Difference between revisions of "User talk:Sabwoo"

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona)
(Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona: sent to archive)
Line 1: Line 1:
=== 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 [[User:Sabwoo|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? [[User:DiltsGD|DiltsGD]] 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
== Utah Cemeteries  ==
== Utah Cemeteries  ==

Revision as of 22:29, 3 November 2012

Utah Cemeteries

Dear Gene Sabin,

Thanks for your thoughts. I changed the names of the links and added explanations. There are suggestions and links to other resources. Please check to see if the changes will address your concerns and ideas.

I found some of the links not working. On one of the websites, all of their links were broken and I could not find them. I moved ones that were only counties sites to the counties wiki sites.

Thanks for helping. Hopefully we will here from you at the Utah.

Patricia HardestyAG Family History Librarypnh 20:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sabwoo,

Apparently we disagree on where the Utah page should go to the Utah burial Database. When we are sending the patron to the search page for a person, I feel they should go directly to the page where they enter the names. Please give me a call so we can discuss the page.

801-240-3478pnh 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping on Utah pages!

Hi, Sabwoo, We noticed several edits in Washington County, Utah that you made, and really appreciate how you are clarifying and cleaning up some of the content. We have a project going for Utah. Our purpose is to get great, understandable content, to collaborate with people like yourself, and to create a "pattern" of basics for counties that other people can follow for their counties, if they wish. Please contact me.AdkinsWH 17:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


Hello Sabwoo!

The Welcoming Committee is here to support you and offer you a warm welcome to a Community that loves Family History. We thank you for your contributions! Please continue editing and consider joining in Projects Seeking Contributors or a live Community Meeting where you may meet other experienced users and contributors.

This message is posted on your "Talk Page" which is associated with your personal "User Page." We invite you to create your User Page so that others in the community can get to know you better and what you are working on in the Wiki. Learn more about creating your user page.

Your user page is also a great place to practice new skills and lets others know something about you and your genealogical interests. We hope you like this place and decide to join in.

Here are a few pages you may find helpful:

You may find additional editing and technical assistance from experienced contributors in the FamilySearch Forums. Please sign your name only on discussion/talk pages. If you need personal assistance, feel free to contact Welcoming Committee Members.

Again, welcome! James L. Tanner 22:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My Sandbox