User talk:Sendelbach

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:

1. Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do.
2. Watch the Wiki basics tutorial video to learn how to make ancestor web pages.
3. Explore the Tutorials, if needed.

If you need any help, I will be glad to answer your questions. Just click on my signature link below and then click on the “Leave a message” link under my name in the upper left corner of my profile page. Thanks for participating and see you around! --Ronni 01:26, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Swedish places

Thank you so much for working on the Swedish places. It is much appreciated. As you know we are a volunteer organization and couldn't function without people like you seeing a need and helping out. It is wonderful that you are willing to do this. The place directory was automatically generated from many sources and has some mistakes and some parts of the world are poorly represented. We really appreciate your efforts to fix the Sweden pages. Would you mind letting me know how many hours you spend, we need to keep records for the tax office.--sq 11:34, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Swedish place organization [1 December 2007]

Hi,

I see you've been doing a wonderful job organizing Sweden -- thank you!

I had some questions for you:

1. How would you feel if we removed the "iän" and "kommune" from place titles? I noticed that the Family History Library Catalog entry for Sweden doesn't use iän. We could put Iän and Kommune as the place's "type." I could do this automatically during the upcoming place renaming.

• If we do we need to place "(county)" after Län (not Iän) and "(province)" after provinces under Sweden. For municipalities it may be ok.

I realized a few days ago that if we have both a "Blekinge (province), Sweden" and a "Blekinge (county), Sweden", that when a GEDCOM is uploaded with just "Blekinge, Sweden" in a place, it's going to be difficult to know which place to link it to -- the province or the county. There are two ways to solve this problem: (1) give the county the "default" title: "Blekinge, Sweden" and set the province to "Blekinge (province), Sweden" so that people who list "Blekinge, Sweden" in their GEDCOM's will match to the county page, or (2) create a single page "Blekinge, Sweden" and mention on this page that the name "Blekinge" refers to both a province and a county in Sweden. Which would you prefer?

Would it be ok to remove other words as well from the title, like "landskommun", "stad", and "härad"? This way someone that enters "Östra, Blekinge, Sweden" in their GEDCOM will match the place page for the Östra hundred.

We're going to be removing words like this from other place titles, so to be consistent, I'll remove them from Swedish places as well.

2. How would you feel about removing the place pages for provinces and merging their contained places into the corresponding county page? This could also be done automatically.

• The provinces does not always correspond exactly to the counties. Example: Northwest part of Ångermanland is today in Jämtlands län, and the northernmost part is in Västerbottens län[1]. Example 2: Småland is most of Jönköpings län, most of Kalmar län, Kronobergs län, part of Östergötlands län and part of Hallands län. We should keep provinces.

I'm ok with keeping the provinces. How about moving the places currently listed under the provinces to be under the counties? I believe that places that are currently listed under most of the provinces really belong instead under the counties, because the FHLC place for the county was incorrectly merged with the province when the database was created. For example, the places listed under the province Place:Blekinge, Sweden all come from the FHLC (have FHLC as their source), and the FHLC lists their places according to county, not province. So the places under Place:Blekinge, Sweden should be moved to Place:Blekinge län, Sweden. Similarly for the places listed under Place:Halland (province), Sweden, Place:Norrbotten (province), Sweden, Place:Södermanland (province), Sweden, Place:Värmland (province), Sweden, Place:Västerbotten (province), Sweden, Place:Västmanland (province), Sweden, and Place:Östergötland (province), Sweden -- it seems that all of their contained places should be moved under the corresponding counties. Does that seem right to you?

3. How would you feel about renaming the Dalarnas iän place page back to Kopparberg, the way it was before 1999, and adding Dalarnas as an alternate name?

• Why, shouldn't we use nowadays name and redirect from Kopparbergs län using Kopparberg as an alternate name. If we really wants to use Kopparberg we should see this county as an historical county in Sweden as the counties of Kristianstad and Malmöhus.

4. How would you feel about keeping Älvsborg, Skarabork, and Göteborg och Bohus as separate counties directly under Sweden, and having each of the places located within those counties have an also-located-in link to Västra Götaland? Similarly for Kristianstad and Malmöhus being kept as separate counties with an also-located-in link to Skåne? This could also be done automatically.

• Ok for me.

Questions 3 and 4 are related. The question really boils down to: Do you want place pages in Sweden to be titled the way they were known in the early 1900's, with alternate-names for the modern names and also-located-in links to the modern counties, or do you want place pages titled the way they are known today, with alternate-names for the historical names and also-located-in links to the historical counties. The people doing Scotland want Scottish places titled the way they were in the early 1900's, because they feel that most people doing Scottish genealogy will be more comfortable seeing those titles. For Germany we have no choice but to title places the way they were in the early 1900's because that's how the FHLC organized them and we don't know which modern states most of the places ended up in. But for Sweden there's not much difference between the early 1900's and today that I can see, except for the one county name change and the two county mergers. So we can go either way for Sweden. I haven't done any Swedish genealogy so I don't know which way most people would feel more comfortable with. What do you think?

It appears that for the other countries in Europe we're going to title places according to where they were and what they were called in the late 1800's - early 1900's, which is how they appear in the Family History Library Catalog. I'd like to do the same for Sweden, so that places in Sweden are titled similarly to how they are titled in the rest of Europe and the FHLC. I went ahead and moved Dalarnas back to Kopparberg, and didn't merge the other counties. Kopparberg will have Dalarnas as an alternate name, and cities in the counties that were recently merged will have also-located-in links to the merged counties. I hope you don't mind.

5. I went ahead and moved Place:Västra Götalands län, Sweden out from Västergötland (province), Sweden and put it directly under Sweden.

• Ok for me.

6. I'm ok with removing the "stift" places. But the FHLC links for them sometimes point to microfilm sources for example. If we remove the place pages, I'd still like to keep the links to the FHLC sources. Does each stift place correspond to a specific county, so we can add the FHLC links to the county page?

• Ok, wee keep stift as places, there is parishes of Church of Sweden that does not exist or existed as an administrative division, so called non-territorial parish! What about to place Svenska kyrkan (Church of Sweden) under Place:Sweden?
• The stift does not correspond to a county. Only the parish of the Church of Sweden correspond to the parish as administrative division.

Are you suggesting that we place "Svenska kyrkan" as a place under Sweden, with all of the stift's located under it? This sounds good to me. It's similar to how we're handling church divisions in Scotland.

We created a "Svenska kyrkan" place and moved the stift's under it.

7. It looks like you're perhaps halfway done? I'd like to do the automated place renaming sometime next week. Could we get Sweden to a point in the next few days where at least the counties are correct and we've discussed the above issues so that we can do the renaming next week? You could then continue to put places into their proper municipalities and parishes after the renaming?

• Nowadays counties are correct, but only something around 1/3 of nowadays municipalities.

By the way, I moved previously-located-in places to located-in places for about a dozen Swedish places today. Every place needs to have a located-in place (even if it's historical) so that it will be handled properly during the renaming.

Thanks again for doing such a terrific job!

--Dallan 17:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

• Sendelbach 03:45, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Dallan 10:30, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Thank-you again!--Dallan 01:51, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Administrator log [20 November 2007]

Hi,

I just wanted to thank you for all your hard work on the place directory. We really appreciate your efforts. Would you mind making an entry on Werelate:Administrator log for the time you have spent. I need to track volunteer hours for the IRS. We need to show public support to keep our Charitable status. Thanks.--sq 13:20, 20 November 2007 (EST)--sq 13:26, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Feedback on final place review [21 November 2007]

Hi, I wanted to make sure that you saw the proposal I left for a final place review on WeRelate talk:Place review. I'd love to get your comments on it. Thanks!--Dallan 11:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)