Combine with pension roll of 1835? [17 June 2011]
Source:United States. Pension Roll of 1835 now is the source page for the US 4-volume Pension Roll. There are several (tho perhaps not all) individual states with publications/databases of their pensioners. Some of these have a separate Ancestry database.
On the theory that users from Ancestry will be seeking to match the particular database they searched at Ancestry when importing source data, shall we keep individual pages (and just refer in the text to the master source?
The source pages that related to the Pension Roll of 1835 are:
- Source:Columbia, New York, United States. Pension Roll for Columbia County (New York), 1835: Nothing links here; the only source noted is Family History Center. I'm inclined to merge this into the master source page.
- Source:Wimberly, Vera Meek. Index, Pension Records of 1835 as Published by Genealogical Publishing Company, Reprint 1968, Baltimore, Md., Vols. I, II, III,. Nothing links here, and it is sourced from the Family History Library. I'm inclined to merge this to the master source page as an index source.
- Source:South Carolina, United States. SOUTH CAROLINA - 1835 FEDERAL PENSION LIST: This is a website that transcribes the South Carolina records from the 1835 national list. I'm ambivalent about this page.
- And, of course, this page, which has been linked to the appropriate Ancestry search page. However, the underlying source is still the national 4 volume report of 1835; the Kentucky portion was reprinted at a later date (apparently 1859).
These are the states that have separate Ancestry databases for the 1835 Pension Roll:
- New York
- Pennsylvania
- Connecticut
- Vermont
- Kentucky
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- Maine
- Rhode Island
- Delaware
As noted, only Kentucky currently has a separate source page. However, the "master" source page does list all these individual ancestry database (and links).
So what do you think? --Brenda (kennebec1) 19:48, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
- I think these two source pages discuss the same source, but I'm not sure if reprints should be combined??? I wonder if this has been discussed previously in the Watercooler??? Murphynw 19:58, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
- Yes, reprints are combined; that's been discussed and settled before. But I wouldn't call these reprints. Our rule is generally that Ancestry databases that use a single underlying source are just links on the page for the underlying source. Their choice to divide them up doesn't change our rules. So on that basis, I would redirect. We do a similar thing for the WWI registration cards. For the others, the index gets redirected (as I see it has been) because mere indexes don't get their own source page. Verbatim transcriptions, which it sounds like the website is, also don't get their own pages. The book on the one county could go either way; I think it it was actually published we tend to leave it as its own page.--Amelia 00:07, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
|
