Talk:A Checklist of Compiled Sources and Where to Find Them

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Bullet and Character Encoding

There seems to be a problem with the bullet character used for a bullet in this article. The HTML Header of the page specifies UTF-8 for the encoding. With my Firefox browser, the bullet charactger used is  , which is displayed in Windows 7 as a box with F0A0 in it.

Robert 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Working on Fixing the Page

There are more than those problems on the page. I will fix it in the next day or so as I have time. I can't tell what happened with the bullets, but it is easy to fix.

James L. Tanner 14:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the bullets, James.  I agree that there are other issues with the article.  I would propose removing the words "Step 1" and "Step 2" because they immediately follow system-generated numbers 1 and 2.  I have already trimmed the headings somewhat, updated outdated links, and made a few other small edits.  Lengthy paragraphs might be broken into smaller paragraphs for easier readibility.  Lise 20:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

More work needed on this page

I think there is a conceptual confusion about the definition of compiled sources. Does this article refer to user submitted online data sources like Ancestry.com's Family Trees or New.FamilySearch.org? Or is the page supposed to talk about books like German Immigrants to America series or whatever? From the title it is proposing a checklist, but does not have one. All there is, is a long unfocused list of sources.


James L. Tanner 03:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


I agree. Compiled sources include online user-submitted data, but also include books and derivative works in any media. The list is unfocused, non-parallel, and lacks consistency. Some web addresses are given in text form, others are not (just linked without being in text form). Sources with original records are mixed in with derivative works and submissions. Would it be acceptible to reword the opening paragraph, separate into sub-sections, and consistently both link and give URL in text form?
Alan 22:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that would be great! Go for it!Lise 13:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Working on the Page

I have been working on this page and any help would be greatly appreciated. I agree with all the statements about the limitations

James L. Tanner 20:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal that Page be Deleted

This page is duplicative and needs to be deleted. I will be putting the delete template on this page in a week from 10 April 2012, unless someone wants to keep this page and rewrite it.

There are several pages linked to this one.  Where should those links go?Lynda 17:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Rather than delete the page (see When not to delete a page), if it is a duplicate then the content should be merged into one page and the other page made into a Redirect to where the content can be found. --Steve (talk| contribs) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)James felt that the material was pretty exactly duplicated elsewhere, so I'll check with him to see if it can be merged.  That would be a better option for the links.Lynda 21:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I will work on this page

I'll have a look at the pages that link in. Here are the pages that have the same or similar info. I will rewrite it to make sense. James L. Tanner 23:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks OK now. I made a lot of editing changes. Leave it or change or whatever.

James L. Tanner 00:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)