User talk:DiltsGD

From FamilySearch Wiki
Revision as of 16:21, 6 April 2013 by DiltsGD (talk | contribs) (updated template)

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk Conventions

  • Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
  • Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text.
  • Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Start a new talk topic.
Please post your comments on this page by clicking the link above. This will automatically format the page so all you have to do is type your comments.

Move sandbox from main space to user space

All sandboxes are being moved from main space to user space because of search problems. User:DiltsGD/Sandbox 101, User:DiltsGD/Sandbox 102, User:DiltsGD/Sandbox E, and User:DiltsGD/Sandbox 76 have been renamed and moved. Sandralpond 16:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)\

  • Image Captions
    Followup note on Image captions incase you didn't get the note from the case.
    Captions are only displayed under an image when either the frame or thumb parameter is used (see the examples on -
  • Help:Images<https:/​/​​learn/​wiki/​en/​Help:Images> or
  • mw:Help:Images <http:/​/​​wiki/​Help:Images>)

Ldrew 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

David, do you still want the NY pages deleted?  They link to several others.  Example:NY State Archives and New York State Library
Lynda 14:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no! Sorry, this is a misunderstanding. I deleted the old template on one primary page and failed to realize the template was still connected to other pages. Give me about 30 minutes and I'll have them all fixed. Then delete the templates only -- no primary pages. Thanks. DiltsGD 15:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the delete template off the pages.Lynda 16:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC) - Actually, will wait and then do the templates per your instructions above.Lynda 16:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

David, Is this page still necessary for the Pacific Island collection, since the IGI is in now? Find Ancestors on the IGI

Pacific Island Guide Step 8:

Thank you for the article titled Pacific Island Guide to Family History Research. In reviewing the neutrality of this article, I would like to offer suggestions to help resolve this matter. With changes already under way about access to the IGI database through the new, that the following be done:
a. an external link be placed in Step 8 directing the researcher to new family search org.
b. The researcher could also be directed to the nearest family history center for help in utilizing the IGI database.
By these two steps, Step 8 remains viable for the researcher AND this portion of the article remains within WIki article policy guidelines.
I was pleasantly surprised to find this guide while patrolling familysearch wiki as part of my wiki support assignment. I can trace my Polynesian ancestry through Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Tahiti, and Hawaii in the South Pacific. The use of the IGI in my research was to assure that ancestors had been identified for LDS ordinance work. That was the extent of it. The IGI was not a 'connection' research tool - I used anthropology, missionary/traders records, and the nobility-village records [oral and written]to rebuild my polynesian ancestry. Thank you for sharing your expertise on the Pacific Islands.
Would you consider the above a and b suggestions as a solution to the neutrality template? I look forward to hearing from you. We worked together almost a decade ago on UGA projects and look forward to finding a way to make Step 8 'work' for other researchers.
Malo aupito/ mahalo nui/ kapi / Thank you - CIrwin Caroline Wolfgramm Irwin 16:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pacific Island Guide Step 10:

Hello - in patrolling the wiki the "content" template brought this article [Step 10] to my attention. May I suggest that the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph be removed and the rest of the sentences remain as is. It points researchers interested in IGI or LDS ordinances to Mormon Genealogy article and restores the neutrality requested in the article. I personally appreciate this guide, however, the step 10 revision as suggested would provide a better overview and direction to future wiki researchers. As a descendant of Tongan, Samoan, Fijian, Tahitian, and Hawaiian ancestry, I turn to other sources for ancestral information intially rather than the IGI ... even when I lived in Utah. Please consider the recommendation within this 'talk'. Thanks.CIrwin

How do I put the attribution in the copyright square?


Thank for all you do to Fix my documentation.  I am learing from your changes.  However, I have no idea how to put a name of attribution in the "permission"- "copyright square".  Would love to be taught that skill.

Thank you and have an awesome week!


On the {{Self}}, {{Self2}}, and all Creative Commons licenses you can add the attribution statement by adding either author= or attribution= whichever is more appropriate. Each one is used for a different purpose and causes slightly different things to happen in the license templates. See the respective license template documentation pages for details. If the original license has a formal attribution statement, we MUST replicate that statement as exactly as possible. If the original license does not have a formal attribution, I add an "author=" to the Self and Self2 templates in order to show the author, and that automatically adds the attribution within the Creative Commons licenses. It is possible to have slightly different author and attribution statements. DiltsGD 14:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohio Network of America

David, you put a delete template on this page, Ohio Network of American History Research Centers, but there are many pages linked to this page.  If it needs to be deleted, I'd ask that the creator, or you, clean out all those links.  If you don' thave time, let me know, but this will take some time.averyld 14:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Maryanne Taylor (the page's creator) was in my cubicle when we made this deletion request together. I will clean out the links shortly. Thanks for that reminder. DiltsGD 15:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

David it was a template on all but two pages all cleaned up and deleted.Sandralpond 22:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Unclickable Virginia links

When you have a second, could you help me figure out why I can't click on the county or topic pages on this page: I'm guessing it's a div problem

Thanks! Murphynw 18:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona

There are seven articles for counties listed in the "Extinct or Renamed Counties" of Arizona - Bernalillo, Dona Ana, Rio Arriba, Santa Ana, Socorro, Taos, and Valencia. These seven articles are your creation, and you have continued to support them by making changes. Perhaps you feel a closeness to them. I particularly like the maps you added.

But I have a disagreement with these seven articles. They are listed in Arizona, indicating that they were counties of Arizona. The titles of these seven articles very clearly state that they were counties of Arizona. But actually, all of these seven were counties of New Mexico. They covered land which later was in Arizona and Nevada, but any records created were sent to their respective New Mexico county offices.

When Arizona became a territory, all seven of these counties were discontinued in Arizona and completely replaced. None of these seven counties were ever Arizona counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. For me, the purpose of the Family Search Wiki is to identify the location where records may be found, so that those who don't know may be led to the right location. I don't believe these seven articles help to do this.

The information in the body of these seven articles is good information, but that information belongs in the New Mexico county articles. I propose to transfer that information, then remove these seven counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them. But I don’t want to proceed with this, without giving you a chance to explain your side of things. I am not perfect and maybe I have overlooked something. I would like for this to be done by agreement. Please let me know.

There are three other counties listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona - Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla. I know you have made changes to these and maybe have a closeness for them as well. But none of these three were ever counties of Arizona, they were only “proposed counties” that were rejected. No records were ever created for these counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. I propose to remove these three counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them.

Neither of the above proposals have yet been done. I would appreciate understanding your acceptance or opposition and why. I would like to work with you on making the Arizona article better. For me the reason for doing all this is to make things clear and helpful for those just starting out in genealogy. Thanks Sabwoo 05:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for kindly waiting to get my point of view. The real question here is NOT whether a county was ever part of Arizona, nor is it a question of whether a county ever existed. Think more like a genealogical researcher (or pre-Arizona recorder of deeds), and less like a dictionary writer. The real question is how might a reader possibly look up such counties, and in which repositories might they find their ancestors? Or, another possible way of looking at the question would be to ask if there is a deed or other official paper with a supposedly purely New Mexico county mentioned on it even though the ancestor actually lived in what later became Arizona. If so, would not the logical place to look for such a deed be in the county seat of the said NM county? Moreover, a certain fort was a few hundred meters into modern Arizona, but was briefly a New Mexico county's seat. We need to teach readers that boundaries change, borders can get confusing, and that smart genealogists sometimes need to hunt for records outside of modern boundaries. We need to teach readers that sometimes their ancestors records are outside of Arizona, especially if their ancestor lived in AZ prior to the time Arizona was created. Although it is not likely someone living on the Arizona strip ever conducted business in Taos, New Mexico, it is possible, and listing Taos as a former county in what eventually became Arizona is a way of alerting readers to the possibilities. I would strongly resist any effort to de-list pre-Arizona counties because it would hide potential places to look for an ancestor's records. We need to look for more ways to inform readers about potential genealogical record repositories. We need to avoid hiding potential repositories behind inflexible definitions of what goes where and when geographically. For new genealogists, clinging to legal definitions of modern boundaries is not informative about where to look for records created BEFORE those boundaries were drawn.
Would you be willing to explore other alternatives? If you cannot abide "Extinct" counties, feel welcome to find a more appropriate label for the group. But the solution is NOT to delete references to counties that might be listed on an ancestor's deed, nor to pretend New Mexico (and Mexico, and New Spain, and Spain) never had jurisdiction over what is now Arizona. Nor would it be appropriate to pretend researchers for ancestors living in Las Vegas should never ever look in Arizona repositories for pre-Nevada Las Vegas sources.
The most unchanged state is Delaware. Since 1776 her three counties have never changed. Yet Delaware was part of Pennsylvania, Maryland, The Dominion of New England, New Netherland, and New Sweden--so good researchers need to know to also look in the appropriate repositories in Philadelphia, Annapolis, Boston, Amsterdam, and Stockholm to find all the records of their early colonial Delaware ancestors. EVERY state has changed jurisdictions and we need to inform our readers about that. So I absolutely oppose deleting references to extinct counties even if they were technically in other states.
Please show me the positive way you plan to inform new Arizona researchers about New Mexico repositories with their ancestors' names on their records. Please make me a better offer than negatively deleting/hiding pages to which I am "close." I'm willing to listen and consider if you can come up with a better way to inform readers about changing jurisdictions, but until then, please NO deletion requests, no de-listings of extinct counties pages, and no tranferring of this kind of information from Arizona to New Mexico pages. I cannot see how your proposal will possibly alert new genealogists about jurisdiction changes and the need to search possible alternative repositories for early Arizona ancestors. To my way of thinking it would seriously hold-back new genealogists rather than helping them. For the new genealogist who has no clue that Arizona was ever considered part of New Mexico, where do they pick up that insight? Your proposal would seem to require them to somehow magically know that they must look in New Mexico repositories for some records of ancestors who lived in what later became Arizona. If we don't tell them about this problem on the Arizona pages, then how do they find out?
This problem is messy. I am painfully aware that "Taos County, Arizona" will NEVER be found on any deed or other official paper. But "Taos County" COULD appear on a deed of someone who lived in what later became Arizona. If Taos County could be on their deed I beilieve such an odd page title as "Taos County, Arizona" is appropriate and for practical purposes REQUIRED. I'm willing to be messy and create fictional county-state names if that is the best way to help me teach people that they also need to look for their "Arizona" ancestor in Taos, New Mexico repositories. If you can find a better way to teach this concept to new genealogists -- please convince me. Otherwise, please edit Arizona's extinct counties pages only in a positive way by enhancing their content. Please avoid negative editing that deletes, transfers to another state, or in any fashion hides the concept such pages are trying to teach from new genealogists seeking records of their ancestors in what eventually became Arizona.
Would you feel any better about:
  • "Taos County (NM), Arizona"
  • "Taos (NM) County, Arizona"
  • "Taos County, New Mexico in Arizona"(in navboxes "Taos, NM in AZ")
  • or something similar as a page title and extinct county link in navboxes at the bottom of all AZ county pages? Would you let me keep such pages for Arizona if we could find a compromise on their titles? DiltsGD 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - Conversation

I was pleasantly surprised to receive your reply. It was a great reply and I can agree with most everything you said. If I understand you correctly, you are very concerned in teaching those new to genealogy about historical boundary changes and previous jurisdictions. That way, they will learn where the records can be found. I can’t agree more, we see eye to eye on this. For me, the biggest reason for the Research Wiki is to show where the records are located. I hope we can work together to accomplish this.

You are also right about something else. If we just delete those seven fictitious “Arizona” counties, those new to genealogy will not understand the previous jurisdictions before Arizona was created. I don’t want that to happen either. I propose we put on HOLD any removing and deleting of county articles while we come to agreement.

I do like what you say - teach everyone about the previous jurisdictions and where to find the records. Your heart is in the right place and your goal is worthy, but your method is too short-sighted. It only tries to solve the one change of jurisdiction and boundaries. That is from New Mexico to Arizona in 1863. What about the change from Mexico to New Mexico, or the earlier Spain to Mexico. And then there are all the changes to the Arizona counties since Arizona was created. Your method doesn’t address any of these changes, but yet each one brings new places where records are kept.

We both agree on the goal - to explain the previous jurisdictions and where records are located. To do this, I propose the following three step plan.

  • I will begin to compile a list of ideas to accomplish this goal and publish them on my Talk Page. You are free to add additional ideas. Two ideas are shown here.
  • I will begin to implement the list of ideas on the real Arizona counties. You are free to help.
  • You monitor the progress towards the goal. When sufficient progress has been made, you delete those seven fictitious “Arizona” counties. Or let me know and I will have them deleted.

I was gradually moving toward the above anyway, but your challenge to come up with a better plan has focused my efforts. I think this plan should be extended to Nevada where there are also some fictitious counties. I would like to work together with you on this. Please let me know. Sabwoo 20:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good plan! I like it. As long as every "real" Arizona county clearly explains (including maps or at least links to the maps) about all the other places records might be housed because of jurisdiction changes I can see eventually doing away with the fictional county pages. Especially since that means to cover the topic the material that now appears on a single fictional county page will be repeated (better coverage) on each of the many real county pages. We must be careful to find a way of showing the pre-Arizona maps of New Mexico counties (and Mexico, and New Spain, and Spain) in what later became Arizona so they will not be too confusing to people reading about them on the pages of each of their real Arizona counties.
Please take a look at the many other places in the U.S. with jurisdiction changes for the best ideas about how to teach the concept. For example, Haverhill, Essex, MA was once part of Norfolk (old) County in the MA Bay Colony. Colorado was created from parts of NM, KS, NE, and UT and has some very confusing jurisdiction changes. These and any others may not be great examples, but let's consider different ways to deal with the problem and find the BEST ways teach about jurisdiction changes.
The three counties that were listed in the Arizona organic bill that never passed still may be useful more for historical reference than any other reason. No one ever lived there, but at least in Mowrey's mind they were Arizona counties. I like being thorough because it lets readers know we've covered the possibilities. For example, the Confederate States were also tinkering around with Mesilla County, Arizona. The Kansas Historical Society has a list of extinct Kansas/Colorado counties, some of which were authorized but never actually organized. I find the list very informative. I'm unlikely to ever find an ancestor with a deed in such a county, but I think it wise to at least know there was talk about such counties in case something comes up in a diary or letter of an ancestor. See also the way the Nevada archives deal with their extinct county history--very thorough and open minded about Utah-California-Arizona jurisdictions. So I believe it is worthwhile to have historical references to failed-or-never-approved-or-organized Arizona counties as well as the others that existed briefly in reality before going extinct such a Pah-Ute. DiltsGD 22:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - Conversation 2

I have already started working on "the plan". I have compiled some information for the 1846 to 1863 time period and the 1863 to Now period. I created a new article entitled Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona with a link on the Arizona page, the second paragraph down from the "Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona." Check it out.

I intend to continue work on this article. Need to add the time period that Spain and Mexico controlled the land that became Arizona up thru 1846. What you said about wanting this to not be confusing is true. Doesn't help others if they can't understand it. Also I want to add maps for each change of jurisdiction. Or maybe an animated GIF that will cycle thru all the maps. If I am going to add maps, I would rather do this for the one article I just created. But it will be easy to add links from each county page.

Also intend to update all the real counties' history of jurisdictional changes. Some of that is there already. I just want to make sure it is complete and has the records repositories listed. Most of this will duplicate the information on the article I just created, but it will give "better coverage."

For me, the most important reason for the Family Search Wiki is to point those new to genealogy to where the records are. Not much interested in putting in articles to be historically accurate if it doesn't result in a location for records. I suppose we disagree on this. But I do see the three "proposed counties" are in a different category from the seven "fictional counties", at least they are historical.Sabwoo 01:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your new page is good. I like it. It is clear and helpful. It has a lot of information. Link each "real" county to the new page. I agree the new page needs a map or set of maps, but I don't know how to create animated maps.
I can imagine a reader having heard of "Mesilla" County and wondering about it even though it was never authorized or organized. So I see value in listing such historical but never existed places. I think I understand your concern because the pictures/stories of who/what a county was named for seem to me to have no practical use for genealogists. For a long time I deleted those as irrelevant to genealogy, but they have become so ubiquitous on our Wiki I have mostly given up. A little bit of irrelevant historical information sometimes adds interest to Wiki articles. DiltsGD 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Guesswork Page

David, the page on How to Guess Where to Start was discussed in a recent Forum thread.  I noticed that you've been making changes to the page and wondered if that is in response to to the thread, or just because you felt it need updating.  I didn't want to bring it up in the 1:00 meeting today if you were taking care of it. averyld 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The recent page changes were in direct response to the discussion page attached to the How to Guess Where to Start page. I have not viewed the forum discussion. What is NOT certain is that the changes on this page deal with the issues in a way that will satisfy everyone concerned. I keep inviting the non-guess people to write a page explaining what they have against guessing. I want to link to such a page to make readers aware of both views. The only solutions the non-guessers suggest are (1) to shut down this set of pages, or (2) alter them until they are unrecognizable by prohibiting the word guess. I prefer open discussion of both views . . . they seem to prefer censoring anyone with an alternative contrary view. DiltsGD 20:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, David.  Appreciate the input. averyld 21:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Barbour Collection

David, I'm trying to get a status for all the Wiki projects.  Can you tell me what's happening with the Barbour collection?  Is this still ongoing, complete? Thx, averyld 16:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about Maryland, New York, and US Censusaveryld 22:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties - continuing conversation

David Dilts

I am nearing the end of construction for the article Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona. I see that you like what I have done. I have also revised the History section of all the real counties of Arizona to correspond to that article. I invite you to check this out.

What I have been able to accomplish is not 100 percent of what I wanted to accomplish, but I think it does the job. Anyone new to Arizona genealogy can use the above to determine the previous jurisdictions to the Arizona land and therefore determine the repositories to check for records. If you see any improvements I can make to what I have done, let me know. I will try to get them done.

Also, in my research I determined that those three proposed counties contained incorrect and misleading information. I then discovered that county governments may have been created, so the possibility exists that records may yet be found. I corrected the mistakes and added the documentation for those three counties - Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla counties. I invite you to check them out and also look at their Talk pages. I then added all this information to my article Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona. I now withdraw any desire to eliminate those three counties.

I believe I have fulfilled my part of the bargain that I proposed to you back in October. You liked the plan back then. What I have done is far better than making up fictitious counties to mislead genealogists, even if done for a good reason. I invite you to fulfill your part of the bargain and eliminate those seven fictitious Arizona counties - Bernalillo, Dona Ana, Rio Arriba, Santa Ana, Socorro, Taos, and Valencia counties. If you cannot do this, let me know and I will eliminate them. Thank you for your help. Sabwoo 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! This is excellent work. What you have accomplished is amazing. The chronologies of each AZ county are very helpful. The Previous Jurisdictions article is outstanding. Well done!
Please expand footnote #2 Williams with a full author, title, and publication data in all the articles.
Thanks to your efforts and the excellent substitute articles more properly explaining the history of this land, I am happy to mark the 7 fictional counties of Arizona for deletion. DiltsGD 17:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the original 19 wards map

David, it is beautiful! thanks, AdkinsWH 03:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mexican Border Crossings

I wanted to check with you about adding a table to the Mexican Border Crossing page. The table will describe the different types of manifests a researcher may see when they look at the available records. I put the beginnings of it near the bottom of the page. I also added an SEO sentence at the beginning of the first paragraph. I really like the map. Thanks for making all the links to the catalog. I was going to create a page to do exactly the same thing--just without the great map.

Mcbridelw 00:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The Card Manifests Table looks great. Thank you for the SEO style paragraph. Keep up the wonderful contributions!
DiltsGD 17:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Utah Census Page

Lynda Avery suggested that I contact you regarding a link that I would like to add to the Online Utah Images and Census Table.  I would like to add to the 1860 FREE Misc. Column, 1860 images, the following link;  Lynda thought that there might be some difficulties making the change but I tried it and it was easy and it worked.  I didn't save it because I thought that I should talk to someone who has worked alot with the table before I make changes since I am a new volunteer.  If you think that this is a worthwile change, I will edit the table and make the change.


Kehoemw 00:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your contribution of this link would be most welcome! Don't be shy -- be bold. We love it when someone finds something we overlooked. It helps the whole community. DiltsGD 13:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

FHL Favorites


I'm trying to clean up the Unresolved category. Can you tell me if this page is up to date? averyld 22:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the FHL Internet Favorites page is up-to-date. The FHL Internet Favorites page is greatly loved and used by a few more experienced missionaries. Within the last two weeks this page was the focus of recent announcements among the missionaries. Please do NOT delete the Favorites page. Why is this page in an unresolved category? Who put it there? What does it mean that this page is in an unresolved category? How does it get removed from the unresolved category?
The Favorites links are really old links and have not been updated since about 2009. So many links would be broken. But the missionaries that know about them still cling to them. Most, but not all links, probably would be reflected on the respective Wiki pages for the same subject. But doing away with this Favorites page would not be wise. It would be like dumping the classic FHL Catalog. It may be old, have lots of problems, and be considered antique by management, but it is still much used and better than the anything else that does the same thing.  DiltsGD 14:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)



Steve raised a question about this template and its reference to Wikimedia Foundation. I've searched and can't find any reference in Wikimedia to the use of PD-Art. The links on the template go to empty pages. Are we still ok with this template? Thanks! averyld 21:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

YES! We are still okay with this template!!! We have 29 images with this perfectly valid, useful, and appropriate template. It would be a shame to loose them because of a prejudice against the Wikimedia Foundation, especially since we almost constantly use Wikimedia Commons  in connection with our own Wiki.
I fail to see the problem you report. When I go to Wikimedia Commons, all the template's links work perfectly, and I find full pages of explanations of Wikimedia policies when I click the template's links.
Here is the way I came to this. First I opened the FamilySearch Research Wiki page Template:PD-Art. Next I clicked the What links here  link. First on the list is File:William of Orange1580.jpg so I clicked that. Part of the source citation for our image of William is given as ". . . as cited in File:WilliamOfOrange1580.jpg at Wikimedia Commons  (accessed 28 March 2012)." By clicking that link I arrived at the Wikimedia Commons image of William. Using the license beneath the Wikimedia Commons  image I clicked on the four license policy links:
All these links are easy to find on the Wikimedia Commons, all work, and all go to a perfectly logical page explaining policies used by the template creators.
Updated template. I have updated the FamilySearch Research Wiki Template:PD-Art so that all four license policy links go directly to their respective Wikimedia Commons  pages. DiltsGD 15:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)