User talk:Cottrells

Request template for a "plain" box
Hi, Steve. I would like to use a template for a text box quite often, where the text and the color may change. (The colors you allow in the Box template are great.) It should be a single cell, not one with a heading. Will you mind doing this? Thank you. AdkinsWH 21:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Wilma, I have edited the template Box so that there is now a new parameter called header which if you set to =no will remove the header/title. I have added a new example at the bottom of the template description page showing this in action. Let me know what you think. --Steve 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea is exactly right. The last box, however, was not orange. Maybe what I'm really asking for is the header part of the text box. AdkinsWH 19:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Being slightly color-blind, I did not at first see that the text box did have a soft color.


 * On further experimentation, Steve, it would be wonderful if we had the option of the text box alone or the header alone. AdkinsWH 20:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * HI Wilma, I have made some further edits (including examples) so that the darker colour defined in Box template can be used as the background in a text box. --Steve 13:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Steve! You really are such a great asset to all of us. It looks beautiful, except that it leaves a pipe and a line or two before the box. See Overall objectives


 * My apologies Wilma the error was in the example, which I have now fixed. You do not need to start the template call with a pipe. I have removed these from Overall objectives. The space before the box is actually the style of the section before the box adding a bottom margin of 18px. --Steve 20:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Gravesend page
Steve, would you take a look at this talk page and see if you can help the contributor, or have someone else do that? I'd really appreciate it. Talk:Gravesend St James,Kent Lynda 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Lynda, I have added my thoughts about the issue raised on Talk:Gravesend St James,Kent page. --Steve 17:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve! Lynda 17:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Census Template
I really like the template that you put on all the census sections. I think there is one missing thing. And that is a link to the County census page.

Refer to the Suffolk Census wiki article for details about the Census. Many of the County census pages are not developed, but since Suffolk has one is it possible to just create a census template just for Suffolk. It has over 500 parishes. Donjgen 22:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Don, thank you for this. I have added, as you suggested, a reference to the Suffolk Census to Suffolk parish articles that have not had this section developed. --Steve 06:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Parish History Template
Refer to the Suffolk Gazetteers for source material or England Topographical Dictionaries.

There are a number of Suffolk Gazetteers online as google ebooks that list good source material for every parish in Suffolk. A link to that page would point people in the right direction even if they don't edit anything. I have also notice England Topographical Dictionaries in the Google Books Section, so a page could be created to point people to this source. I think gone are the days when you go to a library and pull out a dictionary or gazetteer. Donjgen 21:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I found a page that does have England Topographical Dictionaries. I have put a link to it. I don't like how it is named. There must be others, other then Samuel Lewis Donjgen 21:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Don for the suggestion. I have added a link to the Suffolk Gazetteers and England Gazetteers pages on the relevant Suffolk parishes. You are correct that the A Topographical Dictionary of England is just one of a number of reference works that could be used. --Steve 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Search and Replace Text
I guess this is something that I cannot do myself. Is it easy to target a combination of parishes with this instead of a county. As I have focused on Hoxne district in Suffolk, and other places, I find myself going to each parish in the district to change or add something. Donjgen 21:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Don, the Special:ReplaceText function is only available to admins. When using it it can be targeted by namespace and/or category. There is also the opportunity to review the "matches" and to "unselect" individual articles so that they are not changed. Is there a particular change that you would like me to help you with? --Steve 21:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have created this text in a number of articles in Suffolk. -- If you live in Suffolk then you will have access to a variety of resources -- I want it replaced with -- If you live in Suffolk then you will have access to a variety of resources -- The above text is in the section labeled RESOURCES

RESOURCES section is blank on most every page except the ones where I have put something there. Where Resources is blank put the following text:


 * :Hi Don, I can see what you want to change. I would suggest a slight changes to the wording/links so that the links are more in context. For the resources section I would suggest something like


 * If you live in Suffolk you will have access to a variety of resources at local archives and libraries. For those who live further afield, one can access microfilm and online records at LDS Family History Centres. Refer to  Suffolk_in_the_FHL_Catalog  and  in the Family History Library Catalogue for available records.

The last part takes someone to all the links to the catalog for every parish in Suffolk. The mouseover test encourages someone to replace that link with a direct link to the parish. So regardless whether they add a link or not they will see the links to the catalogue to the parish they are looking for.

the article Suffolk in the FHL Catalog and/or search in the Family History Library Catalog for. Refer to Suffolk_in_the_FHL_Catalog and in the Family History Library Catalogue for available records.

Refer to and  in the Family History Library Catalog for available records.


 * Hi Don, I can see what you want to change. I would suggest a slight changes to the wording/links so that the links are more in context. For the resources section I would suggest something like


 * If you live in Suffolk you will have access to a variety of resources available at local archives and libraries. For those who live further afield, you can access microfilm and online records at LDS Family History Centres. Refer to the article Suffolk in the FHL Catalog and/or search in the Family History Library Catalog for.

CHURCH RECORDS section; I have changed some of the text in this section from the standard template text, so this change would not effect those articles. Replace -- Contributor: Include here information for parish registers, Bishop’s Transcripts, non conformist and other types of church records, such as parish chest records. Add the contact information for the office holding the original records. Add links to the Family History Library Catalog showing the film numbers in their collection --


 * To:   Parish Registers began in the 1500's and 1600's.  They can be viewed at the Suffolk Record Office.  There are Bishop Transcripts and Parish Registers that have been filmed for most parishes in the County.  See the Suffolk Church Record article for further details.  Contributor : Include here information for parish registers, Bishop’s Transcripts, parish chest records, non conformist and other types of church records. Add links to parish collections found on the internet. Make reference to the Family History Library's collection.

If you think that the wording should be different then we should talk about that. Donjgen 21:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Don, I can see what you want to change. I would suggest a slight changes to the wording/links so that the links are more in context. For the resources section I would suggest something like


 * If you live in Suffolk you will have access to a variety of resources available at local archives and libraries. For those who live further afield, you can access microfilm and online records at LDS Family History Centres. Refer to the article Suffolk in the FHL Catalog and/or search in the Family History Library Catalog for.


 * For the Church records section I would suggest making use of the expand section template resulting in something like


 * Parish Registers began in the 1500's. They can be viewed at the Suffolk Record Office. There are Bishop Transcripts and Parish Registers that have been filmed for most parishes in the County. See the Suffolk Church Records article for further details.

Let me know what you think of these suggestions. --Steve 13:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed the last part as actual online collections and a reference to catalog are different. I don't think it is a good idea to encourage people to link to the catalog. There will already be a link to the catalog in the RESOURCE section listing there holdings for the parish. Most of Suffolk's parishes have few catalog resources. Since this there is a lot of text in this box is it possible to make it 1/2 a page instead of 1/4 page in length. Donjgen 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Don, thanks for the feedback. I do think it's a lot of information in the prompt and from what you say about there not being much in the FHLC, why not drop that last bit completely so that we put in


 * Parish Registers began in the 1500's. They can be viewed at the Suffolk Record Office. Parish Registers and Bishop Transcripts and have been filmed for most parishes in the County. See the Suffolk Church Records article for further details.

--Steve 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

near final version. I removed the link to the Suffolk Record Office since there is already a link in the Suffolk Church Records and in the Resource section. I'm not sure what other type of Church Records refer to since the parish chest records cover various types of records. Donjgen 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Don, I would recommend keeping a link to Suffolk Record Office. Currently this is a section within the Suffolk Archives and Libraries page, but as that page develops it could be split out to it's own article in the future. My opinion is that if it is relevant link to it again. I know Wikipedia has a guideline about only linking from the first reference, but an individual may only read one section and not the whole article. The reference to other type of Church Records, is a general statement which can cover anything not specifically spelt out in the previous sentence. It could be dropped if you don't think it really adds much. --Steve 09:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I edited it again and it is a toss up as to the Suffolk Record Office Link. I put that link back into it. I would think in some time in the future the text will be changed and unique text will be in this section pertaining to each parish. I think it is ready. The Suffolk Church Records page goes into detail. If we come up with better text we can always search and replace it. Its a lot better than what is there now. Donjgen 16:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK I have actioned this request with the replacement text we came up with. As you are more familiar with these article please review them and let me know if everything is OK, or any adjustments are required. --Steve 14:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Resource Section
In the current form SUFFOLK is linked to twice in this paragraph to different places. The link to the Suffolk page should be removed. I am of the opinion that the text in this section need not be uniform across all the parishes. There should be some variety that conveys the same message. Perhaps 1 in 3 should convey they same text. I think a better option to have people understand what should be put in different resource sections would be to create a page with examples and link to that page. I'm not sure if people understand what exactly should go there. Donjgen 04:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Don, I understand the point you are making that two links, both with the single word "Suffolk" are linking to different places. My thought is that the word Suffolk on it's own should link to the article of the same name in the wiki. Perhaps the word(s) used for the other link could changed/expanded so that it includes the following text "Suffolk in the Family History Library Catalog" as this would describe the resultant page found when the link is followed.


 * I also like you idea of setting up a page with examples of the text and links that could be added to the article. My suggestion would be to locate this as a sub-page of the WikiProject English parishes. Once created we could add a link in the relevant expand section templates to this guide/example. --Steve 17:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Table in Utah Experimental County
Yes, Steve! I would love the table put into a template where the data can change! Thanks for offering way back on the 8th. AdkinsWH 20:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Wilma, I have created the template US County records which includes parameters so that the different data can be easily changed. I have swapped out the code used for this template in the article FamilySearch Wiki:WikiProject Utah Experimental County. --Steve 18:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

UK &amp; IRL county pages
Steve, can I get your opinion on UK &amp; IRL county pages?

When I originally created the Welsh county pages, I allocated a page title as simply the county name, e.g. "Flintshire"

Following discussion with others, I was persuaded to rename them to include the country, e.g. "Flintshire, Wales".

Last week another user renamed all of these pages back to just "County name" (causing loads of re-directs!). However I have to say that I still believe that this is the correct way to go! I notice there is a total lack of consistency here!

Ireland: "County name" e.g. "County Galway"

England: "County name", e.g. "Wiltshire"

Scotland: "County name, Country name" e.g. "Ayrshire, Scotland"

Wales: "County name, Country name" e.g. "Flintshire, Wales"

What do you think? --Bromaelor 13:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Bromaelor, my preference is that the counties for England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales do not need the country to be included in the title or for that matter any major subdivision of any country. There is a guideline about Naming conventions and maybe we should propose that this is added to that article. For example none of the US states have "United States" appended nor do the provinces of Canada have anything but their name. I can not find anything written in the wiki that states it should be done one way or the other, but I can understand for practical reasons why counties in US states have the state name included - because of repetition of names in multiple states. For example Washington County. So it makes sense to do so for these counties but not when county names are better known and less ambiguous. --Steve 14:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Global search &amp; replace
Steve, we have a deletion request for "Aalborg County, Denmark". There are many links to this page and most of them are like this: Denmark &gt; Aalborg &gt; Als. Janell said you might be able to do a global search &amp; replace on these. Aalborg needs to be changed to Ålborg. Is there a way to do that? Lynda 23:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Lynda, yes there is a way to do this. I've now made the change and no pages now link to "Aalborg County, Denmark". --Steve 13:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!Lynda 15:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Adoption user boxes
Steve, if I understand correctly, adoption signs when put on talk pages change to something more akin to a userbox. Am I interpreting that correctly? Could you add something to the instructions about this? This is one of those instruction pages used by a lot of articles so I don't want to mess it up.... thanks! -- janellv 23:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Janell, Yes you understand correctly. There was already a note about this, but it could easily be missed if the documentation was skim read. I have changed the common documentation so that it now includes a proper example. This required a line of code to be added to each template. So I have also updated the main documentation for the mother template Adoption sign. Hopefully this revised documentation now makes the way the template behaves more clear. --Steve 14:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I skimmed the instructions a couple times and missed them! That helps a lot. -- janellv 21:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New User Box for Ireland
Steve: Would it be possible to make a user box with the flag of Ireland and a statement saying of Irish ancestry? Not a top priority, but if you find the time it wold be appreciated. Thanks Elder Knox 21:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Elder Knox, I have created a new template User Irish as requested.


 * Also I note that your edits since 28 Feb have been inserting unwanted javascript into the wikicode. My guess is that your system has been infected by some malware. You should therefore disable any browser extensions that you've recently installed. --Steve 12:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

English Parishes
I think we have a problem with people in the USA creating pages without really understanding the situation in the UK?

Take a look at these examples:

Shrewsbury Holy Trinity, Shropshire Shrewsbury St Mary, Shropshire Shrewsbury St Alkmund, Shropshire Shrewsbury St Chad, Shropshire Shrewsbury St George, Shropshire Shrewsbury St Julian, Shropshire Shrewsbury St Michael, Shropshire Shrewsbury Holy Cross with St Giles, Shropshire

Are these pages really necessary??? None of them have any useful content (and probably never will?). I don't believe that they can ever be expanded without duplicating the contents of the page:

Shrewsbury, Shropshire

which is where all references to the individual parishes of the town of Shrewsbury should be placed.

I believe that this approach has been used for every town in England. Anyone can take a list of parishes and create web pages from it. But leaving these pages without any real content makes the site look shoddy! What do you think? --Bromaelor 13:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)