oversight
8,840
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 08:42, 18 May 2009
, 18 May 2009no edit summary
(→Topics History vs Local Histories: new section) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:Michael, my first thought on this is wondering why these would be different as well (History vs Local History). Are they like this in Research Outlines? Looking at the [[Frederick County, Maryland|Frederick County, Maryland]] page that you referred to, it has the [[Frederick County, Maryland#History|History]] section in addition to the current [[Frederick County, Maryland#Local_Histories|Local Histories]] section. Maybe that is what Sammy was referring to. In any case, those two sections would be confusing and even more so if the latter was changed to History. My opinion is that the Local History section should match what is in the Research Outlines for consistency between the old and the new. This will help with transitions. If people are using the Research Wiki expecting to find "History" (or "Local History") within the "Resources" and do not find it where they expect, they will think the information is not there. If the Resources do in fact refer to History, then I suggest Frederick County or other places that currently have a History section not associated with Resources should use something else as Sammy suggested. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | :Michael, my first thought on this is wondering why these would be different as well (History vs Local History). Are they like this in Research Outlines? Looking at the [[Frederick County, Maryland|Frederick County, Maryland]] page that you referred to, it has the [[Frederick County, Maryland#History|History]] section in addition to the current [[Frederick County, Maryland#Local_Histories|Local Histories]] section. Maybe that is what Sammy was referring to. In any case, those two sections would be confusing and even more so if the latter was changed to History. My opinion is that the Local History section should match what is in the Research Outlines for consistency between the old and the new. This will help with transitions. If people are using the Research Wiki expecting to find "History" (or "Local History") within the "Resources" and do not find it where they expect, they will think the information is not there. If the Resources do in fact refer to History, then I suggest Frederick County or other places that currently have a History section not associated with Resources should use something else as Sammy suggested. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:My preference would be to leave it the way it already is, with "Local Histories" as the subject title. When I looked at the [[North Carolina]] example and read the content on the [[North Carolina History]] page, I saw there was a section on that page titled "Local Histories." I read through the content of that section and believe the heading is accurate for the content and also accurate for the page itself which is titled "North Carolina History". I think if we change the heading on the county level, the ramifications will be greater than we expect it might be because the state level pages for "History" also include in their content a section for "Local Histories". I believe there was a considerable amount of effort on the part of FHL staff to come up with the headings as they now stand. I think it would be wise to get their input before changes (if any) are made. I also agree with Thomas about the need to be consistent with headings that were used in the Research Outlines. If the Wiki remains consistent with those headings, I believe the transition to the Wiki will be easier for those who used the Outlines in the past. [[User:Franjensen|Franjensen]] 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | == Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | ||