(Copied early in April 2007.)

(In progress is a process of reducing this, where part or all of an item can be individually moved or copied to other existing or new pages that deal with the subject-matter and can be more usefully categorised; meantime, see Forum:Index, because some of those may end up in a forum.)

For the page history of what is now here, see

Creating entries[]

See Help:Contents and Genealogy:People Template.

Mailing list[]

The mailing list for this Wiki is Genealogy-l and is at: iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:19, 7 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Now at Please, all join - it will not clog your inbox unless it gets a hundredfold increase in activity; but it is the only easy way to get essential info to all interested users. Robin Patterson 13:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Babel templates, showing languages understood by contributors[]

Some of us have coloured boxes on our User pages indicating which languages we have any working knowledge of. See Genealogy:Babel templates and its discussion page.

List of contributors[]

Dealing with spam[]

Most of our responsible contributors look at the list of Recent Changes. Spam is removed when seen. And, as noted in a recent message from Angela, it should then be reported at Robin Patterson 00:33, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Please login whenever practicable, because that makes less work for those of us who check the recent changes for spam. Robin Patterson 22:58, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Our very own Wikia Tour[]

Do a brief guided tour as part of the Wikia tour system. Then you can suggest pages that we should add to it. --Robin Patterson 06:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

GEDCOM conversion[]

Weary of manually converting my html pages into pages for this site, I have taken an easier, if somewhat less elegant solution of writing a program. ... (see Genealogy:Watercooler/Archive 2 ) ... Yewenyi 11:01, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

(See Help:Loading Gedcoms)

Multipurpose names, such as "Adam"[]

(see Genealogy:Watercooler/Archive 2 )

See (and please continue discussion on) separate new page Genealogy talk:page names. Robin Patterson 00:27, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A better way?[]

An extensive discussion of ways to simplify data input was carried out by various parties beginning in January of 2006. Ultimately this led to the creation of a "Create a Page" link on the sidebar that takes people to a page where they can select from various templates for the creation of "People Articles". To simplify the watercooler (getting hard to see the trees for the forest) most of that discussion has been transferred to a subpage .

(see also Genealogy:Watercooler/Archive 2 )


(This discussion has been largely moved to Talk:WYSIWYG; its version here has been trimmed.)

During recent weeks I've had several different users, ... all reasonably computer literate, testing out the Genealogy Wiki through the Wigton Walker Portal. ... several of the testers commented that it required a great deal of effort to get up to speed, so that the system could be used effectively. One tester commented that it was like "Looking down a rabbit hole" by which she meant that the Wikia system is definitely not WYSIWYG---and that requirement for WYSIWYG is, I think, a common denominator among potential users. The editing bar would seem to be a great improvement, but the formating needs to be made much more transparent to meet the average users needs. This unfullfilled requirement may explain the low "residence time" for people using the site---most registered users leave within a day of trying out the site. Bill 12:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

We're working on it! (Bill and I write long emails to one another.) But the WYSIWYG era is over: now you have to ask if you want to be sure WYSIWYG ... This site may be initially too simple for some people!!! Just click on "Edit", then type, then click "Save". ... Robin Patterson 07:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
WYSIWYG might not be so easy to set up but what about having a forms based option? I think most people can fill out forms ok. I don't have a problem with the current set up, but seeing as I remember my early days of not being computer savvy I can very easily understand how this set up would be just too complicated for some. For those not sure what I'm suggesting, think of the logon screen. Bigger, all the options you could possible want, set up to hide empty fields at 'Save page' and for empty fields to reappear when 'edit' is chosen. BTW, I can't actually do this myself. I know how to create forms on web pages, but the next bit, have the form itself disappear when save is clicked on is way beyond me. Jayoval 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayoval...Actually, that's pretty much what I did have in mind. A series of small forms that could be called up basedon the layout in the "Vita box" and "child list" set ups. Possibly combined with GEDCOM terminology to facilitate GEDCOM imports. (we already have a GEDCOM import package, but frankly, I haven't figured out how to use it. (Since I gave up on GEDCOM's longago, I don't really have a lot of motivation there---but most folks do have GEDCOM's so eventually, that facility needs to work with what I have in mind---hence using the GEDCOM tags.) But first things first...the problem is not how to set the data up---the problem is making it compatible with this Wiki---the underlying programming does not support forms, which means that you'd have to write an extension to make that work. Which means I need to spend some quality time with the undelrying programming, pick up on the nuances of PHP, and figure out how to get the extension into the program that powers the site. That will take a bit of time. Fortunately, I expect I will have the time shortly....but unless I'm very lucky, haveing even a trial program in place is probably 6 months off.
So yes, I think what you are suggesting is pretty much the way to go. There have been other suggestions, but I'm inclined to go the Forms route. Bill 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Cool. I just hadn't seen it mentioned (not that I've searched all these discussions thoroughly) so I thought I'd make the suggestion. It sounds like a big job. I definitely can't help with it! Have fun. Jayoval 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Places template[]

(Mostly moved to Archive 2)

Please visit my User page for a proposal for a town and city template ("Genealogy:Place")... Nhprman 05:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Now (since 5 months ago actually) we have Genealogy:Place Template, so please go there, improve it, and use its talk page ad lib. Robin Patterson 06:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Now that several contributors have touched on aspects of disambiguation, it's great that one of the new ones has made a positive move to deal with it. Please see Template talk:Disambiguation and let's carry on that discussion there. Robin Patterson 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for deletion?[]

Oops, I tried to use the Template:delete to request an incorrect category name and I found out it doesn't exist on this wiki. Is there another method in place yet to do that? — MrDolomite | Talk 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For a wrong category, a better solution than deleting is to use the "category redirect", in case another person creates the wrong category again. See Template:category redirect. Robin Patterson 06:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Special Page: Category[]

(See project talk:categories.

Test Portal[]

I've created a Test Portal designed to provide guidance for people coming to the site, and trying to figure out how it works. I've included, in addition to a welcome message, items dealing with:

  • Finding Things on the Wiki
  • Editing Articles
  • Creating Articles
  • Login and Registration
  • Other Things You'd Like to Know

..... Bill 12:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

See Genealogy talk:Community Portal/Draft updates

LostCousins - another freebie[] is offering all of its services free this weekend. See detail on its page. Robin Patterson 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Some Useful Things[]

Over the past several months I've been working to develop some standardized formats for use in creating "person articles". These are mostly based on HTML layouts that can be readily adapted to a variety of contexts. This effort is directed toward a long term goal of making data entry a bit simpler, with less duplicaiton. That will eventually require the use of PHP programming extensions written specifically for this web site. That effort will require a certain degree of standardization so that the program can recognize information like YOB, and transfer it to other pages where it might be needed, such as an entry on a child's page identifying their parents name. The current effort is useful by itself, but is intended more as an exploration of how things might be laid out to facilitate the PHP programming effort.

In this area a number of items have been created that can be used as templates. These include

  • a) a family tree layout to show Ancestral relations quickly
  • b) a "Vita Box", providing basic vital statistics for the person
  • c) a child list that provides basic information about the children of a marriage, including DOB, POB, Spouse, etc.

Other items being worked on include a) Templates for US Census data entry b) a Timeline construct that allows you to place information about a couple in its historical context. (The focus here is on US history, but the basic timeline could be used for other geographies

These templates are "a work in progress" (isn't all genealogy?). They can be examined, in whatever state they are in, on subpages of my user page, but I will be adding links to specific examples over the next few days.Bill 12:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like good work! My only concern/input would be to keep in mind the strengths and requirements of a Wiki format (cross-linking; categorization; and so on) and make sure that any automation takes advantage of and build on them, etc. I haven't been able to contribute much lately, but one of my original priorities in helping set this site up was that our formats and standards don't become too tied to one type of family structure or genealogical thinking or study. For example, in the Middle East and Arab or Muslim world, a "shajra" is often identified by a simple "x son of y son of ..." (like in the Bible) and I wanted pages on people from that part of the world to actually have that kind of list--or at least the possibility of including that kind of format. It would help capture the information that we don't have formally included in Genealogical databases today. And there's masses of it out there.
--IFaqeer 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Good to see you contributing when you have time, IFaqeer! (Now what about that revered grandfather of yours - any chance of having him on site?) Back to main subject: I think Bill's doing a great job adding to the layout and entry options (and he said "there's no reason someone has to use the same template all the time") while I keep the categories working and encourage linking. Robin Patterson 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the things that's a real advantage with the Genealogy Wiki (as opposed, say to the approach taken by Rodovid) is the fexibility this format permits. Not everyone has the same genealogy interests, and concerns. Things that I find essential, many others find irrelevant. Things I find un-needful, are absolutely essential to others. Hence, having an environment where you can pretty much do what you will (within reason, of course) is very useful. I might also add that every article has its own needs and drivers---its a pleasure to be able to create different articles in ways that actually meet the needs of the particular subject at hand, rather than conforming to someone else' organizational ideas.
The components that I'm developing may never be of much use to anyone but me, or other's might find them handy. Still, they are components that can be mixed and matched to meet the particular need at hand of a particular article. They are also evolving. Eventually, I may try for a program component that could be triggered that would allow cross connectivity between articles. That doesn't necessarily mean that it would be something that would be mandatory for all users....rather something that could be used if one chose to avail themself of the capability.Bill 00:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vita Box[]

Here's the layout for a Vita Box that could be used to record basic Genealogical information about a person. Note that the individual cells will (of course) expand to accomodate the information inserted---ie the sizes shown here are not necessarily what you'd get if you filled in the information. The "Commentary" box is intended to provide information about the source used for the particular datum. This is a particular interest of mine---ie, explaining how you "know what you know". One of th main criticisms that can be leveled at genealogists is that they tend to say "This is so" without being able to explain why they think "this is so". As a result, much of the genealogy we find in places like Ancestry is wrong at worst, and unreliable at best. Highlighting this in the Vita Box, is intended to serve as a reminder that you need to explain how you know something. A criticism that I have of Ancestry and most genealogy programs I've seen is that they generally fail to emphasize this need for sources. Standing down from soap-box.Bill 02:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Bill 01:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Here's a box layout for a child list. It's set up for five children by a single spouse, but additional children (or fewer) can be added easily enough, and separate tables could be made for different spouses. Again, the cells expand dynamically to provide however much space is required.


Can be done largely with wiki table syntax, which has the same structure but shorter "tags".

See Help:Child lists and Template talk:Pretty newprogressive.

Families - categories or namespace?[] now has a special "Family" namespace. I'm not sure how it relates to other namespaces but it seems to have at least some potential for automation. We could do that too. Or we could use categories. Either way could be susceptible to some of the programming automation that Bill and others are hoping will develop here. Any thoughts? Robin Patterson 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

HI Robin, Thanks for poiinting this out. Hadn't run across WeRelate previously. There's a certain similarity here with the way Rodovid handles user input---that is, they use html forms to accept data. I've not seen that on this wiki, and suspect that's a feature that has not been enabled on Wikia---I'm sure forms are running in the background to accept information like this message, but I suspect we can't create pages with forms per se.Bill 13:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible merge with WeRelate is being discussed at [1].-- 10:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone know which is the policy regarding Centuries? For example, in Wikipedia Spanish Siglo XX (20th Century) is used. Which should be the format here, both, in Spanish and in English. Thanks--Tasc 17:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

See Category:20th century. Maybe we can use category:Siglo XX as well, with links from one to the other. Robin Patterson 19:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

.....(For most of this conversation and follow-up, see project:Languages. Robin Patterson 10:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Time for enticing some experts in from Central Wikia?[]

With our recent activity, which has shown some of you how ignorant I am about some technical matters such as footnotes and text boxes, I propose that we add ourselves to the list of potential candidates for "Collaboration of the month" on Central Wikia so as to get a bit of a look from keen Wikians who may happen to know how to do some of the things Bill and I want done ...

I'd be happy with one who came armed with a working knowledge of PHP and developing extensions. Bill 00:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(See Genealogy:Collaboration of the month for continuation.)

Walker Data Port[]

When I first started working on the Wiki I indicated to Robin that one of the things I had in mind was creating a data port collecting information/records for use in collaborative research efforts. We've done a little of that kind of thing, incorporating information into person articles, but so far we've been more involved in entering basic information, and figuring out what works best in the way of article organization, and identifying areas where we needed to improve functionality.

Within the last month or so information has come together in an off-wiki context, where folks are trying to piece together from scattered data sets information needed to solve some critical problems in Wigton Walker genealogy. I've been inserting some of that into the wiki as we went along, but some have observed that we need a more formal strucuture for this kind of, an obvious single place that we can go and dump data to fuel our mutual collaboration.---somewhere other than person articles.

What I have in mind is setting up a "Walker Data Port" to collect records (non-lineage information) about persons whose surname was Walker. Since this is being driven primarily by Wigton Walker researchers, and to some extent by WalkerShortList researchers, the focus at the moment is likely to be fairly narrow, but I'm looking at structures that are expandable (scalable in computer geek terms) so that a wider focus is possible, given interest.

Right now, the organization I'm looking at is:

  • Surname
    • Geography
      • Data Category

Bill 00:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Own logo?[]

Hi all, I've just stopped by and found some very committed users on this wiki :-)

So I've looked around a bit. There's already much very good content, but aaaaaah, still Wikia's default logo ;-) Have you ever thought about creating an own logo for the project? Above are some quick'n'dirty attempts. Please regard them as minimal creative input for such a discussion only, not as final versions. Any ideas? Other motifs, colours, else? --rieke 19:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: After the above entry, I've found Garrett's suggestion on Talk:Main Page from 2005. See the "Wikipedia tree" on the right. --rieke 20:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Reike. I'm assuming you are looking at this Wiki as part of the collaboration effort....either way, we welcome your input.
On the logo, Yes, that's been considered---but we have a whole shopping list of problems that need attention. I agree, it would be good to have a more distinctive logo. I'm sure its easily changed. You've noticed the Celtic circle, since you added a better description in the image file---That's been used on several pages related to site administration---its a potential candidate for use as a logo. Its main advantages are (not necessarily in order):
  • a) it's colorful,
  • b) it's free,
  • c) it's reasonably appropriate given the founder's perspective on what this site is about, and
  • d) it's distinctive.
It may be that this or another logo yet to be suggested will eventually be substituted for the Wikia logo. This is something that I recognized early on, but given the many other needs more fundamental, it's not something I've pushed to have changed. Right now I'm filling in blanks, and adjusting things to make them work better, but the real need is improvement in basic functionality of this wiki. ... [User:WMWillis|Bill]] 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

..... (For Bill's expansion of that sentence, see Genealogy talk:Collaboration of the month)

I'm going to propose that we do in fact adopt a site specific logo rather than continue to use the Wikia logo. The ones Reike proposed are fine, but I think we could use something a bit more colorful and distinctive. I've used the Sasha Kopf's Celtic knot (from Wikipedia) on several administrative pages. Its a tad larger than the current logo, but it should be easy to cut it down to a slightly smaller version.

Celtic Knot

Comments? Bill 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


(This December 2006 contribution, about using pages as templates with {{:article name}}, has been moved to Help:Child lists.)

Surname Database[]

An anonymous contributor has placed a link to a site at on the Fmaily names page

The site provides a brief thumbnail description for surnames

This might be useful, except that the site apparently is far from complete---I tried a dozen different surnames (fairly common ones), and got no hits. They do provide an index to the surnames they list, though most of the names seem to be uncommon. The site looks to be primarily intended as an ad site. There's some legitimacy for directing people there from the surname page...though the site does not look extensive enough to be of great value---perhaps it's growing.

At any rate, this reminds me that we might want to consider requiring folks to register in order to edit a page. That's not the way the Wikipedia handles it, but given the nature of what we are doing, knowing who makes modifications to an article would be part of the documentation for "how we know what we know". I've always thought in genealogy you should be an identifiable person---ie, not just a numerical code, or a "handle". This comes up here because the person adding the link did so anonymously. Hard to contact them to see what's going on with the site if it's left anonymous.

The purpose of the site is explained at I suspect it was the operator of the site who placed the link here, and the primary motivation was to increase hits on their site. i suppose the information provided is reasonable enough to justify the link, ---but you will have to be lucky to get a surname to match up.

Bill 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the site. Interesting information about my surname and probably about others (of which there seem to be thousands). At the bottom of the info they link to, which I have seen before and which also seems interesting. It explains how it is "different": - I think they underrate GenCircles and possibly overstate themselves; but on their scale we would be somewhere between "better" and "best"!
No harm in having that sort of link added, in one line with no hype. And until we get flooded with them I'm not concerned about requiring people to register. We can more easily find where they come from if they don't register!
Robin Patterson 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Geographical coordinates[]

I've successfully copied a page from Wikipedia along with the templates that give the latitude and longitude in degrees amd minutes. See If anyone else is copying any Wikipedia place article, make sure you copy the corresponding part, because it will probably come out right. Tell me if it doesn't. Robin Patterson 01:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Will give that a try. Looks useful. Bill 02:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Took a shot at replacing the Wikia logo with something specific to this Wiki. Let me know if we need to do something different Bill 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


I See Dead People's Signatures ??? - no, actually, this is the link to the Wikia Guestbook where signatures are located. Is this something which can be modified for use here? Zephyrinus 12:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea, but given the nature of the world, we probably don't want to do something like that. To be a bit more precise, on a site whose focus in family history, meaning it focuses to a great extent on who you are, providing people with a copy of your signature is probably a very bad idea. Probably OK elsewhere, but not here. Bill 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No sign (no pun intended) of handwritten signatures. Did you look at it, Bill? No risk that I can see. But I'm probably a bit too busy here, and you certainly are!! Robin Patterson 12:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I checked it, but didn't find it either. I presume it's there somewhere. I think my reservations on this a coupled with the the idea that we should probably avoid articles about living people, and concerns with potential identity theft. When passwords are used to secure information, one of the common (albeit poor) practices is to use something like your mother's maiden name. People often use grandchildren's names in their passwords. Or their wife's maiden name. Etc. So on a site that might potentially show lots of peoples family relations, do we really want to start adding that other component of peoples security, their signature, to the site. Probably a minor concern, and ultimately those not concerned with things like this could do it anyway. I'm just a bit uncomfortable about fostering something like this on this particular site. Bill 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I was mainly thinking of, say, Thomas Jefferson or John Hancock. But after actually looking at the Wikia, it appears that "signatures" is WAY beyond the scope of that Wikia. The background wallpaper was a miscue for me. Sorry for bothering the community on this issue. Chagrined, Zephyrinus 18:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A rose is a rose[]

One of our new users, Zepherincus, is interested in setting up a special project area for cemetery transcriptions. Which, I think, makes perfect sense on this wiki, and is something I support. Zepherincus is also interested in animal cemeteries, and related to that has placed an article on the wiki (Rose (?-2002)) dealing with a favorite horse that died a few years ago. I think we need to consider whether this is the appropriate place for this kind of article. It sounds to me, in contrast to the cemetery transcription project, to be something that really belongs in its own wiki. While a cemetery transciption project seems like a perfectly logical thing for this wiki, I don't know that I feel the same way about a pet cemetery transciption project. And I have to admit that I think comingling articles about pets with articles about parents and ancestors is inappropriate. Not that I don't think there's a place for both in the wikia world. I just don't think there's a place for both in the same wiki.---except if that wiki is set up as a cemetery transcription wiki and its clear that both data sets are included from the beginning. Bill 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Human cemeteries and their tombstone transcriptions fit perfectly well in here. I think we had some before Mr Z arrived. Pets, on the other hand, can be tolerated as a sideline, I think, because they are "family" to some "owners" - though I won't be encouraging the idea too much. I did suggest that all pet pages have a "Pet:" prefix; maybe Rose wasn't exactly a pet. Robin Patterson 12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Pets would be a better place for that, although a few here and there wouldn't hurt anyone. Interwiki links would be best, I think.
I LIKE the idea of tracking Cemeteries. That should be a Namespace that we make lots of use of. Chadlupkes 13:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The Pets Wikia is a great idea. I hadn't thought of that. I would, however, like to list all cemeteries in one place (here) and link to the Pets Wikia for the actual listing of the graves in the pet cemetery.
That being said, we still need a Pets category. Some pets are buried alongside of there human companions. See Bellevue Township Cemetery, Bellevue Township, Eaton County, Michigan, USA (grave 29, if memory serves) as an example. Even Rose's grave was a Roadside memorial - one of potentially many which could exist for that entire county in Kansas.
That being said, we need not create a individual article/page for each pet (as I did in Rose's case) as we do for each person. I created a separate page for Rose for discussion purposes and because I thought it might be a special case - I didn't know if the Tribute would properly "fit" on the Roadside Memorial page.
Please note, as Chadlupkes hinted, this discussion is a bit esoteric: To the best of my memory, I have no pets in my database. At the very least, this isn't an urgent matter.
I believe you did indicate somewhere that you were interested in pet cemeteries. I assumed the "Rose" article was in that context. Perhaps what you are really looking for is a Memorial type page. In that vein there is also a Memorial Wiki out-there somewhere. Don't know if its gotten very far, but I know it exists. Perhaps not in the Wikia community. There is at least one memorial article on this wiki (for a human being, I might add. I also know that there's a great deal of interest in "roadside memorials" in the United States---usually they are for people who have died in automobile accidents, but some are quite elaborate. I can see a wiki specific to that particular interest. If pets, animals, tributes are to become part of this wiki to any extent, then I like the idea of using the prefix to create their own space within the Wiki. The draft of the "Main Page" that I'm working on, off and on, includes a "Special Projects" area, leading to what are in effects Portals similar to those used on Wikipedia. I haven't pursued setting things up as true portals, but that may be something whose time has come. So perhaps we could have a "Faithful Companions Portal" to capture those pages. Bill 16:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, Zephyrinus 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we get a link to Google Maps to show the location of each cemetery? I wonder if there is a resource like that out there somewhere already. Chadlupkes 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be very helpful. To be useful, people need to be able to see where the cemetery is. Long's and Lat's could help too. A picture of the cemetery entrance would be good as well, but the map is highly needful. If you look at Talk:West Liberty Cemetery, Ohio County, West Virginia, USA I've made some formating suggestions---they may or may not work for Zyphr... but show how something like this could be laid out.
This example was set up as a table (relatively easy to do for me, but Robin though has a differnt preferred approach on tables that might be easier to use for others---the coding is certainly cleaner looking.) In the sketched in layout that I made, several "cells" are left empty and unshown at the right. That area would be an excellent place for either a map or photograph. A bit more tricky for the coding, but this could be done. Bill 16:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Rats. >>I have no pets in my database<< SHOULD have been >I have no MORE pets in my database< I am finished, done - to the best of my memory. The Tribute need not be in a different namespace; just the talk page should be sufficient, right? Things like "special projects" and "namespaces" all sound far, far too complicated. Let's keep the barrier to entry low.
GPS and maps are additions which we hope to add later. We've only just begun! I'm still trying to work out how on earth I'm going to upload 1000 photographs without spending 5 hours to do it. Anyone who knows how to do things like multiple upload of photos, etc, tips and tricks, please let me know on my user page. Thanks - Zephyrinus 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As you wish. Namespace designation is something that's not entirely obvious, but is built into the wiki. You use it whether you know it or not. As to special projects: that's not a distinct "namespace". The main purpose of the wiki is to add articles about ancestors. Some people have different objectives. SOme, for example, are adding articles about the monarchs of England, presidents of the United States, etc. One person has an interest in Sufi chains of initiation, and wishes to set up articles about those chains. We have more or less arbitrarily called these efforts "special projects". They are a coherent set of articles, with some bearing on genealogy, and are appropriate on this wiki. They key idea is that there is an organizing principle underlying their placement no this wiki---that organizing principle is often something different family relations. Your cemetery transcription project is by definition a "special project". The articles you are creating have something to do with genealogy, but they are not people articles, and the organizing principle is something other than a family relation. For your purposes, the designation is meaningless. However, you will eventually find that there is a need to provide a gateway to your work. People may stumble over it by accident, but without some architectural underpinnings, its going to be difficult for most people to find what you've done. Bill 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied the Tribute to Rose to Roadside Memorials, Wabaunsee County, Kansas, USA. The page on Rose can, I suppose, be deleted whenever it is felt this watercooler discussion has concluded. Zephyrinus 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Has it? But don't worry. I think I understand where you're coming from and will act accordingly. Bill 04:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Help:Living people[]

Further up on this page, Bill suggests we we should probably avoid articles about living people, and concerns with potential identity theft. ... I think that is really an important principle. I found it difficult to navigate to help on this topic as to how to show them or to follow up on that principle. There is mention on the main help page with a link to the Privacy principle page. I have started a page Help:Living people. Please edit, in particular refining how I have suggested showing living people, ie "Living Bloggs (YOB-living)", where Bloggs is the surname in question. --Golden Wattle 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Golden---The current main page is something of a grandfather'd item left over from when the site was first started. Over time some of the ideas contained there have thrived, and others have gone by the wayside. As I'm sure you know wiki's that succeed can get big and complicated in a hurry, and navigation can be an issue. There's been a sense for some time that a replacement was needed for the Main Page, and there are some things being worked in the background. We're not (or at least I'm not) satisfied with what we've got nopw, but when we've got something ready it should improve the navigation/help side of the equation. The goal is to keep things simple, and obvious. Little clutter, less webbish. Most of us are learning as we go. 00:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Did the favicon change for people? It hasn't for me. I've uploaded one based on Bill's Celtic Knot, but it's not working in my browser. Before I summon assistance, I just wonder if it's me or something Wikia-wide. Thanks. Zephyrinus 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

After doing a clearing all caches and doing a hard restart, the favicon now appears in my browser. Zephyrinus 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)