1,461
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 18:22, 28 May 2009
, 28 May 2009removed duplicate vote
mNo edit summary |
m (removed duplicate vote) |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
::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. | ::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. | ||
:::[https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Baker_County%2C_Oregon Baker County, Oregon] it shows "Quick Facts", the third time, this time it was after group discussion and suggestion was to change to "Quick Facts" to separate two "History" and do away with potential confusion which Michael is now facing. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)<br> | :::[https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Baker_County%2C_Oregon Baker County, Oregon] it shows "Quick Facts", the third time, this time it was after group discussion and suggestion was to change to "Quick Facts" to separate two "History" and do away with potential confusion which Michael is now facing. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)<br> | ||
::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. | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
:While the Research Wiki is hosted by FamilySearch, that doesn't mean we have to follow the FHLC or research outlines. Having said that, let me point out that this same discussion took place nearly a decade ago when GenUKI was founded. That volunteer group finally decided to pattern their topical headings after the FHLC because it was a format familiar to the most people in the genealogical community. Since the FHLC uses the topic heading History (with -Local an optional modifier), I strongly recommend the Research Wiki stick with it as an established standard. The British pages have already been created using the topic History as a linked page on every county and country page. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | :While the Research Wiki is hosted by FamilySearch, that doesn't mean we have to follow the FHLC or research outlines. Having said that, let me point out that this same discussion took place nearly a decade ago when GenUKI was founded. That volunteer group finally decided to pattern their topical headings after the FHLC because it was a format familiar to the most people in the genealogical community. Since the FHLC uses the topic heading History (with -Local an optional modifier), I strongly recommend the Research Wiki stick with it as an established standard. The British pages have already been created using the topic History as a linked page on every county and country page. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
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) | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| Franjensen | | Franjensen | ||
| X | | X | ||
| <br> | | <br> | ||
| Changed my mind. I think the History title with sub-headings as needed is the best option. | | Changed my mind. I think the History title with sub-headings as needed is the best option. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
| JbParker | | JbParker | ||
| X | | X | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Anne | | Anne | ||