User talk:DiltsGD

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)