0
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats (view source)
Revision as of 17:29, 17 August 2009
, 17 August 2009no edit summary
(Comment) |
No edit summary |
||
| 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 10: | Line 10: | ||
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 [[user:bibliostuff|Bibliostuff]] 17:27, 17 Aug 2009.<br> | |||
=== Citation Styles: The Real Issue <br> === | === Citation Styles: The Real Issue <br> === | ||
| Line 71: | Line 73: | ||
:Dropdown menu does not exist even in Wikipedia. It is not encouraged, to keep it simple worldwide. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC) | :Dropdown menu does not exist even in Wikipedia. It is not encouraged, to keep it simple worldwide. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Thank you Charlene. I think the easier it is for someone to source cite, the more likely they will create the citation. I am not sure how practical a dropdown list would be, I would encourage any brainstorming ideas. Even if they are not practical, it may stimulate other ideas. Even if Wikipedia does not have them, it is still technically possible. I am not sure who does not encourage them, it may be a personal preference. As I intimated, I do not think it is very practical due to the number of potential references and who is to say which are most referenced without starting global disputes? Likewise, I am not sure how practical a fill-in-the-blank form would be. It would be nice to see if someone can check out or request such an extension for the editor. This would be easier that going to another website, enter, copy & paste, etc.. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC) | :Thank you Charlene. I think the easier it is for someone to source cite, the more likely they will create the citation. I am not sure how practical a dropdown list would be, I would encourage any brainstorming ideas. Even if they are not practical, it may stimulate other ideas. Even if Wikipedia does not have them, it is still technically possible. I am not sure who does not encourage them, it may be a personal preference. As I intimated, I do not think it is very practical due to the number of potential references and who is to say which are most referenced without starting global disputes? Likewise, I am not sure how practical a fill-in-the-blank form would be. It would be nice to see if someone can check out or request such an extension for the editor. This would be easier that going to another website, enter, copy & paste, etc.. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 19:49, 24 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) | 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) | ||
=== Related pages === | === Related pages === | ||
[[FamilySearch Wiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] | [[FamilySearch Wiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] | ||