FamilySearch Wiki talk:Naming Conventions for Geographic Names

Country names in English
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)

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). --Fran 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Once it is formally adopted by our Wiki community, the said link should be to our own internal article (the next one on this list of proposed MOS items). Diltsgd 01:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki - is it intended to be Latter-day Saint-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 FS 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 FamilySearch 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 FS 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 FS 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 FS 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 FS 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 FamilySearch 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]] &gt; Utah &gt; Utah County &gt; 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 FS Catalog is into new areas not available at the FS Library. dsammy 04:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How to Describe an Area
I suppose you are going to discuss this, but just in case you don't, I'll bring it up. Please give some thought to how to describe an area. A perfect example might be Harmony, PA, which exists in documents, but not on the ground. I think Oakland is the closest town with a current name. Also areas were located in territories that are now states; counties are divided and the names are changed, etc. Do we give it the current name so that people can find it or give it the name and location so people can find it in documents?I suppose you are going to discuss this, but just in case you don't, I'll bring it up. Please give some thought to how to describe an area. A perfect example might be Harmony, PA, which exists in documents, but not on the ground. I think Oakland is the closest town with a current name. Also areas were located in territories that are now states; counties are divided and the names are changed, etc. Do we give it the current name so that people can find it or give it the name and location so people can find it in documents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillmore13  (talk&thinsp;|&thinsp;contribs)  02:55, 16 July 2014  (UTC)