177
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats (view source)
Revision as of 14:06, 3 September 2009
, 3 September 2009Add info on professional genealogists' standard
(Add comment) |
(Add info on professional genealogists' standard) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Turabian? Shown Mills? Chicago? Oh my! == | == Turabian? Shown Mills? Chicago? Oh my! == | ||
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) | 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) | ||
<blockquote>Your experience reflects your topic, not your geography. In the United States, Mills's (not a compound surname) citation guides have been implemented by every major desktop genealogy database manager except PAF. Assuming PAF has a greater following in Utah than elsewhere, then she is more widely accepted outside the Wasatch than in. (At the most recent BYU conference, a presenter and former Church and Family History Mission trainer lectured on how to record citations in PAF. She admitted afterwards that she had not even opened Mills.) [[User:RobertRaymondUT|Robert]] 20:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)<br> </blockquote> | |||
My preference is to use Chicago as the basic format guide, with Shown Mills as the back-up for citations specific to genealogical manuscripts and specific types of documents peculiar to the genealogical world. That said, I have some additional comments to add. | My preference is to use Chicago as the basic format guide, with Shown Mills as the back-up for citations specific to genealogical manuscripts and specific types of documents peculiar to the genealogical world. That said, I have some additional comments to add. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Both Turabian and Mills are based on Chicago. You can readily use Chicago for anything that it addresses: books, articles, etc. Mills extends the principles in the Chicago manual to cover the myriad manuscript sources we need citations for as genealogists. Wikipedia uses templates so that you don't need to know the format--You just use the template and Wikipedia formats the citation for you. Currently, I do not believe that it is a user-friendly process (but it is a bit easier than doing it from scratch)--but it's on the right track. I believe we should use the template idea and improve upon it. Steven M. Law [[User:Bibliostuff|Bibliostuff]] 17:27, 17 Aug 2009.<br> | Both Turabian and Mills are based on Chicago. You can readily use Chicago for anything that it addresses: books, articles, etc. Mills extends the principles in the Chicago manual to cover the myriad manuscript sources we need citations for as genealogists. Wikipedia uses templates so that you don't need to know the format--You just use the template and Wikipedia formats the citation for you. Currently, I do not believe that it is a user-friendly process (but it is a bit easier than doing it from scratch)--but it's on the right track. I believe we should use the template idea and improve upon it. Steven M. Law [[User:Bibliostuff|Bibliostuff]] 17:27, 17 Aug 2009.<br> | ||
I am all for the use of templates as well. Then, if we change formats, just the template needs to change. I still would really like to see what each of the formats look like though. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | I am all for the use of templates as well. Then, if we change formats, just the template needs to change. I still would really like to see what each of the formats look like though. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== Citation Styles: The Real Issue <br> === | === Citation Styles: The Real Issue <br> === | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
I must say that reading through this discussion glazed my eyes over. I really do not remember what all of these source reference formats even look like. It would be nice if examples were shown to remind us about them. In the end, I believe the nicest thing would be to have an extension to the Editor that allows one to enter the source reference in a dialog box and then it formats it in a standard format. Does this type of thing exist? [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 14:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | I must say that reading through this discussion glazed my eyes over. I really do not remember what all of these source reference formats even look like. It would be nice if examples were shown to remind us about them. In the end, I believe the nicest thing would be to have an extension to the Editor that allows one to enter the source reference in a dialog box and then it formats it in a standard format. Does this type of thing exist? [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 14:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== U.S. Professional Genealogist Standard<br> === | |||
We don't have to follow it, but we should be aware that there is a standard for U.S. professional genealogists. ''The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual'' specifies in standard #s36:<br> | |||
<blockquote>Sources for all genealogical and biographical fact statements are cited in ''The Chicago Manual of Style''’s "reference note" format in footnotes or endnotes.<sup>10</sup> ''The Chicago Manual''’s in-text and reference-list styles, and formats used in other disciplines, such as the MLA (Modern Language Association), AP (Associated Press), or APA (American Psychological Association) styles, are not standard for genealogical writing.<ref name="BCG">Board for Certification of Genealogists, ''The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual'' (Washington, D.C.: Ancestry Publishing, 2000), 14.</ref></blockquote> | |||
Footnotes 1 and 10 read:<br> | |||
#Source citation models can be found in footnotes and endnotes used in scholarly genealogical journals and in such genealogy-specific manuals as Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG, ''Evidence! Citation and Analysis for the Family Historian ''(Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1997).<ref name="BCG3">Ibid., 3.</ref><br> | |||
and<br> | |||
#Models, using the ''Chicago Manual'' reference-note format as applied to the kinds of sources often used by genealogical researchers, are included in the publications mentioned in Note 1 (p. 3).<ref name="BCG" /> | |||
[[User:RobertRaymondUT|Robert]] 20:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== References === | |||
<references /> | |||
=== Related pages === | === Related pages === | ||
[[FamilySearch Wiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] | [[FamilySearch Wiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] | ||