WeRelate talk:Watercooler

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

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

If you don't want to leave comments on this page, you can email them to [email protected].

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

Old topics have been archived: 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2024

Opportunity to help with will transcription [31 January 2025]

A project to transcribe wills of England 1540-1790 is looking for volunteers. It looks like a lot of the work is to check computer-generated transcriptions. If you are interested, check it out. The sponsors (University of Exeter, The National Archives, and the Leverhulme Trust) intend to make the transcriptions available to the public (and "all contributors will be acknowledged"). They currently have almost 17,000 volunteers, and consider the project to be 81% complete, although most of the work done to date is on later (and thus, easier to read) wills.--DataAnalyst 15:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. Unfortunately, my eyes are getting pretty old and I don't feel I could tackle early handwriting or typescript. --Goldenoldie 16:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Indexer is temporarily shut off [23 February 2025]

Dallan is researching a recurring performance issue over the last several days. To help in the investigation, he has temporarily shut down the indexer. For now, please don't report problems with pages not being indexed and searches for recently created pages not showing results - this is expected.--DataAnalyst 12:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The search issues have finally been resolved and indexing is back on. Someone created a bot that issued searches from dozens of different IP addresses as fast as possible. They would turn it on periodically and when they did it would take down search for everyone else. I've blocked their IP addresses and things are much better. If this happens again I know what to look for now and should be able to resolve it much more quickly. Thank you for everyone's patience the past few days.--Dallan 19:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

February access issues [4 March 2025]

Very much wondering about whether there is some indication as to root cause for access issues (504 errors) encountered in mid- to late-February 2025. Thoughts?? --ceyockey 04:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

See the above post from Dallan. Dallan shared instructions with me for how to block future bots, so if I'm home, I should be able to deal with the problem in a reasonably timely manner when it happens in the future.--DataAnalyst 12:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying by referral. --ceyockey 05:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Manually archiving -- >500 so far [4 March 2025]

Hello. After the access issues that struck the site recently, I've committed to archiving many people and families with surnames of interest to me, starting with "Yockey" surnamed-person pages. I've so far manually archived or confirmed 500 individuals, dropping copies off to both archive.org and archive.is. In Firefox, my browser of choice, there are plugins/extensions for both of these sites, which helps streamline the work, though it is still a slog :-). I do encourage others to take similar steps with their core families ... not as a panic, but as a backstop against any future issues, be they transient or long term. Regards --ceyockey 05:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Site not working again [18 March 2025]

504 Gateway Time-Out--Susan Irish 08:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The search server was down. I have restarted it and will keep an eye on it.--DataAnalyst 11:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Getting "Search is temporarily unavilable" for the last twelve hours. Server issue?--jaques1724 11:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The site is still experiencing problems and Dallan's investigations have not yet nailed down the problem. He turned search off so that the site can still operate in a limited way (if you already have a link to a page, such as in your recent contributions, you can still make some edits). Search may be up and down for several days as he tries to find the root cause.--DataAnalyst 17:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, I am trying to fix all pages that have imbalanced parentheses, brackets, or braces in the person name or place name (such as "(" without matching ")"), as we know that the bots create invalid queries from these pages, and there is a possibility that these invalid queries are part of the problem. There are about 550 pages left to fix. If anyone wants to help, let me know and I will post links.--DataAnalyst 17:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate your efforts Dallan and Jane. Thx R woepwoep 19:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Search has been turned back on, without the ability to sort search results. Dallan is monitoring the site to see what problems might arise. System availability might be sporadic for a while.--DataAnalyst 16:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The ability to sort search results has been turned back on. We're still having problems with bots hammering the system too hard, and thus, Dallan has restricted searching so that you have to be logged in to search.--DataAnalyst 15:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have information on how frequently and consistently Google (for instance) indexes the site so that Google-related search indices can be used as an external workaround for internal search? Thanks for considering this. --ceyockey 03:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Based on their traffic, I'd guess daily.

I'm working on Help pages and just discovered this feature I wasn't aware of: If you select the Admin menu at the top of the page and then Browse Pages under it and select a namespace, it allows you to browse through pages by page name. So if you are pretty sure that the page you are looking for is called Joseph Josselyn, you should be able to find it fairly quickly - if it ends up it was called Joe Josselyn, you would have to specifically look for that version. Capitalization matters.--DataAnalyst 12:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

A different take on pedigrees ... I think [26 March 2025]

Let me know if you've heard this before ... I've created a modified pedigree nomenclature that aims to support cross-family relationships and investigative extensions to existing families. I've collated this information at User:Ceyockey/Pedigrees. Would be useful if you let me know if this is something that has already been covered in detail via other means. This inquiry is one of exploration ... I've posed a solution to a problem and seek the best solution to that problem by comparison in relation to your more extensive experience. Thanks. --ceyockey 03:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Changes to cross-reference templates [27 March 2025]

If you use any of the templates FSID, WTID, Wikidata, or AFN, please note that they were recently changed so that, when used with a single parameter, they automatically identify the site they reference. The intent is that this is how the templates will be used in a "Reference Number" fact. For an example, see Neva Ackerman.

When using these templates in a source citation (where the referenced site is identified in the title field), you are advised to use two parameters, the second being the text to display for the link. When used with two parameters, the template doesn't display the label. Please see the template documentation (click on any of the above links) for further information.

Existing usage of these templates has been updated to conform to the new design, with the exception of several thousand usages of FSID in source citations, which will be updated gradually over the next few months.

Note also a minor software change to no longer display the small red question mark on a Reference Number without a source citation, since the reference number is essentially a link to its own source.

If you have any questions about this, just ask.--DataAnalyst 02:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Removal of Soc Sec No and Ancestral File Number fact types [29 March 2025]

In keeping with WeRelate's revised conventions for facts and events, WeRelate will be removing Soc Sec No from the list of fact types (it represents a source, not a significant fact or event in a person's life). Existing Soc Sec No facts with a Place will be changed to Residence facts, and existing facts without a Place will be removed. A limited amount of manual cleanup is occurring before this change is made.

The Ancestral File Number fact type will also be dropped, and existing records changed to Reference Number facts, using the AFN template. (Note that the Ancestral File has been deprecated by FamilySearch.)

The GEDCOM upload will be changed accordingly.

If you have any questions or concern, please post them here.--DataAnalyst 14:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Cloudflare to combat bot attacks [11 May 2025]

I've moved the site behind Cloudflare in order to combat the bot attacks. Things appear to be much better; cloudflare is blocking most of the bot traffic. It means you may get challenged every once in a while to prove you are a human. Hopefully this finally resolves the bot issues.--Dallan 15:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I had an unintended "nothing" day yesterday.

I have just finished updating the place pages for Boston Rural District and expect to see the "Wikipedia" quotes added soon. I hope I have picked up all of WP's mistakes!

Regards, --Goldenoldie 16:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for finding us a solution, Dallan. So glad to have performance back to what it should be! This will save us both a lot of headaches constantly fighting the bots.--DataAnalyst 16:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of Color in Footnotes? [26 July 2025]

In my work I use a lot of footnotes. I'm in the process of transferring some of my product to WeRelate, mostly intended to support discussion with others. The foot notes won't transfer intact but I know how to recreate them on WeRelate. Since my work only exists in electronic format I'm not limited in the use of color. In the case of footnotes I use a recd color to make it easier to identify them. My question is can I change the color of footnotes on We WeRelate?
An example page (still under construction) in this project is at Combine Record Table for there presence of "Pattens" in Washington County Ohio, 1800 to 1830. I use to work quite a bit on WeRelate. One of my reasons for returning is the easy of making links between pages. That works well for me as what I'm looking to create is a main article then links to a variety supporting articles. There's also the fact that other wikis don't really look very nice (sorry not trying to offend, but there aesthetics are not to my taste. WeRelate on the other hand looks nice and a lot easier to work on. Even the Ads display nicely.

Bill Willis 17:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Bill

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking when you say "can I change the color of footnotes"? Do you mean source citations and notes on Person and Family pages? Technically, the same techniques you use on your example page work in both source citations and notes.

Or are you asking whether it is acceptable to do so? Since you have already pointed out the aesthetics of WeRelate, I would ask that you respect the generally toned-down appearance of WeRelate (softer rather than bright colors, minimally visible shading in boxes, avoidance of all caps, large fonts only for headings). I suspect that WeRelate's "clean" look attracts more than its share of neuro-diverse users, who find bright colors, all caps, overuse of bold, and inconsistent font size to be overwhelming. For example, we've had complaints about (and removed) use of bright yellow fill on templates.

Personally, I found the tables in your example with duller colors more palatable than the one with bright yellow, which just "yelled" at me, particularly since it also used a larger font.

Also, I can understand using color and other techniques to improve clarity (e.g., in tables), whether or not in footnotes, but such techniques should be used with caution if the intent is to draw attention to one footnote over another, as different people may have different opinions about the importance of various footnotes.

Does that answer your question? I might take this to the WeRelate Advisory Council, as what I have responded is my personal opinion, and they might offer other guidance.--DataAnalyst 18:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, all good advice. Getting the aesthetics right is a main goal. You and Judith would probably not like the earlier iteration of that section. No, not at all. Believe it or not it's toned down from what it was. I will tone it down further.

As to the footnote question. Yes that's what you refer to as source citations. I'll plan on using those those as well specifically for citations. The same coding will also do quite nicely for footnotes though theyare really another beast altogether. As far as I can tell I cannot easily change the color of the footnote number in the main text. The objective is to make the number easy to find. Footnotes numbers in black are small and easily overlooked. There's a reason for using them and that's to add additional insight into something. Sometimes they can be used to explain something that the interested reader might need some additional insight. Sometimes they might be used to send the reader to a different article altogether. I make heavy use of them in my main work. They are actually even more useful on WeRelate.

What I was asking was "Is there a way to change the color of the number calling out the footnote itself. I don't think a simple <font bgcolor>will do it. Checking around I found a suggestion to use Styles but I'm not sure that is enabled here. And styles are, I think, an overkill solution. So any advice here is most welcome. Bill Willis 22:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I like having color, but I am having trouble with the sample page. The yellow highlight makes it extremely difficult to read the text. Brain is overwhelmed by the brightness to the point of pain. I agree with the above comments about the grayed colors being much easier on the eyes than the brights. Good to see you back. --Judith 19:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, That was one of the questions I was eventually going to ask.

I'm glad to be back, though I have come here occasionally prior to this, doing stuff here and there, but mostly working in articles and thinking about how to approach the larger project. I literally have so much information on this family line that I won't be able to get all of it into WeRelate. Bill Willis 22:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand now. I'm going to have to defer to someone else with a better understanding of HTML. However, the standard color for footnote numbers in a narrative is blue (not black) indicating a link. I see that you now have the footnote numbers in blue, but the links are not working. If you haven't already looked at the Help page for formatting, you might find this topic useful:

How Do I create References and Footnotes? - see method 2.--DataAnalyst 22:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Color Scheme

I've done a bit of toning down on the color scheme in Combine Record Table for there presence of "Pattens" in Washington County Ohio, 1800 to 1830. I was going to get input on this from outside the group, but I'd rather get a good workable scheme now. That will minimize any need for redo's going forward. I've adjusted the yellow background highlight in the main text, and did the same in the large html data table. So comments are are appreciated. The table with the blue header is more difficult. That particular color is one I use for tables that I expect to be located eventually in another area of the document. This helps me spot them in the original. The normal shade is much more subdued (light green shade) I'll create a mockup of this table for use on WeRelate, and do the same for any future tables. I use tables extensively to store data. They include links to the original documents when I can, or whatever intermediate document that I may have used. I want to minis the need to replace them on this site but want to be sure the color scheme works here. I'll replace that table now. When done any advice would be much appreciated.--Bill Willis 22:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

How to Create a footnote [1 August 2025]

I've been looking at the help section for creating references/footnotes. This section of Help:Formatting was clearly written by someone who knew really knew how to make them sing.
However, I did find it difficult to understand from the perspective of someone who DOESN't know how to make it sing. The big stumbling block was that it didn't mention how one made the list appear. The answer to that is fairly simple, but needs to be added to the text.

I've taken a shot a drafting an alternative explanation for part of the section. Since this is dealing with the 'Help:Formatting" page, I'd rather get input first on whether this is a good idea.

Suggested insert:

At the point in the text where you want to insert a footnote insert

<ref name="Footnote Category">Footnote text</ref>

Where:

Footnote Category identifies this particular footnote. It can be anything you want it to be as long it is text and not a number byitself. This allows the same footnote to be used multiple times in the document. When used multiple times this will result in a single footnote entry in your list of footnotes.

Footnote Text is whatever you want the footnote to say. It can be a bit of added commentary or a reference citation.

To make the footnotes visible on the page you need to create a section entitled ==Footnotes=== The title of the section does not need to be "Footnotes". "References" will do, or literally anything you want to call it. Calling it "Gumbo" for example, will do just fine

What triggers the placement of the footnotes in this section is adding the tag <references/>
.--Bill Willis 14:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I have also found this section somewhat difficult to comprehend - usually takes a couple of read-throughs. However, I would note that it already includes how to make the list appear (<references/>) right at the end of the "You Type" section in Method 2.

I would like to rewrite both Methods, to clarify when to use Method 1 and when to use Method 2 because I don't think the existing guidance hits the mark. Give me some time to sit with it. My "good writing" brain is mostly being used up with volunteer work for another organization right now. I don't object to your suggestion, which points out some things more obviously, other than I don't think that Footnote Category is a good term for a specific footnote. It is really a Footnote Name.--DataAnalyst 22:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Good! I'll look forward to your revisions. Yes, I agree Footnote Name is the better choice. I've been gone from WeRelate for quite awhile, and am having to relearn some of the tagging, etc.

I read that description over and over, and did not see the <references/>. I think I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but I found that description to be challenging. ~~----

I have always found that section confusing. Really there are three methods there: <ref name="S1"/>, <ref name="something">footnote text</ref>, and {{cite|S1}}. The first two are really variants of the same method and the latter seems to be deprecated (is that right?). Probably it should be reorganized into that order.

I would say if you think you can improve that section, feel free to be bold.

Also, to get technical, I am pretty sure that the "name" of "ref" is an HTML "id" attribute. Grimy details are on this page. So sticking to alphanumerics is best, and keep in mind that if someone clicks on the link it gets added to the URL in the browser, so it is a good idea to be concise.

--Trentf 14:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are right that it is technically an "id" but that encourages the use of numbers. I'll either just call it a name (encouraging brevity) or explain it more for those who might know it as an "id". I think I have today and the weekend mostly free of my other volunteer work, so I might get to it soon.--DataAnalyst 15:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

True, I just meant that info could be put in as a footnote for those wanting more precise technical info. We should just say that the "name" should be a meaningful but short alphanumeric tag with no funny characters, and that it will be visible in the URL.

I will take a stab at editing that section, unless you really want to. --Trentf 16:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You can go ahead. I mainly wanted to divide it into what to do on a Person or Family page (where source and note functionality can handle all footnote text) and what to do on a page without source and note functionality (where you have to use what is now the second method). I think we should encourage the simpler method on Person and Family pages so that pages are easier to edit by the next contributor. And then to mention the cite tag as deprecated.--DataAnalyst 16:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, I made a stab at reworking that section. I mainly rearranged the existing text and fixed up formatting, but I think it is better now. --Trentf 20:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Watercooler [2 August 2025]

It seems to me that it used to be easier to get to the WaterCooler. There may be a link somewhere that will get you there quickly but so far I've had to use the search function on the Help page to find it. I suspect that most folks coming to this site would not find it easily.

Perhaps the Watercolor is now intended more for administrative communication?

Also, looks like its time to archive?

--Bill Willis 15:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Watercooler is on the Help menu. It isn't necessary to do a search to stumble across it. As a newbie I looked at everything on the Help menu. I thought this was a good place for it because it gave insight into the culture of the site in addition to the nuts and bolts type help.

--Judith 18:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I just found that a few minutes ago. I think I was expecting it to be more prominent. A Keystone in a dynamic working environment, but perhaps as good a choice as any. However, I note that it is now being used mostly by a handful of administers. Apparently the average user isn't going here for information, or to participate in the conversation. That probably tells me something.~~----

Yes, this page does need to be archived... I would do it but I'm not sure of the process. Is it just a matter of creating an archive page, copy/paste the current watercooler in, and then delete all that from the watercooler page? I can do that if someone can confirm.

Yes, I am pretty sure that is the process. See the archive page links at the top for the naming convention. And thanks for offering.--DataAnalyst 15:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if I screwed it up :) --Trentf 16:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of the watercooler has never changed, it is just a reflection of who happens to pop in to talk (and the fact that we had a flurry of administrative activity and communication due to new AI bots this spring--DataAnalyst 15:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)). Anybody should be able to come here to chat (though for some things the Support page would be a better place). I suspect the size of this page can hinder discussion.

The watercooler is linked on the home page, and the help dropdown on every page has a link as well. Is there somewhere else it should be linked? Or should it be linked to more prominently in some way?

--Trentf 15:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

To me this is an important enough page that it should be somewhere obvious. Make it more obvious, more traffic will flow to it. Helps build a sense of community. Shared experiences, etc. I think it important enough to put it in the top right-hand menu of the Home page. Easy to get to. Helpful for people new to the site, and new to Wiki Genealogy. I think that some things could use streamlining. --Bill Willis 15:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)