4,043
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Definitely my last comment: reply
I think I'm losing the thread of what I'm saying so will wit for other's comments! [[User:Sarahb|Sarah]] 12:55, 16 November 2009 (PST)
:Wow! I knew there had to be one, but ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28titles%29 WP: MOS Titles]) leads into the whole Wikipedia Manual of Style and it just sucks you in!
:Firstly I apologise about altering "status quo ante" to ''status quo ante bellum''. The latter is the original source of the former and in the context it just struck me as appropriate to use. I italicised because the full phrase is in Latin and such is the convention - in fact, since the FibiWiki will be read by a significant number of readers for whom English is not their first language, this is a very helpful convention to observe fully - more so than Wikipedia suggests. If we ever get around to writing our own manual of style, we need to remember this.
:Secondly, I am not sure that Wikipedia is itself consistent (but I haven't read enough of its MOS so must be careful). When I got going seriously on family history (about 1997), I realised that I needed to learn about how to cite sources and create bibliographies. To cut a long journey short, I ended up with the work of an American genealogist, Elizabeth Shown Mills, the then editor of the ''NGS Journal'', who clearly laid out a system that was based on the ''Chicago Manual of Style'' but adapted to meet the needs of genealogists and family historians who draw information largely from unpublished or private papers and sources.
:Wikipedia's own MOS seems to draw on the Chicago MOS which is helpful. When citing a work, the convention is: Author, ''Title'' (publishing history), text reference. With an encyclopedia, the convention is: (Author if known,) "Entry", ''Title'' (publishing history), ref. So a typcal citation looks like: "East Indian Railway", ''Encylopedia Indiana'', 12 Volumes (Maidenhead: Wilding Press, 2009), 5:10-15. (The very last bit is the specific volume plus pages - English, as opposed to American practice, still tends to spell it out i.e. "Vol 5, pp 10-15". Whoops! too much detail.)
:So for a reference or note to a Wikipedia article, I would use:
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_Army "History of the British Army"], ''Wikipedia'' (accessed 17 November 2009). [The accessed date serves as the date the information was "published" to me.]
:and the reason I have drawn you down this route is that there is a fundamental difference between our FibiWiki and Wikipedia in that much of our material is going to be original research which is anathema to Wikipedia. So at some time, we are going to have to agree a citation style and police it. Unfortunately, the inbuilt referencing tools have not yet been implemented in our version of the wiki software and we must wait until they are. I continue to make noises in the right quarter (not Valmay, I hasten to add).
:I accept that citations are not the saem as external links but it does help to explain why my external links often look like:
:*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_Army "History of the British Army"], ''Wikipedia''.
:*Terry Case, [http://shankardubai.tripod.com/carman.htm "Hal Hughes' family page"], ''North Western Railway''.
:but I am inconsistent and I know I often am with that comma separator after the link symbol.
:So when I have that odd weekend, I will get stuck into the Wikipedia MOS!
:[[User:HughWilding|HughWilding]] 01:36, 17 November 2009 (PST)
::Right, well now I understand perfectly why you italicise in the external links - you are following a referencing style. I think it is unnecessary in the ext links though. But you are right that we need to reference better. Although a lot of our info will always be original research, it is helpful to readers to provide citations where possible, less for the worry over accuracy (as is the case on WP) more to provide sources for those wishing to take the reading further. When we eventually upgrade it will be very easy to reference and WP has a lot of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Citation_templates citation templates] we can borrow.
::Heaven help us if we try and write our own manual of style, but I can see that everyone seems to want some firmer guidelines on certain formatting issues. When I have more time (poss Friday) I will find a better place than Chitral to have this discussion and set out the issues listed here in a very brief way so we can make a collective decision (if such is allowed!) [[User:Sarahb|Sarah]] 12:47, 18 November 2009 (PST)
== Definitely my last comment ==
Hells Bells. What a can of hornets' nests I seem to have poured on the fire. I don't know what anybody reading the Chitral Discussion Page will think. Just a few final points:
# A pity the simple test of clarity can't be our guide.
# Well known Latin (or other foreign) phrases shouldn't need italics to identify them.
# Italics or inverted commas don't assist meaning when applied to the source of an external link e.g. Wikipedia
# I don't think bullet points in a short list such as External Links add any value. The break symbol serves the purpose.
# If we don't use the break symbol because inexperienced editors can't understand it, we reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator. Most editing tools will be too advanced and you expert editors will be hamstrung.
# There must be latitude for variations of approach to a wiki. If we tie ourselves to a Chicago Manual of Style we will soon be writing our dates back to front and too scared to use the passive voice.
# I am definitely not going to study the Wikipedia MOS. Life is too short and I want to spend the time expanding the Fibiwiki. I apologise in advance if this gives the moderators more work.
# I have worried about the lack of references in what we put on the pages. A policy on citations would be helpful.
More apologies that this has turned into a rant. Regards.--[[User:Symorsebrown|Sy]] 10:57, 19 November 2009 (PST)
:A quick reply.
:# Well, we can try, but we still might need a few guidelines.
:# Seems to be the standard method though.
:# I agree.
:# I have a penchant for the bullet point so I will have to disagree with you there.
:# I see your point, but the idea is that wikis are supposed to be editable by anyone. We'll just have to make a decision on this one somehow.
:# And there is. We can work out our own preferred formatting styles as and when the need arises.
:# No, there is no need to any way. Also, if you think we're making a meal out of this discussion here, you'll be astounded by what goes on over there.
:# Yes, it seems that is becoming needed now.
:[[User:Sarahb|Sarah]] 15:42, 22 November 2009 (PST)
