no image

New Netherland Settlers - Old page not used now

Privacy Level: Private (Red)
This page has been accessed 2,485 times.


Since you are not logged in you do not have access to the privacy protected versions of any profiles. Please login here.


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: Steven Mix and Michelle Hartley. (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.)
Comments: 18

Leave a message for others who see this profile. If you prefer to keep it private, send a message to a profile manager: private message private message
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
Apparently this system is no longer being used. Please disregard it.
posted by Jillaine Smith
Step#6 Simple checklist talks about the venue for LNAB discussion.

Step#4 explains multiple duplicates.

Jillaine - Start at Step 1. Step 6 has specifics about LNAB decisions (third bullet addresses venue: "If necessary to clarify a very difficult decision, start a G2G question from the best candidate profile for the NNS final WikiTree ID..."
posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
I am going to move this page to that newly discovered old Category:NNS_Pre-Merge_Resolution. I think that cat can serve as a good parent cat for the three process categories:

Merge Notice

Merge Compare

Merge Pending

I have been thinking that those process cats should really have a good parent cat, and the name above seems to fit very well for that. Plus, we really cannot orphan a cat, so I put the pre-Merge Resolution cat back under NNS.

But I don't want to move those three process cats yet, becauuse I seem to be stepping on the toes of the Template Project when I do so. So I will talk to Michelle about that part of my idea before I move them.

posted by Steven Mix
Thanks Ellen. I've never had the double entries cause a merge problem, but I HAVE seen profiles that were once connected in a pending merge or unmerged match lose all connection. As hard as it is to find some of the duplicates, I didn't want to lose those we'd found. Perhaps it's better to just not mention it. So I've removed that note.
posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
The last note on this page states "There is a glitch in WikiTree, in which sometimes the same profile will appear twice as an Unmerged Match, or even as a Pending Merge and also as an Unmerged Match, at the same time. In a case like this, it might be best to simply leave it in place. It can then be removed later, after the merge." I don't believe this is true at present. In my experience, this situation prevents the completion of a merge -- basically, the only way to proceed is to remove the unmerged match. This will have the effect of removing all connections between the profiles, so the merge process will need to be restarted.
posted by Ellen Smith
Actually, that picture removal did fix the problem.

The templates are now back all in one line, as they need to be.

The grey boxes still look a bit stretchy, though, so we may eventually need to delete some.

Maybe a tinier photo might not make the right side so stretchy.

The stretchy problem is probably a combination of all the content being added on all this right side.

posted by Steven Mix
Actually, I think it might be the new Old Dutch Flag photo that is scrunching up the left body of the page. As I recall, when I left the Comments the other day, the gray filled comments box was the same width as the blank comments entry box, as it should be.

But now the gray ones are appearing wider. The only change since then appears to be the flag addition.

posted by Steven Mix
I am reposting Philip's earlier comment, to alias the link, which may also be scrunchign up the left side of the page:

f) Regarding footnote 8: [...] capitalization errors (smith) or variants (VanSmith, Vansmith), and spaces vs. combined prefixes (Van Smith, VanSmith) [...] - I would'nt describe it as an 'error' but as a destinctive American convention of writing (and combining) the prefixes in a surname with a capital (as for example during that same period of 1650-1750 the convention that was adopted in the Cape Colony was the one of using small letters (prefixes) and seperating the prefixes, ending the last part of the surname with a capital - a convention that I might add confuses many amateur [like me] South African genealogists today who tends to think that we are all American in that way) -

Yes, it is a bit complicated I agree, but this name changing and morphing is very much from the beginning of the States the very essence / characteristic that makes migrating to the US so destinctive: immigrate / make your 'old country' name more easily understood in the context of the market dynamics that prescribes ones' role / adopt / change / assimilate / profit / prosper:

"Major recent historical research has been based on a set of documents that have survived from that period, untranslated. They are the administrative records of the colony, unreadable by most scholars.

Since the 1970s, a professor named Charles Gehring has made it his life's work to translate this first-hand history of the Colony of New Netherland.

The scholarly conclusion has largely been that the settlement of New Amsterdam is much more like current New York than previously thought. Cultural diversity and a mind-set that resembles the American Dream were already present in the first few years of this colony.

Writers like Russell Shorto argue that the large influence of New Amsterdam on the American psyche has largely been overlooked in the classic telling of American beginnings, because of animosity between the English victors and the conquered Dutch."

Source: Wikipedia (seen March 22, 2014).

posted by Steven Mix
I am reposting Philip's earler comment, to alias the links, which are scrunchhing up the left side of the page:

Case in point: see my comment on van Couwenhoven-19. This LNAB is incorrect (sorry Steven, I'll get back to you on this). As I have predicted 'van Kouwenhoven / Van Couwenhoven' as with many Dutch surnames did not include the suffixes and placenames until later in the 17th and 18th centuries. The marriage record (entry for marriage - left corner at the top) clearly indicates that the incorporation of the 'from' / 'of' followed by placename did only become a formal part of the surname until after registration for disembarkation / registration in the colonies. This LNAB should be 'Gerritsz', the AKA field having the Van Kouwenhoven / van Couwenhoven. This should be the leading thought when dealing with the LNAB's during this transition period.

posted by Steven Mix

Categories: NNSP Retired