23,837
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 21:57, 30 May 2009
, 30 May 2009reply to Dilts
(Discussion: title of articles about cities and towns) |
m (reply to Dilts) |
||
| Line 450: | Line 450: | ||
:The logic behind the FHL Catalog standard should not be rejected just because it is associated with a "Mormon" organization. It is available to our Wiki community worldwide on the Internet and is specifically designed to help genealogists. Wikipedia has more of a general encyclopedia audience--it's standards, particularly on place names can be a useful guide, but the FHL Catalog has decades of thought and experience behind it and is more adapted to the needs of genealogists. | :The logic behind the FHL Catalog standard should not be rejected just because it is associated with a "Mormon" organization. It is available to our Wiki community worldwide on the Internet and is specifically designed to help genealogists. Wikipedia has more of a general encyclopedia audience--it's standards, particularly on place names can be a useful guide, but the FHL Catalog has decades of thought and experience behind it and is more adapted to the needs of genealogists. | ||
:'''How do we title articles about towns?''' If our community reaches concensus that the FHL Catalog is a good standard to use for naming articles about places, I believe that would mean that articles about cities and towns like Chicago would carry the title '''''Chicago, Cook, Illinois''''', or '''''Fairfield, Jefferson, Iowa'''''. How does the community feel about this? If I understand what Dsammy is saying, he would prefer the more simple '''''Chicago, Illinois''''' or '''''Fairfield, Iowa'''''. What do our other contributors think? [[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | :'''How do we title articles about towns?''' If our community reaches concensus that the FHL Catalog is a good standard to use for naming articles about places, I believe that would mean that articles about cities and towns like Chicago would carry the title '''''Chicago, Cook, Illinois''''', or '''''Fairfield, Jefferson, Iowa'''''. How does the community feel about this? If I understand what Dsammy is saying, he would prefer the more simple '''''Chicago, Illinois''''' or '''''Fairfield, Iowa'''''. What do our other contributors think? [[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Take a look at [[Fairfield (disambiguation)|Fairfield (disambiguation)]]. It already distinguish several Fairfield's in one state. I am referring to usage of "independent city" in the url address. | |||
::And this format is already widespread in several Wiki sites. If more than one is found in a specific area, just add the necessary identification like Fairfield, Hyde County, North Carolina and Fairfield, Union County, North Carolina. It's worse with Washington Townships so additional identification is necessary as needed.<br>What's more I can shoot down your assumption, in the Family History Library Catalog, you can't get "Chicago" with "Cook County", and instead of that it has to be either simply Chicago or Chicago with Illinois to get the search results. That is the logic behind the usage. The family historians are not going to type Fairfield, Jefferson, Iowa to get that because that part of information is already in the first line in the page in search results. Here's the result from search for "Fairfield, Utah" - Fairfield, Utah ... ed States]] > [[Utah|Utah]] > [[Utah County, Utah|Utah County]] > Fairfield''... own in Utah County, Utah. For other uses, see [[Fairfield (disambiguation)|Fairfield (disambiguation)]]. '''' See how the info is presented instantly?<br>Secondly, why should it has to be to that way? You need to think OUTSIDE of the box to see how others see it. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||