WeRelate talk:Support/2015



GEDCOM import - More than 24 hours for review [27 December 2015]

Didn't note the time when I uploaded my Gedcom but its got to be more than 48 hours ago. This is poor, especially when the purpose of this exercise is to compare WeRelate to Wikitree before making a choice. The people at Wikitree are very responsive.--Innesaj 14:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I still new to this site. I think I done everything right but I am still waiting for more than 24 hours for Admin review of my gedcom. Can some advise me what may or maynot have done wrong?--Myfamilytree 15:31, 10 May 2013 (EDT)


WeRelate relies on people volunteering their time and effort to ensure a degree off quality in the genealogy you find here. This means that sometimes it takes longer then we would like for gedcom reviews to occur but there are positives to this. One of the greatest things about this site is that on werelate you are truly collaborating with others and not just duplicsting the same people as you share information.--JeffreyRLehrer 16:10, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

Perhaps the admins could think of something that could be done to manage this situation - perhaps agreeing some kind of target "service level" or messaging people if the delay is over, say, a day, to say "please be patient, we are busy and have x GEDCOMs above you in the queue" AndrewRT 17:35, 30 May 2013 (EDT)

It could be noted that Rakirkwood has now waited for a week for his first import to be reviewed. I've waited less than 24 hours, so I'm not complaining for myself, but it doesn't look hopeful. ;-) Maybe more Admins are needed? --Lennart 12:24, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
Additional volunteers are always welcome! I would like to note the date on the GEDCOM review page is the date the user uploaded their file, not the date it was submitted for admin review. Users generally take some time reviewing their file and processing Family Matches before submitting it for upload. WeRelate does strive to process GEDCOM files within 24 hours, but, since this site is volunteer based, that can take a bit longer in some instances. --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:33, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
Aha. That looked like a big import as well, so maybe things aren't as bad as they looked. That's good to hear. --Lennart 12:40, 7 September 2013 (EDT)

I am curious about a specific lineage. How can I find out who the contributors are so as to collaborate with them?--Pjceditor 14:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Select History in the left-hand panel and you will see all the user names who added or edited a page. Select a user link, then select their Talk page and leave a note there.--DataAnalyst 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Did my GEDCOM 'fall thru the cracks'? It's been 4-5 weeks.--Diane Hosler 19:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it did fall through the cracks. I'll follow up on this. Thank-you for letting me know. I apologize for the wait.--Dallan 22:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am having problems opening the ged file I downloaded. I need a copy on my desktop for making corrections, as I am informed there are too many errors too complete my work on your site. Where will I receive an answer to this question.--Bob3453 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to review my newly-uploaded DURGEE 4G .This replaced my previous DURGEE LTD, but when I try to review the new one I get a message that you can't locate my old one (I deleted at your request)--WAJoyce 19:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please review the Gedcom for my Robson tree that I submitted October 4?

I removed all the sources because I was not sure that they were in the correct format. But if they look acceptable, please feel free to include them.

Keith--Uhj090 14:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a method to learn if an uploaded Gedcom has been reviewed by an Administrator - or is in a queue? It has been about 3 days since I finished my review. I'm not in a particular hurry but from reading earlier messages in this link it appears that on occasion an upload will be lost.

Thanks, Ron--Ron 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I went through the gedcom list and I don't see your username. Are you registered as Rchallberg or under a different username. If Rchallberg is your username, my guess is the gedcom wasn't uploaded. Please resubmit and I will process it tonight. Thanks, --sq 21:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In response to the most recent message, my user name is Rchallberg. However, my Gedcom was accepted after my query so it may not have appeared in the Gedcom pending list. Thanks.--Ron 23:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Really this is not very good. There are two gedcoms listed as waiting for review and they have been there a week, I have offered last week to help as a reviewer but had no answer to the offer either. Typically this is the time of year when a lot of people start or restart genealogy research, not getting things reviewed for weeks is going to put a lot of people off.

I love that werelate is so low key and relaxed but it may be so laid back that it might be comatose.Rmg 09:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

FHL microfilm [2 January 2015]

Is there a way to put in microfilm as part of the citation? I use quite a bit from Salt Lake.

Lee Martin--Fastwarhorse 18:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You should cite the Source page for the source you used. The FHL microfilm number is usually on the Source page automatically, or you can add it there if you wish to. It does not need to go in the citation itself, as these are cites for where anyone might find the information (independent of the repository), as opposed to where you personally found it.--Amelia 19:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
You can include a large amount of text in the "Volume/Pages" field of the Citation. I don't know what the limit is. Just add the specific FHL number for your citation, eg. here. —Moverton 03:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Deaneries in the Church of Norway [2 January 2015]

A bit of clean-up is required in the place hierarchy of Norway. I am in the process of sorting out the former and current municipalities in my own county Møre og Romsdal, and moving smaller places into their correct jurisdictions. This is, although a bit confusing at times, not very complicated, as all the administrative units are included in the place categorization and the smaller units are mostly just inhabited places. Ecclesiastical units are also important in genealogy, and it is my opinion that the dioceses and parishes should be included in the place hierarchy (and of course, be placed within their correct "civil" places by using "also located in..." or "see also..."). The Church of Norway does, however, operate with three administrative levels, with the prosti or deanery between the diocese and the parish. This is, as I understand, also the case with the Church of England. There is, as far as I have found, no suitable place categorization for this type of unit.I suppose I could use a general term, like community or something like that, but I would think that could cause some confusion. How does the community propose I solve this problem? --Kaffilars 12:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You can always put more than one type of place in the Type box. I do this all the time in working with places in England. In England "civil" or "state" or "political" registration provides a better geographical description than "church" or "ecclesiastical" data after 1837, but sometimes it is easier to depend on the ecclesiastical sources even after that date.

Data on ecclesiastical sources tends to be scarce and dioceses cover too much territory to be very helpful in pinpointing where an event took place, particularly baptisms, marriages and burials. Ownership of land and wills, however, may be better described using the broader descriptions before 1837. I am not familiar with the place of deaneries and have not come across much reference to them.

The type "community" tends to be used for a monastery or an early North American religious community that settled in one specific place.

Regards, --Goldenoldie 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In England, at least in Lincolnshire, I have found that parishes usually share a name with the village where the church is located. I just use that village for the place. An exception is the civil parishes within Lincoln for which I created individual pages to use with the census records. I don't see much value in creating ecclesiastical units when the records can be traced back to certain churches. (I don't know how Norway compares to this.) —Moverton 04:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Little problem with a link and/or given name with 2 words [8 January 2015]

Hello ! Begin December 2013 I had a problem with this record Person:Edmond Bouchon (1). I tried some times to find an explanation. But also now I can not understand the exact cause of this bug. I find interessant to have 2 givennames. "Jean Baptiste" is a very common givenname in France. I know, one solution is to write "JeanBaptiste" or "Jean-Baptiste", but when we refer exactly to the original records ... I can also use the special field "alt name", but ... I have put a "stupid" link from Edmond Bouchon to Jean Baptiste Guidé, only for testing. The real link is to Louis Éloy Pascal. Using only one given name seems to me a bad thing. Persons with "Louis" or "Jean" as first (not always official) givenname are so many. And the automatic number, which is added by WeRelate, don't make a quickly differenciation. Thanks for your help and "ideas" ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 07:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There some chance the problem is with the accents, not with the compound names.
When I click on the broken link, I get an empty page with this url: www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Louis_%C3%89loy_Pascal_%281%29
When I search and select a page, I get the right page with this url: www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Louis%C2%A0%C3%89loy_Pascal_%281%29
Reagrding Jean, same problem in other languages, i.e., German with Johan.
The page title is a different entity than the name, i.e., [[Person:Jean Guide (16)|Jean Baptiste Guidé]]. --Jrich 15:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jrich ! But the problem is not caused by the "french" accent on the letter "e" --> é, è, ê, or also à, ù. I tested this possible interpretation of the bug more as one time since December 2013. And now, one more time ... see what I added here Person:Edmond Bouchon (1) --> The link with "Jean Baptiste Guidé" is red, but for "Eugène Guidé" it's OK. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It's now OK ... I had forgotten, to obtain the space between the 2 words (given name) I tipped "alt-255". Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Strikes me as a bad idea to type in a visually indistinguishable character that most people, as you yourself did, would think is a space, so you can get around a rule built into the software. --Jrich 05:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Peuvez-vous décriver le problème en français? Je ne parle pas bien, mais je crois que peut-être je peux mieux comprendre en français, et puis, je peux traduire à anglais pour les autres. --Jdfoote1 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought he explained it well in English, much better than I could do in French. He used an escape sequence to enter a non-breaking space so the system would recognize Jean[space]Baptiste as a single word, and then couldn't build a link to it because what looked like a normal space, wasn't. Spaces are normally converted to underscore by URL rules, but the normal rules didn't work right when a non-breaking space was involved. The problem is that everybody else is going to make that same error. American readers are going to have even a harder time, at least based on my personal experience, because I don't even know how to enter those special characters even if I realized they were needed. In colonial USA, the town clerks entered the early records having middle names with a dash, i.e., Jean-Baptiste Guidé, which would at least be visibly obvious to subsequent readers of the page. I suggest either following the rules, or use a more visible separator than a non-breaking space. After middle names became common, the dash was dropped by town clerks, based on the assumption that the surname was the same as the father's. Now that assumption is no longer valid. So modern interpretations sometimes don't agree with what the ancient writer thought was unmistakably clear. There is a lesson in there somewhere. --Jrich 04:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jrich - that makes a lot more sense. So, the problem is in trying to create the page title with both names? It seems like we could potentially modify the page title creation code to accept non-breaking spaces, but I agree that that seems like a non-intuitive solution. I don't know how much work would be involved, but maybe it would be possible to create a check box that would force the page title to use all middle names, or to create a way to manually edit/enter the title of the page? --Jdfoote1 04:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge process [17 January 2015]

Forgive me if this is a well-trodden topic, but I am fairly new here. As I have been working on my family tree I keep running into duplicate people (I suspect most of the date back to the "drive-by GEDCOM" era I've heard about). I've gone through Help:Merging pages and all that makes sense. Most of the duplicates I have run into were pretty obvious duplicates, but there are some cases where it is ambiguous. In one case I tried starting a discussion on the talk page, in others I just put a note on the page itself. But keeping track of these is tricky.

I am thinking that it would be useful to have a template we could place on a suspected duplicate page, in other words, a standard mechanism for marking these suspected duplicates and initiating discussion on fixing them. I found Template:Merge but it seems unused and I think it needs work. Are there any objections to me fixing up that template (or creating a new one) so that it can be used to mark any suspected merge candidates? Then, perhaps, this could be added to the aforementioned merge instructions as another tool available for dealing with these ambiguous cases. I am willing to do the work on this assuming nobody has objections.

++thanks --Trentf 20:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Years ago, we had a merge project and volunteers merged thousands of pages. As far as I know, no one has been checking for duplicate pages except the ones they are personally interested in. Most of us just merge duplicate pages when appropriate. If someone objects, they can restore the pages or ask me to do it for them.

There are still a few duplicates, but they should be relatively rare. Although another merge project may be in order, it's not something I can take on right now. If you would like to organize it and make it happen, that would be great. Feel free to bring it up on the watercooler.--sq 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure the merge project from years ago got all the low-hanging fruit. I've seen nothing to indicate there are any widespread problems requiring another such effort. The ones I'm finding are pretty obscure (usually due to sparse data and/or wild variations in names). I have already merged several. But sometimes I'm not quite sure if they are duplicates; more research is needed to be sure. So all I'm saying is that having a standard template to mark such suspected duplicates would make my life easier, and maybe it would be useful to others. Is it ok if I create such a template and try it out? Or should I just "be bold" and do so? --Trentf 01:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
To put my 2 cents worth in, I'd say go for it. I sometimes just add a note and a link to the page but a template would be good (especially if it is reasonably aesthetic - there have been complaints about ones that were too glaring).
BTW: There is a duplicates report for ongoing monitoring and resolving of potential duplicates (and there are people periodically checking and resolving these), but it focuses solely on family pages (much easier for automation to identify potential duplicates without too many false-positives). I believe this is the same report used by the merge project, and that there has been no automated reporting of potential duplicate individuals.--DataAnalyst 02:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The key to resolving duplicates is research. The information on many pages, if unsourced, is of marginal quality, so assuming duplicates based strictly on that is risky. The problem with the project to remove duplicates was that few people did research - they guessed, and guessing can make a marginally recognizable page bear no resemblance to any reality. Be bold, but always err on the side of being correct. When in doubt, do nothing. --Jrich 03:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done an initial round of work on the template and related things, and marked a couple sets of pages as possible duplicates. You can see what I've done at Template:Dup. Let me know what you think (perhaps on that talk page?) --Trentf 01:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Place page for a forest ... [18 January 2015]

I am working on this page, and I created this : Place:Forêt de Mormal, Nord, France. I know the place pages are for towns, villages, ... and cimeteries. Is this new page correct or must we delete it ? Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This help page gives no information : http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:Place_pages#What_kinds_of_places_can_I_create_pages_for.3F - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 15:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you insert the name of a nearby town next to the name of the forest and leave the forest name in the ordinary font? If you put the insert in single square brackets [...], everyone will understand it is not part of the actual transcription.

Having looked over the page in question, may I suggest that you omit the bold font from placenames. They are jumping out of the text excessively.

Keep up the good work. --Goldenoldie 19:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories [25 January 2015]

I have problems with my very poor english. It's for me not easy to write and understand the answers of other contributors. (see above). I'm sorry !... And Google Translate is catastrophic ! I wish to create new categories. I saw Help talk:Categories and WeRelate talk:Categories project ... and this but I found no effective help. The search tool (browse) is good for names and places, but very bad for other datas. I think we can use categories to quickly find some informations ---> example : Category:Filles du roi. What do you think about creation of categories facilitating the search "cause of death". (I began such a work on ... Rodovid, but this site became stupid, incompetent and "dictatorial" since 2010.) My options for sub-categories... would be : Killed at war / Holocaust / Drowned / fall (from a horse, from a roof) / by storm (lighting) / crushed by a wall or a house / explosion in a mine / died in childbirth ... Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Google Translate can be catastrophic! I wonder what value there would be in adding those categories? I don't know how you are searching, but if for example I wanted to know how many of the people I am watching have died of "dropsy", I can do a "Person" search for "Watched only" with keyword "dropsy", and it returns a list of four people. -Moverton 18:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with user Moverton that you can get the same results without creating a complex set of categories that could soon get out of control. Using a structured set of keywords on your pages would achieve the same result. I would suggest that instead of Killed at war, you consider "Killed in Action," "Died of wounds" and possibly "Died of illness." You could also include key words such as WWI, WWII, etc. However, your suggested Category of "Filles du roi" could prove of broader interest, but how do we get the word out?
PS - you handle English way better than I would with my high school French from many years ago. Keep up the good work. - Rick----RGMoffat 06:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Moverton and Rick. Thank you very much for your time and opinions. But I don't agree with you. I tested the browse tool before I posted my request. And I did again after you answered, Moverton. The result is not what you describe and hope, I am sorry ! Rick, no ... creating some categories is clearly not a complexification and such a "set" of classification has no reason to "get out of control". Putting some structured keywords on my pages don't allow what I search. I will explain why, in details. Be patient ! Rick, I don't understand what you mean with "...how do we get the word out?". Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 08:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Moverton ! 1) WeRelate is a collaborative site, and the datas have to be reached by everyone. A browse tool working only on the (very limited) watch pages of one contributor is interessant but very poor for a collective work/project. 2) For your example : "dropsy" --->
a) I work about french famillies, villages and registers. Using also the informations I find in the acts, I never type "dropsy" (not a french word).
b) Trying your method to find who died of "dropsy" ("Person" search for "Watched and unwatched" + "Exact match only" with keyword "dropsy") it returns ... this ... I can naturally develop and explain why the result is not my ... "hope/waiting". Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Moverton, 2 first arguments as proof that your method is not ... the best.
1) the request returns persons who died not of "dropsy" ! It gives also records where this word appears in the text ---> example : Person:DeForest Severance (1) did not die of dropsy, but his sister Person:Emily Severance (2)
2) Dropsy is also a surname ! Your method does not "remove" of the result all these records. ---> examples : Person:Lambert Dropsy (1) and surname given in a note : Person:Jean Bouillot (8). Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 11:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
An other example for the absolute necessity (for me) to work with (and use) categories : How do you can (now, without categories) obtain a list of all persons died in the different nazi concentration camps ? ---> so, with "extermination camp", 16 items ... + with "concentration camp", 58 items ... + with "shoah", 31 items ... + with "holocaust", 146 items. Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
And now, what is returned with filter "drowned" ? ---> first comment : why does it appear Person:Living Drown (1) ? and a long list of members of a family Person:John Drown (1)
This record Person:William Taylor (1) does not contain the word "drowned" but "drowning" ... fine ! We have to initiate a next request with filter "drowning", and I alert here to search with words in other languages (so, for me french, "noyé" + "noyade")
What do you think of this result Person:Germain Doucet (2) ? ---> this person did not died in water, only the word "drowned" appears in the long (narrative ?) text and it concerns another person.
idem Person:Mahonri Fish (1) and Person:Eleanor Garner (2)
Another pitiful example : Person:Susan Coffeen (1) ... Organisation by categories seems to me the best and the only solution ! - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 15:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not fond of categories. The problem is that most categories cross the line between family history versus history and/or demographics, so creates problems that this website doesn't have any protocols or features to support. Further, too many categories end up reflecting personal interests, which doesn't scale well in collaborative environment.

From a genealogy standpoint, I see little use for Categories. A person researching their family are primarily interested in their descendants. So other people that served in the same military unit, or died of the same cause, or occupied the same town office, are usually not of interest in their genealogical research. Finding such a category may occupy a minute of idle browsing, and then probably be of no further use or interest. Certainly, discovering such a category is unlikely to cause somebody to go out and thoroughly research the other members of that category. Now that grouping is certainly of historical interest (very useful to a person researching a book on that subject, for example) but probably not of genealogical interest to individual readers who are only descended from that single member...

Categories tend to get over-used until they become pointless. There is traditional categories like Filles du Roi, or Mayflower Descendants, but without some discipline, this quickly becomes ridiculous: founder of this town (founder or early settler?), passenger on that ship (all 3 of them), left-handed fence viewers, etc. It is hard not to find some justification for this or that grouping, but the question is, who else finds it truly significant? Such types of categories ought to be defined by, and recognized by, significant outside groups to avoid the creeping micro-categories that tend to come into being.

There are all sorts of questions one has that probably could be at least partially answered by categories if they were set up appropriately: is seven marriages the most? who are all the people that lived to be 105? who are all the people from my town who died in World War II? But is that what we are here to answer? Doesn't this type of question require codification and software help? Not to mention this is adding another item requiring proof and documentation (on what authority do you know he died of dropsy?), and we don't even do a good job proving dates, yet.

Categories seem to be good ways of grouping pages, but the cost is that they can become intrusive and arbitrary. Good categories need clear definitions where anybody can tell who belongs based on provable fact without needing to consult the creator of the category. Forbidding categories for personal collections seems like the only real guideline we have, but many current uses seem to be exactly that. And of course, categories tend to lead to banners, decorating select pages like a tapestry, loudly calling attention to the thing that is important to the banner-maker, while distracting from all the other important facets of a person's life.

A link in the narrative to an article would serve essentially the same function as a category, providing a place to give more information on the subject, and the What Links Here would give a list of associated pages. So one suggestion would be, for example, instead of creating a category for Dropsy, every time you write the word dropsy, use [[Article on Dropsy|dropsy]]. --Jrich 17:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S., I meant Mayflower Passenger, above, a relatively non-controversial category. As opposed to Mayflower Descendant, which is often a contentious issue. An interesting angle though. Beyond the propriety of marking Mayflower Descendants, it may be that it would be annoying to others, whose pages don't/can't get so marked? - jrich
Jrich, thank you for your argumentation I share only partially (but I don't understand some details ... because my bad level in english). In the next hours I will try to explain my different analysis, experience and "need".
I am very surprised that other contributors do not come on this page to give their opinion and share their experiences and methods.
I tried again to find some "rules" and concerned talk pages. Nothing ! ... only WeRelate:Categories project and WeRelate:Category index, both pages not modified since 2012. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 07:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Jrich, you wrote :
1) "most categories cross the line between family history versus history and/or demographics, so creates problems " ---> what do you mean exactly ? Can you give examples ?
you mentioned cause of death. these categories are not due to people being related, it is demographics. The people have little connection except the coincidence of cause of death.
we have categories for presidents of the United States, for example. These people are not necessarily related. Few users of WeRelate are related to more than 1 or 2. The interest in this group is purely because of historical significance. It has no genealogical basis.
2) " too many categories end up reflecting personal interests, which doesn't scale well in collaborative environment." ---> What is for you the limit of a maximum of categories ? And what is your criterion for this "maximum" ? For me, the "secret" ist only the logical and (if possible) perfect hierarchy to organize the categories (and naturally with their good chosen "names".
some pages are people with millions of descendants. If a large number of people create their own category, these pages could belong to thousands of categories. There has to be some universal importance to justify bothering all the other readers of the page with a category. In general on this website, any manifestation of personal, as opposed to universal, interests, is an imposition on other readers.
3) In the same sentence, you seem oppose "personal interests / collaborative environment". A site as WeRelate is only a tool allowing to work (collect, browse, display, organize ...) the datas/informations we can find in the original documents/registers. I think, each visitor or contributor of the site is always free to use only some parts of the browse possiblities or more, and why not the complete list of categories (the only crtierion being the quality of the navigation and hierarchisation, without duplicates and redundances).
See above. Also, how often do people really use this navigation, and could they not do it other ways? Do I use the Presidents category to find George Washington's page? (no) How often do I jump from George Washington's page directly to Abraham Lincoln? (never) In my personal experience at WeRelate, I find myself going to categories almost always to maintain the category itself, not because the category is useful, i.e., to make sure the new page is displayed in proper sorted order,e tc. I almost never find it easier to use a category than a properly targeted search.
The rest of my (long) argumentation I will give and develop tomorrow ! Be patient ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I wish I could write in French, but it is decades since I did anything. No chance to practice, and not as good as your English in my best days. Good job with your English! --Jrich 19:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, although I like categories generally, and create them often (I think they are useful labels, and enjoy finding unexpected connections as I work on a category), I think cause of death is not a good category. A category that will have millions of people in it at build-out is not useful. The navigation and filtering for categories just isn't up to it. Really, dozens is about the limit -- meaning cause of death would only be useable if only a very small group of users do it, and only to those users, which is the exact opposite of the community purpose.--Amelia 05:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I recently started adding Categories to English Places within WeRelate--and found that the Sources that go with each Place are still there. This means that if you inspect a parish's category you find the list of sources from the Family Search Library Catalog that goes with it. Much of this data will now be hiding online in FamilySearch--no need to visit a Family Research Center.

In addition to giving each parish its own category, I am giving it further categories based on the higher levels of government in which it was grouped. At the end of the day a category titled, for instance, [[Category:Cheltenham (hundred), Gloucestershire, England|Cheltenham Hundred]] will list all the parishes originally in the Cheltenham hundred--an area fairly large but much smaller than just Gloucestershire. Registration District areas (used in censuses and bmd's since 1837) and rural and urban districts (20th-century areas) can be used to pinpoint an even more locallized group of places.

Pin-pointing a place in relation to neighbouring places is easier in parts of the world where a four-tier description is used, but when there is only a three-tier description available, using categories can be helpful. --Goldenoldie 10:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I skimmed through the arguments presented here after being asked to come and share my opinion.

  • on the topic of "few people commenting": Though WeRelate has significant traffic, only a small % of people who contribute do so to the "back end", including these discussions. Personally, I do not contribute much to, let alone visit, either the front or back end of WeRelate these days.
  • on the main topic: categories like Category:U.S._Presidents and Category:Filles du roi do straddle a line between genealogy and historical information. The problem with categories like this is that they tend to undermine a formerly emerging relationship between Wikipedia and WeRelate. First, there tends to be a mirroring of some Wikipedia categories here. Second, it will be attractive to some editing here to create categories for groups which are not considered 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense as there are less editorial controls here than there. My opinion is along the lines expressed by other long time editors, that categories are useful but they can grow wild and tend not to service the underlying genealogy mission of the site.
  • more on the main topic: I see that there is an article at King's Daughters (filles du roi) and that it contains a list of people. In general, one needs to consider the pros and cons of a list versus a category. For a group of things where the content is static and will not change, a list is often superior as it can be better managed editorially; categories provide a good way to manage a dynamic group where the members could change over time or the inclusion criteria could change. In the present case, the list is the way to go, I think. There are two ways, then of identifying "affiliated" people - one by consulting the list and a second by consulting 'what links here' on the person's page. I don't think there has been a drive to create link-interpreting tools beyond those used for ancestry where the links interpreted are parent-child; however, the same principles used to generate the pedigrees could be used to generate graphical or computable representations of links between people using, for instance, bridging articles like King's Daughters (filles du roi). Just a thought for future development.

Hope this helps. --ceyockey 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

CRACKING BRICKWALL [28 January 2015]

investigating the David Dial brickwall. If I find ancestry, do I just edit the profile or post the info here for the profile originator to handle?--SHIVES 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Always add what you have, citing your sources, and quoting from them where possible.--Amelia 05:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as the person who created the David Dial page (and as a direct descendant), I'm very interested! Please edit the page, or if you prefer, add your research to the talk page for David Dial, and others can verify it before adding it. -Jdfoote1 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Scottish surname DALZIEL is pronounced DIE ALL. Colonial Virginia and Tennessee were settled largely by the Scots. Variations in spelling for your David's surname include DYAL and DEAL [various renderings of Dalziel] I wander through the settlements of Augusta County VA and Greene County TN with my own Scots bygones--the McGregors, McKenzies, Douglas, Campbells. I've seen Dyals etc in passing. I hope I can help. It may take a while.--SHIVES 14:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great - I look forward to seeing what you find. Thanks so much! --Jdfoote1 16:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Category Indexing [28 January 2015]

I wonder if someone could tell me why, in Category:Thornbury Registration District, Gloucestershire, England, is Place:Thornbury Registration District, Gloucestershire, England placed under "P" and Place:Almondsbury, Gloucestershire, England is placed under "T"?

This often happens in category lists. I could understand if all places and persons went under "P", but sometimes, as in this case, there doesn't seem to be any logic to the alphabetical designation at all. --Goldenoldie 09:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is because of the way the category is linked in the Almondsbury page: [[Category:Thornbury Registration District, Gloucestershire, England|Thornbury]]. The part after the pipe is the sort key. See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Categories#Sort_key I would hazard to guess that should be changed to Almondsbury. --Trentf 02:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Aaah. You didn't give me the right answer, but you pointed me towards it. Thanks. There shouldn't be a pipe or anything beyond it in a Category. I had copied and pasted from another part of the page in preparing the Category list. It's all straight now. --Goldenoldie 08:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

GEDCOM denial [7 February 2015]

Hi-- I submitted my DURGEE 4G gedcom a few weeks ago, and your reviewer "Solvieg" did NOT follow-up on my detailed query about what I might do to revise it. (attached below). If I re-submitted, I fear it would also be denied for the same reasons.

   There's nothing I can do about, for example, George (Fielding) Durgee's adoptive father being "too young" to be a natural father (when women died in childbirth the baby was given to a relative or neighbor, with no formal adoption records); Ellen Maley being "too old" to be a mother (I have copy of her baptismal record, and don't know who else the mother might have been); siblings who, probably unknowingly, told Social Security that their births were less than 9 months apart; folks unlucky to have died in deep winter with a foot of snow and frozen ground in the graveyard forcing burial to wait for spring, etc.
   I'm NOT in this game to share with "cousins", as most in my generation are already dead. My daughter is childless and my son, being missionary in the jungles of Bolivia, believes the only thing important is how you live your life after being "saved". Rather, I'm hoping that great and great-great nephews or nieces will someday wonder...     QUERY TO SOLVIEG BELOW:

If you look closely, most of the delayed burials are for folks that died in the winter and interment had to wait for the ground to un-freeze; some are folks that died far away and the body had to be shipped. Other post-death items are for legal estate settlements.

The event that happened before Uncle Ralph's birth was his family's arrival from Italy. Maybe not directly related to his birth, but I think it's significant.

If you'd like to talk in person, my home phone no. is 360-754-8625.--WAJoyce 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand you--

You want me to submit a NEW GEDCOM because the other one has too many errors.

To do this, I need to 1) copy my current database so I can work there without disturbing the original

2) strip out the offending dates; should I leave off just the date of an offending delayed burial, or cut out the cemetery also?

3) would it help to delete all the LIVING people?

4) create a revised GEDCOM from the copied database and submit it

5) would I need to repeat all the People, Places etc. edits that I've already done?

PLEASE REPLY It would be a shame for all my People/Places editing work to be wiped out.--WAJoyce 22:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)--WAJoyce 18:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Size [15 March 2015]

I have since 2 hours a problem with the size of the characters on the pages of the site ! ... it's now too little ! But no problem with other sites (wiki or not). Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 10:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's OK. I was/am "stupid" ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 02:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

George w Robinson 1800-1839 [27 March 2015]

Anyone know who is parents were and where and when they came from?--Patricia gross 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If anyone does know, they would have posted it to his page Person_talk:George_Robinson_(38) http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person_talk:George_Robinson_%2838%29. His page is like a wikipedia article, if you want to post theories or see what the discussion of the investigation is, go to his talk page rather than general help for the whole site. Talk pages are an awesome place to try to figure things out and keep track of what people have learned over the years. --Artefacts 01:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the talk page is the ideal place to leave notes so that they will be seen by other people interested in the person, e.g. other Australians interested in George Robinson. But it's probably not such a good way of getting the attention of people who would not normally notice that page, like the Colonial New England experts here at WR. (Which for sure doesn't include me.) The sustainable way to get the attention of a wide spectrum of WR contributors is probably to write the topic up as a brick wall. (I'm using sustainable in the sense that posting brick walls here is not sustainable; if everyone did so the page would quickly become unmanageably large.) --pkeegstra 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Preparing Family Tree Maker for import

I want to get my Family Tree Maker file ready to export to GEDCOM and then import into WeRelate. Are there any guidelines or cheatsheets on how to edit my sources in Family Tree Maker so they will import as smoothly as possible? (I'm a new user here.) I already am reading Help:Source page titles. Khqs 22:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

GEDCOM listing [19 March 2015]

The day after I uploaded my last GEDCOM, Jan. 30, my computer crashed. While most everything was saved, that was not. Is there a way to get the names that were in the Jan. 30 GEDCOM or the names added to my Bury family tree Feb. 1?--Diane Hosler 17:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

When the source is self or another person? [27 March 2015]

Hi, I am at the reviewing stage. Please tell me the best way to describe sources like "I was there" or "my cousin John". I have myself described as "daughter", "granddaughter" "niece" etc and by name. As I am alive, I won't be featured, so giving my name, or a cousin's name, seems futile. What makes sense and keeps it orderly?--Helen-HWMT 09:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What I personally have done, and others may have other ideas: if it is your own personal knowledge, make it "citation only" and write e.g. "Personal knowledge [[User:Helen-HWMT|Helen-HWMT]]". If it's someone else and that person hasn't given explicit permission to name them, I have at times written "Personal communication from X" where X is the relationship between the informant and the person described on the page. e.g. info from my father concerning my grandmother on her page "Personal communication from son" or maybe "Personal communication from son to [[User:Pkeegstra|pkeegstra]]". If you are working from a document, create a MySource for it; if you hold the copyright, e.g. by inheritance, feel free to transcribe the entire document onto the MySource page (or, if it is lengthy, a Transcripts page). --pkeegstra 11:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Will junk places and sources delete when I delete GEDCOM? [28 March 2015]

Thank you for your instructive answer to "When the source is self or another person? [27 March 2015]" I've stored this answer safely.

Now I have found a worse problem! I have heaps of junk sources such as variant wordings of the same thing, and lists like "FreeBMD; census; cemetery records" and there doesn't seem to be any way to delete them. Excluding them results in them being marked excluded on peoples' pages which isn't nice.

Also -- worse -- most of the items on my Places list are not places at all but occupations -- and I can't delete them!

I can see I need to delete this GEDCOM and start all over again, BUT my questions are:

Will deleting the current GEDCOM result in this junk info getting deleted, or will it remain in the system ready to contaminate my new tree or GEDCOM?

Will I have to name the new tree differently in order to get free of it?

Also, how do you add parents to a person? And how can I re-unite a dislodged person to their parents and brother?--Helen-HWMT 12:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think you want to resubmit your GEDCOM anyways, my advice would be to wait on that until you have created pages for an entire family you know well using the manual process. (But please choose a family none of whom are living, maybe one set of great-grandparents.) We have training videos to help you with that. One of the things you will learn is that adding new parents for a person and adding a person to existing parents is essentially the same straightforward process. --pkeegstra 13:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at your talk page User talk:Helen-HWMT, it appears that your GEDCOM has not been accepted into the database yet, so no pages have been created, and there is nothing to delete. If you are in the reviewing stage, you should be able to just walk away from it at this point, and it will be bumped out of the queue. You could then make a copy of your tree (new name) in whatever software you are using, clean it up, and resubmit. As to your question about attaching parents, are you asking about a page that already exists here or something in your GEDCOM? --Cos1776 14:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Rename place page [11 April 2015]


I want to get a place page renamed.

A while back the Place:Dabo, Moselle, France was named Dabo, Moselle, Lorraine, France and when a French user modified it I happily left it.

However twice now an additional page has been created for Dabo, Lorraine, France. So I would like change it to the full Dabo, Moselle, Lorraine, France but I can't because it has subordinates--JeffreyRLehrer 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Could Place:Dabo, Lorraine, France be enabled as a redirect to Place:Dabo, Moselle, France? would this solve the problem at hand?--ceyockey 00:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I put a link in but not a redirect, and then added speedy delete but a redirect could work.--JeffreyRLehrer 03:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Accessing existing GEDCOM files [12 April 2015]

I have an existing GEDCOM file at WeRelate.org and it was unfortunately lost over the last couple of years due to some extenuating circumstances. Is there any way that the file can be retrieved so that I can recreate my research files? I had an old account but have no idea how to access it. the email address was pelark@gmail.com on that account. Any help would be appreciated. thanks Phil Larkin--Pel152991 05:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Family Page Events copied to the children's Person Pages [21 April 2015]

This may have been asked before. If so, my apologies as I did not find it. I have just entered the 1911 Census of Canada as an event on a family page. It shows up on both the husband and wife person pages. As there were 3 children in the family noted in the census, I was hoping that this event would also show up on their person pages without having to enter the info separately. Is there a way to make this happen?--Gsirwin 20:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

StickyNotes on the side of your screen are a boon in these situations. Once you have the info as you want it for one person in WR, copy it to a StickyNote (remembering to copy the reference and note boxes as well), open the edit screen for child 1, paste it in the appropriate boxes, check it, save it, and on to the next.

It is often suggested that you keep more than one copy of WR pinned on your browser. I work with three most of the time. Pinned bookmarks to your favourite sources also help.

/cheers --Goldenoldie 20:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

How in the world do I navitage [24 April 2015]

I can't find my gedcom file..Where is it? This site is so very confusing. I get a message and cant respond. There isn't a response space Crazy--Riti 03:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Regret to see that you seem to be experiencing navigation problems. From what I can see, it doesn't seem that you successfully uploaded your GEDCOM file. Are you looking for your GEDCOM file you created on your own computer or one you uploaded to WeRelate? Normally once uploaded here, it should only take minutes for you to access it and start working on it. Can you tell me how many people you intended to load with your file? --BobC 19:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Gender box stuck on "unknown" [14 May 2015]

I am currently editing the placenames for the family of Johannes Boeg, contributed in 2007. I notice that all of the family are marked Gender:unknown. In addition to removing a lot of red-lined places in and around London, England, I would be glad to adjust the gender for those with common given names, but the multiple-choice box will not move off "unknown". What's the problem here? --Goldenoldie 15:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I had no problems. Changed all his children. --Jrich 15:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was also having a problem with my anti-virus software and had to get support in to clear a glitch. This may have been what was causing the problem in WR. Now to attack more of the Boeg tree and its poor geographical knowledge.... --Goldenoldie 19:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Bug in Tree Management [17 May 2015]

It appears that there is a bug in tree management through FTE. I am pruning my Default tree, and I used FTE to remove a number of people from my tree, but when I went into View mode on that tree (which invokes SpecialSearch by keyword), they still showed up. When I used the Tree link (at the left) the checkbox for the Default tree was not checked. It appears that FTE is removing pages from the tree but not removing the keyword that causes the page to show up in the "view tree" function. I can't tell (without doing a controlled experiment) if this is 100% of the time or only some of the time.

My workaround is to check the tree box in the Tree link and select Update (that is, put the page back into the tree) and then uncheck the tree box in the Tree link and select Update (to take the page out again). That means that using FTE to remove a person from my tree tripled my effort. I'm lucky I quit using it after only a few families :) --DataAnalyst 13:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

For an example (until I get around to fixing it in the next month or so), see Person:William Castle (3). He shows up on SpecialSearch with keyword +Tree:"DataAnalyst/Default", but only in my Stewart tree according to the Tree link on the left.--DataAnalyst 13:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Further note: I don't think this is just a matter of the FTE updates waiting for re-indexing (at least I hope re-indexing is not turned off). At least 3 weeks have passed since I did the FTE updates and the pages are still showing up in the SpecialSearch by keyword.--DataAnalyst 13:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Downloading and using Image Revisions [2 June 2015]

Yesterday I uploaded a map which I am using in several Place: pages which I am currently working on. All went fine on the upload and I proceeded to add the map to a number of pages. Part way through I came upon some information that proved the boundaries on the map were wrong. I corrected the map and uploaded it again with the same title. This appears to be the purpose of the instruction "Upload a new version of this file" on the second page of the upload procedure.

The revised map is now on the Image page, but none of the Place: pages associated with it have changed. Even after "deleting all revisions of this file" and uploading the revised map again, the Place: pages are still using the old map. And, even if I delete the mention of the image on one of the Place:pages, save the text, and re-edit adding the image, it is the old image that shows up.

I know I could alter the name of the image and do the replacing on each page myself, but that is not what the instructions infer. The image in question is [[Image:Tandridge_District_before_1974.png]]. Comments, please. --Goldenoldie 09:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

In the half hour since I started to write this message (including time-off to answer non-genealogical questions from immediate family members), the revised image is now finding its way to the Place: pages. Why wouldn't this be an immediate update like an ordinary edit or a "#redirect" is? --Goldenoldie 09:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My first guess would be browser caching issues. My second guess would be that the site itself implements a level of caching, and that somehow is not flushed even after deleting the reference on a page and recreating it. Maybe next weekend I'll test on the sandbox and see if I can duplicate it. --pkeegstra 10:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Browse feature [15 June 2015]

I'm puzzled as to how and when the Browse feature works. See example: Iva Jackson. The browse feature picks up most of the places on her page but does not pick up 'Clinton' County which is mentioned twice. It appears that browse has dropped that county info and that causes me wonder how often that happens???--janiejac 00:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears to only use the specific places mentioned. Since you aren't linking to Clinton Co. directly, it won't include that. -Moverton 02:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't 'get it'. Her residence is Harlan Twp, Warren Co., Ohio and the system offers to browse both Harlan and Warren. She died in Blanchester, Clinton Co., Ohio and the system offers to browse Blanchester but doesn't browse Clinton Co. So I can't figure why it is not offering the ability to browse Clinton Co. --janiejac 03:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
She was born in Warren Co., and that is the reason Warren is included. -Moverton 16:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
So if I edit her location of death to be just Clinton Co. (leaving out Blanchester) then Clinton will show up to browse? Bummer! Leaving out info to get the browse feature just doesn't seem right!! Wonder if this a bug or by design?? It certainly is limiting! Thanks for trying to help me understand even tho I don't like the answer. --janiejac 18:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The system offers to browse Warren County because that is listed as her birth and marriage location, but Warren County being offered has nothing to do with the residence. The residence only causes Harlan, the first part of the place, to be offered. The burial location adds the cemetery (only, not the town it is in) to the browse list, the death adds Blanchester, thus accounting for the 4 browse options offered. It appears to be working consistently, making me think it is working as designed. When you select browse Blanchester, which might be assumed to normally be of more interest than browsing all of Clinton county, it does a special search, and the search criteria are displayed. If you want to browse the whole county, simply delete Blanchester from the search criteria "Blanchester, Clinton, Ohio, United States", and hit enter to get what you appear to want. The search that results does include Iva Jackson even though no place on her page gives Clinton Co. explicitly, only places inside Clinton Co. --Jrich 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah! That does the trick! Thank you both for helping me understand how to get what I wanted! --janiejac 21:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have information on the British Virgin Islands or only America [29 June 2015]

--Alice harewood 01:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You might be the Christopher Columbus of WeRelate. You can start here to browse place and source pages: Category:British Virgin Islands. -Moverton 16:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't edit Sources: "Links to other websites are not allowed" [29 June 2015]

Any changes I try to make to a Source page will show up nicely in Preview, but when I try to save them I get a bold message at the top of the Edit page stating Links to other websites are not allowed and the changes are not saved.

First saw this when I attempted to add Ancestry.com as a new Repository and the URL of the item in its card catalog, but I get the same error even when I remove the Ancestry info and even when I don't touch the Repository. The Sources I have tried to edit all have prior Repository listings with URLs in them. (I haven't tried removing the existing Repositories because I wouldn't be able to add them back and then we'd be losing information.)

Is this expected behavior? User error? A bug?

--Bsktcase 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the page you are working on where you notice this linking issue. One of us can take a look at it and hopefully provide more helpful information.
Ancestry.com already has it's own Repository Page at Repository:Ancestry.com. --BobC 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

ref name vs cite [5 July 2015]

Somewhere (cannot currently find it) on this site is format information about using 'ref name' rather than 'cite' for connecting text to references. However, when I used the ref name procedure, it did not connect correctly to my S1, S2 or S3 sources in the Personal History section of Person:Elmer Irwin (4). Can you kindly advise.--Gsirwin 19:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, solved the problem - was missing an operator.

East European geography knowledge needed [15 July 2015]

Could someone who has knowledge of the geography of Eastern Europe make corrections for the birth and baptismal places for Christina Weber and her family? The birthplace is linking to a hamlet in Devon, England and the baptismal place to a Wittenberg in the USA until I took out the link.

I just came across her when tidying up Culm Davy, Devon. --Goldenoldie 20:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

New User Name [5 August 2015]

May I change my user name? Thanks!--Frank 23:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Login not working [8 August 2015]

this is a test--KayS 00:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

creating cemetery place pages [14 September 2015]

I tried to create a cemetery page here: Place:Bethany Cumberland Presbyterian Cemetery, Coushatta, Red River, Louisiana, United States. It didn't turn out as I hoped. I don't know how to state lat/long correctly and the category isn't right. If somebody can fix this, I'll follow your example for the next pages I need to create. Thanks! --janiejac 02:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine now. I created the county-wide cemetery supercategory. --pkeegstra 09:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Whatever you did helped. I just added 5 more. --janiejac 17:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I may have messed up this cemetery page when I created it. There are two cemeteries with the same name, one across the road from the other. I put them both on the same page. Find-a-Grave labels them Low Gap Cemetery I and II. Place:Low Gap Church Cemetery, Knob Fork, Wetzel, West Virginia, United States I'm tired of messing with it. I can't finish my GEDCOM upload for lack of cemetery pages. Maybe another day. . . --janiejac 00:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I created your 2nd cemetery page for you here and moved the relevant info from the 1st page over. I also added Red Flags to alert readers to the 2 different cemeteries. Cemetery pages shouldn't cause stress :) Please just ask if you are unsure how to do it. Best Wishes - --Cos1776 20:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Guest Book [11 August 2015]

Is there a way to add a "guestbook" for visitors to sign--on my front page?--Cleonard 16:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there as guest book--or a "sign-in" that can be added to my front page? Colleen--Cleonard 01:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Every page, including your User page, has a Talk page attached (see upper left corner) on which anyone with an account can leave messages pertaining to that specific page. It is very helpful to be able to discuss specific individuals and families directly on their page. I suppose you could create a section heading called "Guestbook" for yourself on your User Talk page if you wanted to. There might be someone here who has done something similar to that in the past, but I have not seen it. People usually just use the subject of the message as their heading and then anyone who wants to can join the conversation. hth --Cos1776 02:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: previous entry inquiry re Guestbook-or guest log-in. This site would be seen by many whom aren't members or have an account. I would still like to add it to my front page (Herbert Edward Scarborough)--if someone can talk me through it. (I haven't added anything in a long time) Colleen--Cleonard 15:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I will just point out that for anyone to add a comment or perform any other type of edit, they are required to be signed in. So someone who is just passing through without having an account wouldn't be able to "sign" a guestbook. You can add your guestbook to your primary User page by using it like a template:
{{:User talk:Cleonard/Guestbook}}
You could also add a link to it:
[http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cleonard/Guestbook&action=edit&section=new Sign my guestbook!]
You would just need to create the Guestbook page before you do all of that. I don't know if there is a fancier way of doing it. -Moverton 23:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Worcestershire, England--sources for two places mixed up [18 August 2015]

I'm not sure who is on the panel of administrators for sources, so I have decided to put this problem here.

There are two places named Churchill in Worcestershire. Until today they were Churchill (near Kidderminster) and Churchill (near Spetchley). The first was in Halfshire Hundred and the second was in Oswaldslow Hundred. I have found references to Churchill (near Kidderminster) being called Churchill-in-Halfshire in earlier times.

Churchill (near Kidderminster) has been renamed Churchill and Blakedown because the two places merged into one civil parish in 1888. When I went to adjust the places on the Sources pages I found one source that appears to be pointing to both places.
The title is
"Source:Churchill (near Kidderminster), Worcestershire, England. Marriages at Churchill-in-Halfshire, 1564-1812",
but the citation reads
Citation: Church of England. Parish Church of Churchill (near Spetchley, Worcestershire), and W. P. W. (William Phillimore Watts) Phillimore. Marriages at Churchill-in-Halfshire, 1564-1812.

Churchill (near Spetchley) is not Churchill-in-Halfshire. I am not sure which Churchill is covered in the source. Is there someone who can check this out in some way, perhaps with an old LDS library catalogue? I cannot travel and our nearest LDS library is in the middle of London.--Goldenoldie 13:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

For now I'd go with the assumption that the WR place field was filled by an automated process and the place referenced in the text is authentic. But it should be double-checked. (I looked at the references in case anyone had actually cited it, but noone has.) --pkeegstra 13:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. I shall re-point the source to Churchill (near Spetchley) and make a note at the bottom that the source may refer to Churchill (near Kidderminster). Amongst the Churchill (near Kidderminster) sources is a similarly named one with a longer span--this might just be a hint.

Thanks. --Goldenoldie 13:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Your logic left me a little befuddled on this one. ;) Normally I would assume the TITLE of the work was correct and not change it to fit the place referenced. With a quick check on the Internet I was able to find the source:
The title and page references on the FamilySearch catalog page match what you will find in that book. Instead of renaming the page, you should have just corrected the place. -Moverton 07:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

won't save changes when I click on "save page" [22 August 2015]

I have tried to edit and to send messages to others on WeRelate, and it shows the preview just fine, but after I click on "Save Page" the same page reappears and if I try to go to another web address or location in WeRelate, it says if I leave that page I will lose my changes. If I go out and come back in the changes were not saved.--Thurm 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it saved this message, so your user id seems to be working. So it presumably a warning message that needs to be cleared. Frequently, things like dates and genders are not set to valid values, and the system won't let you save, and there is a warning message near the top of the page that alerts you to the problem. Which sometimes is not visible if you scrolled to the bottom to press the Save key. --Jrich 16:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Replying to: getting message: "Links to other *** are not allowed." on Person talk:George Teater (1). There are probably some characters in the posting that the software doesn't like. I can't really guess what you were trying to type in. I'd suggest you try saving things without any URLs or links. Then try inserting the link in a separate save if the first step works. If that doesn't work, try dumbing down your posting more and more until you can get the save to work. You can also try the "preview" button before saving.
Links to websites are surrounded by single brackets as in [http://books.google.com], which gives [1]. Not sure if URLs that don't start with http or https work. Vaguely seem to recall having problems with an ftp URL once. You can add display text after a space [http://books.google.com Google Books], which gives Google Books.
Interwiki lines are surrounded by double brackets, as in [[Person talk:George Teater (1)]], which gives Person talk:George Teater (1). Because page names can have spaces, in this type of link, the display test comes after a pipe, [[Person talk:George Teater (1)|The page!]], which gives The page!. --Jrich 19:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I did remove all websites, and even the word website, but still got the message. Are you saying that a web address IS allowed if in brackets? I wanted to send: In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote (1855) on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings. The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater". I could not reference my source because I got the message "Links to other websites are not allowed." This was followed by the list of names. Then I had a second reference: Another listing of the signers "A comparison of Signatory Lists for the Call to Rev. Cummings" compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator . I had removed the webaddress for that comparison.--Thurm 19:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The string [https://books.google.com/books?id=wz4VAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22George%20Feator%22&pg=PA117 click on this link] uses Google features to turn to page 117 (pg=PA117) of that book (id=wz4VAAAAYAAJ) and highlight George Feator's name (dq="George Feator", spaces replaced by hex code %20, quotes by hex code %22), i.e., click on this link. You can't pull in the actual image, only provide a link to it. If you click on the icon with a chain link in it while viewing a google book page, it will pop up a window and the top field is a link that you can copy and paste so that someone can come back to the same view you have, or you can put the URL together by hand by combining the various features as I indicated. --Jrich 20:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I limited my post to "In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855" and it still gave me the no links to websites warning.--Thurm 20:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your message with the GoogleBooks link is beautiful, but I only half understand it and could never create such a link myself. Are you saying that I should be able to put that link into my posting to enable others to see my source?--Thurm 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are confused by the syntax, just use the chain-link icon on the Google Books page to generate your URL for you. Do it once you have gotten Google books to display the page and text you want. You can copy and paste that URL that is generated by Google using control-C and control-V and just put brackets on each end. It will be ugly, but don't worry about it, it should work.
Try posting your stuff to this page, and I'll take a look at it. If it fails to save, add the characters <nowiki> at the front and </nowiki> at the end (notice the extra slash in the ending one) and then save again. Then I can see what you are trying to type in. --Jrich 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The following did save to your page. It is the version without websites.--Thurm 18:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855 on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings.

The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater". George Blackburn, William Blackburn, John Vance, John Casey, Benjamin Logan, Robert Edmondson, Thomas Berry, Robert Trimble, Wm. McGaughey, David Dryden, Wm. McNabb, John Davis, Halbert McClure, Arthur Blackburn, Nathl. Davis, Saml. Evans, Wm. Kennedy, Andrew McFerran, Saml. Hendry, John Patterson, James Gilmore, John Lowrey, Wm. Christian, Andrew Colvill, Robert Craig, Joseph Black Jonathan Douglass, William Berry, John Cusick, James Piper, James Harrold, Samuel Newell, David Wilson, David Craig, Robert Gamble, Andrew Martin Augustus Webb, Samuel Brigg, Wesley White, James Dorchester, James Fulkerson, Stephen Jordan, Alex. Laughlin, James Inglish, Richard Moore, Thomas Ramsey, Saml. Wilson, Joseph Vance, William Young, William Davidson, James Young, John Sharp, John Long, Robert Topp, John Hunt, Thomas Bailey, David Gattgood, Alexr. Breckenridge, George Clark, James Molden, William Blanton, Chrisr. Acklin, James Craig, Joseph Gamble, John McNabb, Chrisr. Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, Jr. John Sharp, John Berry, James Montgomery, Samuel Huston, Henry Creswell, George Adams, George Buchanan, James Dysart, William Miller, Andrew Leeper, David Snodgrass, Danl. McCormick, Francis Kincannon, Joseph Snodgrass, James Thompson, Robert Denniston, William Edmiston, Saml. Edmiston, Andrew Kincannon, John Kelley, John Robinson, James Kincannon, Margaret Edmiston, John Edmiston, John Boyd, Robert Kirkham, Martin Pruitt, Nicholas Brobston, Andrew Miller, Alexander McNutt, William Pruitt, John McCutchon, James Berry, James Trimble,



•William Berry, •Moses Buchanan, •David Carson, •Samuel Buchanan, •William Bates, •William McMillin, •John Kennedy, •Robert Lamb, •Thos. Rafferty, •Thomas Baker, •John Groce, •Robert Buchanan, •Thomas Evans, •William Marlor, •William Edmiston, •Thos. Edmiston, •John Beaty, •David Beaty, •George Feater, •Michl. Halyacre, •Stephen Cawood, •James Garvill, •Rob. Buchanan, Jr. •Edward Jamison, •Richard Heggons, •John Lester, •Hugh Johnson, •Edward Pharis, •Joseph Lester, •Saml. White, •William Lester, •William Page, •Samuel Buchanan, Jr. •Thomas Montgomery, •Samuel Bell, •John Campbell.

Another listing of the signers "A comparison of Signatory Lists for the Call to Rev. Cummings" compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator. --Thurm 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the version with websites: In a photocopy text of Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, Second Series, by William Henry Foote published in 1855 on p. 115-16 is the call to Rev Cummings. This is found at http://www.roanetnhistory.org/foote-virginia2.php?loc=Foote-Sketches-Virginia-Second&pgid=116 .

The list of signers is on p. 116-117. The names are not in the order of the above "full text" and there is only ONE "George Feater".

George Blackburn, William Blackburn, John Vance, John Casey, Benjamin Logan, Robert Edmondson, Thomas Berry, Robert Trimble, Wm. McGaughey, David Dryden, Wm. McNabb, John Davis, Halbert McClure, Arthur Blackburn, Nathl. Davis, Saml. Evans, Wm. Kennedy, Andrew McFerran, Saml. Hendry, John Patterson, James Gilmore, John Lowrey, Wm. Christian, Andrew Colvill, Robert Craig, Joseph Black Jonathan Douglass, William Berry, John Cusick, James Piper, James Harrold, Samuel Newell, David Wilson, David Craig, Robert Gamble, Andrew Martin Augustus Webb, Samuel Brigg, Wesley White, James Dorchester, James Fulkerson, Stephen Jordan, Alex. Laughlin, James Inglish, Richard Moore, Thomas Ramsey, Saml. Wilson, Joseph Vance, William Young, William Davidson, James Young, John Sharp, John Long, Robert Topp, John Hunt, Thomas Bailey, David Gattgood, Alexr. Breckenridge, George Clark, James Molden, William Blanton, Chrisr. Acklin, James Craig, Joseph Gamble, John McNabb, Chrisr. Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, John Funkhouser, Jr. John Sharp, John Berry, James Montgomery, Samuel Huston, Henry Creswell, George Adams, George Buchanan, James Dysart, William Miller, Andrew Leeper, David Snodgrass, Danl. McCormick, Francis Kincannon, Joseph Snodgrass, James Thompson, Robert Denniston, William Edmiston, Saml. Edmiston, Andrew Kincannon, John Kelley, John Robinson, James Kincannon, Margaret Edmiston, John Edmiston, John Boyd, Robert Kirkham, Martin Pruitt, Nicholas Brobston, Andrew Miller, Alexander McNutt, William Pruitt, John McCutchon, James Berry, James Trimble,



•William Berry, •Moses Buchanan, •David Carson, •Samuel Buchanan, •William Bates, •William McMillin, •John Kennedy, •Robert Lamb, •Thos. Rafferty, •Thomas Baker, •John Groce, •Robert Buchanan, •Thomas Evans, •William Marlor, •William Edmiston, •Thos. Edmiston, •John Beaty, •David Beaty, •George Feater, •Michl. Halyacre, •Stephen Cawood, •James Garvill, •Rob. Buchanan, Jr. •Edward Jamison, •Richard Heggons, •John Lester, •Hugh Johnson, •Edward Pharis, •Joseph Lester, •Saml. White, •William Lester, •William Page, •Samuel Buchanan, Jr. •Thomas Montgomery, •Samuel Bell, •John Campbell.

Another listing of the signers at http://www.werelate.org/wiki/A_comparison_of_Signatory_Lists_for_the_Call_to_Rev._Cummings compares three source lists, again with only ONE George Teetor/Teator. --Thurm 18:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Even that version did save to your page. Neither would save to http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person_talk:George_Teater_%281%29 --Thurm 18:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I was able to save your text to the page. I removed it after I was done.
However, I do think there is something messed up on that page, probably near the section that says "Translate this page" which has a bunch of weird characters that might be sequences that cause funny things to happen. Twice in the process I basically froze. Somebody familiar with the content should edit the page to remove all the bad formatting, etc., that is, and often does, show up when things are simply cut and pasted instead of prepared with WeRelate in mind.
That said, while I am not familiar with this region or whatever issue is being discussed, I can tell you that it is clear that any argument about the call to Rev. Cummings is going to need a scan of the original handwritten document to be authoritative. Your link to a website transcribing a book that in turn is a transcription (maybe) of the original is not going to convince anyone. For example, your cited website's spelling of Feater is different that the actual book that uses Feator, and it seems, may be unique in using that spelling. Anybody that has read colonial documents will tell you that T's and F's can be hard to distinguish, and colonial e's are written like cirley-ques that look like a modern o that isn't quite closed with a loop in the tail, so any argument over spelling would require a scan of the original. (Though colonial spelling was phonetic, and either spelling could suggest the same person.) Further Google searches brought back multiple sites all giving different orders, and some appeared to go across columns then down, others appeared to go down, then across, or something like that, so again, any argument based on order is going to need a scan of the original. One might even surmise that the original is in one order, and if it was recorded in record books by the clerk, the recorded copy could conceivably be in a different order. Analysis of source provenance and access to the original is the only way to resolve such questions. --Jrich 20:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

no confirmation email for new account [24 August 2015]

A cousin tried setting up a new account yesterday and has not yet received a confirmation email that will allow her to activate the account. She could not sign in. Are you aware of any issues (something not working, or emails from WeRelate getting blocked) or should I ask her to try again? Thanks--DataAnalyst 00:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing and Citations [28 August 2015]

Hi all,

I recently uploaded a GEDCOM and volunteers have been kind enough to start transforming my "notes" into proper sources (since I never expected to be sharing the information outside the family, I took the easy route in my database of using my notes field for both the transcribing of information and the sources themselves - which worked for me since sometimes I had two sources for different data elements in one sentence/field.)

As I've started adding people individually to certain families, I find myself really unsure about how to input this information properly. First -- I'm a bit unclear on the difference between a citation and a source (the My Source, I get.)

Say I'm putting in someone's birth information from a town's vital records -- in my database, I'd put the whole thing in the notes field (e.g., Morris, Elisabeth, d. Edward and Elisabeth, Feb. 12, 1683-4. - Vital Records Of Roxbury Massachusetts To The End Of The Year 1849, Published By The Essex Institute Salem, Mass. 1925 [found on] http://dunhamwilcox.net/ma/roxbury_b8.htm) Split up properly, would this be a Citation or a Source? Is the presence of the transcription of the original information what makes the difference, or is it something else. What if I have information (such as a will) for which I don't have a legitimate source (perhaps it's from someone's personal website that no longer exists) -- would that just go in a notes field?

I'm sure professors from my past are howling that I've forgotten proper bibliographic format (although, when I went to college, computerized versions weren't yet a thing, so it's been a while!)

I think I have a lot of good research that I would love to share with anyone who is interested but I DON'T want to be "that person" who causes sighs and groans by causing extra work for people. I uploaded only a tiny portion of what I have and would like to share more and upload another GEDCOM sometime soon but don't know if I should go back into my system and fix all the sources there before I do more (which could mean I never get to upload any more) -- or if transforming my notes to sources isn't that hard for people who know what they're doing.

Also. I don't think it's come up in anything I uploaded yet (I'm not sure.) But is there a limit to how much information should be in a profile? For example, I have transcribed entire wills, inventories, and petitions relating to my ancestors. Should that appear in the notes for that person? Or is there a separate place where all wills, etc. are "filed"? Or do you not want them at all? (I know they're long, but I find them fascinating.)

If I do put them in, should they be in a particular format? (To save paper for the one time I tried to print out all the information on my direct line, I formatted the inventories (for example) so that they would appear in a paragraph format instead of a list. (I killed two printers and went through WAY too many ink cartridges -- I'll never do THAT again!))

In any case, if someone could give me some guidance, I'd appreciate it!

Lynda--TheTrefryTree 20:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the "Citation only" option. The only time I use that is if I don't know the original source (such as with a will). If you don't want to hassle with searching for the correct Source, you could just use the Citation option as long as your citation is good enough for someone else to later do the association. But searching for the correct Source can of course help a person get to know the sources in this database, and it gets easier over time as you may use the same sources often. As to the wills specifically, I use a Citation when I don't know where it came from. For example, here I found an image of the will and later found a reference that said it was only available by contacting the N.C. State Archives. I only abstract information from the wills, but others copy the entire thing, and it is up to individual preference. There is no one right way to do it. You can put the text of the will either in the Text of the Citation, or as a separate section in the Personal History box. -Moverton 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The advantage of determining the correct source page to specify is that it makes the citation less ambiguous. I have seen scholarly articles that refer to sources so carelessly that the description matched two or more sources. Read a few source pages to get an idea of how linking to a source page can help. For example, NEHGR has a table of links to where copies of the magazine can be found online. Some have commentary on the source, or hints on how to use it most effectively, or lists of repositories where it may be found. However the WeRelate source system is not strictly about being bibliographically correct. So for example, many different vital records sources tend to be covered by one source page, on the assumption that various iterations are as good as any other (which is sometimes not true, and undoubtedly violates some bibliography conventions).

As far as wills, etc., there are no rules, and plenty of pages have full wills, plenty have only abstracts. Both approaches have pluses and minuses. Consider the reader and consider that perhaps 90^ are only looking at the page to see if they are interested, while maybe 10% are interested and want to read everything they can get their hands on. So the best compromise is probably to put an abstract with a link to somewhere they can find the whole will. If the whole will doesn't exist in a freely-available linkable location, then creating a Transcript page or a MySource page may be appropriate. If a complete transcript is placed on a page, it should probably be done in a way that clearly identifies it, and makes it easy to skip, such as putting it in a section by itself with a descriptive heading in the narrative part of the page. --Jrich 02:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Confused over how to do correct citation for info from familysearch.org [13 September 2015]

For the first time, I have used some info found on familysearch.org. I tried my usual citation routine for linking to the Source page only to meet total confusion! There are a bunch of assorted familysearch pages making no sense, and the best one said on it that familysearch was NOT a source but a repository, and that one should use a separate source page for each collection within the repository -- or something like that. I have no idea how to find out what collection - or whatever - my info is in. Help please.--Helen-HWMT 22:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two different methods I use for citation:

1. Cite the FamilySearch collection directly. Each collection should have its own source here on WeRelate. For example, the collection "Kentucky Births and Christenings, 1839-1960" is Source:Kentucky, United States. Kentucky Births and Christenings, 1839-1960. That collection can be used as the source, and any additional information added to the citation as necessary.

2. Cite the FamilySearch collection indirectly (my usual preference). Using that previous Kentucky collection for an example, the entry I found for Person:Robert Tolle (1) had a film number (216816) which I used to search for the appropriate source on WeRelate (having multiple items on that film, I chose the one for Barren county). Then in my citation I specified the reference comes from the collection (and provided a link), and I mentioned that I haven't viewed the original source to verify the information. If my local genealogy library has the film, I try to verify it.

Hopefully this helps. -Moverton 06:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Place Completion on Custom Events [15 November 2015]

It looks like the recent changes to place completion have an issue. I'm seeing place completion for custom events just spinning, and never returning any matches. Place completion is working fine in the predefined event slots. So the obvious workaround is to construct the place in a predefined spot and use cut & paste to move it to the custom event slot. (Behind some firewalls I used to see place completion just spinning for all event slots, but this is happening on my static IP so I don't think it's anything to do with firewalls.) --pkeegstra 10:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know what exactly the change is and why it was made? I am experiencing not only the problem mentioned above, but a significant slowdown in return time for everything WR-related. It has been a big frustration for me for a few days now, but I thought it might be on my end, since no one else was mentioning it. I've tried the usual fixes on this end to no avail. Is anyone else experiencing this slowdown? --Cos1776 16:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Similar experience. ie. Previously, when creating 9 or 10 children for a set of parents, after entering a birthplace for the 1st child, WR would "remember" the birthplace for the 2nd child. Now I have to enter most of the birth location, or all of it. Has the hierarchy changed ? Or do the AKA locations affect the sort ?--SkippyG 17:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like place autocomplete was broken for additional events when it was changed to improve place sorting a few days ago. I'm out of town right now but will look into it when I return on Tuesday. I'll look at why previous places aren't being remembered. I have no idea why the site would be slow overall. Response time is good for me as I type this.--Dallan 00:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Certain activities seem slower than others to me. One is when you go to add a page, you get the screen that says Enter What You Know, and it seems like it takes a long time before the next screen listing possible matches, even if other websites (like checking my email while I wait) still respond normally. Not all activities seems slow. --Jrich 02:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why it listing possible matches would be slow right now. I just did a few possible matches and results came back generally within 1-3 seconds. Once every five minutes new/edited pages are added to the index, which can result in a 5-10 second delay, but that's been the behavior for over a year. Last week search, match, and add-page would have been slow because all 10 million pages had to be re-indexed to prepare for some new search facets going in next week, which was putting extra load on the search engine, but the re-indexing finished last Saturday.--Dallan 04:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just tried to add a Josiah Chaffee, after entering his bro, Stephen. After citing Josiah's death, the SEARCH feature gave me only his bro, Stephen as an optional match. Result: I couldn't add Josiah at all. Earlier today, all the numbers disappeared on my Dashboard and just came back about 3 hours ago. --SkippyG 23:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. You added Stephen successfully, then attempted to add Josiah. When you added Josiah you got Stephen as an optional match. How did this prevent you from adding Josiah? Couldn't you just have pressed the "Add Page" button to add a new person named Josiah? Or do you mean that you were trying to link to the existing person named Josiah Chaffee and he didn't show up in the search results like you expected? I just clicked on "Add", then "Person", then entered "Josiah Chaffee" with a death date of "1800" and got six Josiah Chaffee's on the search results page. Did you not see the Josiah Chaffee you were looking for?
My dashboard has two numbers on it: the number of pages in my watchlist and the number of contributions in the last 90 days. Are these the numbers that were missing for you?--Dallan 03:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusing explanation. After entering info for Josiah Chaffe, the system only gave me Stephen Chaffee as a possible "match" and wouldn't allow me to add him (Josiah); no add button was visible. Ten minutes after posting here, I was able to add Josiah. And.. the totals for contribs, watchlist, disappeared for about 5-6 hours on my Dashboard.

That's odd. I haven't seen that before. Please let me know if it continues.--Dallan 22:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Place completion for custom events on the person page seems to be fixed. I still see the problem on custom events on the family page. And also from time to time I still seem to have queries taking substantially longer than the norm. --pkeegstra 16:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am also noting a slowdown, and what seems to be a pattern. Every once in a while, a page will come up with the wrong labels - e.g., Discussion instead of Talk. When that happens, the page is incredibly slow. My husband suggested the alternate labels might be the result of load-switching to a server that doesn't have the latest version of the software. I used to notice the alternate labels infrequently and assumed it had something to do with maintenance/upgrades being underway. Now it happens every 3-4 pages. Has the server configuration changed recently?

There's just one server, but it looks like it's been being hit pretty hard lately by a Russian bot. I've denied access to the bot. Hopefully that will reduce the load.

BTW: While I am still deciding whether the loss of seeing the type of place in the place name completion change is a significant issue, I feel the new dropdown is a vast improvement over the previous method. Congrats on a significant improvement to usability of the site.--DataAnalyst 15:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Today I noticed Norton, Bristol, Plymouth Colony showing up in the drop-down list when I type Norton, Bristol. There is no place page called this. Technically, there was no such place, as Norton was so named in 1710 and Plymouth Colony disappeared in 1691. ??? --Jrich 23:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. and even though I picked Norton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States for the previous edit, on the next edit the fictitous Norton, Bristol, Plymouth Colony refuses to surrender its place at the top of the drop-down list. --Jrich 04:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is Place:Bristol, Massachusetts, United States is also-located-in Plymouth Colony, and Norton is located in Bristol. Norton wasn't part of Bristol until 1710, and although Bristol was only located in Plymoth Colony until 1685, the drop-down doesn't take dates into account. That's something that could be added in the future.--Dallan 22:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If we use place names as they are named in 1900, should the place page for Plymouth Colony be deleted? It should never be needed. And why does it insist on being on top even after another place has been used in a previous edit? --Jrich 22:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Place pages themselves are titled according to 1900, but we allow places that didn't exist in 1900 to be added as separate pages. This way someone can enter "Bristol, Plymouth Colony" if that's the place appearing on the record. I don't know why Norton, Bristol, Plymouth Colony insists on being the first entry even after another place as been used in a previous edit. It shouldn't. I just tried entering "Norton, Bristol" in a place field. The plymouth colony entry came up first and the Massachusetts entry came up second. I then selected the Massachusetts entry. Next I went to another place field and entered "Norton, Bristol" again. This time the Massachusetts entry that I just selected came up first as expected. If this isn't happening for you, you can try clearing your browser's "Local Storage". For chrome, go to chrome://settings/cookies#cont and search for www.werelate.org. Then click on "Local Storage" and click "Remove". That should reset your preferences for previously-selected places.--Dallan 03:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been working on a family from Norton over the past couple of days. The ordering started working some time after I posted my last message.
I'm glad to hear that--Dallan 07:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Can I suggest that if a place name that never existed is being generated perhaps something is wrong: either allowing the place page to exist, or the algorithm? I had no notion of the 1900 rule prior to working on WeRelate, but have really come to appreciate the wisdom in its separation of date from place and the way it allows consistent predictable naming, instead of to each their own style, not to mention simplifying the rather involved side-issue of proving/justifying the name one chooses to use and arguments over that. Recognizing that the best answer is undoubtedly GIS coordinates but how often is such precision available? --Jrich 06:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree the algorithm could be improved beyond what it is today. I'll have to work on that someday.--Dallan 07:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think place pages for pre-1900 names should be deleted. [Specific example, removed, not correct.] If you keep these names, or encourage them, people will misuse them. The users who have made similar errors include some of the more knowledgeable users on this site. You do not want to encourage the use of historical names because few people take the time to do it right by actually researching the place they are naming for the year in question. Instead they simply take any answer that doesn't say United States for dates before 1776 whether or not that name is accurate. --Jrich 04:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Other people have told me that they have to record the place as it appears in the record, so if the record lists a place that existed only pre-1900, then to make them happy it seems that we need to include the pre-1900 place. How could we satisfy them if we removed the pre-1900 places?--Dallan 06:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Several answers to this. (As an side observation, if people were getting the name correct, by accurately identifying or copying the record, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.)
The first point is that the record should be cited in a source, because part of collaboration is verification, which requires identifying sources, and so the place to put exactly what the record says is in the source citation. After all you may have several sources that give a location, and if they specify it differently (in New England, Indian place names are frequently found in colonial records, not to mention phonetic spelling, so where do you draw the line about copying the record exactly), what are you going to do then? So the need to transmit what sources say accurately is handled entirely and better by source citations, leaving the place field free to transmit physical location in a way that can be understood by software.
The second point is that what needs to be defined with some definitiveness is what the Place fields are supposed to be specifying. I would say you are specifying a physical spot on the planet, not a government entity's name. It needs to be somewhat isolated from stylistic differences that any add-on software that may exist or be added, saying mapping software, places the dot in the expected place on a map.
The third point is that a significant justification for having place pages at all, instead of simply using free-form names, is to document the meaning, description, and history of a place name in a centralized place, which one would think obviates the need to duplicate that effort on individual person and family pages. --Jrich 15:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I have a suggestion I will write up, hopefully tomorrow, since it's a holiday, to look at the system newly adopted by "gramps" which would allow us to get away from the "1900 Rule". It's obviously not something that will be implemented in a year or two. (For one thing, we should wait for them to prove its efficacy.) But it would allow the time-dependent hierarchy to be construed by local experts. --pkeegstra 12:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
WeRelate:Suggestions/Adopt a Flexible Place Page System like Gramps 4 --pkeegstra 20:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if someday a new place system is added (and there is much complexity and much work to implement anything more functional than the 1900 rule that probably suggest this might not be worth the effort), places that are input today need to follow the 1900 rule, so that at that potential point in the future where a change is made, the meaning of the place name is understood, and we do not damage the chance of being able to automatically convert those place names to whatever new system may be selected. As opposed to requiring a massive human conversion effort, such as has happened in the past for sources, which would probably fail anyway because people do not post the sources (deeds describing property owned, etc.) that justify their choice of place names. For example, if one wanted to enter the West Precinct of Watertown, Mass., prior to its incorporation in 1713, one should enter Weston, because any conversion of Place:Weston, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States will be based on its 1900 boundaries which include the West Precinct of Watertown, while using the seemingly more historically accurate Place:Watertown, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States will result in getting converted to the East Precinct, based on the 1900 definition of Watertown, which is not what is desired. --Jrich 03:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The new place completion software seems to be spinning on selecting Ohio, United States. For all of today, I have had to enter at least the first 2 words in order to get a list. I've used Ohio a lot in the last few weeks and this is a new problem. Dallan - can you get this checked into? Thanks--DataAnalyst 23:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor? I'd like you to clear the local storage for WeRelate to see if that fixes the problem. If it does, then I know where the problem is and I can fix it. You can do this with Chrome by entering chrome://settings/cookies in the URL bar. Then search for werelate, click on www.werelate.org, click on Local Storage, then click on Remove. After that, please try completing Ohio again and let me know if it works better. If Chrome isn't your browser let me know what your browser is and I'll find instructions to clear local storage. Thanks.--Dallan 06:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm using IE 11. Thanks--DataAnalyst 14:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you did something, but it seems to be working now. I did not do anything on my end, other than take a break for a while and come back to editing.--DataAnalyst 00:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't do anything. Please let me know if it crops up again.--Dallan 00:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Spam-bot user or some such [8 November 2015]

I stumbled across a page by User:LucasN11794 (contributions) that seemed really odd. There are five such pages; they seem to be something like mechanical translations into English of stuff about soccer (football) and not all that coherent. There are some web site mentions. The user page was replaced several times with radically different "bio"s. I would guess the pages should be removed and the user blocked. --robert.shaw 08:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. From the same mid-October period I found these additional soccer-spambot users: [2] [3] [4] [5]
A bit earlier there is a user doing what might be a prototype bot test with one "Psychic" page: [6]. ---robert.shaw 08:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I deleted the contributions and blocked the users.--Dallan 07:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Image rotations [21 November 2015]

Is it possible to rotate an image? The image I downloaded rotated.--Diane Hosler 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Easiest way is to use a picture-editing program on your desktop to rotate the image. You could try Windows Photo Viewer for example.--Dallan 00:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I did that, but when I uploaded it (twice) it flipped back...it's on the family page for Daniel Bury.--Diane Hosler 04:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Diane, it looks like the program used to rotate the picture didn't actually rotate it but instead marked it in a way that means approximately "If you understand this, rotate the image one quarter turn clockwise." The problem with that method is that only some programs understand that special mark; the others will show it in the standard way.
On many versions of Windows, this can be corrected this way: double-clicking on the image file will bring it up in "Windows Photo Viewer" showing the wrong orientation. One can then click on the right-pointing round arrow button at the bottom and then close the viewer. This should fix it so that double-clicking it again shows it right-side up in the viewer and it will be right for uploading. --robert.shaw 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I did that and thought it worked - but somethings wrong.--Diane Hosler 03:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I just visited Family:Daniel Bury and Magdalena Lifelsperger (1) but it looks like the image is no longer there. Did you remove it? the previous revision of this page appears to have the image with the correct rotation. If you re-add the image to the family it may look ok now.--Dallan 03:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Dallan, from histories it looks to me like at 19:58 she deleted it [7], which propagated a corresponding reference deletion to the Family page. She then added the same image (right side up) at 20:01 [8] and almost immediately the image was added to Person:Daniel Bury (1), which propagated a "<Persn title=" entry (whatever that is) to the Image:Bury family.jpg page. The state I'm now looking at is that Person:Daniel Bury (1) has the image in its gallery, and the Family: page does not. --robert.shaw 06:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That is what I did. (I am using Windows 10.) Now, it is in the right rotation, but it flickers when I put the curser on it. I will wait til you tell me it's okay to move to the family page. Or, I can rescan and start over.--Diane Hosler 14:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Diane, the flickering you see is due to a defect in the software used by WeRelate and is not because the image is bad or anything you did. I will make a new topic below for this problem. If it bothers you, I think you will find that the flickering will not occur sometimes, mainly depending on how you move your cursor into the thumbnail picture: try moving the cursor into the thumbnail from all four directions: from above, from the left, etc. Another thing that may affect its occurrence is changing the size of your browser window.
You should be able to add the image to the Family: page now and have it all work (except flickering sometimes). --robert.shaw 20:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me so we have this glitch resolved! Thanks Alot!!--Diane Hosler 20:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Bug: Flickering/jittery image when hovering [29 November 2015]

In some situations the image that pops up when hovering over a thumbnail on a Person page flickers more or less continuously, as encountered by Diane Hosler above. The flickering seems to be due to repeated re-displays of the popup image, and consumes lots of cpu time while the hover-flicker continues. This happens on both Chrome and IE 11. Whether the flicker happens is not all that predictable, but in a particular arrangement in which it occurs, it is repeatable. It is dependent on the point from which the cursor enters the rectangle of the thumbnail; entering at some places will repeatedly show it, while entering from other places will never show it. It seems to also be dependent on the size of the browser window, maybe with a tendency to be more frequent with smaller window widths. It may also depend on the size of the image file attempted to be displayed. With wider windows the "Bury family.jpg" image on Person:Daniel Bury (1) tends to show it, but other images on that and on other pages also can show it. Seems like an issue with the javascript size calculations and some test thereof. Maybe it's some lower level erroneously giving an exception or returning "image doesn't fit" status (but after display) and an upper level continuously retrying the same display. --robert.shaw 21:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I just tried it, and the image flickers when my cursor enters the thumbnail from the top. As I slide the cursor down the thumbnail, the larger version of the image has to move to get out of the way of the cursor, causing it to flicker. Is this what you're talking about?--Dallan 04:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The repositioning of the larger image as you move the cursor isn't what I mean. There are cases where you put the cursor somewhere over the thumbnail and leave it unmoving there, and the larger image will continuously flicker, re-displaying at I'd guess say twenty times every second. On my machine it's slightly unstable image, overall about half-transparent, with irregular features like horizontal bands rolling through the image like an old TV with a weak signal. I think both Diane and I are on Windows; it may be that the Mac's API doesn't deliver events to the browser while the cursor is stable (I once toyed a bit with classic Mac programs), but that browsers on Windows somehow have to deal with repeated events or polling of cursor position so that an unmoving cursor still has program activity behind it. Oh, I notice now that while in this mode, the cursor icon is being continually switched between plain arrowhead and the link-available hand-with-index-finger icons so that you can see both as if they were both concurrently displayed with half-transparency (but of course they're actually being switched quickly). --robert.shaw 06:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Further observation: the problem happens when the code is trying to display the larger image in a way that partially (or wholly) overlaps the associated thumbnail. This is a valid larger-image position in some situations where there is not enough room for the two images to be shown without overlap. The problem occurs when the code puts up the initial version of the larger image with an overlap which includes the current position of the hovering cursor (which it really shouldn't do). It looks like it's looping, putting up the image, discovering that the cursor "now" is within the bounds of the larger image, so it takes down the image, and starts over again. Since it will redisplay the larger image in a bad spot (conflicting with the cursor position), it will continually detect the conflict again, and loop indefinitely. There is room on the screen for the larger image to fit without conflict with the cursor (although maybe requiring overlap with the thumbnail as a whole), but the code is positioning the larger image badly. --robert.shaw 06:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been able to reproduce it on the mac; I'll try to reproduce it on Windows.--Dallan 06:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Gedcom place matching [12 December 2015]

When adding a gedcom file most of the places I have are detailed to specific building so do not get matched. When I try to match them by selecting one of my unmatched places I get a popup instructing me to check the details in thebottom screen then click find/add. There is no find option only add.

I could add anew village as a place under a town but the next place I had was a different street in the same village and all I could do was add a duplicate place so I left it as it was.Rmg 13:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! and welcome to WeRelate

Our placename database is very large and covers the whole world, but it cannot cover every street in every village. Placenames include the village or township or parish, the county (depending on what part of the world the village is in), the state or province, and the country.

When you reach the edit screen for one of your people you will see that the area which lists the basic biographic details of birth, baptism, death and burial includes three boxes for your gedcom data. The first one is for the date, the second for the placename, and the third is entitled "description". The description box is for your extra details--such as the street address. Try cutting and pasting the street address part of an address into the description box and then seeing if the village comes up blue rather than red in the placename box. If that doesn't work, wipe out your entry in the placename box and rewrite it up to the first comma. At that point there should be a suggestion or more in yellow directly below the box you are working on. If not, start with the second part of your placename and see if if comes up. If you are lucky the second time, remember to add the place you dropped to the street address in the description box. Still unlucky? It may be a typo. We all do it.

Take a look at the FAQ list in the Places section of Help, or send a specific example to my Talk page. Regards, --Goldenoldie 16:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand perfectly that you do not want every address in the places database but I think ypu missunderstand my problem.

When reviewing a gedcom before import you can link sources to existing ones where the naming convention is slightly different and it not automatically matched. For places many are matched automatically but where I have more detailed information then no match is suggested. Yhe instructions inform me that I can link to an existing place or add a new one. In most cases I do not want to add a new place linking to an existing one is sufficient but there is no 'link' button on the page so I cannot link them before import.Rmg 08:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So the help page says:
  • Click on a place that does not have a matched page.
  • Make sure that the name of the place is correct in the form that appears in the bottom pane, and click on the Next button.
  • Click on the Select button to select the matching place from the list of places shown, or click on the Add button to add a new place.
So you would click Next and see what you get.
If scrolling down you see the right place (like the town), there will be a Select button to the left of it. Click that and it will add that place into the corresponding "Matched Page" field, and you're set.
If nothing, or nothing reasonable, is returned (e.g. "Your search did not match any documents" is displayed) then you should modify the search data that was filled in, probably in your cases usually by deleting details. For instance, if you have "123 Main St, Anytown" you might change the "Place name" field in the search box to just "Anytown". You might need to adjust the contents of the "Located in" field as well, maybe sometimes moving a name from there over to the "Place name" field. Then you can click Search again. Hopefully a good result appears and you can click its Select button. You might have to try searches on several name variations until you find the right entry. --robert.shaw 22:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The help popup actually days 'First, make sure that the name of the place is correct in the form below and click Find/Add,' it does not say next. If I ignore the instructions and click next then I can link my places to yours. Rmg 08:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that discrepancy stymied you. Apparently the button had previously been labeled "Find/Add" before being changed to the more appropriate "Next". Yesterday I updated the help page text to correct the same mismatch, but I cannot fix the pop-up text because it does not reside in the wiki but is elsewhere. I'll add a separate topic so that it can (someday) be fixed. --robert.shaw 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Bug: Gedcom import popup has misleading text [12 December 2015]

User:Rmg (above) ran into this: In the Flash import-review utility, the popup "Tip" box, which appears when on the "Places" tab you click on a line without a matched Place: page, refers to "Find/Add" as the thing (button) to click. The button is actually now labeled "Next" and not "Find/Add" so this can keep and has kept users from successfully linking Place: pages. This needs to be fixed. Also, the same label-mismatch problem exists on the "Sources" tab. --robert.shaw 19:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)