User talk:DiltsGD

Move sandbox from main space to user space
All sandboxes are being moved from main space to user space because of search problems. User:DiltsGD/Sandbox 101, User:DiltsGD/Sandbox 102, User:DiltsGD/Sandbox E, and User:DiltsGD/Sandbox 76 have been renamed and moved. Sandralpond 16:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)\


 * Image Captions
 * Followup note on Image captions incase you didn't get the note from the case.
 * Captions are only displayed under an image when either the frame or thumb parameter is used (see the examples on -


 * Help:Images&lt;https:/​/​www.familysearch.org/​learn/​wiki/​en/​Help:Images&gt; or
 * mw:Help:Images &lt;http:/​/​www.mediawiki.org/​wiki/​Help:Images&gt;)

Ldrew 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

David, do you still want the NY pages deleted? They link to several others. Example:NY State Archives and New York State Library Template:Nycc Template:NYClinmap Lynda 14:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, no! Sorry, this is a misunderstanding. I deleted the old template on one primary page and failed to realize the template was still connected to other pages. Give me about 30 minutes and I'll have them all fixed. Then delete the templates only -- no primary pages. Thanks. DiltsGD 15:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the delete template off the pages.Lynda 16:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC) - Actually, will wait and then do the templates per your instructions above.Lynda 16:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

David, Is this page still necessary for the Pacific Island collection, since the IGI is in FamilySearch.org now? Find Ancestors on the IGI

Pacific Island Guide Step 8:
Thank you for the article titled Pacific Island Guide to Family History Research. In reviewing the neutrality of this article, I would like to offer suggestions to help resolve this matter. With changes already under way about access to the IGI database through the new familysearch.org, that the following be done: a. an external link be placed in Step 8 directing the researcher to new family search org. b. The researcher could also be directed to the nearest family history center for help in utilizing the IGI database. By these two steps, Step 8 remains viable for the researcher AND this portion of the article remains within WIki article policy guidelines. I was pleasantly surprised to find this guide while patrolling familysearch wiki as part of my wiki support assignment. I can trace my Polynesian ancestry through Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Tahiti, and Hawaii in the South Pacific. The use of the IGI in my research was to assure that ancestors had been identified for LDS ordinance work. That was the extent of it. The IGI was not a 'connection' research tool - I used anthropology, missionary/traders records, and the nobility-village records [oral and written]to rebuild my polynesian ancestry. Thank you for sharing your expertise on the Pacific Islands. Would you consider the above a and b suggestions as a solution to the neutrality template? I look forward to hearing from you. We worked together almost a decade ago on UGA projects and look forward to finding a way to make Step 8 'work' for other researchers. Malo aupito/ mahalo nui/ kapi / Thank you - CIrwin Caroline Wolfgramm Irwin 16:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pacific Island Guide Step 10:
Hello - in patrolling the wiki the "content" template brought this article [Step 10] to my attention. May I suggest that the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph be removed and the rest of the sentences remain as is. It points researchers interested in IGI or LDS ordinances to Mormon Genealogy article and restores the neutrality requested in the article. I personally appreciate this guide, however, the step 10 revision as suggested would provide a better overview and direction to future wiki researchers. As a descendant of Tongan, Samoan, Fijian, Tahitian, and Hawaiian ancestry, I turn to other sources for ancestral information intially rather than the IGI ... even when I lived in Utah. Please consider the recommendation within this 'talk'. Thanks.CIrwin

How do I put the attribution in the copyright square?
David,

Thank for all you do to Fix my documentation. I am learing from your changes. However, I have no idea how to put a name of attribution in the "permission"- "copyright square". Would love to be taught that skill.

Thank you and have an awesome week!

joy


 * On the , , and all Creative Commons licenses you can add the attribution statement by adding either author= or attribution= whichever is more appropriate. Each one is used for a different purpose and causes slightly different things to happen in the license templates. See the respective license template documentation pages for details. If the original license has a formal attribution statement, we MUST replicate that statement as exactly as possible. If the original license does not have a formal attribution, I add an "author=" to the Self and Self2 templates in order to show the author, and that automatically adds the attribution within the Creative Commons licenses. It is possible to have slightly different author and attribution statements. DiltsGD 14:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohio Network of America
David, you put a delete template on this page, Ohio Network of American History Research Centers, but there are many pages linked to this page. If it needs to be deleted, I'd ask that the creator, or you, clean out all those links. If you don' thave time, let me know, but this will take some time.averyld 14:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maryanne Taylor (the page's creator) was in my cubicle when we made this deletion request together. I will clean out the links shortly. Thanks for that reminder. DiltsGD 15:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

David it was a template on all but two pages all cleaned up and deleted.Sandralpond 22:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Unclickable Virginia links
When you have a second, could you help me figure out why I can't click on the county or topic pages on this page: https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Virginia I'm guessing it's a div problem

Thanks! Murphynw 18:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona
There are seven articles for counties listed in the "Extinct or Renamed Counties" of Arizona - Bernalillo, Dona Ana, Rio Arriba, Santa Ana, Socorro, Taos, and Valencia. These seven articles are your creation, and you have continued to support them by making changes. Perhaps you feel a closeness to them. I particularly like the maps you added.

But I have a disagreement with these seven articles. They are listed in Arizona, indicating that they were counties of Arizona. The titles of these seven articles very clearly state that they were counties of Arizona. But actually, all of these seven were counties of New Mexico. They covered land which later was in Arizona and Nevada, but any records created were sent to their respective New Mexico county offices.

When Arizona became a territory, all seven of these counties were discontinued in Arizona and completely replaced. None of these seven counties were ever Arizona counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. For me, the purpose of the Family Search Wiki is to identify the location where records may be found, so that those who don't know may be led to the right location. I don't believe these seven articles help to do this.

The information in the body of these seven articles is good information, but that information belongs in the New Mexico county articles. I propose to transfer that information, then remove these seven counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them. But I don’t want to proceed with this, without giving you a chance to explain your side of things. I am not perfect and maybe I have overlooked something. I would like for this to be done by agreement. Please let me know.

There are three other counties listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona - Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla. I know you have made changes to these and maybe have a closeness for them as well. But none of these three were ever counties of Arizona, they were only “proposed counties” that were rejected. No records were ever created for these counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. I propose to remove these three counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them.

Neither of the above proposals have yet been done. I would appreciate understanding your acceptance or opposition and why. I would like to work with you on making the Arizona article better. For me the reason for doing all this is to make things clear and helpful for those just starting out in genealogy. Thanks Sabwoo 05:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for kindly waiting to get my point of view. The real question here is NOT whether a county was ever part of Arizona, nor is it a question of whether a county ever existed. Think more like a genealogical researcher (or pre-Arizona recorder of deeds), and less like a dictionary writer. The real question is how might a reader possibly look up such counties, and in which repositories might they find their ancestors? Or, another possible way of looking at the question would be to ask if there is a deed or other official paper with a supposedly purely New Mexico county mentioned on it even though the ancestor actually lived in what later became Arizona. If so, would not the logical place to look for such a deed be in the county seat of the said NM county? Moreover, a certain fort was a few hundred meters into modern Arizona, but was briefly a New Mexico county's seat. We need to teach readers that boundaries change, borders can get confusing, and that smart genealogists sometimes need to hunt for records outside of modern boundaries. We need to teach readers that sometimes their ancestors records are outside of Arizona, especially if their ancestor lived in AZ prior to the time Arizona was created. Although it is not likely someone living on the Arizona strip ever conducted business in Taos, New Mexico, it is possible, and listing Taos as a former county in what eventually became Arizona is a way of alerting readers to the possibilities. I would strongly resist any effort to de-list pre-Arizona counties because it would hide potential places to look for an ancestor's records. We need to look for more ways to inform readers about potential genealogical record repositories. We need to avoid hiding potential repositories behind inflexible definitions of what goes where and when geographically. For new genealogists, clinging to legal definitions of modern boundaries is not informative about where to look for records created BEFORE those boundaries were drawn.


 * Would you be willing to explore other alternatives? If you cannot abide "Extinct" counties, feel welcome to find a more appropriate label for the group. But the solution is NOT to delete references to counties that might be listed on an ancestor's deed, nor to pretend New Mexico (and Mexico, and New Spain, and Spain) never had jurisdiction over what is now Arizona. Nor would it be appropriate to pretend researchers for ancestors living in Las Vegas should never ever look in Arizona repositories for pre-Nevada Las Vegas sources.


 * The most unchanged state is Delaware. Since 1776 her three counties have never changed. Yet Delaware was part of Pennsylvania, Maryland, The Dominion of New England, New Netherland, and New Sweden--so good researchers need to know to also look in the appropriate repositories in Philadelphia, Annapolis, Boston, Amsterdam, and Stockholm to find all the records of their early colonial Delaware ancestors. EVERY state has changed jurisdictions and we need to inform our readers about that. So I absolutely oppose deleting references to extinct counties even if they were technically in other states.


 * Please show me the positive way you plan to inform new Arizona researchers about New Mexico repositories with their ancestors' names on their records. Please make me a better offer than negatively deleting/hiding pages to which I am "close." I'm willing to listen and consider if you can come up with a better way to inform readers about changing jurisdictions, but until then, please NO deletion requests, no de-listings of extinct counties pages, and no tranferring of this kind of information from Arizona to New Mexico pages. I cannot see how your proposal will possibly alert new genealogists about jurisdiction changes and the need to search possible alternative repositories for early Arizona ancestors. To my way of thinking it would seriously hold-back new genealogists rather than helping them. For the new genealogist who has no clue that Arizona was ever considered part of New Mexico, where do they pick up that insight? Your proposal would seem to require them to somehow magically know that they must look in New Mexico repositories for some records of ancestors who lived in what later became Arizona. If we don't tell them about this problem on the Arizona pages, then how do they find out?


 * This problem is messy. I am painfully aware that "Taos County, Arizona" will NEVER be found on any deed or other official paper. But "Taos County" COULD appear on a deed of someone who lived in what later became Arizona. If Taos County could be on their deed I beilieve such an odd page title as "Taos County, Arizona" is appropriate and for practical purposes REQUIRED. I'm willing to be messy and create fictional county-state names if that is the best way to help me teach people that they also need to look for their "Arizona" ancestor in Taos, New Mexico repositories. If you can find a better way to teach this concept to new genealogists -- please convince me. Otherwise, please edit Arizona's extinct counties pages only in a positive way by enhancing their content. Please avoid negative editing that deletes, transfers to another state, or in any fashion hides the concept such pages are trying to teach from new genealogists seeking records of their ancestors in what eventually became Arizona.


 * Would you feel any better about:
 * "Taos County (NM), Arizona"
 * "Taos (NM) County, Arizona"
 * "Taos County, New Mexico in Arizona"(in navboxes "Taos, NM in AZ")
 * or something similar as a page title and extinct county link in navboxes at the bottom of all AZ county pages? Would you let me keep such pages for Arizona if we could find a compromise on their titles? DiltsGD 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - Conversation
I was pleasantly surprised to receive your reply. It was a great reply and I can agree with most everything you said. If I understand you correctly, you are very concerned in teaching those new to genealogy about historical boundary changes and previous jurisdictions. That way, they will learn where the records can be found. I can’t agree more, we see eye to eye on this. For me, the biggest reason for the Research Wiki is to show where the records are located. I hope we can work together to accomplish this.

You are also right about something else. If we just delete those seven fictitious “Arizona” counties, those new to genealogy will not understand the previous jurisdictions before Arizona was created. I don’t want that to happen either. I propose we put on HOLD any removing and deleting of county articles while we come to agreement.

I do like what you say - teach everyone about the previous jurisdictions and where to find the records. Your heart is in the right place and your goal is worthy, but your method is too short-sighted. It only tries to solve the one change of jurisdiction and boundaries. That is from New Mexico to Arizona in 1863. What about the change from Mexico to New Mexico, or the earlier Spain to Mexico. And then there are all the changes to the Arizona counties since Arizona was created. Your method doesn’t address any of these changes, but yet each one brings new places where records are kept.

We both agree on the goal - to explain the previous jurisdictions and where records are located. To do this, I propose the following three step plan.


 * I will begin to compile a list of ideas to accomplish this goal and publish them on my Talk Page. You are free to add additional ideas. Two ideas are shown here.
 * Add more maps showing previous jurisdictions. Example: Pima County History (scroll down)
 * In the HISTORY section of location articles, explain each jurisdictional change and make a link if possible to the record repository. Example: Arizona Atlas of Historical County Boundaries
 * I will begin to implement the list of ideas on the real Arizona counties. You are free to help.
 * You monitor the progress towards the goal. When sufficient progress has been made, you delete those seven fictitious “Arizona” counties. Or let me know and I will have them deleted.

I was gradually moving toward the above anyway, but your challenge to come up with a better plan has focused my efforts. I think this plan should be extended to Nevada where there are also some fictitious counties. I would like to work together with you on this. Please let me know. Sabwoo 20:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good plan! I like it. As long as every "real" Arizona county clearly explains (including maps or at least links to the maps) about all the other places records might be housed because of jurisdiction changes I can see eventually doing away with the fictional county pages. Especially since that means to cover the topic the material that now appears on a single fictional county page will be repeated (better coverage) on each of the many real county pages. We must be careful to find a way of showing the pre-Arizona maps of New Mexico counties (and Mexico, and New Spain, and Spain) in what later became Arizona so they will not be too confusing to people reading about them on the pages of each of their real Arizona counties.


 * Please take a look at the many other places in the U.S. with jurisdiction changes for the best ideas about how to teach the concept. For example, Haverhill, Essex, MA was once part of Norfolk (old) County in the MA Bay Colony. Colorado was created from parts of NM, KS, NE, and UT and has some very confusing jurisdiction changes. These and any others may not be great examples, but let's consider different ways to deal with the problem and find the BEST ways teach about jurisdiction changes.


 * The three counties that were listed in the Arizona organic bill that never passed still may be useful more for historical reference than any other reason. No one ever lived there, but at least in Mowrey's mind they were Arizona counties. I like being thorough because it lets readers know we've covered the possibilities. For example, the Confederate States were also tinkering around with Mesilla County, Arizona. The Kansas Historical Society has a list of extinct Kansas/Colorado counties, some of which were authorized but never actually organized. I find the list very informative. I'm unlikely to ever find an ancestor with a deed in such a county, but I think it wise to at least know there was talk about such counties in case something comes up in a diary or letter of an ancestor. See also the way the Nevada archives deal with their extinct county history--very thorough and open minded about Utah-California-Arizona jurisdictions. So I believe it is worthwhile to have historical references to failed-or-never-approved-or-organized Arizona counties as well as the others that existed briefly in reality before going extinct such a Pah-Ute. DiltsGD 22:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - Conversation 2
I have already started working on "the plan". I have compiled some information for the 1846 to 1863 time period and the 1863 to Now period. I created a new article entitled Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona with a link on the Arizona page, the second paragraph down from the "Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona." Check it out.

I intend to continue work on this article. Need to add the time period that Spain and Mexico controlled the land that became Arizona up thru 1846. What you said about wanting this to not be confusing is true. Doesn't help others if they can't understand it. Also I want to add maps for each change of jurisdiction. Or maybe an animated GIF that will cycle thru all the maps. If I am going to add maps, I would rather do this for the one article I just created. But it will be easy to add links from each county page.

Also intend to update all the real counties' history of jurisdictional changes. Some of that is there already. I just want to make sure it is complete and has the records repositories listed. Most of this will duplicate the information on the article I just created, but it will give "better coverage."

For me, the most important reason for the Family Search Wiki is to point those new to genealogy to where the records are. Not much interested in putting in articles to be historically accurate if it doesn't result in a location for records. I suppose we disagree on this. But I do see the three "proposed counties" are in a different category from the seven "fictional counties", at least they are historical.Sabwoo 01:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your new page is good. I like it. It is clear and helpful. It has a lot of information. Link each "real" county to the new page. I agree the new page needs a map or set of maps, but I don't know how to create animated maps.


 * I can imagine a reader having heard of "Mesilla" County and wondering about it even though it was never authorized or organized. So I see value in listing such historical but never existed places. I think I understand your concern because the pictures/stories of who/what a county was named for seem to me to have no practical use for genealogists. For a long time I deleted those as irrelevant to genealogy, but they have become so ubiquitous on our Wiki I have mostly given up. A little bit of irrelevant historical information sometimes adds interest to Wiki articles. DiltsGD 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Guesswork Page
David, the page on How to Guess Where to Start was discussed in a recent Forum thread. I noticed that you've been making changes to the page and wondered if that is in response to to the thread, or just because you felt it need updating. I didn't want to bring it up in the 1:00 meeting today if you were taking care of it. averyld 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The recent page changes were in direct response to the discussion page. What is NOT certain is that these changes deal with the issues in a way that will satisfy everyone concerned. DiltsGD 20:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)