4,497
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats (view source)
Revision as of 21:37, 14 June 2009
, 14 June 2009Added comment to maybe solve Alan's issue with footnote consistency.
mNo edit summary |
(Added comment to maybe solve Alan's issue with footnote consistency.) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
I don't like the Wikipedia example, either. However, I'm willing to accept the publication date in any of several places--as long as it's there. My real problem with Wikipedia is the concept that an article (page) has to be consistent in the citation style used on that page. That means that if a short article used a single source citation, all later contributors would be forced to learn whichever format was employed for that single citation. See my discussion comments above on Terabian, Shown Mills, etc. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) | I don't like the Wikipedia example, either. However, I'm willing to accept the publication date in any of several places--as long as it's there. My real problem with Wikipedia is the concept that an article (page) has to be consistent in the citation style used on that page. That means that if a short article used a single source citation, all later contributors would be forced to learn whichever format was employed for that single citation. See my discussion comments above on Terabian, Shown Mills, etc. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
I guess that if I were editing a page where one footnote existed already in some format I didn't like, and I added two footnotes in the format I like, that might give me enough excuse to change the original footnote into the style I prefer too? ;) Cuz then I'd be the major footnote contributor, so what I say goes. (Hehe) There's more than one way to skin a cat. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Disadvantages of Shown Mills format? === | === Disadvantages of Shown Mills format? === | ||