User talk:DiltsGD

David,

Would you look at another version of the Illinois page that I have in my sandbox? I'd like to chat about the location of the Topics list, and how to display the lengthy list of Illinois counties so that it isn't overwhelming to the eye. Lise 18:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to Talk Page Comments
"[Compressed counties.] Great! [Skyline photo.] Some participants in the Illinois Skype group recommended the following images:""http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abraham_Lincoln_seated,_Feb_9,_1864.jpg (I gather this one is recognizable as the origin of a license plate design.)""http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Standing_Lincoln.JPG (How about the Nauvoo Temple? – joking…)""[Historical Records Collection] I hope I haven’t misunderstood subtle humor here, but… I was referring to FamilySearch’s Historical Record Collections: Not every state has the lengthy and growing list of collections on FamilySearch. I use them (and recommend them) frequently. It would be a serious oversight not to point people to those collections. I get to be a hero way too many times in a week because people don’t look at the list of FamilySearch collections individually. [… avoid clutter, too much fluff, and words that distract from its purpose…succinct] .”""""Agree completely. Not sure at what point in the day you looked at the draft. I deleted a lot of words and images between morning and evening, so we’re definitely on the same wavelength there.""""[Disambiguation note] For some reason, the disambiguation line was being superimposed over the top of the sidebar. I moved it while testing various theories as to what that was happening. Didn’t mean to leave it off/out of place.""""[Scavenger Hunt] Do you know an easy way to hotlink text in the side bar?""""[History vs. Unique genealogical features] I had copied the style of a state page that shall remain nameless… I agree with you that it really doesn’t do much for readers. What I’d really like to see somewhere on that page is a timeline. With Indian, French, British, US, LDS, and other groups playing major roles at various points in time, I think it would be very helpful to capture those details in a chronology or timeline.""""[Table of Contents] agreed. I wasn’t aware that the TOC could be omitted.""""[Moderator] I don’t think it’s all that helpful to readers. I would prefer to have it in the side bar, but couldn’t make that work! I keep bumping up against my technical limits. Don’t ever assume I know what I’m doing there! I can copy most anything, but get stuck pretty quickly if I don’t have something I can modify or compare against.""""[Got a Question, and Online Courses] I don’t care for the look either, but didn’t provide feedback at the time they were being developed, so can’t complain too loudly. I do like inter-connecting the features of FamilySearch where they make sense (i.e., linking from HRCs to the wiki for more info, linking from the wiki to relevant HRCs, and sure wish the HRCs film numbers connected directly to the FHL catalogue, but that’s a topic for another day…""""[Alphabetical listing of Illinois counties] Intent there wasn’t to replicate the alphabetical listing, but did want to point to the single-page view of county creation dates. I know you’re not a fan of that approach, but I find it really helpful. Better wording is needed there. You’re right that duplicate words are frustrating to readers. Less is more!""""[Featured content] What I was hoping for in that section was a pointer to the best-of-the-best Illinois collections on-line.""""[…give at least one or two lines explaining each link’s value or what the reader should expect if they click the link…] Agreed.""""[Topics at the bottom] I don’t want topics at the bottom, but “parked” them there pending some dialogue about side bar (left, right, or not at all).""""[Facebook and Skype] I know Jenell is working with Steve Cottrell on a Facebook link, but it isn’t do-able yet. “News” works, except that the template for the left sidebar doesn’t have a clean way to add/update news. Whichever sidebar template becomes THE sidebar or navbox for Illinois needs to be polished up to make it easier for non-HTML types to provide news.""""[Extinct Counties] Is that deleted on purpose?] Nope.""""I’d like to put some thought into the Research Tools/Did You Know/Featured Content concept to see what I really (as a reader) would want to see. I do know that casual researchers want things really, really boiled down. The most common question I get when I give presentations, or help a FHC patron, is “What web sites do you use?” People glaze over pretty quickly when I explain that I use a variety of web sites at different times, for different purposes, then give some examples. Somehow, we need the Illinois page to point people to the best stuff, without turning into another Cindi’s List or Linkpendium.""""And finally… Why wait until after the 17th? I would like to see a new Illinois page up on Monday. With ISGS pointing people to the wiki, I don’t want to put them to sleep on their first experience with the wiki! What needs to happen between now and then, and how can I help? Lise 16:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)"

David,

Here's the misleading headings I found for Marlboro County, SC


 * Archives, Libraries, and Museums
 * Societies - Genealogical, Historical, Lineage

Now what? Societies DO have their own museums, libraries and archives. Those headings aren't my idea. They were there when I went in to install locality template few days ago.

Dsammy


 * I don't like the second because it has been changed from just plain "Societies" which I think most people are still using most of the time.


 * If a repository is used by genealogists more like an archives-library-museum it should be under that heading. If a repository is used by genealogists more like a society it should be under that heading. It doesn't pay to over-analyze this - especially at the county level. A few things could fit in two places. Pick one and let it go. I usually think of the DAR as a society. But when talking about their library in DC, I'd be inclined to call it a library. So for IMPORTANT ones put it in both places. But at the county level pick one and put it there based on how you think our readers would most likely use it: library or society.


 * How is that misleading? If we over-analyze this we could have a dozen categories and the different parts of the same repository could end up in different categories. I doubt that would simplify, make easier, or be more understandable than keeping it to just two repository categories.


 * Hey, if it were just me, I'd put everything under just plain "Repositories." But we came from an old Library of Congress system to FHLC system to Wiki that originally labelled things "Archives and Libraries" or "Societies" and left out museums altogether. It is not perfect, but it is what we have. Let's do the best we can to select the right category and not make it any more complicated than it already is.


 * If a repository has some special rules because it is public, private, Communist, Capitalist, or Martian we can talk about those kinds of details in the repository template, for example see South Carolina Department of Archives and History. But in a simple list of archives or societies at the county level, or even the state level, that kind of detail is way too much.

David

David,

I just found your Upper Road article. Very nice! I would like to feature it if you feel it is ready.

Kara 19:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

David,

Has anyone mentioned how much we value your expertise and willingness to share your knowledge with the genealogy community? You have done so much and we are grateful.

Thank you!
David-

We wanted to send out a quick thank you for contributing to a FamilySearch Historical Records' article. You may not know it, but this is a new project that is just getting off the ground and your contribution helps! The information you provide is invaluable to those users who are searching out further information about collections in FamilySearch; it helps them make a deeper connection with their research, especially when it has to do with their own ancestry. It’s your contributions that are keeping the project rolling forward. Thank you.

We'd love to have you become part of our community here. We've got lots of ways to get involved a little deeper into the project and what the project entails: https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/FamilySearch_Wiki:WikiProject_FamilySearch_Records. In this page you will find information about the FamilySearch Records project, getting started in wiki editing, tasks for which you can sign up to volunteer, etc. We are excited you have decided to share your talents, time and resources towards forwarding the goals of FamilySearch.org and those who use it (including you!).

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. We’d love to hear from you and help you out in any way we can.

Sincerely,

The FamilySearch Records Team User:HoranDM User:LakeCL User:ginabegin

Small adoption signs
Hi David, I noticed that you had created a variation of the adoption sign template Adoption sign small to create narrower adoption signs that fit better under the topic sidebars on topic main pages (eg Texas). Today I amended the main adoption sign template to include a new small parameter that means you do not need to create separate smaller versions, but can add this parameter (|small=true) to any of the existing templates where needed. I have added a new example to the common documentation for these templates to demonstrate how this works. --Steve 23:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed Links
I noticed that a lot of links I had added to the Research Tools section were removed. Why were they removed? Were they moved somewhere else? Why ask people to add links if they are just going to be removed. I thought these were all very valuable links. Also I feel like my time was wasted. There should be a mechanism for notifying people as to why you removed or moved links. Actually there is, but I didn't see any entries there.

I did find a few where they had been moved and the move seemed ok, but the vast majority of them I cannot find. I think the ones I couldn't find were mostly placed by me in the Archives and Libraries Section.

User Fsieber.

Beginners page

Hi David I have been talking with members of the FamilySearch Wiki Support Team, of which I am a member, and we see a need for an article on beginning family history research. There are at least 30, probably more, articles dealing with the topic on various levels in the Wiki.

We would like to compose a definitive article, if that is even possible, on beginning research that a newcomer to FamilySearch Wiki could use to help them get started. The way things are, one would have to research through all these articles to find out how to research.

I have composed an article which can be read at User:ccsmith/sandbox. Your article on “Principles of Family History Research” was the basis for this. I have entitled it “Beginning Family History Research.”

The basic idea again, was to create a article on beginning research incorporating the material in these other 30 articles. For the articles that are just too long, I have included links to them. Some of the articles are very short and redundant and I feel should be deleted.

I would like your input on this if you can spare a moment or two. Any suggestions would thankfully be received. ccsmith 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from the Wiki:
The FamilySearch Research Wiki is delighted to let you know that the “Guessing the Easiest to Research Person and Event” page you helped create has become a Featured Article, highlighted on the Main Page of the Wiki, and will remain there for seven days. Thank you for your excellent work to help others quickly access records. Your contributions are appreciated and will assist others in finding their ancestors.

You have made a difference in research!

County Link problem on South Dakota
I am working on the linking of FHC pages to county pages and have found that the county links on state pages are very useful. The South Dakota page county links don't work and in the history it shows you worked on this section. I am asking for you help to return this section to working order. We tried to edit and cannot, either in section or whole page. Thanks so much. Sandralpond 16:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow! You found a really cool bug. Most of the links in the middle of the article are not operating. Thanks for pointing this out. I tracked it down to the "Forums Badge." It should be fairly easy to fix. DiltsGD 22:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)