Talk:EnglandEdit This Page
From FamilySearch Wiki
Purpose of Related Countries
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.
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. Daudwp 02:28, 7 February 2009 (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. Anthony Camp.
- I also agree. I will research who put this up and contact them to see if they object to it being removed (proper Wikiquette). Alan 20:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- 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. bromaelor 18:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Related Countries now deleted.Alan 17:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- 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. Daudwp 22:24, 19 February 2009 (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? bromaelor 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- A recent edit to the page resulted in all formatting being lost! Perhaps relying on divisions is not the best way to proceed??? bromaelor 14:18, 18 February 2009 (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. bromaelor 13:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- 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! Daudwp 22:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are some editors piping internal links when it is not necessary?
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:
- [[This is the actual page name|This is what I'm going to use here]]
- [[Christ's Hospital, London: A School for Children|Christ's Hospital]]
- ... attended Christ's Hospital school ...
I can see no purpose in piping:
where both the link target and link label are the same???
bromaelor 14:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
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!!! 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? Molliewog 17:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
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? 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. 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? Molliewog 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- 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). The reference book Nonconformist Registers of Wales also includes Monmouth as a Welsh county. The book, Welsh Family History A Guide to Research has a map of the counties in Wales which includes Monmouth. The Family History Library publication, Research Outline Wales 3rd edition August 1999 shows that Monmouth was one of the Pre-1974 counties of Wales. The uniqueness of the area has nothing to do with which country the county is in. 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! bromaelor 14:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
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? bromaelor 15:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Share Your Opinion!
Give feedback on our new look! Tell us what you like, and what you would do differently.Give Feedback