10,814
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 09:19, 18 May 2009
, 18 May 2009added comment
No edit summary |
(added comment) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
: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) | :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) | ||
:The main topics used in the Wiki match the FHLC and research outlines, and the FHLC and outlines do not use the topic of "Local History." But "Local History" is fine as a subheading under "History." In my opinion, "History" used on a state page implies the history of the state. "Local Histories" implies lower jurisdictional levels, such as county and community histories. On the state level, only a brief statement is needed for "Local Histories" with a referral to finding them, as on the North Carolina page. What is missing there and needs to be added is a referral and link leading to the county pages. "History" used on a county page implies the history of the county. "Local Histories" at this level implies community histories. Also in my opinion, the purpose of "Quick Facts" is to list items such as state or county founding date, parent counties, and so on. These are historical facts quickly reviewed and they should appear on a state's main page, not the history page (and they are missing from the state pages at this point). The same on the county level, though in that case "Quick Facts" and "History" would both be headings on the county's page. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | == Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | ||