Template talk:Vermont

Too many parser calls (over the limit)
This template is not to be used on county sites at all. This will create parser calls over the limit. It is intended to be use for state page and state topic pages only.

We are trying to expand specific information under each category. This type of template is "over the head" and will create a large scale headache down the pike. We already encountered this problem with locality templates, can't allow totality of over 100 at all. Utah has the correct template with correct parameters. dsammy 05:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Parser call limit
It is relatively simple to eleminate excessive parser calls. Notice how I do it and plug the standard navbox on counties without exceeding your parcer limit.

Navbox on the state page
The state page on all the other states is designed to be an attention grabbing whole-page navigation bar to all the other pages dealing with that state. Therefore, there is nothing to be gained by putting this kind of odd extended navbox on a state page that is already serving that purpose. It becomes navigation overkill.

Questionable innovations
There are two sections on this navbox that are a bit mysterious. What is the purpose of the Historical Records Collections (Vermont and United States)? Those collections should already be covered in the Topics. Seems redundant to me. DiltsGD 00:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not redundant or mysterious, have it ever occured to you the historical collections have their own pages and you want to hide the knowledge of the existence of historical collections? dsammy 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it that you are so quick to assert an evil personal motive to what other Wiki users say? If I can ever figure out what you think an "historical collection" is, I would be glad to help you find the right place for it. "Historical collections" is so vague it could mean a furniture or coin collection. If it means manuscripts or books, it could be parish registers, or ship log books, or kindergarden art. I'm not rubbing my hands together cackling over dreams of hiding things. I'm trying to point out almost every kind of genealogical source has already been described on the Wiki. Perhaps by "historical collections" you are trying to describe a "Major Repository" or a "Society" or an archives or a library. Let's find a better place to show off whatever it is you think I'm trying to hide. DiltsGD 07:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

National stuff on the national level please. Moreover, there should never be United States "stuff" at the state level. National stuff should stay on the national level. At most there should be no more that one sentence once suggesting the reader also check for material at the national level. A good breadcrumb trail already hints at national level material. DiltsGD 00:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You want the public NOT to know the existence of national ones which are NOT listed on national topics. They are buried too deep for anyone to know of the existence and you want to list each one on each county page, taking up more space when we need these real estate for other information not found within FSWiki such as WorldCat, other libraries' resources, etc? dsammy 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are redundant at all. There are even historical collections specific to the counties under development and being discussed and being considered. The integrated templates are most effective way of information delivery. there is. dsammy 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wiki has to be organized in some understandable logical order. We have protect that logical order or the chaos that will develope will get out of control. If we start allowing contributors to put national level material at the state level, then we will eventually have to allow it at the county, town, and household levels as well. Thus something that was explained adequately at the national level would get repeated at lower levels over and over. So the Wiki would become a ten volume set of instructions for each and every one of the billions of people who ever lived. It is better to simply explain something ONCE at the proper level in order to reduce the duplication. If our readers cannot figure out that national "stuff" is described at the national level, and state "stuff" at the state level, and county "stuff" at the county level, and town "stuff" at the town level, we are doomed to have thousands of pages of instructions for each and every town in the world. Being logical about where we put information does not imply that I want to hide anything or deny knowledge to the public. Adding national "stuff" at the state level is simply off topic.


 * We have to be really careful about what navboxes contain if they are going on dozens of pages for a state. Why not put "historical collections" under either Archives and Libraries, or Major Repositories? Why do we have to have five places (Archives and Libraries, Societies, Major Repositories, United States Historical Collections, and [State] Historical Collections) for essentially the same information about where to find genealogical sources? If we keep fragmenting where we put material, our navbox templates will become giant pages instead of the sign posts pointing the way. I want to be organized and logical; that is not the same thing as trying to hide information; so PLEASE STOP IMPLYING THAT I WANT TO PREVENT READERS FROM FINDING INFORMATION. I AM NOT EVIL. DiltsGD 07:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)