Proposal: Update the Help:Sources Style Guide

Question

A recent discussion brought up the Help:Sources Style Guide, which reminded me how much I loathe this particular page.  It is poorly written, and confusing.  It incorrectly defines and incorrectly uses the terms Sources/References/Citations/Footnotes.  It is the source for the strange wikitree use of the term “See also” when “See also” is not what was intended.  When I was new to wikitree I wrote this G2G post about the Sources Style Guide which explains what I mean. As someone fairly computer savvy, that page was almost laughable.  Four years later, nothing has changed. It was pointed out to me that mentors point new wikitree users to this page as the right way to provide their sources.  No wonder new members are so confused and have a hard time picking up wikitree’s wiki markup language.

It is time to update the Help:Sources Style Guide.  I propose to replace:

• This old version of the Help:Sources Style Guide with this
• New version of the Help:Sources Style Guide

I hope you agree that the new version is better organized, more clearly explains sources, more closely matches the styles we use, is understandable to new members, and is helpful to wikitree editors of all skill levels.

It includes a number of styling changes I think should be explicitly stated.  For example, the old page recommends one subsection under sources, the (strange) “See also”.  The new page recognizes that there are actually four subsections to sources – Footnotes and citations, Source List/Bibliography, See also, and Acknowledgements.  The new page correctly defines and uses these types of sources.  Yes, I want to take away “Acknowledgements” as a level 2 heading; how did something which is called completely unnecessary be given the same level two status as Biography and Sources?

It includes instructions for how to cite multiple pages from a single book.  It includes a link to a page for the use of the <span id> tag.   In my other proposal from the other day regarding <span id> tags, one draw back was the Help:Sources Style Guide would have to be rewritten – well here you go.

I know all of you have your own personal preferences for how to style sources.  Part of this proposal is to provide a clear outline for how sources are done, and at the same time recognize that there is more than one way to do it correctly.  I expect lots of criticism and suggestions.  I am posting this even though the page is not close to being done, and I am inviting ideas for improvements.  This is what I came up with on my first day of working on it.

Comments

relevant Help page:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Developing_New_Rules

---

Thank you, Lindy!  That is helpful.

---

Joe, who is The Team?

---

The Team:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:WikiTree_Team

---

Thank you again!  I will know for next time.

---

Okay back at it.  Heather, is there a help page for Source Pages in general, and can you give me some good examples of them?  I am not a big or user of them.

---

Joe, There's the link initially posted way above:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Category-Source

which then links to:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:How_to_Share_Sources_on_WikiTree

I see these are free-space pages and not official WikiTree help pages.

---

A long time ago I made a YouTube video that explains the basics:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U63ZYOPVS8o

The video is a little dated, but the basics are all the same.

---

Thank you Jillaine.  Rick I added to the section The Use of Source Pages.  I did not go into great detail as I think this Advanced Sourcing technique is best handled with its own help page.  I also added some example pages which can be changed if you have some you like better.

Since I am not a big user of the source pages I did not realize how integral the use of the <span id> tag and of Short Citations was to these pages.

---

Thanks Joe, That looks greats.

People that use these pages are free to use any source method. The examples are not requirements. These pages can be used without <span id> or Short Citations.

Answer 1

Oh, joy be, it is frabjous, and I'd vote for it, do vote for it, at the blink of an eye !!!

Comments

I must admit I googled "frabjous."  Turns out it's a real word.  Thank you Susan.

Answer 2

Quite nice Joe! I appreciate the thought and effort that you put into this topic and do endorse the changes. That page has bothered me as well. I much prefer span code for citations but reluctantly gave it up when leaders were asked not to use it. I haven't found another method that works for me as well as span did. I would very much like to see it as an approved option.

One suggestion I have is to mention the citation machine on the help page. That handy tool is mentioned on every profile page so I think it deserves a  mention. I don't use it much unless the source citation is a complicated one but it is instructive and easy to use.

At some point, I'd also like for someone to flesh out the meaning and use of perma links for web pages.

My 2 cents. Thanks again.

Comments

The Citation Machine is on my to-do list.

I have much more to say about weblinks in sources.  That section will be fleshed out to be more informative.

Answer 3

Marvelous work, Joe. Thank you  It's not too long which will help newcomers to sources at WikiTree.

Comments

One thing I wouldn't change (but you could add your =web page= wordings) on the old style page, I would want to leave ==Commercial Sites as Sources== intact. It stands out more, for newcomers, and also lists the alternative sites to obtain sources.

The EE citation example, on old style, is clear too.

---

I added the Commercial Sites note from the other page.  I may modify it later slightly.

Answer 4

Let me preface this by saying that I think the Help:Sources and Help:Sources Style Guide pages are past due for an update. Anything we can do to clarify the guidelines where some confusion may exist is 100% appropriate and necessary in my mind.

As proposed, I am sorry to say that I am 100% against the proposal as presented, some of the reasons behind this are as follows (in no particular order):

1. As presented, this proposed revision will lead to even more confusion since your focus is solely on updating Help:Sources Style Guide while covering information already in Help:Sources (i.e., How to add sources to profiles).
   
   So the two pages either need to be updated in tandem, or need to be replaced by "one version to rule them all", which may be a bit complicated for new users to take into consideration (as a single page).
    
2. Under Definitions, there is the issue that no matter what function a Source, Reference, or Footnote may be used for, they are all provided in the same way, using either bulleted lists or between <ref>...</ref> tags.
   
   As an example, the function of a wiki is very different than that of other word processing platforms which are paginated and support the full use of footnotes. In the case of a wiki, we can really only support endnotes since there are no pages. But these have to be provided in the same format as either a short or full citation, between the <ref>...</ref> tags or manually added.
    
3. Acknowledgements is going to cross-over with yet another style and standard page, Help:Acknowledgements.
    
4. The proposed Advanced Sourcing section includes a proposal within itself that is not approved, and any such approval (or agreement).

Comments

Now I think you are being a contrarian just to be argumentative.  If you are 100% against the proposal, you are saying you would rather keep the garbage than make any effort to improve the help pages.  This is one of the problems with wikitree, it is so hard to make improvements or for suggestions to be taken seriously. 

1. Yes, both the Help:Sources and the Help:Sources Style Guide needs to be revised in tandom.  No problem.  I actually found it almost impossible to talk about Sources Style without talking about Sources.  I personally think you shouldn't and the two pages should be revised into a single page.  If the feeling is the page is too long, I can easily split it into two.
2. Yes, the function of a wiki webpage is different than a book, or a journal, or a research paper.  That is why the words Sources/References/Citations/Footnotes were defined as they were.  The current usage is confusing, contradictory and nonsensical.  I think it is helpful to clearly define the terms and note that a Source is a little different than Reference which is a little different than a Citation which is a little different than a Footnote.  If I was writing a collegiate level research paper and told I had to use MLA format, I might define these terms differently.  Perhaps I don't even really understand your concern.
3. Yes, the Help:Acknowledgements page needs to be rewritten.  I don't see this as a problem.  When I have 10 minutes I will do this also.
4. This is your real problem with the proposal, isn't it? Your personal disapproval of the <span id> tag.  You know you are in a small minority of users and a small minority of leaders - most want the restriction against the <span id> tag used in sources removed.  One of your concerns about the <span id> tag was that the Help:Sources Style Guide would have to be rewritten.  I have taken care of that for you.

---

If you are 100% against the proposal, you are saying you would rather keep the garbage than make any effort to improve the help pages.

Quite to the contrary, as mentioned in the preface of my response. In case you missed it, let me state it again. I think the Help:Sources and Help:Sources Style Guide pages are past due for an update. Anything we can do to clarify the guidelines where some confusion may exist is 100% appropriate and necessary in my mind.

My objection and current stance on your proposal is based partially on the reasons I gave (Items #1-4). You have provided a rebuttal to these items which I will review in more depth below, but please let me reiterate that I am not against any proposal to modify these pages, only against the documented proposal contained on your linked page.

1. Yes, both the Help:Sources and the Help:Sources Style Guide needs to be revised in tandom.  No problem.  I actually found it almost impossible to talk about Sources Style without talking about Sources.  I personally think you shouldn't and the two pages should be revised into a single page.  If the feeling is the page is too long, I can easily split it into two.

My gut feeling is that they should remain as two separate help pages (speaking as a Mentor and Mediator who has dealt with numerous sourcing cases where we could reference one and partially ignore the other for a specific issue), but if it makes sense to combine these and it helps to clarify things for both new and existing members without being "information overload", then I am all for it. The overall intent was neither discussed nor clear when reading the post or proposal, hence my bringing it up here.

2. Yes, the function of a wiki webpage is different than a book, or a journal, or a research paper.  That is why the words Sources/References/Citations/Footnotes were defined as they were.  The current usage is confusing, contradictory and nonsensical.  I think it is helpful to clearly define the terms and note that a Source is a little different than Reference which is a little different than a Citation which is a little different than a Footnote.  If I was writing a collegiate level research paper and told I had to use MLA format, I might define these terms differently.  Perhaps I don't even really understand your concern.

I believe part of the confusion here is the difference between technical terms and definitions as known and listed through dictionaries or styles (CMoS, MLA, etc.) and what those terms mean on WikiTree. This is the concern with defining each one differently, that while technically correct in other places, it is not defined the same here.

On WikiTree, a Source is tantamount to what these other styles or definitions may define as the works cited or bibliography. These are the complete citations that we all know and love:

Lahiri, Jhumpa. In Other Words. Translated by Ann Goldstein. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016.

References are then defined as what these other styles or definitions would determine to be citations, reference notes, inline references, footnotes, or endnotes:

Jhumpa Lahiri, In Other Words, trans. Ann Goldstein (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016), 184.

or shortened:

Lahiri, In Other Words, 184.

When this is all put together, you could have:

---

A bulleted List:

Biography

This is text supported by a source.

Sources

• Lahiri, Jhumpa. In Other Words. Translated by Ann Goldstein. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016.

---

An inline citation:

Biography

This is text supported by a source.^[1]

Sources

1. ↑ Lahiri, Jhumpa. In Other Words. Translated by Ann Goldstein. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016.

---

A source list with references:

Biography

This is text supported by a source^[1]

Sources

1. ↑ Lahiri, In Other Words, 184.

• Lahiri, Jhumpa. In Other Words. Translated by Ann Goldstein. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016.

---

4. This is your real problem with the proposal, isn't it? Your personal disapproval of the <span id> tag.  You know you are in a small minority of users and a small minority of leaders - most want the restriction against the <span id> tag used in sources removed. 

My personal feeling on the usage of the <span> tag is superficial to this discussion except where it has been included herein to this, separate, proposal (Item #4 above). Even with that stipulation removed, there are still some other concerns as we have started to address above. Once all of those concerns I have raised have been discussed, modified or otherwise dispositioned, I would be happy to support your proposal.

Whether or not I am in the minority is also irrelevant. There is really no need to explain this, but for the sake of clarity, just note that I am simply expressing my viewpoint as a collaborative member of this community. No matter which way the discussion goes, or whether or not any (or all) of this approved, I will support that decision.

One of your concerns about the <span id> tag was that the Help:Sources Style Guide would have to be rewritten.  I have taken care of that for you.

I believe some of the comments I have made are starting to cross over proposals. In regards to the <span> tag, my objections were given from the stance of 1) My involvement as a Mentor/Mediator; 2) Collaboration on shared profiles where multiple styles exist; and 3) My opinion on how I believe thee added complexity of using the <span> tag does not outweigh the perceived benefits.

My followup comment did indeed mention revision of Help:Sources Style Guide, but it was not in regards to the need for revision itself, but the consequences that would arise from including new methods of sourcing within that revision. In my opinion, that has not been addressed through this proposal.

---

As my Dream Sources page has said for a long time I wish all help pages regarding sources would be placed on a single page. It's never been clear to me the distinction between Sources and Source Style Guide. I think Joe's proposal heads in that direction but does not explicitly state a single page.

---

As I mentioned, I would be fine with a single page that is well laid out and covers everything it needs to cover, without being overly long or excessive.

As it stands now, Help:Sources is the starting point for sourcing, while Help:Sources Style Guide is listed as the "info on the technical elements or styling of the Sources section".

Expanding that a bit further, I wonder if the new Help:Sources FAQ should also be included in any discussions of combining pages?

---

Just wondering how many of the 71 (at most) leaders have given their opinion about the "span " tag. (My gut feeling is that too few gave it to conclude that an overwhelming majority support it, but of course I may be wrong). For the record: I hate it and never use it (caveat: I prefer to work on 19th and early 20th century profile and do not quote a lot of books; at least, very rarely several different pages of the same book on the same profile).

Answer 5

Saying "The preferred method of sourcing is to attach each fact to a specific source." offends the heck out of me.  I would prefer it if you would at least say "A preferred method of sourcing."

Comments

Really?  I can change the word "The" to "A" if it is offensive.

I assume you are someone who prefers a source list to inline citations?  I think the page makes clear this is acceptable as a style.  However, it is also my belief that wikitree does strongly prefer the use of inline citations where individual facts can be associated with specific sources.

---

Honestly, Joe, my impression from the last thread on this subject is that I'm not the only one who'd rather you stick with "The."

---

I would vote for "The" as well, (give them an inch....)

Answer 6

I like the revised Style Guide, Joe.  Just a couple of comments and questions:

I'm not sure it's accurate to say it is required that the last section on a profile be Sources.  Rather, it is the last required section, but if people add a DNA Confirmation section, it is supposed to come after Sources.

You might consider noting that although "<references />" is required, it only shows up in edit mode.

In your section on repeated use of a source, I don't understand the use of  <ref>[[#Smith| Smith]], p. 182.</ref>

or how it affects what appears on the page.

I know the page is still in draft form, but if at any point you want some more "copy editor" comments--about such things as consistent punctuation and capitalization--I would be happy to provide them.  And won't blame you if you don't!

Comments

I fixed the <ref>[[#Smith| Smith]], p. 182.</ref> thing.  It was a copy-paste from the <Span id> page which I didn't adjust back to the simplified style.

The "last section" may be a personal preference of mine.  I really think NOTHING should come after sources, as a matter of a consistent style within WikiTree.  To me, even things like DNA confirmation should be a section at the end of the biography and before the sources.  I can certainly change this if it is not a consensus. 

I could use a copy editor - my fingers don't always type what my brain is thinking.

---

Re copy editing, please just let me know when you're ready.

I totally agree with you about the Sources being last.  But you will get a Suggestion if you don't have your DNA information listed below the Sources heading.  My own solution is to put the DNA section before the Sources, then make a final bulleted source saying "Paternal (or maternal) relationship is confirmed by DNA as described above."  It's my understanding that will work because all the automated error checker is looking for is certain words below the sources heading.  However, I hesitate to recommend that to others because I'm not sure it conforms to official WikiTree policy.

Edit:  See following comments for clarification.

---

The other thing that currently comes after Sources is the Magna Carta trail.

It's not my favorite place for it, but I didn't want to argue with the person (who I really respect) who chose to put it there.

---

But you will get a Suggestion if you don't have your DNA information listed below the Sources heading.

The DNA confirmation error only appears if the words "Paternal/Maternal relationship" are missing from the confirmation statement on the profile.  Mine are all still in a ==DNA section== placed above the Sources heading.  This was the instruction that was given in the previous version of the DNA confirmation help page. None of these profiles have suggestion errors.

---

Karen, I got many suggestions when I had my DNA sections above the sources, even though I had those words in them.  I can't explain why you and I have had different experiences.

---

OK, I checked.  The DNA Confirmation Help page does not say you need a separate section.  What it does say is:

Every time you mark a child's relationship to their parent as Confirmed with DNA you must add a source citation to the == Sources == section of the child's profile that explains how you made the DNA-confirmed conclusion.

Answer 7

There's a great Wikitreer named Joe,  

Who's revising to make the Style Guide flow...

since many of us complain

that sourcing's a damn peevish pain,

Joe's updating so we're all in the know!

Ok...well I tried for something different. So let the heckling commence. I'm gearing up for St. Paddy's Day. No prizes for reminding me to shove the limericks and stick to Guinness.

Comments

LOVE it.

---

Brilliant, Carol, that gave me a good chuckle 

And a nice way to recognise the sterling work Joe is doing to improve our sourcing guidance.

Answer 8

Absolutely wonderful job!

Answer 9

I'll echo other people in saying this is a great start.  However I can't see anywhere who this is for?

I'm presuming that it is for people on WikiTree who don't know much about sources/sourcing and nothing about how to cite sources on WikiTree?

If that's correct, then I think some words/concepts are introduced without fully explaining what they mean, and that can be a problem for anyone learning something new.

For instance I would delete "Whether the source is good or bad, reliable or unreliable, primary or secondary" if the aim of that first section is just to get people to understand the definition of a source.  Perhaps a statement like that is better in a section or whole new page about 'Quality of sources'?

The same goes for that second paragraph in the 'How to Add Sources to Profiles', there is a mention of inline citations and footnotes but what they are isn't fully explained until later.  I would move most or all of that paragraph to the section 'Embed them into the narrative'.  The first paragraph could then be something like "... the tag <references /> is also required.  It's use will be explained later."

I'm really getting nitpicking now, but I would rearrange the second paragraph in the 'List them at the bottom of a profile' so that it is a positive and then negative, e.g. "When an entire profile is based on just a couple of sources, this method works well, but has the disadvantage of not associating a specific fact with a specific source"  I would then add an example of what that means.

That will do for now and apologies if I've been more detailed then you wanted.

Comments

The profile is for whoever wants to read the help page for sources.  This was sort of prompted Steve's statement that mentors frequently point new members to these pages.  I personally found these pages to be confusing and not helpful when I was new, so I figured it was finally time to fix them.  I imagine new members are most likely to be directed to the help page, but I hope that it is eventually comprehensive enough that everyone can pickup something useful.

In the first paragraph about sources, I didn't want to get too wordy defining sources (primary vs secondary etc.).  The page is already going to be long as it is.  A separate Quality of Sources page is a good idea.

Same with that second paragraph you mentioned, I didn't want to get too long in my explanations.  I have used the dreaded <span id> tag to link the first mentions of inline citations and footnotes to their definitions.  Does this work now for you?

I used your sentence to put the positive before negative.  There is a big box demonstrating a bulleted source list, are you saying you just want it below the sentence you mentioned?

Answer 10

As you note, Joe, we all have our personal preferences for sourcing. We also may have developed our own overall styles for the entire text box. In my opinion, some of your proposed guidelines intrude into these personal preferences (which, to me, are or were encouraged to entice us to join WikiTree.com; and which I feel should remain within our scope as WikiTreers).

One such intrusion into my personal style is your proposal to move the Acknowledgments section under the Sources heading. I do not agree that an acknowledgment is a source; thus I do not believe Acknowledgments should be under Sources.

I also do not agree that the Sources heading should be the last (main) heading. My opinion is that Acknowledgments, as an optional main heading, should appear below Sources.

Another area of disagreement regards your proposal to designate inline citation as the preferred sourcing method. I believe we should not designate any method as preferred, if our goal is to encourage all members, regardless of their levels of proficiency, to cite sources.

My overall opinion is that your proposal does address some of the deficiencies of the current Sources_Style_Guide Help page. However, I feel that your current proposal may have biases and confusion that we need to eliminate first.

Comments

I like the various heading levels because they provide navigation links and because they provide clear separation between and within sections and subsections.

You like non-heading levels because they are less obtrusive and because they provide clear separation of the different elements in the profile.

Neither style should be discouraged and neither style should be preferred over the other. Both our styles and those of our fellow WikiTreers can and should be accommodated and encouraged.

As long as we present a logical, readable flow in our text, with citations that provide sufficient information to enable viewers to find our supporting documentation, we should be not be tied to "a" or "the" preferred style. And if a style is designated as "the" preferred style, then we are ultimately tied to that "the" preferred style.

Our style guidelines should be as free as possible from value judgments and perceived restrictions. The guidelines should also accommodate a natural flow from beginner level to intermediate level to advanced level, placing no obligation on WikiTreers to advance beyond their own personal comfort zones.

---

I am sure we agree fundamentally on the ultimate goal of your proposal, Joe: building each profile from that first source to a well-written and well-documented profile. We just disagree somewhat on how to reach that goal (and perhaps what constitutes that goal).

I think as we move from newbie to veteran WikiTreer, we forget how confusing our early days were for us; thus, we try to force today's newbies to veteran status without allowing them the time, experience, and instructions to grow into that role.

We also forget that profiles are in constant evolution from bare-bones creation to finished "product." We need to allow time for that evolution, too.

In my opinion, we should begin this style guideline page from the newbie's viewpoint and explain those first basic steps to sourcing a profile. Then we can move to the clearly defined intermediate steps, such as inline citations; and finally to the clearly defined advanced steps, such as span citations.

---

I like and agree with Lindy's last paragraph above.

---

Lindy, I do remember being new to WikiTree.  It wasn't very long ago.  I agree that it is good to allow, and help, new members to evolve into doing better profiles.  Beginners often need help and it is in WikiTree's interest to provide it.

But I could not disagree more with your statement that our style guidelines should be free of value judgements.  I don't think that is necessary in order to encourage newcomers and it won't do anything to help them improve, or to help improve the overall quality of WikiTree.

---

In my opinion, the reason we have editing conflicts and disagreements is because we all add our own personal value judgments into our work.

We need judgment-free guidelines to resolve our conflicts and disagreements, at least on Help pages that are designed to provide instructions.

---

Lindy, I'm really seeking to understand. How is stating a "preferred" (not "required") style full of judgment (ie, not judgment free)? I don't see how we can have a style that is not preferred.  Would the word "recommended" be more palatable to you?

---

My basic viewpoint is that this style guideline page should simply show us how to create and add the different types of citations to a profile, and not restrict us to any concept of "preferred," which implies that any different style is not preferred; which, in turn, implies that we are free to change any style that is not the preferred style.

To me, the issue in the purpose of the specific guideline page itself, which, in my opinion, is to provide clear, simple instructions on the how-to for citations.

---

Lindy,

I believe you're conflating help text with style guidelines. 

Help text tells us how to do things.

A style guide is a preference, if you will, for when there is conflict; see the opening paragraphs in: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Styles_and_Standards

So what I think you're saying, then, is that there should be NO style guide for sourcing/source citations, just help text.

My concern is that would lead to edit wars, or at best, a patchwork of different approaches on a given profile.  I would find that, as a newcomer, very confusing, and I would seek to understand what the preferred approach is so that I'm not getting into conflicts with other members.

---

I am specifically commenting on the Help:Sources Style Guide page and the proposal to revise that page.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting this section of the Help:Style FAQ page but my understanding is that all official style guidelines are found under the Help: namespace.

Also, my interpretation would be that the referenced category page is simply a convenient access point to the actual style guideline Help pages.

Any resultant edit wars can be handled as they currently should be handled, via the Problems with Members procedures.

---

At first glance, I have to say that escalating conflicts that could be solved by simple policy or help pages to Problems with Members is not a good idea, and will further add to the burden of the Mentors and Mediators.

Answer 11

I would like to see someone write The Compleat Guide to WikiTree and WikiText, to have everything in one place instead of a multitude of individual pages and guides that most people don't know are there or how to look for.

With an index.

Comments

Maybe you could propose an outline.

---

That would involve my knowing more than I do

---

I hope I didn't sound sarcastic.  Organizing WikiTree information is obviously challenging.  Someone looking for information might start with the "Intro to WikiTree" which is available on the drop-down Help menu at the upper right of most screens.  Then by scrolling to the bottom you can find Learning How to Use WikiTree.  Click on the first link and it will take you to the New Member How-To category that has  links to Help pages.  You can also try the Help Index.

Steve Tibbetts has compiled a nice list of links at:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jlRaiRtaMEpsPdeuRLS2ids4HAXJyGVCKiQyEMh4NNE/edit#gid=1869015104

---

I think this discussion illustrates the problem. WT has aids for beginners to get started, but beyond that point resources for using the site are scattered all over the place, with no guide for finding them and contradictory guides for using them.

---

Maybe it is worth a separate post, since it's not the main subject of this thread.

---

Lois, there is both a Help Category and a Help Index right off the Help menu.  How is that "scattered all over the place"?

And now that I've written this, yes this should be its own g2g thread. Lois, perhaps you'd like to expand upon your concern and start a new g2g thread about it.

---

Lois,

I think you might under estimate your possible contributions to this goal when you say  "That would involve my knowing more than I do".   You provide a fresh look at the organization challenges.   You're actually trying to find information,  the more experienced WikiTreers have already adapted and can locate information because of their familiarity.   You'd be an excellent person to propose an outline that makes sense to the inexperienced.

---

Peggy, what does it take to be a "more experienced WikiTreer"?  

There's not a day that I work on WikiTree when I don't spend time trying to find something on the site.

And by the way (just because it's not worth a separate post, or not now anyway), how the heck does one find out if any particular tag exists in order to tag a G2G question?  Couldn't there be an alphabetical list in addition to the list in order of popularity?

Answer 12

Joe,

I have three main problems:

I - Terminology:

1 - Source. Your definition is fine, but you frequently use it when you actually mean citations or references. We don't add sources to a profile, we add source citations or source references.

2 - Citation. You limit the term to inline citations. But if inline citations are not used, citations (not just references) could be listed under sources.

3 - Footnote. In normal usage, an inline citation is just a type of footnote. We use <ref> tags to create footnotes, which can consist either of an inline citation or other information.

II - Bias in favor of using a separate list of sources

Having a list of sources separate from the footnotes is just one acceptable technique. It is not required, and it should not be suggested that it is approved over just having footnotes. I note that genealogical articles (as well as articles in certain other fields) generally just have footnotes and do not have a separate list of sources. All of your examples of proper technique have a separate source list, which suggests that that is the only proper style.

III - Bias in favor of using <span id> tags

Under Advanced Sourcing (which should actually be Advanced Citation Techniques), you suggest that if you want to refer to different pages of a single source, that you shouldn't use regular <ref> tags and <ref name=> tags, but should instead use <span id> tags. That is just your personal preference. Using regular <ref> tags and <ref name=> works fine to reference different pages of a single source. I use it all the time and think it's superior to using <span id> tags.

Comments

"You are still just repeating the entire citation every time you have a have different page number. " 

I view that as a feature rather than a bug. Short citations are useful for old-fashioned hard copy articles with footnotes because you don't want footnotes taking up your entire page. And were particularly useful pre-wordprocessing, where you couldn't just cut and paste in the citation and change the page number. For a webpage with hyperlinked footnotes, it's no extra work to create a new footnote with the full cite and space is not an issue. Giving the reader immediate access to the full citation is arguably more user-friendly them requiring them to look for the full cite or having click on a link to find it.

I think we agreed long ago to agree to disagree on our citation techniques. I am just objecting to what I see as your proposed policy saying that your technique works and mine and others don't. Re my objections on the Advanced Souring section, I would OK if you just got rid or the changed the headings and got rid of the caveat.

---

Based on Jun 5, 2015 G2G's Proposed ULTIMATE Solution to Source Policy that Satisfies Everyone, which was closed on Jul 15, 2018 with the note 'It was decided this style is not recommended.', I would say that the practice of making 'ref names for all my source citations at the bottom of the bio (just above Sources and hidden using a <span class=hidden> tag)' is also not recommended.

---

Re Ultimate solution - If I recall correctly, the technical reason the Ultimate Solution was rejected was because the <ref name=> citations were placed between Sources and <references/>. I don't do that. The only "non-recommended" feature I use is the <span class=hidden> which is used for the cosmetic benefit of not having a meaningless row of footnote flags show up at the bottom of the bio, whereas <span id> are the core of Joe's technique. But both of us are grappling with the same issue that the techniques that are 100% compliant have some significant drawbacks.

---

Based on the above exchange, I wonder if it makes sense to distinguish between profiles that are likely to be worked on mostly by one person and profiles that are covered by projects or have multiple managers or editors.  If Chase wants to use a particular system of source notation--viewable in edit mode; it shows up the same as other methods on the public profile page--on his grandfather's profile, for example, why should I care?  But when multiple people need to work on a profile, then the method should be something everyone can use.

I don't want to complicate things further.  But maybe the distinction between pre- and post-1700 profiles could be used, as it is already used for sourcing standards.

---

Using one technique doesn't prevent another technique from working. It's more of a cosmetic and consistency issue. The biggest issue with consistency is whether a profile uses just a sources list, uses just footnotes, or uses both footnotes and a separate sources list -- eg, if there is a profile that has footnotes and a full sources list, it's not ideal if someone adds an inline citation but doesn't add the source to the sources list, or if there is a profile that does not use a sources list and someone adds a footnote and a creates a sources list just for the source referenced in that footnote. But again, this is more cosmetic than substantive.

---

I agree with Julie, in my opinion the reason WikiTree has style and standards is because this makes collaboration easier.  If all profiles are basically similar than anyone should feel comfortable about adding information/sources/citations etc.

Where someone is using a certain style that is well outside of the standard accepted by the WikiTree community then that makes collaboration more difficult.  I've certainly come across profiles where I would like to have added sourced information but decided it wasn't worth the effort in trying to understand how the profile was set up.  Particularly as there is always plenty of other profiles that need assistance.

---

Consistency is important!  I used to tell my staff, when I was an accounting supervisor "If you can't be right, then at least be consistent because then it's easier to correct your mistakes."

Consistency in the page, for the reader, is important so readers will not miss sources, but I suppose they can wade through both lists (footnotes and source list).  And for the editors, I suppose newcomers shouldn't be editing complicated, project-managed profiles anyway, so if the rest of us have to wade through a dense and inconsistent page as viewed in edit mode, I guess we can do it, but it's not ideal.

---

It makes sense to distinguish standards adherence rigor according to profile ancestry criteria, my preference being for enforcement strictness extent based on whether or not profile privacy level is Public. Public profile, more strict, other privacy levels, less strict might work.

---

Well, if I thought I was confused to begin with, I am more so now.

---

Ha! I am totally stealing this at work when pushing documentation templates for code...

Answer 13

At first glance it looks good and is (at least in my opinion) a clearer explanation how to use the ref tags with several citations in a source. (My problem)

I have a little remark though: In the paragraph that starts with the big "Sections" there is the table saying "1. Citations and Footnotes", but in the explanations you write "Inline Citations and Footnotes". Please change one of the lines that they are consistent. 

Comments

No.  If they're not in-line, then they're simply sources, not citations.

---

The text that describes a source is a citation of that source.

A citation is not required to be inline to be a citation.

"We cite our sources." In other words, we add a citation.

...my opinions and interpretations...

---

Googling, I find this definition of "cite":

1.

quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.

So if I am not providing a source as justification for a particular argument or statement, I would call that a source and not a citation.

---

And google.com gives me this definition for citation:

"noun: citation; plural noun: citations

1.

a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work."

I stand by my interpretation.

---

I agree!

Something like, all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs.

---

these definitions have good distinctions among the differing terms 

Citation:  "a written reference to a specific work or portion of a work (book, article, dissertation, report, musical composition, etc.) produced by a particular author, editor, composer, etc., clearly identifying the document in which the work is to be found."

Reference: "...Sometimes used synonymously with citation."

Source: "Any document that provides information sought by a writer, researcher, library user, or person searching an online catalog or bibliographic database. Also refers to a document that provides information copied or reproduced in another document, for example, a quotation or excerpt."

 --From ODLIS (Online Dictionary of Library and Information Science)

---

Thank you Jo for the useful alternative definitions.  

I find the source definition, while absolutely correct, to be unnecessarily complicated.  I'm trying to keep things concise and simple - "A source is where your information came from" works perfectly for WikiTree purposes imo.

I like the References "sometimes used synonymously with citation."  It allows me to stick to my guns about precision in our language, and also acknowledge that there are citation styles where they are used interchangeably.

I have incorporated some of the wording into the citation definition.

The definitions of sources/references/citations/footnotes differ quite a bit depending on which citation style you using, and what type of work you are producing (book, journal article, term paper or web page).  I feel that people certainly correct in their alternative definitions, but are arguing for specific styles that they are used to.  It is my goal to be both precise and concise in our definitions and to define these terms in a way which makes sense for their usage on WikiTree web pages specifically.

I have added to the definitions of references, citations and footnotes to acknowledge the different ways people use these terms while still maintaining some precision of language.

---

Thank you for the work you're doing on the proposed guide.

I hoped that definitions from a dictionary in library science might shift the focus of the discussion to a more neutral plane.  By necessity, the field of library science (where many genealogist begin academic study) accomodates the varieties of different style guides and recognizes peculiarities of each particular "brands".  Librarians can assist people doing research from different disciplines and provide answers about the necessary citation format.  

Please reconsider using the single term "citation" as a substitute when you are talking about inline citations in the proposed guide.  Inline citations are not synonymous with citations. Inline citations are a kind of citation, a subset of citations. The phrases cannot be used interchangeably.   

A citation is descriptive language about a source containing essential elements.  The citation can be placed in a bibliographic list, as in the Source list, or it can be placed between reference tags and become an inline citation.  It can be counted, indexed, and compiled.  Citation is the broader term and is used in more contexts. 

---

For the purposes of WikiTree, I think "citation" and "inline citation" can be used interchangeably.  If there are places where this is confusing I can change it.

With your definition of citation, which I am not saying is wrong, then there is no difference between the words reference and citation.  I don't need two words which mean the exact same thing, especially on a web page where references/citations/footnotes all occur together. It just causes more confusion, not less.  I find it simpler to define a reference as that written description of a source in the Source list; and a citation as a form of a reference that we put between <ref>...</ref> tags.  It lets me be much more precise about what I am talking about.

As I said, your definition is not wrong.  I am conceding that point and am including in the definition of both references and citations the fact that the two terms are often used synonymously. I find this to be more useful for discussing sources on WikiTree, while acknowledging the more colloquial usage of the terms.  Basically, if I say Citations, I want people to know we are specifically talking about Inline Citations created by <ref>...</ref> tags. 

---

Very clearly stated, Joe!

Answer 14

I think this improves on the old guide in many ways. The main revisions I would like:

1. It is rather long if it's primary intention is for new Wikitreers. Most are just antsy to just get out there and start connecting themselves. In editing the Help:Sources Style Guide in tandem with the Help:Sources, I'd assuming the latter is the "landing page" and try to keep it short and sweet. But I guess this would be primarily a decision about what information to put in which page.

2. Since we refer users to Evidence Explained, I think it is useful to use Mills's terminology. Sources are original, derivative, or authored, while the information they contain is primary or secondary. These are useful words, and it was wise of someone to come up with a list of five that have no repetition. In particular, while historians refer to "secondary sources", and disagree about what that means, I believe it is standard now for genealogists to refrain from this language. So I'd reword the two sentences that say "Whether the source is good or bad, reliable or unreliable, primary or secondary," either replacing the latter words by "authored, derivative, or original" or replacing the word "source" by "information." 

Comments

I guess it is strange then that EE is explicitly referenced in the help pages. Regarding the definitions:  some time ago I found some online discussion of the definitions that I found interesting -- I just dug out a couple of the old posts that came to mind:

https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/314/why-do-historical-and-genealogical-scholars-differ-in-their-approach-to-classify/342

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/24195/can-a-source-be-considered-primary-if-it-is-not-written-by-an-eyewitness-and-p

I see three definitions of "secondary source", with primary then being whatever is left.

* secondary sources were not written at the time of the events they record

* secondary sources were not written by eyewitnesses to the events they record

* secondary sources interpret or analyzes primary sources

Perhaps I am missing it, but I don't see a clear consensus among about which is meant -- although I think mainly the problem is distinguishing the first two notions. Mills seems to agree, saying the terms "primary source" and "secondary source" are ubiquitous, "yet their definitions vary from one field to another and from one authority to another."

Until two weeks ago, all I knew about my 6th great-grandfather James Wilson was his name and a report that he was from Swansea, Mass. The name came from testimony of his daughter's adoptive mother when she was in her 90s. James had died probably 60 years before, and for know her account of him seems to be the first one recorded. She may have known him -- it's not clear -- but if she did, is the eyewitness testimony of someone many decades later with perhaps a mind clouded by age considered primary? It wasn't recorded anywhere near James's lifetime. 

According to Mills and others (for instance, Jones in Mastering Genealogical Proof, although he references Mills in his chapter on citations), modern genealogical norms would call her sworn testimony primary information. Yet the first definition above would seemingly make it a "secondary source". 

For reference, I'll give the terminology of Mills that I refer to. She says "many history researchers today" use this scheme, which made me think she didn't originate it. So: sources are containers for information. Sources are either:

• Original records -- material in its first oral or recorded form, so not based on prior sources.
• Derivative records -- material produced by copying an original record or manipulating its content, like transcripts, abstracts, translations, etc.(including some derivatives, like high-resolution digital images, that may be considered "equivalent" to the original)
• Authored Works -- material in which an author draws in information from diverse sources in order to draw new conclusions.

A separate distinction is for information:

• Primary information -- provided by someone with firsthand knowledge of the event, such as an eyewitness.
• Secondary information -- other information, including hearsay, tradition, and local lore.

So in my example, the testimony was still primary information about the name of my ancestor, that I accessed through a derivative source (a digital image of the original written testimony on Fold3), but one that could be considered equivalent to the original. Yet my analysis of this evidence should take into account that the first-hand knowledge was coming from an old memory in an old brain. If I could find a primary account in an original record from when James was alive, that could be more trustworthy.
 

---

Regarding the use of this terminology on the help pages: it seems to me in broader use than just by afficianados of EE. It seems to be more useful terminology than just "primary vs. secondary sources." And it seems to be used in many genealogical texts and certification programs.

If I came across a page about sources that said "avoid secondary sources," I must admit I would snobbishly think, "this page was written by someone who has no training and doesn't know what they are talking about." And I would proceed to ignore the page. I bet I am not alone in that conceit.

If I were someone who hadn't read much about sources and citations and came across that language, I would say, "hmmm, what do those words mean -- I'm going to go Google them." Other people would just interpret their meaning in context and keep on reading -- the words sound pretty much like what they mean anyway. Only in the snobbish scenario is there a possible bad outcome. So I think Wikitree in those pages in particular *should* use the more precisely defined terminology and avoid the nebulous "primary vs. secondary sources."

---

Thank you for the explanations, Barry.  Reading all that makes me think the proposed style guide is better off without adding those definitions.  They are just too complicated.

Tell me:  Am I considered a primary source for knowing my own birthday?  Or do I need to produce my birth certificate?  And if I do, then is the copy I requested from the Ohio Department of Health an original record or derivative?

---

For the first answer? I just read military testimony in which a man states his own age and then essentially says, I know my age from the family bible, which I have often consulted and examined for my own age.  !! You were witness at your own birth, so I guess a strict interpretationist would say that is primary evidence. But that's an extreme form of unreliability of the informant -- the lack of your brain to even store and comprehend what is happening is as extreme as you can get. I suppose some would say that you have to be capable of forming memory of an event to be an *informing* witness, rather than just a witness. So they'd say it is secondary information. But that's why I like being a mathematician -- one of the few fields with no "gray areas".

The certificate copy you requested is derivative, but may or may not be equivalent to the original (some municipalities have "uncertified" copies of records that don't contain all of the information in the original).

---

Julie: I agree -- the pages should absolutely *not* define those terms, just as it does not try to define the words "primary" and "secondary" that it currently uses. I just think the page should *use* the precise terms instead.

---

I think it is useful to define the terms in more general terms than you are doing.  One of the reasons I did so was because the original page did so.  In fact, my biggest pet peeve with the current page is that it defines the terms so badly and so confusingly.

A source is where your information came from.  That's it.  It is simple and easy to understand.  There is no real need to go into a long discussion about primary vs secondary, derivative, original, quality, etc. The only point to the sentence where the words "primary" and "secondary" are used was to say it doesn't matter - all WikiTree profiles require sources.

---

"I think it is useful to define the terms in more general terms tha nyou are doing." But you're not defining the terms, and I'm not advocating for adding any language that does define terms. Just using precise terms, even if the precise terms are being used to say it doesn't matter. There is absolutely no reason to use less precise terms when more precise terms can be used -- the names of the more precise terms aren't technical or scary. It's like saying in a restaurant review, "the food had a nice flavor, and it looke nice. The service was nice. Overall, we had a nice night." No one with some understanding of food and restaurants would take such a review seriously.

---

Being more definite serves a real purpose.  There are organizations in the field of genealogy with actual standards and established authority.  Aligning WikiTree with some of those standards lends credibility.  All of the newcomers may not be beginners needing instruction.  Some may be researchers looking for known guideposts.

---

Exactly. Being more definite serves a real purpose.

A good example of genealogical organizations embracing actual standards and established authority is provided by an interesting The Golden Egg Genealogist article comparing three popular desktop sofware packages, RootsMagic, Family Tree  Maker and Legacy Tree Magic. in terms of the following article source citation aspects: a) Ease of creating new sources. b) Guidance in source creation to standards, c) Ease of locating existing sources, d) Attaching source citation to multiple facts, e) Displaying needed bibliographic formats, f) Syncing sources with online trees, g) Merging duplicate sources, and h) Support of GPS (Genealogical Proof Standard).

What is to me striking about this analysis is that the three packages adhere to Evidence Explained standards including in terms of support for GPS source quality tools and FamilySearch synchronizing tools. 

FamilySearch strongly supports Evidence Explained in general and GPS in particular.

There are good reasons why WikiTree considers Evidence Explained to be the ideal citation system.

---

Re: your birthday..(general "you" used for this example).you are a secondary source, because all you know is that you celebrate your birthday on a particular day and someone told you the year. When you find out on your 40th birthday while working on wikitree that your parents adjusted the year by one so it wasn't obvious that you were born out of wedlock, then that becomes more apparent.

Your birth certificate is based on recorded witnesses who are primary sources, copies are derivative but as photocopies can be equivalent in value to originals. That is, however, why only certified copies stand up in court.

And Ohio. Somehow we are always the example...

Answer 15

This proposal, if approved, will require a change in where the Magna Carta project documents its chains, which is currently after the Sources heading.

Comments

Jillaine, would that be a problem for the project?

---

We'd need to ask them.

Answer 16

Thank you for your initiative on this, Joe. With Rootstech coming up, the Team and many Leaders may not get a chance to take a look right away, which may be a good thing. That will give you more time to polish the page. I do know including the span reference may come up against a wall, since it is a separate discussion and shouldn't be on a help page until that discussion is completed. Otherwise, if you see places to improve and simplify a help page, we appreciate the discussion. It looks like you've made a good start, though, as with any help page changes, expect plenty of edits and input as time passes. I will keep an eye on this as you tweak and the possibility of incorporating changes into the current page in coming weeks.

Comments

Abby, as long as "The team" takes a serious look at it, and takes into account the varied opinions of users and other Leaders, I will be happy.  I do not think I am alone in saying there is some frustration in feeling like suggestions and proposals to improve WikiTree often get ignored or unaddressed.  The <span id> is an example.  I know how you and Steve feel, but you two are in a minority of Leaders I have heard from who support the proposal.  I do not feel "the Team" has yet to give it proper consideration, and they certainly haven't provided feedback.

With regard to <span id>, I found Steve's argument that we need to keep styling as basic as possible to cater to the new users, at the expense of the rest of Wikitree's user base, to be shortsighted and actually counterproductive to the goal of growing WikiTree's user base.  It is possible to provide a basic framework to novice users, and also allow some freedom for people to be creative in producing profiles they can be proud of.

---

Roots tech is behind us and we're four months into our "new reality". Abby, what's the status of team looking into this?

---

Hi Jillaine,

Between COVID throwing everyone for a loop and the new changes to G2G this got pushed down the list. I will take a look at what changes have been made since last I look at the space page to see where things look like they stand. We may need a new discussion if many changes have happened.

Abby

Answer 17

I like your proposal! It puts everything together and is much easier to follow.

What absolutely drives me nuts, is the nomenclature in WikiTree is so STRICT and it seems as though "Help" is divided by topics. Instead of having ONE TOPIC called HELP and have all help listed under it regardless what it is. Personally I get so frustrated by trying to find out how to do something, I usually just blow it off and don't do it at all. 

I see profiles formatted is all different ways, when there should be one way to format them. Example: subsection for children is it supposed to be formatted like this ===Children=== or like this '''Children'''? Help tools to make our lives easier, example for a quick and easy bio use https://apps.wikitree.com/apps/shipley1223/Bio.html , or  {{FindAGrave|}}   {{FindAGrave|58239003|sameas=no}}, {{Estimated Date|Marriage}}, {{Estimated Date|Birth and Marriage}}, {{Estimated Date|Death and Marriage}}, {{Estimated Date|Birth Death and Marriage}}, {{DAR-grs|ancestor number|ancestor name|access date}}. I feel these should be listed together under "Help" not scattered all over the place. Sites behind a paywall, there is a way to get around that in Ancestry, I see it in discussions but is it actually listed somewhere under "Help"? 

Just my 2 cents worth of what I feel is confusing about trying to find "Help" in WikiTree. I don't like having to look in 7 different places for "Help". I have given up on finding anything on WikiTree and have resorted to using my personal "cheat sheet".  :)

Answer 18

Asking for clarification.  There is a definition of Footnotes provided.  As defined, the ancillary sources part of footnotes seems like they would be in the See also section (but they aren't mentioned in that description) and the full citation for the inline would be in the Citations and footnotes section?  So Footnotes could be in both places?  If yes, perhaps dividing Footnotes out into those two parts and making more clear one goes HERE and the other goes THERE would be helpful.  Since the part of Footnotes that is in the ref tags is going to be in the Citations and Footnotes section, it is already described in the Citation definition.  Could Footnotes then be slimmed down to be only what goes in the general See also section?

The citationmachine format for same pagefootnotes (equivalent to inline citations) is first name then last name of author (for books), and the citation for a bibliography is last name, first name (these general references that would be in the See also section) if I understand it right.  Your Sorg example uses last name, first name even for the footnotes/inline citations.  I would prefer one or the other, not both in the same profile.  Which format should we use?  Or can our project decide which?

I don't envy you this task as it seems very complex.  It would be helpful if it were simple enough for most users to understand.  Even having two college degrees and having spent hours reading your proposed document, G2G, citation machine and the examples, I am still a bit confused with the exact terms and use of these words in the Wikitree context.  In marketing research (part of my lifelong career) we strive to write for an 8th grade level.  Not that the respondents are not educated or too simple to understand, but because it makes things really clear for everyone to understand the *same way*.

P.S. LOVE the short citation option, we've struggled with this for some time.

Comments

Thank you Cindy for a constructive question.  Your question actually illustrates what I mean when I say, “All of the standard citation formats are acceptable; NONE are perfect for all situations and sources used on WikiTree webpages.” 

The See Also section I reserve for sources which are really ancillary to the subject, more of just an extra further reading if desired section.  Footnotes, for the purposes of WikiTree, I define as simply a note at the foot of the page (“Grandma loved to bake cookies”); I don’t need it to mean an inline citation or a reference since we already have terms for those.  If you wish to add an explanatory note or provide further information which is not inline, I put this in a Notes section in the biography somewhere, not in the Source List or the See Also sections.

With regard to the CitationMachine, and whether to put first name first or last name first, this is a style issue where I go with what makes sense for WikiTree.  The CitationMachine is not providing all the formats for different sections.

If you look at Evidence Explained  and CMoS the footnotes and the bibliography have two different styles.  For example, the footnote section of a proper book citation looks like this:

• Robert Charles Anderson, The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England 1620-1633. Vol. 1. (Boston: NEHGS, 1995), 126-130.

While the bibliography section looks like this:

• Anderson, Robert Charles. The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England 1620-1633. Vol. 1. Boston: NEHGS, 1995.

But we are not writing books or research papers, and neither of these two fits what I like.  While analogous, WikiTree webpage references are not exactly like having footnotes and a bibliography in a book or journal.  I always put last name first (bibliography style) because it easier to write short citations (Anderson, p. 126-130.) which clearly connect to the Source List entry.  I always put the publication data in parenthesis, (Boston: NEHGS, 1995), footnotes style because it breaks up long references making them easier to follow and read.  So, none of my references are perfectly formatted to any formal style, but in my mind they work better for my needs.

The basic answer to your question is, there is no single right way to write a reference and you should choose what works best for you and your project.

---

Thank you, Joe, we will do the last name first since that's how all our project citations are currently structured (at least for books).  We've used use citation machine to make citations for other types of sources.

Perhaps you want to take out the sample in the Footnotes definition that has the inline reference then, since that is already covered elsewhere.

You can tell by my questions that the definitions of those terms are rather loose and somewhat overlapping (at least to me) and basically by your explanation here, there are lots of options by way of interpretation and preference of what goes where.  Options are helpful and give leeway to personal preferences, such as you also have.  Thanks for taking time to reply.  I look forward to your finalized document.

Answer 19

I do appreciate all the effort and thought and revising you must have done to create this proposal.  Then to that valiant effort, your ego-intact way of responding is an admirable read. You earned and have my respect.

I went straight to your examples on this page:

(https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Proposed_Style_Guide#Example_Profiles)

If I were a descendant of three of the four, I would edit each page. Using a tool (the one I like best is: (https://apps.wikitree.com/apps/shipley1223/Bio.html) Thank you to 

(Wikitree, [[shipley-1223 | Greg E. Shipley]], n.d.)),

I would place that "DATA" at the beginning of the "Genealogy Biography" and source it with verifiable sources.  If any of it is a 'best guess,' I would source it with words that give 'based upon what?'

For the 'final product,' moving the children to a sub-heading, last, before Research Notes, adds the advantage of being able to reuse the 'parent' ref tag.

Next, under the heading 'Sources.'  The first of those gives to me the gift of being able to 'verify' the "DATA" at the top of the page.  When I am editing a profile, I am giving a 'gift' of verification.

I always used APA.  Then WikiTree 'wants' Chicago.  Now I've got them mixed-up.  I would love it if you would start a Space page for 'Corrections requested,' where I (anyone) can add a profile id and some more-knowledgeable-person will correct the citations.

Edit:  Major re-write

Answer 20

I would question the statement "the majority of WikiTree users do not have easy access to Evidence Explained". It is easily obtainable from Amazon (other booksellers are available) in hardback or electronic form. There is also guidance available on the https://www.evidenceexplained.com/ website.

Personally I would like to "Evidence Explained styling" given more prominence in the new version rather than less.