15,660
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 16:44, 26 May 2009
, 26 May 2009no edit summary
(added comments) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
: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) | ::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) | ||
::Upon further consideration, I think I would actually prefer to use the "histories" heading at each jurisdictional level, so a state history would be under that history at that level, a county history under that heading at the county level, a town history under the "histories" heading at the town level, etc. In that sense, dsammy is correct in that the term "local histories" really serves no purpose since they will be associated with what ever jurisdictional level covered by that history. | |||
: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) | ||
| Line 39: | Line 41: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
{| | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="1" width="100%" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''User''' | | '''User''' | ||
| Line 92: | Line 94: | ||
|} | |} | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
== Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | == Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | ||
| Line 140: | Line 142: | ||
[[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 12:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 12:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
I agree with the Chicago Manual of Style, due to wide recognition/acceptance. | I agree with the Chicago Manual of Style, due to wide recognition/acceptance. | ||
| Line 148: | Line 150: | ||
As long as I recall correctly, someone was going to talk to the FHLC people about opening up the standard numbers that is used by WorldCat, etc. that is currently stored internally by the FHLC people. Okay, I am having a slight brain-cramp on the name of this. I hope you understand what I am trying to type. Anyway, that seems like it would be great. Also, I am of the opinion, if at all possible, that the links in FHLC references should be done in a template, plug-in, or something. When the FHLC changes, it would be very nice to change it in one place. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | As long as I recall correctly, someone was going to talk to the FHLC people about opening up the standard numbers that is used by WorldCat, etc. that is currently stored internally by the FHLC people. Okay, I am having a slight brain-cramp on the name of this. I hope you understand what I am trying to type. Anyway, that seems like it would be great. Also, I am of the opinion, if at all possible, that the links in FHLC references should be done in a template, plug-in, or something. When the FHLC changes, it would be very nice to change it in one place. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
I may be missing something obvious, but why direct wiki readers to the FHL for a book? What percentage of wiki users would have access to the FHL book collection in SLC (since the FHL doesn't loan, right?). It makes perfect sense to link to a microfilm in the FHL catalog because anyone can do something with that information (i.e., go to a FHC and order the film). I think book references should link to a more universally accessible resource (like WorldCat or Google Books). [[User:Lembley|Eirebrain]] 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC) | I may be missing something obvious, but why direct wiki readers to the FHL for a book? What percentage of wiki users would have access to the FHL book collection in SLC (since the FHL doesn't loan, right?). It makes perfect sense to link to a microfilm in the FHL catalog because anyone can do something with that information (i.e., go to a FHC and order the film). I think book references should link to a more universally accessible resource (like WorldCat or Google Books). [[User:Lembley|Eirebrain]] 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 232: | Line 234: | ||
= '''Naming conventions (geographic names)''' = | = '''Naming conventions (geographic names)''' = | ||
{| | {| 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 273: | Line 275: | ||
= '''Wiki:Disambiguation''' = | = '''Wiki:Disambiguation''' = | ||
{| | {| 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. | ||
| Line 311: | Line 313: | ||
== Disambiguation links == | == Disambiguation links == | ||
Users searching for what turns out to be an ambiguous genealogical term may not reach the article they expected. Therefore any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Research Wiki articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article (hatnotes). Always indent such notes. The format the hatnote disambiguation link could take should be either:<br> | Users searching for what turns out to be an ambiguous genealogical term may not reach the article they expected. Therefore any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Research Wiki articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article (hatnotes). Always indent such notes. The format the hatnote disambiguation link could take should be either:<br> | ||
:''This article is about [brief description of TOPIC]. For other uses, see [TOPIC] (disambiguation).'' | :''This article is about [brief description of TOPIC]. For other uses, see [TOPIC] (disambiguation).'' | ||
| Line 379: | Line 381: | ||
= Indirect Link or Direct Link = | = Indirect Link or Direct Link = | ||
Go to [[New York City, New York|New York City, New York]] and scroll down to "Websites". See the 2nd item, "New York Genealogy"<br> | Go to [[New York City, New York|New York City, New York]] and scroll down to "Websites". See the 2nd item, "New York Genealogy"<br> | ||
We have a problem - you will not know until you get there, half of sites are paid subscription only. Take a look at the contributor's list - [https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Special:Contributions/Jeniannj Special:Contributions/Jeniannj] Every one of them has the identical problem. | We have a problem - you will not know until you get there, half of sites are paid subscription only. Take a look at the contributor's list - [https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Special:Contributions/Jeniannj Special:Contributions/Jeniannj] Every one of them has the identical problem. | ||
| Line 397: | Line 399: | ||
== Topics History vs Local Histories == | == Topics History vs Local Histories == | ||
It's better to have the topic History. Local histories can be a subset. I looked at a few research outlines for History. Most only have a list of dates and what happened to affect history in the area. Some list a local history or two but they are put at the end of the dates. The list we currently use in Wiki are the FHLC topics. These are our high-level topics. We allowed adding topics instead of subsets, we will "open the door" for any other topic, such as Marriage Records as its own topic instead of a subset of Church Records or NARA as its own instead of Archives and Libraries. If the majority don't care if there is a ''lengthy'' list of topics - perhaps dozens - on the home page then I won't protest. But, I prefer to have only History as the topic. [[User:Anne|Anne]] 13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)<br><br> | It's better to have the topic History. Local histories can be a subset. I looked at a few research outlines for History. Most only have a list of dates and what happened to affect history in the area. Some list a local history or two but they are put at the end of the dates. The list we currently use in Wiki are the FHLC topics. These are our high-level topics. We allowed adding topics instead of subsets, we will "open the door" for any other topic, such as Marriage Records as its own topic instead of a subset of Church Records or NARA as its own instead of Archives and Libraries. If the majority don't care if there is a ''lengthy'' list of topics - perhaps dozens - on the home page then I won't protest. But, I prefer to have only History as the topic. [[User:Anne|Anne]] 13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)<br><br> | ||
:I'm all for using History instead of Local Histories. Simple is important and we want people to easily access the information. [[User:Batsondl|Batsondl]] 15:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC) | :I'm all for using History instead of Local Histories. Simple is important and we want people to easily access the information. [[User:Batsondl|Batsondl]] 15:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC) | ||