23,837
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 13:09, 18 May 2009
, 18 May 2009reply to request
No edit summary |
m (reply to request) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::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> | |||
::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 53: | Line 54: | ||
=== Standardized Citation Style === | === Standardized Citation Style === | ||
I agree that Chicago style with Shown Mills is used for most professional reports and is comfortable for us. Why make matters more complicated by redoing all the work entered from the old Research Guides? [[User:Proarenee|Proarenee]] 10:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | I agree that Chicago style with Shown Mills is used for most professional reports and is comfortable for us. Why make matters more complicated by redoing all the work entered from the old Research Guides? [[User:Proarenee|Proarenee]] 10:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== Multiple References to Citation === | === Multiple References to Citation === | ||
Looking at some pages, you will find a single source referenced multiple times, other pages will have each reference having its own reference to the same source. Does that make sense? An example of what I am referring to is [[New Sweden|New Sweden]]. This is an excellent page with excellent sources. I noticed that the first source is cited multiple times and then the second source is repeated multiple times. According to Diltsgd in the Talk page, the footnotes have problems when the second source is referenced once. If this is the case, that is a very bad bug in my opinion. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | Looking at some pages, you will find a single source referenced multiple times, other pages will have each reference having its own reference to the same source. Does that make sense? An example of what I am referring to is [[New Sweden|New Sweden]]. This is an excellent page with excellent sources. I noticed that the first source is cited multiple times and then the second source is repeated multiple times. According to Diltsgd in the Talk page, the footnotes have problems when the second source is referenced once. If this is the case, that is a very bad bug in my opinion. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
== Link to FHL works on FHLC == | == Link to FHL works on FHLC == | ||
| Line 75: | Line 76: | ||
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. | ||
For the large project of linking the BYU Family History Archives local histories, what do you see for the link to that entry as well as the FHLC entry. Just let one link to the FHLC do the job, or should there be the other link, such as you have done for WorldCat and the FHLC? [[User:Adkinswh|Adkinswh]] 13:00, 30 Apr 2009 (UTC) | For the large project of linking the BYU Family History Archives local histories, what do you see for the link to that entry as well as the FHLC entry. Just let one link to the FHLC do the job, or should there be the other link, such as you have done for WorldCat and the FHLC? [[User:Adkinswh|Adkinswh]] 13:00, 30 Apr 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) | 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) | ||
== MOS is guidelines hopefully, not policies == | == MOS is guidelines hopefully, not policies == | ||
| Line 157: | Line 158: | ||
= '''Naming conventions (geographic names)''' = | = '''Naming conventions (geographic names)''' = | ||
{| class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" style=" | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5" class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" style="border: 3px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); margin: 0.5em auto; clear: both; width: 87%; background-color: white;" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''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 198: | Line 199: | ||
= '''Wiki:Disambiguation''' = | = '''Wiki:Disambiguation''' = | ||
{| class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" style=" | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5" class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" style="border: 3px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); margin: 0.5em auto; clear: both; width: 87%; background-color: white;" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''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 236: | Line 237: | ||
== 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 304: | Line 305: | ||
= 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 318: | Line 319: | ||
"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 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 == | == 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> | 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> | ||
<br> | |||