FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

::Dsammy, can you link to an example of a page containing the "Quick History" section you propose? I can't remember, but I think my impression upon discussing it with you before was that I wasn't sold on the heading of "Quick History" because the section was to contain other facts that didn't quite feel historical (like latitude and longitude, perhaps?). The reason I propose the plural heading "Histories" here is that there are two kinds of historical information people tend to add about a place. One is a brief history of the place as it relates to genealogical research. It's the kind of thing found in ''Ancestry's Red Book'': First settlers, major waves of ethnic immigration, major boundary changes, incorporation, effects of wars, famines, major epidemics, transportation development, trade and industry, and other factors. All this stuff can easily constitute a complete article.

::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.

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. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)  

|-

| '''User'''  

|-

| Franjensen  

| X  

|-

| Bakerbh