FamilySearch Wiki talk:WikiProject Utah County Headings

Here is a summary of the changes to the county headings for Utah, with comments. We welcome your comments so adjustments can be made. The changes are being made now, and your good suggestions can be implemented later.

Please use four tildes ~ to sign and date stamp your comments. Thank you!AdkinsWH 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Style: headings will be level 3 or higher AdkinsWH 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the basic issues I see is the disparity between counties, for example, compare Utah County or Salt Lake County to Daggett County. Does the list really have any meaning for Daggett County with a population of 938 people or Piute with 1,404? What about having two or more different levels, one really simple, intermediate and long form like the list? Utah really has only six counties with more than 100,000 people and more than half the population of the state is in two counties. More later. James L. Tanner 01:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick Reference?
Change to Quick Reference or Key Facts rather than Quick Facts? Being discussed in Contributors Meeting 13 Dec 2011AdkinsWH 19:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, shall we add a chart similar to Adams County, Illinois?


 * Quick Facts We liked this title expecting that it speaks to users and gives them access to facts they often need to display prominently AdkinsWH 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Quick Facts I am not sure that I like the heading Quick Facts at all. I am never sure what is and is not to be included. I know the heading is used extensively in the Wiki but there does not seem to be any consistency in its application to genealogy. I also like the US County Templates to take care of this information rather than having a separate heading. James L. Tanner 01:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Quick Facts. Be careful this does not become a miscellaneous catch all category. Almost all contributors will mistakenly push to turn it into such. It is a camel's nose under the tent flap. It should only be for a few Handybook or Red Book type county quick-reference facts. Since every contributor imagines their contribution most valuable, they will want to push their material to the top. Resist this! . . . Another way this camel manifests itself is for contributors to want to fill the space after the heading Quick Facts and before the first sub-heading, usually Parent Counties. Resist this as well! DiltsGD 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * History Timeline under "Quick Facts" AdkinsWH 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * History Timeline' is a perfect example of what I warned about above. It belongs in and has ALWAYS been part of History in all national and state Wiki pages. If the contributors do their job on the Parent Counties section by putting in dates, the rest of the history timeline works much better as sub-part of History. To allow it to be removed from History and usurped into Quick Facts creates a pattern disconnect with the national and state pages for no good reason. DiltsGD 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Decision: History Timeline Very good point. This has been moved under "History" in the "Resources" area. AdkinsWH 18:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Neighboring Counties kept under "Quick Facts" AdkinsWH 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Boundary Changes This heading is information that is currently available from the Newberry Atlas of Historical Counties Boundaries Project and can either reference the project or rewrite the changes outlined on that website. James L. Tanner 01:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Resources I like the heading -- please keep it. But be forewarned contributors will try to put camel's nose material between Resources and the first sub-heading.DiltsGD 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Resources I agree with David above.James L. Tanner 01:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Resources In fact, I was thinking of adding some "how to access resources" blurb, pointing to worldcat and other ways to gain access to or have records searched. Also thought to point to methodology pages or other things people often need. What do you think? Leave it blank, or add frequently-needed info? AdkinsWH 18:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Decision: Resources Access and use of resources will not appear after the Resources heading. We are considering adding a heading (level 3) titled something like "Resources: Access and Use" or trying to find something more inviting and acceptable.AdkinsWH 20:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bible Records? I have only come across one (1) Bible with family information in this state, and that originated in North Carolina and brought across on the plane (Delta). Nor am I aware of something like a Utah DAR project to compile information from Utah Bible records. (I'm sure some good soul will educate me otherwise.) HillierLW 16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are always surprises. I've found some in unlikely places. Dsammy 21:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bible Records I think this should be included to encourage people to look for bible records.James L. Tanner 01:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Decision: We will leave this on every county. AdkinsWH 17:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Business and Commerce? What kind of records might this include? Guessing that would provide more historical than genealogical content. Not sure that is a pressing category for the family historian.HillierLW 16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Employmnt records, business history, ledgers giving names of families on credit or whatever, etc. From the genealogy mailing lists, I see a lot of requests for information on specific business in years gone back. Dsammy 21:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mining industry is big in Utah, as well. AdkinsWH 17:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Decision: We will leave these in the county shell.AdkinsWH 21:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ethnic Groups does not allow discussion of Utah's very own "People's" party, the "Liberal" party, or the "Morrisites," a religous group. The correct title Ethnic, Political, or Religious Groups allows discussion of each "minority" as a group. The longer title is needed because the more direct and simple "Minorities" was tossed out as politically incorrect. But shortening the new category to just Ethnic groups leaves out two-thirds of the possible minorities. Also, be careful to distinguish between Church Records and ...Religious Groups. The former would tend to include histories of a faith particularly as that history affects their records. The latter would tend to include the history of the minority as a minority or as a migrant group. It is a fine line, but it is a real one. DiltsGD 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Decision: This will currently be called "Ethnic and Other Groups" AdkinsWH 21:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Histories should be History. Please think about the unnecessary confusion caused by abandoning years of precedent so casually. History has traditionally been the home of an actual history of the place, often, but not always, in a timeline type format, especially where that history might affect genealogical record keeping. It has also been the home of calendar type information (not applicable to Utah), and a short bibliography of a few of the best examples of scholarly histories of the place. The problem with Histories is that it implies it is only the latter.DiltsGD 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Decision: Histories changed to History AdkinsWH 20:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Poor and Welfare Records under "Resources" AdkinsWH 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Poor and Welfare Records [in lieu of Poor Law]? This is another category that may not produce results for the state/territory of Utah but is incredibly valuable in British research. Plenty of it going on, but the records for the most part will be confidential or non existant. HillierLW 16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Poor and Welfare Records doesn't fit the established pattern of using Family History Library Catalog topics. The correct heading is Poorhouses, Poor Law, etc. Is there some good reason to change the pattern established in so many other places in the Wiki? DiltsGD 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * County Farms fall under this category and there are records. Widows' Pensions, etc. Records aren't confidential if before 1960, especially 1930s. Dsammy 21:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Decision: Heading changed to Poorhouses, Poor Law, etc. A template will be added to explain generally what users may expect. AdkinsWH 17:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Resource Repositories rather than "Repositories" Reasoning: Inexperienced users may understand it better, with the tie-in to the "Resources" heading. AdkinsWH 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Resource Repositories. Confusion and problems on so many levels!!! (1) Nothing valuable is gained by modifying the word "repositories" with the word "resource". Please keep it simple -- just the word Repositories. (2) However, making Repositories a sub-heading of Resources makes perfect sense because they are part of the many resources genealogists use. Why pretend they are not? (3) Please make Repositories a level four heading like Voting Registers. Please move it to the "R" section of the Resources after Public Records. (4) Change all the subheadings to level 5 subheadings. DiltsGD 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Decision: Repositories area has been moved back under resources. Societies has been included for now. Social Groups has not been included at this time.AdkinsWH 20:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Societies and Social Groups Downsize to 4, break them up, move Socities under Repositories and move Social Groups in its' place above Taxation. AdkinsWH 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Societies and Social Groups. Problems of serveral types again! (1) The traditional heading is Societies. Mashing it up with other stuff now will only lead to confusion with other parts of the Wiki that follow the long established pattern. (2) Societies are similar to and often have libraries, archives, or museums (or social groups online) and fit quite well as a subcategory of repositories. Please move Societies to a sub-heading of Repositories. (3) Social Groups sounds like girls' cliques in High School. Social Groups Online would be clearer. (4) I lost the battle in NY trying to convince people that Social Groups Online was also a repository. So to be consistent with NY Social Groups Online should be a level 4 sub-heading of Resources. There is no reason I can think of to make it a non-resource and superior to all other resources by leaving it as a level 3 heading. (Secretly, I would cheer it being a subheading of Repositories. We can be more flexible with new concepts than we can with headings we've had for 60 years.) (5) There is a simplicity and elegance associated with making Repositories a subheading of Resources and making Societies a subheading of Repositories. Jumbling them up with too high a heading level implies Repositories are not resources, and Societies are not repositories. DiltsGD 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Decision: Societies part of Repositories area, Social Groups left off for now.AdkinsWH 20:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Towns and Communities This lets users see it in Contents and find the M/C template more easily. Also gives a place for things like "Ghost Towns" of which there are plenty in Utah.AdkinsWH 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Towns and Communities DSammy will probably be uneasy about this way of doing it, but if this is what you want, and can live with Dsammy, go for it. DiltsGD 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Already underway with replacement M/C template, extra care has to be taken because Salt Lake County according to GNIS has over 2,000 communities (no way since they listed each apartment building as a community). Only question, keep counties in the template or not. Dsammy 21:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * References Downsize to 4 and put it between M/C Template and Topic Template AdkinsWH 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments not moved to specific headings
HillierLW 16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The county headings for Utah have been well thought out to best serve the user.

Three items I question:

Comments moved to specific topics

More Comments

Note, I am only commenting on those areas that I think need more thought. The rest are fine.

Comments moved under specific topics AdkinsWH 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not through, but I have to leave for a while. I will come back with more comments. James L. Tanner 01:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)