(removal of LDS from page as directed by FamilySearch Management) |
m (Text replacement - "FHL([\s_])([cC])(atalog)" to "FS$1$2atalog") |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Objection had been posted concerning Baltimore, Maryland vs Baltimore (Independent City), Maryland. | Objection had been posted concerning Baltimore, Maryland vs Baltimore (Independent City), Maryland. | ||
Didn't we discuss the emphasis on reaching out to more places rather than emphasis on | Didn't we discuss the emphasis on reaching out to more places rather than emphasis on FS Catalog? Many places do not recognize Baltimore (Independent City), Maryland. It is simply Baltimore, Maryland. | ||
What's more Wikipedia mentions "Independent City" only in the article, same is true for the independent cities of Virginia as well as United Kingdom. The key is the simplicity of remembering the place names. Only in Family History Library Catalog you will find that term. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 00:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | What's more Wikipedia mentions "Independent City" only in the article, same is true for the independent cities of Virginia as well as United Kingdom. The key is the simplicity of remembering the place names. Only in Family History Library Catalog you will find that term. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 00:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I like simplicity. But sometimes simplicity all by itself isn't enough. Another important characterisitic is verifiable. Using a standard like "do it the way the | :I like simplicity. But sometimes simplicity all by itself isn't enough. Another important characterisitic is verifiable. Using a standard like "do it the way the FS catalog does it" on place names gives us a standard that can be verified in most cases we would need, and predictable in the few cases that are not already in the catalog. If the only standard is simplicity by itself, that is harder to verify and predict what the concensus of users would agree is simple. | ||
:The logic behind the | :The logic behind the FS 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 FS 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 | :'''How do we title articles about towns?''' If our community reaches concensus that the FS 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. | ::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 and just for Iowa alone, there are 49 of them!)<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) | ::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 and just for Iowa alone, there are 49 of them!)<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) | ||
::And I am going to have more fun with you. Check out [[Portland (disambiguation)|Portland (disambiguation)]]. And we are moving beyond what the | ::And I am going to have more fun with you. Check out [[Portland (disambiguation)|Portland (disambiguation)]]. And we are moving beyond what the FS Catalog is into new areas not available at the FHL. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 04:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== How to Describe an Area === | === How to Describe an Area === | ||
edits