WeRelate talk:Support/2009



newcomer here [9 September 2009]

I'd just like to say thank you to whoever created this page (thank you : ) I've only been using WeRelate for a few days, but everyone has been very helpful and responsive. My biggest confusion at first was to try to figure out WHERE to ask my questions, since there are so many talk pages. This page should be helpful for confused newcomers like me.

I am finding out that most of my questions are answered on the Help FAQ page, but I am sure to have many more questions in the coming days and weeks

... you guys are a very patient bunch : )

thanks again, Amelia J. (88buckaroo)--88buckaroo 23:31, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Welcome, Amelia J! (can we call you Amelia II?) Glad you found the FAQ page. You might also be interested in Wiki etiquette, which attempts, in a semi-humorous way, to encourage good wiki behavior. Although from the tone of the messages you've posted so far, I don't think you need it. ;-)
I've read about your project-- what a great way to start here at WeRelate-- a transcript with links to the people mentioned in it. Very interesting. Please let us know of any challenges you are experiencing or suggestions you're seeking. I bet we all have a lot to learn from your project. jillaine 07:59, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Amelia II sounds good.... kind of like a big cruise ship.... : )--88buckaroo 10:23, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

minor question [11 September 2009]

well, i've looked through the help pages and faqs... this is pretty trivial, but I'm curious; what do the bold 'm' and 'N' mean on my watchlist?


m WeRelate talk:Support‎;

N WeRelate:Support‎;

they are in bold type and really stand out. modified? New?

just curious : ) Amelia J (88buckaroo)--88buckaroo 12:06, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

"m" means "minor edit". It's triggered when someone hits the "minor edit" button when editing, which is supposed to be done when the change isn't substantive -- i.e. typo, fixing MySource to Source, and various WeRelate automated functions.
"N" means New. It's a new page.--Amelia 23:48, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

thank you. I have been trying to remember to hit "minor edit" when appropriate. like now :)--88buckaroo 10:23, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

source citations [11 September 2009]

okay, another question;

I'm looking around and trying to learn how things are done. One of the ways I do that is by looking at the featured pages. the newest featured page Person:Edgar Irish (1) has wonderful pictures and text. My question is this; should I assume that the text that is there is written by the submitter, since I don't see a source link? would I see the source citations if I was looking at it in the family tree explorer mode?

I have used the "what links here" selection and still don't see it. thanks, Amelia J. (88buckaroo)--88buckaroo 12:11, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

The page you mention is troubling. If it were the work of the submitting individual, I would expect sources to appear for various elements of the person's story. If a straight-up lift of someone else's narrative - even if not copyrighted - the content should note where it came from as a matter of sound research practice and simple fairness. --Jrm03063 13:20, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

oops. I didn't mean to criticize... just wanted to know how to figure out the source citation process. I'll look around for other examples. thanks, Amelia J. (88buckaroo)--88buckaroo 13:24, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Your question seems not at all unwarranted. Unless the person is telling a first-person story of their life, or relating family stories that have been handed down, then they came from somewhere. Asking where isn't improper. If the former, then the narrative should indicate as much. If the latter, well, then what? Where? I mean, it's a great narrative. It would be nice to know what the research basis was.
A more useful starting point for werelate pages is to focus mostly on facts (DOB, DOD, schools, military service, employment, marriage, children, etc.), and to try to document those facts as best you can with available sources. If you are "moved" to write a narrative, well, by all means, that is your choice, but the factual material and the source documentation for the same is more generally useful to the community. --Jrm03063 13:40, 10 September 2009 (EDT)


As best practice, yes, facts in the narrative should be sourced to sources listed under source citations (or there is an alternative format for "references" that uses the same format Wikipedia does). However, those types of citations transfer only in bulk from a gedcom (listed at the end of the notes) and then only if they are there in the first place, which they often aren't. The narrative itself shouldn't be sourced to the writer (unless it was published somewhere, in which case we probably have a copyright problem and it should be removed if it's from post-1923).

So what do you do? If you want to know who wrote it, click on History. Go to the first two versions - the narrative probably came with the original page. Compare Selected Versions, and then use the "next version" links until you see when the text was entered. Then you know who entered it.

To find out where they got the info, add a comment on the Talk page for the page you're curious about, or on the contributor's talk page. At this point, we have a lot of inactive contributors, so you may or may not hear back.

I disagree a little with JRM on the importance of the narrative, because I think it's really useful work to integrate the information known about a person's life into a cohesive narrative. So if you see text you can make better, please do so. Don't feel like you can't edit text just because it's already there (unless it's a quote, which should be noted). --Amelia 23:58, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I just re-read my remarks, and it sounds like I'm against narratives, which isn't exactly true. For my own work, I prefer to focus on the facts and their basis. If someone wants to write a narrative they obviously can, I just don't prefer to do them - though I'm glad to use them. --Jrm03063 07:57, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

all very helpful, thank you. I think my initial response to this particular narrative, was that it sounded like it was out of a text and being so new, was just wondering what the sourcing would look like. Not being a good writer myself, I am very appreciative of someone who can summarize all the facts of a person's life in a readable narrative. I have since been pointed to a few places to find good examples of sourcing. I'll repeat them here for the benefit of other newcomers;

WeRelate:Featured page nominations

category:Genealogy Well Done, Sources

category:Featured Article

and of course, all the various help pages on sources.

thanks Amelia and Jrm03063 for all your help,

[well, I just learned something else. I was having trouble making the two categories (above) into internal links. These were initially posted in the Watercooler by beth. Going back to the posting and hitting "edit topic" showed me how she did it. I guess for categories, it's necessary to put a : in front. cool.]

Amelia J (88buckaroo)--88buckaroo 10:32, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Creating a Place [11 September 2009]


I've been trying to create PLACE: Milton, Mahoning, Ohio, United States There is currently Lake Milton, Mahoning, Ohio, United States already there. Lake Milton is a small village which does not encompass the entire township. I've also tried Milton (township), etc. I know that my WINANS line did not live anywhere near the village of Lake Milton, and that the Eckis Cemetery is not near Lake Milton either. What am I doing wrong ? --Neal Gardner 11:38, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Hi Neal, select add place from the blue bar. Type Milton for the place being added and then type Mahoning, Ohio, United States in located in. Select add. The next screen shows you match possibilities. There are no matches. So select add place. Then edit your new place page and save. --Beth 13:01, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Can I have a page at the sandbox to practice on? [15 September 2009]

I'd like to practice putting tables in an article. Can I have a spot at the sandbox that I can practice on that I can save while I come back and forth to it, but my clumsy efforts would not be quite so public? What I want to work on is certainly not ready for publication! If such an area is available, how to I create it or get there? --Janiejac 15:05, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Janie sure you can use the sandbox. Everyone uses the same page. Just edit the page and put your project at the bottom. Just type "this is a test". Then give your article a header. The page is here Help:Sandbox.--Beth 15:31, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
In addition to Help:Sandbox, you can go to the sandbox site, which contains an independent copy of WeRelate that the developers and you can use for testing new things. If you registered at WeRelate after Feb 21st, you'll need to create an account for yourself on the sandbox before you can use it. I just added a link from Help:Sandbox to the sandbox site.--Dallan 11:32, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

preparing a gedcom - names [15 September 2009]

Hello, I have my gedcom ready to go. I have added ,United States to all my places, removed County from places where I only know the county and my date format should be fine.

what I am confused about is the naming convention. I think the issue is just with the title of the person page, not the name of the person themselves.

under Help:FAQ "How should I prepare my GEDCOM for upload?" it says "2. Take a good look at your naming convention. WeRelate will try to force the names into our format. Our format is necessary for the search function and match/merge to work properly. You may want to edit the names you import so that each person has only a given name and surname."

I assume I will be prompted for changes during the gedcom upload (?) (having looked at the Help:Review GEDCOM but I thought I would ask first.

for example, I have three John Smith Gilcrests. In my database they are John Smith Gilcrest, John Smith Gilcrest (2) and John Smith Gilcrest (3). I understand the title for their person pages will be John Gilcrest (##) with the number being automatically generated... but is there something I should do before I try to upload the gedcom? also, what about these names:

Margaret ?

Margaret ? (2)

Mary ?

Eliza T. ?

? Barns

J. N. Will

Guy Guthrie Gilcrest and Guy Guthrie Gilcrest, Jr.

Frank Alexander Gilcrest and Frank Hermand Gilcrest

thank you very much for any advice on this.--88buckaroo 22:07, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Amelia J: I wish more users were so diligent in their gedcom prepping. Thanks for a) thinking about this and b) asking this question.
I started to answer your questions only to realize that I need to check on my answers first. I believe that the system will do some automatic conversions, but I'm not certain. Let me check and get back to you. Thanks again; these are EXCELLENT questions. jillaine 08:38, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
Actually, I *can* answer one set of questions. The Frank Alexander Gilcrest page title will become Frank Gilcrest (1) and Frank Hermand Gilcrest will become Frank Gilcrest (2). Same with the main and junior Guy Gilcrests. jillaine 08:52, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

thank you Jillaine, it's very nice of you to take the time to answer such a newbie question : )... I knew that the title pages would change to Frank Gilcrest (1) and Frank Gilcrest (2) but because of that suggestion in the Help FAQ page "You may want to edit the names you import so that each person has only a given name and surname." I was wondering if there was something that I should do ahead of time. This gedcom is one that I am specifically creating just to upload to WeRelate. As you probably know, since I have been very vocal : ) it is the names in the book "From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest" It's only 400 or so people, so not very big. Holy Moly, if I tried to upload my own gedcom it would take me years to clean it up! : ) thanks again, Amelia J.

I think using (2) and (3) in your gedcom is going to cause problems. It's best just to leave the names and let the system assign the id numbers. They will be unique on WR. After you create the gedcom, you can put your desktop database back like it was. For cases where I really need the crutch to tell people apart, I put a I, II, and III in the suffix field in my desktop software. This comes across in the suffix field like Jr and Sr would. If there is no suffix field in your software, I think you need a comma.
I think that line in Help that you refer to is meaning "don't try to cram nicknames and other data into the name field". You'd be surprised at what I see come across.
It is best to leave a field blank when data is unknown. The system will handle that. Putting a ? will create someone named ? and could possibly create a duplicate person. That said, I've seen a lot of pages with ? and it doesn't actually break anything.
Your others are ok (initials, comma Jr., etc) I repeate Jillaine's comment: Thanks for asking. And also thank you for letting us know what isn't clear in Help. --Judy (jlanoux) 19:47, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

thanks Judy (and Jillaine) I will try to use I, II and III, or Jr. & Sr. the problem is, my software (which is old and simple but I love it) won't let me have duplicate names either. but I'm glad I asked, because I can easily change them before hand. thanks again : ) Amelia J.--88buckaroo 20:33, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Well, one of the problems is that the help you refer to is wrong. You don't need to edit your people to have just first and last name -- that would actually make things worse by reducing the ability for you to tell them apart. Leave the middle names. But I am nearly positive that the system will take the FIRST WORD in the first name field and the WHOLE last name field to create the name. So if you don't have title and suffix fields, you have to leave them out. Otherwise, the system is going to take John Smith Jr. and make him John Jr. (1). If you can't have duplicates in your software, than what you'll have to do is put the extra information in the first name field, and then edit the fields on the WeRelate pages during the gedcom review.
On your other questions, J. N. Will will become J. Will (#). If you want the first name to be J.N., take out the space. For the people without names, use Unknown (the uploader doesn't do this automatically, and it will help the duplicate catching if you do it.) And, incidentally, if you leave the (1) in a name, the name will just look like Frank Gilcrest (1) (1) -- it won't break it, but it won't look pretty either--Amelia 00:16, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

thanks again, Sorry to be so high-maintenance : ) I successfully uploaded my gedcom last night and it all went through. I left out a few people, just because I thought it would be easier to add them later. Using I, II, III went through just fine. It allowed me to differentiate them on my database without causing problems for WeRelate. Amelia J.

What field did you put the I, II, III in? (I'm trying to confirm my theory on how the uploader works.)--Amelia 11:31, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

I have an old and simple genealogy program. Gene. It is for Macintosh. In Gene there are no separate fields to put suffix, etc. It is simply typed in "John Smith Gilcrest II" When I uploaded it the II got put in the suffix field though. Which is great, because I can easily go in and remove those. (I had previously had him as John Smith Gilcrest (2)) hope this helps... Amelia J.--88buckaroo 11:42, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

Now I understand why we're wanting to revise the Help:FAQ page. Until the reworded section is in place, I removed "You may want to edit the names you import so that each person has only a given name and surname." because it's just plain wrong.

Most genealogy programs have fields for given name, surname, title-prefix, and title-suffix. If your software has separate fields, put Jr, Sr, II, etc. in the title-suffix field. A few programs have just a single name field. If your software has a single name field, which it sounds like yours does, it's best to write the surname within slashes followed by the title suffix; e.g., "John Smith /Gilcrest/ II", because that tells the system where to find the surname. If you omit the slashes (e.g., "John Smith Gilcrest II") the system will still try to detect that II is a suffix, but it won't detect all possible suffixes. If you notice that the system is making mistakes detecting obvious name prefixes (e.g., Reverend or Captain) or suffixes (e.g., Jr, Sr, or II) when the entire name is entered in a single name field, would you please let me know, because that's a bug.

You should be able to use ? for an unknown name and the system should automatically convert it to "Unknown". If it's not doing that, would you please let me know, because that's also a bug.

The best thing to do sounds like just what you did. Instead of changing your GEDCOM to make it to conform to the naming conventions at WeRelate with the intent of changing in back afterward, upload your GEDCOM as-is and edit the pages during the GEDCOM review process to make any corrections that you want so that the pages will look good on WeRelate.--Dallan 13:20, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

thanks Dallan... everything worked out fine. The ? all switched to Unknown. Even though my genealogy program (Gene for macintosh) has only a single name field, when converted to a gedcom it automatically reads it correctly (inserting slashes, etc.) The I, II, and III, Jr. etc. all were treated as suffixes. I don't know if the (1), (2) add-ons that I had would have caused a problem, but it was easy to change them just in case to the roman numerals. Amelia J.

I just uploaded a test gedcom to the sandbox site to see what would happen in these cases.

  • We don't handle a (2) after a surname very well. If Surname (2) appears in a separate surname field in the GEDCOM, we would title the page as if the surname were Surname 2 during the gedcom review process, but then the system would fix it and title the page as if the surname were just Surname when it actually create the wiki pages. So that's not too bad. However, if the entire name is in a single field (as in your case), then we would title the page as if the surname were just 2 during the gedcom review process and also when we created the actual wiki page. You could fix this by editing the page and correcting the surname during the gedcom review process, but if you missed it there, you'd end up with a poor page title.
  • If a person's given name is J.N. (no spaces), then we'll title the page as J N Surname, because we replace periods with spaces in the title after we determine that the given name must be J.N. because there are no spaces separating the J and the N. This seems like a reasonable title in this situation.
  •  ?'s in a name are omitted from page titles during the gedcom review process, but are properly converted to Unknown when we create the actual wiki pages. This also doesn't seem too bad, although the next time I get into the gedcom review program I'll change the ?'s to Unknown's rather than omitting them.

I can fix the first problem if it starts popping up more often, but I'd like to start working on making online person and family data entry easier next.--Dallan 16:53, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

renaming sources [17 September 2009]

another question : ) this one is sort of an etiquette question. I have recently changed 2 sources;

1) Source:Ancestry.com - Brackett genealogy : descendants of Anthony Brackett of Portsmouth and Captain Richard Brackett of Braintree with biographies o

 there was a duplicate source, and with Amelia's help (the original Amelia), I combined the two and the one left is the correct one.
 however, my understanding is that the name should change to "Bracket, Herbert I. Brackett genealogy" (or something like that) I think Amelia had said that it would eventually be changed.

2) Source:From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest with a partial record of a Gilcrest family

this is the source where I have uploaded the transcript (or most of it) I have made some changes to the source page, but, again, I'm pretty sure the source title should be "Gilcrest, Robert A. From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest" or something similar.

my question is, should I rename these? I know there is a source renaming project going on, but perhaps these have been passed by? or should I just wait, because they will automatically get renamed?

just don't want to step on any toes, thanks again, Amelia J.--88buckaroo 22:01, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

There's a couple weeks yet until the automated renaming goes through, so you can still leave them. Just make sure the author and title are how you want them.--Amelia 00:17, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

Excellent. thanks Amelia : ) Amelia J.

oh, Amelia, I meant to ask... I know you guys had a discussion on another page about when sources get re-named, if the source citations will be re-directed.. Was that resolved? The reason I ask is that I am going through my new tree and adding the source "From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest" as a source. Eventually it will get re-named something like "Gilcrest, Robert A. From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest" I'm assuming that it's okay to link it all up now and that things will get re-directed after it is re-named? Amelia J.--88buckaroo 11:50, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

As Dallan says below, sources will all get renamed auto-magically. But if you're trying to get source-names in your desktop software to align with what they will be in WeRelate, I believe the eventual form for page titles will be "Surname, Book Title". So: Gilcrest, From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest. (If you include the author's first name, it results in too many commas and becomes confusing.) There are also a few minor variables, like distinguishing one edition from another by appending a date in parentheses, and so on, but those are pretty obvious when you look at the page title. --Mike (mksmith) 11:47, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
Actually, it would be Gilcrest, Robert A. From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest. We're going with the first author, in surname, given name format. And yes, everything will get re-directed after it is renamed.--Dallan 22:08, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
Yes, the source links on person and family pages will get redirected to the new source titles once the source pages have been renamed. And later this year I'll write a program to update person and family pages to point directly to the new source page titles.--Dallan 13:24, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

Right-click for Mac users [15 September 2009]

I have a new user having difficulty with the gedcom review. The process requires a right-click in several places. How does a Mac user handle this? --Judy (jlanoux) 09:21, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

wow. a question I can answer : ) I'm a mac person. The mac version of a right click is to hit the Control button while you click. Amelia J.--88buckaroo 10:24, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

Capitalization for place names [15 September 2009]

Just curious...while adding a place name I entered "McClure Cemetery" for Pike, Clearfield, Pennsylvania, United States. The 2nd "C" in McClure came out lower case. Does the "Mc" have to have a space before the "Clure" ? Odd.....--Neal Gardner 12:22, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

I know why it did it, but it shouldn't have -- it's a bug. I capitalize the first letter of each word because that's our convention, but if an inner letter is capitalized I should leave it capitalized. I'll put this on my ToDo list. In the meantime, you should be able to click on the Rename link to rename the page with an uppercase C if you want. Adding a space before "Clure" when you first created the page would also have worked.--Dallan 13:33, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

New Amsterdam, Irian Jaya, Indonesia ? [16 September 2009]

I've tried to add place New Amsterdam, New Holland as the predecessor of New York City several times. It always assigns Irian Jaya, Indonesia to the place page, although keeps New Amsterdam, New Holland in red print on the person page. What's the buzz ? --Neal Gardner 14:13, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Neal, my understanding of how you're supposed to add the place for the desired outcome you seek is this in the Place field:
New York, New York, United States|New Amsterdam, New Holland
I.e., you have to select a current place as the link to a Place page, but you can use the pipe (|) to tell the system how to DISPLAY what you want it to. jillaine 14:57, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

--Neal Gardner 15:13, 16 September 2009 (EDT)Thanks !

Guidar buried in Baltimore, Maryland, Grave # 60 , 1st row from the hedge [17 September 2009]

I have seen his grave and been to the church to check the records of burial. Someone is changing his burial to Scotland ???? St Mary's is in Baltimore, Maryland, not Scotland Get your facts straight before making changes to someone else's family tree.--WiJaFlJr 00:29, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm not clear what the problem is. We are still working on merging duplicate records. I have mainly today worked on deleting a lot of empty records. These would not have changed existing fields. You haven't told us the page that is of concern. I found a Daniel Guidar (1). The burial hasn't changed since you imported your gedcom. The place is set to Scotland and then the pipe is used to make Baltimore show on the display. This appears to be how you imported it.
Out of curiosity, I also took a look at this Person:Daniel Guidar (1) page. WiJaFlJr, if you click on HISTORY, you'll see a list of edits that have been made to this page since you initially uploaded with the most recent at the top. If you go to the "curr" and "last" links at the very bottom of the list, and look at either one, you'll see what the page looked like when you first uploaded it. As you'll see, it is as Judy has said: none of the changes she made affected the burial information. Your original uploaded data had both "Baltimore" and "Scotland" in the Place field. jillaine 22:10, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

The changes made today deleted four sets of upknown as parents, leaving one. --Judy (jlanoux) 01:16, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

You also have 2 user names and 2 user pages. Your gedcom was uploaded under User:Wijafljr.--Beth 01:25, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

You left this other question on my user page: == Meehan & Downey conection [17 September 2009] ==

	+	How are you related to these that you can make changes ???--WiJaFlJr 00:23, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

These changes were also part of merge activity. The empty sets of parents were removed from the page as a result of cleaning up family pages. They filter down to associated pages. It is important to understand that you are in a shared workspace. Other people will be making changes. If we all use due diligence as we make pages, there will be less cleanup activity for volunteers to handle. You personal duplicates list can be found on the My Relate menu: Show Duplicates. We encourage everyone to watch your lists so that it doesn't require a huge project to get the site cleaned up. --Judy (jlanoux) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

Two-word first names [22 September 2009]

WeRelate's wiki software currently sees a two-word first name and assumes the second word is a middle name. Therefore it drops this second word when it creates the title for the page.

I will soon be uploaded a large GEDCOM of Germany families. The naming convention for pre 1900 given names is frequently a two-word name, and the person generally went by the second name. In such usages, the person rarely went by the first name.

In addition, the first name is usually Johan for males and Anna for females. The results of Werelate's handling of this is that on a given Germany family page, the children are listed by their "first" name (John or Anna). Which makes it look like the parents had a bunch of people by the same name.

And even worse? When I upload this near-10k-person GEDCOM, the dupes tool is going to go haywire. Because in this case, the number of last names is limited. So not only are there a ton of-- for example-- Johann Georg Schlenkers (which will be translated as Johann Schlenker), there are also a lot of Johann Jakob Schlenkers (who will also be changed to Johann Schlenker) that are the fathers of these Johan (Georg) Schlenkers. Dear me, the more I write about this, the more horrified I become.

While deduping this week, I've also seen a number of existing pages where it's the case that the page is named Johann Lastname, when in fact, it should really be named Johann Georg Lastname. etc.

It seems critical to me that the pages for these German folks (male and female) be named with their full, two-word first names. Otherwise, all hades will break out-- for the dupes tool, for searching, etc...

Seems we need an option for forcing full name page titles.

Thoughts? advice? Will use of /slashes/ work here? (e.g., /Johan Georg/)?

-- jillaine 13:28, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

That problem is in no way unique to Germany. All of my French Acadian ancestors are named Jean or Marie and go by middle names. In this case, I chose to use the middle name as the correct one for all the reasons you cite. I added a birth name to show the baptismal name. I wish there was an option for Baptismal name on the list of alternates. --Judy (jlanoux) 14:51, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
Well, I have no idea how you would fix this, but I think that having some middle names and then not allowing them elsewhere is not real scalable ('But I have SO MANY John Smiths! What will I do if I can't distinguish between the four of them!! I too must use this special tool!')
But some of the problems you mention shouldn't be quite as bad as you suggest. First, on the family page, all the children are listed with their names as given in the name fields, not their page titles, so you'll be able to tell them apart.
But on the merge page, their middle name is not listed; the page title is.
Second, the dupes tool in the gedcom upload is limited to families (as far as I remember). So you shouldn't have an issue unless the men were marrying women of the same name, something that should happen less often than just your average Johan popping up.
Oh, Amelia... if only you knew... "unless the men were marrying women of the same name..." In THIS town (Schwenningen), this happened a LOT. Hans Jacob Schlenker married Anna Maria Hausser again and again and again... all different people. More often than I care to admit: they were in the same or nearby generations.
Well, then you need more than just middle names to help you! (oy!)
Third, search looks at both names and titles, and displays the name with every result. Fourth, dupe searching operates on all the fields, not just name, so the matches should be more limited.--Amelia 17:21, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
I hope you're right. jillaine 11:06, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
Re middle names, what page are you looking at? The pages in the normal merge process all list middle names. e.g. [1]--Amelia 11:12, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
Oh, you mean, I have to look more CLOSELY? ;-) you're right. I'm lazy. But at least above, you see my concern... jillaine 11:24, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

The GEDCOM upload matching uses at first, middle, surname, birth date, and death date of all spouses in the marriage, as well as the marriage date and place. So middle names are included when determining matches. Similarly, the add-page matching also uses the full name and birth/death dates.

The "show duplicates" matching, which generates the matches we're going through now, isn't nearly as comprehensive. It matches based upon the titles of the family pages, so middle names aren't included, and neither is birth/death/marriage information. It also looks at people with multiple sets of parents and family pages with multiple husbands or wives. I don't anticipate the "show duplicates" matching to be used much once these initial matches have been cleaned up, since most future duplicates should be caught by the GEDCOM upload and add-page matching. If it turns out that "show duplicates" continues to be used frequently, I can make it more comprehensive.

Searching searches the entire name. One of the things on my todo list is to display the name in bold instead of the page title for search results. The full name also appears on the match and compare screens.

I didn't want to include middle name in the page title mainly to reduce the burden of having to rename the page when you didn't know the middle name initially but then found it later. I could add middle name to the title, but then I worry that we'd also want birth date to distinguish between people with common names, and so on. I think a better approach is to display the full name and birth/death info in places where it is important to distinguish between people with similar page titles. The person drop-down list should have this information for example.

I'll add "Baptismal name" to my todo list.--Dallan 10:16, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Using Wikipedia templates [22 September 2009]

I came across the pages for the family of Person:Laura Ingalls (3) which were pretty unsatisfactory and had terrible errors. I'm trying to fix them up a bit and add some sources. For Laura I am trying to use the WP template to pull in the section of her WP article with the genealogical information called: Early life and marriage. I'm not sure if I did it correctly. Last night the pages for her parents were updated to bring in the main article from their WP pages. But Laura was not updated to bring in the extra section from her page. Did I do it incorrectly? or is there another routine that has to run? --Judy (jlanoux) 12:50, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

I looked and it looks correct to me. I've had hit and miss success with section WP links, and having it take longer to update, but perhaps Jrm or Dallan can be more specific.--Amelia 13:10, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
You did everything right. The issue is that source-wikipedia templates are processed weekly, but the copy-wikipedia templates, which is what you need to create for copying sections, are updated only once every 3-4 months. I hadn't anticipated people using section copying as much as they seem to be using it. The thing to do I think is to allow you to specify a section heading in a source-wikipedia template. I'll add that also to my todo list (which is getting unfortunately long right now :-).--Dallan 10:26, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Upload a new version of this file - images [22 September 2009]

This does not seem to work if you change the type of your file from say jpeg to ping. I guess one must delete the image and start from scratch. --Beth 20:21, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

That's right. The system gets the file type from the page title, and you can't rename image pages, so you can't change from a jpeg to a png without creating a new file. Kind of limiting, but it's not easy to change.--Dallan 10:28, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Updating someone who has died [22 September 2009]

I tried to just add the death date for my grandmother, but even after saving, she's still showing up as "Living Scogin".... how do I adjust this?--Webmouse 10:20, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Next to the "Edit" and "History" links at the top right of the page is "rename." Click on this, and change "Living" to her first name. Do not add a number, the system will do it for you.--Amelia 10:23, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

How to handle Birth & Adoptive families? [28 September 2009]


As a newbie here, I have searched, and not found, recommendations / guidelines for designating two sets of parents for one child (birth parents if known, and adoptive parents). Are there any guidelines or recommendations that need to be followed? or do I just create two pages for the same person under both surnames?

My father was adopted, and fortunately, we know some facts about his birth family, and are trying to find out more. Like many babies born before the 1950's, anytime the mother died in childbirth, the father would "give" the infant to either relatives, or a close family friend. For others, many children who were orphaned would go to strangers or family when their parents were both deceased.

I'm sure this situation has come up for other contributors in the past, but I have been unable to find any resources as to how you suggest this kind of situation be handled.

Thanks, KLMMC--Klmmc 11:21, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

Welcome to WeRelate. You ask a great question. First, we would like to have only one page per person. So for someone who has two names, use the alternate name feature to add an additional name. Don't worry about the page title, leave it alone. Searches work on the name field found on the page, not just the title.

For the parents, it is possible to have multiple sets of parents for a person and this is a case where is is perfectly appropriate. Create a Family page for each set of perents, then add your father as a child to each. Do not put multiple fathers or mothers on the same Family page. I also don't recommend empty "placeholder" pages created for unknown people, but if you do know the names and a few things about them, you can create pages for them. If you do not have the information to create pages, you can add a discussion of what you do know in the text box on your father's page.

It is also a good idea to mark the families with the "do not merge" to indicate that you know they are separate people. See Help for how. We always have volunteers checking for duplicate pages and this will help lessen their work.

I do want to remind you that we do not allow pages for living people because of privacy concerns. --Judy (jlanoux) 11:53, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

Judy- First of all, yes, this is a deceased person, and all parties discussed here are as well. (and some of them are already in the Trees) So if I understand you correctly, on the child's person page, I list both sets of parents, and both names of the child, i.e.:

P.L. McL, 1925 - 1983 Adopted child of Levi and Sadie McL

AKA P.L.H. Child of Harvey and Janie H. adopted to Levi & Sadie McL, Aug 1925.

For the Family pages I would list the birth name of the child for the birth parents; and the adoptive name of the child for the adoptive parents. My question is this: HOW do I get BOTH family pages to link to the same PersonPage for the child? Or am I misunderstanding? I assume that I would use his Legal Name for the Title of his PersonPage.

Most of the relatives on the adoptive side know/knew he was adopted, but didn't know any of the info on the birth family, and vise-versa. I would like for each "side" to be able to pull the info they are looking for without having to "jump thru hoops" to get to it (ya know what I mean?).

KLMMC--Klmmc 16:35, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

If some of these pages are existing, the step-by-step will vary depending on what is existing. Make a list of the page names existing or that you have added. If you list your father as a child on each of the two family pages, things will come out right. You can link a family page to a person or a person page to a family from the edit screens. If you tell me what pages are already there (e.g. John Smith (175)) I can be more specific.

I would use your father's adoptive name when you build his page. Then in the edit view you can add his birth name. People will be able to find him under either name. --Judy (jlanoux) 17:17, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

Judy- Another user already had some basic information on my father and his adoptive family on WeRelate. I uploaded a GEDCOM which supplemented some of that. Here are the family page and person page for my father and his adoptive parents:

Family:Levi Mc Lellan and Sadie Herndon (1) http://www.werelate.org/fte/index.php?userName=Klmmc&treeName=McLellan+-+Herndon

Person:Louis Mc Lellan (1) http://www.werelate.org/fte/index.php?userName=Klmmc&treeName=McLellan+-+Herndon

I have yet to upload the GEDCOM with the info of his birth family in it, or to create them from scratch.

P.S.-what do the RIN: MH:F## entry at the top of each page stand for? KLMMC--Klmmc 19:19, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

The RIN is a database id that someone had in their gedcom. Please delete these when you see them. We don't want everybody's personal identifiers in a shared database.

Since this one is a special situation, I suggest you build pages for the rest of the family. Then once you have the structure, you can upload the gedcom with the rest of the data. If you haven't looked an this family page tutorial and person page tutorial, please do that first. These are located on the Help menu, contents page. Now, let's work without using FTE so you can see the page more clearly... Go to Person:Louis Mc Lellan (1). Click Edit. Notice that the page title is "Person:Louis Mc Lellan (1)", but then there is a name field under the Orange Name heading. He has two names now. The searches use these fields. If fact, he doesn't need two for these variations, Preston Louis Mc Clellan can be put in the preferred name and the extra deleted. Now, click Add alternate name. This is where you enter the birth name. Choose "Birth Name" from the drop down and enter the name. Don't forget to save the page when you quit. Now to enter his birth parents: Go to the area under Parents and Siblings... Since there is already one set of parents, you will press "Find/Add another Family page" below the empty box. This brings up a little form for the names. Put the first and last name only for both spouses. Leave blanks for anything you don't know. Press the Find/Add button. you will be taken to a search page. Scroll down to make sure the page doesn't already exist, then press Add Page button to create your new family page. I suggest saving everything at this point and keeping notes on the page names. Now you can create a Person page for his father, enter the new family name under the Spouse and Children area. Save the person page. If you check the family page now, you will see your father and his father. Do the same thing for his mother. Create a Person page for her, put the family page name in the Spouse and children area and save it. TaDa! You've done it! Check the Family page again, you should see husband, wife and your father under the children. For each family there are usually at least four pages: Family page, Husband's person page, wife's person page, child's person page. You can add or take away people by editing either the family page or the person page.

There is no need to worry about people finding pages. Our search works quite well. From Search, Person I did a few tests... search on Lewis Mclellan, Preston Mc Lellan or any variation brings up your guy as top choice. Enjoy! --Judy (jlanoux) 20:08, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

For what it's worth, eventually you'll be able to specify whether parents were natural or adoptive as part of the child-parents link. For now though, you can enter this information in the big text box at the bottom of the page.--Dallan 18:32, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

DANIEL WOODSIDE [28 September 2009]

Hello I'm looking for information on DANIEL WOODSIDE who was born on 12th January 1884 at Ballycastle Antrim Ireland. His father was JAMES WOODSIDE b 1808 and his mother was SARAH KIRKPATRICK b 1839. Both from Ballycastle Antrim Ireland. DANIEL married BESSIE ANDREW in Cornwall in 1904. We know he has a brother ROBERT WOODSIDE born either 1876 or 1878 in Ballycastle who was married to ELLEN RENNIE of Antrim and ROBERT died in Philadelphia in 1906. He also had a sister SARAH WOODSIDE b 1870 who married JOHN MOONEY in 1910. DANIEL was a Merchant Seaman and we have found 4 voyages for him to New York, Sydney & Brisbane Australia the last being 1922. Daniel "disappeared" from Cornwall around 1927. Does anyone have any more information on him? Trying to find a Death for him. Have looked in England up to 1970. He doesn't appear to have died in Scotland or Ireland. I have looked in Philadelphia Deaths on LDS but they only go to 1915. Some of his cousins from Ballycastle went to Philadelphia. Thanks Pat Berry--Patriciaberry38 17:27, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

Hi Pat and welcom to WeRelate. I don't have the answer to your question, sorry. This page is used for questions about how to use WeRelate and not for queries. But I can give some suggestions...

  1. If you haven't done it yet, construct WeRelate pages for the people in your query. Enter all of the information you have. Then from Daniel's Person page, press Talk and leave a message on the talk page just like you did here, asking for people to contribute the information you seek.
  2. You could also use your user profile page (found on the MyRelate menu) to tell people about yourself and your research and what you would like help with.

These pages will be indexed by Google so there is a good chance that someone researching this family would see your page. Enjoy! --Judy (jlanoux) 17:45, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

Hello Judy I have placed the message regarding Daniel Woodside on my User Profile Page under Woodside-Davison. Hope that is what you mean. Pat--Patriciaberry38 20:45, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

You're getting warmer. :-) Again, just a suggestion. To make most effective use of the categories, we suggest that you use one surname and one state at a time. So rather than putting "Woodside Davidson" in your surname list, make and entry for Woodside and another one for Davidson, etc. Not many people would search on the combination.
What I had intended was that you put your message on your page directly. You can paste it into the big text box along with a little about yourself. But the "name in place" type page is probably a better way to do it and might be more effective. Just create one with the one surname and one place. Check out Shared research pages in Help. --Judy (jlanoux) 00:32, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Hello Judy Have tried to fix it but I don't think it is right. The Initial Heading will not change. Pat--Patriciaberry38 01:59, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

I took another look at your page. In the edit mode where the boxes for places and surnames are; fix them so that there is only one surname or one place per box. Delete the extra names in the box and then use the Add link to create a new one for the rest. This list can get excessively long so you may want to concentrate on just the major ones you are working at present. I deleted the Woodside Davidson page for you.--Judy (jlanoux) 02:30, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Hello Judy Regarding making separate pages for my ancestors. I have made a Woodside in Antrim page and a Davison in Antrim page. I think those two are correct and I have placed a message on each. I tried to split up HAGUE, GREAVES, LOWDEN etc in Ashton-under-Lyne into HAGUE in ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE and GREAVES in ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE. Now I have placed a message on the GREAVES in ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE one. I made a mistake before I put the message on the GREAVES one and it was on the HAGUE one so I fixed that up but now I think there are two HAGUE ones-one which has been redirected to GREAVES. I'll just leave these four pages WOODSIDE, DAVISON, HAGUE & GREAVES for the moment but would you be able to look at it for me and make sure there are no duplicate pages. When you go into "User Profile" the list of names with places that you are searching comes up on the left hand side of screen. Do they stay the same way as I entered when I first joined? For example we have changed WOODSIDE DAVISON in County DOWN/Antrim but it still shows the same on the left hand side of my "User Profile". Pat--Patriciaberry38 18:26, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

I see that you have created some new pages. That's fine. I'm afraid we're drifting from your original goal. I suggest that you create Person and Family pages for the people you discussed in your query. Enter everything you know about these people. It's a good idea to enter what you know about everyone connected to these people. The larger the web you build, the more likely you are to attract someone who might know the facts you seek. This should be your first priority. I don't use the "name in place" type fields very much. I'm going to have to defer to someone who has more experience with these if you want to pursue them. --Judy (jlanoux) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Ok, now don't laugh...how do you make a Pipe...literally, how on the keyboard do I make a Pipe...I see several instances where it's advised to "use" one, but how do you "make" one ?--Neal Gardner 16:03, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Shift-\ on my keyboard... --Jrm03063 16:24, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Would someone create a source for this? [28 September 2009]

Would someone please create a Source for this transcribed will:
Copied from http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/VACULPEP/2008-08/1219193185 posted by Amanda E. Douglass on 19 Aug 2008 Culpeper Co. VA Will Book D-91/3: Will of Robert R. Duncan, 7 June 1788, of Saint Mark's Parish, Culpeper Co., Virginia . . . probated 21 Oct 1793.

I plan to copy and paste Amanda's transcription into the Source page and hope to link to the names in the will. Or should I make the transcription an article and link it to whatever Source some kind person creates for it? Should the Source be the Will Book or the URL where I found the transcription? So has it now been decided that the location is not Virginia, Culpeper, St. Mark's Parish but should be 'St. Mark's Parish, Culpeper, Virginia, United States'?

Too many decisions here for me. --Janiejac 18:30, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

I know that the distinction between a community Source page and a personal MySource page is fuzzy. In the big picture, we're trying to create Source pages for sources that other people will find useful, and MySource pages for sources that most other people won't find useful: sources that apply to a single person or family or sources in someone's private possession. Source pages are created for books or record collections; MySource pages are created for individual records or documents. Since this is a will of a single individual, I would create a MySource page for it. Click on MySource in the Add menu and title it however you want. I'd title it something like Will of Robert R. Duncan, 7 June 1788, of Saint Mark's Parish, Culpeper, Virginia. I'd copy the transcription right onto the MySource page, and cite the MySource page from the Person page for Robert Duncan.--Dallan 18:43, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Retreiving original GEDCOM [28 September 2009]


My computer crashed in May, and I have been able to retreive some of it, but not all of my notes and references.

Is it possible to retreive it from WeRelate?

Thanks Bonnie--Bboops 21:25, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Sorry about your computer. You can download your original gedcom from the MyRelate, Trees. There is a download link. As an alternative, you can create a new gedcom file reflecting the current information, including any changes made on WeRelate in your tree by clicking on Export. --Judy (jlanoux) 21:35, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Capitalization in a place. [2 October 2009]

Having a similar Capitalization problem as I did not too long ago. Created Place page for Coddingville-Jones Cemetery, Coddingville, Medina, Ohio, United States. The Place Page accepted the upper cas "J" in Jones, but when I tried to use it for Rufus Huntley b 1777, the "J" refused to go upper case. --Neal Gardner 15:52, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

That's a bug. I thought I had fixed it everywhere, but I must not have fixed it in this place. I'll fix it in the next couple of days. (And I corrected the capitalization on Rufus' page.)--Dallan 12:28, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks !--Neal Gardner 12:31, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Submissions of honest, but incorrect or subjective source data. [7 October 2009]

What I mean is. If a person thinks that they have correct source data, however, their source data are subjective, unknowingly incomplete or gives an incorrect impression. In this case, who makes the decision as to whom is correct. That is, 20 people say the data are correct, but I have additional source data that indicate to me that I am correct. I may make the correction and one of the 20 disagrees with my correction and replaces it. Am I exaggerating? Who makes the decision in such a situation? The majority are not necessarily correct (this does not imply anything more than what pertains to my question).

Also, several words are ambiguous. For example - kin, cousin, brother and sister (which may really pertain to step-brother or sister or "yesterday's" use of "in-law"). I have been wrestling with a will for Elizabeth Slaughter dated 1645 which indicates that her brother is Arthur King and another brother is Joshua Slaughter. Her cousin was Mary King. Can anybody say for sure exactly what the relationships are when stated in a more precise language? Again, does majority "win"? Whose "correction" will be allowed to stand?

If these questions are not deemed to be pertinent or, if I have missed your documentation that provides an answer, please feel free to ignore my questions and comments. The impression that I get so far implies that people will resolve issues perfectly and that "the cream will always rise to the top". My apologies if I have so erred.--KingDonald 03:09, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Donald. Great question. Perfectly reasonable to ask. I had to deal with this myself. The key approach is to prepare and present your evidence. Those who do not have evidence for their alternative view will need to back it up. But at the same time, we want to create a respectful space. On WeRelate, I've seen this handled a variety of ways here. Until agreement is reached:
  1. Use the Talk page on the pertinent Person's page to discuss the discrepancy.
  2. Create a section in the narrative section of the Person's page called something like == Origins Discrepancy ==. In this describe the two theories.
  3. Include both sets of dates (if dates are involved); or both sets of parents (if discrepancy about parentage is the concern); or both spouses (if spouses are concerned).
Welcome to WeRelate. -- jillaine 08:46, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

WR observes the not-always-obvious wiki principle that the latest and last person editing a page has the best data in hand and makes the immediate call. Anyone actively watching can chime in when they see the change, if they disagree. When multiple folks are actively working an issue, the associated family/person talk page can be one way to go. If there's just one person you want to be sure to address, on a particular page, you can reach out to that user's talk page and query them. If a watcher sees a wretched change - perhaps even vandalism - then they can just roll back to a previous version.
One other point, in dealing with errors in judgement, misconceptions, etc., whether it be a long-standing statement from an ancient GEDCOM or an active and engaged user - I do not recommend that you re-stage The Argument Sketch. Far better to add more convincing sources and analysis. Leave weak sources and attach notes that indicates when/why/how they were problems. If you find problems in analysis, address them directly but courteously.
Finally, I think issues of this sort are a really huge opportunity for WR. Such errors are a kind of person/family fact that needs to be preserved. Why? Generally, errors of this sort - like genealogy - are inherited. Lots of people in a long line are under the same/similar misconceptions. Don't just drop such errors - keep them as explicitly known errors and provide the information to substantiate the alternative view.--Jrm03063 09:09, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

I concur with Jillaine's comments. You have stated your issue well and dispassionately. I would do the same with the Person and Family pages. I also like to use the associated talk page to discuss problem material with fellow researchers. One approach would be to create a topic on the talk page, move the speculative material there, and then discuss why you think it is so, and what type of documentation would be needed if someone wanted to pursue the disputed view. This approach has the advantage of making the Person page look correct in your eyes. And it acknowledges the previous contributions, while keeping the door open for legitimate disagreement.
I tend to believe that troublesome material should remain on the talk page. Otherwise someone who doesn't know any better will add it back to the person page when they find it.
The bigger risk is that a flaw, once found and fixed on a family or person page, is going to be re-created when someone new comes to WR with an old GEDCOM or old research. Our only hope is to deal with flaws by explicitly identifying them as such and exposing them - generally leaving them in plain sight on appropriate person/family pages. The discrepancy section suggested above is one such approach. --Jrm03063 10:04, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
I do not believe in 'democratic' genealogy. That 8 out of 8 other people have posted something doesn't make it more correct, it only means they blindly copied it from each other. Most of these people will welcome a chance to learn something. Some left their gedcom and have never returned. I hope you don't run into the third type.
First step: I survey the watchers. Take a look at their talk page. Do they respond to messages? It will give you an idea who you're dealing with. I have made changes such as you describe on pages with over 10 watchers and never heard from anyone. --Judy (jlanoux) 09:24, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks to Jillane and Jrm03063.--KingDonald 11:19, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

professional genealogist question [11 October 2009]

A genealogist has contributed a list of references for a research guide which I posted for him and gave him credit by name. He was not familiar with WeRelate but gave me permission to post his list. Later he gave me a link to his home page which tells about the professional genealogical services he offers. Is it proper to add that link to the information that he contributed the material or should I just leave his name? I was concerned that it might look like I was promoting a commercial site. On the other hand, it would be a way for folks to contact him if he never gets around to joining our community.

(Now that I've told him about WeRelate, hopefully he'll register and do his own posting.)--Janiejac 12:12, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

I think that it's appropriate to put the link next to his name to offer context for who he is. Make it just a 'footnote link' - put it in brackets so it just shows up as [1], instead of www.mybusiness.com.--Amelia 12:30, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
I hate to be so ignorant - but I'm not sure how to do that. Could you post it on this Northern Neck, Virginia Research Guide#Marriage Records as an example to me? The link he gave me is http://www.craigkilby.com.--Janiejac 12:47, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Well, I managed to fix the link to his site. But the wikipedia template at the bottom of the page is still not right. --Janiejac 16:57, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Can someone tell me where I can learn to do that citation in brackets thing? I too along with Janiejac have been trying to figure out how to do it (vs. using the Cite template, which I know how to do). Thank you!--Brenda (kennebec1) 17:20, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Brenda,here is example.--Beth 19:00, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
<hr/> <small> # [[Source:Farquharson, Geoffrey. Clan Farquharson: A History|Farquharson, Geoffrey. Clan Farquharson: A History]], p. 68. </small>
Is that what you were asking for? My suggestion was to do something like: List provided by Craig Kilby [http://www.craigkilby.com], which shows up as
List provided by Craig Kilby [2].
If what you want is footnotes, then you do
...Craig Kilby<ref>Professional genealogist [http://www.craigkilby.com]</ref> and then put </references>where you want the notes (the content between the ref tags) to appear.--Amelia 23:47, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Thank you, Amelia and Beth. I didn't know about the <ref> or the <small> tags. It's cool that the wiki knows to put a number in brackets in place of the web address... that's what I didn't understand. I'll have to experiment with these options.... --Brenda (kennebec1) 11:05, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Guys, you seem to have gotten away from the essential question: Should we put links to genealogical businesses on WeRelate? I don't know what the Management's policy on this might be, but there definitely needs to be one. WeRelate is a tax-exempt operation, so it matters. I think the answer needs to be "NO" -- we should not link to people's commercial websites, any more than we should publish their business cards and office phone numbers. All that stuff is advertising. I don't believe we ought to be doing that here. You may not be aware of it, but there are at least a couple of professionals who are active on WeRelate, but they haven't advertised that fact, or even mentioned it. They're keeping their commercial operations and their hobbyist and volunteer efforts separate, which is the ethical way to handle it. --Mike (mksmith) 20:45, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Hmmm, so my gut feeling was right - that there was a possibility this might be a situation that should be addressed. Would someone ask Dallan to weigh in here? I've already put his link on the page, but it is just as a signature for his list; not really a footnote. Since there are 4 sections on the page, I didn't know if a footnote should go at the end of the section or end of the page. And as his signature, it seemed appropriate for what he contributed.--Janiejac 21:09, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

One thing to consider is that this site is supported by advertising. We shouldn't be giving it away free. --Judy (jlanoux) 21:54, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm not sure that it is advertising to put his link there; he contributed the resources, and we are indicating the source. I don't see that it is different from putting links to Ancestry.com pages, or Family Search Library links, for that matter. It's not a WeRelate page dedicated to his business - that would be advertising. In this case, it is a footnoted link to a contributor's website where one could get more info on this person if desired - essentially, a source. The fact that he happens to be a "professional genealogist" I don't think makes him any different than a link to Ancestry.com. It's just a link.--Brenda (kennebec1) 22:17, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
The Google ads on WeRelate are managed by the site as a source of revenue for its own support. No "profit" is being made on them (as far as the IRS is concerned). Allowing outside individuals to advertise for their own benefit is, I believe, a different issue. This sort of thing came up a few years ago with the journal I edit, when the Board was considering whether to take advertising. In our case, a little investigation suggested that it seemed likely to affect our tax-free status, so we decided not to go down that path at all. Once you lose that status, it's extremely difficult ever to get it back, so you want to be very, very careful. --Mike (mksmith) 10:21, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
In the above case, I think a link to the website is perfectly acceptable since it's the source of the information. Wikipedia includes links to commercial websites. I think we can link to commercial websites when the situation calls for it, such as when we're citing a source or pointing people to more information.
Regarding the more general question of allowing people to advertise for their own benefit, I need to do some research before making a decision. FamilySearch wiki recently announced a project to encourage professional genealogists to market themselves. I'm going to contact them to find out whether they did any legal research before announcing this project.--Dallan 21:33, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Failed GEDCOM from Donald King [11 October 2009]

Not sure of the best way to handle this comment or even if it is necessary. The GEDCOM that I exported from my file was not valid and should be ignored. I do not know where the GEDCOM got some of its data. I have used my gedcom to create a test master file and the test master file appears to be OK. ?? I attempted to drop my gedcom from your imports. I hope that it was deleted.


While you had my gedcom, "you" designated the most current generation as the "root family". I would have thought that the oldest generation would have been the "root family". Am I misinterpreting something or did I not see this covered in the system documentation??

Thanks, Donald King--KingDonald 17:49, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

I do not see you file in the pending gedcom queue so I believe you successfully deleted it. You can try another upload.
You can name whoever you like as 'root' in your file. But most beginners envision a tree with themselves at the base. I don't bother with root in my uploads because I do small batches of people who aren't necessarily all related. And often they aren't related to me directly. It depends on what type of projects you do. --Judy (jlanoux) 20:07, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
Many desktop genealogy programs allow you to specify a "primary" or "root" person. If you export a GEDCOM from one of these programs, WeRelate will use the person you specified in your desktop genealogy program as the "root" person. As Judy says, if you don't like the person that WeRelate has chosen, you can change it by right-clicking on the person you want to be the root.--Dallan 21:50, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Uploading Photographs [9 October 2009]

I have read the tutorials but I am unclear about the format(s) that are permissible. Can I upload a jpg file? Can I upload any other image formats? Thank you for your help.--Ckamp3 20:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

If you take a look at the Special:Upload page -- which you get to by selecting "Image" on the "Add" menu (on the blue menu bar) -- you'll see that .jpg is one of the choices. Actually, .jpg files are the primary type of image uploaded to the Internet. They're acceptable everywhere. --Mike (mksmith) 20:48, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Text Documents [9 October 2009]

Must I type in a document or can I upload and/or paste in a text document? If I can paste in a document, can one use any of the three major text editing programs (Mictosoft Word, Word Pefect, Open Office) to create the document and then copy and paste? Thank you for your help.--Ckamp3 20:15, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Yes, you can copy/paste any text you like into any of the text boxes on a page -- but you may have to edit it a bit and/or add a little wiki code to get it to look the way you want it to look. However, you'll be much happier if you use an ordinary text editing program like NotePad or TextPad, which produces output in ASCII. Word, WordPerfect, etc., aren't "text editing programs" in the usually understood sense. They incorporate all sorts of proprietary codes that require filters to make their output usable in other programs. You might like to experiment with that over at the Sandbox, but ASCII is better. I suggest you just open your Word document and then save a copy of it to a text file (with the extension ".txt"), and then copy/paste from that. --Mike (mksmith) 20:56, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Adobe PDF Documents [9 October 2009]

In reading and watching the tutorials, an example is given of entering a census page. If one has download a census page, it typically is in the Adobe PDF Format which is one form of image. Can I upload an Adobe PDF document or must I first convert it into an image format (such as jpg)? Thank you for your help.--Ckamp3 20:19, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

I am not familiar with the example of entering a census page, but I can speak to the second part of your question. I'd ask: how did you generate the PDF? Is it a downloaded file from Ancestry.com? If so, it's a copyrighted image from Ancestry.com and probably cannot be uploaded, as a result. jillaine 21:00, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
Census pages from Ancestry can be saved as jpg. There are a number of image formats supported by WeRelate, but jpeg is the most common. Ancestry does allow license for individuals use of a census image. There is a selection for it on the license drop-down.
There is a new feature allowing a pdf to be uploaded from the add image page. But you cannot display pdf on the page the way you can an image. You would have to use a Media link and someone would have to click on it, go the the "Image" page and download it to read offline in a pdf reader. I suggest that you do not do this for census images. --Judy (jlanoux) 21:23, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Source Description [16 October 2009]

I am unclear on how specifically you are defining a soucre. If I used a book as a source and have obtained material for two citations, one from page A, one from pages B to C, is that considered a single source or two sources.

Also, I frequently use the Rootsweb WorldConnect Project as the "primary source" and then cite the specific file and E-mail address of the originator. I also note the specific addition that file made to my database. Using FTM as a primary program, this system works well. Would you use Rootsweb World Connect Project as the primary source in your Wiki system or would you advocate a different approach?

Thank you for your help.--Ckamp3 20:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

A source is the documentation from which you obtained "proof" for the data you are giving. You can have one source and multiple citations. For example, let's say that in a book about the ancestry of the Deveaux family, you found the birth/parentage for Frederick DeVeaux on page 32; his marriage was documented on page 34, and his death was documented on page 36. You'd cite the same source (the book title), but for each citation (birth: page 32; marriage: 34; death: p. 36). Does that answer your question?
Re: Worldconnect, Yes, the Source could be the overall GEDCOM:
In the "page" field for the citation, include the URL of the specific page you drew from; e.g.:
In the date field, place the date you last accessed that particular page.
jillaine 21:08, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Your citation should include all of the elements necessary for someone else to find it. That's a good rule of thumb. There is flexibility in the mechanics of how you accomplish that and to a large extent it depends on the circumstances. If you are going to reuse a rootsweb file many times, I suggest creating a MySource for it. You would name it with the author and file description. The MySource page has place for the URL, repository (in this case Rootsweb) and other information. You could even paste in the relevant data. Here's a link to a page I recently created. See source #3 for a suggested way to do this. I treat it similarly to a book, citing author and title and then the individual id and person name. Look in edit view to see what goes where to accomplish this. Also click on the link to the source to see how the MySource was set up. I also have a source (#4) for a Post-em that was added to the rootsweb page. In this case, I made the newspaper the source, but noted that it was transcribed and posted by someone else.

Please do not create a Source page for a family file found on the web. These should be MySources.

I don't like the idea of putting someone else's email on a public web page. Note that Rootsweb has them disguised. If you provide proper citation for the Rootsweb file, someone should be able to find it and get the email if they wish.
Rootsweb may be ok for finding clues, but I don't suggest it as the "primary" source. But, it that's all we have then I've given you a good way to cite it. I used this particular one because it already had census transcripts. Note that credit was given to the poster.
For your question about the book...again it depends. One way I do it is use a single citation for the source and then in the source text/transcript box I add references to each page and what it said. See this page, source #3 as an example. I think it is best to try to consolidate them into a single citation, but again there are circumstances where two are necessary. --Judy (jlanoux) 21:14, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Always options . . .The way I have been handling citations from rootsweb charts is to have the citation be a MySouce which is "Janiejac/rootsweb chart of John Doe: The Doe Family" and in the URL window I paste the URL but leaving off the ID # at the end and having the operator as GET. In other words I make the URL go to the index of the chart. If you try to have the URL of the actual page, that will change every time the author does an update. But if you use the URL to go to their index page, that will stay the same even if/when they update. Anyone looking for a specific person can always use the index to find that person. Go to an index page yourself to verify your URL. --Janiejac 22:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Moving a place from one county to another [16 October 2009]

I mistakenly created a township in the wrong county - Ridgeville, Cuyahoga, Ohio, United States. Of course, I couldn't "edit out" Cuyahoga and put Lorain. When I tried to use Speedy Delete, I could not find the Template recommended to use, previously found at the bottom of the page. Also, instructions still say to use the delete mode if you are the only "watcher", but this is now only usable by Admins, so Ridgeville, Cuyahoga, Ohio, United States is still floating out there without a "Speedy Delete" request. Hmmmmm...--Neal Gardner 13:14, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

I was about to rename the page but I see that you've already found the speedy delete template. BTW, in the future you can change the county by renaming the page. And I've corrected the help text; thank-you for pointing it out.--Dallan 21:09, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Many thanks, Dallan. I guess I'm still a semi- "Newbie"--Neal Gardner 10:53, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

I wouldn't say that at all. Renaming a place page to correct a county is just not intuitive.--Dallan 14:52, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

uploading spreadsheets - how to ?? [25 October 2009]

Some time ago I uploaded a spreadsheet, used wikipedia converter to get it to look right on WeRelate, then someone helped with a bit of code and it looked great. Now I do not remember the title of the page to search for it to see how it was done.

(It's terrible when I can't remember what pages I created! Ought to be a way to pull up a list. The contribution list is too cluttered with other info; I just want a list of articles or guides that I created.)

Although spreadsheets are mentioned on the help pages, I don't find 'how to do it' instructions. --Janiejac 15:30, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Hi Janie, that was me who helped you out on that page. You can find the converter here. After you've converted the spreadsheet, you'll need to delete the {{table}} code at the top. One tip for finding pages you are watching is to type User:Janiejac into the keyword field of a search. Then you can choose Article from the drop-down list to see only the article you are watching. Good luck! --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:44, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

This was just the tool I needed to get my data transferred for the McLuen in Iowa WPA Graves Site. Thanks, now I'm ready to start linking. --Judy (jlanoux) 17:08, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks Jennifer for this help and the previous help! I printed it this time; I shouldn't have to ask again! --Janiejac 19:22, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Samples of sources [27 October 2009]

I would like to see some samples of the various ways that people list/link their sources (social security death indexes, census data, etc. And, other kinds of sources, too. For instance, I have found a great page in an online history of a county. Do I scan in the whole page and add it? Similarly, with the social security death index, do I just put the URL or do I scan the entry? Is the original view important?--Juliamcg 11:56, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

One thing to do is to look at the previously featured pages. They'll show you a variety of ways for dealing with different kinds of sources. Clicking on the "Edit" link will let you see how they did it.
As for whether or not to include a scan, I personally think that including scans is a nice touch. You just have to be careful about not infringing upon others' copyrights. In general, anything created by the US federal government, or published in the US before 1923, are out of copyright so you are free to post. Also, Ancestry, Footnote, and FamilySearch allow posting images if they are associated with your personal genealogy. Otherwise, if something is still under copyright you might want to include a URL instead of posting a scan.--Dallan 19:37, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Deleting contributions [30 October 2009]

How do I delete all my contributions to WeRelate?--Slowpoke46 15:08, 30 October 2009 (EDT)

There are a number of answers to that question, and debates about it, but in your case, your contributions list shows changes to only a couple pages, and those have been merged with other pages. So you have nothing to delete.--Amelia 15:22, 30 October 2009 (EDT)

System ??? [5 November 2009]

I'm sorry I don't understand how this system works at all. I must have missed something major as I see the files I uploaded in my gedcom keep getting changed. I'm hoping these are additions and corrections, but don't know how to really avail myself of this information. I'm sure I've gathered more information since I upload the ged that is not included here. But until I can understand how this information is usable to me I see no benefit. Can you steer me in the right direction please? Thanks,

Linda--Lmuessig 14:51, 4 November 2009 (EST)

Hi Linda
To start, you might read WeRelate:Pando for genealogy. WeRelate is a collaborative wiki tree, which means there is one page per person, and everyone interested in that person works on the same page, providing additions, corrections, and whatnot. As to how to use the system, you should start here. You find out about changes by either getting email about changes to pages you are watching, or visiting your watchlist under "My Relate" at the above right. You are automatically watching any pages you uploaded through a gedcom. To add information you have gathered, you can either add it by hand by using the edit link on the relevant page, or you can upload a new gedcom of people who have changed, and merge the changes with the existing pages as part of that process. --Amelia 15:18, 4 November 2009 (EST)
Hello Linda, on those pages that have changes you can click on the word "History" at the top of the page. It will allow you to compare the currect version to the last version. Debbie Freeman --DFree 22:49, 4 November 2009 (EST)

Why has my tree changed showing all women as parents? [24 November 2009]

On my page for Katheryn Elizabeth Schreck all of a sudden her Nussbaum ancestors showed up listing both parents of succeeding generations as women! I did not put this information in and I suspect it has something to do with the website importing all identical persons into a single tree? Not sure, but I am thinking about removing all of my information from this site. I deleted the people shown as Catheryn's parents, but haven't checked today to see if it fixed the problem. I also tried emailing Dalan and as yet have not heard from him as to what could have happened. Has anyone else experienced this problem since the site announced merging pages? Glen--Gwill65074 10:12, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Glen -- I just took a look at the history of Katheryn's page (clicked "History" at the top of her page) and then compared the very first version of the page with the most recent version. It looks like the original version of the page also showed the two women as her parents. In other words, it isn't a merge problem; it was there since the beginning. I don't know what did happen, though. Obviously we need to figure that out.
Just as a side note, WeRelate doesn't automatically merge pages. When you upload a GEDCOM, you're given possible matches to the people. You can choose to merge them or not. -- Amy 10:21, 24 November 2009 (EST)
Well, merging has been going on for over two years, and I've never heard of this. There are no histories to these entries, so they're the way they are either because of the file you uploaded or something that happened when you were uploading. I can't imagine how any merging during uploading would do this, since it doesn't ever change page titles. I think Dallan's going to have to look at your gedcom and see what happened.--Amelia 10:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Thanks for your help Amelia. I did not upload a gedcom because I was not sure what I was doing, but I don't remember listing any of Catherine's ancestors when I started and since I was manually inputting the information I didn't put much in at all to get started. I just looked at the information on Catheryn's page and I see her parents are still listed as women, even after I tried to delete them last night. Glen--Gwill65074 10:34, 24 November 2009 (EST)

How would I delete all of my information so I can start over? Obviously just selecting delete does not work and I do not want any of my information to be incorrect, especially as it is currently listed. Glen--Gwill65074 10:38, 24 November 2009 (EST)

You can select MyRelate from the blue menu bar and then select Trees. From there you can view your trees, and choose to delete them.--Jennifer (JBS66) 10:43, 24 November 2009 (EST)

I think deleting all of your information is rather extreme. Things can be fixed. I just took a look and the Nussbaum families seem to be ok. But the female side is the one confused. There aren't that many people involved. I suggest this process:

  1. make a print copy of the pedigree for Katheryn. (From Katheryn's page: More menu, pedigree-map) You can print the screen from your browser. This will let you keep a list of the people you have already created. Pencil in their index numbers: (1), (6), etc.
  2. Next, go to Katheryn's Parent Family page. If her mother is correct, just remove the Father and create the correct one. Please check the search results when you do this add - you may have already entered him and you can just select the correct person.
  3. continue working your way up her tree, making corrections. Keep a list of the females you have removed from the family pages.
  4. next work with the newly orphaned females and create family pages to attach them to the tree in the proper place.

Keep in mind that the Family page is used to link people into a nuclear family. You can add and detach people from the family without deleting any person pages. Please come back and let us know how it's going and ask any questions that may arise.

The next release is planned to have an easier way to assemble families as people get muddled. I find it easiest to start with creating the Family Page and then plugging in the husband, wife and children. There are fewer errors that way.--Judy (jlanoux) 11:02, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Thank you everyone for your help. I'm at a loss as to how that information got put in, but I will go back and straighten it up. Thank you again. Glen--Gwill65074 15:04, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Selecting individuals in Family Tree Maker 16 for download to gedcom [29 November 2009]

I want to submit a gedcom for my family tree from Family Tree Maker v16 but I am unsure how it will work. If I started with my parents, would I have to select both or just one and the other would be attached with that person? I have over 5000 people in my database because I tend to search for any information for all siblings in a given family and I doubt WeRelate would want that much clutter. This way I figure I have a better chance of matching families up. I think I only want to upload a gedcom file of my direct ancestors unless someone thinks differently. So, if I only want to upload a gedcom of my direct line, do I have to tell Family Tree Maker each and every individual or will it automaticly add the spouses for me? Glen--Gwill65074 20:46, 28 November 2009 (EST)

I can't answer the question about FTM, but have some thoughts about who to upload. The fact that the wiki is a public site means that it really doesn't make any sense to upload only your personal ancestors and skip their siblings. If you have good information about anybody, I think it is nice to share it. It may help someone and it might find you a new cousin who can help you.
The gedcom review process will let you preview your pages. If the selection doesn't turn out right, you can delete the file and try again.--Judy (jlanoux) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (EST)
Regarding gedcom export from Family Tree Maker v16; after opening your family file, select File>Export File>Selected Individuals. Individuals to Include screen will appear. Select your father and ancestors. The screen on the right will show you the names of the individuals that you have included. You will probably need to select your mother and ancestors also but check the individuals included screen to see if you have included in duplicates. You may highlight an individual selected and deselect them. --Beth 11:25, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Just can't get the hang of it [29 November 2009]

I've deleted my tree again! I don't seem to be catching on to this site. Again from the home page I selected creat a tree, from there I filled in only the boxes; father, g father and so on. After filling in the men I clicked on the tab for women and added the wives. Then I stopped and went to bed. This morning it looks like I come from a very strange family, thus, hit delete again. I'll try watching the tutorials again and if I can't get the information to stay put this time I'm done for good. What's the use in posting information if it's going to be wrong! Glen--Gwill65074 08:54, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Sorry to hear that you are having problems. Since you deleted the tree I can only guess what went wrong. There isn't a tab for women and a tab for men; it's father's family and mother's family. On the Father tab are boxes for both men and women. So you have to read carefully to get the right people in the right boxes.
Here's an alternate approach: Skip the tabs with the boxes - just click the Next and Finish buttons. Then you will have an empty tree. Now use the Add menu to add a Family. Enter the names of Husband and Wife and the marriage info and save. You now have a Family page with no Person pages. Work through the family pressing the Find/Add button next to the Husband, Wife and Children boxes to create a Person page for each of those people. In the early stages, it's a good idea to keep pencil notes as you go - maybe using a pedigree sketch to mark the people as you add them.
Please note that it is not necessary to delete all of your work if people are linked incorrectly. The Family Page is used to link people. If you have the spouses wrong, you can delete the Family page without having to delete all of the Person pages. Then just create a new Family page and type in the names of the Person pages in the appropriate boxes. Again, you want to keep notes of the page names for the various people that you have created.
If you use a gedcom import, it is not necessary to create these pages first. So you may want to try the gedcom approach. Gedcom review will let you preview and edit your pages before they are created in the real database. --Judy (jlanoux) 09:46, 29 November 2009 (EST)(WeRelate Volunteer)
I'm wondering if you can post the location of the Create a tree page you are referring to, as I can't recall any place in WeRelate where you can enter father, grandfather, etc in that manner. To add a family to WeRelate, click Add on the blue menu bar above, and then click Family. From here, you can enter the husband and wife and marriage date for this family. Thereafter, you can add Person pages for each spouse. Volunteer admin --Jennifer (JBS66) 09:18, 29 November 2009 (EST)
Jennifer; the instructions are here: WeRelate:Family Tree Explorer

If you haven't created any pages for your ancestors yet, click on Create a new tree. You will be asked to enter the name of the tree. You will then be asked if you have a GEDCOM file to import. If you answer Yes, you'll be taken to a screen where you can select the GEDCOM file to import. See Help:GEDCOM for more information. If you answer No, you'll be given a chance to enter the names of the first few generations of your ancestors. Enter as many or as few as you wish. Pages will be created for the people whose names you enter. You can then click on any person in the tree that will appear on the left-hand side of the screen to load their page on the right. Click on the Edit link at the top of the page on the right to enter more information about them. --Beth 09:29, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Thank you Beth! Haven't run across this yet... Then again, I never use the FTE. I will try out a sample sometime tonight or tomorrow to see how it works. I wonder if there might be a glitch in this manner of entering, or if the instructions are less than clear...--Jennifer (JBS66) 09:33, 29 November 2009 (EST)

I went to "My Relate" > "Trees" > "Create New Tree" > "Launch FTE" > there is where I found the boxes in the left hand column that are "fill in the blanks" which I suspected to be a no brainer for someone like me. Evidently no so because I got the same result. I just can't figure out what I'm doing wrong> Glen--Gwill65074 10:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)

As explained above, I think the fact that this page starts with Father... Grandfather... must have convinced you you were just entering men. But there are lines for the women too, labeled grandmother, g.grandmother, etc. If you didn't enter any women on the first page, than that's the problem. If you did, then maybe there's a bug.--Amelia 10:52, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Thank you for your help. I just went back and looked at it again and I think I have not been reading the boxes correctly, I need to get a bigger screen maybe. I'll see if this works and then go from there. Thanks everyone. Glen--Gwill65074 11:17, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Thank you all for your help and suggestions. I just tried again and made sure I read everything twice and then thought thru my answers very carefully and it looks like I did it right this time. I really thought I had outgrown my ADD. At least now I know to double check all of my entries before hitting save. If I go ahead and send in my gedcom do I need to delete the information I put in this morning? Thanks again, Glen--Gwill65074 11:33, 29 November 2009 (EST)

You do not need to delete the entries you have already made. After uploading your file, you will get a note on your Talk page with a link to the Gedcom Review. In the review is a tab called Family Matches. There you must match the entries in the gedcom to the existing pages in the database. You will also have an opportunity to indicate if you want any items from the gedcom added to the existing pages. --Judy (jlanoux) 14:39, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Extension suggestion [4 December 2009]

Here is an extension that I wanted to suggest you look into. (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Collection). I played around with it on wikipedia and I can see how it would be really useful on werelate. I would love to create my own book using pages from werelate. See what you think.--Dlongmore 17:46, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Wow, that is really cool! I'm several revisions out of date on the MedaiWiki software. I'll add this extension when I update to the latest MediaWiki version next year.--Dallan 00:03, 5 December 2009 (EST)

Creating Personal "Templates"?? [21 December 2009]

I'd like to create a 'space' somewhere in my user areas for personal-use templates. Is this possible? I have several text documents that I use regularly when creating pages for person, family, history, documenting sources, research notes, etc., and I'd like to be able to have them here, as well as make them available to anyone else who might like to make use of them. I'm in the middle of converting GEDcoms from my research at Ancestry.com to pages here at WeRelate, and would like, if at all possible, be able to speed up the process. Thanks!! Kathy--Klmmc 02:47, 21 December 2009 (EST)

You can create user pages by clicking on Add in the blue menu bar and then User Page. A list of your user pages will appear on your Dashboard too. Here is the help page for additional information.--Jennifer (JBS66) 05:49, 21 December 2009 (EST)
If you'd like to create templates for other people to use-- i.e., for those of your templates that you believe have more universal use-- consider creating a template in the Template namespace. You can find out more about Templates here. Jillaine 08:23, 21 December 2009 (EST)

It dawned on me in the middle of the night, that instead of putting these straight to Templates, that I should rather get comments and/or changes and additions on them, and therefore place them up as Articles at first. (see next topic, please). So.... I was TRYING to find out what other information, suggestions, guides, etc., were already posted so as to NOT duplicate work or effort. I'll keep on working at it in the mean-time, and put them up as User Pages until I can get this all figured out. THANKS! Kathy--Klmmc 11:40, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Can't find the Browse Articles link... Help?? [21 December 2009]

What am I doing wrong?? I've followed these steps, and simply can NOT find the Browse link. Am I just blind, or has it been accidentally moved, re-named or something???

To find an article, click on the Search tab in the blue bar at the top of the page and select "Articles" You can search for it using the search fields Browse through lists of articles by clicking on the Browse link under "Search Articles"

This lesson will teach you how to use the Articles search page to search for articles on WeRelate.

1.Click on the blue Search menu at the top of the screen. 2.Click on the Articles menu item. This will take you to the Articles search page. http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Search/Article above addy is where I end up when I follow the above directions

If you want to browse articles in categorized lists: 1.On the Article search page, under the Browse heading, WHAT Browse heading?? select the article list that you wish to browse: Shared research pages (links to the Surname in Place pages, is that what's SUPPOSED to link there?) and research guides (this link works properly) are the two main types of articles. Both lists are alphabetized. The New articles http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Special:Newpages list shows all articles that have been created in the last several days (links up to ALL new pages, not just articles??). The most recently created articles are at the top of the list. Clicking on the Featured articles link takes you to a list of well-constructed pages (articles and otherwise) that have been singled out by WeRelate administrators. You can also browse a list of Recently-changed articles, listed chronologically according to the date and time of the recent changes, and a comprehensive, alphabetized list of All articles on WeRelate. http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Allpages&namespace=0 (another search page, also missing the Browse link) 2.Once you have selected your category, scan the list of articles and click on the article you wish to open.

The only way I've been able to browse the articles is to leave all parameters open, select articles in the search menu, hit search, and scroll thru the resulting list in whatever order the search function puts it up. Am I just being dense or something? I'm relatively computer-savvy, and if I'm having difficulties, I'm sure someone else is as well.--Klmmc 11:34, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Under the Admin Menu, there is an option to Browse Pages. If you set the Namespace, you can limit the browsing to one type of page. To browse Articles use the (Main) Namespace. --Jrich 12:26, 21 December 2009 (EST)