Talk:England, Norfolk Marriage Bonds (FamilySearch Historical Records)
Link from one citation to the other Because of your suggestion and those of others, we are now putting a link from the Citation for This Collection section to the Citing FamilySearch Historical Collections section of the new Historical Record Collection wiki articles.
Hopefully this year FamilySearch will be able to make automatic citations fully functional. Currently when you search for a person in a search collection you will see a partial citation at the bottom of the page. Once the automatic citations are working, there will be less need for us to provide and example citation.
Thanks again for improving wiki articles!
HoranDM 19:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Major revision - done 15 June 2012
Thank you NaDine
On reflection, I decided not to create a new section for the background information but placed much of that text under "Record description" instead. Apart from that, there are just a few minor amendments to my draft, with new sections for "Courts' jurisdictions" and "Indexes and hints".
I've followed HoranDM's advice and kept "Citation for this collection" between "Record description" and "Record content". If their sequence is not set in stone, I still think that "Record content" would make a good introductory section in this article, even at the expense of differing from other articles, and that all the citation sections could justifiably be placed together, near the foot of the page. I leave those thoughts for other contributors to consider.
David Gobbitt 08:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Major revision - draft in sandbox for comment
The revision in you sandbox look good and I have no objections to the order you have used. However, the section order maybe stipulated by the wiki style guide. I have a message to person who is over the style guide.
My recommendation to you is go ahead and make the changes. If Ifind out that it conflicts with the style guide, I can make minor modifications then.
NaDine Timothy, User Guidance Area Coordinator
Thank you for your swift response.
I'm happy to leave the "Citation for This Collection" section alone, since it was intentionally placed directly after the "Record Description" section. You seem to suggest that it was meant to be a sub-section there. However, I think most people interested in citations would look at the foot of the page and I'm not sure that confusion is avoided by having various citation paragraphs in different places, albeit temporarily.
If kept where it is, perhaps the "Citation for This Collection" section or sub-section (referring to the original source of the data and images, with links to pages cataloguing microfilms) could benefit from a cross-reference to the final record citation section (in which the sole example refers to an online image) and vice versa, but that may be unwise if either of them is going to disappear soon. Adding a link to the online material in the first citation section would probably be unnecessary, as there is a general one in the box at the top of the page, and my draft gives direct links to the individual courts under "Record Description" (which is shorter than the version in the current article).
I'm also glad to have your confirmation that "Record Content" should be a separate section and not a sub-section under "Citation for This Collection", as it is now. Keeping "Record Description" at the beginning of the article, followed by "Citation for This Collection" as you recommend, "Record Content" should probably stay where it is. I wouldn't object to that, but I will wait for more comments, including those of the guidance coordinator, before making any changes.
David Gobbitt 10:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
We appreciate your interest in this article.
Use the British spelling for content that you add to the article. I think it's fine to use both types of spelling in a wiki article, as content will often be contributed by more than one person. We use the English spelling because we are not familiar with the British spelling and I wouldn't want to use it incorrectly.
Here is what we were thinking when we ordered the headers in the Historical Records articles:
We have had feedback that people want to know about the collection first. The Records Description section includes a description of the article and links to browse collections when appropriate. If that's where someone wants to go, they can to there almost immediately.
The Citation for This Collection section is intended to be a part of Record Description. We moved it away from the record citation because having them together seemed to confuse wiki readers. Recently we have received other feedback that suggests both citations should appear together. Once the automatic records citations are created, the record citations will be removed from the articles as we won't need to suggest a formatting style to collection users. You may have noticed that if you search for a person in an index a short citation appears at the bottom of the results page. The FamilySearch unit is working on generating full citations for search and browse collections.
At that time we will then only have the collection citations in the records in the future. Would you still suggest moving the citations together and if so, where?
If you don't think we should move the citations together, where do you think the citation for the collection should appear?
Record Content is a for a section. It is not a sub-header. I'm hoping that the Record Description section provides the succinct introduction that you suggest.
I will check out the manual of style to see if we need to change our header captitalization. We cleared it with the editing group when we began writing these articles but they may not have read the wiki manual of style and may have had other styles in mind.
As we have time, we are making the information within the articles more specific to that collection. I will ask the guidance coordinator for this geographical assignment to review your sandbox.
Please do not change the titles of Historical Records Articles. As you noticed the title mirrors that of the digital collection it describes. There are also links that you would disrupt by moving the article.
HoranDM 16:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Major revision - draft in sandbox for comment
I'm contemplating a major revision of this article, rewriting and rearranging parts of it, with several amendments, deletions and additions. A draft of the relevant sections can be viewed in my sandbox (where some of the unchanged links to related wiki articles are not active).
I think moving the "Record content" section up to the beginning would provide a useful and succinct introduction, and certainly make more sense than leaving it as a sub-section of "Citation for this collection". This would seem to belong near the other citation paragraphs at the foot of the page, if it can be moved without endangering the bibdesc coding. I'd appreciate some expert advice on that, and on whether it would be safe to change the subheading's book title capitalization to sentence-style capitalization, as recommended in the Manual of Style.
My main concern is the lack of sufficient guidance for inexperienced researchers to locate images online or on film. I've therefore compiled a new section about "Indexes and other finding aids" (incorporating some of the material now under the redundant "How to Use the Record"). It's rather long but I hope it will be helpful. I've also explained the apparently chaotic arrangement of many records (often bewildering for beginners) and expanded the information on courts and their jurisdictions (provisionally under "Background information and jurisdiction" for want of a better subheading).
In accordance with the manual's guidelines respecting the style set by original contributors, I've used the American spelling of "license" except when citing the titles of publications, like the leaflet produced by the Norfolk Record Office, which naturally spells the noun "licence". Personally, I believe the resultant inconsistency is a good reason to use British spelling throughout (these being English records, after all) but I feel unauthorized to do so without consensus. Would anyone be offended?
A very persuasive case could be made for including the word "allegations" in the title of the article. But that may be unacceptable while the name of the record collection itself mentions only bonds (which were abolished in 1823) so perhaps it should remain unchanged. I'd welcome the thoughts of more knowledgeable users or administrators about that or any of my other proposals.
David Gobbitt 11:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)