This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexandracook.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I've recently created Template:NRA to link from wikipedia into the National Register of Archives. Comments very welcome!
I've also done some matching between individual persons in the National Register of Archives and wikipedia bios. One result of this is a list of individual people prominent in NRA who lack ODNB or wikipedia bios (though I've started stubbing them): if anyone's interested, I've put it up on my user page. Dsp13 ( talk) 13:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
"The National Archives is..." or "The National Archives are..."? The latter seems more natural (not to say grammatical), but the present article is inconsistent, rendering the institution as singular and plural passim. - Tim riley ( talk) 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned - it is stated that this is due to budgetary cuts. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Can the ‘refimprove’ tag be removed now? It seems like there sufficient references to allow this to be removed. If there a couple of instances that require a citation then a ‘citation needed’ tag would be better at the appropriate point.
Also, surely this article is above a Start class. Deano8216 ( talk) 11:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that this page has gone through a rapid series of name changes in the last six hours, thus far:
I can't help but feel there is a degree of politicking to this, and it is self-evident that there really should be some discussion and - hopefully - consensus over what we should actually be using. Editors are politely requested to remove any relevant chips from shoulders beforehand. Nick Cooper ( talk) 09:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
:: This archive includes the records of the UK-wide departments whose remit includes Scotland and Northern Ireland and which have not been devolved.
[1] Therefore:
I suggest we call the article The National Archives (for England, Wales and the United Kingdom) - this is consistent with TNA's own wording at [1] Headhitter ( talk) 14:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been no further comments in the last 24 hours, so I'll summarise:
Therefore it's pretty clear what should happen. Is there an admin here who can remove the redirect and restore the original name? -- Harumphy ( talk) 20:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Page moved to The National Archives (United Kingdom). Clearly there was consensus for moving, what was at issue was the target. The National Archives (United Kingdom) has the most support and also matched well with The National Archives (UK) which is a redirect with a significant number of links. Having said that, if further discussion on a better name is needed, this close does not prevent it. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The National Archives → The National Archives (England and Wales) — I noticed the posting about this on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents and I have to share the concern of several editors there that the present title is not correct. It is not clear to me that this national archive is unambiguously "The National Archives" even in the United Kingdom, let alone elsewhere. I propose that the content at this page be moved to The National Archives (England and Wales) or another suggested title (I am open to debate, but please focus first on whether the content should be at this title), that The National Archives be made a redirect to List of national archives, and that any other problems be first solved by the liberal application of redirects rather than by moving many pages back and forth repeatedly. I know I cannot enforce the last point, but I hope that discussion here will at least endorse it. Because the recent spate of moves probably confounds attempts to notify all parties with an interest in this, I will be adding a notice to {{ cent}} as well as the normal Requested Moves listing. Thanks in advance for conducting this discussion civilly. — Gavia immer ( talk) 00:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
What do people feel about closing this nomination and reopening it as a three way choice between the status quo, The National Archives (England and Wales) and The National Archives (United Kingdom)? We would obviously notify anyone who's already voted so they can restate their opinion.
I can well see the need to make the move, but I don't like the proposed new title as it is inaccurate, and the debate is in danger of getting muddied by that. Also, the early "Supports" above may have been made without considering the secondary issue. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 08:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I know we should avoid WP:POLL, but out of interest the tallies are currently as follows:
Not sure what interpretation to make from this, but those appear to be the figures. Correct me if I've made a mistake anywhere. — Amakuru ( talk) 18:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
None of these options is correct. If a descriptor needs to be added, the title should read: The National Archives (for England, Wales and the United Kingdom). The National Archives holds records for England and Wales both before and after the Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland - e.g. it holds records of the Welsh Assembly - but records for Scotland and Northern Ireland are held elsewhere. It also holds records of the UK government and some other UK records. Headhitter ( talk) 12:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone interested is welcome to get involved at Wikipedia:GLAM/TNA! Dsp13 ( talk) 15:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I just went to that site and I see:
and that "we should focus our attentions on adding some of the functionality of Your Archives into the Discovery service, which will soon replace our online Catalogue."
Should not some mention of this be made on the page? I will not do it, because I know too little about the site (having only just discovered it ten minutes ago!) to speak intelligently - please, someone "in the know" attend to this - thanks. — Martha ( talk) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Surprisingly, I see from this article that the National Archives only came into being in 2003: 'The National Archives was created in 2003 by combining the Public Record Office and the Historical Manuscripts Commission'. I had thought that the National Archives of Ireland followed the English name change but according to that article it came into being in 1988, when the State Paper Office and the Public Record Office of Ireland merged. Why did it take so long for the British to do the merge and what was the crucial factor in the merge finally happening? 89.101.41.216 ( talk) 18:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Two of the photos used in this article, "A manuscript and seals ..." and "A researcher at the archives", although striking images, are misleading, in that they show researchers handling parchment documents with white gloves. This is NOT institutional policy (except in the case of highly delicate materials, such as photographs: parchment is one of the most robust of materials), and is now discouraged by TNA, both in its own reading rooms and more generally, in that it is likely to lead to clumsy handling and greater risk of physical damage. See here and here. It used to be the case that TNA stipulated glove-wearing when documents were being shown on TV, and I imagine the policy also applied to still photos used for publicity such as these (they both appear to have been supplied by an in-house source). However, that policy was abandoned in 2013: see here. Can anyone come up with some alternative images that don't show white gloves? (There are a couple of possibilities on Commons, but they're not very exciting, and are also out of date, as the reading rooms have been refurbished and the furniture changed.) GrindtXX ( talk) 13:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The National Archives (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
There have been a number of instances dating back to 2005 in which documents were reported missing form the archives. [1] [2] [3] I plan to add a section to the article discussing these reports and the overall loss rate of documents from the archives. The most logical placement I can see for this new section is between "Forgeries Discovered in 2005" and "MI-5 Records at TNA", but I'm open to (and grateful for) any other suggestions, as this is my first time editing.
-- Awmclaughlin ( talk) 23:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
References
A book I'm reading cited SP DOM 16 v. 66
. I discovered that the "SP DOM" means "State Papers Domestic" but that doesn't advance me much. The article
State papers has just a stub section on the UK State Papers, which simply refers readers to this article – which is all about the bureaucracy of the NA and nothing about the holdings. That does make sense (this article would become hopelessly bogged down otherwise) so is there another solution?
Meanwhile, would anyone care to develop
State papers#United Kingdom? Especially, to translate shorthand like SP DOM 16 v. 66
so readers can create a sensible archive.org (or even NA!) search argument.
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
15:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexandracook.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I've recently created Template:NRA to link from wikipedia into the National Register of Archives. Comments very welcome!
I've also done some matching between individual persons in the National Register of Archives and wikipedia bios. One result of this is a list of individual people prominent in NRA who lack ODNB or wikipedia bios (though I've started stubbing them): if anyone's interested, I've put it up on my user page. Dsp13 ( talk) 13:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
"The National Archives is..." or "The National Archives are..."? The latter seems more natural (not to say grammatical), but the present article is inconsistent, rendering the institution as singular and plural passim. - Tim riley ( talk) 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned - it is stated that this is due to budgetary cuts. Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Can the ‘refimprove’ tag be removed now? It seems like there sufficient references to allow this to be removed. If there a couple of instances that require a citation then a ‘citation needed’ tag would be better at the appropriate point.
Also, surely this article is above a Start class. Deano8216 ( talk) 11:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that this page has gone through a rapid series of name changes in the last six hours, thus far:
I can't help but feel there is a degree of politicking to this, and it is self-evident that there really should be some discussion and - hopefully - consensus over what we should actually be using. Editors are politely requested to remove any relevant chips from shoulders beforehand. Nick Cooper ( talk) 09:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
:: This archive includes the records of the UK-wide departments whose remit includes Scotland and Northern Ireland and which have not been devolved.
[1] Therefore:
I suggest we call the article The National Archives (for England, Wales and the United Kingdom) - this is consistent with TNA's own wording at [1] Headhitter ( talk) 14:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been no further comments in the last 24 hours, so I'll summarise:
Therefore it's pretty clear what should happen. Is there an admin here who can remove the redirect and restore the original name? -- Harumphy ( talk) 20:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Page moved to The National Archives (United Kingdom). Clearly there was consensus for moving, what was at issue was the target. The National Archives (United Kingdom) has the most support and also matched well with The National Archives (UK) which is a redirect with a significant number of links. Having said that, if further discussion on a better name is needed, this close does not prevent it. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The National Archives → The National Archives (England and Wales) — I noticed the posting about this on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents and I have to share the concern of several editors there that the present title is not correct. It is not clear to me that this national archive is unambiguously "The National Archives" even in the United Kingdom, let alone elsewhere. I propose that the content at this page be moved to The National Archives (England and Wales) or another suggested title (I am open to debate, but please focus first on whether the content should be at this title), that The National Archives be made a redirect to List of national archives, and that any other problems be first solved by the liberal application of redirects rather than by moving many pages back and forth repeatedly. I know I cannot enforce the last point, but I hope that discussion here will at least endorse it. Because the recent spate of moves probably confounds attempts to notify all parties with an interest in this, I will be adding a notice to {{ cent}} as well as the normal Requested Moves listing. Thanks in advance for conducting this discussion civilly. — Gavia immer ( talk) 00:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
What do people feel about closing this nomination and reopening it as a three way choice between the status quo, The National Archives (England and Wales) and The National Archives (United Kingdom)? We would obviously notify anyone who's already voted so they can restate their opinion.
I can well see the need to make the move, but I don't like the proposed new title as it is inaccurate, and the debate is in danger of getting muddied by that. Also, the early "Supports" above may have been made without considering the secondary issue. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 08:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I know we should avoid WP:POLL, but out of interest the tallies are currently as follows:
Not sure what interpretation to make from this, but those appear to be the figures. Correct me if I've made a mistake anywhere. — Amakuru ( talk) 18:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
None of these options is correct. If a descriptor needs to be added, the title should read: The National Archives (for England, Wales and the United Kingdom). The National Archives holds records for England and Wales both before and after the Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland - e.g. it holds records of the Welsh Assembly - but records for Scotland and Northern Ireland are held elsewhere. It also holds records of the UK government and some other UK records. Headhitter ( talk) 12:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone interested is welcome to get involved at Wikipedia:GLAM/TNA! Dsp13 ( talk) 15:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I just went to that site and I see:
and that "we should focus our attentions on adding some of the functionality of Your Archives into the Discovery service, which will soon replace our online Catalogue."
Should not some mention of this be made on the page? I will not do it, because I know too little about the site (having only just discovered it ten minutes ago!) to speak intelligently - please, someone "in the know" attend to this - thanks. — Martha ( talk) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Surprisingly, I see from this article that the National Archives only came into being in 2003: 'The National Archives was created in 2003 by combining the Public Record Office and the Historical Manuscripts Commission'. I had thought that the National Archives of Ireland followed the English name change but according to that article it came into being in 1988, when the State Paper Office and the Public Record Office of Ireland merged. Why did it take so long for the British to do the merge and what was the crucial factor in the merge finally happening? 89.101.41.216 ( talk) 18:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Two of the photos used in this article, "A manuscript and seals ..." and "A researcher at the archives", although striking images, are misleading, in that they show researchers handling parchment documents with white gloves. This is NOT institutional policy (except in the case of highly delicate materials, such as photographs: parchment is one of the most robust of materials), and is now discouraged by TNA, both in its own reading rooms and more generally, in that it is likely to lead to clumsy handling and greater risk of physical damage. See here and here. It used to be the case that TNA stipulated glove-wearing when documents were being shown on TV, and I imagine the policy also applied to still photos used for publicity such as these (they both appear to have been supplied by an in-house source). However, that policy was abandoned in 2013: see here. Can anyone come up with some alternative images that don't show white gloves? (There are a couple of possibilities on Commons, but they're not very exciting, and are also out of date, as the reading rooms have been refurbished and the furniture changed.) GrindtXX ( talk) 13:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The National Archives (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
There have been a number of instances dating back to 2005 in which documents were reported missing form the archives. [1] [2] [3] I plan to add a section to the article discussing these reports and the overall loss rate of documents from the archives. The most logical placement I can see for this new section is between "Forgeries Discovered in 2005" and "MI-5 Records at TNA", but I'm open to (and grateful for) any other suggestions, as this is my first time editing.
-- Awmclaughlin ( talk) 23:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
References
A book I'm reading cited SP DOM 16 v. 66
. I discovered that the "SP DOM" means "State Papers Domestic" but that doesn't advance me much. The article
State papers has just a stub section on the UK State Papers, which simply refers readers to this article – which is all about the bureaucracy of the NA and nothing about the holdings. That does make sense (this article would become hopelessly bogged down otherwise) so is there another solution?
Meanwhile, would anyone care to develop
State papers#United Kingdom? Especially, to translate shorthand like SP DOM 16 v. 66
so readers can create a sensible archive.org (or even NA!) search argument.
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
15:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)