Talk:England/Archive 1

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)


 * It's also on the Denmark page, but it's not so intrusive there. bromaelor 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Raw coding
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)

Place names
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)
 * I notice that every English county page has just been moved with the addition of the country name e.g. "Cheshire" is now "Cheshire, England". Who made this decision and where is the discussion page? If this is now FSWiki policy then I expect all pages on the USA to have the country name added also. The rules MUST apply equally to every country!!!! I suggest you read the thread at soc.genealogy.britain to see why so few British researchers are prepared to contribute to FSWiki! Note the phrase "pseudo-folksy American crap exhibiting no cultural sensitivity whatsoever to the rest of the world". I'm beginning to see their point! bromaelor 15:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the pages have been renamed either. What is the purpose for changing from Yorkshire to Yorkshire, England. I've not seen any discussion on this page related to Bromaelor's post on 18 February 2009 above that leads me to believe that the users of this site or these pages have made this decision or been involved in this change. How is this a COMMUNITY effort. The fact that the England map was made available for comment before being posted was great. The fact that Monmouthshire was removed from the map before it was loaded to the England page is an excellent illustration that users can be listened to. Where has the community inclusion and discussion been in relation to the other changes? Suggesting changes to the England page and then making those changes in a few hours sends a message that these discussion pages are notice boards in many ways rather than discussion pages. Daudwp 19:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like it for the simple fact that 'Cheshire, England' says nothing about this page. Wikipedia is not a how to page like wiki.familysearch. The place names need to be adapted for the need of the wiki and the people who use it. I think clarity should be the goal. The name is for the user. The power of the internet and a wiki is not in the names but in the linking together of subject matter. The subject matter of the Cheshire page is Genealogical Research in Cheshire / A place name in Cheshire is Birkenhead. Is Birkenhead called, (Birkenhead, England; Birkenhead, Cheshire, England) I think it should be Birkenhead Genealogical Research or something down those lines. Maybe (My ancestors lived in Birkenhaed) The linking to the County page and to the country page is what gives it validity and focus. (My ancestors lived in Cheshire) That is a clear descriptive name. Don-J
 * I apologize for not following wikiquette. I can only plead that I am new to wiki and didn't think through the consequences of my action. When the England clickable map was prepared for posting, I saw a need to use a naming convention for county names. I also foresaw future needs for links that could be created to county pages from other applications such as the Family History Library Catalog. What I should have done was post a summary of the issues and ask for suggestions &amp; comments. Being new to wiki concepts, I instead made an arbitrary decision based on incomplete information. Having said that, where does that leave us now? I suggest the solutions are:


 * 1) The page names should follow established conventions. If the name of a county is the original place of that name, then the name does not require the country name. If the name of a county is the same as the name of a city in that county, then the county name should have "shire" on the end of it (e.g., Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire). Where applicable, disambiguation pages may be added to distinguish from other places of the same name.
 * 2) use of a redirect. If this community decides the name of a county page should be the name of a county alone wihtout the ", England" then that's what it should be. If another application needs the name to be "Cornwall, England" then we just place a redirect from "Cornwall, England" to "Cornwall"
 * 3) For a better understanding of redirects, please see Help:Redirects
 * 4) Don's point is a good one. Should our page titles contain something identifying the content as relating to genealogical or family history research? This would help people doing a Google search for Birkenhead to distinguish our wiki from the city's official pages or other things about Birkenhead.
 * Alan 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Piping
Why are some editors piping internal links when it is not necessary?


 * Kent

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 what I'm going to use here

such as:


 * Christ's Hospital

giving:


 * ... attended Christ's Hospital school ...

I can see no purpose in piping:


 * Kent

where both the link target and link label are the same???

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!!! 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)

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

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)


 * A number of research tools clearly identify which country Monmouth is and was located in. 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). 2. The reference book Nonconformist Registers of Wales also includes Monmouth as a Welsh county. 3. The book, Welsh Family History A Guide to Research has a map of the counties in Wales which includes Monmouth. 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. 5. The Chapman County Codes group Monmouthshire with 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)


 * I think it would be better to be consistent and have either every county with its full name, or every county with its Chapman Code? However, I don't believe the first option is possible on this size map. The software allows a "rollover" label, so why not have Chapman Codes on the map and full county names on the rollover? bromaelor 12:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll pull Monmouth out. I also need to make Isle of Wight part of Hampshire. Yes, the full name of the county will be available when you hover over the area of the map. If I make the England map small enough to fit on the main England page, some county names will not fit. I have seen some maps that will use full county names even though they do not fit within the county boundaries. To me, these look quite messy. I'll see what I can come up with today. I know that what I may post today may not be the final product, but we really want to get something up in time for the conference tomorrow. Molliewog 15:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though this page is not part o Wales I think that area should be shown on the map so one can see if Wales may be relevant to their search.

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? bromaelor 15:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally think this whole section needs to be completely re-written. It wastes too much space. Maybe the whole section should be removed and a link to a page on beginning England research be added under the research tools heading? Maybe we need 2 beginning articles; one for American based research, and one for those in England, etc.? Molliewog 15:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Revising top of page
It has been suggested to me that the top of the England page would benefit from the following changes:


 * Get rid of the picture of Cambridge.
 * Add the Table of Contents box
 * Below it, add the clickable map and then the county list.
 * Move all the other stuff below that and get to it through the table of contents.
 * get rid of the text that lists the four record types because they are listed in the key topics spot anyway on the left.

Unless anyone has objections, these changes will be implemented today in preparation for the conference. Molliewog 15:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Having a clickable map and a county list to click on seems redundant and a waste of prime real estate on the country page. Since the county names are on the map or appear when hovering over the small portions of the map why don't we delete the county list and move the other content up. Daudwp 19:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Anyone else care? Molliewog 20:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are still many geographically-challenged individuals from outside England who can't find their county of interest on the map, or don't know the Chapman codes. They are too embarrassed to post, admitting their shortfall, but have emailed me to ask the county list be reinstated. Since the other topics are below the first screen anyway, I don't think it will hurt to put it back. Alan 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)