User talk:Hanna5974

3 January 2016: I restored the Victoria Australia BMD page which you deleted about October 2016. It looked like it was probably to fix the breadcrumb trail. This is to let you know so that that specific fix can be made. We need the content that is on that page to help answer a research question that came to the Facebook Research Community.Darris G. Williams (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

New Parish Registers Page
Hello,

My name is Ridge Wallace, and I want to let you know that I have posted a new article about parish registers. I am informing you of this because I see that you have worked on most of the articles dealing with parish registers, and I just want to assure that I did not mean to step on any toes by posting the article. This new article does borrow some information from the other parish register articles, but it presents it in a way that is more geared to work specifically with the Historical Records articles my team writes. Please let me know if you have any questions.

All the best,

Ridge

Headright Grants
Hi, just wanted to give some feedback that might improve your already-wonderful U.S. Land Records Class Handout. The Headright Grants section, as currently written, seems a bit unclear as to whether the sponsor or the immigrant received the 50 acres after the immigrant worked out his indenture. The first sentence makes it sound like the English government wanted to reward the sponsor with the 50 acres, but a later sentence indicates the 50 acres was a reward for the immigrant. The first sentence says "an individual received a grant of 50 acres for bringing people over from England," and the later sentence says "The person whose passage had been paid would serve as an indentured servant for seven years, receiving his freedom, 50 acres of land, and a certain amount of money...."

Keep up the great work,

Michael Ritchey

https://wwwp.familysearch.org/wiki/en/U.S._Land_Records_Class_Handout

Netherlands provinces
I suppose it is a bit late now, but I would like to express my opposition to renaming all the pages of the Netherlands provinces to include the word "province" in them, e.g. "Noord-Holland Province, Netherlands", and the fact that no discussion/notification was made of this. I feel that this is an unnecessary change. Just as no-one in typical usage refers to "The Commonwealth of Virginia", or "The State of California", or "The County of Kent" but would just call them "Virginia", "California" and "Kent" etc etc, with the exception of states, provinces and counties sharing a name with a city- for example Irish counties which all are explicitly referred to as counties e.g. County Cork, there is no need to specify that Noord-Holland, Noord-Brabant, Limburg etc are provinces. On both the Dutch and English wikipedias and in other encolypedias the provinces are called by their names without the identifier of "province". Only for Groningen and Utrecht is this necessary because of the cities sharing those names, and for Limburg it needs to be noted that a province of Belgium is also called Limburg.

In short, this change is not needed and doesn't add any value to the wiki. --Av85647 (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'll change it back. Hanna5974 (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Uncommented revert
Kathi Hanna,

would you like to explain your uncommented revert?

Kurt Kastner (talk), 27 Jan 2020 Certainly. It has been our policy in writing the German Empire pages to make links go as directly to the e-source as possible, so that inexperienced patrons don't get confused by having to hunt around a page seeing where they should click next. With that in mind, I reverted your change. Then I studied more closely the page you had preferred and saw its advantages: the alphabetic option and the link to the instructions. I changed the link back to your preferred page, added instructions to go to the right sidebar, and pointed out those advantageous links. Hanna5974 (talk)hanna5974Hanna5974 (talk)