Source talk:Weiswampach, Clervaux, Diekirch, Luxembourg. Etat Civil


Source title & possible duplicate [28 November 2010]

I am wondering if this source is the same as Source:Weiswampach (Luxembourg). Officier de L'état Civil. Registres de L'état Civil, 1779-1902. If they are, we'll need to merge this page into the other source. Unfortunately, both sources do not follow WeRelate's naming convention for geographically-oriented records, which can be found here. Please let me know what the proper title should be, and I can help out in the renaming. Thanks, (volunteer admin) --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:46, 28 November 2010 (EST)

I'm not sure how you would write the source. We are both referring to the vital records recorded by the Gemeinde/County of Weiswampach from 1797 to present. I have accessed these records through the courthouse in Luxembourg, so I did not use the LDS as my source citation. I think the best solution would be to merge the sources. Not sure what title you'd like. There are three official languages in Luxembourg: Luxembourgish, German, and French. I'm assuming that the title should be in English. :) Maybe:

Weiswampach Civil Registry ? lol It's simple enough...--Tiger 13:01, 28 November 2010 (EST)

Thank you for your reply. I am not familiar with archives in Luxembourg, but I have worked extensively with Netherlands sources on WR. There, we try to rename the sources to reflect local terminology. In this case, we certainly don't have to title the source in English. Looking at this page:, it seems that Etat civil or Registres de l’état civil may be titles to consider (ie Source:Weiswampach, Clervaux, Diekirch, Luxembourg. Etat civil or Source:Weiswampach, Clervaux, Diekirch, Luxembourg. Registres de l’état civil. It seems Officier de L'état Civil and even the years are unnecessary in the title. Putting the entire place hierarchy in the title is a WR convention.

The ultimate goal is to have 1 page per source, and list the various repositories on that page. I did remove the LDS specific information from the source. That was imported automatically when WR generated their source pages, and are often removed by users.

The other option is to simply redirect your page to the Source:Weiswampach (Luxembourg). Officier de L'état Civil. Registres de L'état Civil, 1779-1902 and not rename it yet.... :-) --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:53, 28 November 2010 (EST)

I'm okay with redirecting my sources to the originals. The only thing is that the years (in that source) only go to 1902, but some of my records go far into 20th century (death dates are recorded on the birth certs., so for those who died after they were microfilmed in the 60s by the church, their death dates aren't recorded). I know, I probably sound pretty anal at the moment, but is there a way to change the year range from 1797 to present? Can you add courthouse in Weiswampach as a repository? Sorry, kinda new here so I'm not too familiar with how everything works. :)--Tiger 14:20, 28 November 2010 (EST)

I didn't notice that you were such a new user! Already adding sources to your pages... brave :-)

I decided to rename this source... it was bugging me. I chose Etat civil instead of Registres de L'état Civil. In the Netherlands, we're starting to remove the Registers van de from the titles - with users from that country baffled why LDS put that in there at all. If I chose incorrectly, feel free to let me know.

I changed the year range and added your text as well as a link to the courthouse under repositories. Thank you for your advice, --Jennifer (JBS66) 14:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)

I add the accent to the E in état, but otherwise I'm okay with it. :) Just one question: is there a way to change the quote from saying "Leithum, Weiswampach..." just because it's at the top of the list?--Tiger 15:06, 28 November 2010 (EST)

I added Weiswampach, Clervaux, Diekirch, Luxembourg to the top of the Places Covered list, so that appears in the citation now instead of Leithum. You are welcome to rename the page to Source:Weiswampach, Clervaux, Diekirch, Luxembourg. État Civil if that is more accurate. --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:15, 28 November 2010 (EST)