3,662
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 06:50, 18 May 2009
, 18 May 2009→Topics History vs Local Histories: new section
(Add my comment) |
(→Topics History vs Local Histories: new section) |
||
| Line 309: | Line 309: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
== Topics History vs Local Histories == | |||
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> | |||