Talk:England, Derbyshire, Church of England Parish Registers (FamilySearch Historical Records)

From FamilySearch Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
(raise two issues on collection detail)
 
(completing presentation of suggested change)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Boiler-plate content out of place ==
+
== Boiler-plate content out of place ==
  
Most of the content on this page is "boiler-plate" or generic to all of England. There are two problems with this:
+
Most of the content on this page is "boiler-plate" or generic to all of England. Besides unnecessarily repeating content multiple times, there are two problems with using this boiler-plate or generic content here, namely:  
  
1. Some of the content is incorrect. For example, it says that this collection came from the Sussex Record Office. That is not true. It came from the Derbyshire Record Office. I believe the problem comes from copying text used somewhere else without removing text specific to another area. Another annoying one is the section titles "''Examples of Source Citations for a Record Found in This Collection''".  Both of the examples given are from other countries -- USA and Mexico. The title of the section is misleading.
+
#Some of the content is incorrect. For example, it says that this collection came from the Sussex Record Office. That is not true. It came from the Derbyshire Record Office. I believe the problem comes from copying text used somewhere else without removing text specific to that other area. Another annoying issue is the section titled "''Examples of Source Citations for a Record Found in This Collection''".&nbsp; Both of the examples given are from other countries -- USA and Mexico. It doesn't have anything to do with a record found in THIS collection, rather it is an example from a different collection. Could we rename the section "''Examples of Source Citations for a Record Found in a Digital Image Collection"''?<br>
 +
#The boiler-plate text (the whole of the sections titled''Record Description, Record Content, How to Use this record, Record History, Why the record was created, record reliability, related websites, and related wiki articles'') has been copied into this article. What happens if corrections or improvements are made to the article this was copied from? The text here will not be corrected or improved. Rather than copy and paste, we should either write one article for these topics and refer to it from each of the parish register collections, or use a template so that changes to the base text are pushed to the individual collection articles that use it. I personally prefer the first of these two, because it bothers me to have examples given where the records used as examples don't come from this collection.
  
2. The boiler-plate text <br>Record Description, Record Content, How to Use this record, Record History, Why the record was created, record reliability, related websites, related wiki articles
+
I would also like to see some consideration to making the ''Related Websites ''and''Related Wiki Articles ''sections more useful. Both of these sections are currently ''"related''" to the generic article rather than to this specific collection. I would like to see links to sites and articles directly related to this collection rather than the generic topics of parish registers or church records as a whole. Moving the generic content to a separate, generic page would allow for this. The generic page about parish register collections could then be linked to from each collection.<br>

Revision as of 17:47, 9 January 2012

Boiler-plate content out of place

Most of the content on this page is "boiler-plate" or generic to all of England. Besides unnecessarily repeating content multiple times, there are two problems with using this boiler-plate or generic content here, namely:

  1. Some of the content is incorrect. For example, it says that this collection came from the Sussex Record Office. That is not true. It came from the Derbyshire Record Office. I believe the problem comes from copying text used somewhere else without removing text specific to that other area. Another annoying issue is the section titled "Examples of Source Citations for a Record Found in This Collection".  Both of the examples given are from other countries -- USA and Mexico. It doesn't have anything to do with a record found in THIS collection, rather it is an example from a different collection. Could we rename the section "Examples of Source Citations for a Record Found in a Digital Image Collection"?
  2. The boiler-plate text (the whole of the sections titledRecord Description, Record Content, How to Use this record, Record History, Why the record was created, record reliability, related websites, and related wiki articles) has been copied into this article. What happens if corrections or improvements are made to the article this was copied from? The text here will not be corrected or improved. Rather than copy and paste, we should either write one article for these topics and refer to it from each of the parish register collections, or use a template so that changes to the base text are pushed to the individual collection articles that use it. I personally prefer the first of these two, because it bothers me to have examples given where the records used as examples don't come from this collection.

I would also like to see some consideration to making the Related Websites andRelated Wiki Articles sections more useful. Both of these sections are currently "related" to the generic article rather than to this specific collection. I would like to see links to sites and articles directly related to this collection rather than the generic topics of parish registers or church records as a whole. Moving the generic content to a separate, generic page would allow for this. The generic page about parish register collections could then be linked to from each collection.