4,497
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 13:30, 28 May 2009
, 28 May 2009moved a part of the History vs. Local Histories discussion into the discussion (it was fragged at the end of the page)
(added comment about the Disambiguation policy page & discussion page) |
(moved a part of the History vs. Local Histories discussion into the discussion (it was fragged at the end of the page)) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:Sorry, no solutions proposed, just more problems stated.[[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | :Sorry, no solutions proposed, just more problems stated.[[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
The consensus issue seems to me to be critical to the whole Wiki concept. If the Wiki community approach is correct, who is going to "police" what consensus is and when it is reached? It seems to me that this goes back to having to have a governing board to make basic policy decisions. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | The consensus issue seems to me to be critical to the whole Wiki concept. If the Wiki community approach is correct, who is going to "police" what consensus is and when it is reached? It seems to me that this goes back to having to have a governing board to make basic policy decisions. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
<br> | |||
== "Local Histories" or "Histories" heading on county pages? == | == "Local Histories" or "Histories" heading on county pages? == | ||
| Line 31: | Line 32: | ||
::Dsammy, can you link to an example of a page containing the "Quick History" section you propose? I can't remember, but I think my impression upon discussing it with you before was that I wasn't sold on the heading of "Quick History" because the section was to contain other facts that didn't quite feel historical (like latitude and longitude, perhaps?). The reason I propose the plural heading "Histories" here is that there are two kinds of historical information people tend to add about a place. One is a brief history of the place as it relates to genealogical research. It's the kind of thing found in ''Ancestry's Red Book'': First settlers, major waves of ethnic immigration, major boundary changes, incorporation, effects of wars, famines, major epidemics, transportation development, trade and industry, and other factors. All this stuff can easily constitute a complete article. | ::Dsammy, can you link to an example of a page containing the "Quick History" section you propose? I can't remember, but I think my impression upon discussing it with you before was that I wasn't sold on the heading of "Quick History" because the section was to contain other facts that didn't quite feel historical (like latitude and longitude, perhaps?). The reason I propose the plural heading "Histories" here is that there are two kinds of historical information people tend to add about a place. One is a brief history of the place as it relates to genealogical research. It's the kind of thing found in ''Ancestry's Red Book'': First settlers, major waves of ethnic immigration, major boundary changes, incorporation, effects of wars, famines, major epidemics, transportation development, trade and industry, and other factors. All this stuff can easily constitute a complete article. | ||
:::[https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Baker_County%2C_Oregon Baker County, Oregon] it shows "Quick Facts", the third time, this time it was after group discussion and suggestion was to change to "Quick Facts" to separate two "History" and do away with potential confusion which Michael is now facing. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)<br> | :::[https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Baker_County%2C_Oregon Baker County, Oregon] it shows "Quick Facts", the third time, this time it was after group discussion and suggestion was to change to "Quick Facts" to separate two "History" and do away with potential confusion which Michael is now facing. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)<br> | ||
::Some people may choose to have this article be separate from another historical type of article -- one regarding the location and use of histories published for the locality. That second article might employ the headings and variety of information found in [[FamilySearch Wiki:Headings for Articles about Records|FamilySearch Wiki:Headings for Articles about Records]]. Again, this information is extensive, and might merit the separation of this information into an article apart from the ''Redbook''-style article outlining historical events that impact genealogy in the locality. The author might find that one good reason to separate the two kinds of "History" information into two articles is that writing about both in one article might 1) seem disjointed, and 2) force a title that is ambiguous. | ::Some people may choose to have this article be separate from another historical type of article -- one regarding the location and use of histories published for the locality. That second article might employ the headings and variety of information found in [[FamilySearch Wiki:Headings for Articles about Records|FamilySearch Wiki:Headings for Articles about Records]]. Again, this information is extensive, and might merit the separation of this information into an article apart from the ''Redbook''-style article outlining historical events that impact genealogy in the locality. The author might find that one good reason to separate the two kinds of "History" information into two articles is that writing about both in one article might 1) seem disjointed, and 2) force a title that is ambiguous. | ||
| Line 54: | Line 55: | ||
:While the Research Wiki is hosted by FamilySearch, that doesn't mean we have to follow the FHLC or research outlines. Having said that, let me point out that this same discussion took place nearly a decade ago when GenUKI was founded. That volunteer group finally decided to pattern their topical headings after the FHLC because it was a format familiar to the most people in the genealogical community. Since the FHLC uses the topic heading History (with -Local an optional modifier), I strongly recommend the Research Wiki stick with it as an established standard. The British pages have already been created using the topic History as a linked page on every county and country page. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | :While the Research Wiki is hosted by FamilySearch, that doesn't mean we have to follow the FHLC or research outlines. Having said that, let me point out that this same discussion took place nearly a decade ago when GenUKI was founded. That volunteer group finally decided to pattern their topical headings after the FHLC because it was a format familiar to the most people in the genealogical community. Since the FHLC uses the topic heading History (with -Local an optional modifier), I strongly recommend the Research Wiki stick with it as an established standard. The British pages have already been created using the topic History as a linked page on every county and country page. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
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> | |||
I'm all for using History instead of Local Histories. Simple is important and we want people to easily access the information. [[User:Batsondl|Batsondl]] 15:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
So people, correct me if I'm wrong. I see the following results from this discussion. Please correct your entry in this table if I've read you wrong. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | So people, correct me if I'm wrong. I see the following results from this discussion. Please correct your entry in this table if I've read you wrong. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
{| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" width="100%" border="1" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''User''' | | '''User''' | ||
| Line 91: | Line 96: | ||
| Franjensen | | Franjensen | ||
| X | | X | ||
| <br> | | <br> | ||
| Changed my mind. I think the History title with sub-headings as needed is the best option. | | Changed my mind. I think the History title with sub-headings as needed is the best option. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 100: | Line 105: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Familyjournals | | Familyjournals | ||
| X | | X | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 158: | Line 163: | ||
[[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 12:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 12:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
I agree with the Chicago Manual of Style, due to wide recognition/acceptance. | I agree with the Chicago Manual of Style, due to wide recognition/acceptance. | ||
| Line 166: | Line 171: | ||
As long as I recall correctly, someone was going to talk to the FHLC people about opening up the standard numbers that is used by WorldCat, etc. that is currently stored internally by the FHLC people. Okay, I am having a slight brain-cramp on the name of this. I hope you understand what I am trying to type. Anyway, that seems like it would be great. Also, I am of the opinion, if at all possible, that the links in FHLC references should be done in a template, plug-in, or something. When the FHLC changes, it would be very nice to change it in one place. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | As long as I recall correctly, someone was going to talk to the FHLC people about opening up the standard numbers that is used by WorldCat, etc. that is currently stored internally by the FHLC people. Okay, I am having a slight brain-cramp on the name of this. I hope you understand what I am trying to type. Anyway, that seems like it would be great. Also, I am of the opinion, if at all possible, that the links in FHLC references should be done in a template, plug-in, or something. When the FHLC changes, it would be very nice to change it in one place. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
I may be missing something obvious, but why direct wiki readers to the FHL for a book? What percentage of wiki users would have access to the FHL book collection in SLC (since the FHL doesn't loan, right?). It makes perfect sense to link to a microfilm in the FHL catalog because anyone can do something with that information (i.e., go to a FHC and order the film). I think book references should link to a more universally accessible resource (like WorldCat or Google Books). [[User:Lembley|Eirebrain]] 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC) | I may be missing something obvious, but why direct wiki readers to the FHL for a book? What percentage of wiki users would have access to the FHL book collection in SLC (since the FHL doesn't loan, right?). It makes perfect sense to link to a microfilm in the FHL catalog because anyone can do something with that information (i.e., go to a FHC and order the film). I think book references should link to a more universally accessible resource (like WorldCat or Google Books). [[User:Lembley|Eirebrain]] 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 250: | Line 255: | ||
= '''Naming conventions (geographic names)''' = | = '''Naming conventions (geographic names)''' = | ||
{| | {| 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" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''This guideline documents a FamilySearch Research Wiki naming convention.''' 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.<br> | | '''This guideline documents a FamilySearch Research Wiki naming convention.''' 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.<br> | ||
| Line 293: | Line 298: | ||
= '''Wiki:Disambiguation''' = | = '''Wiki:Disambiguation''' = | ||
{| | {| 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" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''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. | | '''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. | ||
| Line 331: | Line 336: | ||
== Disambiguation links == | == 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> | 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]. For other uses, see [TOPIC] (disambiguation).'' | ||
| Line 393: | Line 398: | ||
[[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | [[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
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) | 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) | ||
= Interactive maps and lists of sub-divisions = | = Interactive maps and lists of sub-divisions = | ||
| Line 401: | Line 406: | ||
= Indirect Link or Direct Link = | = Indirect Link or Direct Link = | ||
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> | 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> | ||
We have a problem - you will not know until you get there, half of sites are paid subscription only. 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. | We have a problem - you will not know until you get there, half of sites are paid subscription only. 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. | ||
| Line 415: | Line 420: | ||
"To link or not to link to a directory of paid sites?" is not quite the right question | "To link or not to link to a directory of paid sites?" is not quite the right question | ||
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 | 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) | ||