FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style

What is consensus?
In order for an item to migrate from a Manual of Style discussion to a Manual of Style guideline, it needs to have reached consensus with the community. But what is consensus? Wikipedians say it is not unanimity. But what is it? A 60-40 vote? a 70-30 vote? 80-20? What kind of majority does an issue need to show in order to have reached consensus? Possibly, as Jbparker said, we don't have to worry so much about getting a huge majority on an issue because what we're making with the Manual of Style isn't policies, but guidelines. They're like strong recommendations. If someone doesn't want to follow them, they aren't compelled to do so. So community, what is consensus? Ritcheymt 21:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw "proposed consensus" used in some documentation on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a proposed consensus written up and a period of time to allow for approval.. I think the opinion box that was added to the History/Local History discussion was a good way to get to a consensus.Franjensen 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several things needed in a process to establish consensus. I suggest we establish a procedure/policy for reaching and documenting consensus. It sounds simple, but such a policy or procedure would need to address the following questions/issues:


 * 1) Where should the discussion, question, or statement of guideline needed be posted? (just manual of style, just discussion page somewhere, both, or ?
 * 2) Some sort of vote or consensus reaching on whether a guideline is really needed. If not, it never becomes a guideline, but the discussion of the need is preserved in an archive/linked inactive page.
 * 3) How long the discussion should be open before the guideline is drafted (perhaps this is variable and the length should be part of the raising of the issue, with certain lower and upper limits for time length)
 * 4) Once a deadline is reached, who will summarize the decision and write the proposed guideline as modified by the discussion comments?
 * 5) How long the proposed guideline is posted before becoming an accepted guideline.
 * 6) If someone contests that consensus was actually reached, what is the process for voting or establishing that consensus is indeed reached on the content of the final guideline.
 * 7) How the discussion leading to establishment of consensus should be preserved &amp; linked.
 * 8) A policy for proposing changes to or deletion of guidelines.


 * Sorry, no solutions proposed, just more problems stated.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. Jbparker 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Local Histories" or "Histories" heading on county pages?
I'm getting ready to launch a project to link wiki pages to 1300 titles in the BYU Digital Archives and I need some help solving a problem first. I noticed on Frederick County, Maryland that in the alphabetical list of headings/record types for the county, histories of the county are not listed under "H" for "Histories" but under "L" for "Local Histories." Even though each of these headings currently contains no content (so the headings are close together and can be scanned pretty easily) I didn't see "Histories" or "History," so I didn't think the county page had a section on histories. Not until I clicked Edit did I see that there's a section for "Local Histories." I believe this is a problem. I do not think it wise to list histories under "L." The word "Local" is merely a descriptor for histories, and I believe most users won't think to look under "L." I believe most indexes, phone books, and directories do not alphabetize items under their descriptors (adjectives) but under their main designations, which are nouns. But rather than going and changing all the county pages to fit "my way," I'd like to know what the rest of you think. Ritcheymt 19:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why I asked the community about 2 months ago about changing "Quick History" to other heading and the suggestion was to change to "Quick Facts" in order to make clear there's "History" section for research. There is no logic for using "Local History/Histories" at all. I deleted "Local" word when I added histories to avoid the confusion. dsammy 19:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * 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. dsammy 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. 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.


 * If these two types of historical information are split into separate articles, each needs a title that will disambiguate it from the other. One possible solution is to name the Redbook-style article something like "North Carolina History" or "North Carolina historical events pertaining to genealogy" and the how-to article something like "Alabama histories." But on the North Carolina page, there are a set of Topics links that we'd want to link to each of these articles -- and each entry on that Topics list needs to be brief. So even though the article title "North Carolina Historical Events Pertaining to Genealogy" is probably a less ambiguous (better) title than "North Carolina history," the former is too long for the Topics list on the North Carolina page. So the link in the Topics list might be shortened to something like "Historical events." Therefore, the Topics list might contain two historical-flavored links: "Histories" and "Historical events." That's why I'm proposing that the current heading "Local Histories" on county pages be changed to "Histories" -- to indicate that the link leads to information about published Histories, not the History of the place. Does this sound wise or wacky? Ritcheymt 14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 page that you referred to, it has the History section in addition to the current 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. 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. 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. 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. Bakerbh 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest leaving it as it is. When people see something that they are familiar i.e. the format of the research outlines, they have a level of comfort that they will be able to navigate around this new research tool we have for them. Anything that helps them feel at home, welcomed and invited to contribute is what the aim should be. So, if it's not broke, let's not fix it. Familyjournals 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, the term "local histories" was a term coined by historians to denote histories of a smaller geographical area than the "general histories" they normally dealt with. It became so popular that universities began offering classes and even degrees in local history, much to the chagrin of some of the old-time historians who wanted to generalize history on a much higher level. It is now, however, a generally recognized term by both historians and genealogists, and I see no problem in using the full phrase "local histories." Carrying the question a bit further, are we going to limit all topics to a single word? Is that wise? So we can't have topics such as "state census," "vital records," "American Indian?" If you want to delineate between types of history, why not have topics such as "histories, general," "histories, local," "histories, church," "histories, military," etc. which would put all the histories under "H" but separate them by type of history? And in the Wiki, can't we place cross-references and re-directs in it so no matter how the user would search, they would be led to the "local histories?" Jbparker 19:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Too many redirects serve no purpose. WE are going into lowest level, the city/town pages now that "Local Histories" serve no purpose. Simple "History" in Resources section is very sufficient to lead the person to the record to research. Beside in the FHLC there is no "Local History" category, only "History" category. dsammy 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Upon further consideration, I think I would actually prefer to use the "histories" heading at each jurisdictional level, so a state history would be under that history at that level, a county history under that heading at the county level, a town history under the "histories" heading at the town level, etc. In that sense, dsammy is correct in that the term "local histories" really serves no purpose since they will be associated with what ever jurisdictional level covered by that history.


 * I don't see us moving to limit topics to a single word, so I don't think "History" or "Histories" has an advantage over "Local Histories" in terms of length. But I don't think using a cross reference in this case works well either. If we wanted to create a cross reference at "History" to guide users to "Local Histories" or "Local History," the cross reference/link would be a heading. I think making a heading into a cross reference link feels clunky. It'd be okay if it was an index entry we were talking about, but headings are generally used to aid readability in an article, and I don't think it aids readability to direct someone's eye to a heading only to find that it's merely a cross-reference. So I'm being swayed by others' comments -- I'm being converted to the "History" camp and away from the mindset that we need two headings/articles (a history-of-the-place-as-it-pertains-to-genealogy heading/page and a links-to-histories-of-this-place heading/page. Ritcheymt 20:42, 21 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. 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. Anne 13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for using History instead of Local Histories. Simple is important and we want people to easily access the information. 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. Ritcheymt 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my!
I'm preparing to launch WikiProject:Linking to Books in the BYU Family History Archives but I don't know which format to use for the inline references which will link to the digital copies of local histories online. Should I use APA? MLA? Chicago? Shown Mills? Turabian? Any ideas? It would be nice to come to a consensus before adding these 1300 references so the community won't have to come back and change their citation format later. Ritcheymt 17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations vs. footnotes
We may need to cite sources differently depending on whether we're mentioning a great record source within the body of an article or creating a footnote. Ritcheymt 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there standards for inline citations? What about citations in bulleted lists? I assume they follow bibliographic form, which is different from footnotes. Shown-Mills refers to both Chicago Style and MLA in her book Evidence. I assume she used them as her basis and made adjustments as needed to cover genealogical applications, kind of like how the GSU took the DD book numbering system and adjusted it to fit the needs of the FHL. Are Chicago Style and MLA all that dissimilar? I don't know. I would vote to use Shown-Mills, if my assumptions about her sources are true. Bakerbh 22:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

How Wikipedia does it
To see how Wikipedia handles this, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Ritcheymt 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the example that Wikipedia lists right at the beginning of the article. To me, the publication date should follow the publication info, not the author's name. Bakerbh 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantages of Shown Mills format?
Shown Mills seems to be the most accepted format within the U.S., but is it accepted (or even known) in the rest of the world? Also, formats like Chicago, MLA, APA, and even Turabian are supported by various word processors, software, and Websites such that users can enter bibliographic data into a form and have the system generate a reference. This brings fairly high-quality source citation to the "common man" who doesn't have a printed style manual at home. (But then, it could be argued that this "common man" doesn't cite sources anyway.) Ritcheymt 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on this is above. Bakerbh 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Inertia, rework, and Chicago
Sometimes it's easier to just keep doing what's already being done than try to change everything. Chicago format was used for the research outlines -- the paper publications which made up the seed content for this site. Turabian and Shown Mills are both based on Chicago format. So if we went with Chicago, we wouldn't have to change thousands (tens of thousands?) of citations. And really, if Chicago were so broken for citing books and microfilms, would it still be around? Ritcheymt 12:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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? Proarenee 10:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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. 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. Thomas Lerman 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to FHL works on FHLC
FamilySearch Wiki references thousands of books and microform at the Family History Library. It is proposed that each reference be linked to the FHL entry which lists all editions of the work in question. So a reference like this:

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (Family History Library book 941.5 D27gj.)

...would look like this:

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (Family History Library book 941.5 D27gj.)

Ritcheymt 12:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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? 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. Thomas Lerman 16:40, 17 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). Eirebrain 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The rule is try to find Google books, other places having the same books and list them first with FHL books always listed last, unless it's Family History Archive at BYU. dsammy 04:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

MOS is guidelines hopefully, not policies
I like the idea of guidelines, and a way to suggest such on this page. I hope that contributors will take them as such and not assume that they are a "must". I haven't looked but wonder what Wikipedia's guidelines are for their pages. Many of them have the same look. Anne 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Format for OCLC and FHLC works
If a work is available in both WorldCat and FHLC, should both references be given in the Wiki? I propose that they both be listed, with OCLC reference first and FHLC reference second, in this format:

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (WorldCat 68627254; FHL book 941.5 D27gj.)

Alan 20:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, Alan. Ritcheymt 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On 21 April 2009 those in attendance at the Community Meeting reached consensus that we should have not two links to a work in a collection, but one. So instead of a reference like this...

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (WorldCat 68627254; FHL book 941.5 D27gj.)

...the reference would look like this...

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (WorldCat 68627254; FHL 941.5 D27gj.)

The idea behind the simplification of links is this: The links should be simplified to avoid confusing the user. In the earlier iteration, the link on "WorldCat" leads to the Worldcat Home page or About page so that a reader unfamiliar with WorldCat can easily find out what it was. The other link -- the one to the WorldCat title number -- leads right to the listing for the book in question. The link to "FHL" leads to a wiki page about the FHL; the call number leads to the Family History Library entry for that book. It was posited that having two links -- one to define the collection/library and the other to lead to the book entry -- is confusing.

In Community Group meeting, it was posited that the links to the pages that describe the libraries/collections/catalogs (such as FHL or WorldCat) be nixed, that these links should be consolidated to go only to the catalog entry in question, and that if the user who is led to the catalog entry still has questions about the nature of the catalog/library/collection itself, they can simply navigate around that catalog's site for answers. Ritcheymt 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer the second version above, the one with WorldCat listed first followed by FHL. I prefer to see one link to the FHL catalog, instead of having no inclusive link for the word book/film/fiche. Anne 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Creating Numerous, Repetitive Links
Creating links of an oft-repeated phrase, title, word or acronym can be easily accomplished using OpenOffice, which can be downloaded for free. From FSWiki, copy a page (containing the repeated word or phrase) in WikiText mode and paste it into OpenOffice. Do a Find and Replace (binoculars icon) for the word or phrase with link brackets added, click 'Replace All' and close. Copy and paste the page with links back into the Wiki, still in WikiText mode, and save. It's slick and saves a lot of time, effort, and sanity. Bakerbh 22:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A Find and Replace option is also available in FCKEditor, the default editing sofware that pops up when you click "Edit" on a wiki article. The Find and Replace icon looks like a capital A and B with some dotted arrows. Ritcheymt 18:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This may work for some things, but not if there is a link embedded in the text. I tried.  Bakerbh 19:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replace "Family History Library" with "FHL" in references
FamilySearch Wiki references thousands of books, microfilms, and fiche at the Family History Library. Each of these references contains the words "Family History Library," such as the following:

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (Family History Library book 941.5 D27gj.)

For readability's sake, some users are calling for the words "Family History Library" in these links be shortened to "FHL" and made into a link which introduces the FHL to those who don't already know the acronym.

So the new style would look like this:

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (FHL book 941.5 D27gj.)

This idea was proposed by Dsammy. I am serving as his scribe here. Ritcheymt 19:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As mentioned below, I suggest FHL not be linked. When they click on the call number link, they will learn quickly enough that FHL stands for the Family History Library.  I prefer the acronym for the same reason, and it's shorter.  Bakerbh 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with bakerbh. The acronym is sufficient. I'm sure one day we'll see the acronyms TNA (The National Archives), LOC (Library of Congress), ACPL (Allen County Public Library), NARA (National Archives Records Administration), and so forth.


 * The volunteers who started the project of linking call numbers to the catalog were given guidelines. After that, volunteers chose to do what they thought best. Some chose to type Family History Library; some FHL. Some linked an entire string, including the words Family History Library or FHL. Some chose to link only the film/fiche of book number. Some chose to link the book number, then link a film/fiche number separately, even though the links went to the same catalog record. Anne 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Referencing OCLC/Worldcat works
It is proposed that references to works found on OCLC/Worldcat should be linked to the "All editions and formats" entry for that work in OCLC/WorldCat. One question is how the entry should look. Which of the following (or some variant) would work best if we adopt this proposal?

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (OCLC 68627254.)

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (WorldCat 68627254.)

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (OCLC/WorldCat 68627254.)

Ritcheymt 19:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The second style seems the best--WorldCat is more recognized, is part of the domain name, and putting both OCLC and WorldCat looks unattractive. Alan 20:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as the record identifies what resource you are in (when you click on the item number), I don't think the resource name or acronym needs to be a link. I would use WorldCat because that is what appears in the record when you click on the link.  Bakerbh 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

= Naming conventions (geographic names) =

This page describes conventions for determining the names of Research Wiki articles on places. Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called.

Country names in English
Use the form of a current country's name as it appears in the CIA World Factbook.

When a widely accepted English name, exists for a former country or empire, we should use it. For example, New Spain rather than Virreinato de Nueva España, Ottoman Empire rather than دولتْ علیّه عثمانیّه or Osmanlı İmparatorluğu.


 * I agree. It might be nice to show the country name in the native language(s) within the body of the article. Wikipedia does this as can be see with Spain (example). I believe this allows searching to find either. Thomas Lerman 16:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Browse by Country page, and Category:Countries
Use the CIA World Factbook to determine which nations are listed on the Browse by Country Wiki page, and in the Category:Countries. Only continuously inhabited places with indigenous populations in the World Factbook are eligible.

Countries which are not listed in the World Factbook should not appear on the Browse by Country page, or in the Category:Countries. However, they may be appropriate as part of another country's page/category, or on the List of extinct states page, or in the Category:Former Countries.

Country sub-divisions: as in the FHL Catalog
For places smaller than a country use the name as it would appear if it were in the Place Search of the Family History Library Catalog. However, normally write the name in order from smallest to largest jurisdiction, for example, Chicago, Cook, Illinois.

Also, use diacritics as they would appear in the Place Search of the Family History Library Catalog, for example, Höfgen (AH. Meißen), Sachsen, Germany.

Administrative sub-divisions
Names of classes of places do what English does. In particular, when dealing with administrative subdivisions, we write of United States counties and Cook County, Illinois, or of Russian oblasts and the Moscow Oblast, but of Chinese and Roman provinces, not sheng or provinciae.

Also, use Jackson Township, Hamilton, Indiana, but use Cicero, Hamilton, Indiana for an incorporated municipality.

Disambiguation
It is often the case that the same geographic place-name will apply to more than one place, or to a place and to other things of interest to genealogists such as a tribe or language; in either case disambiguation will be necessary. See Wiki:Disambiguation.

Diltsgd 21:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The wiki:Disambiguation link in the paragraph above is not working. If there is something else that needs reviewing, would someone update the link? I would update the link myself, but I'm not sure where it was intended to go. Also note that one of the current Policies in the Wiki is for Disambiguation. The Disambiguation Discussion page for this policy is also available (although it is currently empty). Franjensen 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

= Wiki:Disambiguation =

Disambiguation in FamilySearch Research Wiki is the process of resolving conflicts in Wiki article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title.

For example the word Delaware may be of interest to genealogists as an American Indian tribe, that tribe's language, a United States colony-state, county, town, township, river, or a river cut through a mountain.

There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation. In this case it is achieved using the Delaware (disambiguation) page.

Two methods of disambiguating are discussed here:


 * disambiguation links – at the top of an article (hatnotes), that refer/link the reader to other Wiki articles with similar titles or concepts.
 * disambiguation pages – non-article pages that refer/link readers to other Wiki articles.

Deciding to disambiguate
Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wiki article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that appears on hitting "Go" to any of the other possible desired articles.

There are three principal disambiguation scenarios, of which the following are examples:


 * The page at Georgia is a disambiguation page, leading to all the alternative family history uses of "Georgia".
 * The page at Iowa is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Iowa (disambiguation) to find the other uses.
 * The page at New Brunswick is about the primary topic and there is only one other genealogical use. The other use is linked directly using a hatnote; no disambiguation page is needed.

Is there a primary topic?
When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous family history term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Research Wiki to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. If the primary topic for a term is titled something else by the naming conventions, then a redirect for the term is used. Any article which has primary usage for its title and has other uses should have a disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page should link back to the primary topic.

Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?
If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term (in which case disambiguation links are desirable on the specific topic articles – see below). If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.

For more about disambiguation links, see Disambiguation links below. For rules about naming disambiguation pages and combining similar terms on a single page, see Disambiguation pages.

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:


 * This article is about [brief description of TOPIC]. For other uses, see [TOPIC] (disambiguation).


 * This article is about [brief description of TOPIC#1]. For [brief description of TOPIC#2], see [TOPIC#2].

For an example of the first kind of disambiguation link (used when there is a disambiguation page), see Iowa County, Wisconsin. For an example of the second kind of disambiguation link (when a disambiguation page is not used), see New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Combining terms on disambiguation pages
A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar family history terms.

When a combined disambiguation page is used, hatnotes should be set up from all the Wiki pages involved.

Naming the disambiguation page
The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term, as in Georgia. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Delaware (disambiguation).

When a disambiguation page combines several similar terms, one of them must be selected as the title for the page (with the "(disambiguation)" tag added if a primary topic exists for that term).

Page style
Each disambiguation page comprises a list (or multiple lists, for multiple senses of the term in question) of similarly-titled links.


 * Link to the primary topic (if there is one):


 * Alabama, a southern state of the United States


 * Start each list with a short introductory sentence fragment with the title in bold, and ending with a colon. For example:


 * Alabama may refer to:


 * Try to start each entry in the list with a link to the target page.
 * Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link; including more than one link can confuse the reader.

Add a template to show page status
Include either the template , or the template    on the page as an indicator of the page's status.

Geodis vs. Disambig

 * Select the template when the only titles to disambiguate are place-names.
 * Select the template when the only titles to disambiguate are non-place-names, such as tribes, languages, or other non-geographical topics.
 * Use both templates when the similar titles are mixed place-names and non-place-names.

Template position
When adding a single template:


 * If the disambiguation page list takes less than 3/4th of a screen top to bottom, position the template at the bottom.
 * If the list takes more than 3/4th of a screen, position the template at the top.

If adding both templates: position the template at the top, and position the  template at the bottom of the screen.


 * Instead of adding both templates to the page, what if we create a new template that incorporates both the "Geodis" and "Disambig" templates into one single template? Franjensen 15:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For a prime example of an actual disambiguation page, see Alabama (disambiguation).

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 dsammy 17:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

= Interactive maps and lists of sub-divisions =

Interactive maps are welcome and encouraged. However, for someone unfamiliar with the area's geography (or bad at reading maps), the maps may pose a challenge finding the sub-division of their choice. When employing an interactive map, the author should accompany that map with either (a) a short link to a page that shows an "Alphabetical List of States" (or whatever the sub-division is), or (b) such a list on the same page as the map. The alphabetical list should link to the same places as the links on the map. Diltsgd 23:36, 9 May 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)