User talk:JensenFA/Archive 1

The following closed discussions were moved from my Discussion page to this Archive page. If any discussion needs to be reopened, please add a comment to the discussion item:

Soliciting your opinion
Hey Fran, will you weigh in on "Local Histories" or "Histories" heading on county pages? I want to reach consensus on this quickly in order to get a big missionary team engaged in FamilySearch Wiki:WikiProject Linking to Books in the BYU Family History Archives. Thanks in advance! Ritcheymt 13:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Canada
Hi Fran, I noticed you were adding the provinces of Canada into the Browse by Country. Is that what we are really wanting to do? I would think we would only have countries in that article and no lower juristiction. The country should have the lower juristiction, like the states in the USA. Thomas Lerman 16:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note about the changes to the list of countries. I was given the task this sprint to make the browse by locality more intuitive, especially for Canada. In fact that was the only suggestion for changes to the browse by locality. Now that Canada is done, I'm not sure what other improvements are needed. Anyway, the task was added to our backlog of work to be done. The task was also prioritized and high enough on the list of things to do that I was able to pick it up and get it done this sprint (Nov 13-Dec 9). Franjensen 19:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am not sure that adding the Canadian provinces to the country browsing is the best things. It can open a can of worms. Maybe that should be discussed in the forum and/or users' group. This is obviously just my opinion at this time. Sorry, I forgot to add my signature to my previous post. I have added it in. Thomas Lerman 19:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fran, if you wish to delete this old subject that I brought up, please feel free. Thomas Lerman 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Transferring old FHL documents task page.
Typo found in one of the task document links, was missing the second ] in it, once fixed it is red so you'll see it, might be that the linked to page is not up yet?

Impressive! Update?
I am impressed with what you've done to Maryland Cemeteries, Fran! As the barn raising winds down, I want to get a feel for how each article on the Maryland Barn Raising Tasks is coming along so I can tell where to allocate any help that contributors can give for a last push. Could you either send me a message by editing my User Discussion page or go to the Maryland Barn Raising Tasks page and update the column on the % of "doneness" the article is at now?

Reference problem
After you and I discovered the bug in the IE browser, I decided to go one step further, getting home to check Firefox browser. It has same problem so it is not unique to one browser but apply to others browsers. dsammy 03:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC) (Thanks for the additional testing. I will report this as well. Franjensen 03:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC) )

New York State Censuses
Saw the format to be good idea for the state censuses but can I suggest a change since it is county level?

Delete "County name" in first county, and in the place, line by line, "FHL", "FamilySearch" and "NYSL" and under each subsequent column, mark yes or no with Yes being linked? There is possibility of another site having the images, too, making it easier to go this way of format instead of current one, with one simple step of quick adding line. dsammy 21:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to jump in on this conversation. Would the discussion page for that article be a good place to discuss this? I think a sample would be a good idea. Is this the page you are referring to? Thomas Lerman 21:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in the middle of helping someone who is working on that page. She wanted to learn how to do a few things in the Wiki, and we were using that section of the New York Census page to train. She is actually working on developing the content on in that section and we were discussing some ideas for improving the table. Thanks Dsammy for pointing out a few ideas for improvement - that's exactly what we were talking about. I also agree this discussion should have gone on the Discussion page - that way anyone who has another idea can also join in on the conversation. Any objections to copying these comments to the Discussion page for the article? Franjensen 22:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Maryland Cemeteries links.
Saw you had taken the cemeteries area for the barn raising. Found that Google has quite a few links related to Maryland and its cemeteries.

Some links are to rootsweb.com and intermen.net, but there is one to the state office that handles some Government oversight of them. There's an African-American cemeteries in Maryland page as well that will work for other parts of the wiki, not just Maryland.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=maryland+cemeteries+online&amp;aq=0&amp;oq=Maryland+Cemeteries


 * Thanks. This information will be helpful. Franjensen
 * Found some more links to cemeteries on idreamof.com. For an example, see the Dorcester County MD page, I found one, but when I found it was on the idreamof.com aggregator page, I replaced that with the page with all the cemetery transcription links to Dorcester County.  Most are from the USGenweb archives, but there may be some that are not.   JamesAnderson 03:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Vital records project
Hey, I know you're buried with the policies and procedures project, but wanted to let you know I went ahead and created FamilySearch Wiki:WikiProject U.S. Vital Records. I linked this project page from the Community Portal. I'm going to try to define some of the sub-tasks we listed on FamilySearch Wiki:Sources of Information for a United States Record Type Article and get the FHL vital records project employee team working on them. Ritcheymt 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Potential layout glitch - US Census Years table
Saw your usual excellent work on getting the portals changed to regular but well-formatted pages. I noticed that the 'US Census Years' table has a glitch and it does not look quite right. May be just a matter of reformatting the table so it will have a more symmetrical look in context with the rest of the page. JamesAnderson 04:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)