Talk:EnglandEdit This Page

From FamilySearch Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
(Purpose of Related Countries)
(New Image: agree - image should be removed)
 
(46 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Purpose of Related Countries  ==
+
{{talkheader}} {{WikiProject England | class = A | importance = Top }}
  
I don't like the related countries on the England page.There ought to be a better way to use the real estate to get people into English content and show them some of the cool/hot stuff in the wiki for England.
+
== New Image ==
  
What is the purpose of the Related Countries. I can only suppose that they used to be, or still are, territories of the English government. Their intent and purpose is confusing to a person. [[User:Daudwp|Daudwp]] 02:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)  
+
I vote remove the image of the cemetery from this article. It is not necessary and bumps the content down below the fold of the page. I was wondering where it could be relocated on the article, but don't really see anywhere that it would fit. Please justify need for this image on the England article. [[User:Murphynw|Murphynw]] 05:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  
:I agree, I can't see any point in this list. I also greatly regret the passing of the ability to browse through a list of the subjects for which there are articles. The list of "Topics" is no substitute for it. [[User:Anthony Camp|Anthony Camp]].
+
:I agree with Nathan, the image does not add to the article and actually makes the page less readable. I will remove the image. Anyone who would like it restored should explain their reasons. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] {{toolbar|[[User talk:Cottrells|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cottrells|contribs]]}} 07:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  
::I also agree. I will research who put this up and contact them to see if they object to it being removed (proper Wikiquette). [[User:Alan|Alan]] 20:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
+
== Featured Content  ==
  
:::I added the long list of 'related countries', but only to show how ridiculous the concept is! I believe that it is totally unnecessary and pointed this out at an earlier stage of the pages' development. [[User:Bromaelor|bromaelor]] 18:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
+
I just put the : "Featured Content"  at the top of the page.  and moved "Research Tools" down the list.  Now somebody edit the "Featured Content"   Also feel free to remove content from this page that is no longer of value or applictiable.  "Is there a spell checker" [[User:Donjgen|Donjgen]] 21:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)  
  
::::Related Countries now deleted.[[User:Alan|Alan]] 17:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
+
:I like the idea of having "featured content" at the top. The sections might be pared down a little and I think everything but the Knowles collection should be changed out. If we could get some stats on how the featured content has been used it may help make decisions about these changes.
  
:::::Did the 'Related Countries' issue only appear on the England page? I thought Bromaelor came across it elsewhere. If that is the case it seems that the concept should be removed (at least on the country or US state pages) for other pages as well for some wiki wide design consistency. [[User:Darris|Daudwp]] 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
+
:[[User:WilliamsDa|Darris G. Williams]] 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  
::::::It's also on the [[Denmark]] page, but it's not so intrusive there. [[User:Bromaelor|bromaelor]] 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
+
== Online Collections List is too long  ==
  
== Raw coding ==
+
The section near the bottom of the page has gotten out of scope. I don't think it is appropriate to have the '''Wiki articles describing online collections are found at:''' continue to grow. I suggest that a page be written where these can all be added and linked to from the England page. If this continues the page will become unwieldy. I would also suggest that two or three articles be listed on the England page with a link to the complete list and that the two or three on the England page be rotated similar to the Featured Articles on the main page of the wiki. [[User:WilliamsDa|Darris G. Williams]] 21:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  
I've tried to tidy up the raw coding for this page. As most people appear to be using the graphics editor, and relying on tables for everything(!!!), the coding was a complete mess! Avoid the use of tables wherever possible! The "counties" need to be in three columns, as four columns causes an overrun to the right on smaller screens. I've also removed any links to "portals", which I believe are no longer being used on this wiki. Any comments? [[User:Bromaelor|bromaelor]] 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
+
:I agree with Darris. As the list of these collections has grown so large they should be listed on a separate page which can then be linked to from the [[England]] page. Also if any are listed as Darris suggests they should be those that cover the whole country. Collections about records from say [[Cheshire]] can be featured on the appropriate county pages. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] {{toolbar|[[User talk:Cottrells|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cottrells|contribs]]}} 10:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  
:A recent edit to the page resulted in all formatting being lost! Perhaps relying on ''divisions'' is '''not''' the best way to proceed??? [[User:Bromaelor|bromaelor]] 14:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
+
::I agree also. I was thinking the list was starting to get too long. I like the idea of reasonable length lists. When a list starts getting too long, move one group of them (such as a specific county) and move them to the appropriate page for that group of collections. For example, some day there might be a number of civil registration collections that could be moved to the England Civil Registration page to keep the England page from having too long a list.
  
== Place names ==
+
::-- [[User:MannAE|Alan]] 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  
The general 'consensus' on other wiki's, such as Wikipedia, appears to be that the '''original place''' of that name should get priority when naming pages. So a page on the city of Chester in England would simply be called "Chester" while any other Chesters would need further detail e.g. "Chester, Nova Scotia"; "Chester, Ohio"; etc.. So all English county pages should not have the ", England" extension. [[User:Bromaelor|bromaelor]] 13:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
+
== Editing Pages  ==
::I like this standard. Is there a way to share it with all the registered users? Not everyone who needs to see this will find it here! [[User:Darris|Daudwp]] 22:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
+
  
== Piping ==
+
I have made three edits to pages today and the result is unexpected. I made a change to the [[Cambridgeshire Census|Cambridgeshire Census]] and got text that does not wrap.  I made a simple change to [[Hoxne, Suffolk|Hoxne Paish]] page and got and unexpected white space between the sections.  I wouldn't advise making any edits until this is fixed.  You would think that the edit function would be turned off until this is fixed.  [[User:Donjgen|Donjgen]] 02:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  
Why are some editors '''piping''' internal links when it is not necessary?
+
:Hi Don, I afraid that it appears that you've found/identified a new bug with the [[Help:The Editing Tool (FCK Editor)|rich text editor (RTE)]]. I am assuming that you are using it. I don't use it, as I prefer to make changes direct to the underlying wiki code. Another recent problem RTE was that it was changing sizes of images without user input. Looking at the edit history of the two pages you mentioned excess line breaks had been added, I'm guessing by the RTE thus adding lots of whitespace to the page. I have edited both (in wikitext) to clean them up. My advice would be to [[Help:The Editing Tool (FCK Editor)#Turning_the_editor_tool_off_and_on|turn off the editor]] until the bugs are ironed out. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] {{toolbar|[[User talk:Cottrells|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cottrells|contribs]]}} 17:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  
;<nowiki>[[Kent|Kent]]</nowiki>
+
Hi Steve, I also noticed the the ''ref'' tag is different now. It displays a full number thus shifting the text. Look at this page [[Badingham, Suffolk|Badingham]] It looks like a bug hit the wiki rather than I found a bug. I was using both the FCK editor and the function in the editor to edit with rich text.[[User:Donjgen|Donjgen]] 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  
A '''pipe''' is only required when the actual name of an article needs to be 'adjusted' to fit into the context of the text where the link appears, e.g. with ''long-winded'' article names:
+
== Beginners Guide 1837 to 1901  ==
  
;<nowiki>[[This is the actual page name|This is what I'm going to use here]]</nowiki>
+
I am concerned by featuring this pdf publication on this page. It needs updating and revision. My objections are:
  
such as:
+
#It never mentions the Wiki at all. It send people to other sources to get information which is more current and more clear in the wiki.
 +
#The only mentions of FamilySearch.org are for the IGI, the BVRI, and the 1881 census, none of which are there anymore in the form mentioned. It doesn't mention Historical Records, but sends people to alternative sources which cost money (like England census indexes other than 1881).
 +
#It uses various other sources for maps and jurisdiction information, when it should be using http://maps.familysearch.org.
 +
#It recommends ordering FHL printed publications--the content of which has been moved to the Wiki, updated, and improved.
 +
#On page 12, it tells people to spend money to order the civil copy of a marriage record, for which they already have the original record from the parish church!
 +
#Various other more minor errors and omissions.
  
;<nowiki>[[Christ's Hospital, London: A School for Children|Christ's Hospital]]</nowiki>
+
I would like to move this from PDF to standard Wiki page and allow corrections and updates to be made. What does the community think?
  
giving:
+
[[User:MannAE|Alan]] 22:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  
; ... attended [[Christ's Hospital, London: A School for Children|Christ's Hospital]] school ...
+
:Alan, I think you make a very good case for extracting the information from the PDF and keeping what is still current and relevant. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] {{toolbar|[[User talk:Cottrells|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cottrells|contribs]]}} 11:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 
+
I can see no purpose in piping:
+
 
+
;<nowiki>[[Kent|Kent]]</nowiki>
+
 
+
where both the ''link target'' and ''link label'' are the same???
+
 
+
[[User:Bromaelor|bromaelor]] 14:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
+
 
+
== Multi-column lists ==
+
 
+
I've just discovered that all of the multi-column list I've added to the wiki (e.g. England counties) look perfect when using '''Mozilla Firefox 3''' but appear as one long column when viewed with '''Internet Explorer 7''' and that even the new version of IE8 will not support multiple-column lists. So its back to tables!!! [[User:Bromaelor|bromaelor]] 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
+
 
+
== Research guidance and beginner's info ==
+
At some point, research guidance will be removed from FamilySearch. It would be best to link to articles within the wiki and not to the content on FamilySearch. Also, the beginner's info takes up way too much space. It should be put into another article and perhaps linked to from the research tools? I'm not an English researcher. Is anyone willing to work on this? [[User:Molliewog|Molliewog]] 17:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
+
 
+
== Clickable map ==
+
 
+
I am in the process of creating a clickable map for the main England page. Please look at the following 2 maps and let me know which you like best. Additional suggestions are welcome as well.
+
 
+
*[[:Image:England_image_map.png]]
+
*[[:Image:England_image_map2.png]]
+
 
+
[[User:Molliewog|Molliewog]] 20:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
+
: The first problem I see is that Monmouth is included on the map. Monmouth is a county in Wales not England. Is it possible to edit one county out of this map? [[User:Darris|Daudwp]] 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
+
 
+
: I vote for map 1 with some of the county names spelled out. I like that the map uses the Chapman codes for the abbreviated labels. [[User:Darris|Daudwp]] 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
+
 
+
:Yes, I can certainly remove it....but its inclusion was intentional. I was asked to include it with the England map due to some uniqueness of the area. I'm not a British researcher, so I don't know the reasoning behind the request. Thoughts? [[User:Molliewog|Molliewog]] 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
+
 
+
::'''A number of research tools clearly identify which country Monmouth is and was located in.'''<br> 1. If we use the series titled ''National Index of Parish Registers'' as a guide then Monmouth fits in Wales not England (according to the English and Welsh authors and publishers). <br>2. The reference book ''Nonconformist Registers of Wales'' also includes Monmouth as a Welsh county. <br>3. The book, ''Welsh Family History A Guide to Research'' has a map of the counties in Wales which includes Monmouth. <br>4. The Family History Library publication, ''Research Outline Wales'' 3rd edition August 1999 shows that Monmouth was one of the Pre-1974 counties of Wales. <br>5. The Chapman County Codes group Monmouthshire with Wales<br>The uniqueness of the area has nothing to do with which country the county is in. [[User:Darris|Daudwp]] 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
+
 
+
::Monmouthshire is most definitely in '''Wales''' and always has been! There have been some petty arguments put forward by 'land-grabbers' from across the border in the past but none have serious credibility! England has as much claim to Monmouthshire as it has to Massachusetts! [[User:Bromaelor|bromaelor]] 14:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
+
 
+
== USA-centric? ==
+
 
+
The entire text in the "Beginners' Corner" appears to assume that researchers are only interested in ancestors who emigrated from England at some point? Why should this assumption be made when the vast majority of English people remained in England for their entire life? Or is this section just aimed at Americans? [[User:Bromaelor|bromaelor]] 15:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
+

Latest revision as of 07:57, 25 October 2012

WikiProject England (Rated A-Class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on FamilySearch Research Wiki. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 A  This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 

Contents

New Image

I vote remove the image of the cemetery from this article. It is not necessary and bumps the content down below the fold of the page. I was wondering where it could be relocated on the article, but don't really see anywhere that it would fit. Please justify need for this image on the England article. Murphynw 05:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nathan, the image does not add to the article and actually makes the page less readable. I will remove the image. Anyone who would like it restored should explain their reasons. --Steve (talk| contribs) 07:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Featured Content

I just put the : "Featured Content"  at the top of the page.  and moved "Research Tools" down the list.  Now somebody edit the "Featured Content"   Also feel free to remove content from this page that is no longer of value or applictiable.  "Is there a spell checker" Donjgen 21:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of having "featured content" at the top. The sections might be pared down a little and I think everything but the Knowles collection should be changed out. If we could get some stats on how the featured content has been used it may help make decisions about these changes.
Darris G. Williams 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Online Collections List is too long

The section near the bottom of the page has gotten out of scope. I don't think it is appropriate to have the Wiki articles describing online collections are found at: continue to grow. I suggest that a page be written where these can all be added and linked to from the England page. If this continues the page will become unwieldy. I would also suggest that two or three articles be listed on the England page with a link to the complete list and that the two or three on the England page be rotated similar to the Featured Articles on the main page of the wiki. Darris G. Williams 21:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Darris. As the list of these collections has grown so large they should be listed on a separate page which can then be linked to from the England page. Also if any are listed as Darris suggests they should be those that cover the whole country. Collections about records from say Cheshire can be featured on the appropriate county pages. --Steve (talk| contribs) 10:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree also. I was thinking the list was starting to get too long. I like the idea of reasonable length lists. When a list starts getting too long, move one group of them (such as a specific county) and move them to the appropriate page for that group of collections. For example, some day there might be a number of civil registration collections that could be moved to the England Civil Registration page to keep the England page from having too long a list.
-- Alan 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing Pages

I have made three edits to pages today and the result is unexpected. I made a change to the Cambridgeshire Census and got text that does not wrap.  I made a simple change to Hoxne Paish page and got and unexpected white space between the sections.  I wouldn't advise making any edits until this is fixed.  You would think that the edit function would be turned off until this is fixed.  Donjgen 02:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Don, I afraid that it appears that you've found/identified a new bug with the rich text editor (RTE). I am assuming that you are using it. I don't use it, as I prefer to make changes direct to the underlying wiki code. Another recent problem RTE was that it was changing sizes of images without user input. Looking at the edit history of the two pages you mentioned excess line breaks had been added, I'm guessing by the RTE thus adding lots of whitespace to the page. I have edited both (in wikitext) to clean them up. My advice would be to turn off the editor until the bugs are ironed out. --Steve (talk| contribs) 17:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I also noticed the the ref tag is different now. It displays a full number thus shifting the text. Look at this page Badingham It looks like a bug hit the wiki rather than I found a bug. I was using both the FCK editor and the function in the editor to edit with rich text.Donjgen 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Beginners Guide 1837 to 1901

I am concerned by featuring this pdf publication on this page. It needs updating and revision. My objections are:

  1. It never mentions the Wiki at all. It send people to other sources to get information which is more current and more clear in the wiki.
  2. The only mentions of FamilySearch.org are for the IGI, the BVRI, and the 1881 census, none of which are there anymore in the form mentioned. It doesn't mention Historical Records, but sends people to alternative sources which cost money (like England census indexes other than 1881).
  3. It uses various other sources for maps and jurisdiction information, when it should be using http://maps.familysearch.org.
  4. It recommends ordering FHL printed publications--the content of which has been moved to the Wiki, updated, and improved.
  5. On page 12, it tells people to spend money to order the civil copy of a marriage record, for which they already have the original record from the parish church!
  6. Various other more minor errors and omissions.

I would like to move this from PDF to standard Wiki page and allow corrections and updates to be made. What does the community think?

Alan 22:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I think you make a very good case for extracting the information from the PDF and keeping what is still current and relevant. --Steve (talk| contribs) 11:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This page was last modified on 25 October 2012, at 07:57.
  • This page has been accessed 2,431 times.