User talk:Dsammy

Static presentation on the Wiki
Hi Dsammy,

Back in March you asked about a static presentation on the Wiki. Since then you are probably aware of the one we have, but you can find them by searching for the word "Teach" in the Wiki search box. It should be the first result, but if you can't find it, here is the link to the teaching aids page. nixiao 21:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We need your opinion
In order to help the community arrive at consensus on some issues impacting most of the pages on FamilySearch Wiki, I'd like to invite you to add your opinions to the following discussions:

FamilySearch Wiki talk:Format for Citing and Linking to Works in FHLC, Worldcat (OCLC) at https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/FamilySearch_Wiki_talk:Format_for_Citing_and_Linking_to_Works_in_FHLC%2C_Worldcat_%28OCLC%29

FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus at https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/FamilySearch_Wiki_talk:Consensus

FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats at https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/FamilySearch_Wiki_talk:Source_Citation_Formats

FamilySearch Wiki talk:Disambiguation at https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/FamilySearch_Wiki_talk:Disambiguation

Thanks! Ritcheymt 11:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What's your best work? And your favorites from others?
Hey there! I'm searching for the wiki's best content to highlight it during a presentation I'm doing soon. Will you link me to the 2 or 3 articles you've contributed to that you are most pleased with? Also, could you link me to your favorite article(s) written by others? Thanks! Ritcheymt 17:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of categories with pipes?
On the Germany Handwriting page there are two categories with pipes in them. What purpose does putting pipes in a category serve? If you didn't do this, can you tell who did, or what they were trying to accomplish? I'm just trying to figure out what the significance of this is. Diltsgd 02:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Big difference! Are you trying to lump everything under "G" for Germany regardless of subject?

You want Probate? Go to "P" in Germany's category. You want Civil Registration? Go to "C" in Germany's category. You want Emigration and Immigration? Go to "E" in Germany's category. It's that simple. Otherwise everything will be lumped under "G" for Germany. It's ridiculous. Baerbel understood. England's team is doing that, too.

And the separatedcategory "Word List" was listed on that page so pipelined it.

Talk:Massachusetts Census page reply
This is a discussion talk page, not a article page.

And the links to ancestryinstitution will NOT work outside 15 specific Family History Centers and one Family History Library at all.

....and second, why Maryland? This is Massachusetts. dsammy 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, talk pages are the ideal place to discuss rather drastic proposed changes to a page. So we have added a page like this to all states and territories where they apply. This means we have a team working on upgrading the U.S. census pages and you have an opportunity to have some input by seeing what we are planning before we switch them over to the main page.


 * This also means that what you see on the talk page is a draft that still needs some work. We are piece-by-piece "fixing" things on it. So when you see "Maryland" on the census page for Massachusetts, it is simply because we haven't gotten around to changing the name, yet. It is a large project and some things may not get changed for some time. Please be patient.


 * Yes, you are absolutely correct that only a limited number of Family History Centers have AncestryInstitution rights. But we believe that those centers represent a significant enough part of our Wiki audience, and Ancestry is such a significant part of research that it is important to allow them a place at our table. You are welcome to disagree, but we hope that if we can find a way to represent AncestryInsistution without creating too much difficulty for other worthy indexes, you will not remove those links where we try to provide that access. Diltsgd 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC), part of the U.S. Census Wiki Team


 * Michael and I were talking yesterday about this very thing. He and I agreed on several points, one point is that the team needs to reach out to some outside the team for feedback for improvement before placing on pages for sure. And we agreed there is a need for a link to the page showing the list of the FHCs having access to Ancestryinstitution.com and how to get around that issue. That's for your team to figure out! Dsammy 14:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups change proposal
There is already a long-standing category for Ethnic, Political, or Religious Groups. That topic is broader than the more narrowly focused Ethnic Groups category. In order to avoid duplication, I suggest that all ethnic groups should be moved to the broader category from the category "Ethnic Groups," and then then the more narrow category be deleted. Diltsgd 01:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a problem. There are many ethnic groups who are adverse to being labeled political or religious alongside with ethnic. This came up in a meeting I had last Wednesday. It belongs separately. Here's this description of ethnic group - "An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed." That's from the Wikipedia. I would be adverse if I were to be part of German group with religion label. Dsammy 02:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The category could have been called just Groups but no one would have understood, so it got the longer title. The category is for all three kinds of groups. It is not just for people that are all three kinds at once. The category is for groups that are either one of the three. So Germans can be an ethnic group, Loyalists can be a political group, and Huguenots can be a religious group. The category allows genealogists to find any kind of human group about which there may be special records. No one is asking an ethnic group to be labelled religious or political if that is not appropriate to their group. We are just trying to fit as many kinds of human groups as possible into one overall category.


 * It isn't saying you have to be all three at once to fit in the category, it is just saying we think these three fit well together. We also see Acadians, Cajuns, and Creoles, and also the category for Migration Routes that includes (1)Canals, (2)Ports, (3)Railroads, (4)Rivers and Lakes, and (5)Trails and Roads. No one says the only way to get in the Migration Route category is to be all 5 things at once--a clear impossibility. So it is okay to have ethnic, political, and religious groups in one category together because genealogists use their records in all about the same way. In fact genealogically, they fit together so well, it seems strange to me not to have them together. Diltsgd 21:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)