WeRelate talk:Support

Old topics have been archived: 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017


Mount Pleasant Cemetery, London [14 January 2018]

If you type "Mount Pleaant Cemetery, London" into a place field; there are four suggestions presented - ALL ARE WRONG!

Notice that "s" was left out of the word "Pleasant". How to fix this?--Fbax.ca 00:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Mount Pleaant Cemetery, London" is obviously a typo. I have fixed it with a special kind of edit called a #redirect. This is used when you want to move the place spelled in error to a place which already exists in our database. The form in this case is
#redirect[[Place:Mount Pleasant Cemetery, London, Middlesex, Ontario, Canada]].
The additional locations for Mount Pleasant Cemetery, London refer to the City of London in times past. We generally refer to places as they were described in 1900, i.e., London, Middlesex, Ontario, Canada. I believe that "Middlesex" is no longer used, but I don't want to take the time right now to check exactly when the reorganization of Middlesex County occurred. The other suggestions refer to the times during the 19th century when Ontario was "Canada West" (1841-1867) and "Upper Canada" (before 1841). These perhaps should not be there for the cemetery, but are reminders that Ontario was not always Ontario and a person living in London for the 1861 census lived in Canada West.
If you want to check the names and full addresses of cemeteries in Ontario, I suggest Ontario Canada GenWeb's Cemetery Project which not only has a index of people but of the cemeteries with their full addresses and contact details. These details are worth copying into the text area of a cemetery place page.
Regards, --Goldenoldie 07:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Upper Canada, Québec, Canada - really? [9 February 2018]

Is there such a place as Upper Canada, Québec, Canada - really?

Last week I added Chippewa_of_the_Thames_First_Nation_Indian_Reserve.

When I enter "Chippewa of the Thames" as a place; I get many suggestions ...

  • Chippewa of the Thames First Nation Indian Reserve, Caradoc, Middlesex, Ontario, Canada
  • Chippewa of the Thames First Nation Indian Reserve, Caradoc, Middlesex, Canada West, Canada
  • Chippewa of the Thames First Nation Indian Reserve, Caradoc, Middlesex, Canada West, Ontario, Canada
  • Chippewa of the Thames First Nation Indian Reserve, Caradoc, Middlesex, Upper Canada, Canada
  • Chippewa of the Thames First Nation Indian Reserve, Caradoc, Middlesex, Upper Canada, Québec, Canada

Who decided that all these suggestions are indeed valid? Is this being done for all places in Ontario?

What if I had created a place that did not exist before 1867; in this case, only the one I created would be valid.--Fbax.ca 16:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The following two are invalid
  • Chippewa of the Thames First Nation Indian Reserve, Caradoc, Middlesex, Canada West, Ontario, Canada
  • Chippewa of the Thames First Nation Indian Reserve, Caradoc, Middlesex, Upper Canada, Québec, Canada
since neither Ontario nor Québec, nor Canada existed (as official locations) at the time Upper and Lower Canada or Canada West and Canada East were used.
The "Chippewa of the Thames First Nation Indian Reserve" was probably not called that originally, as "First Nations" is a relatively recent naming convemtion. Many reserves were called, e.g. "IR 42" or "Indian Reserve # 42", without respect to the inhabitants.
Upper and Lower Canada were used until 1841, after which Canada East and Canada West were used until 1867.
From 1819 to 1841
  • Chippewa of the Thames First Nation Indian Reserve, Caradoc, Middlesex, Upper Canada
From 1841 to 1867
  • Chippewa of the Thames First Nation Indian Reserve, Caradoc, Middlesex, Canada West, United Province of Canada
and 1867 to Present
  • Chippewa of the Thames First Nation Indian Reserve, Caradoc, Middlesex, Ontario, Canada
These may be partially incorrect as Ontario has made significant changes to its municipal level organization over the years. Also, the reservation was probably called something like "Indian Reserve No. 42" from 1867 to recent years, and or course the British land lease was called something different.
dhenderson359 17:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This website started using the 1900 rule for place names. Many people want to use historical names. (Many long discussions on this have been had.) Overall, various areas appear to use different approaches in differing degrees, creating a hodge-podge with no real system. A few years ago a new algorithm was introduced whose purpose, I think, was to allow multiple approaches to be entered easily by using all the alternate names and contained in names on the Place pages when offering autocompletion. It often creates name combinations that never existed or things that should not even be viewed as legal names (e.g, five part names). If you see the right name in the list, ignore the others. If the plain vanilla Place page name communicates the location adequately use that. Consider documenting very precise locations inside your source citation. This is an inherently difficult problem and whatever system there may have once been is largely unrecognizable. Just my opinion. --Jrich 18:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Anomoly (bug?) in Person edit [9 February 2018]


For this person; I notice that the 1901 Census as source indicates "Schedule 2" when in fact the attached source comes from "Schedule 1".

When I click "Edit" to change this and then click "Show changes"; WeRelate wants to remove additional text.

Is this a bug?--Fbax.ca 16:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Old source citations used to document source quality. This was removed but lots of pages saved prior to that change still have that item. The now obsolete items is removed the next time a save is done. That is the additional text you see being removed. --Jrich 17:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Family Search Files [13 February 2018]

does anyone know if the LDS has plans to offer the Kirchenbuch, 1727-1901 from Katholische Kirche Steinmauern (A. Rastatt) online and when might that be?  They had the films back in 1975, and I know they are digitalizing a lot of the old films to make them available online....but I have not been able to get any valid info on these films.--Lola Baczeigel 21:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
If you go to the Family History Library Catalog, you will find that they are apparently available online now, with restrictions, as indicated by the "camera with key" symbol under the "Format" column (which is also a link to view them, if permitted). If you click on the link from your home computer, you will get a message that says:
To view these images you must do one of the following:
  • Access the site at a family history center.
  • Access the site at a FamilySearch affiliate library.
Here is the FHL Catalog search page: https://www.familysearch.org/catalog/search
Here is the Kirchenbuch page: https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/008101523?cat=295178
--robert.shaw 21:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is where to find a Family History Centre near you: https://www.familysearch.org/locations/centerlocator --GayelKnott 17:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

FamilySearch source [16 February 2018]

I started from this [page]. I clicked the link for M9HL-PW3 Dopen 1615-1801; which takes us to images for:

  • Netherlands, Zeeland Province, Church Records, 1527-1907
  • Nederlands Hervormd
  • Goes Dopen 1615-1810

After a bit of searching on FamilySearch site; I eventually find that these images are on Film 5855444 Item #3 starting at image 533; available [here]. I have noticed that many sources on WeRelate include LDS film numbers; but even using that info in search keywords; I am unable to find this source on WeRelate; can anyone else find it?--fbax.ca 02:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I found it! [Kerkelijke_Registers_1580-1812]

  • Film # 1517314 Items 3-8
  • DGS 5855444

What does DGS mean on FamilySearch?--fbax.ca 03:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"When the Genealogical Society of Utah began acquiring records digitally these images were assigned numbers in the 4,000,000 range. In 2014 new digital acquisitions were assigned numbers in 10,000,000 range. These are generally referred to as "DGS" numbers.
"As existing microfilms were scanned they were assigned numbers in the 4,000,000 range and later in the 7,000,000 range. Current acquisitions are now in 10,000,000 range." --Jrich 05:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

first name unknown (levenloos) [3 March 2018]

I have added four persons with unknown first name to WeRelate:

Laura Arkel

In the above search results; you might notice that only one (van Arkel) does not include the word "Unknown".

Why is this happening?--fbax.ca 16:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Family Search sources [4 March 2018]

It sort of looks like various sources in FamilySearch catalogue were auto-created here at WeRelate.

I cannot find this source England, Devon, West Putford, bishop's transcripts, 1762-1840 here.

FamilySearch, like many database websites, is constantly adding new sources. When you find one that hasn't been added to WeRelate, you can add it yourself. You can find directions for how to do so here: Help:Source pages How do I create a new source page. Hope this helps. Gayel --GayelKnott 02:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I can find 1605-1799 and 1614-1812; but not 1762-1840. Can you find it?--fbax.ca 18:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I created the source page: Source:West Putford, Devon, England. Bishop's Transcripts, 1762-1840. Next time you can create it yourself or ask for help if you don't feel comfortable doing so.--DataAnalyst 19:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Type of Event: name change? inschrijving naamsaanneming [22 March 2018]

In several countries in Western Europe; a surname was legally required in early 1800's.

This [LINK] points to document for Harmen Jans, his wife and children taking the surname Vogelzang.

What kind of event tag is used for this event?--fbax.ca 17:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a built-in event tag for this event, so it would be best to use the "Other" event tag (at the bottom of the event drop-down list). You can then use the "Description" field of the event to specify the type of event. I'm not aware of any particular convention for such events; I would probably use either "Adopted surname Vogelzang" or "Registered surname Vogelzang" in the Description field. --robert.shaw 19:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't forget to also include this as an alternate name (add alternate name near the top of the person page) so that searching by name finds the page. If you want to just put the name as an alternate name and not an event, you could link the alternate name to a note where you indicate why the person acquired this name.--DataAnalyst 23:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

review of uploaded tree [29 March 2018]


I am using Safari 11.0.3 on a Mac.

I've uploaded a smallish GEDCOM and I am unable to review the tree - there were no error messages when I uploaded the file. I am unable to see the tree to do the review.

The GEDCOM in question loads well into the Reunion application on my Mac.

Thank you--A.zara 16:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to visit your user talk page. At the bottom of it, you'll find a section of it named "Next step: Review your GEDCOM [26 March 2018]". A few lines from the bottom of that section there is a link titled "Click here to enter the review program". When you click that link, you should be taken to a special review page for your GEDCOM, and on that page there are several tabs for things you need to look at before the tree is finally put into place on WeRelate. There are detailed instructions on the same page below the tabbed work section. You can ask here if you run into problems with the slightly involved process. (This special GEDCOM review process was put into place some years ago because very poor GEDCOMs were being dumped into the site.) --robert.shaw 16:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I found the link you mentioned and the review program did start but I received this error window:

Error reading the GEDCOM; please try again in a few minutes; if you have questions, please contact dallan@werelate.org

I did try again in a minute or so and got the same error screen.

Anna--A.zara 14:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded a test gedcom and then followed my talk page link to the review program, and I got the same error message. I tried following the link again about ten minutes later and it worked (no error message). Perhaps you can try it again and see if it will work for you this time. --robert.shaw 17:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Croom, Ireland; wrong county? [5 April 2018]

Place page says that Croom is in County Clare; wikipedia says it is in County Limerick.--fbax.ca 00:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So they do. The WeRelate place shows the source as
source: Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names
and that source also shows Co Clare. All of them do agree on the Lat/Long. It looks like Getty has the county screwed up: it is not internally consistent (e.g. it places nearby Patrickswell in Co. Limerick), whereas Wikipedia looks consistent and agrees with Google Maps. --robert.shaw 01:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Croom is a town and civil parish in the county of Limerick, see https://www.logainm.ie/30635.aspx -Moverton 16:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Footnotes displaying inconsistently [21 April 2018]

I am trying to work with the footnotes for this page. https://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Marvin_Pierce_%282%29

For the general public it shows references 1-50. When I try to edit, it shows only s1-s22 (source 1 - source 22). I am trying to link the Events and Facts with the correct source. If I put that the Education field information came from source 49, then the numbering changes from the way it displays in editing mode to the way it displays in non-editing mode.--Sorghumgrass 17:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me that the HTML tag <li> in some of the sources is causing the following text to display as a separate source. This page could use a lot of cleanup, including replacing MySources with regular Sources and getting rid of the source details. If you are uncertain what to do, I could tackle it, but probably not for another week or so. Let me know if you need my help. Note that I will probably be off-line for most of the next week to 10 days.--DataAnalyst 18:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I can try to clean it up to some extent, but am not sure how to correct the html.--Sorghumgrass 19:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You did a good job of replacing MySources. I completed it by removing the text describing the sources, as that can be found either on the source page or on the page it refers to. I did a bit more to clean up the page and it is more readable now. Note that I left in the "arrival" info (New York Passenger Lists), even though I question why anyone would care from a genealogical point of view. He did not immigrate then - he was just returning from somewhere.--DataAnalyst 12:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Place:Wandsworth, London, England [28 April 2018]

I discovered yesterday that although Wandsworth Metropolitan Borough, London, England (1900-1965) and Wandsworth (London Borough), Greater London, England (1965 onwards) were listed in WeRelate, plain ordinary Wandsworth, London, England, the village from which the boroughs had been named, had been omitted. I have now entered it, complete with a tie-in of Wandsworth, Surrey, England (to allow for time prior to 1889 when the County of London was formed).

"What links here" for a new place is often absolutely blank. Not this time. There were about 50 reference sources, numerous people, -- and a list of every placename in Surrey! Usually a linked placename occurs when the place in question (in this case, Wandsworth) is referred to in another town or village. But I have checked a few very small places in the list and there is not a mention of Wandsworth. Has anyone any idea what has happened?

--Goldenoldie 16:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the page, it looks like you renamed a page named Wandsworth, London, England to Wandsworth (metropolitan borough), London, England in 2016. I'm not sure what happened to the original page - maybe it got deleted - but a number of links to it existed. When you created the new page, the existing links pointed to it. The research tips for places in Surrey link to it, which explains why it shows up so many times.--DataAnalyst 23:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Merging two wives [2 May 2018]

Would someone who knows how please merge the two wives of William Cubitt. Helen and Ellen Gurney were both born in the same quarter in Kennington, Surrey and married him in the same quarter of 1892 under the same FreeBMD reference number. Thanks, --Goldenoldie 13:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. --GayelKnott 15:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Donate/Ad Relief [30 May 2018]

Hi All, I think that June 1st is my yearly date to pay for "Ad Relief", but I'm not sure. Anyway I'll be sending a check to the address listed under "Donate" in the next few days. Neal --SkippyG 19:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Stapleford in England [1 June 2018]

Hi Everyone
There are six places named Stapleford in England, but our placefinder is sending them all to Stapleford, Wiltshire. "Stapleford, England" ought to be unlinked and printed in red.

I just came across a family headed by William and Mary Barton provided by a user in New Zealand. All her Bartons have been linked to automatically to Stapleford, Wiltshire, but after inspecting three generations it appears they are more apt to have been located in Nottinghamshire (200-300 miles away). No sources have been supplied for this family whose earliest dates are toward the end of the 1700s and who probably emigrated around 1900. Anyone want to have a go? --Goldenoldie 09:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

We have a problem [21 June 2018]

can't open socket to search.werelate.org: 110 Connection timed out --Goldenoldie 10:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

me, too--GayelKnott 14:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hope someone with a "toolkit" can help us out soon. --Goldenoldie 14:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, the Search subsystem seems to be in a coma. For some searches you may be able to make do with a Google search including site:werelate.org in the search parameters. --robert.shaw 16:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Search server is (finally) back online.--Dallan 16:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --GayelKnott 20:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

And I thank you too. It's amazing how many times we have to make the system "search" when editing. --Goldenoldie 07:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

2017 Archive? [20 June 2018]

Moving old topics to archive seems to be overdue. Who does that? fbax.ca 21:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Dallan 02:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

General questions [13 July 2018]

I am in process of working my oldest Paternal ancestors onto WeRelate. I have to do it in “chunks” as I have about 2500 people on my dad’s side; no problem here it will take a while is all.

My problem is with living people. My mother is 93 and still alive. My dad is dead. How do I connect my mom and dad together so I can add some of mom’s ancestors? Will it be like my dead dad tied to a living maiden nane Johnston and the living Johnston can then have ancestors.

Another question is that some of the “chunks” I mentioned are very large, once I work out the Warnings and upload a gedcom that has no Warnings the next huge job is resolving Places. If I have 400 people and work out mistakes for 50 of them and get tired, can I log off and come back tomorrow and, will the 50 people I made corrections for still have those corrections?

I have one ancestor coming up who has 1100+ descendants. I will not mind working out the Warnings but when they are gone, I would like to take 4 or 5 days to work out the Places on the 1100+ people. I really do not want to bust this ancestor into smaller chunks.

Thanks Chstdvd--Chrstdvd 20:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to WeRelate.

  I'll start with your last question first: Places.
    If you are loading a gedcom, I will assume you are using a personal computer program or perhaps a website. The software will usually have a feature for resolving place names. It is usually much easier to get these straight at the source (your computer) than it is to have to make the correction over and over as you load different bits. So we advise polishing up your data with your personal database before trying to upload it. The gedcom review gives you an idea of where some problems lie. You can then remove the gedcom, make the fixes and then upload a new gedcom.
    I've done some large imports and it is a lot of work to get things trued up for a common database, but it really worth it in the end. I tend now to work with smaller groups even if I have to keep a map showing which slices are done. 
    If you do want to go ahead with a larger group, please work across the tabs in order from Overview to FamilyMatch then Import. When you do FamilyMatch you are matching to people in the live database and they will be updated as you go. You can take a break and come back in another session, as many times as you need - until you are done. I've done this many times. 
    With Living People: You don't need to create marriages for your parents since your mom is living. Most sharing is done further back in time. You can load one grandparent family at a time to help divide up the quantity. I've gone to using great-grandparent families thus having eight pieces. --Judy  (jlanoux) 21:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@ Chstdvd - When this site first launched, pages for living persons were allowed to be created in the manner you guessed, i.e. titled as "Living Johnston" or "Living Smith", etc. In the years that followed, the general consensus among the decision makers was that such pages for living persons should no longer be allowed for privacy reasons. That ruling still stands today, so no pages for "Livings". You may still come across some of those older "Living" pages, but they are steadily being removed from the site. In cases, such as yours, where you might want to show a family connection, you could add the relationship as a note (Ex. Person:Roy Larrew (1) shows a connection to his in laws).
For your 2nd question - you should be able to take a break from the review process and the Place (or Source) matching that you already completed should still be matched. Please do complete all of the Place and Source matching before the final upload to ensure that your pages are linked correctly.
A tip I can pass along, if you are comfortable working with your gedcom file as a text file, is to do a simple search and replace on Place names to change whatever format you originally used to match WeRelate's preferred format. That would be the cleanest way to go about it if you have a lot of Places to manually match.
Regards, --cos1776 21:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I need some advise [16 July 2018]

I have a gedcom uploaded and am working it, it is ready for final review. The Warnings worry me.

This particular branch 300 plus people. No living man has been Y tested to verify this branch is original to the old Patriarch Nicholas Christopher.

There are a few people who are born before the parents are married in this line. The only thing I can find for marriage records is the 1900 federal census where couples were asked how long they had been married. Well, if a child was born before that date, I get the warning.

There is a family in this gedcom that the census from 1910 lists two daughters, Winnie and Minnie both born about 1909, most likely twins. Then the 1920 census leaves one of them off. The 1930 census gets more confusing. With new children etc. but not all the ones from previous census.

The only thing I found that makes sense is an Obituary of last son who is a Reverend. It lists all the brothers and sisters and the parents. It lists the married names of all his sisters but some of those sisters have different names than the census. I figure the census wrote down nicknames. I can not find any sources for his sisters or who they married on Ancestry, other than the early census forms. I mean even the Rev and his wife there are no hints.

My point is I do not want to put BS on this site

The rest of my tree is all proved with Y DNA testing of living descendants. There is just this one line with no testing. I do share auDNA with a cousin in this line and we are 5th cousins.

What should I do? I am thinking about deleting all but the line to my 5th cousin.--Chrstdvd 21:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of us have data of varying quality. It was very common for the same people to be enumerated by different names by census takers etc. And children as well as adults appear in census data and then disappear, and then sometimes reappear. There will always be incomplete data.
I would enter all of your people and for each person or family group, document what are your sources. And if the same person appears with different names, use the Alt Name feature to show each of their commonly used names. That way someone searching on any of their names, will find them.--Jhamstra 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will do my best. I have been talking to my cousin from this line via email this evening. Even she admits it is a very difficult line to research. She says she only has her direct line in her records.

If you ask me the 1900 Federal census is what messes things up so much when they asked people how long they had been married. A man on his second wife would say the years he has been married to all his wives. It really screws figuring things out. Then the people will use nicknames for their children and almost every other census the children are born in different years than the last census as well as being born in a different state. So sometimesit is impossible to figure out a child’s mother or father because they are different ages or years of birth from one census to the next.

All I can say is this particular line is making me wonder if I should add it to WeRelate. I guess it would be unfair to future genealogists not to add these people, as anyone can fix what I get wrong. I just do not like to be wrong. But right now this line is mission impossible.--Chrstdvd 01:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Husband "married" to wrong wife [16 July 2018]

Family:Robert Addy and Louise Clark (1)

The bride's family included two daughters named Louise Emma Clark. The one born in 1862 died a year later, but she has been "married" to Robert Addy instead of her namesake sister, born six years later, who died in her 60s. Can someone who knows what they are doing please sort this out. This is one of several suspect events in this family. There are no contemporary sources given. --Goldenoldie 18:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If you think that is what happened, go to the mentioned family page, remove the link to the wife (Louise Clark (4)) and replace it with the link to the correct wife (Louise Clark (3)). (Possibly this may be a useful census link (lines 36 and onto the next page), and you may want to look for Robert and Louise Addy in Idaho censuses.) --Jrich 19:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)