FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)

Revision as of 09:27, 18 May 2009

941 bytes added , 18 May 2009

no edit summary

VisualWikitext

DiltsGD

73,385

edits

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :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" (or "Local 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)
-:My preference would be to leave it the way it already is, with "Local Histories" as the subject title. When I looked at the [[North Carolina]] example and read the content on the [[North Carolina History]] page, I saw there was a section on that page titled "Local Histories." I read through the content of that section and believe the heading is accurate for the content and also accurate for the page itself which is titled "North Carolina History". I think if we change the heading on the county level, the ramifications will be greater than we expect it might be because the state level pages for "History" also include in their content a section for "Local Histories". I believe there was a considerable amount of effort on the part of FHL staff to come up with the headings as they now stand. I think it would be wise to get their input before changes (if any) are made. I also agree with Thomas about the need to be consistent with headings that were used in the Research Outlines. If the Wiki remains consistent with those headings, I believe the transition to the Wiki will be easier for those who used the Outlines in the past. [[User:Franjensen|Franjensen]] 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
+:My preference would be to leave it the way it already is, with "Local Histories" as the subject title. When I looked at the [[North Carolina|North Carolina]] example and read the content on the [[North Carolina History|North Carolina History]] page, I saw there was a section on that page titled "Local Histories." I read through the content of that section and believe the heading is accurate for the content and also accurate for the page itself which is titled "North Carolina History". I think if we change the heading on the county level, the ramifications will be greater than we expect it might be because the state level pages for "History" also include in their content a section for "Local Histories". I believe there was a considerable amount of effort on the part of FHL staff to come up with the headings as they now stand. I think it would be wise to get their input before changes (if any) are made. I also agree with Thomas about the need to be consistent with headings that were used in the Research Outlines. If the Wiki remains consistent with those headings, I believe the transition to the Wiki will be easier for those who used the Outlines in the past. [[User:Franjensen|Franjensen]] 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
+:I like following the pattern in research outlines and the Family History Library Catalog for several reasons. Most of all, it is a relatively easy model to understand, and it so far has been remarkably well adapted to a variety of situations. "History" is the heading for (1) a history--an interpretation of past events, (2) county and local history citations that could list a researcher's ancestors, and (3) unusual calendar information. If two or three of these elements are appropriate togehter, a subheading can divide them, but the overall heading that works best is simply "History". This fits well with Library of Congress subject headings and FHL headings. If tried and true ways can be applied to new situations, lets see if they will work before re-inventing a different system with a less coherent way of working with all the other parts. [[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 :The main topics used in the Wiki match the FHLC and research outlines, and the FHLC and outlines do not use the topic of "Local History."  But "Local History" is fine as a subheading under "History."  In my opinion, "History" used on a state page implies the history of the state.  "Local Histories" implies lower jurisdictional levels, such as county and community histories.  On the state level, only a brief statement is needed for "Local Histories" with a referral to finding them, as on the North Carolina page.  What is missing there and needs to be added is a referral and link leading to the county pages.  "History" used on a county page implies the history of the county.  "Local Histories" at this level implies community histories.  Also in my opinion, the purpose of "Quick Facts" is to list items such as state or county founding date, parent counties, and so on.  These are historical facts quickly reviewed and they should appear on a state's main page, not the history page (and they are missing from the state pages at this point).  The same on the county level, though in that case "Quick Facts" and "History" would both be headings on the county's page. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)