Help talk:Source Page Title Examples


Books in series [29 July 2009]

The "Short title" rule would argue that 'Immigrants to New England' should be left off, but would you lose the years?

Yes, leave the rest for that reason.--Amelia 00:06, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Accented characters

Regarding Arsenault, etc: Do we want to include accented characters in the page title? Can the search routine treat them as unaccented for its purposes (as Google does)? --Mike (mksmith) 15:12, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

Verbatim records [28 July 2009]

Isn't the parish vestry book a "church record"? (I'll look for a better example of a transcript.) --Mike (mksmith) 15:18, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

Various issues [20 June 2011]

  • Regarding this one -- Source:U.S. Congress. American State Papers, Class VIII: Public Lands

It was changed to "Source:United States. American State Papers, Class VIII: Public Lands" -- but that's partially incorrect. Congress is the authoring agency. For conformity to style, yes, "U.S." should undoubtedly be spelled out. But omitting "Congress" implies authorship by the Executive Branch, or by the U.S. government in general, which is not the case.

So: Source:United States. Congress. American State Papers, Class VIII: Public Lands

But government agencies don't get listed as authors. If Congress is in the title, use it, otherwise it's omitted.--Amelia 00:06, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
Source:United States Congress. American State Papers still has United States Congress as the author. What is the final decision?--Beth 08:36, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
  • "Source:United States. U.S. National Archives" is redundant. Either "United States" or "U.S.," but not both.
Well, this actually isn't a source, so it should just be deleted, but as a general matter, you're right -- it should be United States, California. Deaths 1940-2000; not United States, California. California Deaths, 1940-2000, for instance (although if doing this makes hash of the record name, you don't have to omit it.)--Amelia 00:06, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
  • "Source:United States, Iowa, Dallas. Marriages, 1880-1926" -- Why would you include dates? Marriages were and are being performed in Dallas County after 1926. You can walk into the courthouse and look them up. This Source page name refers to the actual documents, not somebody's published collection. This would also apply to the town records in Windsor, CT (which I'm familiar with).
In almost any record set I've ever seen, it's only a set of dates. I left other examples without dates (but deleted the ones that didn't offer any new information), but this is an actual record set that's in the FHL catalo, and I thought it ought to be one of the examples. Even though we use the geographic format, you still have to respect the record set name. There are many versions of same county marriage records, and Windsor CT vital records for that matter -- that's why the Windsor title is the way it is, and not just "Vital Records."--Amelia 00:06, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
  • And please don't delete headings and examples. We need more, not less. --Mike (mksmith) 16:43, 29 Jul y 2009 (EDT)
I only deleted examples that didn't seem to add anything to what was there. If there was a difference I missed, please explain further. But I also think we should be cautious about offering a zillion examples and implying that this is really complicated.--Amelia 00:06, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
I would call US National Archives a repository, not a source. The various records they hold are sources. I am finding a lot of repositories in the source namespace. I suggest they be moved.
Putting a date range on a collective source for public records is problematic. The particular book and page, etc would be part of the citation. The "Source" is the entire record set. A published book might be limited in range, but would have a separate source page.

--Judy (jlanoux) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Yes, you're right (although often public record collections distributed publicly have date ranges too). It's perfectly possible to have multiple source pages for what might seem like the same set of records (i.e. Source:United States, Connecticut, Hartford, Windsor. Records of Births, Marriages, and Deaths, 1638-1925, Source:The Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records, and Source:United States, Connecticut, Hartford, Windsor. Record of Marriages & Births Copied from the 1st Book of Records -- all probably rely on some of the same original records, but are so different they need different source pages). I'm not sure in what situation it would make sense to refer to just the entire universe of records held at the county level, but in that case you would use a general title and omit the date.--Amelia 00:06, 30 July 2009 (EDT)