proper title will be in the future for German place pages, but if you would like places to appear a certain way on your page and still link to the place, you can use the "pipe trick". The format for that is place title as it is in WR|place title as you want it to appear. --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:16, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

I didn't realize that the place names were circa 1900. And thank you for mentioning the WR policy on using vernacular for place names except for the country--I still disagree but now I know what to look for when locating foreign place names.

It would be helpful if these policies were mentioned either in the Place pages help or on the Place FAQ. I read both of these some time ago.--Rick 12:39, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Abbreviation Drenthe [11 May 2011]

Jennifer, which abbreviation can I use for the province Drenthe in the Netherlands. I use the letter D but this is not recongnized by WeRelae as far as I can see.--Bensinnema 06:44, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

The abbreviation for Drenthe is DR. The abbreviations for other provinces in the Netherlands can be found on their place pages. For example: Place:Friesland, Netherlands shows FR as an abbreviation. WeRelate's place matching system uses the alternate names from place pages to help in the matching process. --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:55, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Find a Grave Photos [11 May 2011]

Thank you for informing me about the find a grave photo's and helping me with a link.--chel 13:19, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Review of my GEDCOM [13 May 2011]

Hi Jennifer, I went back over all of the warnings that were posted for my GEDCOM "Pamsroots#1" and I have corrected them on my gedcom but there are only 3 that can be corrected and I will be glad to do so rather than having to resubmit everything all over again because all that would do is have to match a lot more than 3. I also have another gedcom that I would like to submit but I will wait to see what you want me to do about this one. I am running out of break time in which to do a lot of this so I am trying very hard to get as much done as possible within that time frame. Thanks, Pam Waters--Pamsroots 15:26, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Review of my GEDCOM [13 May 2011]

Hi Jennifer, I went back over all of the warnings that were posted for my GEDCOM "Pamsroots#1" and I have corrected them on my gedcom but there are only 3 that can be corrected and I will be glad to do so rather than having to resubmit everything all over again because all that would do is have to match a lot more than 3. I also have another gedcom that I would like to submit but I will wait to see what you want me to do about this one. I am running out of break time in which to do a lot of this so I am trying very hard to get as much done as possible within that time frame. Thanks, Pam Waters--Pamsroots 15:26, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Thank you. [14 May 2011]

759 Miss Jeannette Van Gulick (Mrs. Wes. CLIFT) 760 Miss Mary Van Gulick (Mrs. W.J. KIEVITT)

Above was all I had to go on. It is an entry in the 2nd reformed church in Passaic at

I guessed that Mary Van Gulick was a sister but did not follow up on it.--Online 11:07, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Notable People [28 May 2011]

Thanks for the info. ````--Sandralpond 09:40, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

[30 May 2011]

Hello Jennifer

I have a problem and i wonder if you can help me with it. It is about Grietje Snip, born in Sebaldeburen on the 19th July 1883. She is a daughter of Willemke (Wiegers) Snip. (she is unmarried then) Willemke marries Jan (Sybes) Siebinga in 1890.

In Januari 1910 the familie Siebinga (Siebenga) was leaving for the USA on the Rijndam. On the passengerlist Grietje's name is Grietje Siebenga; she is 26 jears old.

In the US Census 1910 Grace Si?benga, daughter of John en Welmke Si?benga, sudenly is 24! (the names and alter of the other chidren are right) They live in Riley, McHenry, Illinois.

In Januari 1911 a Grace Siebenga (25 years old) marries a Will Wiedenaar (Wiedemar) 24, in South Holland Chicago. On the marriage licence the name Wiedenaar is well readable at the bottum.

In the following link Grietje Snip (Grace Siebenga) is married to Willem(William) Weidenaar.;pz=jurjen;nz=de+boer;ocz=0;p=grietje;n=snip

Grace Saebauga-Siebinga and Will-Wm Weidenar are having at least 2 children.

- Johnny Weidenaar * 1914 +31 Jan 1925 in Bogus Brook, Mille Lacs, Minnesota - Lucy Weidenaar * 1917 +4 Apr 1934 in Princeton, Mille Lacs, Minnesota

Searching for the right William Weidenaar found:

That William Weidenaar is married to Grace Seibenga. As you can see, Lucy Weidenaar is mentioned as one of there children.

This Grace Seibenga born on the same date 19 July 1883 but in Illenois and is a daughter of a Bill Seibenga en NN. Can this Grace be the same as my Grietje(Grace) Snip (Siebenga)?

I think it is verry interesting, so I wonder if you can help me finding more information about Grace and William.--Paulsnip 11:09, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Hi Paul, I always love a good puzzle :-) I will see what I can find and add the information to their pages. --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:22, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
Paul, I do think that your Grietje Snip and Grace Siebenga are most likely the same person. I approached this by not looking at the ljbergema site first so as not to skew my deductions. She was living in Riley, Illinois in 1910, which is just a few miles away from the Marengo, Illinois listed on the marriage certificate. I don't think it can be assumed that Grietje was born in Marengo, IL - only that she lived there. This may be where the site made a false assumption. The Minnesota Death Index, 1908-2002 has a Grace Weidenaar b 19 Jul 1883 d 30 Jun 1958 in Mille Lacs (certificate 010106). This birth date and surname help to connect things.
This couple does appear in the 1920 and 1930 censuses, except under the surname Wagner.
I haven't a clue where the ljbergema site got the father's name of Bill Seibenga... You may want to email them to inquire.
Lastly, I think her husband William is Person:William Weidenaar (1). I'm not yet 100% sure, but I believe his father was Jan/John E Weidenaar. Jan's page needs more work, but he connects into a group of Weidenaar and Braaksma that went from Oost/Westdongereel to Montana. I hope this provides some clues for you. --Jennifer (JBS66) 21:55, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Hallo Jennifer Bedankt voor je werk.

I think William Weidenaar Person:William Weidenaar (1) is indeed the husband of Grietje Snip. There is only one other Willem Weidenaar (born 1877) that i know off. He and his family moved to the USA (Apr. 27, 1898) but he is older and he married a Jennie .... Therefor I will join William Weidenaar and Grietje Snip. I did already send an email to the ljbergema site, but did not receive an anwer.

I was surprissed to see that the family Wagner is the same as Weidenaar; it is always funny to see how (sur)names are read wrong.

I saw you already made a page for William Wagenaar, but it was a day (17th) before i wrote to you? (18th) How is that possible?

Greetings Paul

Graag gedaan, it was fun :-) I was surprised at first to see Wagner too, but then I put Weidenaar into Google Translate to pronounce the name. It sounds quite similar to how Wagner is pronounced which helps to explain how the census taker would interpret the name. I added the page for William on the same day you asked the question. That is odd, when you go to the history of William's page, you see that I created it on the 28th, but when you search for William Weidenaar, the search screen says the page was modified on the 27th. I don't know why that would be a day off. Groetjes, --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:17, 30 May 2011 (EDT)