FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)

Revision as of 13:06, 18 May 2009

1,181 bytes added , 18 May 2009

no edit summary

VisualWikitext

Jbparker

15,660

edits

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 :I like following the pattern in research outlines and the Family History Library Catalog for several reasons. Most of all, it is a relatively easy model to understand, and it so far has been remarkably well adapted to a variety of situations. "History" is the heading for (1) a history--an interpretation of past events, (2) county and local history citations that could list a researcher's ancestors, and (3) unusual calendar information. If two or three of these elements are appropriate togehter, a subheading can divide them, but the overall heading that works best is simply "History". This fits well with Library of Congress subject headings and FHL headings. If tried and true ways can be applied to new situations, lets see if they will work before re-inventing a different system with a less coherent way of working with all the other parts. [[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 15:27, 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)
+: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)
 :I would also suggest leaving it as it is. When people see something that they are familiar i.e. the format of the research outlines, they have a level of comfort that they will be able to navigate around this new research tool we have for them. Anything that helps them feel at home, welcomed and invited to contribute is what the aim should be. So, if it's not broke, let's not fix it. [[User:Familyjournals|Familyjournals]] 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
+:If I'm not mistaken, the term "local histories" was a term coined by historians to denote histories of a smaller geographical area than the "general histories" they normally dealt with. It became so popular that universities began offering classes and even degrees in local history, much to the chagrin of some of the old-time historians who wanted to generalize history on a much higher level. It is now, however, a generally recognized term by both historians and genealogists, and I see no problem in using the full phrase "local histories." Carrying the question a bit further, are we going to limit all topics to a single word? Is that wise? So we can't have topics such as "state census," "vital records," "American Indian?" If you want to delineate between types of history, why not have topics such as "histories, general," "histories, local," "histories, church," "histories, military," etc. which would put all the histories under "H" but separate them by type of history? And in the Wiki, can't we place cross-references and re-directs in it so no matter how the user would search, they would be led to the "local histories?" [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 19:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 == Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my!  ==