ViewsWatchers |
[add comment] [edit] Twins, triplets, etc. [10 March 2019]Has there been any fields, routines or categories added which help to document or highlight twins, triplets, etc? --ceyockey 01:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Uncertain Maiden Names [4 March 2019]Hello. I've created a category and matching template to highlight people (women) for whom it is unclear whether their preferred name here on WeRelate is her maiden / birth name or her married name. Regards --ceyockey 17:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Would be interested in having people weigh in on whether they think this is a good idea or a waste or something in between. Thanks. --ceyockey 03:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Wikpedia template updates [4 March 2019]Hi. What is the trigger(s) which result in updating of content of the Wikipedia content templates? For instance, https://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Wp-Francis_Parker_Yockey&action=history , which shows last update in April 2015? I was considering updating it manually, but didn't want to break any automated process in place. Thanks. --ceyockey 13:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
---I believe Jrich is correct. The details in many "place" entries taken from Wikipedia are out of date. For instance, about 2015 Wikipedia contributors were encouraged to update populations in the UK from 2001 census data to 2011 census data. Many of these have now changed in Wikipedia but remain the same in WeRelate. --Goldenoldie 19:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC) I just did an 'empty edit' on the template that I brought up as an example above. If that triggers an update, good. I'll let you know if it shows up on my watchlist. --ceyockey 20:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC) It used to be that "new" additions of wp templates were updated on Sunday morning, adding the content for the first time, but I think pulling updated content was generally manual.--Amelia 00:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Dallan confirmed that updating is a manual process and asked if we wanted him to do it. I said yes, assuming that was the intent behind this posting. I assume that some templates will break again, but it appears to be the only way to get updates.--DataAnalyst 01:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC) "A manual process" ... does that mean that the bot just needs to be started manually? Would it be possible for Dallan to invest some others in the community to be able to trigger the bot so that it is not dependent upon him alone? By the way - I'm not very concerned with wikipedia content pull being out of date; such content is a nice to have here rather than an essential. In fact, I'm of the opinion that a link should be sufficient; however, the licensing model of Wikipedia is definitely compatible with the bot-based replication. --ceyockey 03:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] Disappearing uploaded GEDCOM? [25 March 2019]Okay, twice yesterday I uploaded the same small GEDCOM (~85 people) for review. And both times, it appeared on the "GEDCOM Review" list, just as it should -- and then, an hour or two later, it simply disappeared off the list, never to be seen again. So I uploaded a different GEDCOM. Same thing. Anyone have any idea what's going on? --MikeTalk 10:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Endogamous Common Ancestors [27 March 2019]I would be interested in hearing about this subject. Perhaps you already know it, but it is labeled differently. Here is a short text presenting it. Endogamous Common Ancestors A complement to Most Recent Common Ancestor Endogamous Common Ancestors are groups of people in which loose endogamy is common over long periods. Loose endogamy is less visible than strict endogamy (e.g. marrying a direct cousin). It was certainly common practice in regions where strict endogamy was prohibited. One major factor was distance. Most people were living at throwing distance from their place of birth and moved further only when obliged to. There were people leaving or joining a group on a regular basis, but most marriages were among in-group members. This situation fits a significant part of human history. That is how DNA companies identify groups (e.g. migrants communities). But it is also possible to identify it in genealogies. Collaborating allows to develop genealogies of places, including sub-groups. This concept is especially useful at the crossroad of genealogy and genetics. In genealogy, one finds a Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) with somebody else if both made their homework. It works well for the first generations. In genetics, one is connected to unknown people, sometimes living at the opposite side of the world. Finding MRCA with these people is always tedious and often unsuccessful. If people could exchange Endogamous Common Ancestors (ECA), it would make further research much easier. For instance, I have two groups of ECA from different regions (there might be others).--Jpictet 10:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] Looking for famous (?) people [16 May 2019]I was looking for the formal way of linking Queen Victoria to the parish of Crathie and Braemar, where Balmoral Castle is located. In "Search" I entered Victoria under First Name and gave the Keyword "queen". Finally found her at #17 on the list! So much for the importance of Keywords. By the way, Queen Victoria (1819-1901) was never Queen of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom didn't exist until 1927. --Goldenoldie 14:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I was looking for a method to bring the result up higher in the search results listing and found that searching 'all' with the title value "Queen Victoria" returned no results, even when unrestrictive using the 'partial' parameter. This doesn't seem right ... or is it to be expected? --ceyockey 03:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Search All [16 May 2019]This is what I see (using Firefox). However, if I start on a different search, then use the namespace dropdown, this is what I see - very different, but likely what you see: --ceyockey 01:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Slo-o-o-w connection today [27 June 2019]WeRelate is remarkably slow in changing pages today. --Goldenoldie 18:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC) It is running quite OK for me at this hour 11:49 PM Eastern Standard Time (US) on the 27th. --ceyockey 03:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] "source: Domesday Book (1985) p xx" [3 July 2019]In numerous place-pages for English villages and towns, the Alt Names field gives old names for the place followed by the reference
All sources agree that the Domesday Book was originally published in 1086. The date of 1985 refers to a popular edition published in that year (I think our household has a copy somewhere.) Shouldn't we alter our reference to "source: Domesday Book (ed. 1985) p xx"? Could this be done by revising a single reference somewhere in our database? I have looked under Sources and Templates and found nothing. --Goldenoldie 05:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Aren't you supposed to cite what you're looking at? Seems unlikely that many people have access to the edition from hundreds of years ago.--Tfmorris 06:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) It's online: https://opendomesday.org/ --Goldenoldie 06:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC) The present reference to the source infers that the original was published in 1985, but that was not the first edition. Editions can vary, transcriptions can have errors, particularly over centuries. --Goldenoldie 06:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Inquiry about GeoHack [28 August 2019]I've put an inquiry over at Wikimedia GeoHack about whether the underlying code can be used outside the Wikimedia house. See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:GeoHack#Use_outside_the_Wikimedia_house . Have others inquired about this in the past? --ceyockey 01:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] RootsFinder [21 October 2019]I did login and create a minimum tree based on information for my father and his parents in RootsFinder. The site is very responsive and pretty intuitive. The cross-reference lookup against WeRelate is essentially instantaneous. I haven't taken a look at adding non-core information (birth, death, parentage) yet, but there is a detailed interface for doing this. For those having problems with FTE, having a skeleton representation in RootsFinder might be a reasonable solution as it would present a navigational interface back into WeRelate. Just a thought, and I'm not familiar with the details of Gedcom export and import, so not sure how easy it would be to export a skeleton Gedcom and import it into RootsFinder. Thought I'd share my observations. --ceyockey 23:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC) ceyockey said "The cross-reference lookup against WeRelate is essentially instantaneous.". I created an account on RootsFinder and imported some data from FamilySearch that is also already in WeRelate. I don't see this "cross-reference" you refer to; where is it?--fbax.ca 21:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Problems with accessing Sources [20 October 2019]For the last week, off and on, I've had problems accessing sources. Today, I keep getting the error message There was an error processing your search, or the search server is down; please try a different search or try again later.. Is there some way this can be fixed? Thanks, Gayel--GayelKnott 16:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Me, too.--Goldenoldie 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Is anybody working on fixing this problem? --Susan Irish 03:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Hi The search server has gone done at least twice lately and Dallan restarted it both times (after some delay). He is aware of the problem and trying to figure out what's causing it. It is up right now. --DataAnalyst 23:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Duplicate entries [27 November 2019]Person:More II, Thomas (1) and Person:Thomas More (14) appear to be the same person. Would someone merge these records, please. I tried, but Person:More II, Thomas (1) did not come up as a match for Person:Thomas More (14). [5 minutes later] Just found that Person:Mary Scrope (1) and Person:Mary Scrope (3), wife/wives of Thomas is also duplicated. Thanks. --Goldenoldie 14:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC) These have been merged. Have a great Thanksgiving:) Delijim 27 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks, but it's not Thanksgiving here. We have to wait another month for turkey. /cheers from England. --Goldenoldie 20:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] Strange source-naming error [29 December 2019]I was creating a few new census sources this morning, preparatory to uploading a new GEDCOM that's going to require them. Doing the 1900 census for Norfolk, Virginia (i.e., "Norfolk (City)"), the system insisted on naming it for Suffolk County. I back-clicked and re-did the source and got the same wrong attribution. I finally just renamed the final result But then it did the same thing when I created the 1910 census source for Norfolk. I can't even imagine what could cause this, unless it's some kind of weird linkage in the Places database. Anyone else have an experience like this? --MikeTalk 14:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC) I've sometimes wondered why we need so many sources - a new source for each census district?
Why doesn't everyone use the first one with State and County in either the "Record name" or "Volume / Pages" field? Apparently I've used both of these fields: Person:Mary Sullivan and Person:Hazel Stevens. This applies to all census in all countries (USA, UK, Canada, etc); I just used these as an examples.--fbax.ca 22:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
|