Menu
- Home
- Search▼
- List▼
- Add▼
- My Relate▼
- Admin▼
ViewsWatchers |
[add comment] [edit] Archived single-topic discussions ending in 2009[add comment] [edit] Update on merge statistics [28 July 2009]Just a quick update on merging: as of last night, nearly 15,000 merges have taken place since October 14th (in addition to several hundred before then), resulting in roughly 18,000 families and 40,000 people being merged. Approximately 100 people have performed at least one merge and 19 have performed over 100 merges. Of those, 6 people have performed 500-1000 merges: Amelia.Gerlicher (665), CTfrog (568), Jillaine (694), LSnellgrove (540), Scot (523), and Susan Irish (883), and 3 people have performed over 1000 merges: Bergsmit (1719), JBS66 (1532), and Jrm03063 (4546 merges). Great job everyone! I'm busily working on the new GEDCOM upload process with merge-during-upload. I expect to have it ready around the end of next week.--Dallan 10:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] 13 February updateAs of right now, approximately 18,500 merges have taken place. Twenty-one people have now performed over 100 merges. Of those, 5 people have performed 500-1000 merges: Amelia.Gerlicher (665+35=700), CTfrog (568+35=603), Jillaine (694+31=725), LSnellgrove (540+156=696), Scot (523), and 4 people have now performed over 1000 merges: Bergsmit (1719+1434=3153), JBS66 (1532+62=1594), Jrm03063 (4546+539=5085), and Susan Irish (883+452=1335). Thank you everyone! [add comment] [edit] 8 April update [8 April 2009]Here's an (overdue) update: Approximately 26,400 merges have taken place since Oct 14 last year, resulting in nearly 80,000 people being merged! 147 people have performed at least one merge, with 25 people performing over 100. Of those, 6 people have performed 500-1000 merges: Amelia.Gerlicher (988), CTfrog (617), [[User:Delijim|Delijim] (919) welcome to the list! Jillaine (839), LSnellgrove (706), Scot (523), and 4 people have performed over 1000 merges: Bergsmit (5658), JBS66 (2636), Jrm03063 (5864), and Susan Irish (2207). Great job everyone!
[add comment] [edit] 27 May update [27 May 2009]Here's another update: Approximately 33,000 merges have taken place since Oct 14 last year, resulting in over 100,000 people being merged! 159 people have performed at least one merge, with 25 people performing over 100. Of those, 3 people have performed 500-1000 merges:
and 9 people have now performed over 1000 merges:
Thank you everyone! The number of duplicate families has dropped by 33% since April 8th, from 21,000 to 14,000! [add comment] [edit] 28 July update [28 July 2009]Nearly 5,000 additional merges have taken place in the past two months, resulting in approximately 15,000 people being merged! 17 more people have performed at least one merge (not counting the merging during gedcom uploads that is taking place), and 5 more people have performed over 100 merges:
The number of duplicate families has dropped by over 20% since May 27th, from 14,000 to 11,000! THANK YOU to everyone participating in this project! --Dallan 11:34, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Blank Page on Merge Candidate [1 January 2009]On my list of potential duplicates, I have this link: When *I* pull it up, I get a blank page. Help, please. jillaine 12:20, 21 December 2008 (EST)
jillaine 12:38, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Something is wrong with the compare screen I think. I'll fix this when I return on Thursday.
[add comment] [edit] Adding pages to my Watchlist [24 February 2009]I recently linked my family line to an established line on WeRelate. I had been Watching my line, but when I linked to the established line I am not automatically watching the new ancestors. The same problem happens with my trees (new lines are not added to my tree), but I'm not worrying about that too much since I know trees are probably going to be replaced. Is there a method I'm missing about how to add this new line of ancestry to my watch list, or do I need to add each page manually?--Jennifer (JBS66) 11:44, 29 December 2008 (EST)
There's no way to do it right now. I'm working on a couple of approaches for the future. One is a way for you to at least see which Person/Family pages you are watching link to Person/Family pages you are not watching. Another is to include an option when you add a Person/Family to your watchlist to add all direct-line ancestors as well. I'm not sure the direct-line ancestors option would be sufficient. I could also add option to include the children of direct-line ancestors. However, this quickly becomes a slippery-slope with more and more complex options: also include the spouses of those children, and maybe also the direct-line ancestors of the spouses. My question is, if you had an option to include all direct-line ancestors of a person, what other options along these lines (if any) would you want)?--Dallan 14:54, 29 December 2008 (EST) I just finished a new special page that should help: Select "Trees" from the "MyRelate" menu, and then click on "related pages". This will show you a list of pages not in your tree that pages in your tree link to. Choose a namespace of Person or Family to see just people or families. You can then decide which of these pages to add to your tree. I noticed that I had failed to respond to the above question. I would like to be able to tag/tree all direct-line ancestors of a person. By this, I mean all of the people that would appear on a pedigree chart. I know that I can add them individually through FTE, but I want to be able to take an entire line from a certain point and then send that line to a relative for them to watch. I am less interested in including children or other spouses of ancestors. Currently, I have relative that may be interested in participating with WeRelate, but I have no clear-cut way to provide them with a tree that begins from their vantage point.--Jennifer (JBS66) 08:31, 24 February 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Request for Brick Wall "code" [3 January 2008]Yesterday, I started drafting a "brick wall" template for separate pages that people could use to post and share "brick wall" challenges. Then I slept on it and woke up with a better idea: What about a {{brickwall}} code that you can use to tag certain pages (people or otherwise), that then generates a Special:Brickwalls page that is available for all people to peruse. Once the brick wall is solved, then you simply remove the {{brickwall}} code from said page. I suppose an alternative would be to use a Category:Brickwall. Would that accomplish the same thing? jillaine 08:02, 30 December 2008 (EST) I read your comment but I was a little confused. What problem are you trying to solve? Are you trying to create a list where people can advertise their brick walls? Is a user expected to browse this page listing potentially thousands of various brick walls, and from the summary listed, pick one and work on them to help other people? Personally, I don't suspect such a list will accomplish much. If a user knows something, they probably uploaded it in their GEDCOM and you got notified. If they don't known anything, knowing that person represents one of your brick walls is not all that interesting to them. So the only situation this appears to address is the user who has the information, but is disinclined to input it. I would guess that this person may also be disinclined to scan the list. I think one can accomplish just as much by adding a simple comment to the Talk page or Personal History section about what is known, what dead ends have been pursued, etc. A person sharing a research interest in a person will scan the page and see the comment. It will be much more obvious in this situation whether they can help, and this is likely to be the type of person that will actually get involved. --Jrich 11:07, 30 December 2008 (EST) Once we had a "Help Needed" category. The idea was that people could add pages to this category if they needed help. We eventually removed it due to lack of use, both from people putting pages into the category but more-so from a lack of people browsing the category. I think a comment in the personal history section of the page is a better idea.--Dallan 19:53, 3 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] How to merge pages not in list? [31 December 2008]Hello All, I am back again. I am trying to locate my duplicates. I found two pages that I need to merge. They are not in the new list though. I tried to look for the current instructions on how to merge these pages. No luck. They are the same person. So how do I now merge Person page: Fanny Williams (21) to Fanny Williams (19)? Thanks DFree --DFree 21:08, 30 December 2008 (EST) Hello All, Sorry! I think I figured it out. You can disregard this message. Thanks DFree--DFree 21:16, 30 December 2008 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Status of the Digital Library? [16 January 2009]What is the status of the digital library? I keep seeing references to it, and I managed to find it, but a) it had a title that made it look like it was not part of werelate, but part of an African project or organization b) when I attempted to login, it did not recognize me. It told me to use my werelate pwd, which I did, and it would only bounce me to the werelate.org login screen no matter how many times I tried. I could get into werelate just fine, but not the DL. made me think it's not ready for prime time yet. THnks. jillaine 13:26, 2 January 2009 (EST) I havn't added anything to it for a while, but I did put a couple of PDFs in when it rolled out. They are each associated with werelate source pages and I just looked them up successfully. You can take a look at Epsom New Hampshire Cemetery Book, and transit the link to the copy in the digital library. You'll see a page that indicates that you're in the Low-Country Africana project digital library (which may not be correct), but you'll also see a link for the PDF file. I just hit it and saw the content as I would have hoped.--Jrm03063 13:36, 2 January 2009 (EST) I created the digital library last Summer for Africana Heritage. I plan at some point to integrate it into WeRelate, but other things have had higher priority. Realistically, integrating it into WeRelate probably won't happen for maybe another year. Long-term, the goal of the digital library is to be a place where genealogical societies can host their materials on-line for free. Each society would be able to provide their own colors and logo. Currently it doesn't have the capability to give every society different colors and logos, but Africana Heritage is the only society using the website so we just went with their colors and logo for the entire site. Earlier I had also thought about the digital library being a place where people could upload source documents and images, but recently I've been thinking that it might instead be simpler to extend the wiki software to allow this: have MySource pages link to the images or documents involved.--Dallan 19:53, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I had a couple of PDF files that I uploaded and linked to corresponding werelate sources. There is some question however, as to whether there's value in having different ways/places to archive stuff. From the site's perspective, disk is disk so who cares? I do wonder though, whether key reference material needs more protection than a wiki would directly offer. I sort of figured that the digital library existed to provide that. On the other hand, that's a pretty narrow reason to continue to support the software for a whole site. I guess whatever is easiest/cheapest to maintain.--Jrm03063 12:39, 16 January 2009 (EST) I plan to continue to run the digital library for genealogical societies who want to upload material, so it's not going to be just for individuals who want to use it. What the library has going for it that the wiki does not is the ability to grant various types of access to specific indidivuals for specific collections. So a genealogical society could specify who could upload to their collections, who monitors uploaded items and reject/approve them before they're published, who gets to view their collections, etc. It would be difficult to modify the wiki to fill that need. But it wouldn't be difficult to modify the wiki to say that only the owner of the MySource page could edit it, or only the original image uploader could upload a new version, or to add the ability to upload PDF's. So lately I've been thinking that for most people, rather than asking them to learn a new system (the digital library), it may be easier for them if I made a few tweaks to the wiki. I don't know for sure; I'm still thinking about this. But the digital library will certainly be there.--Dallan 13:36, 16 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] We should discuss Rev. Carter (page naming) [19 January 2009]One of the pages in my Watchlist got its name changed to Person:Rev. Thomas Carter of Woburn (1). The justification was that there were several Thomas Carters in colonial times that were confused. On one hand, this makes this Thomas readily identifiable and it has a nice appealing user-friendly quality. We also already have non-conventional page titles for royalty and others with no last name (the Wikipedia title rule). But on the other hand, this rather drastically changes the rules for "normal" people and substitutes a judgement call for a hard and fast rule. The point of the (1) behind the name in the first place is to distinguish between people of the same name (making the (1) here redundant). And this change could be applied to many people for many reasons. Person:Steven Cleveland (1) should be renamed Person:President Grover Cleveland, for instance. And while this might even be fairly easy to decide for most men, what do we do with people not famous by their birth name (like many women)? A genealogy site really should not start referring to women by their married names, but that would be the name by which many famous women are most readily identifiable. So rather than have people doing this under the radar, I thought such a drastic change should at least appear here for discussion.--Amelia 14:13, 2 January 2009 (EST)
An interesting question. Definitely understand the need to be able to associate a particular article with a specific individual in a way that others can immediately see whose being discussed. "By names" (of which honorifics like "Rev." are an example) are a great way to do this, but can lead to problems. I've seen them used on other genealogy wiki's, but don't think the experiment worked very well---made it hard for search engines, and the like to locate articles, etc. And since by their nature "bynames" are often arbitrary, they don't provide that much of a cue except to those already well versed in the family history. My since is that they basically end up cluttering up the title with minimal advantage---better a simple title than a complex one. Part of the problem might be alleviated in other ways---in particular, I can think of some improvements to the search function that would help resolve this. The recent improvements to this function were very very helpful, but there's still some room for improvement. For example, currently, if you are searching for a particular name (e.g., "Hugh Linn") you'll get a list that's ordered by a criteria that's not (I think) optimum. In the Hugh Linn example, what you get are entries for
followed by
What you don't get is
Or what I should say is, you get it buried deep down in the 3000+ list of entries. What's happening is that the search engine is prioritizing on "Hugh", and only secondarily looking at "Linn". Needs to be the otherway around, perhaps. No arrangement is going to be fully satisfactory. There are always going to be combinations where useful results get buried deeply. The hazards of a search engine. But I suspect that focusing on the surname as the first priority will be of more use to more people. (Interesting enough, the current version also pulls up first "Hugh Linn (1)" even if you search on the "Lynn" spelling---but the actual spelling sought ("Lynn") is buried deeply in the sort list. I believe this would help solve the problem at hand by simply making it easier to find matches for specific names. Something else that might help is to have a more compact display of search results. as it stands a search yields a substantial amount of information (good), but the information is displayed across multiple lines. For example
If you are lucky that your target comes up early on in the listing (by no means assured, unless you are explicitly searching for "Hugh MacLean"), but if you search on something a bit away from that (e.g., "Hugh McLean")---and "Hugh MacLean" would be buried deep. What would help here is if the information was arrayed on a single line. Then you would get many more entries on a single page, making scanning those entries much easier. Would not fully eliminate the problem, but would simplify things a bit. Also, if the data for each entry were ordered left to right (rather than vertically), then you could more quickly compare different entries to see which was the best fit. Hard to get all of that into a single line. Ancestry solves that problem by giving you fewer data elements to work with. Even so, I htink their approach works fairly well. Q 12:18, 10 January 2009 (EST)
There is a field for adding a title already, and "of Woburn" can be somewhat arbitrary. Some people commonly referred to as "of xxx" sometimes were neither born nor died there. Thus I think this kind of title is a mistake. If people don't already know enough about Rev. Thomas Carter of Woburn to recognize them by birth and death, perhaps Rev. of Woburn won't help much either. Also when do you stop? For those individuals that are differentiated by their spouse or father, do we start saying, "Abigail Smith, spouse of John Adams", etc.? Or see the excerpt from Source:The Libby family in America, 1602-1881 about the trouble identifying all the John Libbys in Maine. At some point, you have to break down and read the page, and trying to ensure that the title provides a complete identification is probably not an acheivable goal. --Jrich 14:54, 2 January 2009 (EST)
While I hate the convention, I've seen wikipedia use forms like <name> (born <year>), <name> (died <year>), and <name> (<year>-<year>). I've also observed the practice, for "wikipedia" people, of naming the werelate page as it appears in wikipedia. My thinking is that the werelate page (and preferred name) should go by the name most commonly used in the available research (wikipedia being pretty common). We can fall back to general conventions when there aren't existing or line-specific naming conventions for folks. For example, a line I've worked on has three men named John Tuttle, the first being father of the second and the second being father of the third. For whatever reason, they did not refer to themselves as Sr, Jr., and II in their time (at least not in any consistent way), so applying it after the fact isn't quite right. No one even knows the name of the first John Tuttle's parents, so who knows if it would be proper to call him Sr.? In the genealogical references published subsequently, some disambiguating short-hand terms have come into common use. "John Tuttle", or "Shipwreck John" for the first (ironically, even though there is only a family tradition - and no proof - that the first John Tuttle was a survivor of the Angel Gabriel wreck). "Judge John" for the second, and "Ensign John" for the third (even though Judge John Tuttle was once an ensign and was referred to by that title in some contemporary documents). In any case, folks with any familiarity with the research on this line are clear on what is meant by "Shipwreck John", "Judge John" and "Ensign John". Not sure whether either of these will help in this situation, but I'm a strong believer in collective good faith best judgement, so don't worry if what you do at least makes sense to you!--Jrm03063 15:41, 2 January 2009 (EST) Here are a few additional thoughts:
--Dallan 19:53, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Upon further discussion, line specific names may not be a great choice after all. If a name isn't unique enough to stand on it's own as a wikipedia page, then it probably doesn't rate as a special name in werelate. If, on the other hand, there is a special name recognized for the person in wikipedia, we don't have to discuss the issue further because we want to follow that convention rather than introduce another. I've spent so much time lately with medieval nobility, it's starting to feel like everybody is the earl or duke of something....or maybe, the duke of earl!--Jrm03063 21:03, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Okay, I think it's possible that my newbieness may have been at fault/play here. So understanding how certain things work would help me figure out how best to address my concern. We have
I think I had assumed that #1 = #2 by default. And I think this is still the case when the page is first created: the page title (#1) uses the information in #2. But later you can go back and "rename" a page which will change #1 without changing #2. This was not exactly clear to me for awhile. So what I need to know is when are each of #1 and #2 used?
What else do I need to understand about the distinction between #1 and #2 in terms of how used on WeRelate? And having revisited all this again after a week or more "off", I'm still really liking having the distinctions between the early Thomas Carters of Massachusetts clearly visible at the top of the page. Just sayin'... -- jillaine 17:51, 10 January 2009 (EST)
I just wanted to add a couple of observations. In doing my husband's Dutch genealogy, there are no official surnames before 1811. They followed the system of patronymics, taking their father's name as their last name. So, I can have many people with the same name, within the same generation, and along ancestral lines. Let me provide an example: Halbe Halbesma (in this case, they did have a surname).
Well, I did start a separate topic here about the Search engine, but the more I get into this, reading all your responses, as well as the discussion started by Q about his disambiguation tables, the more I realize that we should come to agreement about the purposes of the various fields. Because I think we're all working from different definitions and expectations of how that field is used. Coming to a shared agreement (if possible) about the purpose of these fields, could answer the question (I think) about the Reverend Thomas Carters of werelate. Let's start with PERSON pages. 1. Page Title, which until someone tells me otherwise, initially draws from Given Name + Surname. (Does it also add Prefix and Suffix if they are filled out?). One can then go back to the page, and change the Page Title to something separate and unique from the Given/Surname set of fields.
2. Surname Field. 3. Given name field.
4. Prefix 5. Suffix
I look forward to discussing this with you all. jillaine 14:26, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Interestingly enough, when I used the "Add" function and gave "John Jacob" as the first name, and Smith as the surname, the page came out "John Smith (801). [I will not be doing a disambiguation page for "John Smith"]. The middle name got completely lost in the page TITLE, but under the left hand sidebar, under "person Information" his name appeared correctly, as "John Jacob Smith".
In anycase, how the search engine would handle these two creations of "John Jacob Smith" has its interesting features. If you search "John Jacob Smith", with "unwatched" checked, and "exact match" not require you get a listing of 20K worth of hits John Smith's---I assume that Jacob is in there someplace very deep, but I'm not going to go through 30K entries to check that. If you search for "John Smith" with "unwatched" checked---you get a listing that looks similar to the one for "John Jacob smith"---but with about 23K worth of hist. If I do those searches with "watched" checked you get a shorter listing of 29, but John Jacob Smith in any form doesn't appear. Possibly there's a lag time before new pages appear in the indexing system. Q 17:01, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Here are the purposes of the various fields as I see them:
In searches, the given name and surname fields are searched, for both the primary as well as alternate names. The title prefix and suffix fields are not searched, although I could add searching the title prefix field for searches on givenname, and add searching the title suffix field for searches on surname, so a search of
would sort the John Carter with a title-prefix of Reverend and a title-suffix of Sr to the top. Let me know if this would help you. In addition, pages with the searched-for given name and surname in the title are sorted higher than those without. This is to handle the case where you're searching for say Ann Smith and you'd like people with a given name of Ann to sort before people with a middle name of Ann. (This was a request last year.) Since the page title is supposed to contain just the person's first givenname, pages with Ann in the title sort higher. This also explains why "H. Lynn (1)" sorted so low. If this page were renamed to "Hugh Lynn (##)" it would sort higher in searches for Hugh. In case the name you're searching for is spelled slightly differently, unless you've specified to return exact matches only, pages with similar names also appear in search results, although they're sorted lower than pages whose names match exactly. Similar is defined as related names that appear on the Givenname or Surname wiki page for common names, or names that are spelled similarly for uncommon names (using double-metaphone, which is similar to soundex). So people named "Jonathan" or "Jahn" are returned in searches on "John". Search results display both the title (in big letters) and the primary name (in smaller letters underneath the title). The primary name includes the title prefix, given name field (which can include the first given as well as middle names), surname field, and title suffix. I have thought about displaying the primary name in big letters in place of the title for people. This would be inconsistent with how other pages are displayed (pages in other namespaces display the title in big letters) so I haven't done it. I could though. The issue with displaying search results in a row-and-column format is it doesn't work very well when results come from different namespaces. Articles for example don't have birthdates. Also, if you include keywords in your search then you'd like to see the context of matching keywords in the page text, which doesn't fit well in a narrow column. Replacing the title with the person's full name would allow more search results to fit in the same vertical space. If we display the person's primary name in big letters instead of the title for Person pages, we could also display the person's birth and death dates in big letters after the name, which would make those two fields easier to see, but give a slightly more cluttered results page. Let me know if you would like to see those two fields after the name in big letters in place of the page title. There is a lag of about an hour between the time that you create/edit a page and the time that it will appear in the search results screen. If the page is listed in the list of your recent edits on the left, it hasn't been indexed yet. Once it disappears from that list, it's been indexed. The primary name (title prefix, given names, surname, and title suffix) appears at the upper-left corner of the Person page. When you're comparing people for merging, both the page title and the primary name and the alternate names are displayed. The page title is displayed as a link at the top of the column; the given and surnames are displayed below. Title prefixes and suffixes are displayed on the merge screen, but are not displayed on the compare screen. That's a bug; I'll add title prefixes and suffixes to the compare screen. I hope this answers all of the questions posed above. If not, please let me know.--Dallan 13:36, 16 January 2009 (EST) Thank you, Dallan, for all the answers. Much appreciated. You've written some great text that should be added to the help pages (somewhere). (After I am done with my travels, I'll take a crack at finding and editing such pages if someone else doesn't get to it before me.) While my concern is not wholly addressed, I will bow to the more experienced wikians among you. You've all clearly done so much work to make this a phenomenal resource. My apologies for muddying the waters for awhile. (Knowing me, this won't be the last time.) ;-) Until then, jillaine 16:34, 16 January 2009 (EST) Thank-you for offering to update the help pages with this information when you get back from your travels. If you have any other questions, feel free to bring them up. (I might have missed them in reading through all of the comments). Also, everyone please weigh in on whether you'd like to see any of the possible changes I suggested above. I probably won't get to them until Spring, but we can add them to the list.--Dallan 16:40, 16 January 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Dallan seeks feedback on proposed search results display changes [26 January 2009]1. In searches, the given name and surname fields are searched, for both the primary as well as alternate names. The title prefix and suffix fields are not searched, although I could add searching the title prefix field for searches on givenname, and add searching the title suffix field for searches on surname, so a search of
would sort the John Carter with a title-prefix of Reverend and a title-suffix of Sr to the top. Let me know if this would help you. 2. Search results display both the title (in big letters) and the primary name (in smaller letters underneath the title). The primary name includes the title prefix, given name field (which can include the first given as well as middle names), surname field, and title suffix. I have thought about displaying the primary name in big letters in place of the title for people. This would be inconsistent with how other pages are displayed (pages in other namespaces display the title in big letters) so I haven't done it. I could though. 3. If we display the person's primary name in big letters instead of the title for Person pages, we could also display the person's birth and death dates in big letters after the name, which would make those two fields easier to see, but give a slightly more cluttered results page. Let me know if you would like to see those two fields after the name in big letters in place of the page title.
[add comment] [edit] Three new special pages for trees [5 January 2009]I've added three new special pages for trees:
Links to these new special pages can be found by clicking on "Trees" in the MyRelate menu.--Dallan 12:54, 5 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Wikipedia refresh complete [7 January 2009]Roughly 75,000 pages at WeRelate (mostly Place pages, but now more than a thousand Person pages as well) copy some text from Wikipedia. Until last week these texts hadn't been updated in over a year. They have now been updated with the latest available version of the Wikipedia text, and hopefully with the updated refresh code I'll be able to keep them more up-to-date in the future.--Dallan 14:45, 5 January 2009 (EST) Many thanks!--Jrm03063 15:34, 5 January 2009 (EST) Hmmm. Something does not compute. I was under the impression that there was considerably more pages on WeRelate than this. And I certainly thought there were more than 1000 person articles. Doing a check with the search engine in the "Person" name space, and a "blank" in the information field, yields 1,624,864 articles. Possibly some of those are redundant, given the vagarities of a search engine, but there's got to be more than 1000 person articles out there. Seems like the total number of articles must be well over 2M. Q 17:06, 6 January 2009 (EST) There are 1.6M+ people, the 1000 people are pages with body content sourced directly from wikipedia. And the number is more like 1200, with about another 100 or so pending beyond that.--Jrm03063 19:41, 6 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Are you sure? [10 January 2009]A recent change in the way edits are handle seems to be a response to someone's concern about loosing edits because they hadn't saved. Now you get warned when you navigate away from a page opened for editing, that if you haven't saved, you'll loose your edits. That's not a bad idea; on occassion I've had that happen as well. However, for me personally this is more annoying than useful. Since the site has been cooking along for sometime without this cue, I suspect most people don't run into this problem more than a few times; perhaps the pain of having to retype something because the save button wasn't hit, is an effective way to get folks to save after editing. As it is, there's now an extra step in every edit session that I think serves the needs of a relatively few people. Also, if you use the back button to get back to a given place, you'll also get this warning everytime you hit an "opened page for editing". So what used to be a fairly simply process becomes much more cumbersome. If this change is really needed, perhaps it could be set up so that the user's preferences allow the warning to be turned off. Q 16:56, 6 January 2009 (EST)
I thought this warning that suddenly showed up was a problem with my computer. Actually, with all the editing I am doing I find this warning rather annoying. --Susan Irish 23:31, 6 January 2009 (EST)
I don't usually make this error so this is not a major lifesaver for me, but every once in a while it is/would be a great help. And the back button does not get everything back. A lot of the place names come up blank in this situation. When I am inputting data I usually have multiple browser windows going, checking facts, etc., and it is easy to loose track and close the wrong window, especially if it is hidden under another window. So I like it all in all. Perhaps explicitly pressing the Cancel button doesn't need this extra step, but I think it is very consistent with most computer programs (Dallan's principle of least surprise), and should stay. --Jrich 17:56, 6 January 2009 (EST) Perhaps not executing the "Are you sure" routine when an explicit save is in fact made, is the change needed. Q 19:33, 6 January 2009 (EST) I like this feature in cases when I've actually made an edit to a page. Oftentimes, however, I go to a page edit just to copy some text to paste elsewhere. I will also go in to edit to view how I coded something. In these cases, the dialog box is slightly annoying. Is it possible to code the box to only appear if the page has been modified?--Jennifer (JBS66) 08:52, 7 January 2009 (EST) That's a good idea (only prompt if you have actually changed something). I'll fix it later today or tomorrow.--Dallan 15:28, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks Dallan for making this change. I think I'm the person who initiated the request for this 'are you sure' warning. I'm a pretty typical potential user, that is, wiki-challenged genealogist. It makes the program frustrating to try to use when carefully typed info is so easily lost. The goal is 'let's don't frustrate the newbies'! At the same time you don't want to annoy or frustrate the experts!--Janiejac 21:04, 10 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] UK - Census - Suggestions [16 January 2009]Hello All, Hope I am using the correct page for this question. What is the Werelate naming theory about the UK census, 1841, 1851, etc. Source pages? I have used both Ancestry and FHL microfilm. There does not seem to be a main naming pattern for this. Unlike the United States Census which has "United States. Year U.S. Census Population Schedule". I found one page "Register of Great Britain Census, 1841" which mentions the FHL catalog. Suggestions? Thank You Debbie Freeman --DFree 19:16, 7 January 2009 (EST) Hi Debbie, I was supposed to fix the source pages for the censuses in Scotland; but haven't had the time. I planned to use the following: "Scotland, Aberdeenshire, Glenbuchat. 1841 Census of Scotland". Perhaps something similar with the UK census. I am not familiar with the UK census data; I would title the country the same as in the census, I think.--Beth 20:03, 7 January 2009 (EST) This is a good question! It appears there are 6 pages that cover the censuses 1841-1891 currently titled as Source:Census returns of England and Wales, 1841, Source:Census returns of England and Wales, 1851, etc. These cover the whole of England and Wales and would be akin to the Source:United States. 1900 U.S. Census Population Schedule pages. There are also pages for each county, like Source:1851 census of England and Wales (transcription and indexes) : Norfolk, akin to the Source:United States. Texas. Taylor. 1900 U.S. census, population schedule pages for the U.S. I also noticed that in the FHLC film notes, a county will be called Buckingham, but at Ancestry it will be called Buckinghamshire. In this case, our place page is also titled Buckinghamshire. I would suppose that we would want to title the census pages to be consistent with our place page naming (as far as the county goes). What about something like:
Whatever naming scheme we decide upon, I would suggest adding that info. to the Help:Source page titles page.--Jennifer (JBS66) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (EST) Most of the current Source pages don't conform to the new Source page title conventions because the pages were created prior to the conventions. I will at some point (this Spring) write a program to rename them. I know it's an unfortunate situation that you can't use existing Source pages to see what the titles should look like, but working on merging (and unmerging) and gedcom export takes priority right now. I agree with what User:JBS66 said with a slight modification: that if you create a county level census source that you name it according to the particular country the county was in, either "England, county name. ..." or "Wales, county name. ...". I know the county Place:Monmouthshire, Wales is considered by some to have been in England at various points in time. If you create a source for a Monmouthshire census, how about titling it under Wales so we're consistent with the Place title for Monmouthshire. You could also create a "England, Monmouthshire. ..." page that redirects to the Wales one if you want. And the suggestion to modify the help page is a great one. In general, if anyone learns something by asking questions on the watercooler or elsewhere, it would be a huge help if you would add that information to a help page. Thanks!--Dallan 15:28, 8 January 2009 (EST) Hello, I think I see what you are suggesting. I will start to change DFree Mysource English census to Title only "England and Wales. Year Census Returns of England and Wales" for now. That will work. Thanks, DFree --DFree 16:29, 8 January 2009 (EST) What I can do then, is add the following to the Help:Source page titles page. I can also change the 6 Country Level pages, and also find/edit/create a page for the 1901 census. I will leave the county level pages untouched, but the instructions will be on the help page for those wishing to undertake this project.
I do want to add a note that it is difficult to locate the country census pages through WeRelate's search feature alone. If I Search for Place:United States, Title:census 1900, Subject:Census Records, and choose Exact Matches only, 446 pages are returned. The majority of these are pages for counties. Is there a way to sort the results by place so that Source:United States. 1900 U.S. Census Population Schedule would be returned before any of the state pages, and before any of the county pages?--Jennifer (JBS66) 08:06, 9 January 2009 (EST) There should be. I'll add this as a high-priority item to the todo list.--Dallan 13:49, 16 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Bugs fixed [8 January 2009]I just fixed a couple of bugs in propagation -- the code that generates "back-links" between Person and Family pages so that if you add a link from a Person page to a Family page, a link back to the Person is automatically added to the Family page. I've tested it and I'm fairly certain it's working correctly, but please let me know if you notice anything broken. Just FYI, the two problems were:
[add comment] [edit] Same father, 2 different mothers [10 January 2009]I have a man in my tree who married a woman. She died after having a child. The man married another woman & had 3 more children. Here's my problem. How do I get the one child linked to the first marriage? Right now it's linking to the 2nd marriage. It shows Dean Swearingen and Living Behrens (1) with Nathalie Tucker as an "Alternate Wife". I've been trying to link Dean & Nathalie's son to them (and list their marriage date), but can't find a way to do it. Do I just create another family page? Will that mess up what I already have? Thanks for any help.--Lkm02196 22:40, 9 January 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Great Feature of Jennifer Stewart's Work [11 January 2009]I love the new feature of Jennifer's work. I like this idea of featuring the work of a particular contributor. It accomplishes several things:
Lastly, it's inspired me to select a few of my near-ready-for-prime-time pages and really clean them up. I would like to see more features like this-- especially now-- in order to encourage people to do comparable work and provide ideas for how to do it. Nice work, Jennifer! -- jillaine 08:07, 10 January 2009 (EST) Jillaine, [add comment] [edit] Merge Weirdness [16 January 2009]I just attempted to do a merge of multiples familes-- specifically what became this: Family:John_Thayer_and_Joan_Lawrence_(2) When I was merging, on that first merge page, I noticed that the children had also been duplicated, so I selected the Merge 11 with 1, Merge 12 with 2, etc. BUT on the subsequent page, none of those children came up, and as you'll see from the link above, they were not merged. Why did that fail? Thanks. jillaine 00:17, 11 January 2009 (EST) UGH! There is clearly something wrong with the merging of families when you merge children in a family. UGH! Sorry, but it took me QUITE awhile to merge five or more families into one, including the children who were listed in/duped across at least three of them. This time, all the dupe kids made it onto the second merge screen, and I carefully merged them. But when I completed the process, the Family:Johanes Tawier and Mary Roberts (1) page still has them all as dupes. UGH. jillaine 18:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)
I've definitely seen cases where, when merging a family, only some of the merges occur. The family page always works, but sometimes spouses don't merge as expected. Also, sometimes children don't merge as expected. You can later effect the individual overlooked merges, but it is strange. One situation where I think this occurs, is if you have a two family pages with children. One of the family pages already has a particular child duplicated (so there are three instances of the child, even though there are two families being merged). Even though you may be able to specify the correct merge for the child, you won't be presented with the three children horizontally in the final step of the merge.--Jrm03063 21:56, 11 January 2009 (EST) You should be able to merge children together even if one of the children isn't in the right-most column. You have to set both children's "Merge with" drop-down to the same child number. I just tried this and it seems to work ok for me. The point of confusion may be that you have to set the "Merge with" drop-down on both children, not just one. I'll change this so that by default, the "Merge with" value is set to itself for every child. This trick should work for merging multiple children from the same family together as well: Set the "Merge with" value for all children to the same child number. This worked for me when I just tried it. It doesn't work for children in the right-most family because they don't have "Merge with" drop-downs, but I can add "Merge-with" drop-downs to the right-most family as well. If you come across a situation where people you're trying to merge don't get merged, would you please leave a message on my talk page? I just looked at Family:Johanes Tawier and Mary Roberts (1) and I can see the duplicate children. (You can merge them if you want by clicking on "Find duplicates" in the "More" menu for each of the duplicate children and merging them.) The problem is I can't figure out by looking at this page what might have gone wrong. I recently reworked some parts of the merge process, and maybe that's why things are working now, but it seems not very likely. I'd like to track down any problems with merge that people are seeing, so if it happens again, would you please leave me a message including as many details of what you did as you can remember? I'll try to repeat it and if I can, I'll be able to find the problem and fix it. I'll also add some logging to merge to help me better understand what's going on at the back-end. Thank-you! And sorry for the trouble.--Dallan 14:58, 16 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] [13 January 2009][add comment] [edit] Incorrect Change [16 January 2009]As part of the effort to eliminate duplicate entries for the same person, someone scrubbed the family trees containing "Samuel Porter". I'm sure there were many duplicates for this particular individual. As it happens I created a disambiguation page for this name, mostly because there were so many entries on WeRelate. Some of those entries were for entirely different persons who happened to have the same name. Others were duplicate entries created by different contributors when they added their family tree's. Yet others were duplicate entries created by the same contributor either doing "false starts", or perhaps adding new data, and somehow managed to duplicate old entries. I occassionally create such disambiguation pages to help me sort out the information found here on WeRelate. I've tried different formats, and have not yet reached a conclusion on the most useful format for my purposes. Sometimes one thing works, sometimes another. In anycase, the particular format used for the Samuel Porter disambiguation page identified the the persons parents, DOB-DOD, Spouse, and author. Here are selected entries in the table.
Note in particular the last two rows, second cell, which indicate that the content there was redirected toward a different location. Apparently, what has happened is that in the scrubbing processing someone eliminated the original pages for these individuals, and as a helpful act, attempted to correct this table. That's all very well and good, and I appreciate the thought. Unfortunately, the changes made to this table were handled incorrectly. The cells that were changed are in the column marked "Parents". That column was intended to help sort out specific individuals, so that I could see what different persons were saying were the parents of this particular individual. The original link was to the parent card for this person. Now the link is to the person himself with the helpful, yet unhelpful note "redirected to". In truth, no change should have been needed (assuming the original scrubbing had been done correctly). Clicking the link that was there should have taken the reader to the correct couple even if the index number was wrong. Q 18:34, 13 January 2009 (EST)
What is unwise is putting something on WeRelate that you want to control and not putting a big warning all over in big red print. WeRelate by design and common usage does not belong to anybody. Get the idea of owning resources out of your head. --Jrich 22:09, 13 January 2009 (EST)
The merge that was made appears to me to be correct, and the justification for changing your table was stated and it seems to me that it makes sense. After all, as I understand it, those numbers can't be reused, so they will never point to some new page freshly entered, so why not just label them as redirected - the parents are now the parents it was redirected to, find the parents there. So the message that came across is that you didn't like somebody changing your page, to which: see my previous remarks. Jrich 22:36, 13 January 2009 (EST)
In the future, can discussions about incorrect changes to specific pages be held on those pages' talk pages? The watercooler is already long... (I admit that I just skimmed this topic after the first few paragraphs.) Also, in the future, if someone makes a change to a page that is incorrect, please just fix it. It probably takes less time to back out the change and perhaps add some clarifying instructions so a similar change isn't made in the future, than to bring it up here. I know I've made changes that weren't correct. I imagine we all have. In fact I just received an email about an incorrect merge that I did - It was a little embarrassing, but they were right! Thank-you!--Dallan 16:06, 16 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] How the Search Engine Works [16 January 2009]If this has been discussed elsewhere, please point me in the right direction and accept my apologies for duplication of topic discussion. The whole "Thomas Carters of Massachusetts" discussion (above) is having me learn more about how the search engine works. As I've said in that topic, I would like the search engine results to help me distinguish the various Thomas Carters (as an example). The search results DISPLAY the Page Title in the results. Hence a contributing reason to my changing the Page Titles of said pages to include the distinctions of "of Woburn" and "of Salisbury" etc etc. Unfortunately, the search engine also appears to be using the Page Title to SORT the results; as a result, my "of Salisbury" and "of Woburn" Thomases end up at the END of a long list of other Thomas Carters, rather defeating my intention to using search engine results to help distinguish between these folks.
Thanks! jillaine 09:16, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Titles are used to sort results only if you click on "Exact matches only", and then on "Sort by title." By default, pages are sorted by best-match first. The more criteria you enter about the person you're looking for, the better chance you'll have of having that person show up at the top of the list. Title suffixes and prefixes aren't currently searched, but this would be easy to add. More information in answer to this question is listed earlier, under the other topic where the question appears.--Dallan 15:47, 16 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] New feature for reviewing merges [26 January 2009]I'm happy to announce that you can now review merges to see what the pages involved in the merge looked like just before the merge. Essentially, you can see what the person doing the merge saw when they were comparing the pages before the merge. Links to this new "Review merge" screen are available from the "Recent changes" screen and from the page histories of any page involved in a merge. This currently applies only to merges made within the past few hours and going forward, but eventually you will be able review and undo any merge made during the past 2-3 months. The "Recent changes" screen has been modified in two ways:
A quick roadmap for the next few weeks:
--Dallan 16:38, 16 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Notice of talk changes [26 January 2009]I was wondering if there would be value in making the presence of a talk page a little more obvious. I would hope it will become the focus of much more activity, maybe even most of the activity as time goes on. Ideally a talk page should be where discussions of "disputed lineages" or the plausibility of alternates, ongoing research, etc., so the Personal History section can be more of a narrative of the person and their life. But if people don't pay attention to talk pages, then such discussions will naturally move to where they are more obvious... When you add a message to talk page, it is not very obvious. One almost has to train yourself to look for the "View the talk page". It has its own history page, so when you inspect the history of the main page, and it does not show that the talk page was changed. Could the message be red, or say "new talk message added 5 days ago" or flash when something has been added to the talk page since you last visited it, or something similar? Another item is that if you erase your remark, because you answer your own question, or whatever reason, it still says "View the talk page" even though the talk page is now empty. Of course the history is not empty... I guess I should delete it? --Jrich 20:12, 17 January 2009 (EST) I'm not really happy with the "View the talk page" message either, but for a different reason: if the page you're looking at is the result of a redirect, you don't get the "redirected from ..." message because the "View the talk page" message replaces it. Similarly, if you're looking at an older version in the history, you don't get the previous/next version links. So I don't like where the message appears. I've been thinking about re-doing how person and family pages are displayed in the future (March/April timeframe). What would you (and others) think about putting a little icon (e.g., a little yellow star) next to the word "Talk" in the page menu at the upper-right corner of the screen if you've never visited the talk page or the talk page is a later version than the one you've seen, and getting rid of the "View the talk page" message? Regarding the empty page dilemma, if nobody else is watching a person or family talk page you can delete it, but if someone else is watching it, I think we're stuck with having an empty talk page. Maybe leave a "answered my own question" comment on the page?--Dallan 19:59, 26 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Disambiguation Pages [26 January 2009]The recent discussion about using page titles to help distinguish (i.e., to disambiguate) multiple people with the same name introduced me to "Disambiguation Pages". Quolla then later made reference to this page: I then went searching Help for more information about Disambiguation pages on werelate only to find one such reference on where it reads: "Disambiguation pages - we don't have any disambiguation pages yet" This last appears to be wrong given the existence of Samuel Porter's disambiguation page. Yet, it is partially correct in that no namespace "Disambiguation" appears on the search screen. Further research over at wikipedia finds this: which as a newbie I can hardly make sense of. So I'm wondering: what's up with Disambiguation pages at werelate? What should I know about them to help me use werelate effectively (both as a researcher and as a volunteer helping others and editing pages, etc.)? Thanks! Writing from 78-degree Southern California, jillaine 09:08, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Wikipedia disambiguation pages are done manually, e.g. Pi (disambiguation) --JoshHansen 15:24, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Using category pages is one way to disambiguate, especially because you could include additional information, similar to the note that User:Jrm03063 mentions, to each person. For example, the link [[Category:Carter in Massachusetts|Carter, John: 1860 - 1925]] would display John Carter's birth and death years after his name in the category page. Or [[Category:John Carter|1860 in St Paul, Ramsey, Minnesota, United States]] would display John's birth year and place in a category page for all people named John Carter. We could decide which fields from the Person page should appear in the category link. Category links could be added automatically whenever there was more than one person in the category. Obviously category pages don't work this way currently, but it wouldn't be too hard to change them to work this way. Another approach would be to use search result pages, where the person's given and surname were searched for with the exact-match-only box checked. Instead of automatically-generated categories, we could have links like "More Carters in Massachusetts" and "More John Carters" appear at the bottom of the page that would take you to search result pages. As opposed to the category approach, it would not be feasible to add these "More like this.." links only when multiple people had the criteria, but search results pages show a lot more information, and you could add additional search criteria to further narrow the list. I'm currently thinking about the latter approach because I think having too many automatically-generated category pages dilutes the value of the ones that people create: the human-created ones don't stand out in search results. However, I could be talked into the former, or some combination of the two.--Dallan 19:59, 26 January 2009 (EST) (writing from MN, where it got up to a whopping 6 degrees today - how did people ever live here 100 years ago?) [add comment] [edit] Image Formats [26 January 2009]moved question from Talk:Main Page Most of my image files are in PDF format, any a number of others in TIF format. The IMAGE features in WeRelate does not accept either. Please assist.
--BobC--BobC 11:42, 22 January 2009 (EST) I don't know if anyone answered your question or not. There is a free program that you go and download called Irfanview that can make copies in the .jpg format to upload here. Irfanview You should keep a copy as .tiff at least for storage. I always scan in .tiff and make copies of the ones I want to use online in the .jpg format. I hope this is of some use.--Twigs 10:35, 25 January 2009 (EST) I second Irfanview. Another terrific program is GIMP, which has a lot of wonderful image-editing features but is also harder to use.--Dallan 19:59, 26 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Incorrect and annoying error message [26 January 2009]I just tried to merge a family that has two dup parents and five dup children. I get "Unable to merge. Too many pages to merge. Sorry - you can merge only up to five families at one time. If you need to merge more, please divide them into groups of five, merge the pages in each group, then merge the groups." First, I'm not trying to merge five families. Second, please don't tell me that I can't merge more than five people or children, because there's no easy way to merge kids right now, so this limitation would be really annoying -- and I've done it before numerous times, so I know it can technically be done. I can get it to work eventually my having no more than four people in the merge. "Fixing" it brings up another error. In changing the syntax below each child (i.e. the choices are "merge with" or just a child number) there's now no option not to merge that child if the system has already made a match. --Amelia 15:30, 24 January 2009 (EST) I got this message, too. I was only trying to merge one family and it said I could not merge more than 4. ??? I had to go through and merge each of the 9 children separately, and then I was able to merge the Family page. This seems like a bug, since this is not how it used to work, and it makes it much harder to merge duplicate families! --Jrich 17:38, 25 January 2009 (EST) Sorry - I was counting the number of rows in the table (the total number of merge targets) instead of the maximum number of columns (the number of pages being merged together into one page). I'll fix it so that it's counting the right thing, and I'll also increase the limit to 10. I'll also put the do not merge option back in. I'll make all of these changes first thing in the morning. Sorry about that.--Dallan 22:18, 26 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Family Tree Formats [27 January 2009]Looking through Wikipedia I see a few different family tree and ancestry chart formats. Two of those links are shown below. I tried carrying over a couple edit formats to my pages on WeRelate, but was unable to get to work. Let me know if these functions do not work on this wiki application or if I'm doing something wrong. Thanks. - "Ahnentafel5" function is an excellent example of what I'm looking at producing. Thanks for the links to the chart template pages, I had been looking for something similar.
I copied the template from Wikipedia over here. On the template, I cited where I obtained it from - I believe this is ok under GNU, but if I've erred - please let me know! Oh, one more thing... Dallan, you may want to look at the style codes in the template. I think it's trying to call CSS, but I'm not experienced enough with this to know if it's a problem. Thanks.--Jennifer (JBS66) 07:46, 26 January 2009 (EST) This template is really cool - thank you for setting it up! I looked at the style codes and they look fine. Setting your own styles, like this template does, isn't a problem.--Dallan 22:18, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Oh, perfect. Very nice and very needed. Thanks!--Twigs 11:36, 27 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Images and thumbnails [28 February 2009]I've been trying to add thumbnails to the Add Image on person and family pages. I've seen some pages with a nice neat table of thumbs at the bottom. I know how to add it to the page. But you can't add |thumb| to the Add Image. How do you create the neat thumbs at the bottom using the Add Image feature? Here is what I am talking about on the bottom of one of my family pages,: http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Family:Rufus_Brock_and_Bizzie_Beard_(4) I want the photos to be small on the page, but clickable to a full size. The Bible snippet resized itself on the page without my help. Have I made sense?--Twigs 12:20, 15 January 2009 (EST) Is this what you want to do by any chance? Help:Images_tutorial#Including_an_Image_Gallery_on_your_page--Jennifer (JBS66) 12:33, 15 January 2009 (EST) So it can't be done through the 'Images' feature. I have two photos that made themselves into thumbs automatically. I don't understand how that happened unless it automatically does it if the image is over a certain size? If I want a gallery set up then I have to make and upload the thumbs and the reg. size photos and put it on the 'Family History' area. Thank you for responding.--Twigs 12:43, 15 January 2009 (EST) You shouldn't have to resize them yourself. If you put into the Family History Section, it will automatically resize them for you (as small thumbnails). You can test it by going to your family page and copying a couple of the image filenames from your Images Section to the above code. Add it to the Family History Section, then click preview.--Jennifer (JBS66) 12:53, 15 January 2009 (EST) Thank you! It turned out just as I wanted it to be. I'd have never found out how without your help. Thanks!--Twigs 15:56, 15 January 2009 (EST) You're welcome! I'm glad it worked out. Nice job with your family page by the way!--Jennifer (JBS66) 16:16, 15 January 2009 (EST) I ought to draw the images in the "Images" section using the gallery tag. That's a nice idea for the future - thanks!--Dallan 15:52, 16 January 2009 (EST) One problem with the gallery is that the page no longer shows up on the what links here of the images page.--Btomp 19:02, 16 January 2009 (EST) Thank-you for letting me know. Whatever solution I come up with I'll make sure that the what-links-here feature works.--Dallan 16:36, 26 January 2009 (EST) (This isn't exactly the same topic, but it has to do with thumbnails....) I've uploaded several parish register images from the Danish state archives (for example, I1 at Person:Kirstine Pedersen (3) and I2 at Person:Katinka Kristiansen (1)). Images come from the archives site as monochrome TIFF files, which I then convert to monochrome PNG for upload to WeRelate. The problem is that the thumbnailer seems to have trouble with these high-resolution files (6532×4704 pixels for one of them) and no thumbnail is generated. My question is whether the thumbnailer can be made to accomodate these images. As far as actual file size they are not very large, perhaps 600kb, and I am reluctant to reduce the resolution because, at least for my untrained eye, the large resolution compensates somewhat for the monochrome-ness and improves readability. Any thoughts? --JoshHansen 15:48, 28 February 2009 (EST) I can't speak whether or not the thumnailer can be adapted, but here is a possible workaround. What if you put this: [[Image:IMAGE TITLE|100x150px|thumbnail|center|IMAGE CAPTION]] in the Personal History Section? The image won't appear with the rest of the images, but it does display a thumbnail version of your picture.--Jennifer (JBS66) 16:09, 28 February 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Genealogy Codicil for Your Will [30 January 2009]Although many of us reading this page and using WeRelate are interested in applying modern computer technology to our interest in genealogy and family history, if you are like me this is only a secondary method of collecting and compiling your genealogical material. Most of it is probably in binders, boxes, files and reference books. So, after your death, do you know what will happen to that collection? Have you ever given thought to who will care for the collection and continue the hard work you put into it? If you have not thought about it or have not done anything about it, now may be the time. You may want to consider a Genealogy Codicil for Your Will. Although WeRelate is an excellent method for sharing the basics of your genealogical data, for many of us it will hardly replace the collection of family history material we have accumulated in our own personal libraries in our homes. Using an idea as presented in the Genealogy Friends of Plano Library newsletter (June 2004 edition) I have prepared a Genealogy Codicil Template you may be able to use when you evaluate the disposition of your genealogical records and family history collection upon your death. [add comment] [edit] Article Assessment Effort? [29 January 2009]Genealogy Wikia appears to be implementing a variation of Wikipedia's "article assessment" protocol. See: Is this something we might want to do here? jillaine 20:43, 29 January 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Namespace Portals? [7 February 2009]There is so much information and discussion on WeRelate, sometimes it can be difficult to locate the basics for creating various pages. I was mulling around the idea of Namespace Portals - sort of a homepage for each Namespace.
Perhaps, along with (or instead of?) the Search and Add links on the blue menu bar, we could have links to various Namespace homepages. From here, we could link to search, add, and help, and also provide at-a-glance tips and how-to's. Here is a link to Wikipedia's main Portal page--Jennifer (JBS66) 06:04, 4 February 2009 (EST) Doesn't WeRelate already have the feature of a Namespace concept in the use of categorized surnames? With my limited use here, I notice that for each new surname and location I enter creates it's own link to a page that can be used by anyone using similar criteria. I think that page then can be expanded and formatted to create the type of document you are looking for -- and then those could be combined into and connected by a disambiguation page. [add comment] [edit] Topical Portals [7 February 2009]Jennifer, I like your idea; I've been thinking along similar lines at least in the sense that the wiki is so extensive that we need ways to help navigate it; portals as you suggest may go a long way towards this. In addition to space name portals, we might also want to have topicals portals such as:
There are probably a lot of great articles already started that could "feed" such portals. I'd be willing to work on the first one above. jillaine 18:00, 3 February 2009 (EST)
I really like this idea! Perhaps we could create a "master portal" that would link to the other portals, and link to the master portal from the main page, perhaps in place of the current "Explore" link?--Dallan 14:20, 9 February 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Guidelines for use of wikipedia [2 February 2009]I have written a proposal for a set of guidelines on inclusion of wikipedia content within werelate. I would very much appreciate comment and criticism, such that an evolved version might be adopted as a guide by the community. You will find the document in Proposed Guidelines for use of Wikipedia. The document includes information and examples on what is proposed, as well as the reasons why.--Jrm03063 19:57, 1 February 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Place names automatically categorized appropriately? [4 February 2009]I just love learning more about how this wiki works... When one creates an article, there is a box (or field) where one can enter a Surname. Let's say MARSH. This automatically creates a category for this article, such that if one goes to the Category:Marsh_surname, one will automatically find the article listed there under the appropriate space name. Similarly, there is a box/field where one can enter a Place. Let's say "Warwick, Franklin, Massachusetts, United States." Now THAT is a town or city. There are no Categories at the CITY level. If I change the place name to only the county level-- Franklin, Massachusetts, United States, then the article IS automatically coded to include the category for that county and if I go to the Category page for that county, I will find the article listed in its index under the appropriate space name. What would be totally cool is if the place pages (not category pages, but pages like Place:Warwick, Franklin, Massachusetts, United States) had an automatically created section called "Articles" wherein were listed any articles on werelate.org that had the place name filled in to match the place page. That way my article on Spiritual Wife-ism would automatically be listed on the Warwick place page (as long as I'd listed Warwick, Franklin, Massachusetts, United States in the appropriate place field). Is that possible? Desirable, generally? -- jillaine 19:39, 3 February 2009 (EST) Not sure if this is what you mean but...
[add comment] [edit] Advice for converting User pages to Articles [12 February 2009]I have a couple of questions I could use some help with. Because I probably didn't know better at the time, I've created some User pages (only editable by me) that should probably be Articles (editable by the community). But I can't quite figure out where to put them.
Related to where to put the above, I'm really trying to understand when and how to use subdirectories. If there's some text about this somewhere, please point me in the right direction. I've attempted to find advice through Search and Help, but can't find it. Also related (and I know this was talked about recently; I just can't find it-- does Search search the watercooler archives?): I've transcribed a number of documents, such as wills, probates, other old items from colonial New England times. (See above.) I recall a recommendation that these be put in my User space because they are "personal" documents. But given that these are documents pertaining to people in colonial new england with a significant number of descendants, it occurs to me that they aren't really "personal" to MY family. And they should go somewhere else. But where? I recall being told NOT to place this text in the text box of the Source. Should it go in a subdirectory of the relevant Person page? Please advise. Thanks! jillaine 20:13, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Subpages (subdirectories) have a couple of downsides:
In general I would use Categories instead of subpages, unless you're pretty sure there won't be a need to rename the primary page in the future, and the subpage is tightly-related only to one primary page (e.g., it's a chapter in a book, and the primary page represents the book). On the other hand, an article can be in multiple categories, and you don't have to worry about doing anything special if the article is renamed. Categories are how articles at Wikipedia are organized.
As for which namespace your pages belong in, the "Spiritual wife-ism" and "Tracking" pages could be moved to the article namespace if you wanted others to edit them as well.
We've had a difficult time figuring out the best thing to do with transcriptions. I think making each transcription a separate article (or even a subpage) would clutter up the "article" namespace quite a bit.
You could leave them where they are and let people add comments to the talk pages if they want something corrected. Or you could create MySource pages for them (e.g., MySource:Jillaine/Daniel-Denison-Autobiography1672). MySource pages are editable by others, and MySource pages are intended for this sort of thing - sources that don't apply to enough people to qualify as community sources. In fact, I've been thinking about adding "Source title" as a new field to MySource pages, so that you could say which community Source page your MySource page (transcription) is a part of.
I hope that we can maintain a culture of "go for it!" Some ideas don't catch on (we do seem to be picky about how pages are titled), but I think most ideas do. I'd start by creating an example and requesting feedback, as Jennifer has done. Even if the consensus is it's not a good idea, it's hopefully not too difficult to undo. As for the portal idea, it seems like a great idea personally. I was working on the upcoming merge-during-upload last week and let responding to the watercooler slide or I would have responded sooner. We do have difficulty helping people navigate to the more interesting areas of the site, and portals seem like a great solution to that problem. --Dallan 16:16, 9 February 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Current v. historical place names [17 February 2009]I noted that the the agent has created Place pages that have more historical rather than modern names. Furthermore things seem to be inconsistent. The problem especially arised with the patchwork quilt of free cities, baronies, duchies, ecclesiastical principalities, etc. that existed in southern Germany during the long decline of the Holy Roman Empire. During the time when many immigrants came to America in the 18th century, there were many Germans, but there was no Germany. Consider this map of one period in the history of southern Germany during the 18th century: MAP. My question is, should we use the historical names or the modern administrative names? For an example, my Varner ancestors came from Massenbach. The agent gives this as Place:Massenbach, Württemberg, Germany. During the 18th century, Massenbach was a free town (barony) with a Freiherr (baron: "free lord"). The land was not under fief of any other lord except the emperor. It would not be part of Württemberg until after 1806 (and I'm not even sure about then). This area changed constantly due to numerous wars and invasions. The modern administrative designation would probably be: Massenbach, Schwaigern, Heilbronn, Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. To illustrate the inconsistency, the Heilbronn district ("Kreis") seems correct: Place:Heilbronn, Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, but the city itself has an older style name: Place:Heilbronn, Württemberg, Germany. The latter is funny since it's not modern, but there was no "Germany" when Württemberg was a Duchy and Kingdom. ---Parsa 16:04, 7 February 2009 (EST) The Place pages for this area of the world are definitely in need of some help! Generally here at WeRelate, the general goal is to name locations as they were around the year 1900. That being said, your are right, the pages are inconsistent. They were gathered from a variety of sources, some more modern like Wikipedia, and some more historic like FHLC. We also have the problem of there being multiple pages for one town. I had started to put together some basic ideas here. The ultimate goal would be for there to be one place page for one town, and each alternate location would be listed within that page, like I've been doing for the Netherlands Place:Baard, Baarderadeel, Friesland, Netherlands. I also think the Wikipedia template on the page can be misleading, since it always contains the modern town location.--Jennifer (JBS66) 16:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Thanks Jillaine for describing the dilemma concerning places on this site. I think this is one of my main stumbling blocks to uploading my info. I tried just a small chart and [the results] concerning places were not good. This may be one area where this wiki needs to separate itself from the online _____pedia method. I am not active enough on this site to carry any weight to have this changed, but if you can have influence to change it, the rest of us wiki-challenged genealogists will thank you. --Janiejac 23:26, 7 February 2009 (EST) I don't know what "correct" genealogical practice might be, but I think the most useful thing to do is use the present day location that most correctly specifies the actual geography/place being specified. Put differently, I want the location that has the closest GIS values to the actual location of the events being specified. Consider the problem for genealogical-map making - if names have to be cross-referenced with dates to figure out what is really meant - the problem becomes impossible. There is something you can do to improve things though - if you know the location of an event to the level of GIS specificity, you can put a google maps reference in the description for the event. Dallan has specifically rigged the map-making function to look for google map references in the description field for events, so you can refine a location to any level of detail you may want. Take a look at my Grandfather's page for some examples. You'll also see that you can use the same method to create picture captions that nail locations where pictures were taken...--Jrm03063 00:00, 8 February 2009 (EST)
The use of non-political coordinates such as longitude and latitude offer the hope of having a stable designation that can be mapped, for those that are tracing the migration of their family, etc. It lacks a little in intuitiveness. Using the current political name is more intuitive, but it may not be so ten years from now. Further it may not match the names seen in documentation (Monomoit versus Chatham, MA). Some of this can be addressed by redirects unless having dual names creates conflicts. Finally, one would like to have a clue where to look for research materials. The name of Northfield, Mass. used to include parts of Vermont and New Hampshire until 1740, then was part of Hampton County, Mass. until 1811, and now is part of Franklin County, Mass. So when looking for vital records and probates, one may need to try multiple administrative units to be thorough. It is a difficult problem, but it is just part of the fun of genealogy. Until Dallan can provide an input mechanism based on picking a name off of a historically adjusted map, which he then stores in a neutral form, and displays to each viewer according to their preferences (current, colloquial, or historical administrative), or some such complex system scheduled for completion in 2050 probably, I suspect choosing what seems most intuitive to the thousands of viewers, is probably the best approach. --Jrich 10:21, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Whatever solution is proposed as far as titling Place pages, there will be members of the WeRelate population for whom it doesn't work. Some feel strongly about modern titles, others about historical titles. However, these titles are essentially just pointers to a page. Say your ancestor was born in Town, County A, State, United States and died in Town, County B, State, United States (without ever leaving the farm). I agree with Jillaine that it is appropriate to indicate the location as it was when the event took place. However, we have this unique Place page title to deal with. The workaround for this is to place the following on your Person/Family page: WeRelate Place Page Title|your own title. When you then look at your Person/Family page, what will show up is your own title. This way, we are keeping the pointer to the correct place page (the WeRelate Place Page Title), while documenting how the town was at the time the event occurred (your own title). Then, when you click on this link, it will bring you to the correct Place page. Example: Place:Holwerd, Westdongeradeel, Friesland, Netherlands. Holwerd used to be in Wesdongeradeel, and is now in Dongeradeel. Since I put Dongeradeel as an Also-located in place on the Holwerd page, I can choose to type Holwerd, Dongeradeel, Friesland, Netherlands into a place field and a link Holwerd, Dongeradeel, Friesland, Netherlands is automatically created. I would like to see a definitive decision made, and guidelines put into place. Then, the gusto that is currently focused on the discussion of titles could instead be directed to merging the say 4 versions of the same town into one page and adding all the variant information within.--Jennifer (JBS66) 14:35, 8 February 2009 (EST) 1900 was chosen as the reference year for Germany simply because this was the reference generally used by the Family History Library Catalog (FHLC), and more places were imported from the FHLC than the other two sources, so keeping the FHLC reference year was the simplest path. Interestingly, the FHLC chose different years for different countries (France is much later for example, and the US uses generally modern jurisdictions), but in general they chose years around 1900 for most European countries. The reference period we use for a particular country is listed on the country homepage (e.g., Place:Germany or Place:France) for most European countries. Also, I'm not sure why but the FHLC included places in Thüringen, Germany even though it wasn't created until 1919, so we have some German places listed under Thüringen. Even though we've spent many hours cleaning up Germany, it could use additional work. The same goes for Poland and the other Eastern European countries. So what to do about places that change their jurisdiction over time? We have four options at our disposal: (1) As Jennifer says, you can use the | notation to give any place whatever title you want in your Person and Family pages. When you upload a GEDCOM, whatever you've entered for the place appears after the | automatically, so that your uploaded page shows the place as you entered it, but links to the place that the place matcher matched it with. The upcoming update to the GEDCOM upload process will allow you to review and correct the Place pages that the place matcher matched your places to before the wiki pages get created. (2) You can edit the Place page and add the earlier or modern jurisdiction as an "also located in" place, and the earlier or modern name as an "alternate name". You could even describe the history of the place's jurisdictions in the description field. A few hours after doing this:
(3) In addition to option 2, you could create a new place page, title it according to the earlier or modern jurisdiction, and "redirect" it to the existing Place page (with the 1900 title). A few hours after doing this:
(4) You could create a new place page, title it according to the earlier or modern jurisdiction, and list the place with the 1900 title as a "see also" place. This does not affect either the place matcher or the drop-down list. In most cases when the regions of a country are re-organized, I think options 2 and maybe also including 3 are ideal because they provide cross-search capability: when you search for a place in an also-located-in jurisdiction you find events in the main jurisdiction and vice-versa. A number of places have their modern jurisdictions listed as "also located in" places for example. Once the "also located in" relationships were established, the redirects of option 3 could even be created automatically if desired. But it takes time to set up these relationships. That's why Jennifer is proposing the User:JBS66/Eastern European Place Renaming. I hope that people will get involved with this! As places move between countries, it may be more useful to go with option 4 instead of options 2 and 3. You'd lose the cross-search capability, but it may be more intuitive for people looking up Polish ancestry to link to Place pages in Poland that contain see-also links to their German/Russian counterparts. I'm open to this. I'd love to get feedback on this, especially if you're interested in helping to reorganize places. You'll notice for example that places in Place:Scotland are pretty well organized due to the efforts of people like User:TomChatt and User:LSnellgrove. (Places in several other European countries also owe their current organization to specific individuals.) I hope I haven't missed any of the questions above. Please let me know if I forgot something.--Dallan 16:16, 9 February 2009 (EST) Just to be clear, I don't suggest GIS coordinates instead of a place name. I do strongly suggest use of GIS coordinates if a location is known to that level of precision, since a town or village location leaves out a lot of nice-to-have information. GIS numbers are probably more handy than a street address, and certainly longer-lasting. Another for example - how much easier would it be to find a grave site (even in a smallish cemetery) with a set of GIS numbers for the plot? I guess that I was trying to say that having GIS data obviates the problem of picking "the right" town/community name.--Jrm03063 16:36, 9 February 2009 (EST) Just to give you someone else's take on this issue, I've copied this exchange from the AncestralQuest Users group as someone was asking how to replace all her historical place names with place names to coordinate with nFS (I guess that is New Family Search). A response was given and I hoped if this would be helpful in discussing this issue: nFS actually holds both the "original" entered place name-as befitting the location at the time of the event and an associated "standard" place name which the system will use for mapping and indexing/searching. It is the "original" entered place name that is displayed in nFS; but on the Details screen, hovering the cursor over the place name will cause the associated "standard" place name to be displayed. There is a corresponding "original" and "standardised" feature with dates, except that in this case it is the "standard" date that is displayed and the "original" that can be seen by similarly hovering the cursor over the date. Please don't be fooled into thinking that it is necessary to use the "standardised" place name as a "better" alternative to what you might already have; there are good reasons for having both. We (in the UK) have a very particular problem with standardised place names, as to fit with a modern gazetteer and map they use "United Kingdom" as the "country" designation and provide multiple choices of "counties" incorporating the historic counties and the modern overlapping government areas known as "Unitary Authorities" - whereas the standard genealogical definition of place name in the combined "United Kingdom" is to use the originating host nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland as the country designations and then to use the historic counties. One further note on this issue; if you ever use an ecclesiastical parish as part of the place name, parish names are not included in the standardised place names - but the entered "original" place name containing the parish name will (usually) identify a match with a standardised place name which you can select to associate with your entered place name. Give it some more thought. Regards, Stewart Millar We're similar to nFS: we hold both the original place name, which is the name that is displayed, and the "standard" place name, which is the matching place we found in the wiki and which is used (like nFS) for search. In the wiki pages that are generated, the standard place name appears before the bar and the original name appears after the bar. We don't include "United Kingdom" but use the original 4 countries as the highest level for the UK.--Dallan 16:03, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] African American - Slave People Pages [15 February 2009]Hello, I am hoping for suggestions. I am finding the names of slaves on the will of the Owner. I would like to create People Pages for these African Americans. So far I only have first names. Is there a tutorial, or agreed to system on how to create these People Pages? How are other Werelate Users handling this situation? Debbie Freeman --DFree 20:56, 8 February 2009 (EST) Hello! Didn't a lot of African Americans gain a last name either by becoming part of a "white" family or through some kind of association with another family? If so, many of these people may be lacking a last name (Especially if they died before being freed)... This is a very perplexing question... but it's all-encompasing, Roman and Greek slaves will be in the same boat (If anyone can trace into Rome or Greek slaves). Chinese immagrants especially in California might be in similar situations. Should we have some kind of pattern for slaves? I hate to say this (Because it sounds really awful), should we have an "Owned by" option? (In the interest of scientific history, not because we condone owning people, of course) Which would connect the slave to a family (Which might be the only connection they ever have) Who knows? Someday a family might link up with that slave and connect through a tree that way. ---Guy Aabh 20:08, 12 February 2009 (EST) The people at Lowcountry Africana seem to organize slave records by plantation. What about using the plantation name as the surname; e.g., "of Drayton Plantation"? This is of course similar to the idea of using the slave owner, but it seems like using the location they were from (plantation name) is more in keeping with what we do with medieval people. Just a thought.--Dallan 22:16, 14 February 2009 (EST) Hello Aabh & Dallan, Thank You for the input and suggestions. I will try to locate a name of a plantation, but highly doubt that in these cases there is a plantation. It is a few to maybe a dozen slaves in total. Most are slave owners from Kentucky or Tennessee that migrated to Missouri before 1850. Some of the owners siblings stayed in Kentucky and or Tennessee. So I assume there is a good chance that the MO slave are related to the KY and TN slaves. Debbie Freeman --DFree 22:37, 14 February 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Merge during upload in progress [13 February 2009]I said earlier that merge-during-upload would be ready this week, but unfortunately, it's not ready quite yet. If you've been aching to see what it will look like, you can go to http://beta.werelate.org/gedcom/gedcom.html beta.werelate.org is a website that I use for testing. It's not guaranteed to be up and running, and it has a very old version of the wiki database, so don't expect the content to be the same as on the main WeRelate website. Feel free to use it as a sandbox if you want. If you've been a member of WeRelate since Aug 2007, you can sign in with your old username and password. Otherwise feel free to create a new account. (You'll need an account in order to look at the gedcom upload tool.) In the future, after a user has uploaded their GEDCOM, but before the wiki pages have been created, the user will get a message on their talk page directing them to review their gedcom and prepare it for upload using this tool. You can't do any merging yet, but you can review the people, families, sources, and places in your GEDCOM. I'm working on matching sources, places, families, and people (in that order).--Dallan 16:16, 9 February 2009 (EST) This is wonderful! I really like the tabbed layout, it's all very intuitive. This will be a great additional WeRelate feature. --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:08, 13 February 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Notes and footnotes [16 February 2009]I have not been able to find anything specific in the help pages or in Watercooler on the appropriate time to use notes versus footnotes. Notes of the type: N1, N2, ..., are generated when Gedcoms are uploaded, and can also be created using the Note boxes on the edit pages. Footnotes are also generally the same sort of notes, but are created using the "ref" tags. I've looked at several Person pages, and within the text section, some people have used footnotes, while some have added a target to a Note, such as [[#N1|N1]]. Is there a preferred way to do in-text notation? When would it be more appropriate to use the Notes or wiki-style footnotes? -- ★Parsa 14:22, 11 February 2009 (EST)
There is some overlap between notes and sources as well. Here is a rough description of how I find myself differentiating between them, for what it is worth.
A better source doesn't mean that the replaced source disappears. It may be useful for the incorrect source to stay and continue to testify to its own incorrectness. However, it is likely that a better source will remove the need for a note. A note explaining that the marriage date is estimated based on the birth of the eldest child would be silly once the marriage record is found. Since notes are easy to "remove", this seemed to be a good use of this feature. --Jrich 18:23, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Notes are described as being intended to hold information that doesn't fit anywhere else. They may be attached to facts, or sources, or dangling. There is no button at the top of the text window for referencing a note in the text section. Is there a way to do that? I suppose this is the [[#N1]] mentioned above. Footnotes <REF>...</REF> appear to be the supported method for annotating text in the historical narrative. One wiki construct creates the reference to the footnote and the footnote itself, and all the data is in one place which makes future editing easier. This would seem to be the preferred way of referring to a source, or adding a parenthetical comment, or supporting information to your narrative when you don't want it inline. Notes seems to have only a few good uses. For one thing, it is displayed way at the bottom of the page, possibly separated from the text section by images and sources so not necessarily in a place where people will look if the page happens to have lots of data on it. I think they could be one way to document disputed lineages rather than spending the whole history section for an individual talking about other people who he is not, which seems somewhat demeaning to his importance. Also, as I mentioned, they seem a good way to provide assumptions, and deductive logic, that may go away in the future. Of course if you have written a note, and want to reference your note without duplicating it, or adding a footnote that says "see note 1", you could do the above, but otherwise, I suspect footnotes will be a better way. But this is just my opinion. Clearly a consensus needs to be reached and guidelines added. --Jrich 10:38, 12 February 2009 (EST) GEDCOM's support notes, but not footnote references. When we support GEDCOM export, the contents of the big text box will be put in a single note attached to the individual or family. So when someone exports a page with ref tags and views it in their desktop genealogy program, they're going to see the page source containing the ref tags (without the generated footnotes section). Having said this, I personally don't like GEDCOM notes. In the desktop genealogy programs that I've used it's not obvious when a note has been attached to a particular person or event. And you can't see all of the notes attached to any event for an individual together. Ref's are more convenient to work with when you're use footnotes in inline text. So I think the question is whether you're writing primarily for online display or for GEDCOM export. If you're writing for online display I'd go with ref tags.--Dallan 14:22, 12 February 2009 (EST)
On one Person page I'm working on, I added footnotes to an historical account in order to explain some terms (such as what "Regulators" and "route agents" were in the Mid-West). There are also notes referring to research for death location, etc. It seems as if a computer program can turn a Gedcom note into an html target tag and note, that a program could also interpret a reference tag and its contents and convert it to a Gedcom note. -- ★Parsa 22:00, 12 February 2009 (EST) Yes, the GEDCOM export could certainly turn a ref tag into a note, but here's another problem: many desktop genealogy programs can only handle one note per individual or event (I don't know about all of them, but I just checked Family Tree Maker, PAF, and RootsMagic and they all behave this way). Multiple notes attached to the same individual or event get combined into a single note. PAF doesn't allow attaching any notes to events as far as I can tell. So if the GEDCOM export were to export each ref as a separate note, they'd all get combined together into a single note when the GEDCOM was read into the desktop genealogy program, which defeats the whole purpose. What's really needed I think is a desktop genealogy program that can display formatted wiki text. I hope we'll have something along those lines eventually. Until then I'd still use the ref tags instead of notes.--Dallan 22:36, 14 February 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Person Naming Revisited [15 February 2009]Okay, after all that above about Thomas Carter, I thought I'd figured it out. But then someone just renamed a page and a primary name of a woman to her married name. That said, she was born prior to 1500, so maybe an exception? And also, wikipedia uses her married name, and we're using content FROM that wikipedia page. But we KNOW her maiden name. What to do? What to do? Person:Katherine_Swynford_(13) Does her name have to match that on wikipedia when pulling in content from wikipedia? I have a personal fondness for this woman. (Read a book about her when I was a youngun') So I'm feelin' rather attached to her having her maiden name as her primary. (Just thought I'd warn ya!) :-) -- jillaine 14:56, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Presumably, I'm the one doing the renaming, so I'll explain why I do it. There is no werelate "functional" reason that matching up with the wikipedia name is required. Referencing the wikipedia download "Wp-<name>" template takes care of creating the association so that other wikipedia pages, referencing that person and extracted for use in werelate, get turned into werelate links to the correct werelate page. The real issue is the process of working through the enormous mess that is our space for European nobility. When pages are named according to the wikipedia convention, then second attempts to create the same name wind up getting flagged with a larger sequence number. --Jrm03063
It seems to me as an uninterested person that a genealogy website should follow the genealogical convention of using the maiden name. As far as the goal to catch future merges, who's to say merges won't come along with the maiden name? What about an alternate name? In the check for duplicates, if the spouse or parents match, name variants still show up near the top of the list. I would guess a matching alternate name with these additional criteria would be sufficient to tag it as a likely merge in a GEDCOM update??? --Jrich 18:06, 13 February 2009 (EST) I'm not Bergsmit, but he is following the conventions that I generally observe, which means naming such pages consistently with wikipedia when possible. This really helps create connections and merges that I wasn't even looking for. Let's remember - we're talking about the page name only. You can still attach any number of alternative names on the page.--Jrm03063 19:42, 13 February 2009 (EST)
I thought that the policy about using Wikipedia names was intended only to apply to people who don't have last names. Otherwise, there's little reason why any woman whose maiden name is unknown shouldn't be listed as her married name. This is a genealogy site. We should use the maiden name where possible. In this case, it ends up very strange for usability purposes to have "Katherine Swynford" listed as a child with parents of a different name, or with family pages using her maiden name. This a far cry from using "Queen Victoria" or whatever. JRM is going to have to be more specific about how this is helpful in any case except when someone is not following genealogical naming conventions, which is not a good reason to change our practices.--Amelia 20:38, 13 February 2009 (EST) I'll try to explain myself one more time. I need this as I'm working through trying to both merge the medieval space and get as many pages as possible boot-strapped with wikipedia content. To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, there are presently 49 redirects on Charlemagne (1) alone. The way this works, is that the "wikipedia" people become landmarks in the medieval space. As I work through the space, I try to associate as many pages as possible with a backing/shadowing wikipedia page, working outward from any known point (wikipedia associated). If I rename a page to it's backing wikipedia name, and I hit a sequence number greater than 1, I know I'm looking at a duplication that I need to merge. If I find the wikipedia page references people that are not already added to a family, I add them under the wikipedia name and often discover that the person was already added as a result of their membership in some other family. Do all that while merging spouses, merging parents, etc. Names in this space present some major challenges - besides the problem of no common first/middle/surname feature, you have names that have been applied by genealogists after the fact for purposes of distinguishing people. You also have multiple forms of the same name due to scrambling of the name components by various software. Another layer of fun, you get various titles of nobility mixed in Duke, Earl, Marquis, Elector, Knight, Poobah, etc. Finally, you get to see all of this in various states of English, German, Dutch, Spanish, French. A well-mannered name is an aberration in this space, and so it isn't as helpful as you might think. Using the approaches I've described, I've associated something like 1900 werelate people with backing/shadowing wikipedia pages. Except for a few dozen folks, that's all in the medieval/renaissance era. Since there are probably two non-wikipedia backed pages adjacent to every wikipedia backed page in the space, that takes the number of person pages up to 5000 or so. If you then look at the pages I share in common with bergsmit, you'll see that it's typical to have ten or more people watching a page (as a result of merging their common people). So, very roughly speaking, I've been able to do a reduction of something like 50000 down to 5000. I've made a lot of progress, but it's not done.--Jrm03063 21:54, 13 February 2009 (EST)
I completely agree with your suggestion. I just think we'll want to think about the problem of names in the medieval and nobility spaces more comprehensively, instead of just taking a name or two that happen to be well behaved, and then apply the modern convention. My numbers are all estimates of course, and Dallan is probably in a better position to comment. I'm not averse to showing my work on the estimate though! I arrived at it thusly:
(1800 - 100) * (2 + 1) = 5100 I randomly probed around to see how many people are "watching" (which is a good quick indicator of how many were merged to get there). My guess was that 10 was typical, but perhaps that's over-optimistic. Whatever number you think is the overall "average" reduction, multiply that by 5100 and that's where we started in the space.--Jrm03063 08:03, 14 February 2009 (EST)
I agree. It is nice not to duplicate wikipedia, but given following genealogy rules on a genealogy website, or following wikipedia, I would vote genealogy without a second thought. There is a reason why the websites are separate. If a page doesn't naturally agree in name with wikipedia, add the name as an alternate. I bet most people who happen to have Cary Grant in their family trees do so under Archibald Leach, so it matches his parents and his siblings, and not under his stage name. That he is Cary Grant is probably added as an alternate name or in the notes. --Jrich 16:44, 14 February 2009 (EST) So why are there separate "primary" and "birth" names? I'm not against this as a general rule and/or general practice. I just think there are going to be exceptional circumstances, and we ought to trust the judgement of the people working those pages to - now and again - depart from (primary == birth) convention. Stage names are one such example. Maybe what you want is to have the "primary name" label changed to indicate "birth" name, and the primary name is dropped as an alternative sort of name?--Jrm03063 17:11, 14 February 2009 (EST) Do you mean "preferred" name when you refer to a "primary" name? That's the label I see on the Person pages for the main name when I try to add an alternate name. I suspect the "birth" type of alternate name is intended for things like adoption where the person legally took the name of the adopting parents, or possibly legal changes of name. I do not believe it was intended to suggest that a stage name like Cary Grant should be a preferred name. Because this is a cooperative site designed to ease collaboration, I believe there are conventions that should be followed even when it increases effort a little. I believe the convention of using maiden name is pretty well universal in genealogy. I think stage names, while familiar, are not genealogically useful, as possibly significant parts of the person's life will not be recorded under than name, and that such aliases should take the secondary position to the birth name, i.e. the birth name is the preferred name. I think you are using your specific interest to justify going against convention. To me, it is shortsighted to do this. However many WeRelate people there may be in wikipedia, many more times that number are not. Further, I still haven't heard that putting the stage name, etc., in an alternate name wouldn't be sufficient to avoid problems with future GEDCOMs which, near as I can tell, is the only real reason given for doing this. I know it be sufficient from a search perspective. --Jrich 19:59, 14 February 2009 (EST) So let's move the remainder of this discussion to Help talk:Naming conventions.--Dallan 14:22, 15 February 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Naming Conventions Help Page Drafted [14 February 2009]As I promised Dallan last month, and to support the current conversation about naming conventions, I drafted Help:Naming_conventions. Not sure that's where it should stay, but that's where I have it now. -- jillaine 14:41, 14 February 2009 (EST)
(moved rest of JRM's comments to Page Naming topic) jillaine 16:22, 14 February 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] unknown fathers [18 February 2009]Can someone advise me? I am working on a project tracking a number of families in a small area of Yorkshire England in the late 18th century/early 19th century. The birth rate at this time and place for children born out of wedlock is very high. The parish registers I am working from simply give the mother when she is unmarried. I have hopes that I will be able to identify some fathers from court records but for the time being I need to keep track of these children and their mothers with limited information at present. The only way I know to do this is entering these children with the mother and father Unknown Unknown. Is this really the only thing I can do or is there a better way that creates less Unknown Unknowns in the world? thank you! Anne--MizLiv 20:41, 14 February 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Chat feature? [21 February 2009]Periodically, I see that I'm working online at the same time as someone else, and I'd like the ability to "chat" with them, to possibly coordinate efforts. Any possibility of adding a "who's online" / chat feature? Or has that been discussed and tossed? -- jillaine 21:07, 14 February 2009 (EST) I don't think it's been discussed before. There are several options. Most of them require that I upgrade to a newer version of the Wikipedia software, so they can't be implemented right away, but here are some things to think about:
--Dallan 23:40, 14 February 2009 (EST) thank you (both of you!) I will do as you suggest. I am working through various records hoping that I will get fathers for some of them but this will help until (or if) I do. Anne--MizLiv 15:42, 21 February 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Tracking Articles [17 February 2009]I've taken Dallan up on the challenge of "categorizing" the Article namespace. First I'm just getting familiar with what's currently there, creating and "index" of sorts of what I find. But I see that WeRelate does not "remember" where I've been very well. As long as the search results don't change their order (I search for all pages in the "Article" name space with no search criteria other than the name space), I can get buy by keeping track of which search-results page I'm on. But a) I'm not 100% confident that the search results are always in the same order, and b) I'd REALLY like to be notified any time that a new article is added to the "Article" namespace. Or at least be able to easily identify such. Is there some fancy way to use the Search engine that I haven't figured out to get this? Or some other way? Thanks! -- jillaine 19:27, 16 February 2009 (EST)
If you search the article namespace, and choose Exact matches only, a couple of options become available. You can sort by title or by date modified. I think sort by title will help you to remember where you've been. The sort by date modified can help you to discover new articles (newly modified that is). The other option is the Title index on the left side of the search page. After a search, you can choose a letter, and break up your project that way. --Jennifer (JBS66) 04:23, 17 February 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Date Conventions [20 February 2009]Motivated by Help:Naming conventions, I attempted to start a page on dates (Help:Date Conventions). On the surface, it looks like I am trying to legitimatize my opinions :-), but sincerely, I am just interested in reaching a consensus so everybody is speaking the same language. Please express your opinion, as unexpressed opinions will not be taken into account! --Jrich 12:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)
It's a good summary, but I need two points cleared up: why do we need a period after such terms as bef, aft, est and all the rest? And I've been using btw for between; should it be bet? The other point concerns Quaker dating. I thought it was more than just the year being different. Isn't there a 3 month difference? As when the Quaker records say he was born 12d 2m 1730, I have been using 12d 2m (Apr) 1730. I've always heard we should leave the date as we found it but can indicate a more modern conversion. Maybe I've misunderstood.--Janiejac 13:43, 20 February 2009 (EST) I responded on Help Talk:Date Conventions. --Jrich 14:54, 20 February 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Person Pages - middle names question [27 February 2009]Hello, I need opinions. When I uploaded my GEDCOM the ancestors names had the middle names in it. So far I do not have middle names in the surname section. Should I wait and rename these pages, or just leave it alone? So far it has not been a problem. Thanks --DFree 17:32, 26 February 2009 (EST) Do you mean like your Person:John Robbins (37) page where the title is John Robbins (37), but his name was John Marion Robbins? WeRelate's naming convention is to use only the First name and Last name when titling. All other information (such as middle names, suffixes, etc) can be added when you edit the page. See Portal:Person or the help page for more details. What do you mean when you say "middle names in the surname section"? Only surnames should go in the surname field so searches work properly. When you edit a page, the middle name would go in the Given name field.--Jennifer (JBS66) 18:44, 26 February 2009 (EST) Hello, Thanks for responding. I do try to locate the answer on Werelate before asking. Sometimes that only makes me more confused. If I understand you the People page title does not have the middle name in it. So I am worrying about nothing? I guess I asked do I leave it alone, or try to fix these pages? Take out the middle names and use it in a AKA. --DFree 18:32, 26 February 2009 (EST) I looked at a sampling of your Person pages, and it looks to me that the vast majority are titled correctly: Firsname Lastname. I came across two (there may be more) that have middle names in the title, Person:Stella Orpha Sumpter (1) and Person:Shirley Benjamin Robbins (1). I certainly don't think it's worth worrying over! As you come across Person pages with middle names, you can rename them at that point. Renaming is really easy to do - on the person page just click Rename and give it a new title. Don't hesitate to ask further questions!--Jennifer (JBS66) 18:44, 26 February 2009 (EST) Hello Jennifer, Thanks. I think you are right. Once again I was trying to make it more complicated than I needed to. --DFree 19:33, 26 February 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Online Books [8 April 2009]I'm wondering if there is a better way to emphasize when online fully viewable versions of genealogical texts are available. There are tons of books online! If I look at a current source page Source:Whitmore, William Henry. A brief genealogy of the Usher family of New England, I notice:
One of my ideas was using Categories, but I thought there might be other ideas out there....--Jennifer (JBS66) 15:29, 28 January 2009 (EST) I'm open to suggestions. Would moving the repositories up on the page help?--Dallan 01:38, 1 February 2009 (EST) I do think it would help to move the repositories section up. Especially as we start adding more surnames to the source pages, the repositories get kind of lost down there. My gut still says that it would be handy to emphasize when a book is available online - like with a banner, or icon. Essentially, we all know that we can get these books, but to know that I can read & search it on the computer - that's even better. One other thing that might help is adding a field to the source search. We are adding online books from sources such as Google Books as Type:Books Availability:Free Website. However, I can't then limit my search by source type (book). The other option would be to add another option to the Availability field.--Jennifer (JBS66) 07:41, 9 February 2009 (EST) You could also enter "google" into the keywords field to search for sources on google books.--Dallan 14:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Type vs Subject [8 April 2009]I could add Type as a search option. This raises a question about something I've been thinking about lately: Should we get rid of Type and just have Subject (and if so, what additional subjects should we add)? The Type field was added to sources mainly so the system could automatically construct Source page titles (based upon the type), and so the system would know which fields to display on Source pages. Lately I've been thinking that if we were to add "Census" as an additional option to Type when someone is creating a new source, we could ask for the kind of census, etc. and have the system title the Source page according to our new standard for titling census sources. And I wonder if it would make sense to add other options to Type when we come up with other subject-specific standards for titling Source pages. But this would make Type and Subject overlap quite a bit, so I'm wondering if long-term we should drop Type and just use Subject. So I can put adding Type as a search option onto my ToDo list, but I would like to get people's feedback on the thought about replacing Type with Subject and adding additional Subject options.--Dallan 12:41, 12 February 2009 (EST) I see Type and Subject as distinct entities. To me, Type might be more properly called Format. Book, Article, Microfiche, Newspaper, Map, etc would fall into this field. (If you go to WorldCat Search, you can see a list of their formats). Subject provides the detail: what is this source generally about?--Jennifer (JBS66) 13:06, 12 February 2009 (EST) We could change Type to Format, but there are two problems: Many sources are in both microfilm and book formats, so you couldn't assign a single Format to Source pages, and for the purpose of titling the Source page it doesn't matter whether the book is in paper, microfilm, or electronic format; the title for all three is the same. Maybe it would be better to keep Type and add Subject to the "Add Source" screen so that we could better generate Source page titles, and index Type.--Dallan 14:44, 12 February 2009 (EST) ____ What information are you trying to convey? Are you interested in describing
Q 15:50, 12 February 2009 (EST) I think that as we push to merge duplicate sources, WR's source screen doesn't fully serve that purpose. In regards to the Type field, optimally, we would have multiple types within each source page. What I'm thinking is a structure such that each reprint or version of a source (I'm specifically thinking about books), would have its own fill-in section, with its own publisher, date, repositories... (similar to the Edit Person page screen's Source Citation section). Then, the type field would be ill-suited to creating page titles. I think the idea of the subject field serving that purpose probably works and is more expandable. I like the idea of the system automatically suggesting a title. Would that then enable you to create code that would search for a potential duplicate before adding a new source?--Jennifer (JBS66) 17:25, 12 February 2009 (EST) I could see eventually having repeating "publication information" field(s). Thinking about it, I can't see combining "Type" into "Subject" because books about New England marriages need to have a subject of "vital records", not "book". So maybe the best thing to do is add "Online book" as another "Availability" option after all. I'll add this to the todo list if there are no objections.--Dallan 21:36, 14 February 2009 (EST) I find that source type is mostly an annoyance. Every time I am doing a find/add of a source, there is this extra screen that requires a type in order to know what fields to prompt for. Give me all the fields and I will fill out the ones that apply. Most of the time I am entering only a few prominent words of the title, perhaps an author's last name, seldom more. Could the type even be put on the find/add screen, causing its layout to change dynamically? Then it would remove one screen/delay in the process. If you are simply searching, it doesn't seem to make much difference what type you use, your results will be anything matching the criteria you want. I often select Miscellaneous because it only prompts for a title, even when I know I am looking for a book. Any distinction between book and vital records seems pretty unimportant in practice. Regarding the auto-completion/popup list of sources, it would be nice if it could be case insensitive. I can never remember which parts of the title are capitalized, since most of the titles have very non-traditional capitalization. I know there was a comment about fixing this, but until that happens auto-completion is of not much use. Let's see, was it Vital Records of Sudbury? No, it is Vital records of Sudbury. If you want to get really fancy you could ignore punctuation and compress spacing where possible, and also ignore any leading 'the' or 'a' or 'an'. --Jrich 13:27, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Regarding capitalization, you shouldn't have to worry about it. When you add a source using the "Add Source" page, it capitalizes the source correctly for you regardless of what you enter. (Correctly meaning that every word is captitalized except for 'the', 'a', etc.) Asking people to choose a type on the "Add source" page is mainly to help new users know what to enter when adding new sources. The type is on the "Add Source" page; when you fill in the type the other fields become visible, so the layout does change dynamically. Type isn't listed on the search screen. Are we talking about different things?--Dallan 14:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT) I wasn't asking about the Add Source function, I was referring to creating a source citation pointing to an existing source item. The complaint about capitalization had to do with the auto-completion of the source field. If I type 'Vital records of Sudbury' and wait a pause, WeRelate will fill in the rest of the source title without me having to remember the rest of the title with its state (Massachusetts or Mass.?), its ending year (to 1849 or 1850?), the exact punctuation (was there a comma after the state?) and the exact capitalization necessary to create a valid link. It is a good way to make sure I am creating a valid link. But if I type 'Vital Records of Sudbury' it will not auto-complete, because capitalizing the R means it does not match the stored Source. Given that auto-completion must match the beginning of a source is not too onerous but the current capitalization in the WeRelate source records is mostly not standard (closer to Sentence case than Title case) and this is easily fixed by doing the search in a case-insensitive manner. Going further on auto-completion, sometimes auto-completion gets messed up because the punctuation is '<space><comma><space>' instead of '<comma><space>' but this is a rarity and I can live with it. It would be nice if the search used here was more of a general keyword search, so I could just type 'Savage Dictionary' or 'First Settlers Dictionary' and get a small popup of a fairly focused set of choices from which is it easy to pick 'Savage, James. A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England', but I can live with typing in a prefix of the title. Usually when I work on one family, I cite the same source over and over and quickly learn the shortest string I need enter to type in to get auto-completion to work.
Going through the full find/add process (to add a source citation to a fact) also asks for a type. That is the only field on the screen. Then you only get to a screen asking for your search criteria. If you select book, it only controls the fields presented. The results of the search bring back magazines, articles, or any type of source that matches your criteria. (And it is not clear if Vital Records of Sudbury is a book, or Government Records?) When I select find/add I would like to see all the search criteria displayed. If I set the type, dynamically change the screen, but skip the extra screen that asks for nothing but the type. In other words, make this work like the Search->WeRelate function when you search for a Source. I don't even need to specify the type of source there and I get what I want.
While I am on this topic, can a press of <ENTER> while focus is on a source title field NOT trigger the Save function. I would expect ENTER pressed here to either act like tab, or better still, to activate find/add. So if I type 'Savage Dictionary' into the source name field and hit ENTER, and up pops the search criteria screen with 'Savage Dictionary' preloaded into the title field. Actually this comment on ENTER applies to all the text fields. I accidentally trigger the SAVE function all the time by hitting ENTER when I should hit tab, because many applications treat ENTER and tab the same. My fault, obviously, but I would think it would be safer to require a user to explicitly select Save to trigger that action, since it has so many side-effects.
--Jrich 15:16, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Displaying summary information better [8 April 2009]The problem with the left hand side bar is that its designed to hold much more information than can be conveniently displayed. The space is far too cramped to make the display effective---at least for instances where a lot of the text boxes have been completed. As a workaround I place a link in the body of the article itself under the header "electronic sources". I usually place that right after another header I use "Bibliographic Citation". (That latter item is useful because the current set up in the side bar does not give you a useful bibliographic citation. When it comes time to create a list of references, this facilititates the process.) I then add in whatever commentary I think appropriate for the work. In anycase, by having the "Bibliographic Citation" followed by "Electronic Source", the two most important (arguably) bits of information are presented immediately after opening the page. I rarely even look at the left hand side bar. As an example see Source:Addington, R.M. History of Scott County, Virginia Q 10:59, 9 February 2009 (EST) As an alternative approach, one thing that might be useful would be to combine the data elements in the edit text boxes to form a bibliographic citation. Then display only the bilbiographic citation in the left hand side bar. Links to online versions could then be placed immediately under that. Then supress the display of the information in the side edit text boxes. Even so, the sidebar would be a little cramped for displaying a long bibliographic citation. So maybe kill the sidebar altogether, and place the bibliographic citation in the main article space as I'm doing now. Q 11:18, 9 February 2009 (EST) When would a book whose availability said "Free website" not be available for reading online? "Free website" for other types of sources (e.g., cemetery records) generally means that you can read the records online. Maybe we need to create another availability for books that are not available online (e.g., in Google books), and reserve "Free website" for those books that are?
I think the issue of the sidebar containing too much information applies to Person and Family pages as well. It does seem like a lot of this information should be moved into a wider section just under the page title. I'd probably keep the coverage information (places, surnames, date range?) in the sidebar. But I agree - the information in the side-bar needs to be divided into a box that goes across the top of the page with the more-important information, and the sidebar with the less-important information.--Dallan 14:20, 9 February 2009 (EST)
The plan is to change the format for Person and Family pages later this year, with a table across the top containing the basic information. When I say table across the top, I mean a table under the title, to the right of the sidebar, and above the narrative. I think we're talking about the same thing.--Dallan 14:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] What do we do with Adam and Eve? [8 April 2009]In contributing time for merging, I have stumbled across Adam and Eve. Um. What do I do with them? Has this been discussed elsewhere? Please advise. jillaine 17:03, 31 January 2009 (EST) It is a documented genealogy. Have you uncovered who Enoch's mother is yet? --Jrich 17:18, 31 January 2009 (EST)
I think a good argument could be made that the family tree of Adam and Eve is documented, historical and valid. I believe the debate should center on the source's validity and reliability; whether the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, and the Tawrat should be considered as primary, secondary, questionable, or unreliable sources. Wikipedia's Genealogies of Genesis and Genealogy of Jesus both show well-documented, well-discussed, and well-presented reasons for considering the presentation and inclusion of the genealogy of Adam and Eve as a valid entry for WeRelate. I wish my own family tree was half as well documented and preserved.
I was preparing my response at the same time that User:Jillaine wrote hers, and it's along the same lines: If we delete them we would have to give a reason, and I'm not sure what that reason would be. The people and their relationships are documented well enough to have wikipedia pages (see Wikipedia:Category:Bible genealogy). I imagine we're talking about only a few dozen to a hundred people. I'd be ok with keeping them, and referencing the wikipedia pages. By the way, thinking about my response got me to read an interesting article with an overview of attempts to trace modern lineages back to Roman times and earlier. If someone tries to tie into a biblical genealogy, I hope we can do them a service and set them straight.--Dallan 01:38, 1 February 2009 (EST) I agree with Dallan.--Beth 09:32, 1 February 2009 (EST)
While mythical and faith-oriented genealogies may be present and documented on wikipedia, I doubt that you will find an unchallenged representation that they link to a modern or traceable genealogy. As werelate has developed, I think we're trying to create a maximally unique, documented, and connected genealogy. Pretty much by definition, faith-oriented genealogies can never connect with all that. The genealogies of faith and myth are important, meaningful, and perfectly valid in their own context. But I think that context is quite different than werelate. I would encourage people working on that stuff to work on either the appropriate wikipedia pages or to launch a custom wiki for the purpose.--Jrm03063 09:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)
Are any of the users associated with such pages active and working on them? Or is this just more abandoned upload?--Jrm03063 10:52, 2 February 2009 (EST) Here's the Adam and Eve page (thanks BobC for merging them all together!) You might want to check out User:Socrtwo, whose user page states "Hi. I'm trying to make family trees of all the Myth Systems of the World as listed in Wikipedia on this page: [3]."--Jennifer (JBS66) 10:59, 2 February 2009 (EST) I just checked the last contribution from User:Socrtwo, it was 22 November 2007, a day after his last GEDCOM upload. Swell...--Jrm03063 11:31, 2 February 2009 (EST) I don't feel that strongly about it. Whether the Biblical genealogies are valid or not is a matter of faith, but I think everyone is in agreement that links from modern genealogies to Biblical genealogies are invalid. I just don't want to spend a lot of time on it, and I worry that enforcing a policy of removing these pages (and justifying it, especially when we don't remove unsourced modern material) will be more trouble than it's worth. Having said this, I just looked at User:Socrtwo. I don't think we need trees from someone who's primary objective is to upload trees of Biblical and mythical genealogies. We'll email this user about deleting their trees.--Dallan 14:20, 9 February 2009 (EST) I just came across some more of this sort of stuff. A shaky scandinavian line turned into Odin, which then went through a long list of names though Troy and thence to the biblical space. While I generally believe that it's best to come to a debate with source material that refutes an existing claim, sometimes claims are so weak, it seems an unreasonable burden to expect them to be able to be explciitly disproved. For example, would it be reasonable to say that representations about people born more than 500 years ago, without supporting sources, are liable for delete without further justification? I would offer the generic short-hand phrase, "ancient and unsubstantiated" as a generic rationale in such cases. I guess I would further add, that even if an ancient person page turns out to be true/real/etc., re-creating an empty page isn't much of a burden when someone is coming back through with source content.--Jrm03063 12:48, 10 February 2009 (EST) Why 500 years? Can't we agree that pretty much anything beyond 100 years is hearsay, passed down by word of mouth without personal knowledge of the facts? Then you still have the question of what constitutes a valid source. So I think your criteria is unworkable. Instead I would argue if you don't care enough to explicitly refute it, leave it. If there aren't enough serious genealogists such that sooner or later one will refute these with arguments, then my estimates of the value of WeRelate, and the intelligence of people in general, are too optimistic... It doesn't have to be you: my advice is to be patient and tolerant and focus on the parts you know.--Jrich 13:31, 10 February 2009 (EST) I'm looking for something that will help those of us working in the ancient spaces right now. We're trying to clean away stuff that is often abandoned junk, but not always, so wholesale delete of entire trees isn't really what we want to do. I also think there's a problem with letting someone start with a claim based on zero evidence, and then requiring those of us doing the cleaning to try to perform detailed analysis that explicitly disproves the assertion. What if I'm looking at a person, for whom the wikipedia page says nothing is known with certainty about their ancestry. If I then find a lineage in werelate (devoid of sources), is that sufficient justification to delete the lineage leading past the wikipedia-backed page? My thinking is that 500 years is pretty much beyond the extent of any accuracy in an oral tradition, and the space that I'm looking at is generally older than 1500. I would think we would want a shorter window eventually.--Jrm03063 13:54, 10 February 2009 (EST) What if we had a policy that for people with pages in Wikipedia, we take what Wikipedia says as the best source of information that we have available, and if pages are created for them with information that is contrary to what's on Wikipedia, then those pages are subject to being edited to bring them in line with the Wikipedia page. The reason for editing would be "contradicts Wikipedia" and the contributor would be invited to edit the Wikipedia page if they felt they were correct. By doing this we place the burden of determining whether the information is properly substantiated on Wikipedia, which has a much broader community of people interested in "famous" people. Has anyone come across pages for people born more than 500 years ago that do not have a page on Wikipedia? I don't mind setting 1500 as a cut-off date for unsubstantiated information -- the LDS Church used 1500-1550 as their cut-off for submissions because they believed that the only surviving genealogical records for Europe before 1500 were already well known and that individual contributors weren't likely to come up with anything new -- but I think I'd rather have a policy of going with Wikipedia information for people on Wikipedia, including for more recent people like presidents.--Dallan 13:15, 12 February 2009 (EST) I just noticed that one of my new lines from an attached tree puts me as an ancestor of a Norse god... or at least a mythological hero figure of some sort... (I haven:t had time to read all of it, yet) I guess I'm not trying to make light of this, the point I:m making is that a lot of cultures put king lines as "direct descendents of the Gods" and they sort of wipe out the real history and connect King so-and-so as the son of the God of Something (A great example of this is the Japanese royal throne, which has an unbroken lineage all the way back to the Goddess of the Sun... and it:s fact... to the Japanese). I went on ahead and added that lineage to my tree because we would have to go against 1500 years of culture to find who was the REAL ancestor out there in that great white wasteland... so this is all we have... As I go along, I'll probably find that I:m related to Adam, Eve, Norse Gods, King Arthur, Celtic what-nots and maybe even a few banshees... There is a fuzzy line where fact becomes fiction and it:s going to be there no matter what we do (For now). If Adam and Eve are the best we:ve got from that era, I say let:s use them... Someone will have to clean up our trees later... but I don:t think they are going to be too keen on having to repair the guy who was 500 feet tall and made it snow, either... Aabh 01:38, 13 February 2009 (EST) I just deleted a number of trees that contained nothing but norse gods, etc. What do people think about the idea I mentioned above of deferring to Wikipedia for people with pages on Wikipedia? If nobody objects or has another idea, I'd like to make that a standard policy.--Dallan 21:40, 14 February 2009 (EST)
Well, I've previously suggested a way that all this could be done, but I'll also point out again: it flies in the face - literally - of our name: "werelate". I intend no disrespect to anything from the worlds of faith, myth - even fiction. The problem is that when you're looking at a different context, then by definition, folks don't relate (at least, not by standards that will be uniformly accepted). We already have an ocean of material that we're trying to manage and improve. Deciding on what the rules are based on what sort of page you're looking at seems like a burden we shouldn't take on - the scope is already large enough. With respect to wikipedia - nothing is "lost" when it becomes a GEDCOM. The convention is that the body is usally taken from the article preamble and a source citing the article appears on the source list. I think Dallan's proposal is that such body content would, initially, be replaced with a specification of where in wikipedia it came from. So a person would typically have two references to the wikipedia page. How is that losing anything? Keeping the link lets you get whatever the up-to-date content is. I do think that an ability to download a GEDCOM containing wikipedia data in snap-shot form would be helpful too though, so reports and such could be created. Generally though, I wouldn't think you would want to make a copy of material which will become dated, when you can just point at the place where it should be able to be found in its most up-to-date form. With respect to "hosting your gedcom", that's not quite true. Your GEDCOM is read to produce the pages, and those pages are added to your default "tree", but your GEDCOM doesn't continue to exist in any particular form. As your pages are merged with duplicates for those people and families, your "tree" points at the new page material. We're also talking about adopting rules that may require certain levels of evidence for pages associated with people born before a threshold date. If "your tree" contains stuff that doesn't pass that filter, then sections of it are likly to be edited off the site anyway.--Jrm03063 10:51, 16 February 2009 (EST) Just to be clear, when I say that we defer to wikipedia for medieval people, I don't mean that we remove pages for those people from WeRelate, but that the pages for them on WeRelate agree with the data at Wikipedia. So the GEDCOM export would still include them. What I'm suggesting is that if a GEDCOM is uploaded containing parents for a medieval person named X, and wikipedia says that X's parents are unknown, that when this discrepancy is discovered the page will be edited and the parents removed. As an alternative, what JRM has suggested is that the parents remain, but that they be categorized as such-and-such legend or misconception or whatever. I believe that we should use JRM's suggestion as an exception, rather than the rule. The rule should be that pages for people at WeRelate who have pages at Wikipedia agree with the information at Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia includes all of the emperors of Japan but lists the first 14 as legendary, so we could include pages for them as well with links to the Wikipedia pages which note that the first 14 are legendary. If someone uploads a page for a person who has a wikipedia page, containing parentage information that is not listed on wikipedia, then if the parentage appears to be a widely-held belief we can invoke JRM's exception and include those parents but categorize them as a legend or misconception. However, I hope that we would apply this exception very sparingly because these parentages will appear just like normal parentages on pedigree charts, and this will likely cause frustration for people who don't want them to appear on pedigree charts. With this clarification, are people still opposed to the idea?--Dallan 13:02, 16 February 2009 (EST)
In answer the the observation, "what if werelate researchers are further along", I would reply that the appropriate thing to do is to host the research on wikipedia FIRST. There are not enough researchers on werelate to competently referee material of extreme antiquity. If someone legitimately has information that is both ancient (pre-1500, or whatever) and reasonably sourced, then it should pass muster on wikipedia. If the stuff survives on wikipedia, then it can be referenced here at WR. Also, while I do a lot of work here at WR, I wouldn't limit myself by saying I'm a WR-only person. Indeed, I think wikipedia should be viewed as a more general-purpose name space than PERSON, FAMILY, ARTICLE, etc. Unless documented ancestry before 1500 is being kicked off wikipedia on relevance/notoriety grounds, I don't see the problem with requiring things to clear that hurdle. If "1500" seems too recent, it could be an earlier cut-off and the procedure above would still apply. To my mind, the point of ancient lineages on werelate, is to allow people who have valid connections in modern genealogy to reference the ancient stuff without attempting to reproduce it themselves. I don't think, presently anyway, you could claim that werelate is a great place to originate/publish ancient material.--Jrm03063 16:45, 19 February 2009 (EST) I (personally) would not normally be concerned about pre-1500 lineages, so this discussion is not likely to affect me directly. Nonetheless, I can see some very specific reasons for NOT deferring to Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies on (requires use of) published authoritative sources. Information gleaned from original research is explicitly excluded. And there are good and sufficient reasons for making that one of their rules---if the case was otherwise, every cracked-pot with a novel idea about whatever hobby horse they liked to ride, could write up their "original research", and "publish" it on Wikipedia. And that's why genealogies are not allowed on Wikipedia---because almost all genealogies are based on, unpublished "original research". (And a "published" family history is not going to fair much better.) It doesn't matter whether the facts they present are right or wrong---unless those "facts" are documented in an authoritative source, they will be excluded (at least in theory). While the truth is that most genealogies are not well done, some are very well done indeed, and probably contain information not available in a Wikipedia article. Adopting a rule of deferring to Wikipedia on an article (even if the field of view is pre 1500), would automatically exclude those data. Q 18:50, 19 February 2009 (EST) I've seen plenty of genealogy on wikipedia. Perhaps not pages that represent a genealogy unto themselves, but thousands of pages that give family ancestry and descendancy information. How about Alfred the Great? Baldwin II, Count of Flanders? Bernard I, Duke of Saxony? So the 99% case - people rifliing through archane texts in various libraries - is resolved by requesting that they start on wikipedia, then bring it to werelate by reference. What about the 1% case - a true primary researcher in the pre-1500s space? I havn't met one yet, but I think they need to go through the steps of getting published in a peer-reviewed forum. NEHGR or similar. From there they can write a nice wikipedia summary and we'll be thrilled to reference the content. We have to have some basic rules that let a small number of amateurs can sift through the vast and abandoned ancient space content without being experts on just everything, ever.--Jrm03063 19:44, 19 February 2009 (EST) I hesitate to enter this subject again, but I don't think we finished it. And now that the new GEDCOM upload is being tested at the sandbox site I'm trying to tie up loose ends. Regarding pre-1500 research, I'm ok with allowing WeRelate to differ from Wikipedia, but I think it should be the exception rather than the rule. In general, the articles at Wikipedia are much better sourced than those at WeRelate. But if someone comes up with a really good source that isn't acceptable to Wikipedia (I think this would be rare), I'm ok with making an exception. And we can certainly have additional information about people here if additional information can be found about them that wouldn't make sense to post on Wikipedia. Regarding people in religious or mythological or legendary lineages, this is a difficult question. It has caused a few problems already and I can believe it will continue to be an issue no matter what we decide. After reading the above discussion, I think we should discourage people from posting these lineages because tracking ancient lineages is outside the scope of WeRelate. But I don't want to spend time searching them out and deleting them. I think the time is better spent on other things. I just tried to create a new Family page for Adam Unknown and Eve Unknown and got an index number of 4, so we haven't had that many instances of this. There are a lot more instances of medieval people who need to be cleaned up and merged. I'm ok with marking the pages for people in these lineages as "religious, mythological, or legendary" if someone wants to take the time, but I think most people are aware of that already. I'm more concerned with disabusing people of the notion that they can actually link to these people. I hope that if we find people born prior to 1500 with lineages that disagree with Wikipedia, that we "fix" those pages to conform to Wikipedia and add a wikipedia link. If the contributor has a source that disagrees with Wikipedia, we can consider that on a case by case basis. And further thoughts on this?--Dallan 14:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT) Can we at least preclude GEDCOM upload of material older than, say, 1000 C.E.? I don't know whether we could just curtail the upload and do it partially, or whether it would make more sense to decline the GEDCOM if it contains dates before some point. I think that such a limitation, if it could be imposed, would filter a lot of highly questionable stuff that seems to continue to be around.--Jrm03063 14:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT) Dallan, I liked JRM's suggestion WeRelate_talk:Watercooler#Non-traditional_Genealogy_-_Adam_.26_Eve_Part_II_.5B15_February_2009.5D here -- jillaine 14:34, 8 April 2009 (EDT) If we were to have a protection system in place for pages that either have more than 5 active watchers and/or have a backing Wikipedia template, could the system just not add that GEDCOM data to the page? I have to say, on another note, that saying Wikipedia is "much better" than us in any way worries me. We're only in the Beta stage, isn't this setting ourselves short? One could also say that Wikipedia has much better place pages. I would hope that because we are a genealogical Wiki, that we would strive to become the go-to resource, rather than deferring that to Wikipedia. --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:00, 8 April 2009 (EDT) Precluding old material from GEDCOM upload seems like a good idea. I think I'd make the year 700 so people can link to Charlemagne though. I'm under the impression that most of the people born before 1500 either currently have or soon will have wikipedia stubs, so people won't be able to edit those pages, but if we allow them to match the people in their GEDCOM to the wikipedia people, then the Wikipedia people will be added to their tree, which ought to satisfy them. We're already planning on a policy that GEDCOM's containing pre-1500 data will be flagged for admin review to make sure they were matched appropriately, so I think having another policy that you can't upload anyone born before 700, regardless of whether or not they were matched, seems reasonable. For ease of programming, let's start by asking admins to make sure people born before 700 are excluded when they review the warnings in the GEDCOM. I'll have the system flag each of them with a warning, so they should be easy for an admin to exclude. If it turns out that we get a lot of GEDCOM's like this, then I'll make the exclusion automatic. Regarding Wikipedia, the reason I would like to defer to wikipedia for pre-1500 people is I believe medieval research requires a different set of skills and interests than modern research. And I think that more people with those skills and interests frequent wikipedia than WR. Maybe someday the tables will be turned (that would sure be interesting!) but until then I think basing our pre-1500 pages on Wikipedia makes sense. Post 1500, I do expect that we'll become the "go to" site soon! And yes, I like Jrm's suggestion below as well.--Dallan 17:19, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Recycling a redirected name [8 April 2009]During the merge process, it often and unfortunately occurs, that the preferred form of a page name becomes redirected to some less than desireable form. Say, "Fred Flintstone and Wilma (1)" gets redirected to "Unknown Fred and Wilma Flintstone (48)". Of course, you can rename "Unknown Fred and Wilma Flintstone (48)", but you'll get "Fred Flintstone and Wilma (2)", which is a lot less satisfying. One way to get back to the original name is to look at the "what links here" list for the page, and find the preferred name as a redirection. Open a window to edit that page, removing the redirect line and saving back the page as empty. Then, go to the "Admin" pull down and select, compare pages. Put the old icky name and the preferred name into the appropriate list for comparison. Trigger the comparison, and then follow it through with a merge from the icky name to the newly recovered name. If you're like me, and have the retention span of a goldfish, this is the only way to go.--Jrm03063 17:37, 2 February 2009 (EST) Another thing you can do, if you happen to notice it during the merge, is to change the "merge target" (the little circle just underneath the page title) to the page that has the title you want.--Dallan 14:20, 9 February 2009 (EST) I think this is an interesting strategy, and have begun using it when the desired page is deleted instead of redirected. I am confused about one thing. Say the (1) page is redirected to another page, can you really just delete the redirect link? What happens to the User that was watching the original (1) page, and, by virtue of a redirect, is now watching the redirected-to page? Wouldn't that User then be watching your new (1) page?--Jennifer (JBS66) 17:51, 16 February 2009 (EST) I'm a little confused by the question; if a user was watching the original page, after the redirect they'll be watching both pages. So if you delete the original page they'll still be watching the redirected-to page. Ah, I think I see the problem: you can't delete the original page (which is now a redirect) if someone else is watching it. That's true unfortunately. I suppose you could mark it for speedy delete.--Dallan 16:03, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Non-traditional Genealogy - Adam & Eve Part II [8 April 2009]I was originally against accepting on werelate, any genealogy that either wasn't, or had no immediate hope, of being documentable in the strict sense. The consensus that biblical and other genealogies are, never the less appropriate, gave me pause. Like it or don't, there are a lot of GEDCOMs out there that contain such stuff, either improperly linked to modern genealogies or not. There are also plenty of GEDCOMs circulating out there with data from 19th century hoaxes and other sources. More insidiously, there are "hypothetical" people, that were added to justify and create links to Mayflower and other ancestry of interest. If we delete this stuff whenever it comes in, we'll be forever on a treadmill of removing stuff, without any explicit documentation of these issues. What if, instead of deleting such non-traditional genealoty, we embrace them. This way, the merge-on-upload feature has some hope of matching such stuff and not re-recreating it yet again. I'm not suggesting that we represent this stuff as classically "accurate" genealogy, but rather, as accurate within it's context. A person that is accurate as a representation of some aspect of a Norse myth, for example. Likewise, a person that is part of a known hoax lineage or known hoax link. Such a person can be "accurate" and documented in that sense. What if we do this, by establishing a guideline that non-traditional genealogies:
Thoughts?--Jrm03063 12:06, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Funny you should bring this up. I've been thinking the past couple of days (after I deleted the trees with mythological beings) that maybe we ought to have a policy that people who cannot be connected to modern people (which would include mythological beings and biblical people) shouldn't have pages on WeRelate. This policy would allow us to focus on helping people connect with their own genealogy, which is the main purpose of this site, and side-steps the impossible argument of whether or not biblical people are well-documented. What do you think about this?--Dallan 22:51, 14 February 2009 (EST)
No, just people that cannot be linked to modern lines. This includes biblical people (according to Wikipedia:Descent from antiquity there are no known lines right now that extend back to the bible), mythological people, fictional characters, etc. So Welsh nobility would be ok, but Abraham's genealogy would be excluded until someone showed how to link from Abraham to someone born in medieval times. I'm not against Jrm's suggestion either.--Dallan 21:27, 15 February 2009 (EST) I've been on both sides of this thing. Since there seemed to be a developing consensus that we needed to allow all sorts of things, I was trying to find a way that they could all coexist in the same space. So I proposed the multiple-context idea, where folks would define their context and then be required to indicate that something was non-traditional and it's context, in order for it to be allowed to persist. Still, that is literally against the notion of "werelate", since, well, other contexts can't relate! It also wasn't, and really isn't my preference. We don't have solid documentation and practices in ordinary spaces as yet - we shouldn't start going afield. It would probably be a better thing, if someone were devoted to biblical genealogy (for example) to start a clone of werelate with it's own standards. Likewise other cultural or faith-oriented contexts. I think one aspect of my proposal above should survive though - the idea about explicit representation of hoax people and fabricated link people. I would think that having such people in the werelate database will make it more likely that uploaded GEDCOMs, containing such defects, will be discovered as such early - and not wind up recreating problems sorted out and documented by other folks. Of course, such "people" would need a very visible up-front template, indicating that this comes from a persistent defect/fraud/hoax that needs to be explicitly known.--Jrm03063 21:50, 15 February 2009 (EST) I just commented on the earlier Adam and Eve topic (I forgot about this one). I'm fine with someone identifying pages of this sort with a "Norse myth" etc. template if anyone wants to take the time to do this. I don't know how important it is, because these Old Testament / Norse myth pages are generally fairly obvious. But I really like your other idea: explicitly identifying hoax and fabricated link people, because those people aren't often very obvious. If someone's interested, please be bold and create these templates and leave a message here and in a help page on how to use them. Thanks!--Dallan 16:03, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Someday: Show how we relate [8 April 2009]In the course of some of the category work I've been doing, I've been thinking it would be nice to have a feature that could show how two people were related. For example, this couple are the ancestors of both Gerald Ford and Barack Obama. But I don't know of any way on here to pull that specific 8-10 generation descent out to figure out how the line goes or how the two are related to each other. Also, people love descendant societies... it would be really interesting to be able to tag a person "Mayflower descendant" and have the ability to pop up their line back to the appropriate passenger(s). And then you have a new user find Great-Grandpa, and find out he's descended from some Mayflower folks, a president or two, and Charlemagne, which I've got to think would be great fun. I have no idea whether the wiki or other software could be harnessed to do this, and I'm sure there are all sorts of complications I haven't thought of, but given the name of the site, after all, I thought I'd throw it out there. --Amelia 16:28, 16 February 2009 (EST) That would definitely be a nice feature. If I recall, the PAF application has something like that, where you can pick two persons out of a file and ask how they're related, and it comes back and says "X and Y are 4th cousins, twice removed", and shows you the connection. The data's definitely there to be able to do it. From a software algorithm point of view, the problem is to determine whether X and Y have any common ancestor. The latter part of your comment is a slightly different problem. That is, does person X have any ancestors with category tag C? That would be even easier, software algorithm-wise. Though I'm not sure whether WeRelate currently has all of the categories set up that would be interesting for that purpose. Do we have categories for "Revolutionary War vet", "Mayflower passenger", "European royalty", and such? --TomChatt 04:16, 22 February 2009 (EST)
Funny, I've been thinking about this as well. I hadn't thought about using categories; I'd thought about using wikipedia-linked pages to tell you who the "famous" people a person was linked to were. But I like the idea of using category tags also. It's definitely do-able, and I think it's a cool idea. Realistically it's a feature for next year though.--Dallan 16:03, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] NGS Family History Conference (May 13-16) [8 April 2009]The 2009 National Genealogical Society Family History Conference will be held May 13-16, 2009 at the new Raleigh Convention Center in Raleigh, North Carolina. I live near Raleigh and am planning on attending the conference. I would like to take this opportunity to open a collaborative discussion among WeRelate users and those interested in going to the conference or with those that might want information from the conference after-the-fact from those who attended. The impressive program (about 230 individual sessions) will have one presentation on "Blogs, Wikis, & Flickr" by Jordan Jones on May 14th at 2:30 pm. If the discussion and interest here warrants, maybe we can set up a separate Article page or Talk page to contain and organize the expanded discussion better than the Watercooler page.
Please do! I wish I were going to the conference. We cut back this year due to the economy. I'd love to hear how it goes. I'm planning to go to FGS in September (giving two talks along with a booth). Anyone else going?--Dallan 17:19, 8 April 2009 (EDT) The lectures I signed up for are listed below. It was difficult to choose, because I was interested in so many; I want to go to at least two topics for every timeslot for which I've had to pick just one -- they've planned for 10 tracks each day, with new lectures in each track every 90 minutes. Seems very well planned.
[add comment] [edit] Marriage Dates? [8 April 2009]It would be very nice if marriage dates showed up on Person pages. I don't know if that would cause problems. I remember there was some talk some time back awhile about ordering marriages automatically the way children are, too? I like the way the Christening date gets used if there is no birth date for a person, when that person is shown on Family pages. (And burial for death.) I think it would nice if Marriage Banns were used in a similar way when there is no known marriage date? --Jrich 19:53, 22 February 2009 (EST) I'm planning on doing this soon (next few months). The plan is to list a person's spouse, children, marriage, parents, etc. in a little 'mini-FTE' window on the page. You'll also be able to use this window to add a new spouse, child, parents, etc.--Dallan 17:19, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] I so do NOT get how to do the "wikipedia" thang [8 April 2009]Could someone please take a look at Puritans? I put all three "templates" that I could find about pulling in wikipedia text, and I made a "puritan" wikipedia template, but frankly I find the whole thing confusing and don't know what the heck I'm doing. Please advise. Thanks. -- jillaine 21:38, 25 February 2009 (EST)
Templates are normally used when the same thing needs to be used in multiple articles. I don't see that being the objective here, unless what you want is a very brief "standard definition" that could be plugged into an article. (If you had that as a need you'd only need to change the underlying template, if something needed to be added. Otherwise, you have to change your stanard blurb everyplace you used it. Templates can be real timesavers as well as "Consistency makers", but I suspect that's not the need here. Q 16:56, 2 March 2009 (EST) I think what Jillaine is referring to is from Proposed Guidelines for use of Wikipedia and creating the WP templates to grab Wikipedia content. The page looks like it refreshed on 1 Mar. To me, it seems you added the correct code. Does it look like you intended Jillaine?--Jennifer (JBS66) 17:11, 2 March 2009 (EST) I never closed this out. It's now looking the way I want it; I only needed two of the three original templates. But I still gotta say that I remain confused about how to do it. The instructions are confusing to me. And I fear that the next time I need to do it, I'll be back here wondering if I did it right. jillaine 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT) The easiest approach is to add {{source-wikipedia|<wikipedia_page_name>}} to the top of your article and wait for the weekend. Over the weekend the introductory section (before the first heading) of the wikipedia article will be copied onto your page. You can also have other sections of the article copied onto your page, but it's more involved. I haven't checked Proposed Guidelines for use of Wikipedia recently to see how clear it is there, but in any case, the proposal has been accepted and this information should be moved onto a Help page. (You'd need to create a new Help page, copy the content onto that page, and manually redirect the article to the Help page since we can't redirect across namespaces.) Would someone be willing to do that?--Dallan 18:31, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Putting our heads together [1 March 2009]So... I have been using the wonderful (And it really is :D) option of merging family trees and I have come to a point where I need to really get some straightening going... The Child is the same in all 5 mergable records (Not only is he the same, but the data is very extensive "10th Thane, Sir Whatzit Whozit, born on March 1st 1256 and died... etc"... the parents, however, are all over the place (Including one record which says the mother was named "John")... I reall have no idea where to go from here, but I think we all (Those of us that tie in here) need to put our heads together, search our GedComs, look in the family Bibles, hit up Wikipedia... whatever to straighten this record set out... I'd like to start a "Group Discussion" on this where anyone can help (Heck, even if they aren't in your family but you like a good puzzle!)... But I have no idea what to do about it... Should I start a discussion on the Talk page? Which talk page should I discuss it on? The Mutual child page? If I do that, will anyone actually see it? How do I call for help on a real snarl? I'm sure I'm not the only person who has run into a tangled part of the tree and thought "Two heads have to be better than mine" :)... so, what is the procedure for a public "Hey, anyone want to help?" sort of thing? Do we have one? Do we 'want' one? Aabh 09:02, 27 February 2009 (EST)
Hmmm... the portal is great! :D And I shall build a new portal... (no idea what to call it :D) But I also think I want to try to contact the folks directly involved in this tangle... I think what I'm thinking of is so wierd that I can't actually form a solid thought as to what exactly it is that I want :D Maybe I should just go to all the different pages, and add a "Hey! There's a problem here!" note to all the user:pages for everyone watching those pages... Maybe (Not like there isn't enough on Dallan's plate already... sorry about that) There would be a way to "Flag" a record which would put an alert on the page of everyone watching it. A resercher could put a note on the flag: "One record(s) have been flagged by User:Aabh: Hey guys, I found this part of the tree where it says that Joe Smith was really a dog and born from a litter of puppies... Does anyone have a clean record on him? (Link to Joe Smith) (Link to Joe Smith's Talk Page)" Maybe it could pop up like the "You have new messages" alert. I just think with so many records and so many people doing great work in so many diverse pages... we might be able to concentrate forces on one or two problem spots when they are found and maybe with all of us working together, Might really be able to clean up a record set. Aabh 22:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)
Aabh, back to your original question of "Should I start a discussion on the Talk page? Which talk page should I discuss it on... will anyone actually see it?" I did a little sleuthing, and I think I know the Person page you are referencing. In this case, most of the Users watching are of the type that uploaded their GEDCOM and never returned. However, User:Jrm03063 is also watching the page. Jrm is an active user and will hear your call! My suggestion would be to post a comment on the child's talk page. One way to tell if you have active users watching your page is to click on their name, which brings you to their userpage. Then, click on More, Contributions. Here, you will be able to see what they've contributed to WeRelate. If it just shows a bunch of GEDCOM uploads and nothing else - well - their probably not listening!--Jennifer (JBS66) 09:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] New Portal for Medieval - Middle Ages Research [2 March 2009]I couldn't help myself. I got you started so you have something to edit it. I did not call it "Medieval" but "Middle Ages" because um that's what Wikipedia calls it. ;-) Check it out and go to it! Have fun! -- jillaine 22:49, 28 February 2009 (EST) Middle-Aged Portal :D I love it! :D I hope it doesn't buy a Farrarri... :D Okay, I'll start tinkering with it! Thanks! :D Aabh 19:13, 1 March 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] New GEDCOM import function and a new Sandbox site [24 April 2009]I'm sorry I haven't been responding lately to the watercooler. I really want to stem the tide of new duplicate people and family pages flowing into the system and I've been spending all of my time on the new GEDCOM import. The new GEDCOM import is finally available for testing on our new Sandbox site. The sandbox contains a copy of the main WeRelate.org website. Anyone can use it to try out ideas and test things (anything, not just uploading GEDCOMs). You can find out more about the new Sandbox by visiting the Sandbox main page. I hope that people will test the new GEDCOM import function on the sandbox and give me feedback. If you find bugs or suggestions for enhancement, please leave them on my sandbox talk page. If all goes well I'd like to move the import function to the main website by the end of this week. To test the new GEDCOM import function, sign into the sandbox using your existing WeRelate.org user name and password if you signed up for WeRelate.org prior to February 21, or create a new sandbox account. Then select "Import GEDCOM" from the "Add" menu like you normally would. Within a few minutes you should receive a message on your talk page telling you that your GEDCOM is ready for review. Click on the link in the message to review your GEDCOM. There is a "Help" tab with instructions. During this test period, wiki pages will be generated for all GEDCOMs after the review is complete. When we move this to the main website, pages will be generated only for GEDCOMs under a certain size with less than a certain number of warnings and non-matches. Other GEDCOMs will need to be reviewed by an administrator before the pages are generated. To facilitate this, there is a new "Gedcom Review" option under the "Admin" menu so that administrators can see which GEDCOMs need review. It's taken a long time, but I think we're almost there.--Dallan 11:51, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Do you have any idea how soon the new import function will be brought over from the sandbox? --Janiejac 20:43, 27 March 2009 (EDT) The new GEDCOM upload function is ready for final testing at the sandbox website. It's taken a long time, much longer than I thought, to implement everyone's suggestions, but I believe the result is a much better product, so THANK YOU to everyone who offered suggestions! I'd like to add the new import function to the main website later this week, so I invite everyone to test it once more on the sandbox and to let me know if you notice any problems. Thank you again! --Dallan 10:05, 6 April 2009 (EDT) who is finally crawling out of his cave now that GEDCOM import is almost ready! Did I break it? I've been testing the GEDCOM review, in Places, and um, now I can't pull up any page in the sandbox! -- jillaine 15:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
Um, that was probably me rebooting the server. Sorry about that. :-)--Dallan 18:31, 8 April 2009 (EDT) Has there been a change? Up until now I have imported small add-on trees to my tree without any problems. Today the message was that I had to name a new tree! I don't want a bunch of trees to confuse me. If I create a new tree can I merge it with my base tree?--HLJ411 14:04, 15 April 2009 (EDT) Please see the new section "GEDCOM re-uploads" at the bottom of the page. [add comment] [edit] Watching merged pages question [8 April 2009]Currently, when you merge pages you end up watching the merged page only if you were watching one of the pages involved in the merge. In the sandbox, I've changed this so that you always watch the merge targets. But I'm thinking perhaps I should change it back. There are three possible options:
What do people think?--Dallan 12:15, 1 March 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Chronologically Dated - Editing sources by date [6 March 2009]Hello, Is there a way (quick trick) to organize the sources chronologically exist? Or could it be a easy thing to do by Dallan or someone else more experienced with computer code? Right now I am manually doing this. My thought was when you edit the page, added or change the citation date after the volume page section, it would automatically organize the sources by date? Just asking, Thank You. --DFree 15:58, 1 March 2009 (EST) If we could just get sources that would be good. From what I have seen, most source citations do not have dates entered. Personally I seldom bother unless it is the only way I have of identifying the issue of a magazine, and if it is a book, I assume the source has the publication date. So I am not sure there will be much there to sort by.--Jrich 17:34, 1 March 2009 (EST)--Jrich 17:36, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Creating an easier way to manually sort sources is something that is on Dallan's to-do list. Right now, you have to cut-and-paste all of the data into new Source fields in order to move them. Having a way to move the sources around to manually sort them would be nice!--Jennifer (JBS66) 16:06, 2 March 2009 (EST) Contrary to some of the statements made here, citing the date of publication for the specific work being cited is important. Many publications occur in more than one edition, and the work is often revised for subsequent printings. Even when the work is a reprint, additional information may be added by a publisher, or the author, in the form of commentary, editorial analysis, or other matters considered relevant. The differences between reprints are usually trivial, but the differences between new editions is often substantive. If the date of publication is not cited, then its not possible to tell which particular edition was used, and it becomes difficult to verify what is being said. This is why every standard bibliographic citation format includes the date somewhere in the citation. Q 16:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I was also thinking it would be great to have a Move function for sources. When I found a new census record, the census dates were out of order. It's not a big deal, but it would be nice if they were chronological. I also had a set of pension documents for one individual. I ordered them physically before creating the image and source pages, then after they were all added, I listed them in chronological order in the Talk page for the person. I opened the page for the person in a new tab, and added the sources one at a time. - ★Parsa 12:20, 6 March 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Personal History need to be place on proper pages [2 March 2009]Personal History about an individual should be on that Person's individual page in the Personal History section...so that it is more easily understood...Personal History on a family pages should only be on the couple themselves, and the Personal History on their children should be on the child's page of whom they are about, same for Parents, & Sibling,...when one post notes we should add our signature at the end of each note, then if someone who has a question concerning the notes knows who to discuss a point with and also instead of using "I" am kin to this person put your name because "I or me" could be any one because we are all "I or me", we need to remember that this is viewed by people all over the world and hopefully for many generations to come, and on one page several different ones may add Personal History to the person's page... --Dlbradley1 16:51, 1 March 2009 (EST) Unfortunately the note box does not support the --~~~~ construct. --Jrich 17:35, 1 March 2009 (EST) --- Sorry I meant the Personal History section not the note section...--Dlbradley1 19:53, 1 March 2009 (EST)
This again goes back to the discussion on sources...when you put a source sometime it looks as if it is the source of all the History on the page that is why I said we need to sign what we put on the page some do not know to go to the history page or will not take the time...some of the pages have up to 200 years of history on a person's history page some of it correct and some that is questionable and If you have a source down it may be taken that all this is the work of the one listed on the source.--Dlbradley1 23:41, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I am not dicouraging the creation of coherent narrative pages..and I am just learnig Wiki as I go and want to learn all I can.....what I am talking about for example: several pages of my upline someone uploaded on the family or person page several generations of downline[(over 200 years in some cases).... in the History section of that page] in some cases I do not agree with it, and I use a very well verse member of the family for Source a lot...his work is well backed up and highly respected in the genealogy field (he gave me personal permission to use on this site for it is all copyrighted)..then the source come up at the bottom of the page with his name on it, and it looks as if he was the source of all the information on the page..when he is not...when I use a source I want it to show what information the source cover...I love the fact that we can put our work out and it be examined by other and fine errors that we can correct...this is the great part of this program but the information should be put on the proper pages..that is why we have A Person Page for each person and a Family Page for each Family...to my understanding it is set up to cover one generation not 5 and 6 generations.....--Dlbradley1 13:53, 2 March 2009 (EST) dlbradley, could you link us to the page in question? Generally sources at the bottom of the page are linked to a specific fact. But without seeing what you're talking about, it's difficult to assist you more specifically. Thanks. -- jillaine 13:58, 2 March 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Sorting order for sources at National Archives [6 April 2009]I was impressed with this explanation of sorting order and wondered if it would be helpful. The following was copied from http://arcweb.archives.gov/help/usingarc.htm#sort_auth Perhaps this is common knowledge; but I hadn't seen it before.
People and Organizations Searches As with the Archival Descriptions Search, the default search results of a keyword People or Organizations Search are ordered by the most relevant first. (Relevancy is based upon the number of times a keyword appears in an authority record, as well as its placement in the authority record.) Results of a browse People or Organizations Search are presented in alphabetical order. You cannot re-sort the search results for either a keyword or browse search. In general, sorting is on a character-by-character basis and is not case sensitive. Numbers, potentially consisting of more than one numeral are the exception. These are sorted by arithmetical value. For example, ‘7’ comes before ‘17’, even though a character-by-character comparison would order ‘17’ first. The general order of characters is defined as: Commas, Spaces, Symbols (other than numerals, letters and punctuation marks), Numerals (0-9), Letters (A-Z). Articles such as 'A', 'An', and 'The' are ignored when sorting Organization names. Examples Sorting is not case sensitive. So in Organizations searches for example, acronyms are not separated from other text: NAACP In People searching, by ordering commas before everything, similar last names are grouped together: Dinh, Phuc Nguyen- Spaces are ordered before Letters/Numerals. Even though the periods are ignored, the space after the initial “J” and “K” allows these names to be ordered before first names that are spelt out: Oppenheimer, J. Robert Headings with qualifiers or explanatory notes are arranged as if those qualifiers are just other words in the heading: U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Abbreviations are sorted alphabetically exactly as they are written, and not as though they were spelled out: Cmdr. Smith Numbers are arranged in arithmetical order: 5th Dimension (Musical group) Letters modified by diacritics are sorted as their nearest basic equivalent letters in the English alphabet. For example, ‘ä’ is treated as ‘a’.--Janiejac 15:48, 6 March 2009 (EST) I know that's the ideal, but it takes extra work to make it happen that way. Perhaps someday...--Dallan 18:31, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Non-scientific/Fictional/Biblical Trees [7 March 2009]Everyone, what do you think about allowing fictional, non-scientific, or Biblical genealogy in the database? I personally think it would open up possibilities for some really educational stuff (think about a genealogy of the Old Testament), but we'd have to require both a) a warning at the top of each page warning of this, and b) no links to normal genealogy pages. What do you think?--Joeljkp 20:40, 6 March 2009 (EST) For example: Template:BiblicalRecord-Christianity --Joeljkp 20:45, 6 March 2009 (EST) See topic 31 on this page. Not sure if there was a final consensus, but you can certainly find out what everyone thinks about it. --Jrich 21:32, 6 March 2009 (EST) At current there are a number of tree lineages that end in legend. A lot of time history is "Changed" so a king will become "Descended from the Gods themselves". When I run into this, I try to rename the suffix of the individual to "Legendary Hero of ***** History", which helps some... there has been some argument as to whether to include legendary people (Adam and Eve have been brought up before), the problem is; where does the real lineage end and legend begin? Being a person whom believes strongly that once data is destroyed, it is lost and can't be recovered, I personally believe we should have all of the legendary ends to all of the Peerage trees (Including the Kings of Judea), and like any good Science, we will call that "correct" until someone comes up with proof otherwise. I do agree, though, that there should be some kind of comment about "Legendary" persons. Who is Legendary in the Kings of Judea? I'd say anyone with a lifespan longer than about 100 years is probably Legendary and should be marked as such. With the Norse, I've been going to "Legendary" status as soon as they "Made the snow" or "Walked for 300 years" or something of that sort. :) Aabh 09:54, 7 March 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] What happens to pages nobody is watching? [8 April 2009]Sometimes when I am bored, I will scan the Duplicate Review page for names that are familiar. If I know something about one, I might do a merge. So today I merged a family with a very familiar name, but the family wasn't one I am following. After merging two copies together, each with a single, different child, I now had a family watched by two people, but having only 2 children out of several. So I added some of the missing children that I knew about. After doing this, I took them off my watchlist, not having any personal interest in this family. So now there are 3 children, with a source pointed to their birth record, and nobody is watching them. They are valid. Will they remain, or will they get flushed at some point? I don't really need more people in my watchlist, but I will if I have to. --Jrich 15:59, 8 March 2009 (EDT) This is a good point; I have been merging pages as well, and I have been snagging new record data from trees that are out there (Not being really maintained), but have very useful data... I:m "Buttoning" those records as I have time (Going through each record on the matching trees and merging the parents, then the kids, then spouses, etc)... but it:s time consuming (Not HALF as time consuming as before the merge function was put in... Just though I:d make another compliment to Dallan for that :D), but it is taking time, I have 3,500 people on my tree, and I:m wandering all over it to connect as fast as possible... Would it be okay to wait 6 months or so before you unleash the `bots on those unviewed trees? Long enough for me to mine the information sources? (I mean, if they are going to put the data up here and leave, at least I can put it to good use, right? :D) Aabh 20:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
A few comments:
Any thoughts on this?--Dallan 18:56, 8 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Deleting Duplicate Pages [14 March 2009]I've been working on deleting sources that are prefaced with Ancestry.com that are duplicates of sources that already exist on WeRelate. Most times, deleting the duplicate source is not a problem, as there is nothing that links to the page, and nobody is watching. Occasionally, however, there are pages linking to the source. In that case, I could redirect the page, but this causes an annoying problem. The source title that people should not use is still listed in the drop-down box - which is terribly confusing - even for more seasoned WeRelate users! Any thoughts or tricks I may not have thought of?--Jennifer (JBS66) 15:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] miscellaneous suggestions [9 April 2009]Just some things I noticed, that I happened to write down before they were forgotten: 1) Sex is not shown when comparing children inside the merge families function: this can be useful when children are named Unknown and similar vague names since discrepant gender is fatal to a merge.
2) 2-part place names (page name and alias) could be useful, but mostly get misused. For example, Recently I encountered “Barnstable, Barnstable, Massachusetts, United States|Barnstable, Barnstable, Massachusetts, England”. The editing field is too small to display all this so it appears correct, so these type of errors are hard to spot while editing, leading to multiple edits. I also believe shortcuts like “Barnstable, Barnstable, Massachusetts, United States|Barnstable, MA” engenders US-centric naming which is bad.
2-part naming is a good feature for allowing some flexibility in naming when importing GED. Naming is a hard problem, and there is a constant struggle between current and historical names, and who knows what each genealogist may favor. But this flexibility allows all sorts of naming conventions to be displayed on pages with no consistency. Overall, it may be better to have some robot program go through and resolve all the aliases to the formal place name, and remove the alias. Leave it to the family/person history to discuss historical place names if needed. That way, you can handle the wide variety of imported names, but gradually make them match a standard.
--Jrich 13:41, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
I am one of those who has been putting shortcuts like “Barnstable, Barnstable, Massachusetts, United States|Barnstable, MA”. The benefit I see is readability. With the really long names, the info in the left-hand margin can get pretty cluttered, and using shortcuts can help make it more concise. I don't see it as necessarily US-centric, so much as "local-centric" to the person and family in question. If I'm working on a particular line who lived in Barnstable, I know what county and country that's in, and don't need to see it repeated over and over again. On the other hand, if I come across an unfamiliar shortcut place name, I can easily click into the place page, or merely hover my mouse to view what it links to, in order to determine the full name. Also, there are cases where a specific source gives a place name in a specific way, and that should be represented as it appeared in the source. For example, if the source said "Greenwhich" for "Greenwich", or "beer Eylant" for "Barren Island", I would link to the full proper place name, while giving the source's exact version in the alias. The name|altname notation is useful for that. It would be a grave disservice to have some robot go and strip out all the aliases. --TomChatt 03:02, 17 March 2009 (EDT) I have a different problem with these multi-part, hyper-comma-ed place names, which I first ran into while poking around on Ancestry. Leaving out "Township" and "County" as part of the name is misleading, especially to novices, and I personally refuse to do it. If you see a listing for "Albia, Monroe, Iowa", is "Albia" the name of a town? Or a township? It makes a difference. I have ancestors in the town of Albia, which is in Jackson Township -- but others who are farmers out in Jackson Township itself, with no connection to the town of Albia. Nearby is Linn County, which has a Monroe Township, . . . and a town therein (now vanished) named "Jackson". This problem is especially egregious in unsourced GEDCOMS. It also doesn't account for cases like Norfolk, Virginia, which is an "independent city," no township involved. Likewise, I object to anachronistic place names at Ancestry and elsewhere, like "Prussia, Germany" in the 17th century. There's no such place, "Germany" being only a linguistic region, not a country, until the 19th century. So I believe in being as explicit and historically accurate as possible with placenames -- though I also have to confess to U.S.-centrism (or whatever) in that I believe "North Carolina" or "Louisiana" is enough to indicate that the place is a U.S. location by default. --mksmith 13:31, 5 April 2009 (EDT) I agree with you on the lack of the word 'county'! I don't know how much time I've lost just trying to decide if where an author meant was a county or city. I leave the word county in my places and so far the program has taken it very well. I hope they have dropped the idea of having a robot 'clean up' our places! The problem seems to be when the categories are automatically assigned to our pages. I still don't understand how the categories are assigned and/or how to change a category to one I think more appropriate. I can add a category, but I don't know how to remove the one it should replace. I've tried rewording the page, but that doesn't seem to help.--Janiejac 14:56, 5 April 2009 (EDT) I understand your comment, but I think the problem is unsolvable, and probably the best thing to do is go with the flow. First, I think people are trying to communicate at least two different things with the place name: where an event happened physically, and where it happened in terms of governmental/administrative unit to understand the recording and laws associated with that event. We have already had extensive discussions about towns versus parishes, for example. Second, I think the Place: namespace has no way to represent time, so it creates inherent ambiguities, which genealogists see in books all the time, often expressed as "that part of Salem now known as Beverly", etc. I believe I have read that this problem was addressed by asking people to use the name of the place in 1900, following FHL conventions, which if done accurately (I bet most people use the modern name), would remove the time dimension from the issue. Third, there is the sometimes conflicting viewpoints of the knowledgable researcher, and the potentially naive searcher. As a researcher, you may want to put Prussia, but what will the person searching to find your data enter as the location? Germany, perhaps? Perhaps they don't know the exact year the birth/marriage/death/event happened, and perhaps just a year or two difference makes a difference in what the place was called. If the location of the event was the goal, we could just put in approx. longitude and latitude by selecting a point on a chronologically accurate map. I suspect few people bother to locate the old homestead to such precision, and this type of data would probably end up appearing more precise than it really was. There are some features to mollify your dissatisfaction. You can always create historically named places and redirect them to the name used by WeRelate conventions, or you can use the two part naming, i.e., [[Place:Chatham, Barnstable, Massachusetts, United States|Monomoit]] to display the historical name Monomoit but still link to Chatham. --Jrich 14:48, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
The added comment above has confused me. I am not entirely sure I do understand the comment about missing counties. Yes this is a genealogy problem, but it is not really a problem in WeRelate since to name a valid Place:page you either link to or directly name a fully qualified name. The issue of townships wasn't real clear. Was there another Albia such that Albia, Monroe, Iowa, United States isn't unique? I believe each comma only means "contained in". If there is really a place that cannot be unambiguously named with a 4-level name, why not add a 5-level Place page? 5-level names are already in use for cemeteries, for example: Place:East View Cemetery, Rome, Floyd, Georgia, United States. There is also the description field where additional information such as parishes, church names, townships, longitude/latitude, etc. could be added. Regarding an unincorporated area in Jackson Township in Monroe county, you can add a page for the township, if specifying simply the county isn't good enough. (One can always go overboard on being precise. For example, should one insist on creating a place for a named ranch, or can that better be communicated in a different way?) The instructions for adding a place say
* The number of containing jurisdictions varies from country to country. The U.S. and Canada generally have 4 levels -- inhabited place, county/district, state/province, and country. Most other countries have 3 levels.
There are already lots of pages for townships. For example, Place:Ashland Township, Indiana which redirects to a page with the full formal name Place:Ashland, Morgan, Indiana, United States. The page has a type of "Township". As the instructions say, this could have been named Ashland (Township), Morgan, Indiana, United States, if necessary. And of course, there are pages for counties, since many farms wouldn't be in a town. The other issue I saw addressed was the use of modern versus historic names, about which I already used more than my share of space. --Jrich 09:35, 6 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] How to add and ancestor? [11 March 2009]I have the name of a great grandfather to add. It seems that my only options are to add him as a second spouse to my grandfather or to make him a child of my grandfather. There is no apparent way to make him the great grandfather that he is. I just don't understand. Help!--Sharrow 08:09, 11 March 2009 (EDT) Hello, can you please post the title of your grandfather's page on your talk page User talk:Sharrow. Then, I can assist you a bit better. Thank you!--Jennifer (JBS66) 08:16, 11 March 2009 (EDT) OK, I've added his name to my page.--Sharrow 08:26, 11 March 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] I messed up; can somebody fix it or tell me how to fix it? [18 May 2009]Would someone please search for Vashti Unknown (2) and tell me why I'm not watching that page. The menu at the top of the page gives me the option to unwatch it but my name is not at the bottom as a watcher. This page is a redirect from Vashti Unknown (3). Somehow I've messed this up. I clicked on the review/redo button but that was a mistake. I wanted to review what I had done, but didn't want to redo it. I guess I should have reviewed it by looking at history - but the button said review. (How long can I keep claiming to be a newbie? <grin>) --Janiejac 18:33, 11 March 2009 (EDT) It looks to me like you are watching it. Sometimes I have seen things like this. I think there is a caching issue. I rely on the Watch/Unwatch to be the most accurate indicator of whether I am watching a page. --Jrich 18:54, 11 March 2009 (EDT) I've got two categories that should be merged but I don't know how to do that.
My entries seem to be the only links on both of these pages. --Janiejac 16:37, 27 March 2009 (EDT) One of MySources contained an email address. That was fine for my personal file, but I should have removed it before uploading. I renamed the source but that didn't change all the person or family pages that show that source. It still shows with the email address. Horrors! Renaming really doesn't edit the source!! Now it seeems I have to go to every page using that source to fix it! That is enough to discourage anyone. I can understand not editing a WeRelate Source that other folks might be using. But seems like there should be a way to edit my own source. Later when I want to clean up MySources and find that I could have used a WeRelate Source, I guess I will still have to change every page?? No way, that will be done. --Janiejac 07:34, 31 March 2009 (EDT) Today you can edit your MySource page and put a #redirect [[Source:title of the source page]] at the top of the big text box to redirect the MySource to a Source page, so that when you click on the MySource link in your Person and Family pages you'll be taken to the Source page. Starting next week the new GEDCOM uploader that will hopefully be installed this weekend will let you review the MySource pages that will be created from your GEDCOM and allow you to match them to Source pages before your GEDCOM is imported.--Dallan 13:49, 9 April 2009 (EDT) I'm glad y'all are patient with newbies. I wanted to add a table, so went to help/formatting/tables which sent me to wikipedia which offered a spreadsheet converter. I thought that was great but the results are NOT great. Instead of erasing the mess and giving up, I left it hoping someone could tell me if it can be salvaged; if not, what else can I try? What I pasted there not only moved all the Google ads to the left, it shows all the code, and if you scroll down beyond the code, you see the table results which are not spaced right at all. I've got this info in both rtf format and in excel. I don't want to have to type it all over again into werelate. I obviously don't know how to do a decent table in wiki and if I did, I'd have to retype it again. Ugh! I'm going to be disappointed if there is no good way to keep this kind of info here. Here's the page: [Jackson in Clark, Indiana] --Janiejac 01:20, 18 May 2009 (EDT) Janiejac, there was a tiny piece of code that was messing the whole thing up! I removed it and your table looks great! The code btw was {{table}}. That template, which works on Wikipedia, does not work here on WR until the MediaWiki software is updated. What this means is that you will need to add the code {| border="1" cellpadding="4" manually. I did this for you on your Jackson page. The border="1" defines the thickness of the border, if you change the 1 to a 0, the table can have no border. The cellpadding="4" adds a bit of space around your text so that it isn't right up against the border. Both of these numbers can be adjusted if you want. --Jennifer (JBS66) 07:16, 18 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Seeking those knowledgeable about St. Albans, Hertfordshire [14 March 2009]Anyone here familiar with the records of or research about St. Albans, Hertfordshire? (Cooley researchers, early Springfield settlers, etc.) I'm trying to make sense of the different Sources related to this parish. Please see Person talk:Benjamin Cooley (1) where I list all the variations-- some of which are obvious; three of which are not. Before I delve into each and every film note about these (there are a lot), I thought I might try to track down someone already familiar with this set of records. Thanks. jillaine 10:08, 14 March 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] A Crazy Idea to Improve Our Cemetery Pages [20 March 2009]There are lots of great cemetery transcriptions out there on the web. How much more useful would they be if integrated into this site? Quite a bit more, I think, given the ability to link to the individuals listed in the transcription and to provide richer information about the cemetery itself. Unfortunately, we can't very well go and just copy the transcriptions available on other sites. But I have an idea for a system to go about legitimately getting as many transcriptions as we can. It goes like this: create a script that generates a list of all the cemeteries on Interment.net, including the email address of the person who submitted each transcription. For each cemetery in the list, find out if there is a corresponding Place on WeRelate. If not, create the appropriate page. At the end of this process we will have a list including the name of a cemetery, the email address of the transcriber, and the name of the corresponding WeRelate page. Next, for each of these cemeteries we send a polite email to the transcriber telling them a little bit about WeRelate, giving a link to an example Place page that gives an idea of what the end result would be like, and asking if they would be willing to contribute their transcription. We can tell them they can either go through the extremely easy process of creating an account and then adding their transcription to the relevant page, or they can simply mail a small statement authorizing us to post it to WeRelate under GFDL. Then we wait and see how they respond. My hope is that we could slowly yet systematically go through the existing cemeteries on Interment.net getting transcriptions from whoever is willing to submit their work. Once that is done, we can monitor the Interment.net New Cemeteries RSS feed to request transcriptions from anyone submitting new ones to Interment. Over time I hope that we'd become enough of a cemetery resource that we could establish a cemetery portal and start getting new transcriptions submitted to us directly. Thoughts? Oh yeah, and this process can be adapted to pretty much any transcription site. Interment.net is just an example. --JoshHansen 16:48, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
Funny... I was just looking at a bunch of cemetery transcriptions and thinking the same thing. There are a few sites making an effort, but they are not working together. Here are a few;
If they were all working together, there would be a lot more information out there for people. I agree that having cemetery transcriptions here is a great idea. There may be a lot more that can be done on WeRelate than a surname-ordered transcription. Cemeteries listed by location with a name index are much better I find. Location often shows relationships not evident with surnames only. We have the ability to include GPS coordinates into this site. There's no reason why you could not build a complete virtual cemetery with photos tagged to exact geographic spots in the cemetery. If you look at my own Virtual Road Trips on the photo page of my AmericanRoads.us web site, you'll see what can be done with geotagging images. I don't even need to stop and record the GPS location. I just make sure the GPS receiver and digital camera are time synchronized before I begin. Software easily does the rest. I use free JetPhoto Studio for this. If events can be shown on a map on WeRelate's map page, graves could also be shown on an aerial photo of the cemetery. Even if the detail is not great enough on a map, the coordinates would let visitors find the graves much more easily using a GPS.--Parsa 17:49, 14 March 2009 (EDT) USGenWeb is no longer with RootsWeb. Some county sites remain there only because the County Coordinator has chosen to use the free space. You will find the majority of the transcriptions are at the county level, and the responsibility of the County Coordinator. --Twigs 12:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT) While we're talking crazy, it would be great to be able then to incorporate the decreased person's obituary into the site as a cross-reference also. Some present obituary sites include...
Many other sites out there -- not sure how to link them all and it would take a concerted effort.--BobC 15:50, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
I think we have at least a few people interested in this sort of thing. The question is not whether we can do _all_ of the stuff we've been talking about, but whether we can set up a process that people can work at a little at a time (sort of like they do for merging duplicates) that will eventually yield an increase in the usefulness of this site. As for the cemetery transcriptions, almost the whole thing could be automated. Of course, we'd want to do it slowly so that any recruited contributors would be able to ask questions and get a useful response from a contact. --JoshHansen 21:24, 15 March 2009 (EDT) Mmmm... As an interim measure, I see some sort of cemetery portal in these ideas... jillaine 08:06, 16 March 2009 (EDT) I think you are riding a very thin line. As a GenWeb county coordinator I know how this works. We spend a huge amount of our time doing what you are trying to politely take. When we are sent a cemetery we take it with the promise that the information is the submitters and can be pulled when they choose to do so. They hold the copyright completely. I assume it is the same anywhere that takes submissions. I did briefly consider trying to find a way to put up the cemeteries I have done, but could not find an example or information on how and where to put it, with it not being connected to my tree. I know at my state level, counties have had so much trouble with Find-A-Grave. Some people take the photos and information and post under their name making their submission numbers climb to ridiculous totals, all stolen. FAG does remove them if requested, and it is always requested if found. It is our job to keep the submissions safe from this kind of activity. If you begin this practice, how do you make certain that the same does not happen here? Also, how do you justify taking from sites who volunteer and ask others to volunteer this work for sites that are geared to offer just such information? --Twigs 12:02, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm not saying you are going to 'steal'. I am saying that is where it will most likely go, not by you but by someone wanting to add a lot of data (hence the FAG reference). But first, if you go to a cemetery and create a list (index) of the graves there, you do indeed hold a copyright on the list/index that you created. You know you can't go and scan or copy a list created by a society and put it up without their express permission. I can assure you they most likely won't allow you to and will come after you if you do. If you transcribe the cemetery (physically go there) you can post them anywhere you want. I said I had thought about posting my own work here so I don't have objections other than the ability to pull material off if it is found to be 'taken' from somewhere else. I don't believe the search would be easy if you were searching for a specific cemetery here, either. All photos are obviously copyrighted. As far as obits are concerned, there is still a question about them. I don't believe they are copyrighted but have been told they are. I post them, but if asked to remove one, I do so immediately. If you think about it, cemetery transcriptions are going to be created as time passes in a natural and LEGAL fashion by the addition of each family member of each person working to create this huge database. The "transciption contributions" are not what this is about. At least, not as I understood it. Perhaps someone can clarify the purpose for me if I have it wrong. --Twigs 16:34, 16 March 2009 (EDT) Hello, Might I suggest we think a little out of the box here. I have not seen many cemetery pages organized by their religious, or ethnic background. We could also have a system were we could add the sources to these cemeteries. Right now the on line internet community seems more a system of geography, etc. There are hidden in many books, obits, etc mentions of churches, and cemeteries of old. I think organizing the Werelate cemetery pages by religious groups, ethnic groups could be a solution. That way we could avoid the copyright issue since we would not be a "clone" to other cemetery pages. Suggestions, opinions? Debbie Freeman ------DFree 17:59, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm am not sure I understand all the ins and outs of this discussion, but the last comment seemed to have some worrisome tones. I put data on WeRelate and personally I don't care if somebody copies it. Actually, I want them to, since I hope it's good data, and in most cases, I think that means there's one less person copying bad data, one less website propagating incorrect genealogy. However, that said, I think some of the comments about copying data are wrong. The data does belong to me, I have a copyright, and although I could never prove it, that doesn't change the fact that somebody copying it and presenting without attribution (at least to WeRelate since they aren't likely to go through the logs and figure which piece came from where), is still plagi arism. It still happens, so yes, c'est la vie, but condoning it means you don't care about rules, and pretty soon nothing is honored. And the people doing so are showing a total lack of courtesy, and are not sufficiently honoring the people who have paved the way for them to discover their own genealogy. If somebody wants to donate their cemetery transcriptions, that is fine, but to take their work, especially without attribution, is not a good collaborative practice. All that said, I am not sure I understand the whole concept being discussed here. What would seem useful to me, since WeRelate is organized by Person, would be to find the transcriptions on the Person page it applies to, or if more appropriate, a link to Find A Grave or other site leading you to their transcription. To collect transcriptions en masse by cemetery, duplicating the function of many other websites around the Internet, seems to be somewhat a waste of time and loss of focus. I could see creating a Category for each cemetery, giving directions, visiting hours, etc., and then adding the pages for people buried there to that Category. Then the what links here should allow you to go backwards. Beyond that I think this is going beyond the purpose of WeRelate. --Jrich 15:28, 20 March 2009 (EDT) Thanks to everybody for being willing to discuss what we ought to do with regard to cemeteries. Here are some thoughts: [add comment] [edit] Err on the Safe Side of Copyright [4 April 2009]Jrich is correct that copying and redistributing his WeRelate work without crediting him (or, as he says, at least crediting WeRelate) is a violation of the GFDL license. As for going the other direction: in the United States, creative works are in essence copyrighted by default, if I understand the system correctly. No need for text saying "(C) 2009. by Josh Hansen" or whatever. So, while an argument could be made that people who make their work, such as cemetery transcriptions, publicly available on the web have in essence waived their copyright, I don't know if this is legally the case. (I seem to remember hearing about a lawsuit related to that notion, but I have no clue when/where it was.) So I would only be comfortable putting interment.net or find a grave data on WeRelate if we got the explicit permission of the original author.
Two quick observations. I am not competent to get in a detailed conversation about copyright law. However, many cemetery sites add extra information beyond the gravestone transcription, which could be copyrightable. So some sort of mining the Internet for cemetery data may very likely pull in more than just the public domain transcription. (Of course, an interesting question, what if they transcribe the gravestone incorrectly, and you copy it. You are no longer copying a fact, you are copying the transcription.) And I question the comment about not being able to copyright a picture of a gravestone. Several for-pay services have copyright notices on their images of otherwise public domain records, and I would think there could always be some question of photo composition, lighting, etc. that allows one to say they added value and hence there is a copyrightable aspect to a photo. So while one may be able to quote the transcription shown based on a picture, copying the picture may be copyright infringement? --Jrich 17:20, 4 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Why We Should Bother [20 March 2009]As for whether we _should_ do this, my view is that WeRelate should be whatever makes it the most useful freely-available, openly-licensed genealogy collaboration site on the Web. Duplication of effort is not a very good criterion in this circumstance; after all, the vast majority of the data on WeRelate is available elsewhere. The thing is that information on sites like interment.net is not available under the GFDL license, nor can it be tightly integrated with other information using wiki-style linking. What if interment.net disappears off the face of the web tomorrow? Then we're left to dig around in old copies on archive.org and to wonder "What now?" Having that data in at least one other live source seems like a practical thing. Plus WeRelate offers an experience that noone else can match. Think of going to your ancestor's Person page, seeing that they were buried in such-and-such cemetery, clicking on the cemetery's Place page, and then not only seeing a list of everyone buried there, but also being able to learn about those people who shared the same space and time as your ancestor. To me that's cool -- really cool! -- and seeing that experience replicated over and over again for different people would make the whole effort worthwhile. But that's just me.... I am not saying this is a bad idea, just in a world of perpetually limited resources, it may not be the best way to make WeRelate more useful. There are plenty of families still not represented in WeRelate and lots of connections not yet made or documented. Actually, speaking of connections, there is something on WeRelate that is relatively rare on the Internet, and it is what sets WeRelate apart: it uses a shared tree, and actually connects the people into a single consensus of the truth as we know it. As you can tell from its name, that is its purpose. Its name is not GenealogyWarehouse. :-) --Jrich 16:27, 20 March 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Summary, and A New Place for This DiscussionSo the objective is: increase the quality and quantity of cemetery resources on WeRelate showing full respect for the right of others to not have their work on this site without their permission. By the way, I created Portal:Cemetery to make a central point for collaboration and discussion regarding this issue. I suggest we move this thread over to the portal talk page. --JoshHansen 16:02, 20 March 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Search Results to an editable Page [9 April 2009]Here's a feature I think I need. Or at least, could use. Have a way to drop the complete results of a search (not ten hits at a time - all of them) into an editable page. I would like to be able to generate a check-list, that I could then use to systematically work through larger domains of pages. Of course, there's a poor man's version of this now - just collect the results page by page with clip-board operations, then edit the results into a form that you find useful. The scale of my problem however - several thousand pages - is well beyond such a drag and drop exercise (I formerly used the "watchlist" as a source of this kind of material, but mine is around 45000 and won't display any more). It would also be highly useful if a couple of different report forms were available (not too many - only enough to facilitate work on the site - not a real "reporting" solution). My preferred initial form would simply be a wiki-ready one-line per found page form (with an appropriate hyperlink to the page in question) with page title and up to 50+/- characters of summary info. My specific desire is to be able to grab a linear report of my work in the medieval space. I then want to work through that content page by page, performing various checking, validating, and enhancement exercises. Particular searches can be repeated of course, but the results order changes as pages are modified and changed. It's also impractical to try to remember that you're 42 results pages into the search - or to leave a browser window open to a search on a very long-term basis.--Jrm03063 10:49, 16 March 2009 (EDT) I just made it possible to do this - to list search results in a wiki list format - but it's a little technical so I will send you the details in an email. I can also send it to others if there is interest.--Dallan 13:49, 9 April 2009 (EDT) Dallan, I would love more info on this! Thank you,--Jennifer (JBS66) 13:51, 9 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Requested feature for GEDCOM upload [14 April 2009]Recent conversations about multiple trees, upcoming inability to upload gedcoms into existing trees and tracking all the various things one does, has raised (for me) the idea of having an option at the time of upload to add a category to every page of one's uploaded tree. Something like: y / n -- Append Category to each generated page? If yes -- Category to be appended? "Family Tree of Jillaine Smith" I haven't thought through all the +/- of this, but I'm sure someone will think of something ;-) -- jillaine 08:51, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Help in renaming image [18 March 2009]Hello, I made a small mistake. Help would be very appreciated. Could someone tell me how to contact the person reviewing the uploaded images. Or tell me how to rename the image title? I tried to locate that on the image page, like you can on other pages. It does not seem to exist. I titled the image "correct version of Miles Prigmore Letter 1" for page 1. I meant to title it "Olson, Leta. Correct version of Miles Prigmore Letter 1" Thank You, Debbie Freeman DFree 21:05, 17 March 2009 (EDT) Hi Debbie, There is no available option to rename an image. You may delete the image and reupload; then give the image the correct name.--Beth 08:50, 18 March 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Do we have this sort of help page? [9 April 2009]Is there a place on this site where I can go to read a concise definition and difference between 'articles', categories', 'shared research pages' 'name in place pages' etc and also have links to one example of each type of page? We already have how-to create these pages, but I still don't have a good understanding of when to use what. I'd like to see examples and definitions all in one spot for easy comparison. --Janiejac 09:16, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Wiki page for a Genealogy Organization? [9 April 2009]What would be the best type of wiki page for a genealogy organization? I'd like to create a wiki page for the Gudbrandsdal Laget. Should that be a portal or maybe an "other" page of some sort?--Romsaas 22:20, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
We strongly encourage other non-profit genealogy organizations to create pages for themselves and their resources here! Over time I hope we can figure out WeRelate can be used as one way to help genealogy organizations to connect with their members and potential members.--Dallan 13:49, 9 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Drop Down Place Function Frustration [9 April 2009]I'm new to WeRelate and have become quite frustrated with the drop down place function. It is supposed to work as follows - Type the name of the town or village and then type a comma (,). A drop down menu will appear listing all of the cities with this name, worldwide, along with the county, state (province), and country of each. Click on the place where your ancestor was born. I find that sometimes the drop down menu won't appear when it should or if it does and I select my location nothing happens or if the menu is too long to be all seen if I try to scroll down it disappears. Now I just type in everything to avoid the frustration.--HLJ411 17:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)--Beth 20:06, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
The auto-complete has some problems; I'll move it up higher in the priority list.--Dallan 14:43, 9 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Notes taken while editing new upload RE small frustrations [14 April 2009]I took notes of areas that either didn't work as I expected or could use some fine tuning. Perhaps some of these could find their way to Dallan's to-do list:
Goal is 'drop-dead easy'! Not quite there yet, but on our way.--Janiejac 11:22, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Still a ways to go, but we're getting there a little bit a a time. :-) --Dallan 14:43, 9 April 2009 (EDT) I have a question on the default tree item. Is is possible to add a field in preferences that asks which tree you want to be default, with none also being an option? I find that I go through times when I am working exclusively on one tree, and it would be really handy not to have to remember to click on that tree's checkbox each time. --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:49, 9 April 2009 (EDT) Oh, please don't add a prompt if there's no tree chosen!! That would drive me (and anyone else editing for the community rather than for one's self) far far crazier than having the default checked.--Amelia 00:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT) Ok, we'll go with a preference for the default tree, with none being an option (and no prompting).--Dallan 22:31, 14 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Frustrations with attempting to create subpages [4 April 2009]I'm in the middle of creating a page (by hand, not via GEDCOM) for William H. Smith. I have a lot of material, so I want to put some of it on linked subpages, especially a couple of "brick wall" problems that involve extended discussion. At Wikipedia, creating a subpage is easy: You go to the "parent" page, type a slash and the desired subpage name in your browser's title bar, click it and go. You're there! But in WeRelate's implementation of the wiki software, there appears to be a complication. When I type "/Problem of William H. Smith" in the browser title bar following the address for the parent page, the new, empty page appears -- but when I've typed in a bunch of text and try to save the page, I get a message, "The page title does not have an ID; please create a page with an ID using Add page." And I'm not allowed to save the subpage. But the message is inaccurate. I'm not creating a new Person page, only a subpage. The address in the browser title bar is <http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:William_Smith_(640)/Problem_of_William_H._Smith>, and the ID number is in there for the person on the parent page. And why does the message only appear when I've edited the subpage -- but not when I first created it? And if I use the "Add page" link, what I'm trying to create won't be a subpage, it will be an entirely separate, unconnected page -- and it's not meant to be a "Person" page in any case. The whole ID number thing seems uncommonly awkward (though I certainly understand why it's necessary, or some mechanism like it), and I wonder if there's a design conflict that wasn't resolved? --mksmith 16:40, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Seeking feedback on Categories for Organizing ARTICLE namespace [6 April 2009]Inspired by a past comment by Dallan as well as the new Portals, I set out to see what it might take to Categorize the pages that are in the "ARTICLE" namespace. My idea for how to do this includes the following steps:
Your help and feedback is appreciated. See you over at the Talk page of the Article Project. Thanks. -- jillaine 22:56, 4 April 2009 (EDT)|Jillaine
I should not have included the phrase "power users" (although mksmith, I'd consider you one given your experience at wikipedia). I'll take comments from anyone. Thanks. jillaine 08:08, 6 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] New Surname Namespace [14 April 2009]I've just "discovered" the new Surname space. I note that when surnames are added to an article page, they now link not to the category page for that surname but to a Surname PAGE for that surname... which is empty. As someone who had started to use more intentionally the category pages, I find this change a bit abrupt and not sure what to do with it. Please advise:
Thanks. jillaine 09:57, 7 April 2009 (EDT) Ironically I found the same thing the other day. Because I added surname information of a general nature unrelated to my family on the category page, should I now move it to the surname page?--BobC 10:04, 7 April 2009 (EDT) This isn't new. Articles and sources that have a Surname(s) covered field link back to the Surname space. Automatic categories are still there - at the bottom for articles. What is really handy about the surname space is going to what links here. From that page you can see all sources and articles where that surname has been specifically referenced. This particular feature, however, is relatively new. I noticed that it doesn't seem to take effect in sources until the source page is opened and then saved again. I think the Surname space also acts as a programming help for identifying similar sounding/spelled names in searches. Dallan might have to correct me on this one! --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:09, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
As Jennifer says, Surname pages are used by the search engine to provide lists of similarly-spelled names it should include in searches. When we started the website I thought that people would use them to post family information and add additional related names. But it was one of those ideas that didn't really "stick". Most people have been using categories or creating articles. I'd recommend putting your information on the category page if there's not a lot of it, or creating an article for it.--Dallan 14:43, 9 April 2009 (EDT) Dallan, If you recommend the category page over the surname namespace page then wouldn't it therefore follow that the surname links on article pages should go to the category pages? -- jillaine 15:52, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Proposed change to how tree deletions are handled [18 April 2009]Now that we're merging trees together, if someone deletes their tree, it can create holes in others' trees unless the other users are diligent about watching the new pages they're now connected to. I like the idea of allowing people to remove their contributions in case they decide to leave, but having creating holes in others' trees seems to go against the goal of WeRelate. Here is a proposal for changing what pages get deleted when you delete your tree: people in your tree that others are watching will not be removed (as usual). In addition, spouses, children, and ancestors of those people, as well as spouses and children of the ancestors, also will not be removed. In addition, deleted pages may be restored at the request of another user. Or perhaps we should allow any user to restore deleted pages. Comments?--Dallan 22:25, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
The discussion you reference is exactly type of thing that the above proposal is trying to address. (And yes, it appears that Seymore_t deleted their tree. It's not a programming fault.) So please think about the situation you experienced and whether keeping spouses, children, and ancestors (along with ancestors' spouses and children) of your watched pages would satisfy your needs. Alternatively we could say that you can't delete your tree once you upload it, but I think that's going too far. I'm open to other suggestions though.--Dallan 13:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
Dallan, you may want to consider having an "update/revise tree" option, when someone wants to include additional lines/people to their tree by updating an overlapping, but revised gedcom. Currently, when you try to upload a gedcom with additional lines, people, etc., you get an "apparent duplicate merge" message in most circumstances, but since you've got the new gedcom review process in place, why not allow duplicate merge gedcoms, allow the duplicates to be merged in the review process? I had a couple of families that I entered small gencoms, and tried to upload more complete versions, but since I got the "apparent duplicate merge" message, I had to delete the tree and re-import the updated gedcom, which also creates an additional problem of re-numbering the people that were deleted in the original tree (for instance, the deleted John Lackey(1), becomes John Lackey(2)). Allowing the "revision/updating" of trees by importing an enlarged gedcom would resolve this situation. You could also make these types of gedcom updating situations mandatory for a second review by an admin, to make sure that the families were merged correctly.--Delijim 13:36, 18 April 2009 (EDT) Could you comment on the new GEDCOM Re-uploads section I just added to the bottom of this page? I want the upcoming gedcom re-upload process to handle the "update/revise tree" idea that you mention, with the additional feature that the system will match people in your new gedcom to the wiki pages assigned to the people in the previously-uploaded gedcom that you're replacing. It sounds like you're saying that you'd want a new gedcom to replace possibly multiple previous gedcom's?--Dallan 14:46, 24 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Edit menu [20 April 2009]When you bring up a page to edit, an "edit menu bar" appears above the edit text box. The edit bar is "iconized", with a large "B" indicating "add bold format", and an italicized capital "I", indicating "add italics formating" etc. The third element is an "underlined "Ab", which usually means "Underline". Instead, what you get is square brackets around the contained text---which creates a link to an "article namespace" article, rather than underline. This may be intentional, but since it flies in the face of the expected "underline", it may not be the best choice for this function---especially coming after the "B" and "I" which do follow the usual formating convention. If the intent is to insert square brackets, perhaps [[]] would be a better choice. If the intent is to provide a quick underlining format, it doesn't do that. Q 10:52, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
Here's an improved version:
Now that I think of it, is there anyway to suppress third and fourth order headings so that they still appear in the text, but not in the TOC? Q 18:32, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
The Ab icon means "internal link". It's probably not an ideal picture; it's standard on wikipedia-based wiki's though.--Dallan 14:43, 9 April 2009 (EDT) A long time ago, there was some discussion about making this internal link button more full-featured rather than requiring that one remember the exact page title they want to link to, with all the ins and outs of punctuation and capitalization that can redden an otherwise valid link. I was wondering is this is still on the list somewhere? Ideally, it would do something along the lines of this: when you press the button, you would get a search window where you select a namespace and enter your criteria. The search results works just like a typical search. When you "select" the desired object, the fully completed link is inserted for you into the text.
I agree the icon is misleading. Even moving it away from the bold and italic in the list would help, since normally the B, I, and U are such a tightly coupled triplet in editing. It is natural to assume it means underline when it immediately follows B and I. But given a vote, I, too, would prefer to see a better icon used. --Jrich 09:01, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] New Portal - Analyzing Sources [17 April 2009]Hello, I have a suggestion. I would like to suggest we create a new Portal or new section on Werelate called "Analyzing Sources". I had thought It existed as a Portal, or WeRelate Section already. If I have missed it could someone point it out to me. There seem to be scattered throughout Werelate already exiting material and many discussions which could be used for this new portal. My number one complaint with the new "internet based" genealogy is a person has access to the sources, but many times that person does not have the classroom, or group instruction, or years of experience on how, on why to use the source they access. Examples could be "Why not use Jane Doe GEDCOM as a source?" or "Why we use the 1880 or 1850 census" or "why use land records" etc. i.e what is important about these sources, compared to other sources. WeRelate could fill in a badly needed missing educational section bridging the gap. Thought, Suggestions? Debbie Freeman
--DFree 14:49, 15 April 2009 (EDT) Hello Quolla6, Thank You for the suggestion. I had already looked on WeRelate and the Source Portal. It does not exist. I guess I am not making much sense right now (sick, and on medication does that to you). I will create an Article for the WeRelate Source portal later next week so I can give an example. Debbie Freeman --DFree 16:38, 15 April 2009 (EDT) Hello, I created the article. I could not put it in the Source Portal. It looks like you cannot put in articles in the Source Portal. I believe it is listed under the Article section of WeRelate. Thoughts, Suggestions, corrections, etc Gratefully accepted. Debbie Freeman --DFree 22:58, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
I appears that the Source and Image portals are still protected pages, editable only by administrators. This was likely an oversight. I will unprotect them for the time being. I know there was some previous discussion about all of the Portal pages being protected, don't know the status of that, however. Debbie, can you possible post the link to your article here, first, then we can decide the best place for it? Thank you!--Volunteer Admin - Jennifer (JBS66) 08:21, 16 April 2009 (EDT) http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Analyzing_your_Genealogical_Sources Debbie Freeman --DFree 12:32, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
Thank You BobC for reviewing the article. I really appreciate it.--DFree 12:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT) --- [add comment] [edit] Ancestycom mailing list on Rootsweb [22 April 2009]For any of you that are interested in joining, I have added a new mailiing list on Rootsweb to discuss topics relating to the subscription service, Ancestry.com. If you would like to subscribe follow the instructions in this link: [5]. Thanks. --Beth 23:02, 16 April 2009 (EDT) Unfortunately Ancestry has decided to remove this list from Rootsweb. This message was posted today on the Ancestrycom mailing list:
We wanted to let you know that in the next coming days the recently created Ancestrycom mailing list will be removed from the site. We definitely don't want to discourage discussion about the Ancestry.com website, but currently there are two very active message boards dedicated to the discussion of Ancestry.com. One is called Ancestry Site Comments (mainly used for general comments about the site) and the other is called Ancestry Improvements (mainly used to submit suggested improvements and site feedback).
On Ancestry.com - http://boards.ancestry.com/topics.ancestry.ancsite/mb.ashx On RootsWeb.com - http://boards.rootsweb.com/topics.ancestry.ancsite/mb.ashx
On Ancestry.com - http://boards.ancestry.com/topics.ancestry.ancimprovements/mb.ashx On RootsWeb.com - http://boards.rootsweb.com/topics.ancestry.ancimprovements/mb.ashx
Sincerely, Anna Anna Fechter Community Operations Manager The Generations Network A 360 W 4800 N Provo, UT 84604 ancestry.com | genealogy.com | myfamily.com | rootsweb.com | family tree maker --Beth 20:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT) Beth There are many other hosting venues for email lists. I've found "Google Groups" to be general effective, though like all mailing list hosts (Including Rootsweb), not without its problems. Q 20:39, 20 April 2009 (EDT) Thanks Bill, I will wait an analyze the fallout and then decide. I am familiar with Rootsweb but not with the administration of lists on other sites. --Beth 20:45, 20 April 2009 (EDT) Let me know if I can help. I'm familiar with Google Groups, and have helped others start mailing lists in that venue. Q 21:40, 20 April 2009 (EDT) I have created a new Ancestry group: [6]--Beth 12:09, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Jillaine, I wished to have a mailing list for questions regarding Ancestry. There was no mailing list before; there are message boards. Message boards and mailing ilsts are different.--Beth 10:49, 22 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] GEDCOM Re-uploads [2 May 2009]In preparation for the ability to re-upload a GEDCOM without deleting it first, which will hopefully be in place sometime next month, the system currently requires that every gedcom be uploaded into a new tree. The issue is that during gedcom re-upload the system needs to compare your current gedcom to a previously-uploaded gedcom so that it can assign the same wiki pages to the people in your new gedcom as were assigned to the people in your previous gedcom. The easiest way to approach this is to require that each tree contain only a single gedcom, and that a new gedcom upload replace the previous gedcom for the tree. That way the system only has to read the most-recent previous gedcom uploaded for the tree to assign wiki pages to the people in the newly-uploaded gedcom. Another feature of the proposed GEDCOM re-upload feature is to compare people in your newly-uploaded GEDCOM with the people in the previously-uploaded GEDCOM being replaced. Anyone that differs will be listed in the "Updates" tab in the GEDCOM Review program, so that you'll know which wiki pages you might want to update. You'll then be able to update the wiki pages just like you update matching families today. I've noticed that a few people have uploaded multiple gedcoms into the same trees in the past, but I thought that I would start with the simple approach - require that each tree contain just one gedcom - and see if anyone said anything. So now I'm looking for suggestions by people who want to upload multiple gedcom's into the same tree; how we can best meet your needs? Here's one idea: we could allow you to upload multiple gedcom's into the same tree, but you would have to specify whether
Would this idea meet everyone's needs? Is there something else that would be better?--Dallan 14:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
I began in early March with a tiny tree and then added 10 small gedcoms to it. The plan was to slowly and carefully build up the tree. Then I found that the system changed and every gedcom would be a new tree! I don't want to dump everything on WeRelate all at once with all its warts, nor do I want to create lots of tiny trees. Meanwhile I am on hold. I tried a large gedcom of my paternal grandmother's family and got lots of warnings so I withdrew it. I have questions about that also but they can wait.--HLJ411 21:10, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Clarification [2 May 2009]Sorry for the confusion. Let me start over. There are two things that I want the system to do automatically when you upload a GEDCOM that contains people that you have uploaded before:
Initially, my idea for implementing this was to compare your new GEDCOM to your previously-uploaded GEDCOM, look for people who are identical in both GEDCOM's and automatically match the people in the new GEDCOM to the wiki pages created/matched for the people in the previous GEDCOM. Then use these identical pairs of people (one from the old, one from the new) as "landmarks" when trying to match additional people in your new GEDCOM to your old GEDCOM. So if we have a pair of people who are identical, and the parents of the pair are similar, then match the parents in the new GEDCOM to parents in the old GEDCOM and add them to the list of people in the "Update" tab. Try to match as many people in the new GEDCOM to people in the old GEDCOM as you can. People in the new GEDCOM who can't be matched will be treated as if this were a first-time upload, and they'll go through the normal match process to see which pages on the wiki they might match with. The idea of replacing a previous GEDCOM wasn't meant to affect your tree, just reduce the number of previously-uploaded GEDCOM's the system needed to compare the new GEDCOM with. The idea that you can upload possibly many GEDCOM's that overlap a bit with previously-uploaded GEDCOMs, but that each GEDCOM might contain different people complicates the above approach, because instead of comparing the new GEDCOM to the single most-recently uploaded GEDCOM, we need to compare it to all of your previously-uploaded GEDCOM's. And when determining whether the information for a person in the newly-uploaded GEDCOM has changed, we should look at only the most-recently uploaded GEDCOM containing this person. But I think I'm convinced that we need to implement this more complex approach, especially since the new GEDCOM upload process encourages uploading many small GEDCOM's into the same tree. So I'll put back the option to upload a GEDCOM into an existing tree later today, and once we support GEDCOM re-upload, when you upload a new GEDCOM (whether into the same tree or not), we will compare your current GEDCOM to each of your previously-uploaded GEDCOM's. Then you won't have to specify whether or not your new GEDCOM is replacing an existing GEDCOM. The system will match the pages in your new GEDCOM to pages in any of your previously-uploaded GEDCOM's, and determine whether they differ between the new and previous GEDCOM. Thoughts on this approach?--Dallan 12:49, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Excluding living people from new GEDCOM uploads [4 May 2009]Of the 1.7M Person pages on WeRelate, 150K of them (nearly 10%) are for living people. Pages for living people are nearly devoid of content, containing only a surname, gender, and the families to which the person belongs. We originally created these living pages because that's what RootsWeb and other sites did. But now I'm wondering if this is a mistake. What if we were to exclude pages for living people by default? You could use the GEDCOM review program to include pages that you really wanted to include (they'd still be nearly devoid of content, as they are today). Also, we'd probably want to create a page for the "Root" of the tree and their ancestors if the root was living. But the vast majority of living pages would no longer be created. How would people feel about this?--Dallan 14:57, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
Based upon the above discussion (thank you to the contributors!), I'm going to change the GEDCOM upload tool to by default mark living people excluded, except for the root and the root's direct ancestors.
--Dallan 14:19, 4 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Cemeteries as place pages [4 May 2009]One of the things I've noticed while reviewing gedcom's the past two weeks is that all kinds of things are listed at the last level of a place, including schools, hospitals, and cemeteries. These places usually result in "red links" because we don't typically have them in our place wiki. The presence of the red link encourages people to create Place wiki pages for these places. But we don't want to clutter the place wiki with lots of pages for schools and hospitals, so we take them out when we see them. Next week I plan to change place matching so that schools and hospitals in gedcoms get matched to the next-higher-level wiki place. For example, Northwestern University, Chicago, Cook, Illinois, United States would link to Chicago. The place would show as Northwestern University, Chicago, Cook, Illinois, United States but if you clicked on it you would be taken to the Chicago Place page. The question is, what about cemeteries? In the past I've thought that we should create Place pages for cemeteries because they're listed so often as places in gedcoms. But there are a lot of possible cemeteries, and if Place pages were created for even half of them it would certainly clutter up the place wiki. On the other hand, we have some beautiful Place pages for cemeteries, complete with pictures, so I'm not sure if we should say that you can't create Place pages for cemeteries. Or maybe we should say that you can't create Place pages for cemeteries and these existing cemeter pages should become articles that are linked-to from the enclosing town/township? If we decide to allow people continue to create Place pages for cemeteries, I'm wondering if when a cemetery is listed in a gedcom and we don't already have a Place page for the cemetery, if we should match it to the next-higher-level wiki place, like I'm proposing to do for schools and hospitals? Then people wouldn't feel the need to create a Place page for a cemetery just to turn a red link blue. They could still create Place pages for cemeteries through the "Add" menu. Thoughts?--Dallan 15:12, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
I feel that we should encourage pages for sites (I call them sites to differentiate them from places). Just a couple of examples: there is a building down the street from me that used to be an orphanage - not even many locals know this. It would be nice to be able to have a page that could collect photos, stories, etc. about this site. Another example: my great-grandfather passed away in a hospital in the Bronx that is no longer there. Again, it would be nice to have a page that detailed where it was, photos, etc. I don't understand why we would worry about cluttering up the place wiki. I think the cluttering issue here is more about the drop-down boxes. Church pages! Yes, that would be very nice to have. The wiki allows for endless possibilities and creativity, we should embrace that.--Jennifer (JBS66) 07:32, 25 April 2009 (EDT) Another type of "place" that hasn't been mentioned is the large number of once-upon-a-time military installations in this country. I've been making Place pages for a few of them, as I think of them. Jefferson Barracks, just south of St. Louis, was the training camp for tens of thousands of Civil War soldiers from the Midwest; it was established in 1826 and was an active post until 1946. My folks were married in the chapel at Camp Grant, Illinois, which also was closed in 1946 and is now under Rockford International Airport. An army post is closer in type to a town or village, but it's created by government order and often ceases to exist the same way, so its history is finite. --Mike (mksmith) 11:14, 25 April 2009 (EDT) I've been assuming that Cemeteries are places for quite a while. For example: Eastman Cemetery in Bartlett Memorial Forest, Nottingham, Rockingham, New Hampshire, United States. You can also create a place reference using lat/long. For example, {{googlemap|42.46900|-71.35062|Concord Bridge|Concord+Bridge|14|h}}. I use http://mapper.acme.com to zero in on a location and pick up the detailed coordinates.--Jrm03063 22:10, 1 May 2009 (EDT) Ok, it sounds like the consensus is to allow people to create Place pages for schools, hospitals, churches, cemeteries, etc. To simplify matching these places during the GEDCOM import process, I'll add a Match place at next higher level menu option to the GEDCOM review program.--Dallan 14:55, 4 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] New Search [4 May 2009]I forget where we were talking about the confusion about searching page title v. book title. Not a fan of all the clutter created by separating them out, but I understand the usability reasons. What I don't understand is why the changes to search are somehow getting me church records when I search for census. I assume it's because I have to (for no reason whatsoever as far as I can tell) pick a "type" before I search, and I pick government/church. So I get things like "Church census records, 1914-1960", displayed under Book title as "Church census records, 1914-1960". Huh? Yes, that technically has census in it, but the bolding doesn't. And the next few records are church records from totally different parts of the country than I asked for. It appears likely that there's not actually any census records for the county I searched for (Newton, MS), but the search order is now so wacky I can't tell. I should at least be getting CENSUS records, but I'm not.--Amelia 21:39, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
For a specific example, searched for place=louisiana, united states; page title=census; subject=census. Exact match=Nothing(!). Normal: the top 10 includes about 3 actual Louisiana records, 3 records that mistakenly have Louisiana as a place, and about 4 records like Portage Co, Ohio census and the 1810 Tennessee census. #13 is also in Louisiana, nothing else in the top 30 is. Put "+Louisiana +census" in the keyword field, and I get 174 matches, nearly all of which are actually from Louisiana. But no matter how hard I try, I can't get Source:United States, Louisiana, Union. 1850 U.S. Census Population Schedule to show up. It's not in the first 10 pages of the 174 (bored) and I get no matches if I add +union to the search terms.--Amelia 00:50, 30 April 2009 (EDT) Happiness and joy. Much, much better this morning.--Amelia 13:47, 3 May 2009 (EDT) Thanks :-) It was a bug that I introduced last week when I added the new "source title" field on the search form. I also made a few improvements to searching sources in general. And for anyone who hasn't tried adding a source lately, you no longer have to enter the source "type". Just fill in author (if there is one), place (if the source covers a particular place), and title, and search for matching sources. If you can't find a matching source and decide to create a new page, the Source page title will be Author. Title if author is filled in, Place. Title if the place is filled in, or just Title if neither author nor place are filled in. Hopefully that provides a simple description of how Source pages are titled, and it agrees pretty well with our current title standard. I've listed some examples for when you would fill in each field on the Add Source page. Is everyone ok with this change? Finally, I've changed the field label for the source title from "Book/Collection title" to just "Title" -- I'm hoping that it will be obvious from the context that we're talking about the source title and not the Source page title. Would someone mind updating the help pages with this information? Thanks!--Dallan 13:36, 4 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Categorizing Images [4 May 2009]It struck me it might be a good idea to encourage people to put dates and places on images, even vaguely (eg c1900 or virginia) and also asking to categorise them (eg 1880 Census, school group photograph, Portrait, church) This would provide secondary value for example (once the collection has grown) when people are dating photographs. They could seach for Wedding, virginia, 1900 and get some examples of the type of photo, fashions common in that place in that era--Dsrodgers34 18:20, 1 May 2009 (EDT) We currently have a field for place on the images; I could add one for (approximate) year if people want. I could also add a category field if people would come up with a list of categories they wanted.--Dallan 13:53, 4 May 2009 (EDT) Thats what I meant. Of course it would only be useful if people embraced it - It'd be interesting to see what others think Dale [add comment] [edit] BCG Certification Video online [1 May 2009]The BCG now has a video of a BCG certification seminar online at [7]. I recommend at least viewing the portion that addresses Requirement 7.--Beth 19:56, 1 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Another change to searching sources [6 May 2009]A few weeks ago I changed the way that searching sources worked: if you entered a place and checked "Exact matches only," you would only get sources that covered the entire place you searched for, and not ones that covered lower-level jurisdictions. So for example if you entered "United States" into the place field and checked "Exact matches only," you would not see county-level sources. The more I think about this the less I like it. It's a different behavior than you get when you search people or families, where if you enter "United States" and check "Exact matches only," you'll get people with the event located anywhere within the US. So I've just changed it back so that searching sources behaves the same as for searching people or families: if you enter a place and check "Exact matches only," you'll also get sources for lower-level jurisdictions. If this causes a problem for anyone, please let me know and I'll revert it back to only returning sources covering the entire place you searched for. Note that none of this affects searching sources without the "Exact matches only" box checked. In that case sources covering the entire place you search for appear above sources covering smaller jurisdictions. In about two weeks I plan to implement another sort option for exact-match searches: sort by Popularity. This will be the default sort option (you'll still be able to switch back to sorting by title or last-modification-date). Popularity will be based upon the number of people watching the page and the number of other pages linking to it. I'm hoping that this will generally cause higher-level sources, like US Census sources, to appear above lower-level sources in exact-match searches. Popularity will also be taken into account when sorting results for non-exact (regular) searches.--Dallan 23:31, 6 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] proposed acknowledgements [28 May 2009]
I think if people want to use these to highlight pages they come across, I think that would be great. I really like the idea of highlighting well-done pages. Q, could you add these images to a help page so they don't get lost? It might even be better to create three templates: one for each type of award that includes the corresponding image.--Dallan 20:11, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
Used the triple curly brackets to create two templates, whose use can be seen at Person:Leonard Coker (1). [add comment] [edit] Method needed to make it easier for users to locate pages that need assistance [27 May 2009]We need some method to identify pages that need assistance. I don't see any easy way for a user to identify such pages presently. Users would probably work on the pages if they were marked somehow. Maybe by category. For example, we have many pages that were uploaded via gedcom but have not been cleaned up after the gedcom upload. Users could delete the duplicate sources, enter place names so that they are included in the place name links, etc. --Beth 20:30, 16 May 2009 (EDT) Do you think we could do this with something along the lines of a template that assigns the page to a Help needed category? Would it be useful to have different types of templates to point out different types of problems, like {{incorrect-dates}} if the page has obviously-incorrect dates? Feel free to create one or more help-needed style templates and add this to the help pages.--Dallan 20:11, 27 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] little check box in Merge - moving ? [18 May 2009]Hello, Is it my imagination, or has anyone today noticed this? The little check box when you choose what to merge is moving when you try to check it? Debbie Freeman --DFree 00:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)
On this topic I did merges but it wasn't immediately apparent , when merging, that you were merging a page which was originally contributed by someone else. I'd prefer a strong notification before I made a change to another persons page so that I could take more care etc--Dsrodgers34 00:15, 18 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Collaborating within a "Tree" [27 May 2009]I have a tree which is of anyone who was in a particular village/parish as referenced in PRs/census. A 'one place study' rather than a family tree if you like. I hope to encourage people to contribute within my tree rather than upload a tree then merge. Its taking some time to find and then get others interested but I have one lady who's happy for me to take the Photographs she has contributed to Ancestry and put them in my 'site'. I'd like to add her as a watcher so she gets notification when I make changes to pages which interest her. Is it possible for me to add her to my pages as a watcher ? I don't think she is keen on uploading gedcoms etc and this would be the best way to encourage her valuabe input Or would she get the same effect by 'watching' my tree page ? Regards, Dale--Dsrodgers34 00:13, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
Or she could click on the "Watch" link at the top of the page. The idea of watching a tree, so that you automatically watch any new pages added to the tree, is on my todo list for later this year. Then she could just watch your tree and get notified when new pages are added and automatically watch those pages.--Dallan 20:11, 27 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Transclusion from Wikipedia [27 May 2009]In the process of "polishing" the format for Place:Russell, Virginia, United States I noticed that the transclusion of the county summary from Wikipedia, does not work. In checking back to the earlier versions of this page, it appears that it never worked. The code for the transclusion {{wp-Russell County, Virginia}} produces only a broken link: {{wp-Russell County, Virginia}} I see nothing obvious that would cause the problem. The similar code {{wp-Washington County, Virginia}} {{wp-Washington County, Virginia}} Any suggestions on how to correct this? (other than just copying the text over and ignoring the transclusion)? Q 09:13, 25 May 2009 (EDT)--Q 09:22, 25 May 2009 (EDT) I'm not sure what happened (why the template never got created), but I changed the {{wp-Russell County, Virginia}}<nowiki> to <nowiki>{{source-wikipedia|Russell County, Virginia}}. This will direct the wikipedia-update program, which usually runs each weekend, to create the {{wp-Russell County, Virginia}} template and to reference it in the Place page (changing {{source-wikipedia|Russell County, Virginia}} back to {{wp-Russell County, Virginia}} once that template has been created).--Dallan 20:11, 27 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Questionable category and template added [27 May 2009]I have added this template: {{questionable|template for pages with questionable or incorrect data}}. See Person:Solomon Casey (2).--Beth 08:16, 26 May 2009 (EDT) Works for me, particularly since you include the specific concern with this specific page, rather than a generic statement. The statement of the issue is very objective or "position neutral" in wiki terms---just a statement of fact. As such it should not be problematic. I see that the person watching this page continue's to edit their initial input, so a flag of one sort or another has a reasonable chance of illiciting a response. Clever use of the alias to indicate the specifics; I'll try that with Speedy delete, which has a similar problem. Length of template display is a bit long, as it pushes into the advertising area. If you had a really long comment it would end up being partially obscured. You might consider useing a somewhat more subdued shade of yellow for the template. I've been using the This big yellow banner strikes me as a little overbearing in appearance. I believe the way to address some of this would be to enhance the value of the Talk page, but making it more obvious when there is new talk material (as I have suggested elsewhere). In the example case, not only is the father born only 5 years before his son, he is about 40-50 years younger than his wife. So it looks like a typo or a mixup of namesakes, resulting in an incorrect birthdate for the father. If I was interested in the person, I would try to get a more reasonable date and replace it, giving a source, possibly adding a discussion on the talk page. I am not sure such a banner is all that useful for an interested person since they should be motivated to find a better answer and replace the bad data. If I wasn't interested, i.e., didn't know or want to find a reasonable alternative, just alert people that the data was bogus, I would probably try to pin down the likely single mistake, if possible, recording its existence on the talk page, giving a brief explanation of why it is most unlikely, and then remove it from the page, so it does not mislead future searches, etc. If somebody is watching the page they will be notified by the change to the talk page, and can respond via discussion if needed. Errors like the example are so obvious that anybody should catch them. And so not surprisingly, it turns out the parent's page with the 46 year age discrepancy was uploaded by GEDCOM and nobody has edited it yet. This will be much less likely to take so long to be noticed when WeRelate goes into high volume production. The example note with the red flag is better, and notes can be removed easily when the problem is fixed, but leaving the data unchanged still means searches and stuff will reflect the obvious mistake. --Jrich 19:10, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
To keep the banner from interferring with the right hand side bar I reduced the width down to 600px. Many would not notice the problem, because it only shows up when are using certain monitors, with certain screen settings. The way its now set if I expand my window to the full extent of the screen, it looks fine. Perhaps Dallan can advise us if there's a certain rule of thumb about the maximum image width that's advisable to use. Q 20:32, 26 May 2009 (EDT) There is a problem with this and all banners. A person that knows little about this family is making a judgment about what is wrong. There is a census entry for Randolph Casey in KY in 1820 and he has one son under 10 and one between 10-16. I would guess that the Randolph Casey Jr. is the male listed as 10-16, i.e., b. 1805, and was mistakenly linked into the father's spot. It doesn't appear to be the case here, but this is an error that could easily happen due to aggressive merging. The real problem appears to be with the Randolph entry and you are putting what is (to me) a distracting, so-loud-that-it-makes-it-hard-to-think, banner on Solomon's page, when Solomon may very well be accurate, as much as is given. So given that someday, some body corrects Randolph and never sees Solomon's banner, what then? If Dallan wants to write a check program that uses certain rules and adds little markers next to unsourced facts that seem out of whack, and re-run the check every night so fixed flags get removed, I would have no problem with that. He could even collect all these pages onto a Questionable Review project just like the Duplicate Review project if people would volunteer time to clean up bad data. Presumably there would be a noquestionable template like the nomerge one so when one knows a 80 year old man marries a 24 year old woman, one could flag it as not questionable. Using a small little flag in a note is questionable because it suffers from the same problem described above, i.e., somebody that doesn't know the family judging the validity of the data, but at least it doesn't dominate the whole page. This banner is bordering on rude (IMHO). --Jrich 23:56, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
The reasons why it strikes me as rude (which is probably a stronger word than I mean) is that
All this indicates you are not watching the page, so don't care about the page, but are just punishing somebody for making a mistake, or equally possible, a simple typo. If the data is so obvious that you can spot questionable data without needing any sources, others will spot it too without the banner being needed, or just a small, discrete one. You are far more likely to use this banner in error than to accomplish any good with it. --Jrich 01:31, 27 May 2009 (EDT) Overall, toning down the color makes the banner less in your face. I probably take it a bit further, say using a simple border similar to Wikipedia, and no color, or grey. But in anycase, as it is at the moment, its prominent, but not overly so. I will probably continue to use flags, as they are a bit more surgical and discrete, but convey the message that a fix is needed. As for the wording of the banner, its pretty much position neutral. If an editor working on this family objects to it, it would not be because the statement is argumentative, etc., but because they disliked having a common, but rather unintelligent error, being pointed out. One might argue that you if you are going to spend the time to point something like this out, you should spend the time to fix it. Perhaps so, but then why does Wikipedia do this? Mostly because things like this are a work in progress, and having issues pointed out is the first step in getting them fixed. Eventually, someone will fix them. Doesn't have to be today. And if the original author of the item is not happy because someone identified a problem, then I suspect working in a wiki environment is not for them. As to misidentifying a problem, I'm sure that kind of error will happen to. But this particular instance is fairly obvious. Irrespective of what the wrong datum is (the childs DOB or the fathers DOB), the page is in error. When someone sees something like this, pointing it out is a good thing, even if you choose not to pursue the matter and fix it yourself. Errors of this sort mostly occur because the information involved is being added independently from each other---and its not immediately obvious to the submitter that an inconsistency has crept in---mostly because they are focusing only on certain elements. Its a very easy mistake to make, and its very very common. Having a system that catches things like this, and flags them, would be very useful to most genealogists. And more to the point, would be very helpful in making the tree a better and more useful database. In general, I see nothing rude about this approach. Its fairly discrete (could be more so), definitely within the realm of "position neutral", should not offend, and I think helps foster the objectives of WeRelate. Q 08:56, 27 May 2009 (EDT) Banner color changed again per request. --Beth 10:27, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
I think all of the above is true. The flag-its, and banner-its serve similar purposes. They are specifically intended to mark a problem in passing for correction. Who does the correction is not especially important. The audience is anyone who reads the page. Note that on Wikipedia, similar banners go directly on the article page. That's so that they won't be ignored---which is what would happen if it went on the talk page. Q 13:31, 27 May 2009 (EDT) For the past month I've been reviewing the new GEDCOM uploads. The new GEDCOM upload process includes a list of warnings where it finds suspect dates in the GEDCOM. Nearly all of the uploaded GEDCOM's have warnings on some of the pages. I've come to the opinion that it's quite difficult even for conscientious people to get everything right - things get overlooked. Several people have asked me to allow them to print the warnings list since it's not feasible to fix all of the warnings during the GEDCOM upload process. Eventually I want to do this, and more importantly, to run a warnings check periodically over all pages in the wiki and identify pages with probable issues. But that's months away. In the meantime, the banner seems like a good way to point out pages with potential problems, which most people probably aren't aware of and I think most of the time would be grateful for the notice. Wikipedia uses banners similar to this. If one of the authors can clear up the issue, then it's pretty easy to remove the banner. And I think we do searchers a favor by pointing out pages that need help so they don't blithely copy the data into their personal trees. If we get feedback that the banner is too in-your-face, we can reduce the size, but I think that a banner of some sort is a good way to go. As for width, I don't think we'd want it any wider than it is now. It could even be 100 pixels narrower to fit a bit better on 1024x768 monitors. But 600px is fine. I just changed the color to grey and the size to 500px to see what that would look like; feel free to change it back if people like the other look better.--Dallan 20:11, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Brick Wall Icon [1 July 2009]user:Delijim has an interesting icon that he's added to his user page, which I thought I'd pass along. I believe somewhere that someone suggested a "Brickwall" page or something along those lines. This could be used to indicate problems of that sort.
Q 18:24, 26 May 2009 (EDT) it might also be useful as an emoticon in some of our more "intense" discussions. Q 21:45, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Need template for the NGSQ system for numbering [26 May 2009]Is there available a template for the NGSQ system for numbering family members? --Beth 21:31, 26 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Speedy Delete [31 May 2009]I've just used Dallan's pointer about the triple brackets to modify the Speedy Delete template so that the reason for the proposed deletion is embedded within the field, rather than appearing separately below the box. To use this function you need to insert the reason for the deletion following a "pipe" inserted just before the final double bracket of the template. As in {{Speedy Delete 2|Insert reason for proposed deletion here}} Note that the call for this version is "Speedy Delete 2" in curly brackets. The old Speedy Delete remains as it was, and can be called as before.--Q 10:58, 28 May 2009 (EDT) I was wondering about how "speedy delete" works. Are pages automatically deleted after some prescribed period of time, or are all such pages removed when the "speedy delete job" gets run....???--Jrm03063 15:10, 29 May 2009 (EDT) Including the reason as a parameter is a great idea. I've copied Template:Speedy Delete 2 to Template:Speedy Delete so that it works this way and updated the FAQ. If you add the template without a parameter but with the reason below the template as before, it will still display ok. Pages on speedy delete are removed manually. An administrator reviews the page and the reason before deleting it.--Dallan 10:34, 31 May 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] GEDCOM export available in the Sandbox [7 June 2009]A first cut at GEDCOM export is available on the Sandbox! I'd love to get your feedback on how well it works (or doesn't work) before it goes out on the main website. Hopefully we can post it to the main website by the end of this week. To export a tree, select Trees from the MyRelate menu and click on the export link next to the tree you want to export. A message will appear on your talk page in 10-20 minutes with a link where you can download the GEDCOM file.--Dallan 10:39, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
Hey, I just found that I can download your GEDCOM from your talk page. Is this supposed to work for everyone, meaning that you can download everybody's GEDCOM by spying on their talk page? (reposted from Dallan's talk page on the sandbox) --Enno 16:23, 31 May 2009 (CDT)
Problem reported by one user with the new gedcom export so don't use it yet.--Beth 19:33, 1 June 2009 (EDT) Every person in the GEDCOM is seperate. no family groups. So parents, spouses ect are diconnected. [Reported to the administrators' group on Yahoo.] Oops - this is fixed now. I was so focused on names and events that I forgot to look closely at family relationships. They should be working now.--Dallan 22:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT) Here's an issue I hope to get people's comments on: PAF doesn't accept multiple names for an individual; it throws the alternate names away. It does show you a list during import of alternate names that it's throwing away, but that's it. It has fields for a "Married name" and a "Nickname", but you only get one of each, and you can't attach notes or source citations, so I decided not to use those fields but to store multiple names in the GEDCOM instead. RootsMagic and I expect TMG and other programs on the other hand handle multiple names for individuals just fine.
I'm not sure how well the various desktop genealogy programs handle alternate information: multiple names, birth dates, sets of parents, etc., which we tend to have here as a result of merges. The question is how best to represent this alternate information when it is exported as a GEDCOM file.
As you play around with exporting GEDCOM's, would you please think about this question?--Dallan 00:36, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
My take is that those who persist in using programs that can't properly store data have made their choice - they just don't care (and probably wouldn't notice what was missing). Other people have gone to great lengths to insist on a program that can handle the needs of a research project - they care a great deal. I can't condone crippling program output to cater to the least common denominator. It is the responsibility of an importing program to store the data they receive. It they don't have a place for it, then the import should put it in a note themselves. --Judy (jlanoux) 10:44, 7 June 2009 (EDT) I don't know how hard it is to cater to the different desktop programs out there. I never really found one I liked and I stopped looking after I got going with werelate. Still, I do want to have a few GEDCOMs for backup purposes. I think the goal is to be symmetric - make sure that we can correctly read anything that we generate.--Jrm03063 14:59, 7 June 2009 (EDT) I'll continue to target higher-level programs then. Right now we should be able to read anything we generate (once I get the export fixed). But I do need to remove the automatically-generated WeRelate source citations on a re-import.--Dallan 19:48, 7 June 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Info pages on Familypedia [1 June 2009]Take a look at the info pages on Familypedia. I believe the pages are setup so your data is updated on the info page when you add data to another related page. Is this correct? If so this would be a great feature on WeRelate. Note that the pros and cons are discussed and there is no requirement that one uses the info page. Link to information about the info page: [ http://genealogy.wikia.com/wiki/Genealogy:Info_pages] --Beth 19:23, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Gedcom uploads and duplicates [7 June 2009]Hi Dallan, a recent gedcom upload created 2 possible duplicates on the A page. Family George Alden and Jane Unknown are semi-protected pages. Family Dominico Attino and Francesca Urgola seemed to have slipped through the gedcom warnings. --Beth 08:24, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
Ok, I checked into this. The issue was that the uploaded GEDCOM file contained two family records for Dominico and Francesca. This happens every once in awhile. When it does happen, it's actually simpler to merge the two families after the upload. I think when I reviewed this GEDCOM I didn't notice the warning about the duplicate families and so didn't leave a message on the uploader's talk page about merging the duplicates after upload. Your message is a good reminder that I need to watch for that warning in the GEDCOM review process and to leave a message for the uploader asking them to merge the duplicates after upload. Thanks!--Dallan 19:57, 7 June 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Copyright? [8 June 2009]Am I right in thinking that anything I publish on WeRelate is available for anyone to copy or change without my permission? I want to make absolutely sure that I understand the GNU license. I will not publish anything here, if that is the case. I don't mind sharing my research, but I don't like the idea of anyone changing my writing. I also am not sure about the changes made to some of my family files, either. It bothers me when I can't find sources for the changes. Thanks. Ellen Rowan Taylor--Ellen 15:16, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
I can find who made the changes, without any problem. I just have not found credible sources for the changes. I'm not saying that my information is always correct, but I would not want to change anyone else's information without knowing that what I changed was documented.--Ellen 16:24, 4 June 2009 (EDT) I am responding to my own question-my son assures me that the licensing relates to software, but he also assures me that anything I put on WeRelate is public domain and accessible to anyone without my permission. That is also my understanding. So, I will probably not submit anything else. I love the format. It is easy to use, and seems to work well, but it's not for me.--Ellen 18:03, 4 June 2009 (EDT) If you feel that way, you are probably making the right decision. This website is about collaborating to find the most accurate genealogy. Not all of us have access to all the sources as an individual researcher. Nor are we all equally skilled at interpreting ancient documents. So each adds their own value to this website. Of course, all your additions are recorded as yours in the logs. But, it is true that somebody could easily download this data, post it elsewhere, and make it appear like their own work. Or they could edit the data and add some fact that you think is false. Is this about you, or about your ancestors? There are plenty of websites where only the submitter of the data can change it, and that is apparently, to you, an attraction. But to me, that is the weakness of those websites, as it limits the reliability of the data posted to a single person's opinion as opposed to the consensus of the community with all its diversity of interests. I recognize that I can make mistakes and I put my data here specifically so others can correct it when it is wrong. The result is something better than I can do alone. --Jrich 23:04, 4 June 2009 (EDT) The GNU Free Documentation License is similar in purpose to but different from the GNU software license. The license allows others to use the information without charge given that they obey two conditions:
The upcoming GEDCOM export feature adds source citations to every element of the download that link to the "History" pages in order to satisfy the first requirement. Someone could remove those citations or copy the information without giving attribution, but that would be a violation of the license. As long as we're talking about licenses, it's interesting to note that Wikipedia recently voted to switch from the GFDL to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license. They'll be making the switch officially later this month. The CC-BY-SA license is similar to the GFDL, but it's easier to understand and doesn't require that the entire text of the license appear in exported GEDCOM files or other extracts of the information - just a link to the license webpage. Some of our content is dual-licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA currently, but not all of it. Once Wikipedia officially makes the switch, I'd like us to vote also on whether we want to switch everything over to the CC-BY-SA license.--Dallan 01:05, 5 June 2009 (EDT) Ellen, if you have useful information on your ancestors that can be helpful to other fellow ancestors, I believe you are obligated to share it with others, whether here or on other genealogical sites, especially if it is information that helps clear up any conflicting information, adds additional generations or helps resolve "mis-understandings" among researchers. By "keeping this information to yourself" you are doing a huge dis-service to the genealogical community, in general. I have much of my research that has been "borrowed" by others on many of my key families, unfortunately, much of it without attribution or citation, but that is the reality of the internet. Since none of us have "exclusive ownership" over our ancestors, we all share them equally, and hopefully with increased information and research contributed by others (like yourself), our children and future generations will have a BETTER base of information to conduct their own research, hopefully built on the foundation of information that we are now building. If we all selfishly decide to "take our family information to the grave" without sharing it, then future generations will have no benefit from our life's work of research. I for one, hope you'll reconsider your decision not to share your work. Just my $.02.--Delijim 13:39, 8 June 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] How to Watch pages that are automatically generated [7 June 2009]Is there a way to be notified when a page that is automatically generated/updated changes? For example, I've marked several Cemetery Category pages, such as [[Category:Cemeteries of Perry, Ohio, United States]] to "Watch." Since the content of that page is generated by other pages being marked with Category:Cemeteries of Perry, Ohio, United States, the notification doesn't get sent out when a new cemetery appears on that page. Is there a way that a notification can be sent?--Ajcrow 21:45, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Text size-Why so tiny? [7 June 2009]My text size suddenly changed sometimes tonight. Now I need a telescope to read what I am typing. I did not change any settings. I am using IE8. --Beth 00:49, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
The text in this box that I am typing now is the primary problem; I can hardly read what I am typing. All of the info boxes on WeRelate and Ancestry seem much smaller. I can adjust the page text to largest on WeRelate and the overall page text is larger. Adjusting the page text on Ancestry has no effect and switching to the compatibility mode on Ancestry does not seem to help much. I will try Mozilla and compare. Thanks. --Beth 21:39, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] New Categories [7 June 2009]It would be helpful if users were notified of new categories. --Beth 20:33, 7 June 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Using GEDCOMs as sources [3 July 2009]Help on merging says "Do not keep MySources that reference gedcom, .ftw, etc. files." I am wondering if we aren't going a little overboard on removing GEDCOM-type sources. I think citing an imported GEDCOM or FTW, etc., is bad genealogy. If that is where one's data comes from and one wants to cite it to give proper credit, one still ought to be able to explain in the abstract why it is credible, e.g., what sources the GEDCOM itself cites. If it is not posted on the Internet where anybody can access it, then it should be a MySource, and the abstract should give enough information so that others, without access to it, can know what it says. But, that said... Is it better to know that the data is based on an imported GEDCOM, or to have no source at all cited? They may have the same credibility, but in the GEDCOM's case, it would appear to be at least two people's opinion. If it is listed as a MySource, one could always contact the User who created it and ask if there is more information available. So I am not sure much good is being done by removing these citations. Perhaps removing these sources is making a statement that weak sources are not wanted. But this statement is only visible in the History, and will not be noticed by future viewers of that page. Instead someone else will come along and fix the absence of sources by citing a different GEDCOM. Sources that are posted on the Internet do not fall in quite so despicable category in my opinion. One World Tree and worldconnect trees sometimes do have sources listed. Plus they are available on the Internet for others to view/review on their own, so deleting these references merely remove a pointer that could help somebody. These types of sources should ideally not be removed unless at a minimum the remover takes the time to check and verify that they give no sources, and provide no email address that may be contacted for more information. I wonder about the need to remove source citations on pages that the remover has no intention of watching or contributing to, which is typical in merging. I prefer to think the better way to remove such junk genealogy is to crowd it out with real evidence, either refuting the junk genealogy, or providing real sources and only then removing the junk sources. There is a certain unfairness about putting oneself in the position of vetoing other people's sources and yet not being willing to provide better ones yourself. --Jrich 16:28, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
Let's also please distinguish what we mean by imported GEDCOMs. At least some of the more popular genealogy programs (e.g., FTM), automatically create a "source" citation for each piece of data that comes from an imported GEDCOM. So if you import a GEDCOM, FTM creates a "source" with the name of that GEDCOM file, and adds a citation to every single piece of information that comes with that GEDCOM. I *believe* that FTM has created an option for turning this off in newer versions-- I no longer use the program-- but I think the default is still the above behavior. When I used this software, and helped others who were using it, I recommended that we edit the master source list and change, for example, SMITH.GED, to something like "Personal research of Jillaine Smith, Bethesda, MD (email address)" or something like that. When so changed "SMITH.GED" becomes far more useful information. But without that, the name of the imported GEDCOM file means NOTHING. It's not really a "source". And frankly, FTM's default setting for this (and any other program that does the same) does a disservice to genealogy work by not encouraging people to rename this source upon importation. So I throw my vote behind those who say, get rid of this "clutter" (SMITH.GED). I'm not familiar with what happens when someone imports a GEDCOM from Ancestry. I've never done that (shudder). But I'd use the same criteria. If the resulting source citation makes it clear exactly where the information came from (i.e., I can find it independently), then keep it, but if it only says "GEDCOM from Ancestry.com", toss it. jillaine 08:32, 11 June 2009 (EDT) Points well taken. While its difficult to do, I have been able to track down information obtained from GedCom's to the original source. Usually not worth the effort, so I do that only when I have something especially interesting. Still, it can be done, which is to say, these sources are not without value. Given the pervasiveness of their appearance on Werelate, its not really a useful effort to search and destroy them. If it needed to be done, its something best left to the machines. Ultimately, Dallan will either do something systematically with sources like this, or he'll allow them to persist. Q 09:18, 11 June 2009 (EDT) It is clear nobody likes GEDCOMs, and when there is a better source available that is based on primary evidence like town records, wills, deeds and the like, then I agree, delete the GEDCOM source. But many published genealogies are hardly better than GEDCOMS when the author does not take the time to explain where their data comes from or the primary sources it is based on. Like Ajcrow, I believe the existence of a GEDCOM is better than nothing. And a GEDCOM is not entirely useful to only one person, as there is the possibility of contacting the WeRelate user that cited the GEDCOM and getting them to provide additional information, like a copy of the GEDCOM, or notes that accompanied it, etc. I have individuals I have researched pretty thoroughly over many years where the only source of certain data still remains an AFN without sources. Because the data is consistent with everything else I know, and assuming there is some basis for giving the precise date shown, I accept it probationally until I find a better source. I recognize that such a source is not proof, and so it does not represent an endpoint, but to ignore this, I would have to think the author was simply making up data. One point I don't see discussed specifically is what is meant by a GEDCOM. Jillaine's comment would seem to agree with one point I proposed at the beginning, namely, for One World Tree and WorldConnect trees, one should look at it first and determine its quality before removing the citation. If it is one of those that has sources, deleting the pointer to it is bad. I think websites also fall into this category. Some websites are very good about providing sources, the Pane-Joyce website comes to mind, the Carew-Lundstedt world connect also. --Jrich 09:36, 11 June 2009 (EDT) I'd like to re-raise this topic. I think a poor-quality source is better than no source at all. I hadn't thought about it before, but I can see that even a GEDCOM filename may be useful to help prompt a contributor to remember more information about where they got some information from. And I think GEDCOM files that include the name of the original contributor and One World Tree or World Connect references have some value, especially if no other sources are listed. Also, I hope that even newbies feel comfortable at WeRelate. Having said this, half a dozen filename-only GEDCOM citations are unnecessary and make the page look cluttered. How can we achieve both goals: keeping GEDCOM sources that might have some value and making newbies feel included, but not keeping so many that pages end up getting cluttered? One thing I could do is exclude filename-only GEDCOM sources by default during the GEDCOM import process, and in the upload instructions explain that filename-only GEDCOM's aren't very useful in a community website so they're excluded by default, but if they wanted to rename their source to list the website (even a facebook page) of the originator they're welcome to do so and include the source. Excluding filename-only GEDCOM sources as part of the upload process seems less "harsh" than having them omitted after-the-fact when the pages are merged. If we do this, what do we do about the existing filename-only GEDCOM sources? Should we recommend to remove filename-only GEDCOM citations only when there are better sources on the page? Alternatively, there are less than 1000 MySources with the letters ged or ftw in the title, and they come from just a few dozen people. Maybe we should contact these people directly and explain that we're trying to clean things up a bit and remove filename-only GEDCOM sources? More thoughts?--Dallan 19:36, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
I'm with Amelia and reiterate what I said above. If the "source" is SMITH.GED or AncestryFile or PublicTree or OneWorldTree without any additional identifier, then TOSS it. A valid source enables another person to find and review the information themselves. If the source information enables you to find it, then keep it. E.g.:
-- jillaine 21:50, 30 June 2009 (EDT) As a pretty new user, who imported data from Ancestry, I'd like to say a few words about gedcoms... First, I've learned ALOT in my few weeks on werelate about the work involved and the value in documenting sources. I can't tell you how many times I've scratched my head trying to remember how I learned some particular fact regarding a person... and now have to retrace my steps and try to find it again, and DOCUMENT it this time. And, I am absolutely clear, after just a few weeks at werelate, that Ancesty made me very lazy as a genealogist. It is easy to add lots and lots of names to a tree, with the best intentions of researching them "someday," and where the only legitimacy these names have is that somebody, somewhere, wrote it down and thus I can copy it. But it's also true that when I first began doing genealogy, GEDCOMs and OWT, etc. were invaluable in helping me make connections and possibly find other sources for my family names, and to tie my family names to a larger context. It was really exciting to go far enough back in my Slocum line, for example, that I hit upon the Slocum names in the WeRelate database and could connect up my line with others. Often it is sibling lines that produce a source that (in passing) confirms a fact for my particular ancestor. And GEDCOMS, even One World Tree, can give you some clues to who these siblings might be, or who they might have married. Of course, GEDCOMs should be added selectively and reviewed carefully. For example, I always decline to add completely undocumented (no birth or death date) children to a family in Ancestry, figuring I can always add them later if other "real" sources confirm the children. And I check dates, to make sure the children are born while their mother is alive... In some (admittedly rare) cases, there are good (and well documented) facts in a GEDCOM. In my area, some of the best information available on genealogy in a neighboring town is on One World Tree (thank you Martha Croasman!!), and it's been an invaluable resource for me. I realize that for a genealogy wiki, like WeRelate, GEDCOMs are often useless because it isn't a source that can be easily shared. But a new user is likely to come to WeRelate with a certain amount of GEDCOMs in their data. Some are going to be decent data with sources, some will list (without sources) a bunch of facts that can be sourced in other ways, and some will be completely useless (and erroneous) data. I like Dallan's suggestion of excluding filename only GEDCOM during the data merge, and I especially like the idea of renaming them/keeping them as a MySource if they happen to be the rare Martha Croasman-quality GEDCOM source. I wish I had been able to do these things during my imports, as it would have saved me a lot of ruthless cutting out of these sources once I had uploaded data. What I was left with after I cut as many One World Tree and Ancestry Tree references I could find, however, was a bunch of facts that I now had to go out and try to find the real sources for. This will probably keep me busy for the rest of the year(!), but I don't object to that (insert wry grin here). But I do think that rather than focusing on the symptom -i.e. GEDCOMs-we should focus on the underlying problem: the need to document sources for the facts we acquire. GEDCOMs aren't so much a problem (they are just clutter) if they are an extra citation for a fact that is otherwise sourced. The problem really is the number of facts/persons/families that don't have any sources, or no sources except an unspecified GEDCOM. I was astounded (and a bit overwhelmed) at how many of these I have even in the very limited family trees I have added to WeRelate so far. I'd like to spend some time writing some help for "The Ancestry User at WeRelate" (for example), to try to help other users like me find the real sources that support the facts/names/families we are importing. Sorry to go on and on... I'm a writer and not yet concise enough for the web, apparently... Brenda--kennebec1 23:04, 30 June 2009 (EDT) Brenda, I agree with your sentiment entirely. And I want to try and make a specific distinction between viewable and non-viewable "GEDCOMs". By the former, I am thinking specifically of One World Tree and worldconnect. Jillaine, your worldconnect citation is the same as a OWT source in that you have to go to the website to see if it has sources. Many do not, and your citation could be thrown out through guilt by association as easily as OWT. Heck, many WeRelate pages have no sources, so maybe we throw them all out too. If it is a website, then you have the capability of going to the website to see if it has sources or not before you nuke them. A filename-type GEDCOM that exists only on some unknown person's computer may be something you can never inspect, so I am not talking about them, but verifying OWT and wc.rootsweb is just a matter of applying yourself. Many public libraries and many Family History Centers can probably provide free access to ancestry.com to view OWT. If it is not important enough to you to visit a local library and check it out, I would suggest it is not important enough to you to delete, so leave it alone. As I have gotten deeper into certain families, I have even discovered that submitters of certain Ancestral Files are known to me as early computer-age family experts, so I hesitate to treat even all those the same either. Unless there are better sources, or conflicting sources, I think it is dangerous to just paint them all with one brush. If it is somebody you or I are researching, you or I are probably capable of making that judgment and provide better sources, but in the general case, you could just be denying another researcher a clue that they have the interest to pursue until they find the underlying evidence that spawned that poor source citation. Then WeRelate loses because they do not replace the bad source citation with a better one. --Jrich 23:51, 30 June 2009 (EDT) Brenda, Thank you for your thoughts -- that's a great example of the best benefits of WeRelate. But I should clarify that we're not talking about removing data sourced by gedcoms. Only the ugly and 99.9% useless filenames used as sources. Those sources tell you just as much about the data as nothing does -- "I found this somewhere." That's good, and it may be helpful to the person who uploaded it. But the chances of it being useful to any other wiki user are so slim that it does not outweigh the damage: the impression that such sources are appropriate. And if the gedcom name really does hold some hidden meaning obvious to people familiar with the page, then the deletion will hopefully prompt the interested people to make the meaning not so obscure. (This is why I don't include "Research of so-and-so" when I'm deleting gedcom files -- that person might be a family expert to those researching the family.)--Amelia 11:52, 1 July 2009 (EDT) It doesn't matter how you cut it, data that simply cites a GEDCOM, WFT, AF, IGI or any other website as a source is not sourced. If the website cites a source, use that, otherwise the source reference is useless. If you don't delete it because you have no better source, the process of improvement is impacted. I'd rather see citation needed than a URL or e-mail address for a dubious source. I'm not saying to delete the data, if it makes sense, oftentimes it is correct and the source may be found eventually. but there is an awful lot of bad data out there too, from "The name's the same so it must be him", or "if it's in a book somewhere it must be correct" to outright fraud perpetrated by charleton genealogists. If 5 GEDCOM collectors copy it and post it at WFT or AF that does not provide any more credibility to it. Ideally all source citations would reference primary contemporary documents, but we don't live in an ideal world. There are, in fact many responsible secondary sources such as the Barbour Collection, Savage, Torrey, Jacobus, Virkus, The great migration series, the Mayflower 5 generation series, TAG, NEGR etc. In my experience, a great deal of information that I have found which was lacking source documentation has proved to have its origin in legitimate source documents. If the source is dubious, the citation should be deleted but unless the information is refuted, the information should be retained. Hopefully over time if the data is wrong it will be corrected or if it is correct, a proper source will be found and cited. As more and more material is digitized and made available on the internet (Google Books, FHL digitizing of their collection etc) and with improved search engines, we as a community will be able to find and document source citations with increasing authority.--Scot 16:03, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
All well and good, but if one restricts editing to that which is directly available to him or her, very little will get done. Perhaps we need a source field for confirmation by someone who has seen it, at least we have told them where to look. How many views does it take to vet a source. If you say you have seen it can I believe you or must I see for my self? if we both see it can others believe us etc.? Ultimately it must be taken on faith. The point of the wiki, as I see it, is the power of the community to gather the best knowledge available to each of us. As none of us has ready access to all available sources. Make it a 2 step process, citation needed, source confirmed. If a GEDCOM has an invalid citation, returning there does you no good.--Scot 19:05, 1 July 2009 (EDT) Citing sources: If I locate a webpage or gedcom that has documented information then I cite the webpage or gedcom and also cite the source referred to on the webpage or the gedcom making it clear that I have not viewed the source. Obtaining a copy of the source is then added to my to do list; so yes I must see it myself eventually. It may be 5 years from the initial references. For example, on some of my pages you will find marriage records cited from Ancestry. Some of them I have already replaced with the actual marriage record and uploaded the image of same. So if someone has a copy of the source, I expect the user to also upload the image of the document. This enables one to evaluate the source and conclusions drawn from the evidence from the particular source. --Beth 20:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT) I routinely scavenge things like Ancestry lineages, particular where the author includes notes, because there are often bits of information contained therein that prove quite useful. If the source I'm looking at provides a citation to where they got their information from, then I usually record both the intermediate and original source until such a time as I can get to the original. Often I can get to the "original" fairly easily---especially if its not the actual original document, but a compendium of information such as Chalkley's. If the material I'm using provides no sourceing, about the only time I'd bother citeing them is if they had an especially nice writeup---well thought out, information rich, just lacking in sources. Then its worth crediting them for their understanding. But usually, information that's not backed up by sourcing information is, I agree, not worth crediting. Its just data that is probably right, but needs to be recovered from its original context. But if you cite the original source, with no indication that you didn't actually see that source, you're doing yourself a severe disservice. You are assuming that the person has things exactly right, and that its an accurate transcription, or an accurate interpretation. So if there's an error in it, and you don't explain where you actually got the information from, then the error is yours, and yours alone. And yes, it takes time to document properly. That said, would I cite a GedCom? Probably not, because its probably not revisitable in the first place. Q 21:39, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
After reading the above I'll propose that we:
Would someone mind adding this information to the help? If anyone disagrees strongly, please say so.--Dallan 00:29, 4 July 2009 (EDT) Someday, "An Ancestry user at WeRelate" would be a nice help page. :-) Also, I fully agree that the real issue here is that we need to make citing proper sources easier. As more sources go online, especially onto free websites, we need to make it easy for people to cite them.--Dallan 00:29, 4 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Updating Sources & My Sources [1 July 2009]I'm a new user, and I uploaded a gedcom from FTM. I admit it... I have some lines that I haven't spent as much time on, and are essentially "placeholders" for presumed data (often reference OWT or Ancestry Gedcoms). But I'm working on cleaning up my sources and my data on the wiki; it will just take some time. So I have two questions relating to this:
Thanks Beth and Q - I like the template and the category and will use them. I think I have figured out how to use your suggestion, Beth, to find watched pages that reference a specific source, but I still think it would be helpful if a MySource page had links for the specific people/families that reference that MySource. When you import a GEDCOM with its attendant mix of quality in the sources and duplicate sources, the good news is (for We Relate) that all sources become MySources and don't "mess up" the Sources used by everyone. So what I want to do as a new user is go back and assess my sources (i.e. all of kennebec1's MySource pages), correcting references, deleting duplicates, and manually transferring some MySource references to a common Source reference when applicable, so that I'm sharing the common language and sources of WeRelate (and anyone, not just another Ancestry user, can find my sources, which is one of the primary reasons I'm going through all this trouble to translate my Ancestry files!). I think if I could (more directly) tell which pages referenced a MySource page, or even how many person/family pages reference a MySource page, it might ease the process of updating the (relevent) MySources to Sources. It would definitely help me prioritize which MySource pages I wanted to update and correct first. But maybe I'm just having an obsessive moment. Anyway thanks very much for the quick help with using WeRelate. -Brenda
Hmm. That is a good point, Mike. As you note, many of the MySources I am interested in converting are Census locations that are not currently in the WeRelate Sources, and I'm using the current rules (I think) to create new pages, i.e. United States, State, County. XXXX U.S. Census Population Schedule. I suppose that for as long as I continue to be the only one working in this locality, it really doesn't matter if I keep MySources or add new Sources.
Or they are, as you describe, published titles or vital records where the search for sources turns up multiple versions, most of which are not in the "correct" format. I've been selecting the "most correct" of these options, adding updated information on alternate repositories (such as Google books), and generally trying to update the sources I've used. On the one hand, I hate to do all that work if we're going to change the rules... On the other hand, one of the reasons I'm attracted to WeRelate is that I really like the idea that we can all share sources (and share access to sources, when possible). So it makes me feel "helpful" if I can update information on a Source that is used by others. But I can see that figuring out what the guidelines should be for sources isn't easy, and isn't yet complete. As a newbie, as best I can tell, I've tried to avoid the controversial topics (such as what the Page Title should be) and instead just updated info on the source and repositories. But I do still find I'm not at all sure what is "supposed" to go in various fields. A good example is when adding a repository to a source - should the link be to the generic page for that repository (Google Books, Ancestry.com) or to a specific location on the site where that source can be found (what appears in my browser when I go to the Google Book or Ancestry page)? - Brenda
I am wondering if it hurts anything to just put your sources in the notes field? I must confess to being the only one at we relate whose brains dribble out her ears when she reads the source field instructions. I feel overwhelmed by them and as they become more and more formal it makes me afraid to add anything to anyone else's pages or work with anyone because I have source field anxiety. Last week I had a lovely document I thought a WeRelate person would like (scanned primary document) but didn't put it on her page because I was afraid that if I just wrote "Davis County Iowa Deed Book 4 p. 32" in the notes field I might annoy them for not understanding the art of the source field. Does it HURT anything for me to move my sources to the notes field so they don't become anyone's problem if they are not formatted properly or I never do comprehend those source field instructions? Anne--MizLiv 17:16, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] POB and POD conventions [28 July 2009]I believe I saw some discussion recently about how to list place of death, place of marriage, place of birth during periods when the county boundaries were changing. That is, someone was born in what was then Washington County Virginia, but where they were born is now in Russell County, because Russell was not created untill after their birth. Was a convention arrived at as to whether to list the POB according to the area as it was known at the time of birth, or as it later became know. Or is it catch as catch can, user beware? Q 13:59, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
Don't forget - if you know a location with near GPS/GIS accuracy, the google map link/idiom can be put in the description field. Besides providing a clickable link, when the event is mapped Dallan's code will use that information instead of the place GPS as the map flag location. An example: Person:James Mason (13).--Jrm03063 12:19, 18 June 2009 (EDT) When you say the rule is "The rule is to record what the original source says." are you referring to a WeRelate rule? (It is not the rule that I am aware of, as this seems counter to what I have read on various Help pages.) Also, this implies you are buying into your source's credibility without much circumspection. Not all sources are contemporaneous, it is not clear which single source should have the most authority, and even when all that is clear, some contemporaneous sources used colloquial names not well known that have become the cause of many research headaches (examples on request).
What a source says belongs in the text of the source citation, if it is significant. What goes in the place field is the name of a Place page to link to. There can be many source citations each giving different locations, but a birth event may only link to a single Place page. The Place page will then describe the place and gives its history including alternate and historical names. It is my understanding that the basic Place pages follow the LDS convention of naming things as they were in 1900, so it seems to me, by default, one should should name things as they were named in 1900. There are plenty of alternate ways to add detail when you think that Place page name is misleading or incomplete. One is to create a new place that redirects to the 1900 name. Or use the description field. Or add a note. Or put comments in the text of your source citation. --Jrich 13:56, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
I don't entirely disagree with everything you say, but I don't think there is one simple answer. In practice, I probably do what you are talking about most of the time anyway. If I find something in VR Salem MA, I use Salem, and for all I know, in 1900 it could have been that part of Salem that became Beverly, or Wenham, and so technically, I may have used the wrong location. Maybe someday, some researcher will figure out some of these locations precisely enough to tell, but given the information I have I don't know the actual location. There is no substitute for learning the geography and history of a region. If you are in a research situation where multiple place names are involved, like Cambridge Farms and Lexington, you need to know this or you could miss a clue that is staring you right in the face. The more challenging the research you are doing, the more this is true. So anybody, except a newbie, can probably deal with either name, and will know where to look for sources, and will know what jurisdiction is involved, or will at least how to figure this out because they've had to figure it out for other places before. So fundamentally, either Beverly or Salem should be helpful, and if it is important for some reason, I suspect somebody will change it appropriately. You used the word immaterial, and in this sense I agree. I believe it incumbent on a serious genealogist to be prepared deal with all the possible variations. Basically, place is overloaded. People may be trying to communicate one or several things using place names: where an event happened, where it was recorded, what the jurisdiction was, where the record is found. This is in addition to the issue of historical versus current names. But properly, I think the place should represent where the event happened. Where a record is found may be documented in the source citation, so that is not really what place is for, and a good genealogist should be able to figure out the jurisdiction from the actual event location, but not necessarily the other way around. Nor do I think it is necessary for the Place fields in WeRelate to be historic. Now, in attributing data to sources, it is respectful and most accurate to transmit places names as they are given in the source citations. On one page you may easily have one source that names a place the way it was at the time, and another source that uses a modern name. In that case, the two source citations would each use different names for the same place. You could add clarifying notes. But the Place fields used in WeRelate are summaries, representing the final conclusion of what the location was after distilling all the sources, and they do not have any obligation to preserve the name used in any single source. Their purpose is to communicate the result in the clearest manner. Some problems with using historical names to communicate are
These are the problems I think the 1900 convention was trying to solve. I find it awkward as you do, but I think, if used correctly, it would solve those problems. You're right: giving the county that didn't exist in 1790 can be misleading, but trying to locate places on a current map using the historical name doesn't work so well either. A WeRelate page offers plenty of opportunities to add all sorts of useful information about a place ("the part of Plymouth Colony that became Plympton and later Carver", etc.) that can clarify these situations. In 1790 you might specify Nelson County, but in 1793 perhaps you would be specifying Hardin County, and after 1825 Meade County would be correct. Or perhaps in 1790 you mean that part of Nelson County that in 1800 became Breckinridge County, and then after 1825 became Meade County. So even for a Revolutionary soldier, maybe he lived long enough that you have to check all three, or maybe all four, places? And since Meade County in 1900 is smaller than Nelson County in 1790, it actually is a more precise specification of location. --Jrich 15:54, 20 June 2009 (EDT) Actually there is a consensus which is posted on the help page. Below is a copy of the information on the help page for places.
Suppose you have a place that used to be located in one place but is now located in another. For instance, Ravenswood, Mason, Virginia is now Place:Ravenswood, Jackson, West Virginia, United States. In this instance, Jackson County has now been cut out of the early Mason County and after 1863 that area of Virginia became part of the new West Virginia. We recommend that you list the place as "Ravenswood, Mason, Virginia, United States" since that's where the event took place, but that you link to Place:Ravenswood, Jackson, West Virginia, United States since that's the current name of the place. In addition, it would be nice if you edit the Place pages involved to tell others about the place movement:
If you do this, then future GEDCOM uploads will automatically link "Ravenswood, Mason, Virginia" to Place:Ravenswood, Jackson, West Virginia, United States. --Beth 22:46, 20 June 2009 (EDT) Another thing you could do in in addition to the above would be to create a Place:Ravenswood, Mason, Virginia, United States page that redirected to Place:Ravenswood, Jackson, West Virginia, United States. You would do this by entering
as the only line in the big text box for the Ravenswood Virginia Place page. Then links using the historical name that appear anywhere in text will automatically forward to the current (1900) place.--Dallan 19:36, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
I have to agree with Mike, in that it bothers me to see anachronistic information. The nineteen hundred convention renders every event in colonial America ocurring in the United State an anachronism. I have a man born in Brunswick County, Virginia in 1728, married in Lunenburg County in 1748 and died in Halifax County in 1780 yet he never moved. The place page for Halifax County states that it was formed from Lunenburg Co. in 1752, the Lunenburg County page says it was formed from Brunswick in 1746 and Brunswick's page says it was formed in 1720 from Prince George County and In 1732 the county received more land from parts of Surry and Isle of Wight counties. I don't see how redirects could possibly handle this. To determine what county his farm was in in 1900 is probably not possible. However the importance of the place name is to determine where to look for records and that would be determined by what the place name was at the time of the event. There are a host of similar issues involving naming. Did your ancestor come from España or Spain? Was his name Jóse or Joseph? It all depends. What was his Baptismal name? what name did he use? and so on.--Scot 12:35, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
I'm planning to split the event place field into two separate fields: the place as entered by the researcher (which should reflect the place of the event as it was when the event occurred), and the title of a Place page (which the system uses mainly for plotting events on maps). The first field will be displayed on pages and will link to the Place page. Based upon what you enter into the first field, the system will try its best to fill in the title of a reasonable Place page. You can override what the system fills in. This approach represents the simplest thing I can think of for handling historical place names. We don't want multiple Place pages representing the same place over various points in time, so the 1900 rule is one way to maintain just one page per place. But we want to allow the researcher to record the name of the place on the record. Does this sound ok?--Dallan 00:44, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
After thinking about this question a bit more, I realize I have an approach that I use routinely that may be of some help. In Southwest Virginia (as defined for the Southwest Virginia Project) there's a "cascade" of parent counties, with the area once described as "Washington County" becoming gradually broken up into smaller and smaller units, until today it is comprised of a half dozen or so counties. So, when someone was born in 1770 in an area now known as Russell County, it was at the time known as Washington County. My approach for capturing this disconnect is to describe this birth as occurring in "Old Washington County" or "Old Washington County now Russell County", or variations on this theme. In truth I usually use terms like "Old Washington County" more in discussions than in annotating things like POB. But the concept could be used by those troubled by the disconnects and anachronisms involved. Q 10:11, 4 July 2009 (EDT) I might also add that my personal pet anachronism is when someone says that the person was born in an area that was not settled at the time of birth. For example "John Smith was born in 1735 in Washington County Virginia"; not only did Washington County not exist in 1735, neither did its immediate precursor counties. Unless the parents were Native Americans (or perhaps an escapee from the Don Pardo expedition), they were not living in the area in 1735. Q 10:11, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Help for User MinnRay [17 June 2009]User:MinnRay wrote on his User Page this message. Could someone help him? Thanks --DFree 12:28, 17 June 2009 (EDT) I'm not sure if this is where I should ask this question or not. I added successfully the Marszalkiewicz Focus Group. I have just added the Borowiak Focus Group and I am reviewing it. John Marshall, person No. 116 in the Marszalkiewicz Focus Group is the husband of Mary Burke in the Borowiak Focus Group. When I created John Marshall's family, I made him the husband of Mary Chorzewska Borowiak Burke, married 24 January 1904. How do I merge Mary Burke with Mary Chorzewska Borowiak Burke so I can tie the Marszalkiewicz and Borowiak families together? I will be needing to do this for all of my families. Or should I go back to the beginning and make one master "focus group" with all my families together in one group. Can that be done with a GEDCOM file? It would save me a lot of work. Now that I am thinking about it, I suppose if I start with me and work backwards, it would work? Is that what people do? But would that GEDCOM contain all the siblings of my ancestors? Thanks in advance for your help.
[add comment] [edit] Handling Ambiguous Spouses After a Merge [25 June 2009]When merging up through one or more common representations of the same ancestry, it often happens that you reach a point where there are multiple candidates for the husband or wife of a family, but the information available for the candidates doesn't make a convincing argument that the candidates are really the same person. Moreover, there isn't enough evidence present (nor easily available) to resolve the ambiguity. So how to represent the situation until evidence appears that resolves the matter? In evaluating the different approaches, I'm concerned about:
Approaches to this situation would seem to include:
At different times, and for different purposes, I've used all these approaches. I wondered if there's any consensus of thought building up, on what to do and when. ???--Jrm03063 15:33, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
FWIW, if a family has multiple husbands or wives, the multiple individuals appear on the watchers' ShowDuplicates lists. So if you leave them alone they'll be a bit more conspicuous and may get cleaned up more quickly.--Dallan 19:36, 22 June 2009 (EDT) I've had the same problem when working on merges. One writer may speculate that John's wife could possibly be Mary Jones. Instantly dozens of FTM files add Mary Jones as wife. The "possibly" instantly becomes "is". Then it is downloaded, copied, reuploaded dozens of times. To the innocent newbie, "Everybody says so, must be true". I think we have a responsibility to stop the chain. Like you, I have used different approaches at different times depending on the circumstances.
I'm not so sure that the content above is ready for anything like prime-time. So I've tried to tidy it up a bit and create the beginnings of a page that could land on help someday. Please contribute and/or revise: Proposed Guidelines for Ambiguous Spouses resulting from a Merge.--Jrm03063 16:44, 25 June 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Proposed "Sources needed" template [26 June 2009]I come across pages -- lots and lots of pages -- that have zero source citations. Mostly, these appear to be the offspring of abandoned GEDCOMs, but some are even "hand-made." This is not a Good Thing. I'll even admit up front that I have created a bunch of pages myself that lack source citations; these include data taken from family trees at Ancestry -- data that is so precise, I have to think it's probably correct, but which has no source attached. I'm averse to citing "Ancestry" as a good source (it isn't), so I've included no source at all on those pages. I have, however, put them on a to-do list and I've managed to ferret out decent sources for several dozen of those bare pages already (at least one or two per person or family page), so I look upon it as a work-in-progress and try not to lose sleep over it. However, the point is, I want to flag those pages that have no sources whatever. I want to call attention to them, partly to encourage us and others to work on them, and partly to get them listed in a category ("Category:Sources needed") which can function as a to-do list. (I'm aware that I may be partially duplicating other people's work here. . . .) This is what I came up with: {{Sources needed}} An example of its use is at Person:Mary Tindal (1). I started out with something much brighter (lots of red and yellow and exclamation marks), more assertive, . . . and probably off-putting to some. So I toned it down. This version is an attempt at maintaining dignity while still calling attention to the work that needs to be done. I shall have no hesitation in attaching this template to a number of "my" pages, those I created sans sources. (Maybe someone will come up with a source I haven't found.) My notion is to put this at the top of the text box on any entirely unsourced page I come across. Then, when one (whoever) finds and adds a decent source, one may feel justified in removing the template. This is not, by the way, meant to replace the "{{cn}}" or any other more specific template. Nor is it meant to brand any page as "junk." Comments? --Mike (mksmith) 15:46, 20 June 2009 (EDT)
I like the template. Is there a way for me to get a list of all of my unsourced pages or do I have to examine all of my pages to determine which pages are presently unsourced? --Beth 12:39, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
to the end of the keywords line. This will return everyone in your tree without the word Source or MySource.--Dallan 19:36, 22 June 2009 (EDT) I tried a slightly different approach: {{Help Wanted}} Most of the people I run across have good information, but they're not into computer stuff. I need to make it easy for them to get in touch. I'm hoping that if a message is left on Talk for a person I'm watching that I will get an email. Is that true?--Judy (jlanoux) 12:45, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
I like Judy's banner for its very gentle and non-directed tone (appears to be addressed equally as much to a general reader as well as the author), but it does not say anything about no sources. Perhaps clicking on the banner could take one to a help page explaining the reasons why the banner is there and how people can improve the page and remove the need for the banner. Given that people add pages with no sources, I suspect it must be assumed that they don't see a lack of sources as a problem, and an explanation of what is wrong probably needs to be explicit. Unlike making the judgment that this source is OK or that source is not, flagging a complete lack of sources seems like it can be done very objectively and impartially. It would seem that this would be fairly simple to automate this process, making it much more effective. So I would like to see Dallan's thoughts. Personally I think time will solve much of this even without the banners, but judging from the number of posts here, plus previous threads on this topic, there seems to be at least a general consensus that something along these lines should be done. --Jrich 11:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT) Once this is settled, would someone please update the help pages? I love the banners. Maybe add the words "Help wanted" to the beginning of the first line of the Sources needed template? Someday I'll automate displaying these kinds of banners when the computer can figure out that they apply to a page, but that's a ways away, and in the meantime I think manually adding the banners will be helpful.--Dallan 19:36, 22 June 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Time needed for Administrative Approval [22 June 2009]I uploaded a GEDCOM and reviewed it, matching the families, about one o'clock this morning. It is still awaiting administrative approval. Is there something I failed to do or is this a normal amount of wait time? --Janiejac 11:54, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Volunteer for Community Portal for Genealogical Research Education [22 June 2009]Seeking a volunteer to create a community portal for research education. There are several free courses on the web. --Beth 22:17, 22 June 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] News updates [22 June 2009]For those who don't visit the main page often (many followers of this page do not), there are two news items to report:
--Dallan 23:07, 22 June 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Place pages and adding history - what do with supporting documents [29 June 2009]I updated Lafayette, Alabama; I added information about a fire in 1899. I sourced the information, but don't intend to keep my copy of the referenced newspaper article. Should I upload the image; if so to what location? --Beth 18:10, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
Also since I am a resident of Alabama I find it rather annoying the place page for Lafayette is La Fayette. Unless someone has documents to the contrary to prove such this city was never La Fayette. --Beth 22:35, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
The digital library has several advantages (being able to control who can submit to and view items in a collection), but simplicity is not one of them. After using the library for awhile, it's looking like adding simplicity will be a fair amount of work. It's a different model than the wiki. I'm thinking that in the long run it will be easier to add the ability to upload external documents (HTML, PDF, Word, etc.) to the wiki and migrate the current digital library items over to the wiki (once we get a Document namespace added to the wiki). You're welcome to upload the image to the Image namespace. That's the simplest approach. As for renaming the place, go ahead. That's the whole point of a wiki. My guess is that Wikipedia got their information from the same underlying data sources that I did, and those data sources are known to have a few errors. Changing Wikipedia as Q suggests would also be a good idea if you're so inclined.--Dallan 12:51, 29 June 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Summer Wikepedia Project? [3 July 2009]Is there some sort of summer internship program happening where volunteers have been assigned to go find wikipedia content for anyone on WeRelate and copy the WP template over to such WR pages?
The reason I ask is that there appears not to be a great deal of discernment happening. In the case of Edmund and Ureli, above, the content that was already on the page (pre-WP template) was/is better than what's on WP. At best, we end up with a bunch of duplication. Can we take a breath and discuss this please? Thanks! -- Jillaine jillaine 17:32, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
I initially did post a query on the Edmund Rice talk page. Turns out Skater is not watching either of the two pages. Another watcher expressed related concern about the WP content inclusion. I then posted a question on Skater's Talk page, but the more I look around the more it appears that this is a system-wide project. That's why I'm asking the question here. jillaine 19:44, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
"My general approach to existing body content, is that I drop it if it's obviously not being maintained and/or is an untended upload. I retain existing sources as best I can, as well as any facts that are not refuted by WP." How do you determine if it is being maintained? If there is no new evidence, there would be no reason for it to change. About the only reasonable way to assess if something is being maintained is to look at the date of the person's last contribution and if no watcher of the page has made any contribution to WeRelate in, say, a year, two years, maybe you could argue a page is not being maintained. If they are still active on WeRelate and watching a page, I don't see how you can say it is not being maintained. Jillaine gave two examples of pages where she thinks WP is not entirely right, I gave a different example the other day, as well as a WP page that was cited that itself was without a single source other than two webpages containing no source (awfully reminiscent of citing GEDCOMs as sources). I don't see how any of these examples suggest that we can regard WP as sufficient authority to remove other material based on what is in WP, and what is not in WP. Wikipedia is a secondary source, if properly documented, and worse if not. --Jrich 21:19, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
Oh silly me for bringing up a topic that raises the old issue of Wikipedia and its relationship with WeRelate. There is clearly NOT consensus on this issue and there is clearly diversity in how individuals using WeRelate use (or not) Wikipedia. Personally, I don't think that active (or even semi-active) WR users should be required to maintain pages at multiple sites. I have no interest in maintaining a WP page about Edmund Rice; I focus my limited time on WR. We've discussed this before (to death), and in my mind (and I think others, too), WR and WP are two different beasts. The information about Edmund Rice at WP might be perfectly fine *for WP*. But it's not necessarily genealogically framed. It *is* another source of information-- good or bad. I have no trouble pointing people to WP for more information about a person or a period of time. And I also don't have a problem with using WP content when there is no other content to be used for a WR person page. But a number of us have recently been working on Edmund Rice-- in fact, I was just saying what a great example of collaboration this page has become because a few of us were going back and forth, cleaning up after each other, clarifying, formatting, and making the page look dang nice. And I'd just done a bunch of cleaning up on Ureli C. Hill as well. Then along comes the WP agent and -- in my view -- uglifies the page and at best duplicates what was already there. Let me be clear: this is not a complaint against Skater. As far as I can tell, Skater's working on a system-wide project and is not personally involved with the pages Skater is editing (otherwise, I assume, Skater would be Watching said pages). And frankly, if there's a WeRelate project to copy over WP content for pages here that have no content, totally cool. It gives us something to start with. But I do not think that WP content should be copied over here when there is perfectly fine information already here, nor should WP be the default god-of-content for WR. -- jillaine 00:00, 30 June 2009 (EDT) For background on the project, see WeRelate talk:Famous categories. Yes, this is an effort to flag existing pages that have WP pages, both for the categories, and because, as JRM indicates, it gives us lots of nice cross-references. I've been asked by Dallan what the procedure should be when there is existing content on pages I've worked on. To which I said, if there is substantive content, please leave it and use the source template in the source citation if appropriate. Where it is not appropriate (such as where it is many duplicative paragraphs long), there is an alternative template that says something along the lines of "For more information, see <link to wikipedia page>." (i.e., Person:Reginald Denny (1)) That would have been a better approach on Edmund Rice, probably. If these templates don't provide value, then they shouldn't be used/should be deleted. You can gain the same advantages by hand editing, it's just more work.--Amelia 00:15, 30 June 2009 (EDT) I would think the link to Wikipedia, and citing it as a source, is always more appropriate than including the text, or even portions of it, verbatim. How hard is it to follow a link? People know what Wikipedia is, and can choose to read it or not depending on what they know and what they are interested in. But as a link it would not crowd out WeRelate specific data entry. I think that would be fine, and wouldn't even have a problem if the Wikipedia page turned out to be wrong because the link doesn't imply unquestioning acceptance the way blindly copying the text by automated agent seems to. A link would still be making access to a good source easier, which is a good thing. I joined WeRelate to contribute to a community tree, not to maintain Wikipedia. I have no desire to spend time fixing Wikipedia pages when they can't bother to read Thomas Prence's will to find out that his wife when he died was named Mary. They are not interested in wasting time discussing whether he had 2 or 4 wives, and that is one of the chief things I want to discuss. There are thousands of people I am interesting in learning about that they have no interest in. But, by simply linking the pages, they can focus on what they think is important, and their material is easily accessible, but the WeRelate community can still focus on what is important to them as genealogists. --Jrich 01:27, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
Wikipedia is certainly a fine resource for gathering information about persons of historical interest. I've occassionally used their content as a shortcut in creating an article. And while some articles do contain useful genealogical content, its a good idea to keep in mind that the people writing those articles are not, as a rule, well versed genealogists. One of the central requirements on Wikipedia is that information be documented. If article writers can point to something like a family history that supports whatever they want to say, then they've met the requirement. Unfortunately, family histories are not necessarily accurate. Detecting inaccuracies in such sources requires experience with genealogy that the Wikipedia writers often lack. Q 07:51, 30 June 2009 (EDT) I'm another person who was very dismayed to see Wikipedia content being blindly copied into Person pages. I really can't think of any valid reason for doing it except "because we can". [See my comment above about updating Q 13:02, 30 June 2009 (EDT)] A source reference to a Wikipedia is adequate and appropriate. Pasting a WP article into the text box where it assumes dominance over the carefully researched sources is just plain bad. And I agree that it 'uglifies' the pages as well as introducing material that is potentially inappropriate. It's not our job to police WP yet you are trying to make it so. Last I looked (it's been a while) there was a "no genealogy" rule on WP. --Judy (jlanoux) 10:25, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
If you don't like WP links on the pages you're working on, delete them. This is a wiki after all. You can obviously make things better whenever you want. However, let me explain a couple benefits. We have pages here for a lot of people about whom much is known, but nothing has been added to WR. Take Abraham Van Buren, whom I was just working on. He was the son of President Van Buren and a military officer. No one has bothered to write any notes for him. By dropping in the Wikipedia link, we get the bio, and links to a lot of people in his life that are also on here -- his parents, his classmate Jefferson Davis, his wife the first lady, and Dolly Madison, who introduced the two of them. And those links show up without anyone having to know that they are on WR and find them. Similar logic for someone like George Washington, where it's just silly really for someone here to write a biography. The WP link pulls in just the intro, which is a summary, shorter section of the whole article, which also doesn't need duplicating here. Yes, someone could do this work by hand, but they haven't, and this is significantly easier. So if you want to edit your own research interests to include these links and the categories that are appropriate, by all means, do that and delete the WP template. There's no requirement that there be WP links. But for people that you don't care about, they give you a great bang for the buck. --Amelia 11:02, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
User:Skater is my daughter. User:Taylor (my son) has been doing the same thing, but not as much. They've been adding templates to WeRelate pages that have a Wikipedia article. This is in preparation for an upcoming feature later this year where you'll be able to see which "famous people" you share common ancestors with. (See WeRelate talk:Famous categories as has been mentioned previously.) The Wikipedia links will give us a starting point for determining which WeRelate people are "famous" and what famous category(ies) to assign to them. She hasn't been watching the pages because she doesn't have a long-term interest in them, but she has been responding to messages on her talk page. To my knowledge, she isn't deleting any existing content or changing any existing facts/events (except in a few cases where the text we had was simply a cut-and-paste from the wikipedia article - in those cases she replaced the text we had with the wikipedia template so that the text would get updated periodically). She's been adding one of two templates to the pages: either Template:Source-wikipedia, which at the end of the week is turned into another template that includes the opening text from the Wikipedia page onto the WeRelate page, or Template:Moreinfo wikipedia, which just links to the Wikipedia page and doesn't copy over any content. She's supposed to be using the "Source-wikipedia" template only when the page's text content is empty or has just one or two sentences, and use the "Moreinfo" template when the page already has text on it. From the examples given it doesn't look like she's been doing that, and I apologize. I'll have her go through her contributions and remove the wikipedia template from pages that already have text content on them and replace it with the "Moreinfo" template. Most pages that I've seen her edit don't have any text content though. For pages without any text content or with just one or two sentences, I think it's nice to include text from Wikipedia. We've done this for Place pages for example and I think the place pages with wikipedia content look better than the ones without anything at all. I think the same goes for Person pages -- Wikipedia content is better than no content at all. The policy always has been if you have something better to say than what Wikipedia has, feel free to replace the Wikipedia content with your own content. In my opinion it's doubtful that we'll have anything better to say than what Wikipedia has for people who lived before 1500. But I know there are instances where we have more genealogically-relevant things to say about people born later. In those cases feel free to replace the Wikipedia content with something better. If you do replace the Wikipedia template with your own content, please add the Template:Moreinfo wikipedia template to the end of the page. (I'm going to use the moreinfo template to automatically convert links found in other copied Wikipedia content from linking to Wikipedia pages to linking to the corresponding WeRelate pages.) Does this sound ok?--Dallan 13:18, 30 June 2009 (EDT) Thanks, Dallan, for providing the context. It helps to know what was behind this recent round of WP-related edits. And thanks for asking your daughter to review what she's done so far. In the meantime, I also reviewed the text that JRM initially drafted about WP guidelines the can now be found here: Help:Guidelines_for_use_of_Wikipedia. JRM put a lot of effort into that document and it helps explain how to do it when you want to do it, but what I noticed as missing is WHEN and WHY to do it. I started drafting such language here: Help_talk:Guidelines_for_use_of_Wikipedia (It doesn't include the Place example, which I think is a good one. I hope someone will add that.) It doesn't look like we will ever reach consensus about how much to rely on WP for WR content. Clearly there is a spectrum of opinions about this. But hopefully the above drafted language (second link) is a start at something to help people think through when and why it might be a good idea, and then the rest of the Guidelines say how. And as others have said: if you don't like it, edit it. Dallan, if there was a better way for me to have raised this issue (I did post to Skater's Talk page, but without response) other than creating a storm over here at the Watercooler, please advise. jillaine 15:15, 30 June 2009 (EDT) I would like to think we could agree that:
JRM, I think we may be able to all agree on your first bullet. I'm perfectly fine with there being a "for more info" link on the said pages (Edmund and Ureli, for example). But I think we may get stuck on your second point and its sub points. It's not that the WP pages on Edmund Rice or Ureli C. Hill are flawed. They're just not framed in a genealogical way. And as I and others have said, we do not see our role here as working on WP pages. As for creating an explicit WR source for the WP page, it may not always be appropriate for WR to be a *source* but rather an external link. I.e., "for genealogical information related to Edmund Rice, see URL..." jillaine 18:31, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
BTW, User:Skater has reviewed the pages she edited and has made the necessary corrections. I'm glad someone pointed out the issue before she got too far down the list :-). Let me know if you find anything else amiss. Regarding the use of Wikipedia content, I've added a few thoughts to Help_talk:Guidelines_for_use_of_Wikipedia.--Dallan 00:57, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Success stories needed! [28 July 2009]Howard Wolinsky from Ancestry Magazine would like to do a story on WeRelate. He wants to include concrete examples of people who have been able to extend their lines, add or correct information, and collaborate with others on WeRelate. If you have a story to share (please do!) would you email it to dallan@werelate.org? Thank you!--Dallan 13:27, 30 June 2009 (EDT) How soon are these needed? Is there a deadline or target?--Judy (jlanoux) 14:16, 30 June 2009 (EDT) I sent him several that people emailed to me a couple of days ago, but if anyone has others, please continue to email them. Not only are they wonderful to read! :-), but even if they're too late for this article, this experience has made me realize that we need to have a set of "success stories" that we can point to.--Dallan 01:01, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Surname page Usage [18 July 2009]The Help for Surname pages is devilishly hard to locate but I have read it several times and still don't understand how I should be interacting with them. Help seems to tell me "how to" when I want to know "when to". Please help me understand any conventions in place for the use of these pages.
Some guidance would be appreciated. It appears that the surnames pages are what determines matches on searches so I definitely don't want to break anything. But I'm finding that some of my surnames don't seem to appear on any surname pages and alternate spellings are not on them. So it appears action is needed on my part. --Judy (jlanoux) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT) Surname pages is one of those ideas that was, say, not great :-). WeRelate started its life as a search engine for genealogical information on the Web. (The Web item in the Search menu is the vestiage of that beginning.) The Surname pages were intended to be places where people could write general histories about a surname or leave tips for researching a surname. They were also used to store "related" names for the search engine: if you searched on "Smith", the search engine would include all the variants of Smith listed on the Surname page. We found that what people did on the surname pages was write about specific ancestors. So we added Person and Family pages and the surname pages have gotten very little use since then. The search engine for WeRelate still uses them:
In the long run I'm not sure that a set of surname wiki pages is the best approach to manage a set of related names for searching. We may get rid of the Surname pages someday and migrate the related name information to something more appropriate. In the meantime though, editing the Surname pages is how you modify what related names get included in searches at WeRelate. To answer your questions.
--Dallan 01:36, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
I have tried to move Dallan's notes on searching to Help:Name pages and remove indications that the pages are for discussing names. Please fix or notify me if you see a problem. Is there a better place to add the notes on how searching works? --Judy (jlanoux) 15:26, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Bookmarks Feature... [28 July 2009]Is there a way I can bookmark pages for future ease of reference? I thought perhaps I could set up a mock tree in FTE to save pages I want to be able to find easily, but I don't seem to be able to save templates to a tree. What I'm looking for is a place to store the pages I go to all the time, from the templates I've created to the help pages I use alot (formatting, titling pages), to even some of my favorite sources. I suppose I could use the Bookmarks in my browser... but I thought I'd ask to see if there is something I'm not able to find. Thanks, Brenda--kennebec1 22:21, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
Every once in awhile I think about adding a bookmarks feature but I always talk myself out of it because of services like http://del.icio.us that do a terrific job of managing bookmarks - much better than I could come up with. But if there's a general desire I could add it to the todo list.--Dallan 01:36, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Regimental page(s) [5 July 2009]Over the past several years, I've been collecting information on the 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery (Civil War). I've decided to start adding the data to WeRelate. A few days ago, I uploaded the first of what I hope will be several GEDCOMs of the men from the 1st OHA; so far, the members of Company A all of have pages. My vision is to have a page with the unit's history, a bibliography of sources and suggested readings, and links to rosters of all the companies. Those rosters, in turn, will have links to the soldiers' Person pages. The beginning of the main page can be found at 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery. At the bottom of the page is a link to 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery, Company A, with its roster and links to some of the members of that company. I would really appreciate feedback on the pages (both the regimental/company pages and the individual Person pages). Some of the Person pages will be more robust than others, as I have photos of gravestones, GAR records, etc for some. One thing I would like to add on the Person pages is the source for the muster in and muster out info. I remember seeing somewhere that somebody figured out a way to have footnotes within the text. Could someone point me toward that code? Thanks in advance for any feedback you might give. --Ajcrow 23:07, 4 July 2009 (EDT) After posting my message last night, I thought of a better way to present the data on the Person page. Instead of just lines of text with line breaks afterwards, I'm making them unordered lists. Person:Robert Cooke (8) is an example of the new way I'm trying it. --Ajcrow 09:05, 5 July 2009 (EDT) Template:Cite may be what you were looking for. It lets you insert a link to a source in the text. That sounds like a nice project.--Judy (jlanoux) 10:33, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Gay Marriage [28 July 2009]Now, how do I enter that? I keep getting up with mixtures like 'alternate husband" and such. It is rather common in our country, you know {proud to say}. So, tell me how . Tnx. Leo - Europa.--Leo Bijl 03:02, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
Ah, yes, I'm afraid you do have a bulls-eye... (said with a smile!) Gay partnerships quite often produce children, and many of these children are biological. In most cases, the child is biologically related to only one partner, but there are several scenarios in which two women (or actually two men as well) can both be biologically related to their children. More to the point, these relationships (whether called marriage or not) ARE the family unit for the children and adults involved (meaning there is not necessarily an other "biological" person to put into the missing father or mother slot). Just as is true throughout history, not all children of a marriage are always biologically connected to both parents. Sometimes, as genealogists, we know about the the details behind this, and can make note of the difference between biological and adoptive parents (I have one family story where I have done this). Other times, we may know there was an adoption, but may never know who the biological parents were (I have another family story where this is the case). In most cases, we don't know one way or the other, and just go along assuming that just because two people are married, their children are biologically related to both parties. We're probably wrong about one parent (usually the father, for obvious reasons), a small, albeit significant, portion of the time. For WeRelate today, lesbian or gay couples with children won't be too much of an issue, because we can't put in information about living people, and most open gay and lesbian families with children are within the last twenty-five to fifty years (with the shorter time frame reflecting the dramatic rise in the use of various reproductive technogies by both heterosexual and homosexual families). Someday, future genealogists will have to wrestle more significantly with this dilemma - documenting both biological and social lineages, because certainly being brought up by a particular parent, even without direct biological ties, has an effect on who a person becomes. As a never-married single parent, I've chafed under the limitations of "husband" and "wife" in most genealogical software as the only means to describe the relatiionship between two people that results in a child. But I'm still alive, so my child's particular genealogical burdens aren't yet a big problem for WeRelate. Still, it would be good to begin planning for these changes in definitions and relationships. Why not have the "husband" and "wife" labels be modifiable? Does it matter to the software or to the wiki whether Party A is called a Spouse, a Partner, or a Husband? or party B is a Spouse, a Partner or a Wife? I understand there are conventions (important to detecting duplicates) that put one name first, or on the left in a tree, generally the male, and so if a relationship involves two men or two women, someone has to decide who goes first... But Spouse allows inclusion of same-gender couples, and Partner provides a way of defining a relationship that produces a child, but is not necessarily marriage. This would be a good way to document the relationships between people as part of a life story. I suspect the relationships between parents and children really should probably be a second selection box (i.e. in Family Tree Maker, one selects a Spouse, and then chooses the Gender of that person, and then in a separate location selects whether each spouse is natural, adopted, step, foster, related, guardian, etc. to a particular child). Just some possibilities... - Brenda--kennebec1 21:12, 5 July 2009 (EDT) I'm certainly not making a value judgement on one relationship type or another, but I should think that the correct answer as to how this is all represented lies in the root word of the discipline: GENE. When we designate a father and mother, we're asking who contributed the genetics. We're not saying that either parent had value beyond being a contributor of relevant proteins. I think we all know plenty of examples of biological parents who are unworthy of the title "parent", but we're stuck with it. When we look at relationships that are profoundly important - but not genetics based - then we're talking about family history. Critical to be sure, and part of telling a full story, but not genetics. In the case of two women, where one contributes the egg and the other contributes the reproductive tract, I think we still have to fall back to the genetic definition of mother. In the case of two men, I suppose you could mix their contribution so that the actual father remains unknown. Fair enough, then we have two potential candidates as we might in other - ehem - less planned out - circumstances. As much as I value and respect the relationships of the "parents as a matter of practice", it is a separate question than that of "parents as a matter of genetics". When data is available, we need to represent all of the critical relationships for a person - but the "family" page really has to be left as the "genetic family" page.--Jrm03063 22:32, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
--Jrm03063 22:41, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
I'm joining this interesting conversation late, but I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the insistence that a "family" record should be strictly limited to genetic families. To my mind, adoptive families are every bit as important (and in some cases even more so) than genetic parentage. Even our surnames don't necessarily follow genetic lines. Omitting non-biological families would seem to me to be a significant gap for research. But maybe that means I'm doing "family history" as opposed to "GENEalogy". :-) To look beyond my own opinion, I note that in the GEDCOM standard, it is explicitly provided for that an individual can have multiple links to families, where the "child_to_family_link" has an attribute that specifies whether the link is adoption, birth, foster, or sealing. And the Personal Ancestry File software supports multiple child-family linkage, prompting you to specify the linkage type. I had thought WeRelate did the same, but I just tried in the sandbox, and I didn't see any place to put an attribute on the child-family link. Adding a second parent family just shows up as "alternate parents". It probably would not be hard to add an attribute to that relationship, and to show "adopted" or "foster" in the place where it currently shows "alternate". In the mean time, I would think it perfectly appropriate to link children to both their adoptive and biological parents when known, with appropriate explanations in the text. Going back to Leo Bijl's original question, it appears that WeRelate will let you construct a family with a male "wife" or a female "husband" (I note that other software, such as PAF, won't even let you do that), so that's probably the best you can do for a same-sex marriage, and live with the inappropriate role names until the software gets more flexible. But I agree that that's probably not high on the priority list for WeRelate, especially, as someone else pointed out, same-sex marriage is still quite new, and most of us same-sex married couples are still among the living thus not yet topics for family history. :-) --TomChatt 02:26, 9 July 2009 (EDT) I'd recommend User:TomChatt|TomChatt]]'s approach: create a family with a male wife or female husband, or create one with two husbands/wives. You can certainly store multiple sets of parents for an individual, and I do have plans to allow people to track the parent-child relationship (adopted, biological, etc.). Eventually it wouldn't be too difficult to modify the tags, but as has been said, I have some time before it becomes a widespread issue.--Dallan 11:58, 28 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] proposal to amend WeRelate licensing [28 July 2009]I'm posting this here in case people don't see it on the homepage. The board of directors of the Foundation for On-Line Genealogy invite the WeRelate community to vote on a proposal to to license WeRelate material so it is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC-BY-SA), while retaining dual licensing with the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Voting ends July 27. Read more... --Dallan 13:13, 6 July 2009 (EDT) The voting has been unanimous to amend the WeRelate license . I will make the amendment later today or tomorrow. Thank you to those who voted!--Dallan 12:00, 28 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Add: Source - fields not saved [13 July 2009]Could someone familiar with how ADD: SOURCE works please visit: Help_talk:Source_pages#Add:_Source_-_fields_not_saved_.5B7_July_2009.5D and answer my question there? Thanks! jillaine 12:57, 8 July 2009 (EDT) There isn't a special trick to adding a source, I've done it. But I have had cases where all of the data disappeared from an edit on several different occasions. I have been assuming it is a glitch in the web connection. I have learned to save more often. --Judy (jlanoux) 13:16, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Is a Wiki really for you? [28 July 2009]Ask yourself this question. Why did you join WeRelate? I joined because I plan to leave my research here for future researchers to expand upon, rather than having to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. I was also excited about the prospect of collaboration. I also believed that I could edit pages without being attacked. What happened to the idea that one could simply revert to the previous version? We already have semi-protected pages on WeRelate. Some of them are worthy and some are not; this is reflective of the determining factor; the number of watchers on the page. I have agreed to remain on WeRelate until the duplicate merge review is finished. After that it depends on how I view the level of civility on WeRelate.--Beth 22:40, 8 July 2009 (EDT) Why did I join WeRelate? I joined because I had imagined the great potential of wiki technology for genealogy, and had been thinking of doing it myself when I discovered -- to my great delight -- that Dallan had already done it, and had done it with all the features I had hoped for and then some. I've been working here on and off since I joined in Dec 2006, including some "project work" (Scotland place pages), and have had only good experiences. I haven't had the experience yet of actively working on the same lines as someone else, but I have crossed paths with folks working in the same towns and times and had useful research exchanges, and I have also had "passive linkage", where I've connected into other folks' GEDCOM uploads. I've also had a chance to do some merging, and to clean up some perpetuated mythology and perform some needed disambiguation, tasks where a wiki is a particularly good tool. I'm very sorry to hear that Beth has had what sound like some negative experiences, being attacked, I surmise, for making changes to pages that somebody thought "belonged" to them. I haven't experienced that myself, but with a wiki, it's probably just a matter of time. The openness of wiki collaboration is both its strength and its weakness. On the Internet, you run into all kinds of characters, some of them with no manners at all, and sometimes, as Kipling says, you just have to keep your head when all those around you are losing theirs. I hope those kind of experiences remain the exception rather than the rule here on WeRelate. --TomChatt 02:51, 9 July 2009 (EDT) I too think a wiki is the ideal medium for genealogy. I have hopes of eventually emptying my file cabinet here so that all of my research can benefit someone else. Now that we have WeRelate, I find that when researching I tend to enlarge my scope to allied families and research a few generations of them so that it can benefit more people. I have never in 20 years online found a site where it is possible to post without what you call "attacks". I do note that possibly some people do not realize how sharp their posts come across when questioning an action or how strident we may seem when stating our opinions. But, it is hardly something that makes me want to "take my ancestors and go home". The regulars at WeRelate are an enormously dedicated group and I marvel at how helpful everyone is to me as a wiki beginner. We can all help make WeRelate a nicer place in two ways: 1) take an extra minute to reread before posting to make sure that our posts have the tone we intended and 2) avoid overreacting when questioned. The gedcom and merge processes will cause us to unintentionally stray into pages that someone has slaved over. I try to review the results, but sometimes miss one because a merge can affect so many things at once. But keep in mind that even the one who posts a comment that you object to needs a chance to learn the wiki way. --Judy (jlanoux) 09:19, 9 July 2009 (EDT) I've been around wikis for awhile now, which perhaps is why I've taught myself to be patient and calm in a wiki environment. (Surprise: I'm not always so patient and calm in the real world.) At Wikipedia, for example, anyone who becomes strident on a Talk page because "their" contribution has been rewritten, is quickly sat on (sometimes pretty hard) by the regulars who understand the wiki philosophy. Go through that once or twice, and you either get your feelings hurt and go home, or you learn how things work and become part of the productive mass. Some people just aren't wiki-friendly, it's true, just as there are some you would not want to share an office cubicle or an airplane seat with, but most people adapt -- especially most genealogists, because they learned to cooperate with other researchers long ago. I'd like to suggest, by the way, that the gist of the posts in this section (and the others I hope will be added here) be reworked and added to the "Welcome to WeRelate" section on the home page. --Mike (mksmith) 13:28, 9 July 2009 (EDT) As a comment from someone wo recently did merges on my uploaded gedcom for the first time - I found the merge process quite straightforward but I feel there should have been a notifier when I was to merge with a page in someone elses tree, If there had been (or if I had seen it) I would have proceeded more cautiously. Indeed as WeRelare matures an hopefully covers a considerable part of the geneological space, this will happen more and more, and hopefully the pages already there are quite complete. Perhaps an alternative to a "merge" would be a to opt to link to and then the new person could add information to pages in a more WIKI type approach (as when we make additions to Watercooler, we dont overwrite) In fact if weRelate is really successful, further down the track people new to weRelate might identify a near ancestor, then find 90% of the genealogy and local history here anyway removing half the fun I suppose) then might pursue in a different way, maybe just adding "I'm Related" type messages in social media type fashion. What I'm saying is the most popular functionality will change over time, as weRelate matures
One driver for someone to pur their research in here is the "who will maintain my genealogy when I'm gone" If your work is in here, and it becomes the defacto repository, there is more chance that will happen. However. if you have put all your hard work on here, but then realise it will quickly change beyond recognition, then the motivation is diminished somewhat. To sum up - Warn people when they are to merge with 'anothers' page - Allow people to opt to link to rather than merge - Encourage people to take respnsibility for pages - Take a long long term view of WeReleate (eg in 50 plus years time)--Dsrodgers34 22:27, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
My circumstance might be slightly different from most peoples. I uploaded a small GEDCOM to try WeRelate out then after I had improved my GEDCOM, loaded the full version (nearly 4000 people - residents of an english village during the census years. I was using the show duplicates to remove duplicates within my 'tree' but after doing that, realised I had merged with people pages in other trees without even knowing it. I havent tried a gedcom upload since it has had the merge function. Perhps it is more clear. I'm stating the obvious by saying that in WIKI terms, allowing GEDCOM upload is just like making a total WeRelate novice a super administrator. Its OK while these trees remain relatively unconnected, but if WeRelate becomes successful and grows to have the coverage like some of the big sites, this will happen more and more. The discussion in here shows everyone knows that. I am just saying my experience as a novice suggests the warnings of what someone might actually do might need to be more obvious. People will learn from their mistakes and get better at it , but could cause quite a bit of work for others in the meantime.--Dsrodgers34 23:21, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
It was a successful merge and the pages from other trees were not more complete than mine. Indeed I would like to have more such merge candidates but I don't think WeRelate is big in terms of UK based trees (yet) My comment was just that If someone comes in, fairly new to WeRelate, and a merge candidate is already a very complete page in WeRelate - is it possible a person might accidentally stuff up someone elses work ? Is the notification for Newbies obvious enough ? Compared to Wikipedia where someone trampling over other work is doin it intentioanlly, her a well intentioned person might do it accidentally.--Dsrodgers34 23:31, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Urban Legend Needs to Die - No genealogy on Wikipedia [9 July 2009]I've seen this in a couple of different people's reactions to WP content inclusion and/or interaction with WP. I've looked at a lot of WP biographical articles at this point, and I see no reason to believe this. What I believe IS TRUE, is that articles about people of only genealogical note are frowned upon. Also, articles that represent reports of genealogy, for groups of people of only genealogical note, are also frowned upon. There exist many biographical articles containing significant genealogy (just search WR person pages for "wikipedia-notice" for thousands of examples). There also exist articles that are nothing but genealogy, but at least some of the subjects of such an article are of more than genealogical note. So it is true that you can't generally "do genealogy" on wikipedia (unless your family is uncommonly famous). That does not mean there is not a lot of genealogical information to be had, reviewed, extracted, etc., on wikipedia - the individuals or families involved simply have to clear the standard of "notability". --Jrm03063 08:32, 9 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] WP to WR External Links [10 July 2009]I would like to hear from anyone who has a person page, for which a WP biography page exists, where the WR page significantly extends upon, clarifies, or otherwise improves the overall information on the WP page. I want to systematically put in WP-based links to WR articles, when we actually have something to add. I've already been able to do this for a couple of pages, but would certainly like to do it for a whole lot more. Can anyone recommend specific pages? --Thanks--Jrm03063 12:16, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] 2 Person or 2 Family Merges [12 July 2009]I don't know if this topic has already been addressed; I was just doing some duplicate merges, and it seems like it would make sense to not have the merge checkboxes at the top of the comparison page when you're only comparing two people or two families, because you're already making your merge or not merge choice at the bottom with the two buttons.--Nathan 19:27, 12 July 2009 (EDT) Also, when we click on "Not a Match", it would be nice to have a link back to the duplicates list, just like after we finish merging a person. --Nathan 19:49, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Can WeRelate become a genealogy giant ? [27 July 2009]I note the WeRelate home page suggests WeRelate is still in beta and also comments that the intention is to be the largest geneaolgy WIKI. I understand it is anyway. I wondered if it will ever achieve the kind of critical mass close to that of Ancestry public pages ? (but still maintain high quality) This poses quite a few questions:
I should say I use ancestry because I find its online tools for extracting its census information into a GEDCOM is perfect for my "one place" study. having cleaned up the GEDCOM I extracted from ancestry, I moved it here to do some REAL 'one place' work I can post a page about a place, a picture, an event - then link it to the people involved - There are many more relationships in peoples lives than genealogical ones - these get missed in 'traditional' family history HolmeVillageHome If anyone else is a WeRelate "One placer" I'd appreciate any advice or comment--Dsrodgers34 23:42, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
There are a number of similar focused projects---where information is being collected about a specific group of people, either united by a common location, or some other factor. The Southwest Virginia Project would be one example, but there are other's under development. {{Regional Project List}} In addition there's at least one similar project related to a military unit 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery There's also a regional surname project: Coleman Family Exchange Collecting data on all things Coleman I expect in the course of time there will be more of these projects, simply because its a natural in the context of WeRelate. Usually such projects are too large for anyone person to do alone, and in a Wiki many hands can (and will) work on a project. As it happens, I've been involved to some extent with each of the above, sometimes more directly (SWVP, Old Chester which is just starting up), sometimes just lending a helping hand. As we go along with these we learn more about what works and what doesn't. I've tried a lot of different approaches, and seen others use different approaches, to solve various problems. Some solutions are more successful than others. I've backed out of a fair number of things because they were simply too cumbersome to work. (Using the Talk page to collect data was, I found, a particularly misbegotten approach. Good for discussion, but to small space to work for heavy duty data representation.) From my experience here I can make a couple of suggestions about features that I think are very important for a project. 1. Banners and Badges. You will eventually find that you have many hundreds, if not thousands of pages housed within your project. Its a good idea to make sure that those pages can be easily distinguished as being part of a specific project. That way, when people visit a particular page they can quickly see that the page has an overall context within which it fits. There are some technical reasons for doing this (see below), but the main reason is to give pages with in the project a consistent look and feel. It basically gives people "hooks" to help their understanding, and to aid in project recognition. I think this can be accomplished by using "Banners" and "Badges", usually displayed across the top of the page. It gives instant recognition that a page is part of a particular project. 2. Navigation tools. You need a way to allow folks to navigate from one part of your project to another. The basic navigation system on WeRelate works very well indeed for navigating "up and down stream" along a lineage. But the problem in a project is that you have many unconnected lineages within its boundaries---getting from one to another is not easy. So there's a need for a supplementary navigation system that allows you to move "laterally" across the project. There are probably many approaches to this, and I'm always looking for new ideas about how to do it. But a common denominator across the existng projects, and one that I think works well, is to incorporate a navigation device within the Banner or Badge. For example includes a link back to the project's main page. There the user gets an immediate overview of the project content, and can navigate to different components. As you can tell I like to use icons to identify links to different components. While I'm not entirely consistent about this, you'll often find that the icons shown on the main page often also appear on the target page ---just to reinforce the user's "sense of place" within the project. I personally like to use a lot of graphic elements on a page; my thinking is that a) it makes the page a bit less bland, and b) provides hooks on which help people absorb information quickly. (The less they have to think about how to get around the more they can concentrate on what they came here for. Good graphic elements make that easier to accomplish.) Because the link back to the main page is contained within the banner (learn to use templates!), it appears on every page that has the banner, and allows the user to quickly return to the main page when they need to look at something different. One of the things that I've started to include in the template for the banner (in addition to the iconic banner itself, and a link to the main page), are a smaller set of icons blow the banner that allow the user to navigate to specific parts of the project. I've not done this yet with SWVP (and may not: too many pages to retrofit, unless I fiddle with the banner template.) But I've started to add this as a contribution to some of the other projects, particularly with User:Delijim's Old Augusta project. This includes a series of five icons that take you to various subject areas. I reuse the same icons for these areas in different projects, so that it minimizes the time the user needs to orient themselves to the local navigation system. For most of the projects that have been started this would work well, because they have a common relationship---early pioneer settlers in PA and VIrginia during the Colonial period through the Revolutionary War. So, for the part of the SWVP dealing with people that are considered in the project, a common icon (based on a painting of early settlers passing through the Cumberland Gap) works well
---nicely conveys a sense of people settling a new land. But this wouldn't work at all for User:ajcrow's recent initiative for the First Ohio Heavy Artillery project. Many thanks for your feedback, which I will peruse soon. It did strike me that if enough people approached WeRelate in terms of "projects" it might soon take critical mass and become a first point of contact for collaborators. I'd love others to get into my project. I have tried to inerest those on ancestry who overlap my area. They come and look, but do not stay. One person is happy for me to take her protographs and data from Ancestry and place them here. It struck mme that local FH soceities ,who in the past did transcriptions and indexes (maybe even gainingsome funds from the se activities)now find that increasingly being done by such as ancestry (not as accurately, but with critical mass which means thy become a first point of contact) If those soceities and groups did something like 'Projects' on something like werelate they could establich the GEDCOM 'framework' for a place quite quickly form ancestry and then add the 'niche' stuff which sites such as ancestry cannot do. I talk of photographs, events, workplaces, stories etc completely linked to the participants. On ancetry itself - I agree they wouldnt revisit the 'one world' tree - but if they had place, event pages which were independent of their person page that might take off. Where they cannot compete in my mind is it terms of quality and correctness - they are clearly not too concerned with that.--Dsrodgers34 23:43, 13 July 2009 (EDT) Re Dsrodgers question – Can WeRelate become a genealogy giant? At the moment, my opinion is no. I belong to a genealogy group of about 35, mostly seniors. They are keen about their family history and seem to do excellent research. When I try to imagine them using wiki genealogy I come up with only 1 or 2 that might try. That would leave about 95% uninvolved. I would like to talk to the group about WeRelate but I don’t know how I can keep it simple enough such that most would at want to download a gedcom without concerns about the techniques of wiki enhancements. What I/we need is some sort of – “WeRelate for Dummies”. I don’t see any need for immediate perfection of someone’s wiki genealogy as there will be many future years or decades for others to make improvements which, of course, is one of the attributes of wiki. The following situation where simple instructions would have been useful occurred recently. A lady with about 15 years of family research was just told she had terminal cancer and was desperate to find a location where her research would benefit others. I suggested wiki genealogy to the hobby genealogist who was telling me the story and I could see my comment meant nothing to her. I tried to explain but gave up. Had the individual’s gedcom been downloaded it is obvious that she would have had little or no opportunity to follow up. Please note that I am not criticizing the admirable work done by WeRelate contributors and I believe wiki genealogy will be very important in the future. It’s just that somewhere, somehow, there has to be an entry point for those who simply want to submit their family tree.--HLJ411 15:47, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
There already are plenty of sites to upload your GEDCOM and have it sit there available for other people to copy. As has been pointed out elsewhere, WeRelate is trying to do some things that are not commonly done, one of which is force everybody into a single tree. This brings a different process, which is sufficient to cause some people to recoil in fear of the unfamiliar. Well, if things are just done the same, you will get the same result. Since there already are places like that, if WeRelate was happy with that result, I suspect the developers never would have started this project. My viewpoint is that, while I want lots of people cooperating, the cooperation part is far more important than the lots parts. And I imagine some people will find this whole experience is not their cup of tea. They may not like being told they are wrong. They may not like extra steps to make their data useful to others. Well, so be it, IMHO. I would rather see committed users buying into this idea (figuratively) for an extended period of time than to be attractive to every person that ever compiled a collection of Ancestral Files into a family tree. A person that doesn't have the patience to learn what to do is probably not one of those committed users. --Jrich 16:10, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for the comments. Being an older IT person (not very versed in building web applications) I have a bit of a grasp of the stages of IT maturity. Many people do 'start-ups' and this stage many contributors to unearth all the possible solutions to an issue or market segment. as time goes on, one or two approaches, or products, become dominant. Once the other competitors stop operating, the dominant players aquire the best parts of those. This could be through market failure or aquisition. It is suggested that because of the GEDCOM upload, WeRalate is already well in front of most Gen WIKIS, even if this puts the quality issue as a risk. Lets say WeRelate continues this. There would become a point where a geneologist could come here and stand a very good chance of finding relevant information. There would be enough people, places and events pages to make this the case. Hopefully they are of good quality and seen as having authority (like wikipedia)It will beseen as the best place for such information, ie a good combination of quantity and quality. Once this occurs I believe the usability as a repository for newcers will be less significant. Most people will just be 'watchers'or one time viewers, or make minor additions if they have extra information. This position of 'authority' will make it more attractive for people wh want to post lots of information, much as with Wikipedia. They will make themselves learn WIKI in order for their information to get as wide an audience as possible. We would also need other countries data to be as well represented as that of north america. Ancestry is US based but it does have other 'portals' for UK and Aus for example. Once WeRelate gains this critical mass, the issues become like that of Wikipedia, maintenence and control. The question is how to get there. I joined WeRelate because it has 90% of the functionality I would have in a website were I to have the time to construct my own. In HolmeValleyHome have in my tree of most of the census information for one parish in england, resolved to people. I am trying to encourage people to come to my 'project and add information not construct the genealogical 'web'. So far I have not been able to get anyone to contribute (similar to others experience) but one person has allowed me to take their photos from ancestry and put them on. It took me hours and hours, even using ancestry tools to create the gedcom. a village of 400 people ends up with 4000 people (6000 sources)when you include everyone who lived there 1841-1911, their descendants and close relatives of those who moved there. It did strike me that 80% of that effort - 'ancestry' mining could be done by a 'bot' with a human coming in and resolving the discrepancies. whether Ancestry would approve of such wholesale mining Im not sure (probably not) but they do actually provide the tools to do it FTM9 can do it so the APIs must be there. To sum up- I believe 'Projects' is the way for WeRelate to gain critical mass.--Dsrodgers34 18:00, 16 July 2009 (EDT) I hate to hear stories about people who choose not to upload their data because of technology/effort entry barriers. Somebody out there has exactly the information I've been waiting for 35 years to find. And I don't really care if they are a fellow techie. I'll gladly hold their hand and walk them through the process. I've been thinking about the "new abandoned gedcoms". Those that were uploaded in the past few weeks that may get deleted because the uploaded has not returned to process it through the gedcom review. I wonder if maybe we could have volunteers review those to see if any are worth processing before they are discarded. I certainly would volunteer some time to help get that lady's gedcom imported so her work is preserved in a way that it can be built on and expanded. We spend a lot of time talking about quality and sources, but we do also need the linkages. If we get casual visitors browsing as a result of a magazine article, I hope they find something. Otherwise, they'll tell their friends "I tried WeRelate but there's nothing there". So we do need to put some emphasis on quantity as well as quality. A web site thrives on traffic. I think we need to work on getting the word out that a gedcom uploaded here becomes part of a growing entitity and is integrated into a larger whole. It's not just a tomb where the data is dumped to molder and never see the light of day. I think that concept would have a lot of appeal if we could just get it across. It might make the extra work see worthwhile. I am amazed at how popular Find-a-Grave has become. There are obviously a lot of people out there willing to post things on the chance it would help someone else. And they are putting in a fair amount of work. We need to channel some of that enthusiasm.--Judy (jlanoux) 18:46, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
I guess one way to keep so called "Junk Genealogy" in case someone at some point in the future is prepared to remediate it, would be to revisit the quality accreditation thing again. If the unrenovated stuff is allowed to stay, but the cared for or well documented stuff has some obvious quality rating (which shows up in searches as well as on the page itself). The first problem I see with t hat is the sheer work involved in accrediting work individually. Might it be possible to accredit pages within certain 'trees' if they are generally of good quality ? This would be a quicker way to establish a quality accreditation system. If every document has some field or template which can show the level of quality, either awarder individually to a document or to a tree as a while, and this is prominently displayed on the document, or when searching or merging, would that work. I suggest a WeRelater might upload a tree, work on it to get it up to scratch, then submit it for peer review. If that determines the tree as a whole is of sound quality, Then every document within should display something along the lines "Accredited to be from a contributor who maintains high standards" even though some of the pages might not be that good quality wise. I suppose that means additions need to have high standards applied, and problem pages addressed asap. If the person wishes to add significant amounts of data (in my case adding a parish) then this should be in a separate tree and accreditation not requested until the trees contents are brought up to scratch. In thios way the less accredited stuff could remain, but not be given the tick of approval PS if I were to approach renovating a gedcom left by someone - It would probably be quicker to download the gedcom, run it agains Ancestry and add census sources using hints etc, using search/replace to eliminate duplicates etc, then reload onto WeRelate--Dsrodgers34 23:32, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
I'm joining this conversation a bit late, so please excuse the jumbled nature of my comments. First, I agree with the user who is opposed to quality ratings. I don't even use them for the source citations in my desktop genealogy program. Quality ratings of sources and GEDCOMs are subjective and, IMHO, pointless. They serve only to give either a possibly false sense of security or a possibly false sense of exclusion. Something might not be the best source (or the best cited GEDCOM), but I would much rather see someone's work and have it give me a clue than to not see that person's work. Which brings me to my second point: Abandoned GEDCOMs and non-documented GEDCOMS are not the enemy. What is wrong with a GEDCOM (even a non-documented one) being uploaded and then never touched again by the person who uploaded it? In a wiki environment, anyone can modify and improve it. That's the point of a wiki. There have been times when I've done a search on a county where a lot of my ancestors are from and have come across familiar names -- not my ancestors, but people in the same townships. I've added some marriage and burial information from books I have. In some cases, the user who uploaded the GEDCOM never created a user page (a sign to me that he or she is not an "active" WR user). But does that mean that his information wasn't useful or that my modification of those pages was pointless? I maintain that each of us -- by his initial upload and my modification -- contributed positively to WR. While abandoned and non-sourced GEDCOMs are not the enemy, GEDCOMs that are never uploaded to WR are. Genealogists like to find their ancestors. That statement probably seems pedestrian, it has major implications in online endeavors. People don't regularly revisit sites where they don't find their ancestors. For WeRelate to become a true "you have to go there" site, it must reach a critical mass of data. Otherwise, people visit, not find anything, and write it off. (And, as someone else mentioned, they'll tell their friends that there isn't anything here.) That is one reason why I started the 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery project. Not only did I want a place to share what I have and collaborate with others, I wanted to contribute to building the critical mass. WeRelate is all about collaboration. However, it is hard to collaborate when there is no starting point. An uploaded GEDCOM -- even one that is "abandoned" by its original uploader or doesn't have great citations -- provides a starting point. --Ajcrow 07:41, 17 July 2009 (EDT) I'll agree with that. I personally have no need to "rate" the quality of others work. But if its going to be done then you need criteria, and source type is an objective way to set criteria. Objective approaches are usually position neutral, and should not give offense. I think some of the banners that have been recently implemented flagging specific articles for attention are useful, as long as a) they are not overly intrusive, b) they adopt position neutral language. ie, "Please help WeRelate improve this article by adding additional sources." As opposed to the pithy "This article stinks". Q 08:12, 17 July 2009 (EDT) I know this topic has transformed into at least a couple multi-dimensional subjects (as many Watercooler topics do here), but the subject of "Project Work" within WeRelate has compelled me add my project to the mix. After reviewing the comments, suggestions, criticisms and examples of existing projects above, I took the plunge and decided to more formally organize my work on Cherokee Indians. With the hopes of garnering interest in the subject and in attracting additional readers and contributors to the project, I've created the Cherokee Heritage Project, designed to record, collect, preserve and share the origins, history, politics, social and spiritual life, culture, art, achivements, and genealogy of peoples of Cherokee ancestry. Although still in the formative stage (i.e. under construction), I hope the project will soon be considered a community-owned resource rather than just my pet project. Regarding banners, as stated by a couple writers above, I can understand the subtle intimidation factor with banner pages, especially to novice WeRelate users (as I was a couple months ago). So, to help alleviate some of that perception and to avoid the "take-over factor" by brandishing a banner atop all new or existing related pages, I will only include the large banner at the top of the Project Page and on the associated Category Page. All other related pages (such as for people, families, sources, etc) will only show the Project Badge (below) at the bottom of the page for reference and linkage purposes. Comments are invited, here or at the project page itself. --BobC 16:18, 27 July 2009 (EDT) {{Template:Cherokee Heritage Project Badge}} [add comment] [edit] Repository page titles [28 July 2009]What is the preferred format for repository title pages? I have searched all over WeRelate and have not been able to find this information. I find that the Alabama Archives is titled Repository:United States, Alabama. Alabama Department of Archives and History and the Texas Archives is titled Repository:Texas State Library and Archives Commission. I know that I created the Texas one and most likely created the Alabama one as well, but they are not consistent. Some of the repository pages evolved from source pages. What is the preferred method? --Beth 21:01, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
Repository is a relatively new namespace and has almost no conventions or help associated with it. I second Mike's suggestion to be bold and propose some conventions on say Help:Repository pages and add this page to the help contents page.--Dallan 13:34, 28 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Vandalism from Wikipedia [28 July 2009]This article, Horseheads, Chemung, New York, contains vandalism that was pulled via template from the corresponding Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article has already been corrected. Will the article here at WeRelate eventually correct itself or does something need to be done manually to force a refresh of the page? --dayna 12:01, 17 July 2009 (EDT)
Coincidentally, I started running another refresh from Wikipedia today. I run it 2-3 times a year, more often if people request it :-).--Dallan 13:42, 28 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Fraudulent Lineages and WeRelate [19 July 2009]One of the well-known creators of fraudulent lineages was Gustav Anjou. (Citing 1)[8], 2) Genealogical Journal, Volume 19, Numbers 1 & 2, 1991, "We Wuz Robbed! The modus operandi of Gustave Anjou," by Robert Charles Anderson, CG, FASG, 3) Genealogical Journal, Volume 19, Numbers 1 & 2, 1991, "Gustave, We Hardly Knew Ye," by Gordon L. Remington. On WeRelate, Gustav Anjou was automatically cited as an author for several sources through the Family History Library through a bot capture of the FHL Catalog. It is my understanding that the FHL films designating Gustave Anjou as the author are no longer available for rental. One may only view them in Salt Lake City, Utah. What should WeRelate do regarding these sources? There were other fraudulent lineages created by other researchers, but I am hesitant to mention them without the sources for the allegation. I suggest one read the recently archived messages entitled Genealogy Frauds as Case Studies on the APG mailing list on Rootsweb to check to see if you may have relied on one of these researchers for your lineage. --Beth 19:17, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
Note that there is at least one Gustav Anjou source that appears on WeRelate: Source:Parson family records. Anjou is one of the reasons (more a cautionary tale) why intermediate sources actually used, should be cited, (as opposed to the original sources they cite). If Anjou is the source of information, then there's a good possibility that the source he's pointed to does not contain the information stated. A collection of "Anjou" crafted documents would be of some use. They might be entered as sources but "flagged" to indicate his history, and the possiblity of being fraudulent. perhap's a nice "skull and crossbones" icon? This strikes me as one of the primary uses of having editable source pages. By all means, keep them and explain on the pages as much as possible as is known about what isn't trustworthy. No flags or icons necessary.--Amelia 20:46, 18 July 2009 (EDT) I think it's important to differentiate between "fradulent" and "incorrect" lineages. There are several publications that have published incorrect lineages that have been cited and propagated mistakes in many families. Perhaps we need to come up a "disproven source" icon? This would be able to be used for both fradulent and incorrect lineages. Agree though that Anjou deserves "special status" for his obviously error-ridden work. Delijim 19 July 2009-
I don't actually think we do need to distinguish, at a policy level, between bad/incorrect and bad/fraudulent sources, or to decide on some standard for a "completely" unworthy source. This is an area of a lot of nuance and gradations, and thus I think it's best left to the text on any given page to describe the problem. Anjou has special status in the sense that the very fact that he is the author of a book is enough to merit the assumption that it contains fraud, but he's really just notable because he committed fraud on purpose repeatedly. But since (as I understand it) he started with correct lines and ended with correct lines, and connected them in the middle with something invented, his works themselves are not that much worse than hundreds of other works that misstate the immigrant connection to the mother country. They should all be evaluated on their own merits. For those doubted just because of Anjou's authorship, we should link to a substantive discussion of what he did.--Amelia 12:02, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Research question - land records [21 July 2009]This question was left today on my small Jackson yahoo group and I don't have an answer. I thought maybe someone here might give some advice or pointers. "The migration from England to New England was so different from the migration to the Chesapeake that it is hard to imagine that the two Jackson lines that we are researching could be related to each other. Each migration was from a different area of England, different social economic groups, and different religious groups. How do we fit in? Since the Hempstead (Queens, NY) related Jacksons in Virginia had land they were not indenture servants and it appears that the only records that we have to provide source information for our research on these Jacksons is going to be deeds, patents, and grants or other land records. I have searched for deed mapping research to see if anything has been done on the Northern Neck Counties but have found nothing that would help us. Is there anyone in this (yahoo) group that has any experience or knowledge of how to go about this type of research?" Any advice will be appreciated! This is clear out of my field (and not the usual topic for the watercooler). DNA has proved these Northern Neck Virginians are somehow related to the Queens Co., NY Jacksons. I would love to make our research a project on WeRelate but none of the others are familiar with wiki and I haven't been able to convince them to learn. I've uploaded one of the Samuel Jacksons that we've been working on here: Person:Samuel Jackson (49) of Prince William Co, Virginia. We've found 4 other Samuel Jacksons in the same area during the same time period and it's become an interesting challenge. --Janiejac 23:16, 20 July 2009 (EDT) Have you looked at the catalog for the family history library? Place Search put in the county, part of Virginia and check the land records category. Click on film notes. Usually there is a film containing an alphabetical index for the county, maybe one for grantors and one for grantees even. So usually you order this film first, and find all entries for the person you are interested in. This will help you decide which film(s) you need to order to get the recorded version of the actual deeds. (Some counties may have hundred of films to hold all the deeds.) The charge is about $5.95 per film, and each order takes 2-3 weeks to get there but could take longer. The film is yours to use about 1 month, but it cannot leave the local family history library. A thorough search can take a while between waiting for films, finding time in your schedule when the local FHL is open, and deciphering hard to read copies. The list of resources for the county shown in the catalog may also have probate records as well, and church records, and other resources that may come in handy. Of course, you need to go by the county that the area was part of at the time in question, or you may need to search through multiple counties. Is that the type of help you were looking for? --Jrich 01:18, 21 July 2009 (EDT) Janie, this sounds like a great question for either the APG or Transitional Genealogy listserv. (Beth, which one do you think would be better for her?) jillaine 08:30, 21 July 2009 (EDT) The counties considered in the Northern Neck of Virginia are Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond, Westmoreland, and some people include Prince George County; so are these the counties of interest or are you actually interested in Prince William County? There are several people working on Prince William land records and I believe there is at least one listed for Richmond and Westmoreland. See this list. [9] You should also review the Deed Data Pool. You may view the data files with your word processor and view the details of the deeds but you need Deedmapper to view the actual plats. Link to pool [10] Does this answer your question, Janie? --Beth 09:44, 21 July 2009 (EDT) Thank you, Thank you to all who have responded with ideas and links! Yes, this is the kind of help I needed! I'm sharing what you have given with my research buddies and hopefully, between us we can come up with the info we need. These links are all new to me so I'm eager to check them out! --Janiejac 13:58, 21 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Category for the Confederate States of America [28 July 2009]I need some help on how to organize this category. I want to add a category to recognize people who served in the military for the CSA. I looked at Wikipedia for guidelines and Wikipedia seems to have a separate category for the Confederate States of America; I assume because they were not part of the United States. So I created the category on WeRelate Category:Confederate States of America. However the subcategories on Wikipedia for the CSA military seem to be all over the map and I don't wish to recreate that here. Need suggestions on the subcategories; we already have some CSA related categories under the states; I believe that I can create a subcategory that links back to more than one parent category, but anyway help and advice please. As an example I have 2 people who served in Company K, Seventeenth Alabama Infantry. How do I categorize Company K, which was created in Butler County, Alabama, also known as the Butler True Blues.--Beth 23:32, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
Yes, I do have the muster roll for Company K, but don't plan to take the time to create an article this week. --Beth 10:13, 21 July 2009 (EDT) I've started a project on the 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery and debated the use of categories. Other than having a way to automatically generate the roster of the various companies, what purpose does a category serve? The page for 1st Ohio Heavy Artillery, Company A was created by copying and pasting the roster. I'm going back and adding the links to the specific Person pages. I realize that a category could automatically generate the list, but since I have to go back and edit each of the Person pages anyhow (add the project's template, etc), it doesn't seem like adding a category link would really save me anything. Just curious if I'm on or off in my thinking. --Ajcrow 10:59, 21 July 2009 (EDT)
Is there a valid reason to limit the number of categories? --Beth 12:17, 21 July 2009 (EDT)
How you handle something like this depends a bit on the reason you want to create categories. Presumably, its a finding aid for individuals. IE, you want to create a list of everyone who served in XYZ unit. Then you could use that list as a look up register for people who both served in the unit, and have articles on WeRelate. The category process works by placing the page title in a list. The list is in alphabetical order. Which would be handy if the page titles were set up "last name, first name", but they are not. So what you get is a list ordered by first name. Andrew Able, followed by Andrew Deavers, followed by Andrew Zybigsky, etc. Actaully, its worse than that, as since every person page is proceeded by "Person"", you end up with a list of pages all grouped under "P". Here's an example of where I tried something early on, and found it wasn't especially useful. Category:Early_Settlers_of_Southwest_Virginia. (I used a template to add the category page automatically along with other information to the page. When I realized it wasn't going to work, I changed to a new template, without the category. The list still persists because the new template had a new title.) If you don't have many people in the list, then you're okay because its easy to scan the list and find the right person. If you have a few hundred, or a few thousand people, its more of a problem. Perhaps there's a way to invert the name order. Seems like that's a common enough problem that there would be a way to do that. Haven't looked. If not, how useful is a list of people ordered by first names? or by Namespace? I still use categories on occassion for limited short term purposes. Q 07:55, 22 July 2009 (EDT)
08:21, 22 July 2009 (EDT)
OK, I going to jump in here, playing devil's advocate a little. I am not trying to complain about anything that has been done or discussed, but using current examples, and carrying them to extremes, I think there is some danger here, Mr. Robinson. Dallan has said, "If we were to allow everyone to add categories during GEDCOM upload, we could end up with some pages having a lot of categories, so I'm reluctant to do this." So I believe there needs to be some guidelines on the use of categories. Probably Dallan needs to provide lots of guidance in terms of the load they place on the system and performance, etc., or whatever his other concerns might be. People need to provide input on what they want to do with categories, but keeping in mind whatever they are allowed to do, potentially so will millions of other worldwide contributors be someday. So to start the discussion, here are some questions: What is a necessary requirement to create a category? Keeping in mind that this is community data, that person pages are shared, is it better to mark a person with a category, or to simply note the membership in some group as part of the text in the narrative? If you want some way to find all the pertinent people, would it be better to simply write an article and list the pertinent people in the article, but do nothing on the person page? ("What links here" would show that the article references them, if people were trained to look there, and expected to find there, what groups a person belonged to.) Or, more visibly, but possibly worse than a listing of categories at the bottom of the page, a link to the article could be included in the narrative. What criteria can be developed so there aren't categories like "Founders of now defunct town", "Ancestor of Michael Jackson", or "Past Presidents of the Model Train Club"? At what count do the number of categories become an impediment and distraction and who is to judge that one person's category is more important than another's? Do project banners stamp pages with too much ownership, branding them if you will, so others may be afraid to contribute because they think there is a different protocol than for regular pages? Which project banner gets the coveted top spot when there are more than one? (How many banners can fit on one page, should they go at the bottom, should there be a size limit, do they slow page loading if there are multiple banners?) Why is a category, or whatever is decided above, not sufficient for marking pages in a project? --Jrich 11:49, 22 July 2009 (EDT) Jrich, I guess I'll jump in on your last paragraph and respond on behalf of myself, Quolla and a few of us that have spent much time on "branding projects" (your words), such as Q's Southwest Virginia Project and my Early Settlers of Augusta County, Virginia Project. These projects add much additional information to those ancestors that otherwise probably wouldn't have been added without the many hours (or days and weeks) of additional research necessary to complete these projects. Rather that an "ownership brand", these projects add a wealth of information (in many cases collaboration between several researchers), and serve as a "baseline" to group ancestors together, based on their location (in Q and my Project's case). Since many of the families in these projects intermarried (because of their obvious proximity), this is an obvious plus to those researchers that are seeking information on related families by looking at those included under the project "banners". Although I don't personally feel that I have "branded or claimed ownership" those ancestors, these projects do show that a certain amount of effort has been done in the process, that will benefit future researchers. I believe Dallan has been very appreciative of those involved in these projects that have separated WeRelate from any other genealogical sites to date. If WeRelate brings additional projects that add a wealth of information to this site (and the increase of collaboration, etc.), then (in my opinion), so much the better! --Delijim 22 July 2009 Well said, to which I have only a little to add. Yes, its highly likely that some individuals could be "claimed" under multiple projects. It doesn't much matter which project, if any, uses attaches a particular banner to a particular article. If you are working in the area you are pretty well going to expect that your ancestor was here at a certain time, but previous to that were somewhere else. The point of the banner is that it provides a cohesive way to link many different articles (not just people articles together) and provide common navigation tools to take you to different parts of the project. This makes it easy to recognize that a particular individual was located within a certain area at a certain time. It also serves to focus peoples attention on other elements that may be of interest to them, and not just the family relationships. IF, ---and this seems to me to be a highly theoretical point that seems to have caused no problem so far---but IF there was a conflict in some way between two projects wishing to identify a particular article with a particular project, then the answer is you shift from a "single banner" to multiple "badges", each badge pointing to a different project, with exactly the same effect---except that now you have two areas that you can associate the person with, and two separate lines of information display and collection that may benefit you. And you aren't even limited to two badges; I believe there's space for a fair number of such "mini banners", each leading you off into another project. There are some examples of such badges on the present page. I don't believe we've started incorporating them into "person articles' but some pages are being linked to multiple project, at least on the main enterance page. 13:54, 22 July 2009 (EDT) If an ancestor has earned "multiple banners" (as you've suggested), I believe that they should probably be placed in chronological sequence, with the earlier banner at the top. For instance, one of my ancestors, James Kerr is a key "Early Augusta County Settler", and will also most likely be included in Quolla's "Chester County, PA Project". Since his family migrated to Chester County, PA before their migration to Augusta County, I'd suggest that the Chester County banner be listed first......--Delijim 22 July 2009
By the way, I've started adding in maps derivitive of the Hildeband maps, based on your scanned images. I've included one of those in the Old Augusta Project---specific to identifying the waterways depicted by Hildebrand on his Borden's Grant map. Waterways are overlain as a distinct color against the tract maps. I've removed Hildebrands labeling of individual tracts (mostly for clarity). I need to do some stream labeling. Right now it just shows the North and South (St. Mary's) Rivers as labeled features. labeling the smaller streams is a bit problematic. I'll be adding other maps based on similar approach (e.g., Great Road, principle places, etc), plus something that can be used to highlight specific tracts. Q 14:14, 22 July 2009 (EDT) I'm not complaining about your projects and I value the work you do. I think genealogy is immensely helped by people who take a wider interest than just their own ancestors. Look how often Savage's Dictionary on pre-1692 colonists gets used. Not that ancestor-focus is bad, either, since the collaborative nature of WeRelate is what can take this limited scope and combine it with others to come up with a broad result executed with focus. I think WeRelate wants to allow you to pursue your projects. I am just questioning how it needs to be done. Some book I worked with once started the entry on each person with a list of lists the person belonged to. You turned to the appendix and there was each list, about 30 in all if I remember correctly, maybe more: charter member of this church, tax list of 1762 (or whatever year), etc. Each of those lists could be somebody's pet project. As mentioned earlier, each military unit. Important to them. Don't want to discourage them pursuing that. That kind of diversity is good. So I am not attacking the idea of projects, just asking how it is most appropriate to mark the Person and Family pages, if at all. Is your project meaningful to all researchers of an individual? Is your project meaningful or of interest to the general public? To somebody outside the US? Perhaps we don't care, since they probably won't look at the page. I have a hard time finding a definition of exactly what is the scope of some of these projects. Is your project defined by some natural boundaries, like pre-Revolutionary, pre-incorporation, or are the criteria arbitrary? What if somebody wants to add somebody to the project you don't think qualifies? Wrong range of years? Outside the area? Who decides? Assuming they don't qualify, does the other researcher have to create a whole new project to get a feeling of inclusion? Is your project defined by your source? Should every genealogy work get its own project? Savage's Dictionary? Early Settlers of Any County? Founders of such and such a town? Do we need a big banner for each? A gallery for thumbnail banners? A list of categories at the bottom of the page? What if somebody researching one of your people dislikes the banner on the page because they don't think it is all that pertinent (maybe they only resided there a year or two), or it distracts from other information there? What if they want to make a change that makes the page look different than other pages in the project (add their own pet formatting), perhaps add different sections, or rearrange them to add some extra information? You want people to know there is more information available to provide a broader scope to their research? Can't a category do that? You want to have a way to tie together pages being worked on by a group? Can't a category do that? The banner has nothing to do with the person, it has to do with an arbitrary project that somebody is using as a research focus. It goes great on the articles which address the project's main theses. But does it belong on individual Person and Family pages? Articles always seem a little less of community creations. While I realize anybody can add to them, I would hesitate to do so without checking with the author, especially if the article was in somebody else's user space. But Person and Family pages seem different. They don't belong to anybody. I realize that most of the banners are put there with the best of intentions, and actually improve the overall appearance. Regardless, I also think to the inexperienced user, or in certain situations where disagreements arise, they communicate an ownership that may not have been intended. Or they may encourage a feeling of ownership that is not proper. So I wonder why simply creating a category isn't good enough? --Jrich 14:35, 22 July 2009 (EDT)
Jrich expresses a concern I've had for a while. While I'm very impressed with the Virginia work, I'm not a fan of the big banners at the top of the pages. It's not so much that it's those banners, it's the scalability of it all. I realize, however, that I am at least as guilty of spreading a particular style on many pages (which is why I copied WP so much -- I'm trying to stay under the radar). I prefer the bottom of the page information because it's out of the way while being more overt than just a category (which, until we get rid of the automatic surname categories, are often overlooked in the mess). The info templates are also a handy way to replace common information that used to be repeated in the narrative (e.g. "The Mayflower was the first ship to settle in New England..."), something you can't do with a category without requiring the user to click away. Anyway, at some point, when there's more than just a handful of us doing this, I think we should develop common style templates for these types of projects so that other users just think of them as community add-on's, and not any particular person/group's pet project.--Amelia 00:16, 24 July 2009 (EDT) As far as Banners on a page, I feel they add to the look of the page, I have worked with Bill and Jim and several others on the Southwest Virginia Project...I have never felt it was a pet project...Bill asked me if he could use some of my work when he started it...and it has been a great help to me, it has not been the work of one but all whose family was from that area...the banner has been place on several of my family pages and I am proud of it...we have corrected many mistake by joining in and working together...this project only covers a time period and a small area...some of my family was a part of that time period and I have learn a lot from the project....the banner fits the work and I see no reason for it ever to be changed..anyone can add to the pages that is what the group is all about....if the information fit the area and the time and has sources to back it up....I am sure it will be welcomed by all who has worked so hard on the project...if it does not fit the time and area then it should be place were it does fit...I feel this project will be of great value to many researchers....and to me it has been a great honor to work with Bill(who I have the up most respect for) and the other on this project...I would like to see more projects on different area done and a distinct banner at the head of each this would tell us when we pull up a page what it is tied to, and it belong at the top of the page in my book....-,-Dlbradley1 19:26, 24 July 2009 (EDT) Thanks Amelia for bringing this up. Great points. And I'm about to create a new project-- have started really, but it's not very far along yet ("Our Schwenningen Ancestors"). I think it might be appropriate to put the header on the main page of the "project" but perhaps at the bottom of subsequent pages like you do your "Founders of ___, CT" template. I'll watch this conversation with great curiosity. jillaine 16:41, 24 July 2009 (EDT) With all due respect to everyone's opinions; I believe that we have room on WeRelate for templates, banners, and categories. I am not sure that I wish to have specific rules in respect to categorizing pages. That could possibly preclude a new innovative approach by a new user. I happen to like Q's banner, Jillaine's banner, and Amelia's template. Y'all already know that I am fan of categories. If a user complains specifically about a banner, template, or category; I recommend that we address the specific user's complaint. --Beth 20:18, 24 July 2009 (EDT) I don't want to come across as discouraging categories. My experience with categories that were created "just because we could" (i.e., the surname categories) is that they're next to worthless. Search results do just as good of a job. But the categories I've seen that people are actively maintaining look terrific. So I'd second what's been said above about creating categories whenever you have people you want to display in a group, just don't create a bunch of mostly-empty categories and expect others to fill them. [add comment] [edit] Banners, badges, and categories [29 July 2009]Regarding banners, badges, and categories, what about what BobC said under a different topic on this page:
You can see the results at Cherokee Heritage Project and Person:Attakullakulla Raven (1). I think banners at the top of project and category pages is perfectly appropriate. A reduced-size banner like BobC uses or a navigational template (example) like Amelia.Gerlicher uses might "scale" better in case a person is involved in multiple projects and may help encourage non-project members to contribute. I'm not suggesting that Q and Delijim and others need to go through and change their existing pages - that would take a lot of time. I bring this up for going-forward purposes. What do others think?--Dallan 14:24, 28 July 2009 (EDT) I like (and will follow) the model of the Cherokee project. (And what a cool project!) jillaine 08:33, 29 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Research Guides vs. Place pages [23 July 2009]Oh me and my undiagnosed ADD... Gotta tell ya, WeRelate is a haven for such folks (like me)... Okay, I'm on a couple of listservs that have EXCELLENT resources, and I start thinking about compiling them. Well, why not here? They're genealogy-related. So I went in search of existing research guides, and finally found them. I added a few more. And then I thought I'd organize the Category:Research guides page. AFTER (!) I organize the geographical research guides (all the blue ones of which existed prior to my current attention), I ask myself:
Anyone want to explain this to me, please? Thanks! -- jillaine 13:02, 22 July 2009 (EDT)|Jillaine I'll agree that it would seem that the best place for a research guide concerning a PLACE, would be either on that places' page or on a page linked to that place. I can easily see where a place specific research guide could easily overwhelm a place page, and could stand on its own quite satisfactorily. On the other hand, if it doesn't contain a great deal of information, then perhaps its best suited for the place page. Ditto other forms of research guides---e.g., surname guides, event guides (e.g., Revolutionary War era genealogy), etc. Q 14:00, 22 July 2009 (EDT) There is so much to learn about WeRelate! I, like many others, start using it without knowing much. I didn't know there was a page that listed 'research guides'. But I did put some helpful links I knew about on the West Virginia state place page. I didn't like the section title 'Research tips' so I created a new one called 'Links to West Virginia Genealogy and Historical Web Sites' and put the info in that section. I see now these links could have been put in a 'Research Guide' but my instinct was to put them on the place page. Place:West_Virginia,_United_States Or maybe there wasn't a page that listed all the research guides together until you started organizing them. I like that! It does make an easy way to find the guides. Why not rename the 'Research tips' section on the Place page to 'Research Guides' and show a link to the Research Guide for that locality. To put all the external links and comments on the place page may make some pages too long, but there surely could be a link in the page (not a category link) to the Research Guide page. I would see the link under the section heading a lot quicker than looking at the bottom of the page for a category. (Somehow Research Guides needs to be more to the forefront so they can be noticed! How did I miss them?) --Janiejac 14:24, 22 July 2009 (EDT)
I've been reminded that there was a short discussion about this topic already-- well about research guides. I'm reviving it here. Please participate if it's of interest to you. jillaine 10:13, 23 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Problem viewing Watch List [28 July 2009]I am no longer able to view my watch list. When I open it (view entire list) Firefox seems to go catatonic. If I go get a cup of tea it will eventually bring the screen back, but then as soon as I touch a scroll bar or something, the screen goes white again. This worries me because my watch list is about 3800 items and I've only uploaded about a quarter of my people so it could get a lot bigger.
Good point. I need to rewrite the watchlist page to allow filter-by-namespace paging so it doesn't try to load your entire watchlist at once. I'll try to get that done by the end of this year.--Dallan 14:31, 28 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Usability issues and the novice user [5 August 2009]Quote from 'Q': "yes, we know there are "usability issues", but what are they? What is it that you found that you think are stumbling block? What makes it hard for folks to use the site? That kind of insight would really help make the site sing for a wider audience." Let me say right off I've watched WeRelate for over a year and still consider myself a 'novice user'. I work until I get frustrated and leave for a bit. But I'm continually drawn back because I love the concept and want to make this work. I often want to tell someone where I have a problem or find an area that is not intuitive enough. I do that and my comments are scattered about the community. What would everybody think about having a page just dedicated to newbie/novice reporting their problems? Wouldn't it be helpful to the developers to have this all in one spot? I'm not talking about a page to vent frustrations; I'm thinking of a page where novice users could tell specifically what doesn't work for them. I wouldn't want to put this necessarily on the watercooler because experienced folks don't need to wade through this. But I agree that the experienced person doesn't always see a problem where others stumble. And I don't want folks leaving because of having no vehicle to helpfully point out something that needs improvement. I'd like for something like this to be in a forum, but that will be awhile coming; so in the meantime, perhaps a 'Report a Problem' page for newbies could be considered. Directions could be given to ask a person to be very specific about what problem they encountered. And if it's a real bug or something that can be fixed, remove the report when the problem is resolved to keep the page manageable. I know it makes me feel like I've tried to help, instead of just venting, when I'm able to tell someone what I see as a problem. I often don't know where to post my comments.--Janiejac 23:15, 16 July 2009 (EDT) I do wonder if a lot of people are more comfortable with a Blog or Forum type interface as in rootschat.com (one of the more popular UK centred ones). Lots of useful requests and assistance happening there. As I see it they 'solve' lots of genealogy bu it is never stored centrally for re-use.
perhaps a step in this direction is for those in 'projects' to consistenly provide a discussion area, which could then be aggregated into a portal. even if we dedicate a 'article' page for discussion. I suppose there's a possibility it might be even more confusing--Dsrodgers34 00:51, 17 July 2009 (EDT) I think there are a LOT of things that can be done to improve the experience of new users, and which therefor would result in higher retention of new users. A newbie corner might well be one of those things. Possibly a mailing list targeted to helping new users. One of the benefits of WeRelate is the free flow of information on talk pages, but that's also a problem. Have you noticed how difficult it is to add something to a long ongoing discussion--especially if its not right at the end, but somewhere in the middle. I have difficulty finding where to insert a comment; I'm sure newbies wouldn't even try. So mailling lists where conversations have a more formalized structure (you send a message, I reply to it) might be a useful approach. Perhaps such a mailing list might be pointed to in welcoming message, as a place to go to get help. Q 08:02, 17 July 2009 (EDT) I agree, these discussions are very difficult to follow as comments get scattered all over, here and at random talk pages. If the talk pages were structured to thread topics instead of allowing posting anywhere all you would need to do is add discussions of interest to your watchlist.--Scot 13:07, 17 July 2009 (EDT) Could we start a UK portal ? Often UK people see a collaborative site and see it dominated by US content, and move on. My suggestion for now would be to add pointers to active UK - centric researchers home page and place or other pages' talk pages. Once it was of a useful standard we could start publicising it to suitable people in order to garner some interest. By suitable I mean some leader type people who are active in such as rootschat.com. they doe really good work but the work isnt then put into a meaningful structure/context for re-use. Incidentally, are there ny UK centric people who would be interested ?--Dsrodgers34 01:46, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
A newbie corner seems like a good idea. I have some idea of the problems people face and am slowly working on fixes for them (my goal is to get some of the worst ones solved before FGS in September), but maybe a Portal-style page for newbies would be helpful? Would someone be interested in taking this project on?--Dallan 13:40, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
One thing I have noticed is that WeRelate is about the only place that doesn't have a "who are you looking for?" box on the front page. Yes, there is search, but could you get anything useful out of it on your first try? It would be nice to have a more welcoming front page. A name search box and a link to the proposed newbie portal would both be helpful to draw people in rather than turn them away. --Judy (jlanoux) 17:00, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] User-specific page markings [5 August 2009]I've used this site extensively to add and edit Person and Family pages for people both directly and indirectly (and sometimes not at all) related to me. I watch a lot of these pages, and sometimes it's hard for me to immediately tell who I'm getting updates about and how they're related to me. Here's what I'm proposing:
I'm not sure how tough this would be to implement, but it seems as if all the pieces are in place, once we are able to mark known relations. I do think that it would make this an extremely interesting and magical place for people looking for distant relatives, and help those of us that can't keep track tell who we're looking at. --Joeljkp 22:39, 26 July 2009 (EDT) WeRelate meets facebook ? Seriously though, this could give some broad appeal to WR - the appeal of genesreunited without the mountains of dross. People who are not confident might register for updates even if they dont want to contribute (hopefully in time they won't need to - it will be close to complete (bar the arguing over 'speculation' or 'ambiguity') It would be harder to code but if the viewer could also get notifications about changes direct ancestors of their 'anchor' person, or even any page linked to them - (they can do this now with a tree but aren't trees under discussion ?). or even when a new page links ?--Dsrodgers34 22:59, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
This has intrigued me somewhat for a while.... Some WeRelate contributors have added "cryptic" codes on some of their ancestors, many of which don't seem to make much sense. Some appear to be LDS or AFN numbers, others are probably just a code to agree with their own genealogical file. I usually opt to delete codes or dates that don't seem to directly relate to a genealogical relationship for an ancestor. I have not seen anything in the WeRelate documentation as far as a stance on this type of coding, whether LDS or otherwise.... Also, I'd like to know what the stance on LDS "baptism or admittance" dates is. On the surface, I don't think they have a "genealogical reason" to be included, but perhaps someone could weigh-in with their thinking....--Delijim 13:12, 27 July 2009 (EDT) when I see such marks, I remove them. I have found where an x or asterisk precedes or is appended to a given name, apparently to indicate which sibling is the submitters ancestor. I view this as clutter. When I receive notice that a page on my watch list has been edited, the first thing I do is search my desktop program for the person or family to determine the relationship. I check the page to see if I have anything to add and either add or delete it from my watchlist depending on my level of interest. If you need to, add the relationship on your desktop page not on the WR page. admittedly navigating down from an ancestor is harder than moving up. instead of using FTE for navigation, I usually use pedimap as you can searchup 5generationsat a time. Also, I don't believe temple work is relevant here. The data base maintained by the LDS church should be an adequate repository. UID's, RIN's and such have no value here. AFN's are controversial, but do indicate the quality of the source, or lack of same.--Scot 14:21, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
I should have clarified - I was thinking out loud its not something high on my wish list. I am setting up a tree for someone else whos interested in my project so I can get by with that--Dsrodgers34 18:20, 27 July 2009 (EDT) Right, to all who have replied, I wasn't talking about permanent user-specific markings in the page content, but an automatic "badge" put there by the system automatically for logged-in users. It would be like how the system knows a certain person is in your Tree and adds a link to the top toolbar. The algorithm would be something like: is person logged in? --> has person marked a page with a known relationship to them? --> what is the relationship of the person being viewed to that person? --> display "This is your 10th great-grandmother!" marking. --Joeljkp 23:11, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
Showing how you're related to people in your tree is an interesting idea. Once we get the bookmarking feature in place, you could specify how you are related to the person being bookmarked when you add the bookmark. The system could calculate further relationships based upon the bookmarks and store the relationships in the family-tree database records (that track which people are in which trees) so they wouldn't clutter up the Person pages. Like you say, probably not a high priority, but worth keeping in mind.--Dallan 15:34, 28 July 2009 (EDT) I would like to encourage this innovation in some way. Even in my own Tree, once I get back several generations I can't always remember or tell which child is my direct relation, or which spouse leads to my lineage. So sometimes I get lost while browsing my very own Tree, never mind People pages in general or my watchlist! So something that would help in navigation and decision making would be really helpful and I think a plus for new user usability. Also, at least as described by Joeljkp, isn't this concept tied to the "who are my famous relatives" feature I read about as a future idea? Would it be interesting or too much information to also know, for example, if there are other relatives of a person you are looking at who are logged on or who are members of werelate? The system tell you if there are other people "watching" a page you watch. If we had a bookmark system such as you are describing, would the system be able to essentially suggest pages to you to either watch or add to your tree as relatives (Opt in)? Or suggest to a user that these 5 other users are also related to the person in your tree, and you can contact them via their "talk" page or even a "relatives" page? I'm mostly brainstorming here about ways to develop conversations among werelate users, a factor I think potentially adds to new user connection/retention. Brenda--kennebec1 08:51, 1 August 2009 (EDT) I'll put labeling relationships higher up on my priority list. There are a couple of features that might already handle the watcher situation you mention:
Having the system tell you how you're related to these other users also seems like a good idea.--Dallan 01:14, 5 August 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Promoting WeRelate in Australia [28 July 2009]As a member of the Society of Australian Genealogists I have emailed the editor of the Societies electronic newsletter "SAG-E" about using WeRelate and had positive responses from both the Editor and the Executive Officer. Can you suggest how I could promote WeRelate to the other SAG members?--burgjoh 23:31, 26 July 2009 (EDT) I left a note on your user page Cheers!--Dsrodgers34 04:55, 27 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] editing person page [27 July 2009]This evening I edited the birth location of several folks, example Lucetta Jackson (1) from Fauquier, Virginia to Prince William, Virginia. This shows on the edit page but doesn't change on the person page. Why not? I tried leaving WeRelate and logging back on; I tried using the refresh button, but still the page says born in Fauquier, Virginia. --Janiejac 21:57, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Promoting WeRelate in Louisiana [28 July 2009]I haven't been around much for a few days because I've been getting the Summer issue of the Louisiana Genealogical Register ready for the printer. I've been doing this for ten years now, and I swear this is my last year. One of the perks of editing a journal is that you can talk about almost anything on the Editor's Page -- or at least I do. This issue, the Editor's Page was given over to explaining what exactly WeRelate is, why it is, and how the readership could best make use of it. We'll see what happens. I expect to see a lot of Louisiana genealogists at FGS in Little Rock in a couple of months, too. --Mike (mksmith) 14:30, 28 July 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Tre Lag Stevne and FGS [18 August 2009]Just a quick note: I'll be at Tre Lag Stevne in Minneapolis and FGS in Little Rock. If anyone else is planning to attend it would be great to get together. (Mike, I look forward to meeting you! :-).--Dallan 15:41, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] GEDCOM export offline? [30 July 2009]I've been waiting on a GEDCOM export since early this morning. Is it backed up? Turned off? Do I need to bribe someone with chocolate? --dayna 18:54, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] sending a tree to a new person [5 August 2009]I saw this 'email' from the tree page and I thought it would be a good way to invite someone in. Unfortunately the message seems a bit basic for a new user - I created a new login to test it but It wasnt obvious either. Can I get slightly more complete instructions to send Quote Once you register you can save this tree as your own and we'll both be able to add information to the pages online. We can add new families and individuals, upload pictures, view maps of our ancestors' events, and more. I'll be notified of changes that you make, and you'll be notified of changes that I make.-- end quote Dsrodgers34 05:56, 29 July 2009 (EDT) Here are more-specific instructions (I'll add them to the email template tomorrow):
Please let me know what else (if anything) needs to be clarified. Thanks.--Dallan 00:55, 31 July 2009 (EDT) Many thanks. you sound busy. I'm hoping to attract some quality researchers in to boost the effort. I was thinking this could be a bit like the old 'pyramid selling' without the rip-offs. If you attract in quality researchers and they get busy,and you are linked in, the research just comes rolling in ! - And hopefully its for the 'common good' too of course ! PS I noticed Ancestry public trees has recently added in a feature whereby you can essentially 'watch' a page and be notified of changes. Trouble is in there, if someone has the same person as you, they more than likely 'imported' it from you anyway - its like pyramid in reverse ! Have a great weekend--Dsrodgers34 03:35, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
Just as an FYI, I plan to improve the tree sharing feature later this year. Currently, if you make a copy of someone's tree and they add a page to their tree later on, you would need to add that page to your tree as well if you want it to be part of your tree. I want to figure out a way to avoid needing to add the page to both trees. Regarding attribution, each person in an exported GEDCOM contains a source citation with a link to the page here that it came from. It would be possible for someone to remove the source citations, but it would be in violation of the license under which they exported the tree. I'm expecting that most people will leave the citations in, if only because it's extra work to remove them.--Dallan 11:23, 31 July 2009 (EDT) That's great news. Tree sharing along with the new "build a tree" functionality will help greatly in enlisting collaborators as new users. Since installing an email tree link puts everything on your watch list, I am grateful for the build a tree to let me create a tree specifically targeted to the interest of the person I am inviting. "Sharing" would let us all grow the same tree. Can you have it automatically add new people to everyone's watch list and get an email when a new person is added to the tree? --Judy (jlanoux) 16:54, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] FHC v. FHL [14 August 2009]We have pages for repositories for both Repository:Family_History_Center and Repository:Family_History_Library. I think that the Library is the building in Salt Lake City, and a Center is a regional library. That being said, what is the proper term for the repository for items that are in the catalog and available for you to order by microfilm? The system has defaulted to making FHL the link and FHC the type, which is kind of odd. Do we need pages for both? And can someone with knowledge please edit those pages to make it clear which one we should use in case we forget? --Amelia 14:26, 2 August 2009 (EDT)
And aren't all these not Sources at all, but repositories? jillaine 22:43, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
One would assume that most of the type of repositories under discussion have catalogues that would indicate limitations of availability, etc. I know FHL/FHC does. You can quickly determine which ones you cannot order. I see some value in making an entry for FHL and another entry representing all FHCs, but no necessity. Carried to an extreme, this idea adds too much complexity to WeRelate based on the organization of an external organization. So if all the items are listed in one catalogue, I think one repository would be reasonable, and then assume most people have some ability to using whatever finding aids are available to help them navigate that repository's collection. For really unique cases, I also expect there is the possibility of adding a comment to the source citation. --Jrich 11:00, 4 August 2009 (EDT) I think as a general matter it looks like the FHL and FHC pages serve slightly different purposes, and that while technically each FHC might be it's own page, that would get pretty crazy. So to offer a concrete question, how should FHL catalog materials appear?
Any but 1 would need some mass intervention, but since they were put in that way, I'm assuming that's not an issue.--Amelia 00:06, 5 August 2009 (EDT) It looks like we had a bug from when we automatically-updated the sources last Summer. What should have happened is that items available only at the FHL (there are over 200,000) should have been given a repository of FHL and an availability type of "Other", while items that could be ordered and sent to an FHC should have been given a repository of FHC and an availability type of FHC. What did happen is that items available only at the FHL were usually given a repository of FHC instead of FHL, but the availability type was correctly set to "Other". I'll change the repository on these pages (where the availability type is Other but the repository is listed as FHC) to FHL when I update the sources in the next month or two. Thank-you for pointing out the problem. I'm not as familiar with NARA. Maybe it makes sense to have a NARA "system" repository for general use, and region-specific repositories for cases where items are permanently available at a specific regional repository? --Dallan 11:22, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Notification emails not sent [5 August 2009]Notification emails of changes to pages made from Aug 2 (Sunday) noon to Aug 3 (Monday) noon EDT were not sent. The problem has been fixed, and you can click here to see a list of all pages on your watchlist that have changed since you last visited them. I apologize for the inconvenience.--Dallan 01:14, 5 August 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Citation Template in Citation Source Fields [12 August 2009]I could have sworn that we used to be able to place the {{cn}} template into the Citation ID field on a given page. However, it appears that this is now being stripped upon saving the page. Was there a change recently? If so, why? Or is early stage dimentia rearing its ugly head? jillaine 10:41, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Large public-domain transcriptions [19 August 2009]When using public domain sources, I've made a habit of freely transcribing large sections of those works, and then using ordinary hyperlinks to give old narratives real life (see, for examples: Person:John Tuttle (11) and Family:John Gilman and Elizabeth Trueworthy (1)). My working approach to these has often been to create a large transcription with links, then distributing source-attached sections to various person and family pages as appropriate. I'm starting to be concerned however, that I'm losing something of the effort when I break up such larger transcriptions. It seems like having a larger contiguous transcription of a source is a valuable thing - even if it isn't a complete transcription. One approach might be to create such transcriptions as wiki article pages, linking back to the original source. The original source would also contain links to the werelate transcriptions. Ideas anyone? --Jrm03063 12:13, 11 August 2009 (EDT) I find long transcriptions somewhat annoying, especially those that seem to focus more on the parents and grandparents than the subject of the page, presumably trying to give some context, but annoying to someone interested in the subject themselves. Therefore, the idea of pushing longer transcriptions off to a separate article is good. If I am interested, I will usually try to find the original anyway, but if I am not interested, then it is simply time-consuming to have a long transcript to read through only to find it tells me nothing I don't already know. In almost all cases, I value a short abstract right there on the page, with a link, to tell me if I want to leave this page and read the full text, be it an article within WeRelate, or a link to an outside website, or a book in a library. I think there are multiple audiences: people just trying to determine if the Person/Family being viewed are pertinent to them, and people interesting in learning everything that is known about those people. The first audience just wants the basics plus some quick indication of how credible the information is, while the second probably wants to know everything there is to know about the subject. Their answers to this question may be different. --Jrich 23:23, 11 August 2009 (EDT) I think your method of sourcing the information (or transcript) is appropriate, but appears awkward without personal notes and text under the individual subject's name; the person entry includes only the lengthy source citations. One method might be to create a MySource entry with the extracted transcribed information from the primary source, and then reference the MySource entry at the person page. It would still provide a path to the transribed source and let you include only the information you need on the person page to substantiate the entry or fact you are using in your personal details. Just a thought...--BobC 12:55, 12 August 2009 (EDT) I'm thinking of moving the longer transcriptions off to separate article(s) attached to the relevant sources. I like the ability to create such pages, as they become a way to jump back and forth between twisted genealogical narrative and (so bloody many begats...) and the actual pages themselves. When the source says something like, Eunice was the daughter of Joe and Rose, it's slick to be able to jump from the linked source to the person and family pages - verifying that things are just as the source represents. Sort of links as a confirmation/validation tool. I've always been reluctant to paraphrase a source. I throught that "note" flags on the source were a better way to introduce the researchers take on the source. I also like the source body to consist of, at least, a sufficient quote so that a follow-on researcher can know with absolute precision what part of the source text I'm referring to. I suppose they can get the context if they want to go look it up themselves. So maybe cutting back isn't a bad idea, especially if I'm going to put longer transcription pages somewhere else. Source people? Could you weigh in on the idea of having partial/fragmentary transcriptions, on separate article pages, pointed at somehow by a source page? --Jrm03063 16:57, 12 August 2009 (EDT) I have been doing a lot of these lately and have the same problem. I now begin to think I understand what Dallan meant when he talked of a possible "document" source type with a container for transcripts. For now, I see three possibilities: 1)put them in the source text on the person page where one or two might relieve the page of it's naked look, but more are overwhelming. 2) use a MySource. I favor this one because it looks and works like a source and can contain a transcript. I just dislike the personal connotation when it's a shared item. 3) use an article and link to it. The third is the one I am least likely to use unless it truly is not directly relevant to the documentation. It feels more loosely tied to the person. I just love that we have a way to post transcripts and try not to worry about the perfect vehicle.--Judy (jlanoux) 21:03, 12 August 2009 (EDT) My take: John Tuttle is impressive. What would be more impressive is a fully footnoted and linked narrative that wove all those sources together. In that case, I think the long sections on the person page sources become duplicative, and they should be on the source page itself (can we do subpages maybe?) or an article page. The only thing that really needs quoting on the ideal page would be the best event sources (in the source info box), wills, any similarly important (and reasonably short) documents, and perhaps short bits of particularly interesting writings from other historians. But, we don't live in an ideal world (yet!) In which case, I don't mind seeing longer transcriptions on the person page if they're about the person. Extended family bits should go somewhere else. I don't think I MySource page is appropriate, really, but the source page, an article, a category page ("Tuttle in Connecticut"?) if applicable, or a subpage or talk page of one of those all seem to make equal sense to me at this point.--Amelia 00:07, 13 August 2009 (EDT) Eventually maybe the best thing would be to have a separate "Document" namespace for transcriptions, but in the meantime I'd suggest moving the texts to MySource pages or articles and optionally leaving short excerpts on John's page. Creating source subpages is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I want to encourage that right now because I don't know how it would fit into searching sources or the source drop-down list.--Dallan 00:22, 13 August 2009 (EDT) Well, I asked for comments! Great, thanks to all. I appreciate what folks are saying about writing a narrative that brings the sources together, but what if I just want to get all the sources together and try to back up the genealogical facts list? I'm also not all that sure I have real new narrative to contribute on the subject. Here's what I'm thinking. I understand the idea of using a "MySource", but the personal connotation of a MySource item, along with the tradition that it's a holding pen for just uploaded sources bums me out a bit. How about this -
--Jrm03063 10:04, 13 August 2009 (EDT) I wanted to create an example of what I'm suggesting, for everyone to browse. For the Person:John Tuttle (11) page, there is a source Source:Tuttle, Charles W. The Tuttle Family of New Hampshire. This was formerly a very long section on the person page, but I've trimmed it. Also, after the volume and page in NEHGR, I note that there is a WeRelate Transcript page. The transcript page indicates the source page, and the Source:Tuttle, Charles W. The Tuttle Family of New Hampshire page notes the transcript. This practice generally seems to follow what I believe has been suggested for family bibles and the like - a specific source page that is just the source reference, with a companion page that contains the transcript (if there is one). One of the things I would like to tidy up, is to have the source record transcript link point to the right place in the transcript, instead of just to the top. I assume there's a nice way to do that without creating artificial headings in the transcript. Other cosmetic suggestions would be appreciated... --Jrm03063 16:46, 13 August 2009 (EDT) I thought that when we have a citation to a periodical article that we are supposed to cite the periodical, not make a new source page for the article. --Ajcrow 07:16, 16 August 2009 (EDT) I agree. There is already a source page for the periodical. The issue, article, page, etc. are part of the citation detail information. The source link does not stand alone as the entire citation. I use the Description field with an author, "article title" format. It makes it read nicely on the Person page. I've had a chance to study the pages indicated above. What I see is that instead of using a MySource, which is ideal for this situation we now have two pages created. One source page for the article and one article page for the transcript. I feel that we can reduce whatever "stigma" some posters have created for MySources by creating good ones. I use them when I have a periodical article that I need to cite many times, for transcripts of selected records from a county or church records, and for lengthy wills - whenever I need a reusable container for information. --Judy (jlanoux) 11:19, 16 August 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Free access to WorldVitalRecords.com - Aug 11-13 [11 August 2009]WorldVitalRecords.com is offering free access; says no credit card required. I am interested to know if you find useful information and if so which locations and databases? --Beth 23:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Please use "Summary" field when editing pages [17 August 2009]I've recently begun to use the "Recent changes" page alot; I'm also getting more notifications of changes. I really really really love it when people fill out the Summary field when they've made a change to a page. It helps me see at a glance if it's something I need to take a look at, or what I might expect when I click on a link to an updated page. Doesn't have to be long; here are some examples:
etc. Seems like less than half of the Recent changes and other notifications I receive make use of the Summary field. What would it take to encourage 100% usage? -- jillaine 18:32, 15 August 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Looking for free version of Vuescan to convert xml to jpeg [17 August 2009]Does anyone have the exec file for the free version of this program? It now costs $38.00. Link to site: [11]. In 2006 it was evidently freeware. Don't blame them for charging but my budget makes this one an impossible purchase this year. I have not located another freeware program that does the same. Have any of you used Census Tools? It would be helpful to upload the excel worksheets to WeRelate. Link: [12]. Also there is Census Mate but evidently the download is not working today. Link: [13].--Beth 20:27, 16 August 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] editing place pages - how or when? [23 August 2009]I had some info I thought would make a good addition to a place history but when I went to the page, I found it already had a lot of material which was headed by a comment that "the text in this section is copied from an article in Wikipedia". Even this comment cannot be edited. When I clicked on 'edit' I found this "{{wp-Stafford County, Virginia-History}}". That's not something I can edit! Being wiki-challenged, I don't dare touch this page! So what to do? I don't find anything in help that addresses how or when we can/should edit place descriptions attributed to wikipedia. The wikipedia information is not always suitable for genealogy purposes! This is very inhibiting to me and probably to others also.--Janiejac 21:51, 16 August 2009 (EDT)
The moreinfo and the copy-wikipedia template both tell the system "this WeRelate page X is for the same person/place as that Wikipedia page Y". So when we import some text from Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia text contains a link to Wikipedia page Y, the system automatically replaces the Wikipedia link in the imported text with a link pointing to WeRelate page X. And in the future we'll use the copy-wikipedia or moreinfo templates to highlight people in your tree who have Wikipedia articles. In addition to telling the system that WeRelate pages and Wikipedia pages are equivalent, the copy-wikipedia template also directs the system to replace the contents of the template with text from Wikipedia. The moreinfo template just tells the system that the WeRelate and Wikipedia pages are equivalent. So if you remove the copy-wikipedia template from the Wp-article name template, you need to add a moreinfo template to the person/place page so that the system continues to be aware that the WeRelate and Wikipedia pages are equivalent. As for adding a comment to future editors, you can write comments by putting text between special brackets. For example:
Text within comments show up when you edit the page but are not visible to the normal reader. I think you have two options:
[add comment] [edit] Source renaming project [19 August 2009]We're going to kick off the automated source page renaming soon. This is a huge project and we'd like everyone's help to review the proposed renamings during the next 5-7 days. Read more at WeRelate:Source renaming project--Dallan 14:36, 19 August 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] New page: WeRelate:Help Project [23 August 2009]WeRelate:Help project was recently created. I placed a link to this project on the Community Portal. Additions to the help pages requested by Dallan will be posted on this page. Volunteers may sign off on projects when completed. --Beth 23:30, 23 August 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] New Research Guide: U.S. Civil War [25 August 2009]Thought some readers might be interested to know about a newly created research guide: I've also created a Category:U.S. Civil War. Frankly, I was surprised that none existed. In any case, I hope that folks who are working more closely on US civil war topics related to genealogy will flesh out this guide further and use the new category appropriately. -- jillaine 09:41, 25 August 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] New Research Guide: U.S. Civil War [25 August 2009]Thought some readers might be interested to know about a newly created research guide: I've also created a Category:U.S. Civil War. Frankly, I was surprised that none existed. In any case, I hope that folks who are working more closely on US civil war topics related to genealogy will flesh out this guide further and use the new category appropriately. -- jillaine 09:42, 25 August 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] ToC question [1 September 2009]On a page with a lot of information, I would like to use section headers to organize things. I would like to have a Table of Contents to let someone jump to the section they want. The question: Is it possible to force the ToC to list the headers for Sources, Images and Notes too? --Judy (jlanoux) 13:41, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Duplicate Review Project [16 September 2009]To all who were involved with merging duplicate pages; we have finally finished this project. There are few crumbs remaining to clean up; but I am designating it finished. When Dallan updates all of the pages you will see that very little remains. The remaining pages have a mixup such as the father and son married to the same spouse; some of the medieval pages that really need cleaning up by someone that knows something about them; and the long string of unknowns. So break out a bottle of champagne or other favorite beverage and celebrate. --Beth 23:39, 2 September 2009 (EDT) Beth, I see that you wrote that a few minutes before midnight! Nice timing! Beth, while a number of us contributed to this project, you by far did the monster's share of the work. (I suppose Dallan could confirm this with whatever stats program he periodically runs.) Especially since a number of us allowed ourselves to be distracted by the Source renaming. Your persistence has been amazing. Not to mention your patience with some of your respondents... You've really made a wonderful contribution to WR's excellence. Thanks! jillaine 11:39, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
CONGRATULATIONS BETH !! --Leo Bijl 11:46, 3 September 2009 (EDT) Congratulations to Beth and everyone who worked on the project! It will be so nice for newcomers to not have to deal with duplicates any more. It's amazing that we were able to take this project on and complete it. I am humbled by the incredible accomplishment. You read about the power of small groups to accomplish great things, and here's a real-life example. Way to go everyone!--Dallan 18:07, 8 September 2009 (EDT) Some finishing touches...
Due to a bug in the system, not all of the duplicates were getting reported, and some duplicate lists weren't being refreshed. Thank-you for pointing this out. I've put the remaining duplicates onto a global list at WeRelate:Duplicate review. Since it's discouraging to think we're done but still have more left due to a system bug, User:Solveig has offered to go through the remaining duplicates.--Dallan 11:47, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Anyone interested in a discussion on numbers ? [12 September 2009]I was looking for a bit of a diversion so I wondered just how big the whole Pando thing is. Did a couple of searches on WR and forund of the 1700k persons in there, over 100k are listed as born in England and Wales. 50k between 1800 and 1900 - people who might well have appeared in at least one census. My personal estimation of how many individuals the 164 million individual records in the England and Wales 1841 to 1901 census equates to is somwhere between 50 and 60 million actual people. Hence WR has approx .1% of them already - only 99.9% to go ! (of course some of the current stuff could be more complete as discussed elsewhere) Census population for England and Wales in 1841 was 16 million, 32 million in 1901. Between 1840 and 1900 FreeBMD estimates 46 million births and 29 million deaths. although a good 20% to 30% of the births might never have made it to a census. I haven't even started to research emigration and immigration, or US populations, where you would assume we are more advanced My HolmeVillageHome project has 3700+ Individuals to date (sourced but not completely re-checked) who have had some connection to the Parish of Holme in West Yorkshire, England (population 1881 aprox 430)-- I hope over time to expand this to contain the whole Holmfirth district, which is 10 times the size of my original parish - but I think were I to do this, my total number of persons would only triple to about 10,000. Of course the key is to maintain quality not quantity. But the possibilities created by covering everyone who was born or lived in a distict are many, but a different subject altogether. Dsrodgers34 01:55, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
I assume most WeRelaters are US based and not First gen either.(I Myself am in Australia but I was the Migrant but I lived till age 20 in the area I am focusing on) It was a surprise to me to see 100k out of the 1700k "person" pages currently in here as being born in England - I guess the focus on early colonists of the USA might explain this. I note the numbers born in Wales to this point are quite low. I also note that of the WR Person pages, 15,000 born in Scotland and 9,000 in Ireland--Dsrodgers34 21:51, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
When I joined WeRelate probably about 18 months ago, it was then over a million people. Now Beth has done a great job, but I doubt she merged away 830,000 people, so I question your 170K number. Also, because the emigration issue, it might be more representative of the people inputting data to go by death location rather than birth location. --Jrich 01:14, 4 September 2009 (EDT) Thats totally correct. The number is 1.7 million. I got the decimal place wrong Dale I have since reviewed my numbers and my guess in now that there are closer to 70million actual people who are enumerated in the 150 million entries in the 1841-1901 England and wales Census I made another guess of 250 to 300 million actual people referred to US 1860 to 1900. Add a lazy 30 million or so for other UK 'diasporia' territories and the "pando" for US and english speakers amounts to somewhere in the region of 400 million (note this does not include discounts for those born after 1900 or died before 1840. I estimate some 800 million after than but that figure could be way out. of those before 1840 obviously there are generations who were not registerd and many who perished in various pandemics so pure mathematics can not be used. Also in relation to a site such as this or ancestry which is census dominated, the 'befores and afters' would not be more than the census generations because they are either inconsistenly registered or not relevant because they are living. Ancestry claims 700million in private and public trees but there are obviously going to be many who are duplicated - lets argue there are 300 million unique people albeit recorded to haphazard standards. I also note they claim that 270 million of theur subsrription records - lets assume 240 million are actual census entries. of those lets say half are unique individuals thats 120 million census sources resolved to 'real' individual. Theres a further factor that each individual, if resolved to all possible censi, will have an average of 3 links. Hence I have a very broad guess that 30 million of the 700 million profiles on ancesry have what we might call 'barely adequate' sourcing and are unique. Thats 6% of their entries. Did Dallan recently estimate that the 5% figure is similar for WeRelate
The 40 million compared to my theoretical "Pando" figure of 800 million is about 5% The 120 million compared to my theoretical 'Pando figure of 800 million is about 15%--Dsrodgers34 23:57, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Need some help with Place Alabama [3 September 2009]Seeking a volunteer who contributes to Wikipedia to please correct the spelling errors in the template for Place:Alabama, United States on Wikipedia. Don't suggest that I subscribe and do it myself because I have too many other projects to add an additional one. Thanks.--Beth 23:28, 3 September 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] areas that confuse me [12 September 2009]Since all sources when first uploaded are MySources, how and when do they get changed to regular sources? If there is not a fairly easy way to do this, folks just aren't going to go through their whole source list to make the changes. An example that stumped me is below. I'm not even sure whether these two should be combined in some way or if each version should be a separate source page. If every version of every source gets its own page, there's going to be a confusing number of source pages. Seems like the version could go in the citation detail. MySource:Janiejac/History of Hamilton County, Ohio Source:History of Hamilton County, Ohio : with illustrations and biographical sketches
Maybe what's not obvious is that the 1972 on the FHL version is the filming date. If you go to the FHL website, it says it filmed the version of 1881, in 1972, with another filming in 1974. Probably the source page should be updated to reflect the book that is the ultimate source. Technically, your version is a transcript of the same work, so potentially not identical to the original, but it appears to be intended to be, and it will be obvious that it is not a photographic duplication to anybody that looks at it. So I think it is reasonable to list the rootsweb website as a repository on the same source page. Then you could link your MySource to the source page. --Jrich 13:05, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
Not the point I was making. I don't think you can redirect into a different namespace??? I assumed we were talking about handling this during the whole GEDCOM upload process where one of the steps is to link your MySource to a Source page, and then the new pages get loaded already pointing to the correct Source page. In that case, she would link to the existing source page during GEDCOM upload and just add her website as a repository. Once the GEDCOM is loaded with unresolved MySource items, I agree with Janiejac's point that some sort of rename or a special redirect is needed. In fact, I suspect a new user is probably not going to understand why correctly identifying a source page has to been done up front or how hard it is to fix if it isn't, so this could be an issue a lot. Could a program essentially do a What-Links-Here, go to each page listed, and replace the old link to a MySource with a new link to a source page? I was just addressing *my* confusion, seeing one source published 1972 and the other 1881. I was worried they were different editions of the same book. But they weren't because the source page, being loaded form the FHL catalogue, used the filming data instead of the publication date. So they were actually the same edition, and the issue was only that of transcript versus photographic copy. Transcripts on a website are supposed to be listed as a repository on the same source page, I think. --Jrich 17:26, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
Could someone who's been active with the source committee proof my changes to Source:History of Hamilton County, Ohio : with illustrations and biographical sketches? Also the example citation? Thanks... --Jrm03063 09:28, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
Two things that I don't think have been mentioned above. First, we're in the middle of a giant source renaming project. Many of the pages have to be human touched at this point, and many of the filming dates are being corrected, so this confusion may be reduced (I have no idea of the total proportion of this, though). Second, in the upload process, you can now match your mysources to sources before the gedcom is uploaded. It's not the smoothest process, but you can change that source once instead of 32 times. It's not mandatory at the moment, but it is a way for users to avoid the process you're talking about. And, in the course of that project, we've confirmed what is said above: Different editions get differen pages, but transcriptions and reprints do not.--Amelia 12:36, 5 September 2009 (EDT) I'll add some additional information.
How does this sound?--Dallan 18:50, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] from a newbie viewpoint [9 September 2009]Hello, My name is Amelia James. I'm new to this WeRelate thing, but I really want to use this site. I have posted a question to the Source portal... [[14]] but I am confused. Is this, the Watercooler, the only forum for WeRelate questions? Is there a forum for people new to the site to talk and ask questions? I consider myself fairly computer/internet savvy, but I am not clear on the difference between the portals and the watercooler. From an outsider's (new person's) point of view, the portals and watercooler seem to be for the experienced people, or those "in charge" : ) I know, this is a wiki and we are all in charge, but.... what am I missing? fyi, the project I wanted to start with, since I have my family tree on another site [15] is to upload a transcription of a source (From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest, 1924, Robert Alexander Gilcrest) and create a family tree with the people in the book and upload that gedcom to WeRelate.... of course, merging it with any pages that are already on WeRelate. so, I guess my first question is, is this the only, or correct forum, to post? thanks, Amelia (88buckaroo)--88buckaroo 17:40, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
----------
Dallan, you might want to archive the earlier part of this page. We're starting to get length warnings. --Mike (mksmith) 20:55, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
We really do need a support forum for newcomers. I've looked at various forum software packages, but none of them integrate with the wiki software very well. I like the wiki-based forums at Wikia, but it doesn't appear that the source code is available. So until something better comes along, I'll start a talk page specifically for answering newcomer questions: WeRelate talk:Support and link to it from the Help menu.--Dallan 19:05, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Anchors anyone? [16 October 2009]Does anyone know how to make an <a name="test">anchor</a> (link target) that isn't a heading? Thanks... --Jrm03063 16:00, 7 September 2009 (EDT) Not entirely sure what you're asking but is this it? If not, the answer may be in there somewhere. http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:Formatting#How_do_I_create_a_link_to_a_location_on_the_same_page.3F--Srblac 22:58, 7 September 2009 (EDT) I don't think you can. I'm pretty sure that the link target has to be a heading unfortunately.--Dallan 19:29, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Source Citations [8 September 2009]I don't recommend adding source citations until the source renaming project is completed. The source renaming project is here: [16]. The discussion regarding source citations on the project talk page is here: [17].--Beth 23:10, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
Okay Amelia; good idea, I will just go ahead and change the particularly source page to the new format and then I will cite it. --Beth 13:29, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Distributed WeRelate [9 September 2009]I would like to create my own website based on the software from this site where I can develop materials in collaboration with my family while also enjoying some level of privacy. It would be good to be able to cross link to WeRelate (the web site) and I would expect that that materials would eventually migrate to WeRelate (as generations pass). I have used Mediawiki software on sites about other subjects and found the syntax easy, especially the ability to cross connect back to Wikipedia. As it is, I am not inclined to work on this wiki to any great extent. There are concerns about privacy for me and the still living members of my family. If I am unable to even put down my own relations, where do I start? So when will I be able to get a copy of the WeRelate software for my own web site?Dunning 05:36, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
For "where do I start?", the simple answer is "start with the deceased members of your family". For "when can I get a copy of the WeRelate software for my own website?", the simple answer is "probably not, at least not in the near future". I'm trying to encourage people to post information about the deceased members of their family to a shared public location rather than encouraging lots of private locations. Having said this though, I realize that a big drawback to using WeRelate for many people is the inability to post information about living people. So one of my big goals for 2010 is to allow people to create private family websites that will synchronize information about deceased individuals with the public WeRelate site. I'm thinking that I would charge a modest annual fee for these private family websites as a way to fund the continued growth of the public website.--Dallan 20:29, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
couldn't find Genie... is it Geni ?--88buckaroo 11:47, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Add GEDCOM text as template? [9 September 2009]I'm wondering if we should make the following into a template that can be used in a variety of spaces? It's currently only on the page that appears when you select "Import GEDCOM" from the ADD menu. But I can envision it being helpful on an appropriate Help page, as an answer to a question on someone's Talk page. Thoughts? jillaine 08:04, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Menu changes [12 September 2009]I just changed the main menu. WeRelate became Home, I added some specific namespaces to search under the Search menu, and I added a few options to the Help menu. I think these changes will help newcomers, but if you disagree, please let me know. Also, I removed the Web option under the Search menu. I haven't updated the website data since we crawled it originally in 2005, and searching the web doesn't seem like a direction we want to pursue in the near future. If you really miss this option let me know and I'll put it back.
Finally, I'm thinking about changing MyRelate to Tools to try to clarify what those menu options are about. What do you think about this change?--Dallan 12:17, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] "good example" pages? [16 September 2009]Hello again, I think I just had a good idea. It probably already exists somewhere in some fashion, but here goes: I have been reading various posts, in the 2009 archive, in the "Junk genealogy" thread above, etc. and there seems to have been, off and on, a discussion on what to do with badly sourced or pages that are not sourced at all. add to that, the fact that I am a new user, and I have been looking at the "Featured pages" for examples of what to do and what can be done. (I just had a question about it on the WeRelate talk:Support page "source citations") so, given all of that... my idea is that instead of marking pages as bad, perhaps people can aspire to their pages being marked as a "good example" of how to do something. I'm not talking about rating people's work, but if there is a page that is up to all of the standards of WeRelate, and shows the "right" way to do something (with all baggage that the word 'right' entails) then maybe it should be highlighted as an example to newcomers of what to do. you probably already have a system for this... but I just thought I would throw in my new 2 cents : ) thanks for listening, Amelia J. (88buckaroo)--88buckaroo 14:36, 10 September 2009 (EDT) -
I guess I wasn't very clear. The conversations I was referring to were located in the 2009 archive of the watercooler WeRelate talk:Watercooler/Archive 2009 (particularly Using GEDCOMs as sources [3 July 2009] and Proposed "Sources needed" template [26 June 2009]) and from the " Active discussions taking place at other pages [2 May 2009]" there is a whole page on Junk Genealogy WeRelate talk:Junk Genealogy I don't think I ever mentioned the source renaming project. regardless, you are correct, the place i needed to get to was the WeRelate:Featured page nominations It's just not very intuitive (on the front page under "nominate a page") forgive the enthusiasm. I will revert back to lurking mode : ) Amelia J. (88buckaroo)--88buckaroo 23:05, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
that's lovely. thank you.--88buckaroo 10:20, 11 September 2009 (EDT) Angela II, You wrote:
Never apologize for enthusiasm, and please! do not return to lurking mode. You've got great ideas, great energy, great curiosity. We need all of that. jillaine 22:09, 11 September 2009 (EDT) And I'll second that! Enthusiasm, while risky, is the driving force here at WeRelate. Please take my comments above to your initial observation as my own expression of enthusiasm, trying to find the positive, rather than being critical or offensive to your comments. Because there's no way to see expressions, body language and visual queues, email, IMs, and topical threads like these at Watercooler lack those very important communication indicators, and rebuttal passed for criticism, voicing one's own perception can be interpreted as condescension, and pointing out a perceived error can be thought of as patronizing. I regret if my remark was interpreted in that vein. As Jillaine said, your enthusiasm, ideas, energy, curiosity and observations are most welcome. --BobC 23:54, 11 September 2009 (EDT) Hey BobC : ) I had responded on User talk:Jillaine just because I didn't want to add to the length of this thread, but I will repeat what I said there. "... BobC is right though.. if I would have looked a little deeper before I spoke up, I would've seen the examples posted on the community portal. I am enthusiastic and now have a couple of days to seriously get into uploading things to WeRelate. It's a great site and I'm glad you guys have done so much with it. thanks again," and "and I'm not bothered by much... I do tend to talk first and think later... bad habit, but I am excited about contributing : )" everything is fine, your comments were very helpful and now that I know where to look, I am finding lots of good examples. have fun and thanks for the help, Amelia J.--88buckaroo 13:48, 12 September 2009 (EDT) It would be nice to advertise category:Genealogy Well Done, Sources and encourage its use more. Would you mind adding a link to it from Help:Wiki etiquette or maybe another appropriate help page? I just added it to Portal:Community--Dallan 11:36, 16 September 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Source Transcriptions [15 September 2009]I have assembled a small set of source transcriptions, of various types. I'm sure we'll want to produce some guidelines on how best to do these within the WR context, but I figured we would need a few examples to help guide the discussion of what such practices ought to be. General conventions that I perceive from previous discussions:
--Jrm03063 21:11, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
There was a question out here somewhere, asking whether the "SourceTrancript; " designates a name space. It does not (otherwise, there would be a ":" delimiter). Still, the form was chosen to intentionally trigger a discussion: are transcripts common enough, and do they have useful special features, such that they should be structurally addressed with an additional namespace/page-type in WR? Transcripts presumably must be subsidiary to either a source or mysource page. Should those structural linkages be standard elements of source/mysource pages and corresponding transcript pages (the same way that adding a person to a family, whether done from the person page or the family page, results in the linkage being created in both places)? Another possibility: if a source citation references a particular transcript, then we must implicitly be citing the attached source with a page/location that brings us to the transcript. Shouldn't the source citation, on a person or family page, be able to merely point at the transcript, and then get the rest of the source automatically? My sense of this isn't that a transcript page type needs to be created immediately. However, there seems enough chance of it being a useful item, that we should adopt conventions for transcript page creation that will simplify creation of those structural linkages at a later time. The name of a transcript should therefore be "SourceTrancript; ", substituted for the "Source:" name space. If more than one transcript page is needed, then the different pages are distinguished by a trailing "; {transcript_portion}" (where {transcript_portion} is a string that is a section name, page range, or other distinguishing sub-title). --Jrm03063 12:02, 14 September 2009 (EDT) Hello Jrm... I had initially asked about whether Source Transcript was a namespace, but then saw you had addressed that above in an earlier discussion that I should have remembered, so I deleted the question. I am in the process of uploading my source transcript of the From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest book. Your last sentence about "If more than one transcript page is needed, then the different pages are distinguished by a trailing "; {transcript_portion}" (where {transcript_portion} is a string that is a section name, page range, or other distinguishing sub-title)." is very interesting to me. I was just making additional article pages and linking them ... I'm not sure I understand the process that you are describing. Any help? Perhaps I should move this to the Support page? here is my initial attempt Source Transcript; Gilcrest, Robert A. From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest thanks : ) Amelia J.--88buckaroo 13:36, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
Amelia J. here again... I wish I understood more of what you guys were talking about : ) I think I will continue with what I'm doing, with the understanding that I may have to change it later to make it more searchable? On the source page Source:From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest with a partial record of a Gilcrest family, I added a note and link to the main transcript page. On the main Source Trancript Source Transcript; Gilcrest, Robert A. From Gille Chriosd to Gilcrest page there are links to other pages, logically broken up... Foreword, Chapter I, etc. I'm about half way through. thanks for the input, though I have to say much of it is over my head : ) Amelia J. (88buckaroo) I think Dallan is talking about adding a new namespace for transcripts. At least he has something in mind, if it's not exactly that. I don't think there is really "a process" at the current time. This is an interesting discussion, as it probably will bring out some of the requirements that such a system needs to support. But I expect things may be changing, and wouldn't get too hung up on specifics.
I think it might be worth considering having multi-page transcripts attached to source, so that the source page acts kind of like a finding aid. That way if multiple people are contributing parts, there will be one place to go to see all the parts, and avoid duplication, and provide an ordered presentation of the parts. Paging is an interesting question for the medium of web pages. On the one hand you have file size and download time, on the other hand, do you want to retain the pagination of the original document? Do people want to search for page 650 of some work? What about searching for strings within multi-page transcripts? Will you need to put a header into a transcript in order to have Person pages link to a specific position in a transcript? --Jrich 14:59, 14 September 2009 (EDT) Guys, I've read through this discussion a couple of times and I'm afraid ya'll have lost me. It looks like you're debating a solution to a nonexistent problem. Transcripts -- or practically anything else -- work just fine in the Article namespace. Why does there need to be a different namespace? (Although I think putting "SourceTranscript;" as a quasi-namespace at the front of the page title is kind of misleading -- the same as "Notebook:", frankly.) I would suggest a transcript of a document (whether it's a source or not) be titled something like "Title of Whatever It Is (transcript)" and leave it at that. You don't have to make it so complicated. --Mike (mksmith) 11:18, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Proposal to modify place hierarchy for France [15 September 2009]France has a 6-level place hierarchy:
In contrast, we use a 4-level place hierarchy for the US:
The 6-level hierarchy for France is making some places, and also some sources that include French places as part of the Source page titles, rather long. So I'd like to propose shortening the French place hierarchy to 4 levels, like the US. I've talked with some French researchers who say that region is the least-important level genealogically. Furthermore, it seems like canton is a lot like township in the US, and we don't put towns directly under county instead of under township in the US. So I propose that we modify the French place hierarchy to be:
We'd add also-located-in links between the departments and the regions that they belong to, but region would not be part of the title. Thoughts on this? If people are amenable, I'd like to write a program to start renaming French places this week, before the sources are renamed (to avoid renaming French sources twice).--Dallan 17:36, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Some sources are more equal than others... [24 September 2009]It has recently been put forward, in a different forum, that sources not supporting one or more specific citations, are not actually sources at all. Therefore, they should not be put in the source list of a person or family page. Instead, it is suggested that such materials be added in a separate, place - something like a section entitled "for more information see...", etc. Since no such section is currently provided by the person/family page structure, it has to be done manually in the narrative body (with unfortunate implications for page uniformity, standard appearance of references, export of useful GEDCOM content, etc.). Trying, with little success, to put aside my vehement disagreement with this idea, I ask these questions:
A specific question for Dallan and the technical folks:
--Jrm03063 22:52, 15 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] No, some things are Sources; some things are not [24 September 2009]I’m “the other person” JRM is referring to. And to represent myself more accurately than JRM is doing, please know:
A genealogical Source is the location (in a document, book, vital record, article, etc.) of proof for data provided. Its purpose is to
This is at least the second instance here at WeRelate of changing sound genealogical practice in order to accommodate the limits of the technology. (Apparently, some aspect of the tool that pulls in WP content needs the link to be in the Source section.) This is not a good idea for a service that wants to promote strong standards in genealogy. WR already has a way to include links to WP (or any other) content:
But unless it is being used as a source for specific information on the page, it is not a Source. Please don't start using the Source section for things that are not Sources. jillaine 09:22, 16 September 2009 (EDT) FWIW, GEDCOMs and desktop genealogy programs allow attaching source citations to specific events and also directly to the individual (i.e., not attached to a name or event). To be compatible I think we have to continue to record source citations that aren't attached to a specific event.
It sounds like the question is how to display them. I'm planning to re-work how Person and Family pages are displayed later this year, moving the event data from the left-hand column into the main section somehow so it can be wider. One of the things on the agenda at the same time is source citation display, including the possibility of combining ref-style footnotes with source citations. I'm open to displaying source citations attached to a specific event differently from those not attached to an event if people think that's important. How about if we discuss this in the context of re-working Person and Family page display later this year?--Dallan 13:27, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
A name is also a source-able fact. I attach Sources to names all the time. But it's still the same point I'm making: The source I attach to that name/person describes where I got the information about the person. That is distinct from "for additional information" go to this [WP] page. jillaine 13:59, 16 September 2009 (EDT) Jillaine, you wrote above, "A Genealogical Source is the location of proof for data provided." Be careful with a statement like that, because, it depends. When you say location, are you talking about physical location (such as the National Archives) or the specific document location (such as Cook County Register of Deeds Birth Records Book #14)? While it may be true in some instances (such as websites, where the source location may also be the repository location), this would hardly ever be true in the physical world. Otherwise your points are valid. As you may know, we are having a discussion of these variables at the Repository Portal Talk Page. --BobC 16:41, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
I'm not sure why I'm wading in now, but, for what it's worth, I think there's some use to being able to 1) distinguish between the 'best' source for each fact on one hand and other places you can find information on the other; and 2) being able to cite one source multiple times with different page numbers.
I personally prefer a page that puts the major (event/overall) sources under Sources, and uses footnotes in the narrative that point to these or use other sources entirely. And other sources that might be useful are listed as a See Also or something. To do this formatted correctly with links to the source pages is pretty varsity-level and time consuming at the moment, but I hope we can fix that without combining refs into something like the current sources, which would be pretty ugly. --Amelia 00:54, 25 September 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Or is it Guidelines for adding sources to a page? [16 September 2009]I think the question has to do with guidelines for adding sources to a page. A tradeoff between proving the facts on the page versus indicating that a thorough survey has been done. Oh yes, and whether wikipedia must be used as a source when wikipedia has nothing to add (see the initial discussion on Help talk:Guidelines for use of Wikipedia). Certainly there is more than just stating a fact. It must be supported by sources. Sources do a varying job of justifying facts, from an unrecognized person asserting the fact without proof, to a recognized genealogist doing the same, to somebody indicating how the fact is known ("according to her father's will..."), to abstracts and transcripts of the primary documents which add context and flavor. Do we want to provide an exhaustive list of sources, even if redundant, because you never know when one of the redundant sources is more useful to the reader? Or once you know a fact, and why it is believed, then is it now chaff to add more sources that merely assert the fact? Once an argument is made, why add another source that brings nothing new to the discussion? If your "source" does not contain unique information not given by any of the other sources, why include it? Dozens of sources on a page will make it hard to distinguish what are good sources, and make it harder to refute errors (if you do it right) because a good genealogist will try to run down all these sources, not realizing they are simply redundant, possibly even using the same words like Ezra Stearns and William Cutter seemed to do. Including too many redundant, inferior and blatantly incorrect sources will make it hard to discern the line of proof of a fact, and make pages appear self-inconsistent. The numbers could run into the hundreds for some people. Personally, I like the model used by Great Migration Begins, namely, only one or a very small number of essential sources are cited, sufficient to prove the fact, but not every pertinent source on the planet. --Jrich 09:24, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Is Source Renaming Bringing WeRelate to its Knees? [25 September 2009]I'm aware that the automated renaming of Sources has begun. Wondering if that's what's causing what I'm experiencing to be a VERY slow system (when de-duping). Anyone else noticing this? jillaine--jillaine 12:02, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Forced field usage in Source search box now? [20 October 2009]When searching for a Source from a Person or Family page (i.e., after entering something then clicking on Find/Add), the blank form that comes up requires selecting Type. There are other required fields. This seems new to me; I don't recall this. I'd rather not be forced to select Type-- sometimes I don't know what Type it is. I'd hate to do multiple searches. Others' thoughts on this? jillaine 12:06, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
It's also not copying the title when doing a find/add from the person page. I'm having to copy and paste the title into the search box. Definitely annoying but I hope it's only temporary so I'm dealing with it. --Judy (jlanoux) 13:11, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] MySources to Sources [16 October 2009]In an ideal world MySources would be matched to a Source during the upload process, but we don't live in that ideal world. Oftimes I don't have the necessary info to connect to a Source until after the upload process and then I want to either add the proper Source or connect to one already onsite. But there is no easy way to then link all pages that went to the MySource page to the Source. I just went to MySource to try to rename it to a Source but the text says that none of my page links will be changed. Bummer! Perhaps it wouldn't have even let me rename a MySource to a Source page; I didn't keep trying after I saw that my page links wouldn't be changed. I think it is expecting too much for us to go back to redo each page changing each MySource link to a regular Source. I'm thinking WeRelate will be overrun with MySources as folks just won't bother to change them if it isn't easier to do. If I'm misunderstanding this process, please let me know! --Janiejac 12:10, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
Hello! While I've been researching for years, I'm new to WeRelate. I thought I'd "test-drive" the site today. I began by adding a few individual pages, then followed that by uploading a small portion of my large database... about 350 people. The upload process was a bit more involved than expected, the instructions being quite detailed. Thankfully, the "required" reviews didn't take long. The sections that were optional got skipped. It was not obvious that if I did not convert MySources during the upload process, I would have a HUGE task ahead of me later. Each and ever person in my file is sourced with each and every census record that they are found in. I began on one person's page, and after converting three census record sources to the correct Source page, I discovered that this did not convert all uses of that source. I had assumed that it would. In my genealogy program, when a Master Source is edited, all citations for that Master Source are also edited. I can't imagine how many hundreds of sources I will now have to convert, one at a time. Well, it "ain't gonna happen". I spent all day adding a handful of people pages, two cemetery place pages, two photos, and a small gedcom. Personally, I would rather continue with new research than reinvent 12 years of research. WeRelate.org is a wonderful idea. I hope a solution can be found to address the MySource issue.--Mw4au 20:36, 28 September 2009 (EDT) Here are some thoughts:
So the bottom line is: for now, feel free to upload your GEDCOM and let MySource pages be created. Later this year you'll have the opportunity to match them to community Source pages if you want.--Dallan 15:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] questions on my recent upload [16 October 2009]Today my upload did not go as smoothly as I had hoped. I uploaded John Hoff and Ruth Fields. I wondered why the children with no birthdates didn't upload in the order that I had them listed. I thought that had been fixed.
Then when I tried to create a place for 'Dog Street Cemetery, Deerfield, Warren, Ohio, United States', the program insisted on putting 'Dog Street Cemetery, South Lebanon, Warren, Ohio, United States'. I started over a couple of times, trying to get it to say Deerfield, but it wouldn't. So I had to accept South Lebanon and after the upload was complete, I redirected it to say Deerfield.
Most of the folks in this small chart were taken from a book I found at the Warren Co Genealogy Room. It is also online. When I was uploading, I wasn't sure about it being the same book as is already a Source, so I didn't match MySource with the current Source. It turns out this was right, because it is not the same book though it appears to be the same title. So I have now created a Source, but it is too much additional work to go back and change all MySources to the new Source I just created. This is a very small chart and I've spent a very large part of the day trying to get it right. Ugh!
I've also just realized that even though I have sources for the man and sources for his wife, there are NO sources showing on the family pages. I guess that's OK if one understands sources are only on the person pages. I just hadn't realized that before. BTW, I'm one of those that when I put only one source citation on an individual, I know that means everything about that individual I got from that one source. I don't source every event. Then again, sometimes I'll have a birth location from one source and a birth date from a different source, so I cite that one event with both sources and only sometimes remember to say which was which. I'm still learning! But I have a large upload waiting in the wings and all my sources are this way. It will take more cleanup than I'm prepared for. --Janiejac 22:43, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Unique Identifiers - Facts, Sources, A Little of Both, Neither, or What? [29 October 2009]Unique identifiers are pretty important - especially in our world where we're trying to merge trees from all over the place (and presumably, where we want to emit unambiguous GEDCOM data for use elsewhere). There are a number of such examples:
I'm sure folks can think of other examples (or dispute why examples I've listed don't/shouldn't serve). As keys to data in particular repositories, this data could be viewed as "source" (though I'm not looking for specific arguments on this - only that they "could" be understood that way). On their own however, this data could also be understood as a unique identifying "fact" (maybe backed by a source, maybe it's just implied, who knows?). I bring this up, as Dallan has mentioned that some rework of the person/family page layout is contemplated for later this year. It could well be argued that unique identifiers are different enough to require some different sort of display practice. I should at least think they warrant discussion as a matter of what use conventions might be appropriate generally, and for each. Anyway, I just thought I would toss this out there... --Jrm03063 15:26, 28 September 2009 (EDT) Your point becomes more relevant were WeRelate to get closer to the 'pando' ideal - ie having most if not all people entered in here (and I estimated there could be in the region of 800 million people in the 'british' diasporia)and there are many many instances of each werelate name. I guess the "Joe Smith (1218)" Identifier will always work well for the WeRelate site systems purposes but as a meaningful Identifyer of a person it has no relevance. I wonder whether the unique identifier of the most dominant source record for the person is not the best unique identifier ? but would this be a census entry, a birth entry or a death entry ? I have been thinking how sources would look in the 'pando' ideal. Each source reference to a person can only be linked to one person. Each person entered in a census can only be associated with a person that existed. If WeRelate had some of the characteristics of ancestry, each census record would have a link to a person in the 'Pando' database.
Of course we know a person may have links to several census', and a person will have a birth recored, a death record and one or more marriage records. But in each case, the individual 'source' record can only be linked to one person. If 'pando' had every single census entry as a record, in thheory evey one should have a person linked and not more than one. We all know there would be ambiguities, and that severel persons could have a calim on a particular source record. 'Pando' would have the functionality to record these alternates and rank the most likely, or until further evidence could resolve the ambiguity, For example in the England if all birth entries were on a public database (with all info entered - father, mother, date etc) these would resolve many of the ambiguities which would be there if 'pando' worked on census alone. Highest standared of genealogy dictate that every BMD should be obtained and references but at 7 pounds a time it is cost prohibitive. (209 million Births in the ancestry databases alone) There are signs that they may be indexed further but it is huge task. In my limited 'tree' I have tried to resolve all the census entries foe one parish. One thing which quickly became apparent is where a marriage was ambiguous - that is a male marries a female and there two or more 'candidates' from the local population. If you then resolve those female candidates, you usually find two marriages for 'Mary Howard b 1931 or 1931' and its soon apparent which Mary Howard married which spouse candidate. The completeness of the resolving resolves puzzles without which, you would need to resort to buying certificates. Of course this is much easier in rural parishes or with uncommon names. I can imagine high levels of ambiguity in welsh cities for example.
Ancestry already has the records but are shy of the Pando (and WIKI) concept. My Ideal for WeRelate would be for it to have links to ancestry so all the entries in its database could be resolved to weRelate. It would give it huge authority as a resource.--Dsrodgers34 20:32, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for the comment - I was just Hypothesising. Everyone has a love-hate relationship with ancestry. It has its flaws, but ti is main street for finding living connections. If they really dird take a pnado approach, with checks and balances, they;d blow other sites away. Youd suspect they wouldnt as their revenuee comes from people paying to browse and collect - why would they short curcuit that process ?--Dsrodgers34 17:35, 30 September 2009 (EDT) Regarding Ancestry.com, I need some advice and/or assistance. I subscribed to Ancestry for two years, found quite a bit of data and sources relating to my ancestry and collateral lines, and accumulated about 1000 names on my on-line family tree. Now I find myself empathizing with smokers, who initially unwittingly and later unwillingly find themselves addicted to tobacco. I wasn't going to renew my subscription last month, but with the amount of information I added to my private family tree, I can't let it go to waste. And because of the amount of data and the number of names and sources obtained and stored, I don't have the time to transfer one-by-one to my desktop genie computer program or to WeRelate. Does anyone know if Ancestry.com has a GEDCOM download feature or a data back-up function? I can't afford to be locked into a lifetime subscription to Ancestry.com! --BobC 11:05, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Spanish last names and categories [28 October 2009]Spanish names have some peculiarities which must be taken into account. In Spain and Latin America, people get two last names: the first one from the father and the first one from the mother. For example, Juan Garcia Rodriguez marries Maria Lopez Martin, and their son will be named Manuel Garcia Lopez, Garcia coming from his father and Lopez from his mother (who BTW does not change her maiden name after marriage). This is a real blessing for genealogy, because it makes it really easy to identify siblings, and it gives immediately a woman's maiden name. In werelate, each time that a new family is entered, it creates a new category for the surname. In the above example, a category for the "Garcia Lopez" surname would be created. Since this category belongs only to a family and not to a kinship, this will create a major problem because there will be an explosion of categories, containing only one family each. The idea behind these categories is to contain kinships, not individual families. The correct thing in the case of Spanish names would be to take only the first last name, which is the one passed from generation to generation. Continuing the above example, the son of Manuel Garcia Lopez might be called Jose Garcia Perez, remaining only the Garcia but not the second last name Lopez. So when we enter a new family named Garcia Lopez, a category for the surname "Garcia" should be created, but not for "Garcia Lopez". I suggest to include a tick mark to indicate whether a family follows the Spanish rules, to create only the right surname categories in that case. Another implication is that it is not an error that a child has a different last name than his father's. Every Spanish person has a different surname than his father (unless the mother's first last name is the same as the paternal grandmother's first last name). Only the first last name should be the same as the father's first last name. I think that if the aim of werelate is to create a truly universal genealogy system, all these differences must be taken into account.--Proton 03:26, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
I'm not sure where to go with surname categories. I've thought about replacing them with links to the search screen with the surname(s) automatically filled in. It seems like search would be more useful here than a list of hundreds of page titles. Regardless, I agree that I need to handle multiple-name surnames better.--Dallan 16:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT) Be careful applying rules. I heard a long time ago that Spanish used father then mother's surname and Portuguese did the opposite but after years of research I have found the rule to prevail in the Yucatan, but not necessarily elsewhere. Admiitedly, I have done no research in Spain, but in Portugal and Brazil anything goes. Many people in Portugal did not use a surname until their first official act, like marriage, and then they might just choose one. Many women never used a surname at all but used a devotional name, eg Maria dos Santos. I talked to a bartender in the Azores who had 9 siblings, each with a different surname, when I asked him why, he shrugged and said "that's what my father named them. Often, they would pick the surname of their most import ancestor, regardless of how they descended. Tristâo Vaz, one of the discoverers and Capatâo of Madeira married a woman named Teixeira and his descendants used the name Teixeira. He is often mistakenly identified as Tristâo Vaz Teixeira as a result. Hyphenated names could be used for many generations to differentiate various branches of the family. As a result, Portuguese genealogy is very difficut as the "Rule" is, there is no rule.--Scot 14:49, 18 October 2009 (EDT) Wikipedia has a good article on Spanish naming customs. NationMaster.com has an indepth explanation of Spanish naming customs as well. See also, the INEX, Wapedia, and AllExperts articles on Iberian naming customs for further information. --BobC 10:05, 28 October 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] would someone fix these sources? [30 September 2009]A search for "Genealogical and Historical Notes on Culpeper County, Virginia" by Green, Raleigh Travers brings up two sources to select from. The only difference I can see is one has the word 'Dr.' in the title before the word Philip. The one with 'Dr.' in the title is here:
Source:Green, Raleigh Travers. Genealogical and Historical Notes on Culpeper County%2C Virginia : Embracing a Revised and Enlarged Edition of Dr. Philip The one without 'Dr.' in the title is here:
Source:Green, Raleigh Travers. Genealogical and Historical Notes on Culpeper County, Virginia : Embracing a Revised and Enlarged Edition of Philip When there are several Sources for the same book (just because it is published in a different year) it is impossible to select the right one from the search list as the list does not tell you the publishing date. Now I have used as a source the Book: This book appears to me to be the same book as was earlier published in 1964 and 1978 by a different publisher named above. I believe all of the publishers reprinting this 1900 book are merely reprinting the original and are not adding anything new to it and from my point of view, could all be combined into one Source which would list the various ways it was published and the various places it can be found. But I am unsure of current policy at WeRelate so will someone either create a Source the book I used or combine these sources for me. I think I may have contributed to this mess so apologies ahead of time for someone having to clean up after me. --Janiejac 20:39, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
To your implied question, we would put Ancestry as a repository, this is a book available in several versions. --Judy (jlanoux) 21:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Oxford DNB and OINB numbers? [1 October 2009]I was wondering if there are any users of the Oxford DNB out there, and/or the index thereof (which keys folks of historical interest under an "OINB" number). Does anyone have access? Is it useful/respected generally? Is it worth my time to start adding OINB numbers in the ongoing effort to inflict sanity on our medieval era cess-pool...??? --Jrm03063 11:02, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Deleting living people [4 October 2009]I'm concerned about pages like this, so I posted proposals here.--Amelia 18:15, 4 October 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] merge respositories please ?? [20 October 2009]We now have two respositories to the same place. One is a redirect from Source:Mary Ball Washington Museum to Mary Ball Washington Museum. This title is not technically correct and should be deleted if nothing is linked to it OR merged with the following which is the correct title: Mary Ball Washington Museum & Library. The museum is only half of the facility; the library is the other half. I don't know how to get rid of the repository with the shortened title. Could someone take care of this?--Janiejac 10:49, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
I just created Source:Robinson, Walter Stitt. Mother Earth:Land Grants in Virginia 1607-1699 and find there is this one: Source:Virginia, United States. Mother Earth-Land Grants in Virginia, 1607-1699. Can someone merge these please. I believe I correctly created the one with the author first, not the place. The strange thing is I searched for this title before I created the new source. Even now with both of them available, only the one starting with 'Virginia' comes up in the search. I had to go to my contributions to locate my source again. ?? --Janiejac 14:47, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] accessing watchlist page [20 October 2009]My watchlist page is taking forever to access. Is there anything I can do or is this a system problem? I keep thinking it is going to time out but it doesn't. The other pages seem to open normally but not the watchlist page. --Janiejac 14:18, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
JRM, numbers are high due to the # of people in uploaded GEDCOMs (each person/family of which gets watched by the uploader). Jillaine 16:52, 16 October 2009 (EDT) Do you have any add-ins running in your browser? I found that flashblock caused this very same problem. Now that I have removed it, I can see my watchlist again. --Judy (jlanoux) 16:07, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Project needing someone with a bit of free time [20 October 2009]The Source:Hening, William Waller. Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619 (354123) should be added to Research section of every county in Virginia. Every law establishing each county is covered. Also, I just edited that source a bit and it perhaps needs review because I don't know what that number is at the end of the title. Is that number necessary?--Janiejac 11:39, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Conflicting info when 2 people edit the pg at same time [20 October 2009]We need better instructions on the page that comes up when two people are editing a page at the same time. The instructions say my changes have to be merged with his changes before it can be saved and I have no idea how to do that. So I had to leave all my changes unsaved. I had a lot of changes so I was not a happy camper. Let's hope his changes were better than mine anyway.--Janiejac 18:23, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Semi-protecting all pre-1500 people [26 October 2009]I'm thinking about semi-protecting all pre-1500 people, so that they can only be changed by editing the page directly, and not by updating/merging the page during a gedcom upload. Uploaders will still be able to match the people in their gedcom to pre-1500 pages on the wiki, but they won't be able to update them unless they navigate to the page and update it directly. Are there any objections or questions?--Dallan 14:16, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
How about excluding people who died before 1607. Any ancestors researched for TAG, NEHGS etc. can be hand entered along with the source citations. These are the people who need sourcing the most. Children invented by Gustave Anjou and his ilk most likely will appear in the timeframe of that 100 year window.--Scot 17:17, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Is it too much to enter by hand? If so upload it now before policy is changed. I don't think it is too much to ask that all submissions of data prior to the first settlement of America include source documentation. The object here is to prevent massive uploads of questionable data via GEDCOM import. If acceptance criteria is based on date and/or source, at least it limits that sort of thing. We have seen how folks for whatever reason have chosen to circumvent the no living people rule. Perhaps, as a trusted administrator, you could be exempted. --Scot 18:30, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
I don't agree, Mythological, biblical and other ancient genealogy whether or not documented is irrelevant here, as they cannot be connected to any living person. Leave that to historians and biblical scholars and such. What we need to protect from is the intrusion and repeated contamination of the data base by mythical, fanciful and fraudulent data. By limiting what can be uploaded we would hope to minimize massive GEDCOM uploads of questionable and undocumented junk.--Scot 23:53, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Criteria for Accepting pre-1500 GEDCOMs [26 October 2009]REVISED Draft language for a policy related to early-peopled GEDCOMs. WeRelate's vision is a single, well-sourced online tree that interconnects the work of multiple contributors. In support of this, WeRelate's auto-upload tool currently excludes GEDCOM material that contains data about people who died prior to 1500 A.D. This date was chosen because the bulk of historical and vital records commenced after this date, and the bulk of "information" about individuals who died before this date is from highly questionable sources. Exceptions may be requested under the following circumstances:
The rest of your GEDCOM will be processed into WeRelate pages. For more about contributing GEDCOMs, please see Help:GEDCOM. You may, of course, manually create pages for people who died prior to 1500. In fact, there is a small group of contributors working on medieval pages, and you are encouraged to join their effort. For more information, see the Medieval/Middle Ages Portal. Jillaine 09:13, 21 October 2009 (EDT) I agree with the exclusion proposal and the reasons stated. But I don't think exceptions should be encouraged. It appears to me that you're creating unnecessary work for this "committee" (whoever that is). If someone has worthwhile research that they want to contribute, they (like you did) can ask for an exception after they have proven themselves by contributing manually. So I propose leaving out all the part about separate gedcoms and committees. If the policy is stated as "no gedcoms" the reviewer would have more flexibility about accepting an exception without having to debate "qualified" sources with someone who got a copy of Family Tree maker yesterday and is now an expert with 100,000 people in their database. (I've been there.) --Judy (jlanoux) 11:50, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
So what your saying is that WeRelate will reject that portion of a GEDCOM download which contains the pre-1500 data because by its very nature (i.e. pre-modern era and lack of established documentation) is suspect. Will those individuals who feel they have adequate source documentation for pre-1500 families be able then to enter them manually? --BobC 10:39, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Lost Source Page(s)??? - Concord VR [30 October 2009]I'm certain that at one point we had a source page for Concord, Massachusetts. Births, Marriages and Deaths 1635 to 1850 There is a digital version of it on Ancestry; it's been transcribed on a web page; and I'm sure there must be a microfilm of it. It's too popular a source not to be here-- all the other "tan books" seem to be. Did it get "lost" in the rename? I hate to recreate it if it's somewhere here, not findable. -- Jillaine--Jillaine 13:49, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Pedigree view not working with IE8 [31 October 2009]Pedigree view does not work for me with IE8; had to switch to the compatibility mode. --Beth 18:54, 31 October 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Community trees and Medieval genealogy [4 December 2009]From the Ancestry Insider blog; FamilySearch has added a new section for community trees. Here is the link to the blog message [18]. Some of the community trees relate to medieval genealogy. Also note in this blog that the Family Search trees have a rating named Genealogical Maturity Level or GML. The Historical Trees Unit and the Family Reconstitution Unit are producing conclusion trees that are GML (Genealogical Maturity Level) 3 and GML 4. By contrast, New FamilySearch (NFS), the tree, has been pre-populated by lots and lots of data at GML 1 and 2 and is subject to edit by genealogists of any level, making it an unsuitable environment for publication of more mature genealogical data. Community Trees is a wonderful forward move allowing FamilySearch to publish their high maturity lineage linked trees.--Beth 18:50, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
As someone mentioned in the BLOG - no reference to GML anywhere ----Good link though - shows its not just WeRelate folk who think things could be "Better"--Dsrodgers34 20:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Hmmm. I read the blog. Interesting. However, as someone who has been doing this stuff and writing about it (and teaching it) for 30+ years I don't think you can draw a meaningful parallel between any sort of semi-academic research in the social sciences (which is what genealogy is) with corporate software development schemes. Nor, if you really feel a need for this sort of categorization, do you need anything like five levels. That sort of pseudo-precision doesn't exist in this field. The assignment to categories is entirely subjective, for one thing. I see three sorts of "family history people":
I guess I don't see much point in this construct. --Mike 11:16, 4 November 2009 (EST) Theses discussions are reminiscent of the Proposal for Managed Pages. Protecting medieval genealogies was one reason for managing pages. Another was to avoid GEDCOM updates blasting a well-researched page from any time period. I love the GML idea. Level 1 pages are OK for GEDCOM edits. Level 2 means you have to edit by hand. Level 3 means only a user with permission can edit it, etc.--Srblac 19:45, 27 October 2009 (EDT) Well, . . . I've just spent several hours poking into this stuff to assuage my curiosity. And, no offense, but I have to say I'm underwhelmed. And I have lots of questions. This probably isn't the venue to critique the whole project (what they've presented of it), but I'll mention a couple of things:
I have just finished uploading and merging a snippet of the British database (246 ancestors of Rev. Hawte Wyatt). I did not find 15 sources, but the ones I did find are generally well respected: Cokayne, Weis Ancestral Roots 7 & Magna Carta Sureties, Plantagenet Ancestry etc. The references are very sketchy and not tied to events, but just to people. For Plantagenet Ancestry you can't tell if they mean the new addition by Douglas Richardson or the previous one by David Faris. As Amelia suggested, most of them are already here, 94 of 138 families I uploaded were suggested duplicates and required merging. However, the target pages are generally a huge mess, contain poor and conflicting data from as many as 15 or 20 submissions. JRM has been working with me to improve the quality. I have to say that data from this source is generally superior to what we have. It has occurred to me that Deleting what we have and uploading the entire database as a new starting point along with the suggested editing restrictions will produce better results. Otherwise since the database "Tree: British Isles: Peerage, Gentry and Colonial American Connections" contains 207,278 individuals, 101,194 families and 238 sources even using GEDCOM upload capability would require thousands of hours to accomplish. Also, as usual the Familysearch server is dreadfully slow and the usability factor is difficult. Mike is right, since much of this was done years ago I don't see citations for TMG, Mayflower families the register or TAG. Don't forget though most of the material for those sources would apply to people who died after 1607. about 6 of the 246.--Scot 16:36, 4 November 2009 (EST) I've looked at some of those pages and they are indeed a mess. I have the same problem with the Early Acadians. It would certainly save many man-hours to simply start over. I have had to resort to liberal use of the delete key to get the pages cleaned up. If it were a case of honest difference in interpretation, I would welcome the differences, but these are just from gedcoms full of speculation copied from a dozen other gedcoms. In cases like these where we have authoritative sources, it seems we have somewhat of an obligation to try to clean it up, but should not have to spend an exorbitant part of our personal life to do so. --Judy (jlanoux) 16:54, 4 November 2009 (EST) We contemplated doing something severe a year ago. At that time, folks were too worried that some of the huge sketchy trees had "good" parts, and they didn't want to see that lost. I also think there was a desire not to knock down our overall database size - even if a lot of it was dubious. There was also a hope that maybe the act of merging and cleaning up the space would draw back folks. Since then, I've invested a lot of time trying to merge stuff as best I can, using WP and "thePeerage" as quick validators/arbitrators when, as is often the case, nothing else is there. I don't want to lose my work, but something heavy-duty is required. I regret to report that there has been no return of the "drive-by uploaders". In the same way that we had a "duplicate merge" campaign, I wonder if we could have an "old and unsourced" campaign? Can the search tools be used to detect pages that reference dates before some point? Is the number of sources on a page an item that can be searched on? --Jrm03063 19:20, 4 November 2009 (EST) I'm stepping late into this conversation. What would you like me to do?--Dallan 02:10, 5 December 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Succession box [4 November 2009]Anyone interested in royal lines and/or the general question of navigational templates might check out the proposed succession box here. It's a simpler version of Wikipedia's, with some modification to encompass the family information likely to be of interest here.--Amelia 23:09, 4 November 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Person disambiguation [12 November 2009]At the moment, when you add a person who has the same name as an existing person you end up with, for instance William Turvey (1), (2), (3) etc. I'm not sure that this is the best way of distinguishing people in a way that is easiest to understand. Can I suggest an alternative system? Perhaps use the year of birth - e.g. "William Turvey b. 1669"; if there are two people wih the same dob then by all means use (1) (2) etc. Of course if adopted you would need some kind of transition mechanism to deal with the existing ones in the current format. Has this been suggested before? AndrewRT 18:21, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Andrew, know that you're not alone. Like you, I advocated for a similar system -- i.e., John P. Smith (1882-1969) -- this is what the Genealogy Wikia system follows. I also do not like the current person page-naming system here, but have decided it's not a battle to fight. WeRelate has a lot of other functions-- including a GEDCOM upload that Genie Wikia does not-- that make it a better choice in my mind. (Although many would argue that GEDCOM upload has been more a nightmare than a feature... but that's another topic. ;-) Jillaine 09:05, 11 November 2009 (EST) The name+number system is, as ya'll have said, clunky and not very attractive, and I'm not crazy about it, either. And it took some getting used to. But its best point is that it works. I have lots of people in my various projects with unknown or only approximate birth or death dates. I wouldn't want to have a page called "John Smith (1823?-1895?)" -- and then have to rename it when later evidence showed he was born in 1826. That would be a far worse situation. --Mike 07:26, 12 November 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Free search in the Military collection of Ancestry [11 November 2009]In honor of America’s military heroes, the entire U.S. Military Collection on Ancestry.com can be searched free through Nov. 13. To begin exploring your family’s military heritage, visit ancestry.com/military.--Beth 21:00, 10 November 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Disintermediating "family" pages [4 December 2009]Well onto another pet dislike instead: I'm currently manually inputing a family tree - I don't have it in GEDCOM form so I can't do it in bulk. One of the annoying features is that you can't enter people's spouses, children, parents etc. direct from the person page but you have to go via a "Family" page. This makes the whole process twice as long! Is there any way of changing this so you can input relations directly? Before anyone says - that's far too hard and we couldn't possibly change anything now, can I challenge what the aim of WeRelate is? Surely the object should be to create a resource that is just as easy to update as, say, ancestry.com. At the moment the interface is certainly good, but not as good as others. AndrewRT 16:52, 11 November 2009 (EST)
The inability to add family members directly from a person page is one of the biggest things I want to change in the person page re-design.--Dallan [add comment] [edit] Your Website "Wish list" [5 December 2009]Don't take this as a criticism of WeRelate because obviously some of the things are not possible or desirable. I do believe thea with the right interace, systems, mentoring,moderation and enthusiastic volunteers, there is no reason why a good portion of the people who spend hours on ancestry etc could not contributee to making weRelate the undisputed genealogical equal of WikiPedia - that is one of the most respectd sources. To get some growth without sacrificing accuracy Website "Wish List" (Inspired by the previous discussion) -For me its a mix of features from websites but mainly on the principles of WeRelate From Werelate : The wiki format - where an event or phito or document can be linked to its participants - not just one person The Pando concept - where each ancestor is only in once and not owned by anyone The responsiveness to change and listening to feedback from the 'owners' The fantastic extensive content provided by the enthusiasts The commitment to strive for high content standards
The vast array of transcribed records and original scans The ability to link original records by name to an ancestor - if WR had this it would be an extra validation as theoretically each record (in terms of person named) can only piont to one Ancestor - sourcing would be unambiguous and straightforward The ability to do this quickly for large projects due to the member tree interface (although it should be just as easy to undo this when you make a mistake) The ability to go to a transcription and see who else has linked to that person The vast collection of old photographs That ancestry now make it much easier for the public to post alternate names for record entries From Wikipedia: The established Heirarchy of the "Mentors" who are enough in number to deal with the number of changes and disputes arising The acceptance of a rating system for the benefit of all From FreeBMD (for example) The systematic good work by volunteers in double checking all entries and ensuring high accuracy From Local Genealogical Soceities : The local knowledge - Imagine if such soceities adopted WeRelate as a means of publishing their data - go beyond just transcribing - which such as ancestry do now anyway-- That is not neccesarily just doing just your own ancestors but others too "because its fun" Dsrodgers34 23:46, 11 November 2009 (EST) Thank-you for the comments. I don't see WR ever having its own large collection of records like Ancestry. I hope someday that we can help people link to records on other websites with free record collections though. The rating system is something that's been kicked around for awhile. Personally I like what Bill and others have done by putting stars on articles that are well-sourced. I know more could be done in this area. I'd like to address some of the usability issues first though. Interesting you should bring up local societies. I've been thinking about that as well. I hear about the problems many societies have attracting members in the "internet age" and yet the ones I'm familiar with have a wealth of information and knowledgable and helpful volunteers. I'd love to figure out how to partner. But I think I need to address more of the usability issues before WeRelate is ready for that.--Dallan 02:10, 5 December 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Number of people [4 December 2009]One of the things that Wikipedia does to motivate the community and promote it's achievements is to put an up to the minute rolling total of the number of articles on the main page. I notice we've got something similar here which says, rather vaguely, "We are the world's largest genealogy wiki with pages for over 2,000,000 people". Now, looking at Special:Statistics the problem is that this lists all pages in all namespaces including Talk, Person and Family. My suggestions:
Thanks! AndrewRT 17:30, 14 November 2009 (EST)
I believe there has to be a discussion "How do we grow" and still have a high standard of accuracy-I estimated there might be a theoreticallly possible 800+ million individuals if the no living people rule is maintained 100 million as Andrew suggested would establisn critical mass - or even less if WR becomes strong in niche areas (such as early colonial stuff)- Ancestry has its faults but of the 700 million it claims in public trees - 270 million sourced to ancestry records such as census entries, I guessed at 30+ million non duplicated and of reasonable accuracy - You stand a good chance of finding links to active researchers there - it is the best place to make contacts, despite actual frustrations people have with it. Obviously attracting large numbers of people commited to high level of accuracy, and then making the best use of their time is one key. This is why interface issues are a good point - enabling people to be as efficient as possible. I assume Dallan and co have this very much in mind. I understand they are overhauling the page layouts and I assume they will make sure the systems (IT and people) are ready for the increased usage once they get into promotional mode.
I hesitate to jump in because I'm still learning my way around, but I would be HUGELY disappointed if WeRelate tried to emulate Ancestry. The uploaded gedcoms on Ancestry are not accurate (my current "favorite" is an ancestor who had five children and a second marriage after he died), and many of the people who have uploaded data are not serious researchers (the person who married my grandfather to my great-grandmother was not willing to discuss sources or anything else). I could go on -- and on, and on. Yes, it takes time and energy to input data on WeRelate. But, it's also an opportunity to review your own work.--GayelKnott 23:17, 17 November 2009 (EST)
I agree with all negative comments on ancestry too. But whats thay saying ? "eat poo because 8 million flies can't be wrong" I made comments in the "interface" discussion that I estimate 90 million out ot the 950 million ancestor entries could be approaching reasonable quality, being correctly linked to ancestry database sources - they make it reasonably easy. over 10 million photos and scans suggests a willingness to acheive a quality result even if thats not the outcome. What I am suggesting is that we look at why the interface contributes to it's 'success' and incorporate elements of that. Many people will be resonably comfortable with it - and its not that far removed from WeRelate anyway. The potential dissatisfaction with ancestry could be a source of new users anyway, especially if people find the switch straigtforward. I read of someone who said they knew people who considered themselves 'serious' but were so annoyed by the rampant cpying in there that they deliberately put incorrect stuff in there for some kind of sick revenge. Now the World archives project requires volunteers to do online transcriptions and apparently the amount of work people have achieved on a voluntary basis has surprised everyone. Ancestry users have submitted themselves to the rigours of transcriprion and cross checking. The only reward is ongoing free access to that database if they transcribe a certain number of entries. Of course many are subscribers so there is no benefit. It demonstrates a willingness for ancesty users to apply quality procedures, given the right leadership. My "ideal" inerface would be ancestry with improvements but with the WeRelate ideals (which are based on wikipedia, which has huge respect in the main. The ancestry interface is getting regular improvements although there seems to be no widespread feedback process. I guess they have their direction and a wiki is not part of that (unless weRelate became hugely popular - watch them move then !!) PS WeRelate is still my favourite--Dsrodgers34 00:40, 18 November 2009 (EST) I'm not against changing the sidebar statistic to 1.7M people instead of the people+families number. I'll make that change in the near future. The World Archives project is similar to FamilySearch's Internet Indexing project, and the number of volunteers transcribing records there has surprised people as well. The reason that I haven't been online much this past month is that I've been contracted to build a new search engine for the records coming out of FamilySearch's Internet Indexing (the records that are currently searchable at http://pilot.familysearch.org) and what started out as a part-time consulting job has turned into more than full-time lately. But I think I can see a light at the end of the tunnel finally. It's scheduled to go online in a couple of weeks. The good news is that the records are freely available to anyone, not just to indexers. My guess is that at present rates within 10 years the majority of the important certificate and register-based records will be available online. We talk about the balance between getting enough people involved that you can make connections and yet not end up with just a bunch of garbage. I don't think we know the answer to that question, but I believe being able to tie records to people would be a big help. For our purposes those records would need to be freely available.--Dallan 02:10, 5 December 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] External References - A TRULY HORRIBLE Idea [19 November 2009]It had developed in recent discussions, that a few folks want to substitute "External References" (after the fashion of WP) for actual source record entries (in some circumstances). External references generally, and this idea especially, ARE REALLY TERRIBLE. Here's why:
The originating/driving agenda behind all this weirdism, is a sort of high-end genealogical purity/minimalist sourcing philosophy. Only sources that underpin specific facts (citation referenced sources) are "really" sources. It's an interesting school of thought, but hopeless outside a very narrow group of elite researchers. That has been softened some, but to no good end. Now, even an experienced user couldn't tell when to use one method or the other. We already know - WR has a stiff learning curve. How many times do we "run" to the rescue of people who are saying, "I just don't get this site!" Still, we mostly lose them. We need to face it - WR is DOOMED unless it can expand its appeal among rookies. Making it harder on them, giving them extra stuff to do and worry about - particularly for the sake of an elitist minority philosophy - is running in the completely wrong direction. It's arrogant, and it will waste the hard contributions of a lot of us by ultimately killing this site. We've been approximately size plateaued (1.7M people-pages) for around six months now - and that's not an accident. MAKE IT EASIER ON NEWBIES - or watch WR wither and die. --Jrm03063 01:22, 18 November 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Where to put whatI believe that JRM's post arises out of a concern I expressed elsewhere that folks on WR were using the Source section for content (in this case, links to pertinent WP pages) that was not a citation for a specific fact/event on the page. It helps me to look at how Wikipedia deals with this situation. WP has a fairly standard format for most of its pages; for example, I pulled this format from the Great Migration (Puritan) page on WP:
Numbers 1-3 form that narrative of the page; the headings used are modified based on the subject of the page. Numbers 4-6 contain a type of "meta data" -- information about either the information contained in the narrative or about the overall topic more generally. As we break each of 4-6 down, we might uncover the root of the challenge JRM cares so much about. And perhaps an acceptable solution for all. 4. NOTES. This is where WP place citations for the claims made in the narrative. While WR can and does use Notes in the same way that WP does, this is NOT where WR places Sources pulled from GEDCOMs. WR has created an additional area for sources pulled from GEDCOMs, and called it SOURCES. Sources in genealogy software programs contain citations for facts given in the GEDCOM. E.g., I say that Hannah Rice married Richard Taylor in 1676, and I cite the Sudbury vital records as the source for that claim. So on WR, we have two areas for citations of facts: SOURCES and NOTES. But whichever is used, their purpose is to contain information that supports specific claims made on the page. 5. REFERENCES. From the above example, this section is like the bibliography used in published books. I.e., material turned to that informed the overall narrative/information, but is not necessarily cited for a specific piece of information. 6. SEE ALSO. (I've also seen "EXTERNAL LINKS" used on WP pages for the same thing.) This section is used for including links to related information. I.e., if you're interested in the topic of this page, you might also be interested in this other link. Other than that, there may be no direct relation between the content of this page and the content of the linked-to page. The question that we debated, rather painfully IMHO, is where to place links to Wikipedia pages about the person or topic of the WeRelate page. Where I *think* we got to is the following (Dallan, correct me if I'm wrong):
If I understand JRM's concern, placing a Wikipedia page link anywhere BUT SOURCES (even when the WP page in question was not used as a source for a specific piece of information on the WR page) a) prevents this data from being appropriately exported to exported GEDCOMs from WR and b) somehow negatively affects the WR<->WP link. If my understanding is correct, then it seems to me there should be a technology solution to address those concerns so that we can continue to use the SOURCE section for what it was built for-- citations for supporting specific facts on a page. Clearly, JRM feels passionately that we find a solution that meets his needs, and I hope we can do so without compromising standard documentation practice. Respectfully, Jillaine 09:16, 18 November 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Can data entry design solve the problem?
[add comment] [edit] Origins of the Debate
JRM, I'll admit I'm a little confused and would appreciate examples of what you are referring to. Obviously this has gotten you so upset you've decided to "reconsider your participation" in WeRelate. I'm not sure what you refer to as "recent discussions" so it may help to have a little more background or a link to the preceeding discussions here or elsewhere. Thanks. --BobC 13:03, 18 November 2009 (EST) Ugh, I really didn't want to link to the original discussion because it was horribly long and frustrating (for me, at least), and didn't start out well (my fault). If you must, you can read it here: Help_talk:Guidelines_for_use_of_Wikipedia#Source_Section_is_for_Sources_.5B29_September_2009.5D [add comment] [edit] Readers Digest VersionThe readers digest version is that I was concerned that the instructions for the use of wikipedia said (currently say, actually) this:
I took exception to "always", concerned that we were promoting use of the Source section for links to information that was not being used as a source for information on the page. I felt such links should be placed in "External Links" section (or as I revised above, #5 or #6 above), leaving the Source section for citations linked to specific facts/events/etc. on the page. Dallan subsequently tried to bring closure to this topic via private email, and until the other day, I had no idea that JRM felt so strongly about it that he would consider ending his participation at WeRelate. I would very much like to find a solution that works for him while at the same time allowing us to use commonly accepted practices for citing and recording sources. -- Jillaine 14:59, 18 November 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] The Architecture about SourcesPerhaps we need some kind of architecture statement about sources. Whether a "source", in the sense that it supports one of the tagged facts, or a "footnote", that supports a statement in the narrative, or some other kind of reference, like a "see also" type of link, all such references should, ideally, follow the same bibliographic rules. I also would like, essentially, a unified bibliography, with all of these references listed in one spot, not grouped into different sections at different spots on the page. However, I think trying to decide this issue without considering an overall architecture of sources is likely to result in a confusing approach that often seems contradictory.
This would obviously define the various uses of sources and how to present them on a page. But it would also address some of the other lingering issues. What are the goals of WeRelate in asking for sources?
[add comment] [edit] But when is it too many sources? [19 November 2009][Is WeRelate's Source goal] To provide a comprehensive list of sources or just the definitive ones that justify that facts presented? Should refuted sources be deleted, moved to the Talk page, or left alone? What data is required in a source citation? Are certain types of sources, like GEDCOMs, AFNs, ancestry trees, simply not desired? --Jrich 20:34, 18 November 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Help:Sources [31 December 2009]Mmm... I went looking for help on the topic of SOURCES only to see that Help:Sources is redirected to Help:Source_pages. Mm... Anyone object to my breaking that redirect? Seems to me, especially in response to Jrich's concern, that we have a help page about SOURCES that is distinct from help about source PAGES. Jillaine 22:57, 18 November 2009 (EST)
I have tried to patiently read through this whole topic line at least a couple times at different points, and can somewhat understand the frustrations of source useage and the connecting issues (or problems) of using differing techniques to add these sources to WR pages, but cannot understand how this turned into such an emotional baggage cart of an argument that had to be carried from a less public page to the more open Watercooler page. (For what? Spite, support, collaboration?) Even here the topic thread became so butchered I couldn't even follow who was writing what in some parts, except by the tone of the statements. I don't feel there is a need or desire by almost anyone to continue this discussion (in its form above) to its own talk page, especially in such an emotionally charged and accusatory manner. I think we are all trying to get to a similar place here at WR. Maybe we need an analogy to understand this better. Some want to take the 4-lane limited-access interstate highway (and yes, there are some who feel that is the only way to go), some may want a tour guide to take them along on a bus trip to learn about the scenery and other sites along with other like-minded tourists, and still others might want to take the meandering 2-lane road through the hillsides alone and stop at all the small towns along the road to experience a little of the culture of each on a self-guided basis with no schedule or timetable. Some people prepare for their journey in different ways and have different expectations along the way: A short internet summary of a tourist location in a Google trip planner would probably be less informative than the more in-depth AAA guide book on the same subject. A book written about the travel location would probably be more reliable than the rest-stop brochure. And then there's what each does with the information they collect along the way after the trip: one may want to organize everything carefully and put it into a binder or scrapbook neatly arranged by locale, another might just pile all the trip brochures into a shoe box in no special order and pull what interests them out at a later time, and another might just commit everything to memory hoping he can remember the details later. Some ways are more effective to certain people than others; it's not a matter of one way being "right" and another way being "horrible." Okay, I've stretched it out long enough. Hope the thread dies here at year-end. Happy new year!--BobC 22:34, 31 December 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Roots Magic now has a free genealogy program [21 November 2009]Hi all, A new toy for us to play with has been released. Roots Magic now has a free genealogy software program. Download the free program from [20]. --Beth 21:33, 18 November 2009 (EST)
Link to the differences in the free program and paid version: [21]--Beth 20:52, 21 November 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Another Try: "Genealogical Source" != "GEDCOM Source" [19 November 2009]This turns out to be a very non-funny comedy of errors, that arises when the WRONG definition is assumed for "Source" on the person and family pages. These definitions are: 1. Genealogical Source - A genealogical source just as Jillaine defined it above (supports ONE or more facts). 2. GEDCOM Source - A GEDCOM source record, which can be associated with ZERO or more facts. Plainly, 1 != 0, so we're looking at different things. Since a "GEDCOM Source" record need not point at any facts, it can be a source without being a "Genealogical Source". Put another way, "GEDCOM Sources" are the union of "Genealogical Sources" and bibliographic entries.
The external reference controversy, stems from the incorrect assumption that a WR Person or Family page "Source" entry is a "Genealogical Source". It is not.
WR was designed and implemented with GEDCOM import/export as the key requirement, and those entries are "GEDCOM Source". We know this, because imported GEDCOM source records appear there regardless of whether they are attached to any facts or not (and they are exported likewise).
The really bad stuff comes when that mistake is compounded by demanding that the WR "GEDCOM Source" entry fields be treated as limited "Genealogical Sources". This instantly costs you GEDCOM's ability to manage bibliographic information. Since it would be embarrassing to just drop that stuff on the floor, the original error is compounded by introducing "External Reference" as an ad-hoc way to handle information that was mishandled earlier! Of equal or worse badness, creation of an "External Reference" lacks all user support for data entry fields, so it's harder to create and sure to exhibit erratic formatting from page to page (if it's done at all). The danger, the crisis - the thing that's making me crazy - is the cavalier attitude about burdening users with complex interactions in order to satisfy elitist and - in fact - erroneous requirements. The difference between a "bibliographic item" and a "genealogical source" is of no use whatsoever to a new user - and an experienced user won't be confused by a source record that isn't attached to a fact.
Is WR supposed to be a club house for a few genealogy snobs? Or is this a serious attempt to get wiki genealogy right for everyone, and do it in a way that allows everyone to contribute? --Jrm03063 00:42, 19 November 2009 (EST)
Jillaine, I was not posing a question, and I think your editing has mangled the post so much, it does now look like a series of questions, when the questions where meant as examples of the kind of general policies an architecture document would define. An architecture document would normally be a big picture vision where the system architecture describes where he wants to go, so people can at least all turn and face the right direction, instead of this Brownian motion of personal preferences, back and forth, etc. If only one change to the page layout were made, that the section on the page were entitled Bibliography instead of Sources, but otherwise everything else were the same, how would that affect your argument, Jillaine? I think your argument depends too much on how you interpret the single word Sources. To me a source is a source of information, one type of information which happens to be a genealogical fact as defined by GEDCOM tags, but there being other types of pertinent information as well. You think WP is a good model, I don't. As stated, my preference would be for a unified bibliography section with tagged facts, footnotes, etc., all pointing to entries in a single bibliography section. However my view, and your view, are only the opinions of single WeRelate users. These are the kind of overall philosophy that would be defined in an architecture document. Even if things aren't/can't be done the defined way right now, people can start working towards a thought-out, consistent handling of sources with some clarity of vision. Right now, in this and many other discussions, it seems everybody wants to do things the way they are used to working on their home system. If WeRelate desires to list all significant and pertinent sources on each page, an architecture document would define what WeRelate believes is a significant and pertinent source, i.e., printed family genealogies but not GEDCOMs, etc. If only sources bringing something new to the discussion should be entered, instead of 20 sources all saying the same thing in nearly the same words, then definitions and guidelines for that practice would be given. If as you argue, only the source of a tagged fact goes in the Sources section, then that those other types would be defined, and the methods for adding them to a page would be outlined (i.e., footnotes go in a References section, external references go in a See Also section.) If the goal is to encourage and/or require ESM type citations, then that is stated. If the whole Source namespace is going to go away because it is too hard, and source citations are to become the responsibility of the inputter, then the document would state that. In the absence of such a document, the current philosphy seems to be to provide a minimal structure that is not inconsistent with GEDCOM, but to allow it to be used flexibly to make the system as unobtrusive as possible. Right now source citations can ranges from completely filled out citations linking to excellent sources pages like Source:Arnold, James N. Vital Record of Rhode Island, 1636–1850, to Beth's excellent freeform citations implementing ESM guidelines, to source citations citing N101, presumably the code used on somebody's home system to lookup the source title, with the attached text stored in a separate note. In that environment, distinctions of, this kind of source do this, and that kind of source do that, seem out of place. --Jrich 10:40, 19 November 2009 (EST) Ok, I guess this is progress. Now that everyone understands the distinction I'm making between "Genealogical Source" and "GEDCOM Source Record", let me respond to one thing said above.
As a SW Engineer, I seriously doubt that. Still, what really matters is prevailing practice. You need look no further than the GEDCOM that Scot has been uploading to see that it is common (if debatable) practice. Now please, stay with me: YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL. So you want to have "Genealogical Sources" and "Bibliographic Entries", and you want them to appear separately on a person/family page, right? Further, whether intended or not, GEDCOM does support bibliographic entries (if that's what we call sources that aren't attached to a fact). How to deal with this, and encourage understanding of the distinction? Two options: A) Make it a procedure. Force users to know this difference and enter bibliographic information in painfully laid out external references - which are then lost for GEDCOM export. Force them to revisit hundreds or thousands of existing person/family pages already here, or after upload, in order to sift "bibliography entries" from "genealogical source". B) Solve it in software. If a source is not attached, that's programmatically detectable. Changes in person and family page display software should be able to affect this change AUTOMATICALLY, across the ENTIRE 1.7M person database. New GEDCOM uploads automatically sift their "GEDCOM Source" records into separate "Source" and "Bibliography". Users DO NOTHING - their data is entirely preserved and the two different types of reference items are naturally displayed differently. Users are "automatically" educated about the difference between source and bibliography - simply because their information automatically appears in the two separate places. GEDCOM bibliographic support is retained. I apologize for the term "snob", but having done a fair bit of UI work, I'm keenly aware of the burdens that additional procedures place on users. Such burdens kill acceptance and lead to slower or failed software roll-outs. In my world, forcing a user to do things on their own, that you could do more easily and correctly in software, IS snobby. It's particularly unforgivable when unnecessary. As this discussion has evolved, there has been a rush to address this challenge with procedure (option "A") - instead of marking it as something that needs to be done as an evolutionary software upgrade (B). Please, lobby for and wait for the site to support this distinction correctly. Don't force it when the site can't do it correctly, and the user burden is horrifying. Oh - and by the way - if you turn things into "external references" now, and the site is changed to support the distinction - you'll have to go back and reverse those changes to get back GEDCOM bibliography support. --Jrm03063 15:55, 19 November 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] The 1940 census will be released digitally on April 2, 2012. [24 November 2009]This is exciting. Here is a link regarding the questions asked in the 1940 census enumeration from NARA. [22] The digital images will be accessible from one's personal computer. Also Steve Morse has a conversion tool for enumeration districts from one census year to another census year; [23] --Beth 19:57, 24 November 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Try a google search on your pages and see the results [1 December 2009]I searched for John Albin and Mary Coker genealogy on Google and 2 of the WeRelate pages are second and third and the first hit was a bonus because that one is a 5 page history of one of their sons. --Beth 20:44, 29 November 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Find/Add spouse and children family group page/problem with reviewing a candidate and returning to my find/add [30 November 2009]If I select to add a spouse and fill out the information on the related screen and select find/add, then I have the first page of possible matches. Suppose I find a person that may or may not be a match. I click on this person's page to compare the data. Then I don't see anyway to return to my find/add page. I have to start all over. There seems to be no back arrow on the page. Now I am using IE8. Does this work in another browser? --Beth 23:51, 29 November 2009 (EST)
The multiple tab suggestion is a really good one -- and works on Explorer, Safari, and Firefox. --GayelKnott 13:42, 30 November 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Great site for testing what others see on your webpage without scrolling [22 December 2009]If you ever wondered what is visible on your webpages to viewers with older computers and smaller screens without scrolling, Google has the following site; just enter your URL and check it out. Interesting. Link: [24]--Beth 20:14, 22 December 2009 (EST) [add comment] [edit] Un-redirecting a page [24 December 2009]Is there a way to un-redirect a page? The page for Place:Council Bluffs, Pottawattamie, Iowa, United States is redirecting to Place:Bluffs, Pottawattamie, Iowa, United States. There is an alternate name of "Council Bluffs" on that page, but that's not the alternate name of the city. It really is Council Bluffs. IMO, Council Bluffs should be the main page with Bluffs redirecting to it. -- Amy 08:05, 24 December 2009 (EST)
[add comment] [edit] Merry Christmas everyone! [25 December 2009]Hope you're all enjoying the holidays with your family and friends. We're prepping our contribution to my sister's Christmas dinner tonight, and hoping/praying that the weather is such that we can still fly to New Hampshire tomorrow for the week. Here's looking to a productive (non-beta?) 2010!!! -- Jillaine 14:05, 25 December 2009 (EST) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
that you can use in case you want to modify any of the other button icons.
