|
|
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| #FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Source Citation Formats | | #FamilySearch Wiki Talk:Source Citation Formats |
|
| |
|
| == 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)
| |
|
| |
| <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 ===
| |
|
| |
| 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)
| |
|
| |
| === How Wikipedia does it ===
| |
|
| |
| 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)
| |
|
| |
| === Disadvantages of Shown Mills format? ===
| |
|
| |
| 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)
| |
|
| |
| === Inertia, rework, and Chicago ===
| |
|
| |
| 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)
| |
|
| |
| === 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)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Link to FHL works on FHLC == | | == Link to FHL works on FHLC == |