User talk:Lembley/sandboxHRC

From FamilySearch Wiki
Revision as of 23:28, 8 March 2012 by Carolbmoss (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search


FamilySearch vs. - which is correct to use when?

1. "This index is an electronic database of information."

2. "There may be entries that cite a specific source such as the following:" - can we be more specific for THIS database?  (Missouri records clearly didn't come from Vital Record of Rhode Island 1636-1850." Need to use examples applicable to the database.)

  • "Vital Record of Rhode Island, 1636-1850: a Family Register for the People" by James Arnold
  • "Paul Dingwell Genealogical Collection" by Paul Dingwell
  • A county or state vital record registration

3. "The Vital Record Index databases are not necessarily intended to index any specific set of records although some sub-indexes (an index to a set of records within the database) have been found. When we identify a sub-index, we remove it from the database and post it separately on FamilySearch under its appropriate title." - When "we" identify ...  post it separately on FamilySearch...(depersonalize content, FamilySearch or

4. Number of records doesn't match on "Show Collections" list as compared to wiki article.

5. "Name index to death and burial records from the state of Missouri. Microfilm copies of these records are available at the Family History Library and Family History Centers. This set contains 58,813 records. Due to privacy laws, recent records may not be displayed. The year range represents most of the records. A few records may be earlier or later."  Record description from database.  "Microfilm copies of these records..." seems to imply that you'll be able to find an original Missouri death record using this index.  It appears that many of the records DO come from county death records.  How to tell which counties?

6. Table columns do not total. Example: Locality Missouri deaths = 48,277.  Total deaths for all localities (Missouri + Vernon County + St. Francis County + ... ) = 24,496. 

7: "Use this index to help you learn more about your ancestors. The information could help you identify family relationships and lineages as well as direct you to original records of your ancestors, which may contain additional information."  - more like, "You may be able to locate vital record information by viewing the original GSU film from which the index was generated."  (maybe?)

8. "Each entry in this index has a source listed which includes a batch number. You will need to trace the batch number for the individual entry to learn its source. Please see the following wiki articles for more information on batch numbers:"  More accurately, each entry lists a source film and batch number.  Locate the original film by ..."


FamilySearch Historical Records Collections:

Thoughts from Carol Moss:

1.I like  what you have done. I like the "Collections:" namespace (is that correct?) WHEN the template for the actual collection at is directly below it. As long as those two elements are in close proximity, I don't have any problem with using the name "Collections:.

2. I feel strongly that we need to keep the "Related Wiki Articles" on this page. I can hear Darris saying - let's not take them OFF of our site but keep them here as long as we can.  This relates to my response

to "Related Web Sites". It makes me nervous to take people off of our site unless there is a valid "value added" experience for them.

3. I was very happy to see you give an actual citation for the page. I really like the value in that. I have used it before on other pages on the Wiki and found it so nice and convenient to source my record discoveries.  It also gives an example of what we hope people will do for citations.

4. The Template concept still makes me nervous.  Could you explain why we need it? Is it for the FHC people? That makes sense and it sounds like that is what you mean.  I would want to avoid asking patrons to submit themselves to learning the Template Process until they are ready for it - "advanced Wiki editing". :)

5. I am wondering why the record description doesn't have a citation. I would like to know where the fact about the Indians living in South Africa comes from. We really need to encourage citations.

6. question - what more do we need under "Record Content"? It appears to be complete.I think this is one of the most valuable elements of the page. Maybe you are thinking we will know more when we see the actual records. That makes a lot of sense.