Maria_s_Photobox-3.png

Bedfordshire Team

Privacy Level: Public (Green)

Surnames/tags: Bedfordshire England
This page has been accessed 3,813 times.

England Project page | England Counties Team Page | Bedfordshire Category Page | Bedfordshire Research Resources

If you are interested in helping with Bedfordshire, please feel free to look at the England Project page and sign up via the G2G post. If you have any questions about Bedfordshire, please contact the team leader.

Welcome to the Bedfordshire Team page!

Team Leader: Christine Searle

Team Members: Ian Acworth | Michael Angell | Stuart Beavis | Jean Evans

Goal

The goal of the Bedfordshire Team is to work together to raise all Bedfordshire profiles to the highest standard possible, to encourage the development of more Bedfordshire profiles, and to provide resources for those wishing to work on Bedfordshire profiles.

Statistics

The latest statistics for England and all counties are here:

England Regional and County Statistics

and a commentary is here:

England Statistics Commentary

For the statistics for Bedfordshire, please see:

Bedfordshire Statistics

Member Specific Topics





Collaboration
  • Login to request to the join the Trusted List so that you can edit and add images.
  • Private Messages: Contact the Profile Managers privately: Christine Searle and England Project WikiTree. (Best when privacy is an issue.)
  • Public Comments: Login to post. (Best for messages specifically directed to those editing this profile. Limit 20 per day.)
  • Public Q&A: These will appear above and in the Genealogist-to-Genealogist (G2G) Forum. (Best for anything directed to the wider genealogy community.)


Comments: 41

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
I'd like to thank all the members of the Bedfordshire team for their contributions over the last year. We've come within the top third in the rankings for sourcing; and in the top third for connected profiles and for fixing suggestions Thank you everyone for your hard work!
posted by Christine (Brown) Searle
edited by Christine (Brown) Searle
Bedfordshire Unsourced figures must be getting too low, as we've been hit today by an additional 119 names, including 68 131-134 suggestions. If I could find out what these suggestions were I might be able to do something about them. Each suggestion number on the Suggestions report is a link to an explanation. Couldn't something the same be arranged for the suggestions in the Unsourced report? Frustrated in France.
posted by David Cooper (-2021)
Hi David,

I saw the jump too.

  • 131 Suggestions: - No dates and no dates on relatives. Unknown status (are they dead or alive?)
  • 132 Suggestions: - No dates and no dates on relatives. Known status (the radio button in the death data has been checked)
  • 133 Suggestions: - No dates. Dates on relatives. Unknown status (dead or alive?)
  • 134 Suggestions: - No dates. Dates on relatives. Known status (died - radio button has been selected)

It looks like this is another measure to check if a profile needs attention. This appears to tie into the Data Doctors latest challenge Add Dates and likely the focus on the year of accuracy. It looks like there are over half a million profiles on Wikitree with these kinds of errors. I hope that explanation might help a bit.

Raewyn.

posted by Raewyn Vincent
edited by Raewyn Vincent
Thanks Raewyn, yes,it helps a lot. A pity they've lumped missing dates in with unsourced profiles , rather than including them in the Suggestions report which is where they belong.
posted by David Cooper (-2021)
I've amended the daughter's date on this first one, Nicholas / Elizabeth, as Elizabeth's DoB was way out of line with her siblings, and marked it with a guess as I could find no record of her on Ancestry.
Thanks Christine. This is going to be a long job. I've cleared only 3 profiles this morning -65 to go. With just 2 names (or just one!) and a marriage date it's like starting research from scratch. What's the Kent list like?
posted by David Cooper (-2021)
We don't get updated figures with the fluctuations as there is no area manager for the South-East. We just plod on doing what we can!
Has there been a change of policy that I've missed regarding birth, death and marriage place names "standardising" the use of United Kingdom? My understanding was that post 1801 England, Scotland and Wales were fine on their own, and didn't need to have United Kingdom added. It was down to the personal preference of the profile manager. I've seen three examples in the last week where United Kingdom has been added with the Optional comment "Standardising placenames".

I don't add or detach United Kingdom on profiles where there's a PM, believing it's a personal choice of the PM, and not up to me to make what these days is often a political decision.

What is the current guidance on this issue please?

David

posted by David Cooper (-2021)
I understood the same as you, that England, Scotland and Wales were sufficient and I've seen no update on that. I have also had the odd profile changed to add United Kingdom, as people who aren't necessarily part of the England Project follow the offerings from the FamilySearch list.
The current guidance is on the England Project Profile Standards page. It does not require "United Kingdom" to be used for post-1801 events.
posted by Nic Donnelly
Just saw this. I'm wondering if in some cases, someone has modified the location, or spelling of or something and the United Kingdom has automatically come up as an option and they've selected that one - just because it was there?
posted by Raewyn Vincent
You're right Raewyn, it's the autofill facility, although mine which I can't use because it's in French, has two options - England and England, United Kingdom, so it is possible using autofill to leave it as just England. But there was something that needed correcting in the first case eg Beds instead of Bedfordshire. It wasn't the member just adding United Kingdom.
posted by David Cooper (-2021)
I think I must be suffering from lockdown fever! Fascinating post on G2G at https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1051930/wikitree-statistics-june-2020 regarding statistics. 27% of profiles are unsourced with a further 14% poorly sourced ie to me that's 41% of WT profiles are effectively unsourced. We would be totally overwhelmed if they all had an unsourced sticker put on them! Puts my concern about our Unsourceds going up by 12 last week into perspective!

OK, lunch over, back to clearing Gedcom junk suggestions, which also happen to be totally unsourced without stickers!

posted by David Cooper (-2021)
It's fun, isn't it! It's keeping me out of trouble during lock-down.
Are the Data Doctors for real with their Profile Completeness suggestions, particularly 451/453/461/463? If all profiles which lack these details are going to be added to the suggestion reports we are looking at potentially tens of thousands of individual suggestions being added to Bedfordshire alone. And the small army of volunteers that will be needed will create more suggestions - each father or mother that they find and add will immediately spawn two more profiles without parents with no deaths, giving rise to eight new suggestions. The spread of Covid-19 has nothing on Suggestion spread! If my reading of the situation is right then I'll stick to Unsourceds and Unconnecteds in future, in addition to looking for parents at the end-of- the- line profiles for which I'm the PM. Please tell me I'm wrong!

David

posted by David Cooper (-2021)
edited by David Cooper (-2021)
The Bedfordshire Suggestions report shows that there have been 72 "New" profiles added since the last report. But the Statistics table shows that Suggestions have increased by 97. I know that some suggestions have been cleared in the past week, so the net increase should surely be rather fewer than 72? How did the figure shoot up to 97?
posted by David Cooper (-2021)
edited by David Cooper (-2021)
Hi David there have been recent minor wrinkles with the reports, makes me scratch my head too,! hopefully it will settle down soon. Thank you for everything you are doing to improve profiles in Bedfordshire which has absolute value!

If you need a detailed explanation I will do my best.

posted by Michael Christmas
edited by Michael Christmas
No, don't bother Michael. I'm sure there's probably a simple explanation, although I can't think of one. But the Total - 457 - is not the same as Open -430 - which may be significant.

Back to the Wheeler unsourceds!

David

posted by David Cooper (-2021)
I wonder if it's anything to do with the Location, Location, Location, project, which is adding locations to gedcoms with large numbers of profiles with no birth location? I haven't had any Bedfordshire ones myself yet but they could well be out there.
Well done all on getting the number of suggestions down by a large chunk this month. It’s a great achievement.
posted by Michael Christmas
I question the latest figures! eg Unknowns down from 334 to 331 produces a drop of 1!
posted by David Cooper (-2021)
Thanks David, good spotting, typo corrected.
posted by Nic Donnelly
Thanks Nic, I really thought that the whole report was computer generated and I'd picked up a glitch in the system which had overstated all the Beds figures. No such luck! Just a humble typo.
posted by David Cooper (-2021)
Great team effort everyone, everything is GREEN. Let’s keep going and see if we can catch the North!
posted by Michael Christmas
Trying hard - so much ancient junk!!
Appreciate your effort Christine. I know how hard it is. Give me a couple of examples and I will put my thinking hat on!
posted by Michael Christmas
Eyesight is very slowly returning. An operation at the end of the month will hopefully speed things up. After a seven month absence I'm about to recommence work on the Bedfordshire unsourceds. It's good to be back!
posted by David Cooper (-2021)
Hi David, I’m glad it’s going well. Look forward to working with you.
posted by Michael Christmas
David - that is such good news! Welcome back! Jo
posted by Jo Fitz-Henry
Hi All

From saturday, 1 February, we are running a month-long "Go Green" challenge.

This will be region vs. region, rather than counties, the winner will be the region with the largest drop in total numbers (sourcing + connecting + suggestions).

All the contributing county team members within the winning region will be given a sticker for their profiles :)

So if you fancy sourcing, connecting or correcting for our region comment below!

Here is a link to the regional data. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:England%2C_Regional_and_County_Statistics_Page

If you have any questions just ask :)

Note that you don’t need to sign up if you are already a member of this team. There's something for everyone to do, whether it be sourcing, connecting, or working on suggestions. Also, if you are concentrating on connecting, you may be able to find your county/region of choice on our largest branches page: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:England%27s_Largest_Unconnected_Branches

posted by Michael Christmas
edited by Michael Christmas
There's very little improvement can be made in Bedfordshire unsourced profiles - most of what is left is spurious or impossible to source - pre-parish records etc.
posted by Christine (Brown) Searle
edited by Christine (Brown) Searle
How about https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Seddon-2080 who is part of the largest unconnected branch in England. That would be a major achievement.
posted by Michael Christmas
Failure! Sorry. I felt sure I should be able to do it through Agnes Seddon who married a Dimelow, but I failed. My first attempt at connecting.
Let’s try a different tack, I have added profiles to Mabel Seddon who’s father was part of a big family (Godfrey) whose mothers maiden name was Inskip.

On WT+ I found https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Beaumont-1857 an Inskip in Biggleswade, who is already connected. There must be a good chance that they are connected somewhere.

posted by Michael Christmas
Thank you! I wouldn't have made it without you!
Teamwork! Thanks for backfilling all the hastily constructed profiles I left in my wake Christine! It would be worth you mentioning the connection on the Google group as I think at least one other person is trying to connect it.
posted by Michael Christmas
Thanks for clarifying that Stephen. Various web pages need correcting. "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain" in the words of the treaty appears to have been extended into the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Thanks again
posted by David Cooper (-2021)
No, the 1707 Act of Union created the kingdom of Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.

It's simpler just to use England throughout - there's no ambiguity.

posted by Stephen Heathcote
There's nothing wrong with UK or United Kingdom being used before 1801; That was when the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was created. The "United Kingdom of Great Britain" was created by the 1707 Act of Union. So it's correct to use United Kingdom for place names in England, Scotland and Wales from 1707 onwards. The parameters for including United Kingdom in suggestions 612, 642 and 672 prior to 1801 need changing to 1707. We're making unnecessary work for ourselves.

, as well as Wikitree getting it's facts wrong.

posted by David Cooper (-2021)