4,497
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
Moved Proarenee's reply into the thread and "signed" it with her username link.
No edit summary |
(Moved Proarenee's reply into the thread and "signed" it with her username link.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
== Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | == Turabian? Shown Mills? Chigago? Oh my! == | ||
| Line 17: | Line 9: | ||
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. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | 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. [[User:Ritcheymt|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. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 22:47, 30 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. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 22:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== How Wikipedia does it === | === How Wikipedia does it === | ||
| Line 23: | Line 15: | ||
To see how Wikipedia handles this, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources Wikipedia:Citing sources]. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | To see how Wikipedia handles this, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources Wikipedia:Citing sources]. [[User:Ritcheymt|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. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 22:49, 30 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. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== Disadvantages of Shown Mills format? === | === Disadvantages of Shown Mills format? === | ||
| Line 29: | Line 21: | ||
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.) [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | 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.) [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
My opinion on this is above. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | My opinion on this is above. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== Inertia, rework, and Chicago === | === Inertia, rework, and Chicago === | ||
| Line 35: | Line 27: | ||
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? [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 12:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | 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? [[User:Ritcheymt|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? [[User:Proarenee|Proarenee]] 10:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Link to FHL works on FHLC == | == Link to FHL works on FHLC == | ||
| Line 53: | Line 47: | ||
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? adkinswh 30 Apr 2009 | 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 30 Apr 2009 | ||
== Disambiguation pages == | == Disambiguation pages == | ||