492
edits
Template talk:Infobox U.S. County (view source)
Revision as of 11:56, 19 August 2011
, 19 August 2011Replied to question
(→Records Dates: direct suggestion to FamilySearch Wiki:WikiProject U.S. counties) |
LeeTHawkins (talk | contribs) (Replied to question) |
||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
== Created vs. Organized Date == | == Created vs. Organized Date == | ||
I am working on counties in Ohio (primarily the [[Connecticut Western Reserve]]), where most counties' created dates are ''not'' the same as the date they were organized and their government began functioning. Can we add an optional "Organized Date" field under the "Created Date" field? - [[User:LeeTHawkins|LeeTHawkins]] 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC) | I am working on counties in Ohio (primarily the [[Connecticut Western Reserve]]), where most counties' created dates are ''not'' the same as the date they were organized and their government began functioning. Can we add an optional "Organized Date" field under the "Created Date" field? - [[User:LeeTHawkins|LeeTHawkins]] 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
:Hi Lee, the date option for the infobox is the '''founded date''', but there is an option to define a different label using the parameter <tt>founded title</tt>, however I think you are asking for two date fields. In my mind having two dates would require some explanation why that is and therefore probably should be included in the main text of the article. Can you give some particular examples, which may better help me understand what you want to achieve. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] ([[User talk:Cottrells|talk]] | :Hi Lee, the date option for the infobox is the '''founded date''', but there is an option to define a different label using the parameter <tt>founded title</tt>, however I think you are asking for two date fields. In my mind having two dates would require some explanation why that is and therefore probably should be included in the main text of the article. Can you give some particular examples, which may better help me understand what you want to achieve. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] ([[User talk:Cottrells|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cottrells|contribs]]) 16:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
::There are TONS of counties in Northeast Ohio, all part of the Connecticut Western Reserve, that were ''created/founded'' on one date, but the county government was not ''organized'' until a later date...sometimes even a few years later. Please see [http://books.google.com/books?id=xEsbLFoBttYC&dq=history%20of%20the%20western%20reserve%20vol%201&pg=PA59#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20the%20western%20reserve%20vol%201&f=false this link] from ''History of the Western Reserve'', page 58-59, which clearly identifies several counties which were set out, but did not have their governments functioning until a later date. I highly doubt this is unique only to Ohio. It has the ramifications of certain documents being caught in "limbo", that is, during the time in between county creation and organization, some documents may be left with the parent county or may have been taken to the new county--it just depends on who was organizing things and how it was done. Until a county (and this was true of ''many'' townships as well) was '''organized''', there were no courts for the new jurisdiction, so some things had to be done through the previous one. I hope I have made this clear. - [[User:LeeTHawkins|LeeTHawkins]] 17:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Records Dates == | == Records Dates == | ||