WeRelate talk:Watercooler

This page is for discussing anything you want to discuss, unless it relates only to a specific page. If it does, then post your comment on the Talk page associated with that specific page or on the WeRelate Support page.

To learn about using this Watercooler page or to ask questions about using it, go to Help:Watercooler.

If you don't want to leave comments on this page, you can email them to dallan@WeRelate.org.

Are you a new user? Have a question about how to use WeRelate? Post it to WeRelate talk:Support.

Old topics have been archived: 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017


Possible dupicated entry [28 January 2018]

In checking out placenames needing correcting, I spotted Person:Bryan Stapleton (1) and Person:Brian Stapleton (1) who are probably one and the same man. The birthplace of Wighill, Wiltshire for Bryan did not exist. There is a Wighill in the West Riding of Yorkshire. This error will probably lead to sorting out at the next generation as well. Can someone have a look at it, please? --Goldenoldie 22:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

They were actually 2 different people (grandfather and grandson). I added a source to each and corrected the birth place of the elder and cleaned up the marriages of the younger. Thanks for drawing this to our attention.--DataAnalyst 23:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for quick work. The Stapleton-Constable family had too many red places in it at "close of play" last night. I couldn't think straight enough to check the dates. --Goldenoldie 07:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No info RE the upload I did last night [4 February 2018]

I uploaded a small 56 person gedcom last night abt 10pm. Did it arrive? Haven't heard anything about it yet. So thought maybe I need to try again but get the msg: "Before importing a new GEDCOM you need to wait for your earlier GEDCOM to finish importing". So the gedcom is there; just needs a kick to the server! --janiejac 17:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the server needs a reboot, as that cured a similar situation in March (above, topic "uploaded GEDCOM taking a long time"). There are a dozen other gedcoms in "Waiting for analysis" state as well. --robert.shaw 19:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, there are now 15 GEDCOMs on hold and "waiting for analysis," stretching back three weeks. Did anyone actually notify Dallan of the problem? The last time this happened, I shot him off an email about it and the issue was resolved by the following day.--MikeTalk 01:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Please do contact Dallan directly for issues related to file import. The GEDCOM review queue requires active monitoring every day or two. There is no way (that I know of) to set up a notification that there are files waiting to be processed. Someone just has to keep checking on it. I realized about 18 mos ago that no one had really been paying attention to the queue since Sep 2015, with the exception of admins importing their own files, so I processed all of the files to bring it up to date and began doing the regular monitoring thereafter (logged here). Last month, I notified [1] the GEDCOM review committee that I wanted a break from this task, but as you can see there was no response. It is what it is... I am willing to check in on the queue occasionally, but I really do want a break from that daily/weekly responsibility. The new year came in with some bumps in the road for me, so I can no longer give WR as much time as I used to. --cos1776 01:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I did email him directly earlier this evening. We'll will miss you cos1776 and hope that road smooths out quickly. --janiejac 04:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Would anyone be willing to help monitor GEDCOM uploads?--Dallan 07:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I restarted the GEDCOM uploader. The GEDCOMs have been processed and are ready for review.--Dallan 20:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources Usage Tip [3 February 2018]

On every WR source page is the usage tip: "May be ordered through the nearest Family History Center."

This has changed. Now that FamilySearch has all their records online, records are no longer available on microfilm at Family History Libraries (and you are very lucky if you have a local one!). Can we think of an appropriate replacement for the present tip? --Goldenoldie 12:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that some of them are locked and only available online from a Family History Center or other associated library. Personally, I am quite lucky to have a big genealogy-focused library in the Kansas City area which was granted access to it all. -Moverton 16:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Too bad the text isn't in a template where it can be changed once. It probably could be deleted, or something like "Consult familysearch.org catalog for availability." I assume this message isn't used on sources that weren't derived from the catalog. --Jrich 22:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I had assumed it was a template. I don't think I have ever seen a non-FS Library Catalog source to notice if it's omitted there. But it should have been a template..... I do a lot of copying and pasting from note-holding software, but there's many a time when something on the note-holder gets converted into a WR template.

Oh well, nice thought. Regards, --Goldenoldie 08:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Donations [11 feb 2018]

I have updated the Donate page to add that grants can be made from a Donor-Advised Fund. They seem to be very popular and some users may have them. I did some formatting to keep the options from running together. --Judy (jlanoux) 17:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice ! Thank you @Judy--woepwoep 15:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Email Change [27 February 2018]

I have changed my e-mail address & it was confirmed on 13:46, 6 November 2017. However I still get messages sent to my old address. How can I make sure that all e-mail's are sent to my new address?--Pippy Oak 11:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dallan, is at RootsTech this week. He'll be able to take care this when he gets back. Thanks for your patience.--sq 17:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing but not gone [3 March 2018]

Hey everybody. Just wanted to let everyone know - I've been missing from WR because my laptop decided to stop functioning, and the weather in my part of Ohio has been particularly unpredictable for a walk to the library. Should be back to consistent contributions by April. Neal--SkippyG 19:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just hope you don't suffer major withdrawal symptons with no computer! Gayel--GayelKnott 02:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Objectionable ads [3 April 2018]

If you've been paying to eliminate ads from your pages, you don't see what the general public sees. My donation 'ran out' and I haven't re-upped so I'm seeing those ads now. Really we should have a button to push to let Dallan know when ads are 'objectionable'. The one I just saw was gross. I know we have to have ads but really . . .I know I gross out easily but I don't want any intestines or blood on 'our' site. --janiejac 21:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Most of the ads (other than MyHeritage), are chosen by Google -- and based on what other sites you have used and what they think you might be interested in (which is often a bit bizare). If you don't like a particular ad, in the upper right corner of the ad are a grey triangle, and a grey X. Click the triangle to tell Google what you think; click the X to delete that particular ad. Not sure, but this might actually affect the income for WeRelate. --GayelKnott 16:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I X'd out of another ad this morning that I thought was inaccurate and inappropriate for this site! But that ad said it was a warning that private information about living people was on the site which is not true or appropriate for a genealogy site. And it didn't even have the APPEARANCE of an ad. If I hadn't known the site well, I would have thought that it was legit warning about the site. Yikes! Just what WeRelate doesn't need - a warning against the site. --janiejac 15:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Since contributors don't see those offensive or suspicious ads, you may want to screen/print those pages, crop and save the ad portion, and post it here or send it to Dallan or Cos1776 for further review and action as appropriate at their level to see if anything can be done.
Remember that Google targets ads based on personalized search history and other marketing algorithm parameters in their effort to target markets. so be wary. --BobC 23:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Study on building online communities [2 May 2018]

Thought I would just leave this here in case it was of interest to anyone: Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-based Social Design--Jonmcrawford 14:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I found it interesting. Thank you for sharing. --cos1776 18:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WeRelate's Place in Top 100 Genealogy Websites [6 January 2019]

Just as an update to previous observations in the Watercooler archives (re "2014 Watercooler: Werelate on the rise" and "2015 Watercooler: Top 100 websites") of WeRelate's ranking in GenealogyInTime magazine's ranking of the Top 100 Genealogy Websites, here are the rankings for the last five years of available statistics:

  • 2012: 85th
  • 2013: 54th (noted that year for being one of the "Top Rising Genealogy Stars")
  • 2014: 86th
  • 2015: 79th
  • 2016: 100th

Wonder where we stand in 2017 and this year...

Do any of the number trackers or analysts have anything to add? --BobC 14:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

We're on the bubble at 100th of 100, which suggests a decline of visibility may accelerate. --robert.shaw 19:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It looks like GiT has discontinued their annual survey - which is a shame given it was always so interesting! They haven't published any new records since March, so they may be facing similar issues to WeRelate! AndrewRT 21:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I've done some work with the Top 100 list and the Alexa Ranking Tool, results of which are at User:Ceyockey/Genealogy site ranking. As noted there, based on my Alexa analysis, rank of WeRelate among Genealogy sites has increased to #45 from 2016's #100. There are caveats to this review ... which are listed on the page. --ceyockey 00:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Having trouble downloading GedCom [26 July 2018]

I'm trying to download a gedcom for one of my trees, but it doesn't seem to be working. Two different genealogy programs have said the downloaded files are not gedcoms. Can someone check to see what is happening? Thanks, Gayel --GayelKnott 19:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you'll email the GEDCOM file to me, I'll take a look at it.--Dallan 02:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

New Hampshire Provincial and State Papers — Volumes in a large government series [12 August 2018]

I'm wondering how to cite the volumes of the New Hampshire Provincial and State Papers. In WeRelate, the entire series has a source HERE. There are 40 volumes in the series. However, groups of volumes (EXAMPLE) and individual volumes (EXAMPLE) also have source pages on WeRelate. The Secretary of State of New Hampshire website has a page for all 40 volumes. On the other hand the University of New Hampshire library seems to treat them separately, although it does list them as part of the New Hampshire provincial and state papers (EXAMPLE). How should I treat a large govenmental series like this as a source? Are there precedents in other source pages? — Parsa 04:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There are many examples of such series, and most have multiple sources, either because somebody, not realizing they are part of a series, have created individual entries, or else an individual source was created and then the series added later. (The somebody is sometimes the WeRelate agent because the family search catalog used for guidance did not distinguish properly.) For example there is a source called Source:Dedham, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States. Early Records of the Town of Dedham, Massachusetts, of which
A separate example is the Boston Record Commissioners Reports, which I think are each done individually, and the series is handled as a Category, i.e., Category:Record Commissioners Reports.
I think the Mayflower Families Through 5 Generations is handled as a single source Source:General Society of Mayflower Descendants. Mayflower Families through Five Generations.
I suspect in all these cases, cleanup will be hard because the source page title and the volume number are interelated and must both be cleaned up. While I might suggest not adding too many new source pages and complicating things, I don't think it matters that much which source version of existing candidates you choose to use. --Jrich 05:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

In most cases like this, I suggest citing the most specific source. One reason for this is that some repository catalogs (or web pages available by internet searches) may only identify the work by the specific title, omitting the series name. Thus having the more specific work information will allow the reader the greatest chance of finding the work for access. Additionally, being more specific often gives the citation reader a better feel for that nature of the referenced information, e.g. Dedham church records vs. Dedham records.

Ideally the citation will also identify the series as well, as that may provide an access path (as via the N.H. Secretary of State above). Series identification can lead to confusion, though, especially as to volumes. For example, volume XXVII of the New Hampshire Provincial and State Papers mentioned above, is also volume IV of the Town Charters subseries, and volume I of the Masonian Papers subseries. Care in citation can help with that. Another thing to note is that some volumes of a "series" may in some contexts not even mention or be identified with the series. For instance, the first volume of the Dedham series Jrich mentions does not mention any series on the original title page (and confusingly mentions "Volumes 1 & 2", probably referring to the physical volumes of the original Town Records). Similarly, "volume 2", church records, does not have any series or volume reference on the title page. The last of the five volumes of this "series" was published fifty years after the first. The term "series" can be used very loosely. --robert.shaw 19:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Search Google books for "Early Records of Dedham" and you get volume 1 (at least I do, perhaps google knows what I want based on my past history). WorldCat also has several entries for Early Records of the Town of Dedham, Massachusetts ([2]). Series may be defined loosely but unless someone defines hard and fast objective criteria for what a series is, it will be a series to some even if not a series to you.
It is true that the title of Volume 1 does indeed refer to volume 1 and volume 2 of the original town record. Film of the original record appear to be online, (p. 1 of Vol. 1), but only a copy of the second book seems to be available (here). Use of the originals should be cited as Source:Dedham, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States. Births, Intentions, Marriages, Deaths, 1635-1853, partly necessitated because it implies a different page numbering, the one used by the original town records, as opposed to the published version.
It is probably generally true that the specific titles tend to be more descriptive. This is one of the reasons the Boston Commissioner Reports were set up as a category as a way to collect existing sources into a series. It is also generally true that a person citing a source may not be familiar enough with it to know much more than is on the title page, i.e., they may not understand it is part of a series. All they know if they have one book (physically or virtually) in front of them and generally the title page is the official description. But you also have problems like above where the Source Title isn't long enough to include the distinguishing part of the title (Book 3 or Book 5) and so ends up being ambiguous. It is also true that there are many references to sources via existing Source pages that treat the whole series as one source and use the appropriate volume numbers so two different citations could actually refer to the same thing if specific titles are now used.
Both styles probably describe a source well enough to enable someone to find it and verify the contents. The question is whether this is ever-going to get cleaned up and what should be done in the meantime that might not make that cleanup worse. --Jrich 20:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Even looking at some of the sub-series in the New Hampshire State Papers one sometimes sees quite different titles on the title pages. The situation seems pretty similar to the Boston Record Commissioners Reports, so I'll probably follow that format and create a category. A few of the sub-series should naturally go together as a source such as the Probate Records sub-series. — Parsa 05:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm back (more or less) [20 August 2018]

Hi fellow WeRelaters ! Though I don't have my new laptop yet (any day now), technically I'm back on a nearly day to day basis. Since I took my leave, I've moved to the center of the Ohio city where I reside; 1 block from the county courthouse, 2 blocks from the county Archives and 4 or 5 from the library with a good-sized genealogy collection. Luckily my apartment building, an old converted Hotel built in the late 1800s with a rich history, has a computer room with few users. Glad to be back contributing, making discoveries and errors from which I usually learn something. Regards to all... Neal --SkippyG 21:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)(SkippyG)

Welcome back, Neal!--DataAnalyst 00:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Excessive Commas [9 September 2018]

When typing a placename, why do so many users add two commas between the parts of the name (sometimes with a space in between, sometimes without)? (i.e. “Exeter,,Devon,England” or “Manchester, , Lancashire, England” or “Dover, Kent, , England” or ",,,England") What did they expect to put between the commas? Or is this some quirk of a particular family tree software program?

Apologies for using only examples in England, but these are the types I see most of the time. Would we manage to prevent it by a paragraph in the Help>Places section?

--Goldenoldie 09:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think users are manually entering places that way. The "problem" of how to structure place names has been around in genealogy software for a long time. The extra commas are usually the result of a software programs that inserts them in an attempt to keep some sort of "town, county, state, country" structure, especially if there are separate data entry fields for each part of the place name. If a user leaves a field blank, the program has no value to place between the commas, so it appears as a double comma. This place name format then comes into WeRelate when the user uploads their gedcom file. Hope that makes sense. Regards, --cos1776 11:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Long, long ago this way of formatting places was recommended (by LDS church, originators of the GEDCOM standard and the de facto authority at the time). Early software I seem to remember had four fields for places (one jurisdiction each), each one recommended to be used for a particular type of jurisdiction, e.g. the third one for state or province. Usage recommendations and software have pretty much moved on from that style, but data has remained in this format.
A comma directly after another comma represents a jurisdiction level where either the name of the jurisdiction wasn't known or there is no jurisdiction at that level for a particular place. The latter case looks to me to be the case in some of your examples in England, as I don't know of any legal jurisdiction between city and shire/county. On the other hand, ",,,England" simply represents that a more specific place wasn't known.
I checked the last version of the now discontinued PAF program, and although it supports more flexible (and ambiguous) place grouping, I see that its search function allows searching by place level (1-4), and parenthetically gives the description of the levels as "City, County, State, Country". Thus both "Chicago, , Illinois, USA" and "Chicago, Cook, Illinois, USA" represent the same place. Note however, that in common usage today "Los Angeles, California" is ambiguous, as it could refer to the city or the county of Los Angeles (which has many cities). In the old style, these could be distinguished, respectively, as "Los Angeles, , California" and ", Los Angeles, California". In both usages "Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California" is unambiguous, but without the structured level approach one must use "Los Angeles County" for the county (if that is the most specific known place) and always use "Los Angeles, Los Angeles" for the city.
There's more discussion of the issues at https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/1975/how-should-place-names-be-recorded --robert.shaw 18:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

fyi - FREE access New York State Birth Index, 1881-1942 [17 September 2018]

Reclaim The Records wins the New York State Birth Index, 1881-1942
Enjoy! --cos1776 11:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding Source:New York, United States. Birth Index, 1881-1942. -Moverton 18:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Domesday Book alt names [9 November 2018]

Name Kenninghall

Alt namesChenighehalasource: Domesday Book (1985) p 191
Chenikehalasource: Domesday Book (1985) p 191
Cheninchalasource: Domesday Book (1985) p 191
Cheninghalasource: Domesday Book (1985) p 191
Cheninkenhalasource: Domesday Book (1985) p 191
Kenehalasource: Domesday Book (1985) p 191
Kenichalasource: Domesday Book (1985) p 191
Keninchalasource: Domesday Book (1985) p 191
Keninghalasource: Domesday Book (1985) p 191
Keninghehalasource: Domesday Book (1985) p 191
Kenmohalasource: Domesday Book (1985) p 191

Is anyone ever going to find it useful to know all these variations for a parish so small that in the 11 years that WeRelate has existed no one has ever provided a description? Few of us attempt to trace their family history back to 1500 and even fewer can do so with accuracy. Why list a series like this from a condensed reproduction of a book originally written in 1086?

--Goldenoldie 06:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

On a related note....I see that the various misspellings for "Massachusetts" have been added as "Alt". Doesn't this mean that all these incorrect spellings will be displayed "as if" correct ? Really don't think WR should promote spelling errors. Neal--SkippyG 19:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

One of the uses of the alternate names on place pages is to match places in imported GEDCOMs to the correct place page. It's not an ideal situation, but common misspellings help us match GEDCOM places place pages. The alternate names are listed as "common misspellings"; any thoughts on how we can satisfy both goals?--Dallan 05:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Does the GEDCOM import system not take advantage of redirects to find the correct place page? If it did, they could be redirects instead of alt names. -Moverton 16:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
In updating English place pages I always consider whether alt names should be made into redirects. It is very frustrating when this leads to discovering two (or more) places in one county with identical or nearly identical names. At this point I rename both places, relating them to another place nearby--Alphington, Devon, England, now Alphington (by Exeter), Devon, England has just come up. I also add a warning note at the top of each renamed place page. --Goldenoldie 20:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata and Gedcom creation [20 December 2018]

Wondering whether anyone has attempted to programmatically create a GEDCOM file from Wikidata to support mass import of wikipedia person information info WeRelate? It seems like a perfectly doable thing, but I didn't want to start down the road if, in fact, this was being pursued by others. --02:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC) [posted by 18:48, 14 December 2018 Ceyockey ]

I hope you're kidding. Most of what I see in wikidata is simply a reference to wikipedia and Find a Grave, both notoriously spotty sources. The only relationships I see are a link to wikitree which then gives the family. Hard to imagine loading wikidata will be able to grab the actual sources cited on the wikpedia or wikitree page and convert them to WeRelate sources, and they are often webpages of the type discouraged here. Calling anything like this "perfectly doable" indicates there is no plan to do the time-consuming page-by-page integration with existing WeRelate data, but a blind dump. No thanks. --Jrich 06:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Jrich that a data dump (or "mass import" as you call it) from Wikidata would not only NOT benefit WeRelate much, but would cause such a tremendous clean-up of extraneous data unrelated to and unhelpful with genealogy research here that it might be enough make WeRelate become totally useless and unsupportable.
On the other hand, I support the use of select Wikidata sources and info pages themselves as a cross reference to WeRelate pages, and we already have a way to do that here. I suggest you review this technique at the Assertion Help Page showing how to reference a Wikidata page or it's associated source reference statement to the matching WeRelate page. The matching WeRelate page can also be added to the Wikidata page and its data statements as a cross-referenced identifier for further research there as well. I have done that for a few select pages here that I am interested in and am following.
If you do that, please keep in mind that the Wikidata pages themselves should not be treated as legitimate "sources," but rather should be looked at as collections of statements and references or compilations of sources and other collections.
Good luck. --BobC 00:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and concerns. Don't worry. I'll not wreak the place. :-) --ceyockey 01:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Twins, triplets, etc. [10 March 2019]

Has there been any fields, routines or categories added which help to document or highlight twins, triplets, etc? --ceyockey 01:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Uncertain Maiden Names [4 March 2019]

Hello. I've created a category and matching template to highlight people (women) for whom it is unclear whether their preferred name here on WeRelate is her maiden / birth name or her married name.

Regards --ceyockey 17:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Would be interested in having people weigh in on whether they think this is a good idea or a waste or something in between. Thanks. --ceyockey 03:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are expecting it to be helpful? In documenting that a maiden name is unknown, it would be useful to review things you have ruled out, what you know, so providing standard text on the page may save some time, it is not very complete. For example, Person:Lilly Yockey (1), did you look her up in the censuses from 1870-1940 to find out where she was from and lived, and with whom she lived, and search for marriage records. And what is anybody going to do with the category? I don't see how this is any different than a person whose parents aren't known, persons for whom there are no sources, etc., in terms of being an opportunity to contribute research. And most pro-bono research going on seems to be focused on cleaning up old Gedcoms, anyway. --Jrich 04:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikpedia template updates [4 March 2019]

Hi. What is the trigger(s) which result in updating of content of the Wikipedia content templates? For instance, https://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Wp-Francis_Parker_Yockey&action=history , which shows last update in April 2015? I was considering updating it manually, but didn't want to break any automated process in place. Thanks. --ceyockey 13:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia templates update weekly. If I remember correctly, they intentionally select only the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry.--DataAnalyst 15:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually I thought Dallan had to hand-start it. I page through Contributions for WeRelate agent back through June 2018 with out seeing any wikipedia activity and a quick search for a bunch of wp-templates modified on the same day suggests it hasn't run since 5 Mar 2017? --Jrich 17:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

---I believe Jrich is correct. The details in many "place" entries taken from Wikipedia are out of date. For instance, about 2015 Wikipedia contributors were encouraged to update populations in the UK from 2001 census data to 2011 census data. Many of these have now changed in Wikipedia but remain the same in WeRelate. --Goldenoldie 19:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I just did an 'empty edit' on the template that I brought up as an example above. If that triggers an update, good. I'll let you know if it shows up on my watchlist. --ceyockey 20:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It used to be that "new" additions of wp templates were updated on Sunday morning, adding the content for the first time, but I think pulling updated content was generally manual.--Amelia 00:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless Dallan can tell it to just do one type, I think the bot usually updates both kinds. Some have references to items outside the scope of what is copied and those templates tend to re-break every time leaving big red text in the middle of the copied text, e.g., see this history. --Jrich 02:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Dallan confirmed that updating is a manual process and asked if we wanted him to do it. I said yes, assuming that was the intent behind this posting. I assume that some templates will break again, but it appears to be the only way to get updates.--DataAnalyst 01:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"A manual process" ... does that mean that the bot just needs to be started manually? Would it be possible for Dallan to invest some others in the community to be able to trigger the bot so that it is not dependent upon him alone? By the way - I'm not very concerned with wikipedia content pull being out of date; such content is a nice to have here rather than an essential. In fact, I'm of the opinion that a link should be sufficient; however, the licensing model of Wikipedia is definitely compatible with the bot-based replication. --ceyockey 03:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Disappearing uploaded GEDCOM? [25 March 2019]

Okay, twice yesterday I uploaded the same small GEDCOM (~85 people) for review. And both times, it appeared on the "GEDCOM Review" list, just as it should -- and then, an hour or two later, it simply disappeared off the list, never to be seen again. So I uploaded a different GEDCOM. Same thing. Anyone have any idea what's going on? --MikeTalk 10:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to follow up. It turns out that I broke the GEDCOM uploader when I started the wikipedia update yesterday. Since the wikipedia update takes several days to complete, I'd like to let that complete. When it does, I will turn GEDCOM import back on again.--WeRelate agent 23:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not in a rush. It's just good to know what happened, and that it will end before too long. God knows, I've got plenty of stuff pending to fill up the meantime. --MikeTalk 23:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Endogamous Common Ancestors [27 March 2019]

I would be interested in hearing about this subject. Perhaps you already know it, but it is labeled differently. Here is a short text presenting it.

Endogamous Common Ancestors A complement to Most Recent Common Ancestor

Endogamous Common Ancestors are groups of people in which loose endogamy is common over long periods. Loose endogamy is less visible than strict endogamy (e.g. marrying a direct cousin). It was certainly common practice in regions where strict endogamy was prohibited. One major factor was distance. Most people were living at throwing distance from their place of birth and moved further only when obliged to. There were people leaving or joining a group on a regular basis, but most marriages were among in-group members. This situation fits a significant part of human history. That is how DNA companies identify groups (e.g. migrants communities). But it is also possible to identify it in genealogies. Collaborating allows to develop genealogies of places, including sub-groups.

This concept is especially useful at the crossroad of genealogy and genetics. In genealogy, one finds a Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) with somebody else if both made their homework. It works well for the first generations. In genetics, one is connected to unknown people, sometimes living at the opposite side of the world. Finding MRCA with these people is always tedious and often unsuccessful.

If people could exchange Endogamous Common Ancestors (ECA), it would make further research much easier. For instance, I have two groups of ECA from different regions (there might be others).--Jpictet 10:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking for famous (?) people [16 May 2019]

I was looking for the formal way of linking Queen Victoria to the parish of Crathie and Braemar, where Balmoral Castle is located. In "Search" I entered Victoria under First Name and gave the Keyword "queen". Finally found her at #17 on the list! So much for the importance of Keywords.

By the way, Queen Victoria (1819-1901) was never Queen of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom didn't exist until 1927. --Goldenoldie 14:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia shows the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland existed from 1801 to 1927, when it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the current formal name). --robert.shaw 06:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
A keyword only asks "is this word anywhere on the page in any context?" And I think it uses the raw representation, so this is probably before inclusions? Then the matches are ordered. So all 16 ordered before it had victoria in the given name and queen as part of the page title (as does Queen Victoria), ones following do not. So clearly being in the page title counts more than being elsewhere on the page. I would guess the next sort has to do with length of the page title (shortest first, the thought presumably being that this means less of the name is unasked for, making it a closer to an exact match). Queen Victoria's page title, taken from the wikipedia page AT THE TIME THIS PAGE WAS CREATED, is longer than the 16 names in front of it so sorted after them. (wikipedia has since changed the title of their page, our title a vestigal side-effect what they used to use, probably yet another reason not to build such close associations with wikipedia). --Jrich 20:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I was looking for a method to bring the result up higher in the search results listing and found that searching 'all' with the title value "Queen Victoria" returned no results, even when unrestrictive using the 'partial' parameter. This doesn't seem right ... or is it to be expected? --ceyockey 03:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

When I search the All namespace, I don't see a field for "Title", so I don't understand what you did. Were you in the Article Namespace? If I search the All Namespace (it also works if I search just the Person Namespace) and I put Queen and Victoria, both words, into the given Name field, it comes up first in the list. Not sure why this is so, because on the page, Queen is actually in the Title field, not the Given Name field? If I put "Queen Victoria" in the keyword field instead, in quotes to indicate I want the phrase, it comes up third. I can search the Person Namespace as the original search did (Victoria in given name, and queen in keyword), but add any detail, even the ridiculously simple ones that the birth or death place is England, and it came up first. I'm not sure what this is all driving at, anyway. --Jrich 05:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The search engine considers prefix as part of the first name and suffix as part of the last name. --cos1776 01:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Search All [16 May 2019]

This is what I see (using Firefox).



However, if I start on a different search, then use the namespace dropdown, this is what I see - very different, but likely what you see:


--ceyockey 01:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I use firefox. Yeah I see the second one when I do a search all, haven't been able to get the first one. Author and title and "Covers" appear to come from the source search? --Jrich 02:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)