Talk:Utah Archives and Libraries

WPA Topic
I need to quickly dump some references to WPA inventories. It doesn't look like we've addressed this topic anywhere, so I don't see a good place to put this. I invite someone to flesh out the topic, perhaps create a page for each state and an overarching page on the general subject.

RaymondRS 21:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you are referring to 80-year old inventories. Something that old is (or should be, if they are smart) irrelevant to modern researchers. The nature of most collections changes, especially over such a long period. Just because something exists, we do not have to mention it. We should strive for quality over quantity on Wiki pages. Some sources are unworthy of taking up our readers' time. DiltsGD 12:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced County Repositories
Let's rethink the addition of four county-oriented repositories at the end of the "statewide" section. Obviously well-meant, they are nevertheless out-of-place in a list of repositories to help researchers find Utah residents statewide. If we accept these four county-repositories on the state list of repositories, logically we should also add at least four more for all of Utah's 29 counties (116 county-level entries on a list originally intended for statewide use). Such wonderful and well-cited county repositories would be welcome on the appropriate COUNTY Wiki page, or on a list of alternative repositories for an archives or library in a specific county. They just do not belong on this statewide list. DiltsGD 12:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's be more selective about "Outside Utah" repositories
If we succumb to the temptation to be overly comprehensive, the Wiki will become too "wordy" to be useful to readers. As wonderful as the Library of Congress, NARA I, and Allen County are, they and dozens of other similar national-scope repositories (for example think Mid-Continent, Clayton, and Newberry) are candidates to be on every repository page at the national, state, county, and town level. If we mention each of these repositories at every possible instance we dilute the value of the Wiki for showing the BEST repositories for those lower levels. It is wiser to select only a few examples of the MOST RELEVANT of the national-scope repositories for inclusion on statewide lists. We do harm to the value of the Wiki by including too much at inappropriate levels, so selectivity is better than comprehensiveness. BEST is better than ALL on the Wiki. The Wiki is an educational tool about the best in genealogy. The Wiki must avoid becoming a long-winded version of an un-selective USGenWeb. DiltsGD 13:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)