2,909
edits
(probate response) |
JanaStokes (talk | contribs) (summary of probate record section changes) |
||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
=== Probate Records === | === Probate Records === | ||
When I linked to the Beaver [Beaver being a sample county] county clerk ''contact and information page'' I realized that if I was relatively new to genealogy, I would find that page confusing as it says the things it can help you with but has no mention that they hold probate records from 1872 on.<br> | When I linked to the Beaver [Beaver being a sample county] county clerk ''contact and information page'' I realized that if I was relatively new to genealogy, I would find that page confusing as it says the things it can help you with but has no mention that they hold probate records from 1872 on.<br> | ||
I wondered if when the probate records section becomes a task, in addition to ascertaining the county clerk contact website, if we shouldn't also be sending an email to the respective county clerk alerting him that the FS wiki is linking to the page and why we are doing it. Then at the same time might we include what we think are that offices probate holdings and ask for verification/additions.<br> | I wondered if when the probate records section becomes a task, in addition to ascertaining the county clerk contact website, if we shouldn't also be sending an email to the respective county clerk alerting him that the FS wiki is linking to the page and why we are doing it. Then at the same time might we include what we think are that offices probate holdings and ask for verification/additions.<br> | ||
Regardless as to whether we do that, when we cite the county clerks probate holdings, we will also need a citation to the ''Handy Book for Genealogists'' for that source will have been used to develop content for the email. (Although the email itself and it's reply would become the main citation.) All this makes me question whether even if we have a citation for each county clerks probate listings, are we not using too much of the ''The Handy Book for Genealogists'' content? Maybe not if just Utah? What if pattern is adapted by other states?<br> | Regardless as to whether we do that, when we cite the county clerks probate holdings, we will also need a citation to the ''Handy Book for Genealogists'' for that source will have been used to develop content for the email. (Although the email itself and it's reply would become the main citation.) All this makes me question whether even if we have a citation for each county clerks probate listings, are we not using too much of the ''The Handy Book for Genealogists'' content? Maybe not if just Utah? What if pattern is adapted by other states?<br> | ||
Lastly, is there another reference besides ''The Handy Book for Genealogists ''that would list what the probate holdings are of each county clerk?<br> | |||
[[User:JanaStokes|JanaStokes]] 17:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, there is Eicholz, Alice RedBook by Ancestry[[User:AdkinsWH|AdkinsWH]] 21:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)<br> | :Yes, there is Eicholz, Alice RedBook by Ancestry[[User:AdkinsWH|AdkinsWH]] 21:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)<br> | ||
Based on the ideas from last Friday's mtg I redid the probate records section. Now the probate record types link to a Probate Records of x county page (which is actally in my sandbox). The "sample" page in my sandbox actually has records from a variety of counties, rather than just Beaver. This was just for data illustrative purposes. Also put in a blurb abt the "scope" of the "stub" page. Articles or resources that lack information about their scope drive me nuts. When a page goes beyond a stub, then perhaps the "scope" notes belong on the talk page; but is there any reason why the initial scope can't be stated on the stub x county Probate record page? | |||
[[User:JanaStokes|JanaStokes]] 20:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
=== Resource Repositories === | === Resource Repositories === |
edits