2,175
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 10:19, 17 May 2009
, 17 May 2009My two cents worth
(added emphasis to comment for clarity) |
(My two cents worth) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::If these two types of historical information are split into separate articles, each needs a title that will disambiguate it from the other. One possible solution is to name the ''Redbook''-style article something like "North Caroling History" or "North Carolina historical events pertaining to genealogy" and the how-to article something like "Alabama histories." But on the [[North Carolina|North Carolina]] page, there are a set of Topics links that we'd want to link to each of these articles -- and each entry on that Topics list needs to be brief. So even though the article title "North Carolina Historical Events Pertaining to Genealogy" is probably a less ambiguous (better) title than "North Carolina history," the former is too long for the Topics list on the [[North Carolina|North Carolina]] page. So the link in the Topics list might be shortened to something like "Historical events." Therefore, the Topics list might contain two historical-flavored links: "Histories" and "Historical events." That's why I'm proposing that the current heading "Local Histories" on county pages be changed to "Histories" -- to indicate that the link leads to information about published Histor'''ies''', not the Histor'''y''' of the place. Does this sound wise or wacky? [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | ::If these two types of historical information are split into separate articles, each needs a title that will disambiguate it from the other. One possible solution is to name the ''Redbook''-style article something like "North Caroling History" or "North Carolina historical events pertaining to genealogy" and the how-to article something like "Alabama histories." But on the [[North Carolina|North Carolina]] page, there are a set of Topics links that we'd want to link to each of these articles -- and each entry on that Topics list needs to be brief. So even though the article title "North Carolina Historical Events Pertaining to Genealogy" is probably a less ambiguous (better) title than "North Carolina history," the former is too long for the Topics list on the [[North Carolina|North Carolina]] page. So the link in the Topics list might be shortened to something like "Historical events." Therefore, the Topics list might contain two historical-flavored links: "Histories" and "Historical events." That's why I'm proposing that the current heading "Local Histories" on county pages be changed to "Histories" -- to indicate that the link leads to information about published Histor'''ies''', not the Histor'''y''' of the place. Does this sound wise or wacky? [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Michael, my first thought on this is wondering why these would be different as well (History vs Local History). Are they like this in Research Outlines? Looking at the [[Frederick County, Maryland|Frederick County, Maryland]] page that you referred to, it has the [[Frederick County, Maryland#History|History]] section in addition to the current [[Frederick County, Maryland#Local Histories|Local Histories]] section. Maybe that is what Sammy was referring to. In any case, those two sections would be confusing and even more so if the latter was changed to History. My opinion is that the Local History section should match what is in the Research Outlines for consistency between the old and the new. This will help with transitions. If people are using the Research Wiki expecting to find "History" within the "Resources" and do not find it where they expect, they will think the information is not there. If the Resources do in fact refer to History, then I suggest Frederick County or other places that currently have a History section not associated with Resources should use something else as Sammy suggested. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | == Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | ||