Should I use reference or ref per the Source Style Guidelines?

Question

Sorry if this has been addressed, I am still new to WikiTree...

First, assume all sources and citations (attempt to) follow Evidence Explained.

The Sources Style Guide (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources_Style_Guide) says the following about references:

Sources in this list should always be complete citations, while the references that refer to them can be abbreviated.

Does this imply that every source cited with a ref should also appear as the list of sources via reference? Is this from the department of redundancy department? I do see the difference if the citations are from a book that has other pertinent information (e.g., https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:The_Records_of_the_Church_of_Christ_in_Buxton%2C_Me)

If the ref citation is abbreviated, as noted above, does this risk the loss of the ability to search back to the original data cited, should the reference be removed from the sources? This is my main concern, as I know I'll always need enough data to be able to trace back as to how conclusions were made. External links can always be broken.

The attached profile is just a sample. Note in this case the FamilySearch WW I draft registration is attached as a ref, and the Ancestry record for that data is a See Also reference.

Comments

Here's the first source on that profile.  I wonder if it's from Find A Grave?  :D

↑ ^1.0 1.1 Find A GRAVE, database, Find A Grave (FindAGrave.com : accessed 11 Jan 2016), entry for Guy W Sands, Maple Grove Cemetery, SECTION C, LOT 17: SANDS/(WHITING), Find A Grave Memorial No. 66319877; Find A Grave, Inc., 360 W 4800 N, Provo, UT.

---

I do not get it...  I do not want to be  just  bumped down to "sources"  where I have to find the source by myself... I wanna see it NOW in the top... and that <ref>  that I have been carefully not doing because I do not see a purpose...  oh gads... plz do not  tell me you are going to make me ADD it.  I  screwwwwww  it up  every time I TRY TO  use it... sorry

---

Kay and Carole, 

Citing facts in a narrative requires three pieces of wikitree "code"

1. <ref>
2. </ref>
3. <references />

#3 is only used once--- it needs to be placed just underneath == Sources ==

#1 and #2 "bracket" the citation information like book ends-- <ref> indicates that what follows is a citation for the piece of information just written about in the narrative. </ref> indicates the citation has ended.

Anything placed in between <ref> and </ref> will appear where one has placed the <references /> tag. If the <references /> tag is missing from the profile, the citations will not be displayed. If <references /> appears more than once in a narrative, then the list of sources will also be listed more than once. (This happens when a merge has been completed, but the resulting merged profile not edited.)

As Ellen explains elsewhere in this thread, there are variations with the use of <ref> that include <ref name=> But this is not required.

HOW people use what goes in between <ref> and </ref> varies wildly. And its formatting and usage has changed over the years.

But if you're following EE, then you're in good shape.

Bottom line: the intent of the citation -- wherever you place it -- is to help readers judge the validity of the cited fact, and to include sufficient information to be able to find the source cited.

---

Jilliaine,

Exactly! I’ve learned more about WikiTree. The style is a personal choice. The critical piece is to include sufficient information to find the source cited. My preference is to use ref to associate the source with a single fact, and to use reference for general information. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Whiting-2417

I tend to craft the biography with lots of separate paragraphs, each ref in a separate paragraph, then preview, the remove the extraneous blank lines. I need to try the C button.

---

Lovely profile, Kay. Good example for how to cite sources.

Answer 1

Thank you, Kay, for raising the issue.  First, may I offer a huge Thank You to the person(s) who have improved the Help section (in general) recently.  Much better!

However, I agree that the pages on sources are still quite confusing - and contradictory - and sometimes a departure from former instructions. 

The "See also;" section was formerly used for works which may have additional information, but were not used in writing the biography.

This current definition in Help: Sources Style Guide seems to be the opposite (new and different instructions):

"See also:".

Sources in this list should always be complete citations, while the references that refer to them can be abbreviated.

The page called Help: Sources says the opposite, that there are two ways to add sources.  Either 1) List them at the bottom. This example shows the list under "Sources." or 2) Embed them as references (footnotes) placing the entire citation between ref tags in the body of the biography (old instructions).  This also makes them appear under "Sources."

Several problems here - first, the definitions of terms are not clear or consistent.  The word, "references," on the Style Guide page is used to mean citations, reference notes, inline references, footnotes, or endnotes.

On the Sources page it is defined as references (footnotes), but the instruction is After stating a fact for which you have a source, surround the reference with these two tags, and the example shows a complete source citation between ref tags.

So, is a "reference" a footnote or a source citation - or both?

Are we now placing our references (actually footnotes) under "Sources," and placing our sources under "See also"?

Or, are we still placing our source citations under "Sources" and additional works (not used in the bio) under "See also:"?  (Admittedly, this method leaves no clear place for footnotes)

The new emphasis on sources is wonderful, but ... I'm not a new member, and right now I'm not sure how I am supposed to cite sources.   Some clarification would be welcome.

 

 

Comments

Thanks for the reply. I learned the hard way about citing sources, when I began and had not first researched things like the GPS and EE. After about 6 months I wasn't able to trace my steps back to how I had reached my conclusions, so started a do-over. This time it seemed to work (got DNA confirmation that my trail of the name Toepelt, Toefelt, Toebelt, Topelt, Lapert, Tapelt, Taplet, Taplett was indeed the same family in two generations).

Sources and citations are just plain old confusing, at least at the start. It is distinguished when you actually add a source from scratch to an Ancestry tree, but not for a 'clicky leaf'. As I have been using RootsMagic offline for a couple of years, its pretty obvious there how to distinguish a source and citation (also my cheater for getting an EE form citation.)

As for myself, I prefer the ref citation that ties the source to the individual fact, and the reference sources for things of a more general nature (e.g., the centennial tells stories about the individual, their family, the neighbors).

Answer 2

I believe that most WikiTreers would advise you to provide the complete citation in a footnote, and not repeat the same citation all over again as a "See also" entry.

If you need to cite the identical source twice, you can use the <ref name=> formatting to create multiple citations to the same footnote.

Things get more complicated when you want to cite the same source multiple times in different ways -- for example, multiple pages in one book. In that case, it makes sense to place complete reference citations at the bottom of the profile and provide abbreviated citations in the individual footnotes. ADDED: And, as you note, this is the best way to handle a source that contains relevant information that you haven't extracted into the WikiTree biography.

I wouldn't provide separate citations to the same record on FamilySearch and Ancestry. Instead, you could include both links in the same footnote. (E.g., "Accessed at FamilySearch and Ancestry.com.")

Comments

If you want to provide a long excerpt from a source, but you don't want to put it in the text, that's another reason to put the content in the Sources list, but not in a footnote.