3,911
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 18:48, 30 May 2009
, 30 May 2009no edit summary
(new comment on a new issue) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
I'm preparing to launch [[FamilySearch Wiki:WikiProject Linking to Books in the BYU Family History Archives|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. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | I'm preparing to launch [[FamilySearch Wiki:WikiProject Linking to Books in the BYU Family History Archives|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. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
<br> | |||
Is Shown Mills widely accepted outside the Wasatch? I tried to get a copy through Books-A-Million here in Virginia and was told it was "too obscure a title" for their distributor... They suggested I get Chicago or Turabian. That doesn't matter a whole lot in terms of what direction the FS wiki takes. I just thought it was interesting. [[User:Lembley|Eirebrain]] 00:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Inline citations vs. footnotes === | === Inline citations vs. footnotes === | ||
| Line 159: | Line 163: | ||
=== 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 == | ||