2,175
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats (view source)
Revision as of 19:27, 17 August 2009
, 17 August 2009Add comment
No edit summary |
(Add comment) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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) | ||
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) | ||
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 11: | Line 11: | ||
I think we should strongly suggest a standard for citations, both bibliographic and footnote, but realize that many of our contributors will simply not contribute if those guidelines are too stringent. We who are pioneering this effort can do much to set the standard by adding the right kind of citation now, so whatever the standard we are going to use, we need to stick by them and try to be as consistent as possible. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | I think we should strongly suggest a standard for citations, both bibliographic and footnote, but realize that many of our contributors will simply not contribute if those guidelines are too stringent. We who are pioneering this effort can do much to set the standard by adding the right kind of citation now, so whatever the standard we are going to use, we need to stick by them and try to be as consistent as possible. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
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 [[ | 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) | |||
=== Citation Styles: The Real Issue <br> === | === Citation Styles: The Real Issue <br> === | ||