23,837
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 13:39, 18 May 2009
, 18 May 2009reply to jParker
m (reply to request) |
m (reply to jParker) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
: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) | :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) | ||
:::Too many redirects serve no purpose. WE are going into lowest level, the city/town pages now that "Local Histories" serve no purpose. Simple "History" in Resources section is very sufficient to lead the person to the record to research. Beside in the FHLC there is no "Local History" category, only "History" category. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | == Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | ||
| Line 42: | Line 43: | ||
I don't like the example that Wikipedia lists right at the beginning of the article. To me, the publication date should follow the publication info, not the author's name. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | I don't like the example that Wikipedia lists right at the beginning of the article. To me, the publication date should follow the publication info, not the author's name. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== Disadvantages of& | === Disadvantages of& Shown Mills format? === | ||
Shown Mills seems to be the most accepted format within the U.S., but is it accepted (or even known) in the rest of the world? Also, formats like Chicago, MLA, APA, and even Turabian are supported by various word processors, software, and Websites such that users can enter bibliographic data into a form and have the system generate a reference. This brings fairly high-quality source citation to the "common man" who doesn't have a printed style manual at home. (But then, it could be argued that this "common man" doesn't cite sources anyway.) [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | Shown Mills seems to be the most accepted format within the U.S., but is it accepted (or even known) in the rest of the world? Also, formats like Chicago, MLA, APA, and even Turabian are supported by various word processors, software, and Websites such that users can enter bibliographic data into a form and have the system generate a reference. This brings fairly high-quality source citation to the "common man" who doesn't have a printed style manual at home. (But then, it could be argued that this "common man" doesn't cite sources anyway.) [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 158: | Line 159: | ||
= '''Naming conventions (geographic names)''' = | = '''Naming conventions (geographic names)''' = | ||
{| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5 | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5" style="border: 3px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); margin: 0.5em auto; clear: both; width: 87%; background-color: white;" class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''This guideline documents a FamilySearch Research Wiki naming convention.''' It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.<br> | | '''This guideline documents a FamilySearch Research Wiki naming convention.''' It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.<br> | ||
| Line 199: | Line 200: | ||
= '''Wiki:Disambiguation''' = | = '''Wiki:Disambiguation''' = | ||
{| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5 | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5" style="border: 3px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); margin: 0.5em auto; clear: both; width: 87%; background-color: white;" class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''This guideline documents FamilySearch Research Wiki disambiguation.''' It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. | | '''This guideline documents FamilySearch Research Wiki disambiguation.''' It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. | ||