Difference between revisions of "Talk:Minnesota, County Marriages (FamilySearch Historical Records)"

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Coverage Table: new section)
(Formatting & signature)
Line 1: Line 1:
Saw a Facebook post asking for feedback about the coverage table...LOVE IT!!  I used to look at the Historical Record pages looking for this kind of thing and my experience was that it was "never there" so I pretty much gave up going to the Historical Record wiki pages unless I was really desperate or looking for other information.  Will have to change my habits now :) Thanks! [[User:JanaStokes|JanaStokes]] 02:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
+
== Kudos ==
 +
Saw a Facebook post asking for feedback about the coverage table...LOVE IT!!  I used to look at the Historical Record pages looking for this kind of thing and my experience was that it was "never there" so I pretty much gave up going to the Historical Record wiki pages unless I was really desperate or looking for other information.  Will have to change my habits now :) Thanks! [[User:JanaStokes|JanaStokes]] 02:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)  
  
== Coverage Table ==
+
== Coverage Table ==
  
 
I love the idea of a coverage table, but I would like to trust it.
 
I love the idea of a coverage table, but I would like to trust it.
 +
My objective today: Waseca County, MN marriage records, 1900-1920. I started with the catalog and found that records had been filmed. On that catalog page was the invitation to "click here" to see them online.  "Here" was the page where I could search by name and above the search fields were the words, "Currently the following counties are represented in this collection: Anoka, Blue Earth, Brown, Carver, Cottonwood, Dodge, Faribault, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Hennepin, Kanabec." Well, Waseca county was not listed! So I clicked on "Learn More" where I found the coverage table. The coverage table did not include Waseca County, but it did include at least 2 counties not in the list quoted above.
  
My objective today:  Waseca County, MN marriage records, 1900-1920.  I started with the catalog and found that records had been filmed.  On that catalog page was the invitation to "click here" to see them online.  "Here" was the page where I could search by name and above the search fields were the words,  "Currently the following counties are represented in this collection: Anoka, Blue Earth, Brown, Carver, Cottonwood, Dodge, Faribault, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Hennepin, Kanabec."  Well, Waseca county was not listed!  So I clicked on "Learn More" where I found the coverage table.    The coverage table did not include Waseca County, but it did include at least 2 counties not in the list quoted above.
+
Do I believe the catalog entry or the coverage table? I could figure out through experimentation what counties are in there so far, but the idea of the WIKI is to help us save time. If I search for the marriage that I want and do not find it, what should be my conclusion? 1) The records I need aren't indexed yet, 2) They are indexed but the marriage didn't occur there, or, unfortunately, 3) Because the names were written too poorly for indexers to read properly?
  
 
+
I use WIKI regularly, but I am not familiar with "Discussions" and am not confident that this contribution is a discussion because there was nothing at the top of the page saying so. If it ended up in the wrong place, I hope someone who knows how will move it or delete it. <span style="font-size:90%;">— Preceding [[FamilySearch Wiki:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:  Luanalg |  Luanalg ]] ([[User talk:  Luanalg |talk]]&thinsp;|&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/  Luanalg |contribs]])  20:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
 
 
Do I believe the catalog entry or the coverage table? &nbsp;I could figure out through experimentation what counties are in there so far, but the idea of the WIKI is to help us save time. &nbsp;If I search for the marriage that I want and do not find it, what should be my conclusion? 1) &nbsp;The records I need aren't indexed yet, 2) &nbsp;They are indexed but the marriage didn't occur there, or, unfortunately, 3) Because the names were written too poorly for indexers to read properly?
 
 
 
I use WIKI regularly, but I am not familiar with "Discussions" and am not confident that this contribution is a discussion because there was nothing at the top of the page saying so. &nbsp;If it ended up in the wrong place, I hope someone who knows how will move it or delete it.&nbsp;
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<br>
 

Revision as of 04:25, 10 September 2013

Kudos

Saw a Facebook post asking for feedback about the coverage table...LOVE IT!!  I used to look at the Historical Record pages looking for this kind of thing and my experience was that it was "never there" so I pretty much gave up going to the Historical Record wiki pages unless I was really desperate or looking for other information.  Will have to change my habits now :) Thanks! JanaStokes 02:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Coverage Table

I love the idea of a coverage table, but I would like to trust it. My objective today: Waseca County, MN marriage records, 1900-1920. I started with the catalog and found that records had been filmed. On that catalog page was the invitation to "click here" to see them online.  "Here" was the page where I could search by name and above the search fields were the words, "Currently the following counties are represented in this collection: Anoka, Blue Earth, Brown, Carver, Cottonwood, Dodge, Faribault, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Hennepin, Kanabec." Well, Waseca county was not listed! So I clicked on "Learn More" where I found the coverage table. The coverage table did not include Waseca County, but it did include at least 2 counties not in the list quoted above.

Do I believe the catalog entry or the coverage table? I could figure out through experimentation what counties are in there so far, but the idea of the WIKI is to help us save time. If I search for the marriage that I want and do not find it, what should be my conclusion? 1) The records I need aren't indexed yet, 2) They are indexed but the marriage didn't occur there, or, unfortunately, 3) Because the names were written too poorly for indexers to read properly?

I use WIKI regularly, but I am not familiar with "Discussions" and am not confident that this contribution is a discussion because there was nothing at the top of the page saying so. If it ended up in the wrong place, I hope someone who knows how will move it or delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luanalg (talk | contribs) 20:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)