- 1 Soliciting your opinion
- 2 Still need answers?
- 3 Research process graphic
- 4 You da MAN
- 5 Cool application of a portal
- 6 Maryland History
- 7 Editing glitch, two users working concurrently on same page.
- 8 FamilySearch Vital Records Document
- 9 Disambig / geodis link
- 10 We need your opinion
- 11 Census Project Backlog Prioritization
- 12 What's your best work? And your favorites from others?
- 13 Interactive Maps
- 14 Where should wikiproject contributors communicate?
- 15 Please vote on new name for Reviewer role
- 16 Call for Feedback Re: Making Wiki Easier for New Users/Contributors
- 17 Weigh in on FamilySearch Wiki talk:Naming a Project?
- 18 Please vote on search result title link color
Soliciting your opinion[edit source]
Hey David, 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. I'm asking for your opinion because you notice issues I overlook. Thanks in advance! Ritcheymt 13:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Still need answers?[edit source]
They are not urgent, but learning the answers would be useful. Diltsgd 08:27, 2 April 2008 (MDT)
Research process graphic[edit source]
There are a couple good scanned images of the circle of arrows schematic used in the basic family history research guide, in the files area on the site that were input there on 17 April, that might be useful in the articles on how to do basic research, including the one you edited tonight. They are in the 'File list' link in the 'special pages' area on the site. About six or seven, one is the old DOS FamilySearch and may not be all that useful, but some of the others will be the ones I'm speaking of. JamesAnderson 20:44, 27 April 2008 (MDT)
You da MAN[edit source]
David, you are THE MAN for adding those flags to state links on the United States page! That is SO COOL! Ritcheymt 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool application of a portal[edit source]
David, the work you're doing with the R&C portal is cool. Watching what you put there and seeing the value it adds to the work consultants do with missionaries will inform me as to ways a genealogical society or library might use the wiki. We're interested in creating a value propositions for societies to get involved; I think this portal you've created will feed that value proposition. Ritcheymt 19:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Maryland History[edit source]
I like what you've done so far on Maryland History, David. Thanks! 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? Ritcheymt 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Editing glitch, two users working concurrently on same page.[edit source]
Thanks for spotting that glitch where I was trying to do some capitalization fixes and a couple other things that was not supposed to change the link or the look of it, on that Maryland page tonight. Looks like between us we may have found a bug in the software, since given how fast bad data is fixed in Wikipedia, this should not have been a problem with our wiki, but since it has surfaced, maybe we need to both bring it out next week at user group meeting (hopefully things will go better there next week). JamesAnderson 04:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
FamilySearch Vital Records Document[edit source]
What is your opinion about the FamilySearch article Where to Write for Vital Records being copied into the Wiki:
- Should the content be copied?
- If yes, has the content been copied or incorporated into the Wiki already?
- Percentage completed already?
- If the content still needs to be copied, would you suggest the content be incorporated in the United States Vital Records article?
Thanks in advance for your insight and opinion on this. Franjensen 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
There was something not quite right about the linking and code used. Figured out what it was. See Baker City, Oregon for the different code - same one used in Wikipedia. dsammy 04:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
We need your opinion[edit source]
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 FamilySearch Wiki talk:Format for Citing and Linking to Works in FHLC, Worldcat (OCLC)
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus at FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats at FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Disambiguation at FamilySearch Wiki talk:Disambiguation
Thanks! Ritcheymt 12:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Census Project Backlog Prioritization[edit source]
David, it's great to have you back from vacation -- we've missed you!
Could you take a look at the Requirement Backlog (second table) on FamilySearch Wiki:WikiProject U.S. Census and rank the requirements/stories in priority order? You can do this by the Delphi method: Give the lowest amount of points (1) to the lowest-priority item and the highest (41? 42?) to the highest-priority item. We're doing this individually because it's so hard to get everyone together for a meeting. If you need explanation of a story, please see Pat.
After we tally the points for each item, we'll reorder the backlog in priority order. Then we'll start individually choosing stories we want to attack during the sprint. Thanks! Ritcheymt 12:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
What's your best work? And your favorites from others?[edit source]
Hey David! I'm doing a presentation on the wiki's best content and I'd like to highlight some of yours. Can you link me to 2 or 3 articles you've contributed to that you are most pleased with? You do great work! Also, could you link me to your favorite article that someone else did? Thanks! Ritcheymt 17:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Hamburg Passenger Lists - I didn't originate this page but I revolutionized it, and it is the most useful to more people than any other.
2. New Sweden - a labor of love because I wanted to create the best footnoted list of places in New Sweden.
3. The third choice is not one page but a series of pages. It is still a work in progrress with lots more pages to add. So far, I've created a series under:
- United States Migration Internal
If you asked me to choose my favorite out of that list, I'd pick Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.
My favorite work by someone else is Pacific Island Guide to Family History Research created mostly by Noel Cardon. It covers a topic that is very important to those who need it but which would be overlooked by most. It is my idea of unexpected blessings of a community project bringing in material the "professionals" would probably have neglected. Diltsgd 15:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Interactive Maps[edit source]
I wonder if you can point me in the right direction for a tutorial on how to create maps. I am working on compiling a list of cemeteries in different jurisdictions and it would be great if I could create a map with each listing. I can do it in photoshop, but I wanted to see if there was a better application; additionally, photoshop can't do interactive maps. Thanks! Gregorybean 13:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I've always used PowerPoint to create my maps. If you are comfortable with photoshop that is probably quicker than my way of doing things.
You can best learn about interactive maps from User:RoachA. She created the interactive maps for the United States and Maryland. Diltsgd 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Where should wikiproject contributors communicate?[edit source]
People who work on writing projects on the wiki are asking for an online venue they can use to talk about...
- how to organize projects,
- how and where to recruit contributors
- how to motivate project members
- how to track progress on projects
- Manual of Style issues that we need to settle to avoid rework
- ...and other stuff.
Could you go to the wiki feedback forum and give your opinion as to what tool(s) we should choose to communicate? The thread where we will discuss this is Which tools for wikiproject contributors to communicate? Ritcheymt 16:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Please vote on new name for Reviewer role[edit source]
The wiki community is voting on a proposed renaming of the Reviewer role so that we can give the role to anyone we trust to upload their own images without review. If you care about the name of this role, please discuss the issue and cast your vote at FamilySearch Wiki talk:Reviewer. Ritcheymt 16:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Call for Feedback Re: Making Wiki Easier for New Users/Contributors[edit source]
We need your feedback! Our goal is for wiki.familysearch.org to be a friendly, welcoming place that is easy for you to use and make contributions. Please share your comments. What is your experience? What challenges do you face in using and contributing to the wiki? Where do you find help? When you notice problems, please go to Challenges Facing New Users. This is the page for making comments on challenges you have encountered.
Please post your comments and ideas for the solutions at What New Users and Contributors Want to Make Wiki Easier. Then, come add your "Vote" for those solutions that are most urgent and important for the entire community at Newbies Priorities. This is not only for newbies, we also need experienced user/contributor feedback on your early, new user experiences. Thank you!
Kara aka CK Whipple 16:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Weigh in on FamilySearch Wiki talk:Naming a Project?[edit source]
Project pages are getting hard to find because people are putting them in multiple namespaces and using all kinds of naming conventions. Would you mind weighing in on FamilySearch Wiki talk:Naming a Project? Thanks! Ritcheymt 00:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Some users have reported that the red color of the article title links in search results are confusing because in a Mediawiki site, a red link means a link to a page that has no content. There is a poll on the forums as to whether to make the links blue instead, which would also conform to what Google and Bing do. Please read the thread/explanation and vote. RitcheyMT 16:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)