Source talk:The Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records

Page Kudos [10 November 2008]

This is an absolutely lovely source page. Great work! Jillaine 23:39, 9 November 2008 (EST)

External Links Checked 14 February 2009 [14 February 2009]

All external links checked and fixed/updated as of 14 February 2009. -- jillaine 17:06, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Barbour is available through newenglandancestors.org ?? [3 March 2009]

Where? (it's not on the list of Connecticut databases)--Amelia 11:27, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Sorry. I must have been asleep at the wheel. Ancestry.com, not newenglandancestors.org. (Fixed) I didn't point to the specific database, because they've split it up over multiple databases. -- jillaine 06:56, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Appropriate name for this source [19 August 2009]

Amelia, as I'm converting (redirecting) my MySources to Sources, I'm now in the B's.

To follow the naming conventions we've discussed elsewhere, shouldn't this page be renamed:

United States, Connecticut. The Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records.

or is it:

United States, Connecticut. Barbour, Lucius B. The Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records.

??

Please advise. Thanks. -- jillaine 21:37, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Frankly, I've been avoiding renaming this source because I use it all the time and, all the rules (and my defense of them) to the contrary, it's easy the way it is. The correct name is either Barbour, Lucius B. The Barbour Collection.... etc. OR United States, Connecticut. The Barbour Collection etc.... No author if you use it that way. (There's basically an exception for "authored" vital records like this where the author is well known.) I think Barbour makes it more findable, but it might be worth making a redirect with the other name.--Amelia 22:33, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Amelia, I just fell in love with you! ;-) Which book was it-- 1984 or Brave New World or We-- where the enforcer of the rules was himself breaking them, but you had to love him because the rules weren't fair? (I know you don't completely fit such a profile, but it does come to mind.) Your dear humanity makes you very dear to me! Well, you will get NO argument from me on this one. I'll keep working my way through B's and skip over this one. -- jillaine 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

If we leave this source as "Government/Church records", it will be renamed as "New Haven Colony. Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records" in the upcoming Source rename. That doesn't seem right. If we change the source type to "Book" then it will be renamed to "White, Lorraine Cook. Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records" because Lorraine is the first author. If we were to change the source type to "Book" and make Lucius the first author, then it would be renamed to "Barbour, Lucius B. Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records". The last alternative seems the best to me, but I'll let others watching this page make the final decision. (I have lots of other pages to worry about :-)--Dallan 19:49, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

I haven't renamed this source because it's not necessary for clarity, but it doesn't strike me as even remotely a tough call as to what the name should be once you know who these people are: Connecticut, United States. (The) Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records". "New Haven Colony" is not a proper place by any standard I've seen used here, nor is it appropriate for this source, which covers much more than what was once New Haven Colony. Barbour is not the author, he was the head of public records in Connecticut at the time (a fact I discovered since my last comment). White was probably whoever compiled the books, but since the source is the collection, which exists in both books and slip form, that too is inappropriate. If our rules make this so hard, then we've got bigger problems than I thought we did, mostly in this case caused by problems with the FHL catalog it appears. I'll fix the fields so the automation does what it should, as far as I can understand.--Amelia 21:10, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

Making Connecticut the first place in the list of places (which you did) and keeping the source type of "Government / Church records" covered will cause this source page to be renamed as "Connecticut, United States. Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records" as desired. Page 103 of ESM's 2007 Evidence Explained book lists an example where she cites this source as "Barbour, Lucius Barnes, and Lucius A. Barbour. Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records..." which is why I brought up the possibility of calling this source a book, since it appears to be cited by her using the book-style Author(s). Title format. I have no idea why she cites it this way, who Lucius A. Barbour is, or why Lorraine White is not mentioned.--Dallan 15:45, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

Thanks. Sorry I was a little snarky before (as you're well aware, this issue has been flogged to death). Maybe Lucius B and A compiled one of the versions. Which makes this into an example of why I don't like using authored format for vital records ;-) --Amelia 19:44, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I haven't said how much I have appreciated your patience through all of this. I agree this has gone on for a long time. And I believe there will need to be exceptions. Maybe one solution is to make the source findable in the drop-down list through either author or place.--Dallan 23:04, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

That's probably a good idea. I just happened to be looking at Alabama marriages, and realized how many of them have authors. It may be that a very large percentage of vital records end up not being listed under the geographic records format, and I suspect a lot of hurried/inexperienced/human researchers omit the author/compiler/etc. when they have a book called X marriages to 1850, or whatever, so it would be nice to make the records still findable.--Amelia 00:41, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Corrections of Connecticut Vital Records-Thompson [23 April 2009]

I have the NEHGR issue, volume 155, July 2001, which has the article Some Marriages from Records of the First Congregational Church in Thompson, Connecticut, 1796-1850, Including Some Corrections to the Barbour Collection of Connecticut Vital Records by Helen Schatvet Ullmann and Kathryn Smith Black if anyone would like a scanned copy.--Beth 23:03, 23 April 2009 (EDT)