FamilySearch Wiki

FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Add topic
Active discussions
VisualWikitext
(Moved section on geographic names to its own page.)
m (Text replacement - "FHLC" to "FS Catalog")
 
(52 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__TOC__  
{{talk header}} __TOC__  


== Proposals being discussed  ==
This is the place for discussing stylistic details that affect many pages on the wiki. It covers mostly content changes that affect collections of wiki pages, whereas stylistic issues regarding the user interface, or general look and feel of the site, can be found [[FamilySearch Wiki:Site Design Ideas|elsewhere]].   


#[[FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus|FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Consensus]]
This page covers two kinds of stylistic ideas: 
#[[FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats|FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Source Citation Formats]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Linking to Works in the Family History Library Catalog|Linking to Works in the Family History Library Catalog]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki talk:Format for Citing and Linking to Works in FHLC, Worldcat (OCLC)|Linking to FHLC and Worldcat (OCLC)]]


== Guidelines for large projects  ==
#Ideas that have reached a consensus among the FamilySearch Wiki community and can thus be executed over many pages. 
#Ideas that have been proposed and need further discussion and consensus before implementation. (These ideas cannot be implemented over many pages until they have achieved a consensus decision.)


It would be helpful to have some guidelines established for large projects, such as the pages created for US state or county pages. I'm thinking specifically of the England probate registers project that includes a page for each of the 40 counties. It's user-friendly to have the same "look and feel", including the heading and subheading styles. [[User:Anne|Anne]] 18:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have an idea to add to the Manual of Style (MOS), see [[FamilySearch Wiki:Transforming a Style Idea to a Manual of Style Guideline|Transforming a Style Idea to a Manual of Style Guideline]], and then add your topic to Proposals being discussed section below.


== Issues that have reached a consensus decision  ==


*[[FamilySearch Wiki:Use History Heading Rather than Local Histories Heading in Place Pages|Use "History" Heading Rather than "Local Histories" in Place Pages]]
*[[FamilySearch Wiki:Format for Citing and Linking to Works in FS Catalog, Worldcat (OCLC)|Format for Citing and Linking to Works in FS Catalog, Worldcat (OCLC)]]


= '''Wiki:Disambiguation''' =
== Proposals being discussed ==


{| class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" style="clear: both; border-right: rgb(0,0,255) 3px solid; border-top: rgb(0,0,255) 3px solid; margin: 0.5em auto; border-left: rgb(0,0,255) 3px solid; width: 87%; border-bottom: rgb(0,0,255) 3px solid; background-color: white" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5"
#Table of Contents: To Hide or Display by Default
|-
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Separator for Items in See Also Section]]
| '''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.
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Buttons|Buttons]]
|}
#[[Access Codes|Access Codes]] (how to designate whether a linked site is free or fee-based)  
#[[FamilySearch Wiki talk:Breadcrumb Trails|Breadcrumb Trails]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Changing the Size of Font or the Color of Heading 1|Changing the Font Size and Color of Heading 1]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Adding References or Links to Books for Sale|Adding References or Links to Books for Sale]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus|FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Consensus]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats|FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Source Citation Formats]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki talk:Format for Citing and Linking to Works in FS Catalog, Worldcat (OCLC)|Linking to works in the FamilySearch Catalog (FS Catalog) and Worldcat (OCLC)]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Naming Conventions for Geographic Names|Naming Conventions for Geographic Names]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Disambiguation|Disambiguation]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Interactive Maps and Lists of Sub-divisions|Interactive Maps and Lists of Sub-divisions]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Linking to Directory Sites Whose External Links to Paid Sites are Ambiguous|Linking to Directory Sites Whose External Links to Paid Sites are Ambiguous]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki talk:Names, Personal vs Names Personal|"Names, Personal" versus "Names Personal"]]
#"Language and Languages" versus "Languages"  
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Localities Template to Replace Populated Places Section|Localities template to replace populated places section]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Infobox Template|Infobox template]]
#[[Template talk:Wpd|Wpd (Wikipedia) template]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Linking|Linking]] 
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Spelling in the English-language Wiki|Spelling in the English-language wiki]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki:Naming a Project|Naming a project]]
#[[FamilySearch Wiki talk:Web Sites versus websites|Web sites or websites]]


Disambiguation in FamilySearch Research Wiki is the process of resolving conflicts in Wiki article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title.
== What to do with Help:Naming Conventions?  ==


For example the word '''Delaware''' may be of interest to genealogists as an American Indian tribe, that tribe's language, a United States colony-state, county, town, township, river, or a river cut through a mountain.  
[[Help:Naming conventions|Help:Naming conventions]] was created before we had the Manual of Style. It was also created "back in the day" when we discussed stylistic items in User Group meeting (Community Meeting) to reach consensus. Since Help:Naming Conventions deals with style more than instructions, I'm thinking it should be added to the FamilySearch Wiki namespace. I also wonder which (if any) of the conventions on Help:Naming Conventions deserves to be added to the Manual of Style or this discussion page. [[User:RitcheyMT|Ritcheymt]] 04:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation. In this case it is achieved using the [[Delaware (disambiguation)]] page.
:I support the proposal to move [[Help:Naming conventions]] to the ''FamilySearch Wiki'' namespace. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] 09:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


Two methods of disambiguating are discussed here:  
:I also support the move and have added a discussion item to the page itself and also the "Move" template on the page. --Fran 18:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


:*'''disambiguation links''' – at the top of an article (''hatnotes''), that refer/link the reader to other Wiki articles with similar titles or concepts.
== Guidelines for large projects ==
:*'''disambiguation pages''' – non-article pages that refer/link readers to other Wiki articles.
 
== Deciding to disambiguate  ==
 
Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wiki article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that appears on hitting "Go" to any of the other possible desired articles.
 
There are three principal disambiguation scenarios, of which the following are examples:
 
*The page at '''[[Georgia]]''' is a ''disambiguation page'', leading to all the alternative family history uses of "Georgia".
*The page at '''[[Portal:Iowa|Iowa]]''' is about one usage, called the ''primary topic'', and there is a hatnote guiding readers to '''[[Iowa (disambiguation)]]''' to find the other uses.
*The page at '''[[Portal:New Brunswick|New Brunswick]]''' is about the primary topic and there is only one other genealogical use. The other use is linked directly using a hatnote; no disambiguation page is needed.
 
== Is there a primary topic?  ==
 
When there is a well-known '''primary topic''' for an ambiguous family history term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Research Wiki to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. If the '''primary topic''' for a term is titled something else by the naming conventions, then a redirect for the term is used. Any article which has primary usage for its title and has other uses should have a disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page should link back to the primary topic.
 
== Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?  ==
 
If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term (in which case disambiguation links are desirable on the specific topic articles – see below). If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.
 
For more about disambiguation links, see Disambiguation links below. For rules about naming disambiguation pages and combining similar terms on a single page, see Disambiguation pages.
 
== 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>
 
:''This article is about [brief description of TOPIC]. For other uses, see [TOPIC] (disambiguation).''
 
:''This article is about [brief description of TOPIC#1]. For [brief description of TOPIC#2], see [TOPIC#2].''
 
For an example of the first kind of disambiguation link (used when there is a disambiguation page), see [[Iowa County, Wisconsin]].&nbsp; For an example of the second kind of disambiguation link (when a disambiguation page is '''not''' used), see [[New Brunswick, New Jersey]].
 
== Disambiguation pages  ==
 
=== Combining terms on disambiguation pages  ===
 
A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar family history terms.
 
When a combined disambiguation page is used, hatnotes should be set up from all the Wiki pages involved.
 
=== Naming the disambiguation page  ===
 
The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term, as in [[Georgia|Georgia]]. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in [[Delaware (disambiguation)|Delaware (disambiguation)]].
 
When a disambiguation page combines several similar terms, one of them must be selected as the title for the page (with the "(disambiguation)" tag added if a primary topic exists for that term).
 
=== Page style  ===
 
Each disambiguation page comprises a list (or multiple lists, for multiple senses of the term in question) of similarly-titled links.
 
*Link to the primary topic (if there is one):
 
:[[Portal:Alabama|'''Alabama''']], a southern state of the United States
 
*Start each list with a short introductory sentence fragment with the title in bold, and ending with a colon. For example:


:'''Alabama''' may refer to:
It would be helpful to have some guidelines established for large projects, such as the pages created for US state or county pages. I'm thinking specifically of the England probate registers project that includes a page for each of the 40 counties. It's user-friendly to have the same "look and feel", including the heading and subheading styles. [[User:WuehlerAC|Anne]] 18:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


*Try to start each entry in the list with a link to the target page.
== A Place to Start  ==
*Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link; including more than one link can confuse the reader.


==== Add a template to show page status  ====
I think it would be easiest to piggyback of what other wikis have done. People who begin contributing may already be used to these conventions. For example, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style Wikipedia Manual of Style] gives some great ideas on what our conventions should be. Perhaps we lift from there and then change things as it becomes necessary to do so. --[[User:Gregorybean|Gregorybean]] 02:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


Include either the template [[Template:Geodis|<nowiki>{{</nowiki>Geodis<nowiki>}}</nowiki>]], or the template [[Template:Disambig|<nowiki>{{</nowiki>Disambig<nowiki>}}</nowiki>]] on the page as an indicator of the page's status.
== Links  ==


===== Geodis vs. Disambig  =====
What ever happened to format for the displayed text for links? If I remember correctly, "Click here to . . ." was considered an incorrect way to format them. I believe [[Help:Create an external link|Create an external link]] talks about this subject. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 12:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


*Select the template <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Geodis<nowiki>}}</nowiki> when the only titles to disambiguate are '''place-names'''.
== Integration and links to other subjects  ==
*Select the template <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Disambig<nowiki>}}</nowiki> when the only titles to disambiguate are '''non-place-names''', such as tribes, languages, or other non-geographical topics.
*Use both templates when the similar titles are mixed place-names and non-place-names.


===== Template position  =====
I suggest that this page be linked to the general help and editing pages for the Wiki. I note that there is the navbox at the bottom of the page but I suggest that there be a link to an appropriate page at the top. Also I don't see that this page has ever been categorized.


'''''When adding a''''' '''single''' '''''template:'''''
[[User:Jamestanner|James L. Tanner]] 13:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


*If the disambiguation page list takes less than 3/4th of a screen top to bottom, position the template at the bottom.
== Referencing Guidelines  ==
*If the list takes more than 3/4th of a screen, position the template at the top.


'''''If adding''''' '''both''' '''''templates:''''' position the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Geodis<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template at the top, and position the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Disambig<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template at the bottom of the screen.  
One of the major sections of all publishing manuals of style is how to reference specific types of information. This Manual of Style does not includie such guidance. Is this because of a conscious decision not to include these guidelines, or an unintentional oversight? Including this information standarizes the references, but more importantly, it gives greater assurance that the reference can be found, despite URL chages, and it gives credit to the creater of the information as well as the person or web site that is hosting the information.  


:Instead of adding both templates to the page, what if we create a new template that incorporates both the "Geodis" and "Disambig" templates into one single template? [[User:Franjensen|Franjensen]] 15:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Klk3|Klk3]] 20:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)<br>


For a prime example of an actual disambiguation page, see [[Alabama (disambiguation)]].  
== Missing information in section 4.3  ==


[[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The following catagory has missing information:  


There is a problem with using both templates, especially when the list is longer than the monitor and no one know there is an article about something or other use. See [[Kent (disambiguation)|Kent]] [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 17:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Naming subheadings within articles


= Interactive maps and lists of sub-divisions  =
Organizing information. In an article, subheadings or sections should be used to organize the content and keep similar information together. Subheadings should help users scan an article to find the information they need.


Interactive maps are welcome and encouraged. However, for someone unfamiliar with the area's geography (or bad at reading maps), the maps may pose a challenge finding the sub-division of their choice. When employing an interactive map, the author should accompany that map with either (a) a short link to a page that shows an "Alphabetical List of States" (or whatever the sub-division is), or (b) such a list on the same page as the map. The alphabetical list should link to the same places as the links on the map. [[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 23:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines for subheadings/section titles. '''Use the guidelines for article titles with the following differences.'''


= Indirect Link or Direct Link  =
The following differences information (the sentence above in bold) &nbsp;is not listed in the article.


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>
<br>  


We have a problem - you will not know until you get there, half of sites are paid subscription only.&nbsp; 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.  
Also under the catagory: Linking through the use of page section templates, '''Other possible templates to create include:&nbsp;&nbsp;''' there are two red templates -either broken links or no content in those links.&nbsp; Need to fix links or add content.  


Ancestry Ancestry Ancestry Ancestry Ancestry
<br>


Every one requires paid subscription. You try, and get the message you have to have paid subscription to access.
Thanks


Wouldn't it be more honest to have direct link with the standard Access Code we use?
[[:Category:Featured Article Committee members|Featured Article Committee members]] –


Forwarded from message from Ritchey: The question may be "To link or not to link to a directory of paid sites?" In this case the question is even more interesting because the directory itself doesn't make clear which pages it links to are fee-based.
:It appears that this section was started and not finished by [[User:WilliamsDa|Darris]]. Looking back in the page history I found that this [https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=FamilySearch_Wiki:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=660838 section was added on 18 June 2011]. I have added a {{tl|ToDo}} template as a reminder that it is incomplete. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] {{toolbar|[[User talk:Cottrells|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cottrells|contribs]]}} 16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


"To link or not to link to a directory of paid sites?" is not quite the right question
<br>


My reply to him: Rather it is "whether to link to a directory of sites that is not clear as to which site requires paid access or not", whether to bypass and link direct to the sites themselves or not, be mindful some of these sites are already direct-linked. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 17:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
=== How to Describe an Area  ===


= Wiki - is it intended to be Mormon-oriented or is it intended to be all encompassing?  =
I suppose you are going to discuss this, but just in case you don't, I'll bring it up. Please give some thought to how to describe an area. A perfect example might be Harmony, PA, which exists in documents, but not on the ground. I think Oakland is the closest town with a current name. Also areas were located in territories that are now states; counties are divided and the names are changed, etc. Do we give it the current name so that people can find it or give it the name and location so people can find it in documents?I suppose you are going to discuss this, but just in case you don't, I'll bring it up. Please give some thought to how to describe an area. A perfect example might be Harmony, PA, which exists in documents, but not on the ground. I think Oakland is the closest town with a current name. Also areas were located in territories that are now states; counties are divided and the names are changed, etc. Do we give it the current name so that people can find it or give it the name and location so people can find it in documents? <span style="font-size:90%;">— Preceding [[FamilySearch Wiki:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:User name| Fillmore13 ]] ([[User talk:User name|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/ user name|contribs]])  02:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


Objection had been posted concerning Baltimore, Maryland vs Baltimore (Independent City), Maryland.
<br> '''Plural possession'''


Didn't we discuss the emphasis on reaching out to more places rather than emphasis on FHL Catalog? Many places do not recognize Baltimore (Independent City), Maryland. It is simply Baltimore, Maryland.  
When a word is showing possession and would normally have an apostrophe s ('s) at the end of the word, but that word is also plural or the word already ends in s, then the word would normally end in s'. There is no plural possessive that ends in s apostrophe s (s's). [Maybe this sentence should be first in the explanation. I do not have a Chicago Manual, but the MLA Handbook, Sixth Edition shows this under the area of Punctuation - Apostrophe. 3.2.7b. Feel free to reword the explanation.]


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)
Correct: The ancestors' graves were not marked.  


: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 FHL 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.
Incorrect: The ancestors's graves were not marked.  


: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.
Thanks, Darlene ([[User:Hunt4roots|Password]] 18:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) <br>


:'''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&nbsp;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)
=== Link to Church style guide ===
::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.
The link to the style guide needs to be https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide
::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]] &gt; [[Utah|Utah]] &gt; [[Utah County, Utah|Utah County]] &gt; 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)
[[User:RaymondRS|RaymondRS]] ([[User talk:RaymondRS|talk]]) 10:58, 3 June 2021 (MDT)
::And I am going to have more fun with you. Check out [[Portland (disambiguation)|Portland (disambiguation)]]. And we are moving beyond what the FHL Catalog is into new areas not available at the FHL. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 04:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:44, 20 December 2022

This is the place for discussing stylistic details that affect many pages on the wiki. It covers mostly content changes that affect collections of wiki pages, whereas stylistic issues regarding the user interface, or general look and feel of the site, can be found elsewhere. 

This page covers two kinds of stylistic ideas: 

  1. Ideas that have reached a consensus among the FamilySearch Wiki community and can thus be executed over many pages. 
  2. Ideas that have been proposed and need further discussion and consensus before implementation. (These ideas cannot be implemented over many pages until they have achieved a consensus decision.)

If you have an idea to add to the Manual of Style (MOS), see Transforming a Style Idea to a Manual of Style Guideline, and then add your topic to Proposals being discussed section below.

Issues that have reached a consensus decision

Proposals being discussed

  1. Table of Contents: To Hide or Display by Default
  2. FamilySearch Wiki:Separator for Items in See Also Section
  3. Buttons
  4. Access Codes (how to designate whether a linked site is free or fee-based)
  5. Breadcrumb Trails
  6. Changing the Font Size and Color of Heading 1
  7. Adding References or Links to Books for Sale
  8. FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Consensus
  9. FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Source Citation Formats
  10. Linking to works in the FamilySearch Catalog (FS Catalog) and Worldcat (OCLC)
  11. Naming Conventions for Geographic Names
  12. Disambiguation
  13. Interactive Maps and Lists of Sub-divisions
  14. Linking to Directory Sites Whose External Links to Paid Sites are Ambiguous
  15. "Names, Personal" versus "Names Personal"
  16. "Language and Languages" versus "Languages"
  17. Localities template to replace populated places section
  18. Infobox template
  19. Wpd (Wikipedia) template
  20. Linking 
  21. Spelling in the English-language wiki
  22. Naming a project
  23. Web sites or websites

What to do with Help:Naming Conventions?

Help:Naming conventions was created before we had the Manual of Style. It was also created "back in the day" when we discussed stylistic items in User Group meeting (Community Meeting) to reach consensus. Since Help:Naming Conventions deals with style more than instructions, I'm thinking it should be added to the FamilySearch Wiki namespace. I also wonder which (if any) of the conventions on Help:Naming Conventions deserves to be added to the Manual of Style or this discussion page. Ritcheymt 04:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the proposal to move Help:Naming conventions to the FamilySearch Wiki namespace. --Steve 09:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I also support the move and have added a discussion item to the page itself and also the "Move" template on the page. --Fran 18:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for large projects

It would be helpful to have some guidelines established for large projects, such as the pages created for US state or county pages. I'm thinking specifically of the England probate registers project that includes a page for each of the 40 counties. It's user-friendly to have the same "look and feel", including the heading and subheading styles. Anne 18:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A Place to Start

I think it would be easiest to piggyback of what other wikis have done. People who begin contributing may already be used to these conventions. For example, the Wikipedia Manual of Style gives some great ideas on what our conventions should be. Perhaps we lift from there and then change things as it becomes necessary to do so. --Gregorybean 02:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Links

What ever happened to format for the displayed text for links? If I remember correctly, "Click here to . . ." was considered an incorrect way to format them. I believe Create an external link talks about this subject. Thomas_Lerman 12:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Integration and links to other subjects

I suggest that this page be linked to the general help and editing pages for the Wiki. I note that there is the navbox at the bottom of the page but I suggest that there be a link to an appropriate page at the top. Also I don't see that this page has ever been categorized.

James L. Tanner 13:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Referencing Guidelines

One of the major sections of all publishing manuals of style is how to reference specific types of information. This Manual of Style does not includie such guidance. Is this because of a conscious decision not to include these guidelines, or an unintentional oversight? Including this information standarizes the references, but more importantly, it gives greater assurance that the reference can be found, despite URL chages, and it gives credit to the creater of the information as well as the person or web site that is hosting the information.

Klk3 20:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing information in section 4.3

The following catagory has missing information:

Naming subheadings within articles

Organizing information. In an article, subheadings or sections should be used to organize the content and keep similar information together. Subheadings should help users scan an article to find the information they need.

Guidelines for subheadings/section titles. Use the guidelines for article titles with the following differences.

The following differences information (the sentence above in bold)  is not listed in the article.


Also under the catagory: Linking through the use of page section templates, Other possible templates to create include:   there are two red templates -either broken links or no content in those links.  Need to fix links or add content.


Thanks

Featured Article Committee members –

It appears that this section was started and not finished by Darris. Looking back in the page history I found that this section was added on 18 June 2011. I have added a {{ToDo}} template as a reminder that it is incomplete. --Steve (talk| contribs) 16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


How to Describe an Area

I suppose you are going to discuss this, but just in case you don't, I'll bring it up. Please give some thought to how to describe an area. A perfect example might be Harmony, PA, which exists in documents, but not on the ground. I think Oakland is the closest town with a current name. Also areas were located in territories that are now states; counties are divided and the names are changed, etc. Do we give it the current name so that people can find it or give it the name and location so people can find it in documents?I suppose you are going to discuss this, but just in case you don't, I'll bring it up. Please give some thought to how to describe an area. A perfect example might be Harmony, PA, which exists in documents, but not on the ground. I think Oakland is the closest town with a current name. Also areas were located in territories that are now states; counties are divided and the names are changed, etc. Do we give it the current name so that people can find it or give it the name and location so people can find it in documents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillmore13 (talk | contribs) 02:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Plural possession

When a word is showing possession and would normally have an apostrophe s ('s) at the end of the word, but that word is also plural or the word already ends in s, then the word would normally end in s'. There is no plural possessive that ends in s apostrophe s (s's). [Maybe this sentence should be first in the explanation. I do not have a Chicago Manual, but the MLA Handbook, Sixth Edition shows this under the area of Punctuation - Apostrophe. 3.2.7b. Feel free to reword the explanation.]

Correct: The ancestors' graves were not marked.

Incorrect: The ancestors's graves were not marked.

Thanks, Darlene (Password 18:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC))

Link to Church style guide

The link to the style guide needs to be https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide RaymondRS (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2021 (MDT)

Retrieved from "https://integration-ru.familysearch.org/en/wiki/index.php?title=FamilySearch_Wiki_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=5179292"
Return to the project page "Manual of Style".