The noted section has me confused, as it stitches together parts of two other templates (6 & 10). I was under the impression that EE4 had 14 templates, not various permutations and combinations of them.
That said; many of my English FamilySearch records, standard images of pages from a parish register book, do seem to have an identified collection and would seem to fit well into the template 10 that has a place for the collection name. Why does the noted section appear to direct me to use a hybrid template without any place for the collection? Am I missing some nuance of how the international chapters are intended to be used? Are they only for when a standard template from the main chapters on Church Records doesn't seem to fit?
History-Hunter. The records…
Hello again, History-Hunter.
The records we use come in many original forms and are delivered by many media. When we use online images (that may or may not fully or accurately identify the original) we have to
The country of origin for the record does not matter—UK, US, Canada or whatever.
The type of agency that created the record (church, civil, etc.) usually does not matter.
The form of the original record does matter (an individual document vs. a register, etc.). The form of the electronic record matters (image copy, database, etc.).
The fourteen universal templates in EE4 allow us to mix and match the layers to achieve the needed outcome, whatever the situation we are using.
You say:
Many of my English FamilySearch records ... do seem to have an identified collection and would seem to fit well into the template 10 that has a place for the collection name. Why does the noted section appear to ask me to use a hybrid template without any place for the collection.
You did not identify a specific record set from FamilySearch to represent those "many" you reference. Given that FamilySearch delivers records through various schemes, any attempt I make to answer this generically would likely miss the mark.
Without a specific example that differs or can be handled differently, I cannot perceive what seems "confusing" to you. (Actually, I'm puzzled by your question itself, because Template 10 does not have a field set aside for collection name.) That said, many records we use might be handled in multiple ways depending upon our personal preferences, our software, or editorial requirements that might be imposed upon us. As EE 2.1 in every edition says: Citation is an art, not a science." More than one template might fit a specific situation.
If a template fits your personal work, use it. The essential need is to understand what we are putting into each field of that template and where that specific information originated) so that we accurately identify our source and appraise any possibilities for error.
I spent some quality time…
I spent some quality time with the book and a hot cup of coffee. I "think" I see the answer. The initial part of the Church Records chapter appears to pertain to just U.S. records, but is, in fact, intended to be a general section that happens to employ U.S. examples. The "International" portion that follows appears to illustrate, by country, some of the more common solutions for a sampling of the more common outlier record types that don't fit the approach shown in the general portion. This is why the "International" section appears to be short and to combine elements from one or more of the standard templates, which aligns with what you noted.
If I have it correct, please consider the issue resolved.
Yes, H-H. Each chapter that…
Yes, H-H. Each chapter that focuses on types of records begins with a discussion of that record type. The examples of quirks within that record type are mostly drawn from U.S. records, where there is much more diversity (and far less archival standardization) than in most other countries. Some chapters then end with an international section that provide specific examples for well-known record sets.