User talk:Robert.shaw

Welcome

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

• Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do
• Watch the "Getting Started" tutorial videos and learn how to make wiki pages for your ancestors
• Explore the Step by step Tutorials, if needed
• Create a User Profile page to tell other people about yourself and the families you are researching
• Read the etiquette page to learn expected behavior on a wiki
• Find other ways to get involved on the community portal
• Ask questions on our Support page

If you need any help, we will be glad to answer your questions. Just go to the Support page, click on the Add Topic link, type your message, then click the Save Page button. Thanks for participating and see you around! --Support 23:28, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Duplicate pages patrol [20 August 2012]

Hi Robert.shaw, I noticed that you have been working on merging duplicate families, thank you! WeRelate has recently set up a series of volunteer pages (see Portal:Maintenance) and since you are working on duplicate pages, the Duplicate pages patrol may be of interest to you. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:22, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

Thomas Butler [27 August 2012]

Hi Robert, I noticed you added Thomas Butler as a son of Thomas Butler and Anne Lancelot. Thomas Butler (the elder) who married Anne Lancelot is listed as dying in 1714, and Thomas Butler, who you've added as their son is listed as being born in 1720, 6 years AFTER his supposed father had died. You might want to check available records/sources to see if Thomas Butler truly is a son of the elder Thomas, or if he belongs to a different family.

Best regards,

Jim Jim--Delijim 10:07, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

Actually what I did was a family merge (which I got to from the Family duplicates report). The two families were Family:Thomas Butler and Unknown (5) and Family:Thomas Butler and Anne Lancelot (1). These two families shared the child entry William Butler (108) and also had apparent child matches Thomas Butler (91) with Thomas Butler (79), and James Butler (100) with James Butler (95). The families' husbands, Thomas Butler (90) and Thomas Butler (10) appeared to match, including having compatible parents.

Here is the merge review. I noticed the conflict of the death date of Thomas Butler (10) with the estimated birth date of (to be merged) son Thomas Butler (91), which came from opposite sides of the merge. Clearly something is wrong, as you say, with a wrong date, a missing generation, or assignment to wrong families being possible scenarios. Nevertheless, I felt the correspondences of the two family entries indicated that they most likely were mostly the same family, and that whatever the problems were, the problems probably existed in both copies of the same people and families. Hence, it seemed they belonged merged so that when examined someday by a researcher they could be corrected as one.

I would be happy to hear other thoughts on the problem, and if you have suggestions on ways to handle this that would have a better result then we should discuss it. --Robert.shaw 17:02, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

Ok, fair enough. For now, I've added an advisory to Thomas Butler's page and removed him (for now) as a son of the elder Thomas. This line appears to have many problems (duplicate parents, etc), so hopefully someone with primary source knowledge of this family will help straighten them out... :) In the future, if you notice pages with "problems", you might want to add an advisory to the page to help others in the future. Best regards:)

Have a great week,

Jim

More info needed [3 December 2012]

Hello and welcome to WeRelate. Thank you for submitting your gedcom file. I am afraid that there is a problem. WeRelate is based on a shared database and creates a web page for each person. In your file, most of the people don't have events containing dates and places which would enable someone to identify the person. We will not be able to use this file as it is. However, we do encourage you to work on your data. You will need to add at least one date and place (enter the place name as "Jurisdiction, Country") for most of the people in your file. Where such dates are not available you may use an estimated date, i.e. "abt 1830". We also strongly encourage the use of sources. You may like to browse the existing pages and try creating a few by hand to get familiar with how WeRelate works. A list of recent featured pages is available from the WeRelate home. These will provide some examples of what is possible. And, finally, as a reminder, we do not create pages for living people. If you have any questions about your gedcom, you can reply here.--sq 20:46, 3 December 2012 (EST)

GM study project sketches [1 January 2013]

Hi Robert,

Technically, the note you added at the start of the GM list article is true, but we do intend to add them all at some point. I've been adding 10 or 15 at a time, even if they require stubs to be made.--Daniel Maxwell 00:01, 2 January 2013 (EST)

I'm glad to hear that people are working towards getting them all listed. I'd just thought casual browsers should not be mislead into thinking they were presently all listed. The GM volumes are a great resource and the immigrants are prime candidates for WeRelate pages. --Robert.shaw 00:08, 2 January 2013 (EST)

Great Work on the Assertions Help Page! [23 January 2013]

Thanks a lot - much more human(e) now! --jrm03063 12:50, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Adjustment to Source:Ontario Marriages, 1869-1927 [29 January 2013]

I think I see the difference between this source and Source:Ontario, Canada. Marriages - Registrations, 1869-1928 as occasionally I participated in the indexing process. I have made a few changes to the description and it now reads as follows:

This is an online index to the marriage registrations provided by the Archives of Ontario to FamilySearch. See Source:Ontario, Canada. Marriages - Registrations, 1869-1928 for the availability of the registrations themselves and for other indexes to them.

I removed the word "civil" as it infers only marriages conducted by justices of the peace. I am sure the index also includes the majority of marriages in the province which were conducted by clergymen of many denominations.

The original citations of all the WR sources for Ontario vital statistics failed to give the provincial body any credit and the Archives of Ontario tries to be very helpful to the genealogical community. One of the sources included a long list of all the FHS microfilms which hold the marriages and their indexes without any explanation of what might be on each reel. Now that the Family History Catalogue is online, it is no longer necessary for WR to provide this. --goldenoldie 02:01, 29 January 2013 (EST)

Ontario Marriages again [6 February 2013]

You are reminding me that I must add Ontario Vital Statistics Project as a repository and say something about it. It is a good source of the early marriages, but is duplicating what Ancestry and FamilySearch have done after 1875. I contributed much of the 1858-69 material for York County, but looking at the website recently, some years, especially 1865, must have had more marriages that are in the list.

I am working on another project for the moment so this is a part of my to-do list. The earliest Toronto marriages all took place at St James Cathedral and the registers are still in the hands of the Anglican Church archives. There is/was an index/transcript covering the entire 1800-1869 period. (I think Mary Crandall must have had to withdraw it from the Ontario Vital Statistics Project to oblige the church.) But I have a copy which I won't make public in full, but could quote the occasional marriage. One section of the St James marriages is available online in archive.org in John Ross Robertson's book--the name of which escapes me at the moment.

--goldenoldie 08:52, 6 February 2013 (EST)

Your Changes to Person:Thomas Brooke (14) [20 November 2013]

Hi Robert - Got an alert about your propagated change to Person:Thomas Brooke (14). Something is amiss on this page with duplicate family pages and a duplicate spouse Elizabeth Starkey who was b. 150 years earlier than her husband. Can you take a look? Perhaps a merge went wrong somewhere... Regards, --Cos1776 13:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I did this merge while working on the Family Duplicates Report backlog. My basis for the merge was that the 3 Persons involved (Thomas Brooke (14), Elizabeth Starkey (9), Richard Brooke (14)) had all been entered by the same user in the same upload, showing Thomas as father, Elizabeth as mother, and Richard as son, yet having two Family records instead of one (that is, one for the father and son, and another for mother and son). This type of family anomaly is not rare, apparently due to some software bug or misuse. Since the father and mother are specified, they should be together in a family record with their child (regardless of legal marriage status).

You've pointed out that Thomas is shown b. 150+ years after spouse Elizabeth. He's also shown b. 150+ years after the b. of his son Richard. Also, Elizabeth shown as age 14 at birth of son Richard. Clearly major errors here, but not resolvable without documentary evidence. I believe all the years and relationships derive from the original upload, although I haven't closely followed the histories to verify that.

(I just saw there was an additional Thomas-Elizabeth "Family" record sitting there that should be merged, not having any children, and have merged it in.)

I've now added warnings to the family and to Thomas's page. If you have data to correct things, by all means do so. If not, maybe you have a better idea as to what state the records should be left in until a researcher comes along to fix them. --robert.shaw 20:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh well... I had hoped that you were a knight in shining armor that was riding into that dastardly drive-by gedcom with a rucksack of reliable sources... :) It is a mess! I stumbled upon it a while ago and started to try to detangle it, but as it was not really my area of research, I didn't pursue it that much. Hopefully someone with an interest will come along soon. Best Wishes. --Cos1776 21:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I discovered Person:Thomas Brooke (14) was linked to Elizabeth Starkey not only as father of her child, but also as her 4th great grandson via their common child. I've broken the loop by removing him as father in that family. --robert.shaw 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Discussion on Norwegian Naming Conventions [11 December 2013]

I see you have been doing volunteer merge work, some of which touches on Norwegian families, and wondered if this gave you any insight that you would care to contribute to this discussion of Norwegian naming conventions (see topic 8.2 Norwegian Names on WeRelate). If not, that's fine. I have invited a number of others who have contributed Norwegian data in the last year, but sometimes it can be helpful to get an "outsider" view, if anything in your merging experience is relevant.--DataAnalyst 01:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Merged William Thomson and Margaret Unknown [6 January 2014]

I just completed a merge of William Thomson and Margaret Unknown (1) with another family (after merging their son James). I think I left the information pretty much as you had entered it based on what appears to be the definitive genealogy of this family (the source you cited, by Mary A Elliott). If I introduced any errors in the process of doing the merge, my apologies, and would you please fix them. I am quite experienced at doing WeRelate merges, so I don't think there are any artifacts that shouldn't be there, but I realized I was getting a bit tired, so you might want to give it a quick review. If you have any questions, just ask.--DataAnalyst 02:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked things over and didn't see any problems with the merge. Earlier I had left the Marie Milne family separate because it did not match too well. It seemed likely to be a confused mix of some Windsor CT Thompsons and some other Thompsons. Things are probably better with the changes you made. --robert.shaw 21:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

MySource:HBWhitmore/Darius G. Hill Family Bible Records [6 March 2014]

Thanks for making this look the way I wanted it to look. I should have remembered how to do ti myself, but had forgotten. I'm glad I have someone looking over my shoulder!--HBWhitmore 00:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Happened on it by chance, saw your new source in Recent Changes, took a peek and then fixed it. Figured you wouldn't mind.--robert.shaw 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

barber-green v7.ged Imported Successfully [6 April 2014]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

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

--WeRelate agent 15:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Messages/French [11 July 2014]

Hello, Robert ! http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=WeRelate%3AMessages%2FFrench&diff=20896645&oldid=20894943 --> it's ok, but I want to work first with this dopple display. My english is so basic and User:CTfrog will complete and fix my "first steps" --> http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User_talk:CTfrog#French_.5B18_June_2014.5D. When done, I will remove the english messages of this page. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL ---Markus3 06:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I just thought I would make you aware of format in case you weren't already. --robert.shaw 19:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

suggestion page "Example person pages" [31 dec 2014]

Sorry, created this page by accident. Just tried to undo. Apparently I'm unable. Maybe you can assist there?

Best regards, best wishes for 2015!

Edwin--Bronquest 22:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the slave categories and templates [19 February 2015]

Many thanks for setting up the slave categories and templates. I just added one person and will be adding more. Let me know if you see me using them incorrectly :)

Funny coincidence: when I looked at the person you added to the slave owner category, Jan Van Campen, I noticed that he was an early Dutch settler of Kingston, as were my ancestors (Theunis Eliasen Van Bunschoten). I haven't yet run into a connection between these families (though the index of the Van Bunschoten book lists 9 people with that name. Regardless, they may well have known each other.--Trentf 15:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I imagine they did know each other. Jan left a bunch of descendants (including ol' Pork & Beans Van Camp). --robert.shaw 16:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Married surnames for women [19 February 2015]

Markus3: I too came here to ask why you were moving the last name of women's married names from the surname field into the given name field. A page I was watching had this change, and I saw that you had done this kind of change for a bunch of women on 16 Feb. I don't see any point in doing this, and it will have serious consequences for the search mechanism. I think most English-speakers, at least, expect the married last name to be in the surname field, and will search for it in that position. That convention is the one that is used on major genealogy sites like FamilySearch. I don't think you should continue doing such changes unless and until some consensus to do so is reached (say, on the Watercooler page). Please let Cos1776 and I know your thoughts about this. --robert.shaw 04:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Robert ! It's ok ... ---> I will open a talk about this problem on the Watercooler. It's for me not so easy, my english is very poor. It's difficult to explain all the details of my "position". And I saw very often since my activity on WeRelate that a lot of contributors write on several points/topics in terms I am unable to really understand (and GoogleTranslate is "diabolic").

About your opinion and argumentation, it's for me exactly as the argumentation of Cos1776. You are staying on generalities and explaining nothing. You wrote for example : "it will have serious consequences for the search mechanism". What do you mean ? ---> So, more on the Watercooler ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 07:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

JonesGroup2.ged Imported Successfully [1 September 2015]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

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

--WeRelate agent 15:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

gedcom [18 March 2016]

Hi I am clearing up some old gedcoms and there is one of yours from last year not processed yet, do you want to import it or delete it?--Rhian 14:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for leaving that clutter around. I've removed it now. --robert.shaw 17:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks [10 July 2017]

Thanks for editing my unsigned note on the Support page. I sometimes forget that there are pages where the signature is not automatically added. Just a slip on my part, but I appreciate you clarifying it.--DataAnalyst 20:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

We all do that from time to time. --robert.shaw 18:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Steinmauern records [12 February 2018]

Thank you so much, Robert. I had run across those instructions before - but the reference said "access films at local library sites". At least what you say is a better alternative....viewing the book online is much easier than rolling the tape. I will try, and let you know. Thanks again.--Lola Baczeigel 22:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Commas in placenames [10 September 2018]

Thank you for your explanation. I tend to inspect the families under "What links here" after editing WR place descriptions. A cleanup of a family of 8 to 15 children all with excessive commas in their places of birth and death can be boring, time-consuming and frustratingly repetitive.

I have often wondered if the reason for commas might be that in your explanation, but I have never been sure. My own family tree was built with Legacy which allows editing to a person's individual placename file. I have never trusted the gedcom process and I don't think I ever looked at PAF (although I knew it existed).

There are jurisdiction levels divisions between parishes (a term which I must use in place of your "cities") and shire-counties in England, but I would not want to adopt them into placenames for genealogical purposes. For one thing these intermediate levels have varied too much over the course of centuries; secondly, they have never been used in postal addresses. (I do use intermediate levels to break up a county so that I can get an idea of the proximity of one place to another, but these intermediate-level names are never used to identify a "place".)

Parish is the smallest unit here--it may appear to have religious connotations but these were dropped during the 19th century when the term "civil parish" was adopted. This identified an area of land with distinct boundaries and discounted the density of population within the boundaries. In rural areas these equate to townships; in large urban areas various intermediate divisions have been used. In the 21st century parishes are steadily being replaced by "wards" of much larger districts, some of which are equivalent to former counties. The invention of the telephone, the automobile and the internet have a lot to do with the changes in local government since 1900.

Regards, --Goldenoldie 06:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ontario. Vital registration indexes [15 February 2019]

You state
"Microfilms may be ordered in Canada from Archives of Ontario through inter-library loan. They use their own series of microfilm numbers. Elsewhere, microfilms may be ordered through the nearest Family History Center. The Ontario Archive microfilm numbers can be found on their website and they also include a conversion list to FamilySearch microfilm numbers. Ancestry or Ancestry Canada provide images direct from their own index (but not without paying a subscription)."

I am not sure this is up-to-date. Family History Centers have been closing. I know the Toronto one ceased to exist in 2018. We were lucky enough to have a small one in a town six miles away from where I live in England, but it closed quite a few years ago. I think our nearest one is now London and this may be the only one south of Birmingham or Manchester.

The Ancestry or Ancestry Canada images were provided to them by Ontario Archives and they are made from the original microfilms. The same is true on Ancestry International with regard to UK material. Ancestry now does the indexing for Ontario Archives.

It took me 30 years to find a marriage that occurred in Yorkshire in 1830 in my direct line. The couple emigrated to North America before the birth of the first son a year later (the son was given his maternal grandfather's unusual given name). The marriage existed in the forerunner of the Family Search index with the groom's surname (and my maiden surname) mistranscribed. Only when I finally came across the bride's maiden surname and birthplace more through luck than by plan was I able to add the marriage to my family tree. I don't have much trust in indexes.--Goldenoldie 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

[16 February 2019]

I wrote to you yesterday in response to this email:

WeRelate via amazonses.com

Fri, 15 Feb, 19:30 (12 hours ago)

to me Goldenoldie,

"Source:Ontario, Canada. Births, Stillbirths, and Delayed Registration with Indexes, 1869-1914" has been changed by Robert.shaw at 20:29, 15 February 2019. Edit summary: remove now dead "Family History Center" repos

View the changes: http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Source:Ontario%2C_Canada._Births%2C_Stillbirths%2C_and_Delayed_Registration_with_Indexes%2C_1869-1914&diff=0&oldid=18593518

View the current version: http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Source:Ontario%2C_Canada._Births%2C_Stillbirths%2C_and_Delayed_Registration_with_Indexes%2C_1869-1914

Apologies if you had nothing to do with the situation. I don't make a habit of checking the history of every source or place entry I read in WR.

Regards --Goldenoldie 08:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Domesday Book discussion on Watercooler [3 July 2019]

Two things.
1. I suggested altering the Domesday reference entry because every time I see one I think it needs improvement. There is no evidence in the entry as it stands as to just how old the Domesday Book really is. The publication in 1985 was undertaken for the 900-year anniversary of the original. Not everyone is aware of the age or the content of the Domesday Book, particularly if they don't live in the UK. This was just a small attempt at trying to enlighten them.

2. I did not know of the Open Domesday website until I did a Google search after a glance at the Wikipedia article on Domesday this morning. The website came on the scene in 2011--after WeRelate had set up its place pages. I didn't get any further than examining the sample page. My opinion was also "could have done better".

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. Regards, --Goldenoldie 19:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I found that the UK archives page for Wye does say that the name used in the book is "Wi". Presumably that was to be seen in the images on OpenDomesday, but was not evident to me. (I found out Domesday is largely in Latin, not Old English or French). The Wye entry is said to be in Folio 11v Great Domesday Book; nowhere is a page number of "150" shown, so as I presumed that is a page number of the 1985 edition (Alecto?). --robert.shaw 20:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

GEDCOM review - thanks [30 June 2020]

Hi

Thanks for volunteering for this. It needs someone who knows how to discern the value of data being added. I am a few years into a project to remove pages for living individuals from WeRelate - which are mostly pages with no dates. I trust you will keep an eye out for trees with few to no dates so that we don't keep compounding the problem. --DataAnalyst 21:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope to be able to good job of judging the GEDCOM contents. I'll certainly be on the lookout for living persons. On suspicious cases, like dateless people, checking for dates on relatives often quickly resolves the living question. There are gray cases, of course, and I suppose the 110 year rule will exclude plenty. If you have tips, I'd welcome them. I've seen lots of the drive-by Gedcom uploads, and I've seen so many trees with garbage, that I plan to be careful. I helped work off the duplicates backlog from the uncontrolled upload era, and I know there are lots of other impacts from the time remaining, so Gedcom quality is quite important. --robert.shaw 23:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [4 July 2020]

You're not done yet!

Now that you have uploaded Test1LWR.ged into our review program, it is time for you to match your data to ours. Your next step is to review and resolve any potential warnings that your file might be showing and to match place names, source names and families to pages that may already exist in our database.

Notes:

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

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

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

--WeRelate agent 03:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

GEDCOM Export Ready [6 August 2020]

The GEDCOM for tree Barber-Green is ready to download. Click here.

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [6 August 2020]

You're not done yet!

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

Notes:

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

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

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

--WeRelate agent 21:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [6 August 2020]

You're not done yet!

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

Notes:

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

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

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

--WeRelate agent 23:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback [21 August 2020]

Hi

Thanks for the feedback on the FTE replacement. I'm not sure what happened with Olive Benedict's page, but she wasn't in the tree for a while. Not sure if I did that accidentally or someone else. The Trees link on the side is a bit confusing, as I think it shows a proposed update rather than the current state - something I want to change. At any rate, I put her back in the tree and it works fine now. The angle brackets, etc. are because the Sandbox is missing some pieces - Dallan didn't bother putting everything in place the last time he rebuilt it. --DataAnalyst 02:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [16 November 2020]

You're not done yet!

Now that you have uploaded barber-green v1.ged into our review program, it is time for you to match your data to ours. Your next step is to review and resolve any potential warnings that your file might be showing and to match place names, source names and families to pages that may already exist in our database.

Notes:

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

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

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

--WeRelate agent 21:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

[12 January 2021]

Robert, Again the GEDCOM Ready to Import is still grayed out. I'm happy to send the GEDCOM TO YOU. How and to what email address should I send it to?--Mars 13:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

[12 January 2021]

Robert, Again the GEDCOM Ready to Import is still grayed out. I'm happy to send the GEDCOM TO YOU. How and to what email address should I send it to?--Mars 13:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

GEDCOM Export Ready [12 January 2021]

The GEDCOM for tree Maverick is ready to download. Click here.

GEDCOM Export Ready [13 January 2021]

The GEDCOM for tree Maverick is ready to download. Click here.

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [14 August 2021]

You're not done yet!

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

Notes:

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

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

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

--WeRelate agent 19:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the GEDCOM Uploader [19 August 2021]

Hi

Since you are doing the Admin review of uploaded GEDCOM's, I particularly wanted to draw your attention to changes I plan to make soon - WeRelate_talk:GEDCOM_review#Proposed_changes_to_be_implemented_soon_.5B19_August_2021.5D. If you have any concerns, please let me know. If you want to discuss or do some testing of your own, please contact me. Thanks.--DataAnalyst 19:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

James Cumberland (1) Death Date Added? [29 December 2021]

I see you added a death date for James Cumberland from the death record index at Family Search. I was wondering why you believe that index record goes with this James Cumberland. I can see they have the same approximate birth date, and the mother's maiden name is the same, and of course are both from the Sidney, Ohio area. It seems like a reasonable hypothesis that these are the same James Cumberland, but don't we need some more matching items between the two people before we can conclude they are the same people? Maybe if we could find the obituary that goes with the one in the index, some siblings or parents would be named in full that would (hopefully) match the siblings and parents I'd found for the James Cumberland I submitted.--Llmann 13:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Matching data: Name, except "E" vs Earl; birthdate; birthplace, Sydney, Ohio vs Ohio; father's surname; mother's maiden surname; race; death after 1969; death place Sydney, same as last known residence (1969). Mismatched data: none that I can see. This seems to me a fairly high level of evidence as things go, but not fully conclusive. An obituary could seal the identification; other pieces of data could strengthen (or weaken) it. The most plausible alternative is that this James had a cousin James Cumberland with a middle name also starting with "E" born almost the same time, in Ohio, whose father had also married a Brown (perhaps from the same family), and who lived in Sydney at least at the time of this death. So, strong but not conclusive evidence that this death is the correct one. Also, note that the original GEDCOM had no death date, and by WeRelate rules James would have been classified as living (since not over 110 years old) and would not have been imported, or would need to be deleted. --robert.shaw 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not that there are any MISMATCHES in the death record index for James Cumberland, but rather that there aren't enough DETAILED matches with the information from the GEDCOM I submitted. If a future piece of datum for the James from the index or the James from the GEDCOM indicated these are almost surely not the same people, there would be no highly unlikely coincidences that would need to be explained away. E can stand for a lot more than Earl (and I often see records clearly for the same person that disagree as to middle initial, perhaps due to handwriting problems), so that's not hard to explain away. Brown is a very common name, so that fact that they both have a mother whose maiden name is Brown isn't highly unlikely. As James is a male of the species, in the US culture it is EXPECTED that his father's surname be the same (at least that was so back in the early 1900s). Although it's highly unlikely my James Cumberland is still alive, I have no problem with listing him as alive with no data (instead of with a name) until a death or burial date that clearly is his is found (or he ages a few more years). Alternately, if there is some way to mark the info from the death record index as "maybe" or "possible" that would be great. (The genealogy program I use, The Master Genealogist, lets you mark the surety level of each piece of info (eg. date, place, notes) in each event separately. I find that a very valuable feature.) I would really like to understand better how the professional genealogists decide a particular record goes with a particular person. Meanwhile, it's just me with my pessimistic and detail oriented brain making the determinations in my files, and trying to learn by asking others to explain their thought processes.--Llmann 18:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

In addition to looking at what Robert Shaw looked at, I would also look for other candidates in the census records. If there is another person with the same name, approx. birth year and birth place, I would be more cautious about applying the death record - I might choose to try to find more information about the other person, such as their mother's maiden name, depending on the availability of records. In this, case, there is one other James Cumberland of approximately the right age born in Ohio (born about 1915, living in Eagle, Brown County, Ohio). Given the difference in ages and places they lived, I would have had little hesitation about applying the death record as Robert did (even keeping in mind that people can be missing from census records for a variety of reasons, especially from older censuses. In this case, I checked 1920 to 1940.)

I found an obituary extract that says the parents of the James Cumberland who died Sep 1999 were James and Ruth (and added it as a source). I would say that clinches it.

In terms of marking info as uncertain, you can decide how you might want to annotate this. You could add a note linked to the death source saying that the record is assumed to apply to this person (and why - mentioning the items Robert described above). The reader should understand that an assumption is not an absolute certainty. Or you could write up something on the Talk page describing the evidence (including the obituary extract) and why you accept it (or not). In this case, I wouldn't bother. The evidence is as strong as is generally available in the absence of first-hand knowledge (e.g., family records).

Genealogy is full of assumptions and uncertainties due to lack of decisive evidence - and the occasional error as a result. Experienced genealogists understand that conclusions are only as good as the evidence and will look to the evidence if they feel a need to verify the data. (This is why I added James's age and birth place to the census sources on the page.)

In terms of your comment about having to "explain away" the death record if it were discovered in the future that it doesn't belong to him, that should be done anyway. Otherwise, another person is likely to make the same assumption. Explaining how we reach our conclusions is a valuable part of the genealogical record.

I hope this is helpful. (And just a disclaimer - I'm not a professional genealogist, just a fairly experienced amateur.)--DataAnalyst 21:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that obituary extract DataAnalyst found makes me more comfortable with accepting the death index entry as belong to my James Cumberland.--Llmann 18:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks [29 May 2023]

Hi Robert, thanks for your review of my GEDCOM and the many helpful suggestions. I am working through the name suggestions now and am making progress. Your suggestion of submitting a smaller GEDCOM is good, but I find splitting my existing file into smaller sections is very tedious as I basically have to delete the records I don't want. And each record needs to be deleted individually. I am using Root Magic as well as Ancestry, but both seem to have this limitation. Ideally I would like to be able to select a group of records and cut and paste into a new file. Are you aware of any tools or techniques that I can use to split up the larger GEDCOM into more manageable files? Cheers, Paul--Pauloz 04:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. Sorry that I don't know of any handy utility for splitting GEDCOM files. There may be one, but I'm not really up on such things as I haven't had to deal much with GEDCOMs in recent years. I'm not familiar with Roots Magic or Ancestry's interface, so can't help there. I'm currently keeping my tree using Legacy Family Tree, mainly because I don't want to change programs because I have some other stuff that depends on its features to an unknown extent. Legacy supports a Focus Group feature, which is a way of forming a list of people and then using it for things like Gedcom export, perusing or editing, etc. The group can be updated by adding ancestors or descendants of a person. It doesn't seem quite as usable as the Focus Group that the ancient program PAF provided, but it works within limits. However, I don't think I'd necessarily recommend using another program by moving data via GEDCOM from one program to another because while the basics get through, there are usually some problems with parts of the data in the transfer. So I'm afraid I don't have anything practical to suggest to help dividing up your family data. --robert.shaw 19:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. I noticed this conversation just now. I use RootsMagic. You can select which people to export to a GEDCOM. For example, you can select one person and their ancestors for X generations and export just those people. I did a fair amount of that when I did my WeRelate uploads - usually about 200-500 people per file. Also, it's been a while since I've done it, but I'm pretty sure you can drag a person into a new empty file and select whether to add ancestors or descendants or both (and limit the number of generations). That way, you'd have a chance to review each part of your larger file before exporting to GEDCOM.

If you can't figure out how to do this in RootsMagic, let me know where you are getting stuck and which version you are using and I MIGHT be able to walk you through it.--DataAnalyst 21:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hovell alais Smith gedcom file has early people [30 May 2023]

Robert, Thank you for the explanation, I should really read all the material before hand. This is my first attempt at using werelate.org. I first tried uploading a Gedcom file with some 2000 people that I have in my family tree which I have produced using Ancestry.com using the system without a subscription which I now find very limiting. The upload was unsuccessful. I thought it might have been because of the size so I tried a smaller one with 7 people. Didn't take into account the early DOB's. I now realise that my larger file would have been rejected due to missing dates and such. Thank you the help. Ian--Ianhovell 20:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ian, glad you're thinking of putting your data on WeRelate. I don't know what an Ancestry-exported Gedcom file would contain, but perhaps you could export (small) parts of the data which would be helpful in getting those parts onto WeRelate. These might be some of the more complete entries, ones having dates and other data like places and sources. (Note also that entries for living people aren't allowed on WeRelate.) Maybe Ancestry would allow export of such a subset, but it might be more practical to use a desktop program (like, I don't know, RootsMagic, maybe) to manipulate data and re-export a part into a new Gedcom file for upload here. Just passing along some thoughts. --robert.shaw 17:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

GEDCOM review for Stoney7path [4 December 2023]

Hi, Robert

Stoney7path asked me to import his small GEDCOM to make corrections and additions to his Budd tree. I had made some manual corrections to the existing tree the other day, so we are essentially working together to get his tree into better shape.

I've checked the tree and it looks fine - places well matched and no living people. No family matches due to the small scope of the file - there will be merges after the upload.

6 people, 3 families, 13 sources (will become MySources due to different level of detail than standard WeRelate sources) in case you want to track the stats.

Just wanted to let you know why I am importing this GEDCOM.

Janet --DataAnalyst 16:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I see I've handled a couple of Stoney7path's submits this year, but I was unaware of a recent one. I was "out of order" during most of the past week and apparently missed it. Thanks. --robert.shaw 17:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I think he just submitted it today or maybe yesterday.--DataAnalyst 18:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed a GEDCOM [9 May 2024]

Hi, Robert

I was poking around in GEDCOM files related to some enhancements I made and accidentally looked at one waiting for Admin review (Mason Family.ged), and now my name is associated with it as reviewer. I didn't want to complete the review because I don't know where reviews are being logged these days. I note that several people in the file will be considered to be living once loaded, because we've tightened the rules in the wiki but not in the GEDCOM uploader yet. Therefore, I would recommend asking the user to add dates where they are missing. (Also, there are no sources, but I don't know if you are rejecting GEDCOMs for that reason.)

If you want me to leave a message for the user, please let me know and I will do so, and let me know where to log the review. Thanks--DataAnalyst 15:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Janet,

Just FYI re logging: When I investigated logging conventions, I found some really old logging, some ad boc, but mostly it seemed that acceptances were not generally logged any more. I started logging in my User: space, and never brought to discussion the idea of putting it into Werelate: space. So I've been using User:Robert.shaw/GEDCOM-Work to log. You (and other admins) are welcome to add lines to it. (And it's fine with me if it found a site-wide instead of user: home.)

As to review criteria: I'm largely going by what I found documented at WeRelate:GEDCOM review#Instructions for admin review (last updated 2012/13). Re sources, it says that (the author) doesn't impose any requirement, so I haven't been. I could see requiring some sources, but that seems to need a wider decision. Re dates, it says a majority of persons should have at least one date and place (after checking christening and burial). I usually do something like that. I believe the site Gedcom software does some living exclusions on suspicious cases because of dates of related persons, but I guess it misses some too. I am not sure if all such exclusions appear explicitly in the review presentation, or if some not so explicitly displayed are actually suppressed during the import itself. (It doesn't absolutely suppress import of all persons without an explicit date).

Since you already looked over this particular small Gedcom and formed handling ideas, I guess it makes sense for you to go ahead and handle it (and log if you think that's a good thing to do). Let me know if would like me to handle it.

A general aside: since fracturing my shoulder blade in January and resulting issues, I got out of the habit of regularly checking for Gedcom submittals, and that's why there came to be 3 of them sitting in the queue. Besides the one mentioned here, I'll plan on handling the others in the next little while.

--robert.shaw 21:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked them to enter more dates and offered my assistance if they need it. I logged it on your log page.

Very sorry to hear about your shoulder blade - that sounds painful. Best wishes for your continued recovery.--DataAnalyst 22:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Re; Van Campen Family edits [26 May 2024]

Thanks for your note. My Grandparents were Alden Van Campen and Lillian Whitmarsh Van Campen. My father Alden Van Campen is still alive at 94 but in the final stages of dementia. I have traced the lineage back to Jan Van Campen.--Jvancampen 22:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)