Difference between revisions of "Talk:England Genealogy"
(suggest change publication to Wiki page)
(→Beginners Guide 1837 to 1901: agree with proposal)
|Line 41:||Line 41:|
[[User:MannAE|Alan]] 22:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
[[User:MannAE|Alan]] 22:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Revision as of 11:39, 21 April 2012
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the England Genealogy article.|
|WikiProject England||(Rated A-Class, Top-importance)|
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 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)
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 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:
- 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.
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 11:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)