4,497
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Manual of Style (view source)
Revision as of 13:35, 2 June 2009
, 2 June 2009moved consensus discussion
(moved Consensus discussion elsewhere) |
(moved consensus discussion) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
== Proposals being discussed == | |||
#[[FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Consensus|FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Consensus]] | |||
== Turabian? Shown Mills? Chicago? Oh my! == | == Turabian? Shown Mills? Chicago? Oh my! == | ||
| Line 7: | Line 9: | ||
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> | <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) | ||
| Line 39: | Line 41: | ||
=== 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 == | ||
| Line 329: | Line 331: | ||
::Take a look at [[Fairfield (disambiguation)|Fairfield (disambiguation)]]. It already distinguish several Fairfield's in one state. I am referring to usage of "independent city" in the url address. | ::Take a look at [[Fairfield (disambiguation)|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!)<br>What's more I can shoot down your assumption, in the Family History Library 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]] > [[Utah|Utah]] > [[Utah County, Utah|Utah County]] > Fairfield''... own in Utah County, Utah. For other uses, see [[Fairfield (disambiguation)|Fairfield (disambiguation)]]. '''' See how the info is presented instantly?<br>Secondly, why should it has to be to that way? You need to think OUTSIDE of the box to see how others see it. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | ::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!)<br>What's more I can shoot down your assumption, in the Family History Library 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]] > [[Utah|Utah]] > [[Utah County, Utah|Utah County]] > Fairfield''... own in Utah County, Utah. For other uses, see [[Fairfield (disambiguation)|Fairfield (disambiguation)]]. '''' See how the info is presented instantly?<br>Secondly, why should it has to be to that way? You need to think OUTSIDE of the box to see how others see it. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::And I am going to have more fun with you. Check out [[ | ::And I am going to have more fun with you. Check out [[Portland (disambiguation)|Portland (disambiguation)]]. And we are moving beyond what the FHL Catalog is into new areas not available at the FHL. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 04:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | ||