FamilySearch Wiki

FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Project page Talk

FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)

Revision as of 15:01, 21 May 2009

560 bytes added ,  21 May 2009
Added a table which seems to show we're nearing consensus on the "History" vs. "Local Histories" issue.
VisualWikitext
(Added response to Jimmy's response/questions.)
(Added a table which seems to show we're nearing consensus on the "History" vs. "Local Histories" issue.)
Line 12: Line 12:
::Some people may choose to have this article be separate from another historical type of article -- one regarding the location and use of histories published for the locality. That second article might employ the headings and variety of information found in [[FamilySearch Wiki:Headings for Articles about Records|FamilySearch Wiki:Headings for Articles about Records]]. Again, this information is extensive, and might merit the separation of this information into an article apart from the ''Redbook''-style article outlining historical events that impact genealogy in the locality. The author might find that one good reason to separate the two kinds of "History" information into two articles is that writing about both in one article might 1) seem disjointed, and 2) force a title that is ambiguous.
::Some people may choose to have this article be separate from another historical type of article -- one regarding the location and use of histories published for the locality. That second article might employ the headings and variety of information found in [[FamilySearch Wiki:Headings for Articles about Records|FamilySearch Wiki:Headings for Articles about Records]]. Again, this information is extensive, and might merit the separation of this information into an article apart from the ''Redbook''-style article outlining historical events that impact genealogy in the locality. The author might find that one good reason to separate the two kinds of "History" information into two articles is that writing about both in one article might 1) seem disjointed, and 2) force a title that is ambiguous.


::If these two types of historical information are split into separate articles, each needs a title that will disambiguate it from the other. One possible solution is to name the ''Redbook''-style article something like "North Caroling History" or "North Carolina historical events pertaining to genealogy" and the how-to article something like "Alabama histories." But on the [[North Carolina|North Carolina]] page, there are a set of Topics links that we'd want to link to each of these articles -- and each entry on that Topics list needs to be brief. So even though the article title "North Carolina Historical Events Pertaining to Genealogy" is probably a less ambiguous (better) title than "North Carolina history," the former is too long for the Topics list on the [[North Carolina|North Carolina]] page. So the link in the Topics list might be shortened to something like "Historical events." Therefore, the Topics list might contain two historical-flavored links: "Histories" and "Historical events." That's why I'm proposing that the current heading "Local Histories" on county pages be changed to "Histories" -- to indicate that the link leads to information about published Histor'''ies''', not the Histor'''y''' of the place. Does this sound wise or wacky? [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
::If these two types of historical information are split into separate articles, each needs a title that will disambiguate it from the other. One possible solution is to name the ''Redbook''-style article something like "North Carolina History" or "North Carolina historical events pertaining to genealogy" and the how-to article something like "Alabama histories." But on the [[North Carolina|North Carolina]] page, there are a set of Topics links that we'd want to link to each of these articles -- and each entry on that Topics list needs to be brief. So even though the article title "North Carolina Historical Events Pertaining to Genealogy" is probably a less ambiguous (better) title than "North Carolina history," the former is too long for the Topics list on the [[North Carolina|North Carolina]] page. So the link in the Topics list might be shortened to something like "Historical events." Therefore, the Topics list might contain two historical-flavored links: "Histories" and "Historical events." That's why I'm proposing that the current heading "Local Histories" on county pages be changed to "Histories" -- to indicate that the link leads to information about published Histor'''ies''', not the Histor'''y''' of the place. Does this sound wise or wacky? [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 14:38, 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)
: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)
Line 27: Line 27:
::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)
::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)


::I don't see us moving to limit topics to a single word, so I don't think "History" or "Histories" has an advantage over "Local Histories" in terms of length. But I don't think using a cross reference in this case works well either. If we wanted to create a cross reference at "History" to guide users to "Local Histories" or "Local History," the cross reference/link would be a heading. I think making a heading into a cross reference link feels clunky. It'd be okay if it was an index entry we were talking about, but headings are generally used to aid readability in an article, and I don't think it aids readability to direct someone's eye to a heading only to find that it's merely a cross-reference. So I'm being swayed by others' comments -- I'm being converted to the "History" camp and away from the mindset that we need two headings/articles (a history-of-the-place-as-it-pertains-to-genealogy heading/page and a links-to-histories-of-this-place heading/page. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 20:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:I don't see us moving to limit topics to a single word, so I don't think "History" or "Histories" has an advantage over "Local Histories" in terms of length. But I don't think using a cross reference in this case works well either. If we wanted to create a cross reference at "History" to guide users to "Local Histories" or "Local History," the cross reference/link would be a heading. I think making a heading into a cross reference link feels clunky. It'd be okay if it was an index entry we were talking about, but headings are generally used to aid readability in an article, and I don't think it aids readability to direct someone's eye to a heading only to find that it's merely a cross-reference. So I'm being swayed by others' comments -- I'm being converted to the "History" camp and away from the mindset that we need two headings/articles (a history-of-the-place-as-it-pertains-to-genealogy heading/page and a links-to-histories-of-this-place heading/page. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 20:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 
So people, correct me if I'm wrong. I see the following results from this discussion. Please correct your entry in this table if I've read you wrong.
 
{| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" width="100%" border="1"
|-
| '''User'''
| '''History'''
| '''Local Histories'''
| '''Something else (add it to the table)'''
|-
| [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
| X
|
|
|-
| Dsammy
| X
|
|
|-
| Diltsgt
| X
|
|
|-
| Thomas_Lerman
| X
|
|
|-
| Franjensen
|
| X
|
|-
| Bakerbh
| X
|
|
|-
| Familyjournals
| X
|
|
|-
| JbParker
|
| X
|
|}


== Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my!  ==
== Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my!  ==
RitcheyMT
4,497

edits

Retrieved from "https://integration-ru.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/176582"