FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of StyleEdit This Page
From FamilySearch Wiki
Proposals being discussed
- FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Consensus
- FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Source Citation Formats
- Linking to Works in the Family History Library Catalog
- Linking to FHLC and Worldcat (OCLC)
- Naming Conventions for Geographic Names
- Interactive Maps and Lists of Sub-divisions
Guidelines for large projects
It would be helpful to have some guidelines established for large projects, such as the pages created for US state or county pages. I'm thinking specifically of the England probate registers project that includes a page for each of the 40 counties. It's user-friendly to have the same "look and feel", including the heading and subheading styles. Anne 18:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Indirect Link or Direct Link
Go to New York City, New York and scroll down to "Websites". See the 2nd item, "New York Genealogy"
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 - Special:Contributions/Jeniannj Every one of them has the identical problem.
Ancestry Ancestry Ancestry Ancestry Ancestry
Every one requires paid subscription. You try, and get the message you have to have paid subscription to access.
Wouldn't it be more honest to have direct link with the standard Access Code we use?
Forwarded from message from Ritchey: The question may be "To link or not to link to a directory of paid sites?" In this case the question is even more interesting because the directory itself doesn't make clear which pages it links to are fee-based.
"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. dsammy 17:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Wiki - is it intended to be Mormon-oriented or is it intended to be all encompassing?
Objection had been posted concerning Baltimore, Maryland vs Baltimore (Independent City), Maryland.
Didn't we discuss the emphasis on reaching out to more places rather than emphasis on FHL Catalog? Many places do not recognize Baltimore (Independent City), Maryland. It is simply Baltimore, Maryland.
What's more Wikipedia mentions "Independent City" only in the article, same is true for the independent cities of Virginia as well as United Kingdom. The key is the simplicity of remembering the place names. Only in Family History Library Catalog you will find that term. dsammy 00:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I like simplicity. But sometimes simplicity all by itself isn't enough. Another important characterisitic is verifiable. Using a standard like "do it the way the FHL catalog does it" on place names gives us a standard that can be verified in most cases we would need, and predictable in the few cases that are not already in the catalog. If the only standard is simplicity by itself, that is harder to verify and predict what the concensus of users would agree is simple.
- The logic behind the FHL Catalog standard should not be rejected just because it is associated with a "Mormon" organization. It is available to our Wiki community worldwide on the Internet and is specifically designed to help genealogists. Wikipedia has more of a general encyclopedia audience--it's standards, particularly on place names can be a useful guide, but the FHL Catalog has decades of thought and experience behind it and is more adapted to the needs of genealogists.
- How do we title articles about towns? If our community reaches concensus that the FHL Catalog is a good standard to use for naming articles about places, I believe that would mean that articles about cities and towns like Chicago would carry the title Chicago, Cook, Illinois, or Fairfield, Jefferson, Iowa. How does the community feel about this? If I understand what Dsammy is saying, he would prefer the more simple Chicago, Illinois or Fairfield, Iowa. What do our other contributors think? Diltsgd 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at Fairfield (disambiguation). It already distinguish several Fairfield's in one state. I am referring to usage of "independent city" in the url address.
- And this format is already widespread in several Wiki sites. If more than one is found in a specific area, just add the necessary identification like Fairfield, Hyde County, North Carolina and Fairfield, Union County, North Carolina. It's worse with Washington Townships so additional identification is necessary as needed and just for Iowa alone, there are 49 of them!)
What's more I can shoot down your assumption, in the Family History Library Catalog, you can't get "Chicago" with "Cook County", and instead of that it has to be either simply Chicago or Chicago with Illinois to get the search results. That is the logic behind the usage. The family historians are not going to type Fairfield, Jefferson, Iowa to get that because that part of information is already in the first line in the page in search results. Here's the result from search for "Fairfield, Utah" - Fairfield, Utah ... ed States]] > Utah > Utah County > Fairfield... own in Utah County, Utah. For other uses, see Fairfield (disambiguation). '' See how the info is presented instantly?
Secondly, why should it has to be to that way? You need to think OUTSIDE of the box to see how others see it. dsammy 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- And I am going to have more fun with you. Check out Portland (disambiguation). And we are moving beyond what the FHL Catalog is into new areas not available at the FHL. dsammy 04:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Future Changes to the Wiki
Changes are coming to the FamilySearch Research Wiki in the near future. Find out more on the Wiki Community News page.Community News