Proposed ULTIMATE Solution to Source Policy that Satisfies Everyone [closed]

Question

This is a spin-off from the recent post Why are people foregoing inline citations and removing the <references /> tags?

1  Introduction.
This is a proposal for a single, universal solution to the entire set of causes of the current situation of (a) unsourced profiles (other than gedcom imports), (b) need for standardized style of citing sources across WikiTree, (c) unique preferences for work habits of all members, (d) requirement for clean looking pages for both view and editing, and (e) distaste of some members to master coding skills.  Credit for conceiving this system belongs to Dale Byers.

1.1 Purpose.
This post identifies a system for adding sources to profile narratives in a way that:

• satisfies universal working styles of members
• meets the established policy of using footnotes to link to source citations
• eliminates the "bloat" effect interspersing citations with narrative content.

1.2  Scope.
This post includes:

• description of the appearance of profile view and editing pages that use the system
• cost/benefit analysis of implementing the system
• instruction (with no technobabble) for how to add the coded source citations to a profile page, including explanation of what the codes mean.

2  Appearance of Profile Pages.
There are two types of profile pages - the veiw page and the editing page.

2.1  Appearance of View Page.
The impact on both types of view pages (public and private) will be identical.  These pages will appear identical to pages that use the current Source Style Guide with only one difference.  A single line, immediately below the "Sources" heading will have a superfluous set of all the footnote numbers.

Note:  this can be mitigated very easily if WikiTree chooses to add a single line to the master css file that will have no impact on anything else on the entire website, but will cause that line of footnote numbers to not be displayed.

2.2  Appearance of Editing Page.
The "==Biography==" section of the editing page will have only a single tag immediately following each statement of fact that is supported by a source.  The citation itself will not be in the middle of the narrative, so that the user sees a smoothly flowing narrative.

The "==Sources==" section of the editing page will start with a list of all the source citations.  Display of each citation will consist of a start (<ref name="something">) tag on its own line, followed by the citation, and finally an end (/ref) tag on the next line, so that the user sees each citation clearly separated from codes and other citations.

The "<references />" tag will be displayed on the line immediately below the last citation that supports a statement in the "Biography" section.

If the optional "See also:", followed by additional source citations that do not support statements in the biography is used, then these items will be displayed  below the "<references />" tag.

3. The Codes and How They Work.
The key to being comfortable using codes is to understand what they do.  Please consider this as no different from learning to communicate with a person who speaks a language you do not understand.  When you try to use that person's language, it helps if you understand how they will view your use of certain words - just a "say this word when you mean that one" translation doesn't always do the job because of nuances and colloquialisms that may result in the person interpreting the word differently from your intent.

We use tags that comprise what is called a "markup language" (the acronym "HTML" stands for HyperText Markup Language).  They give us a way of separating content (what we want displayed) from instructions about how to display the content.  The tags constitute very specific commands to the computer about where to put things and whether they should be bold, italic, etc.

3.1  Tags, Instructions, and Content.
We use a "container" to designate that whatever is inside the container is an instruction.  The computer will not display the instructions, but will follow them when it prepares the page for display,  We use tags to indicate where the container starts and ends so that the computer can distinguish between the instructions and the content.  We also need to make sure that the computer can distinguish between the tags themselves and the content.

 

(hit max size wall - to be continued)

Comments

You also left out an " in <ref name="fichier"> at the bottom

---

Anne

I only fixed one of the sources so that she could see the difference and change the other on her own.

---

Good description and guidelines, but long.  Suggest under section 2.2 Appearance of Editing Page to add an example.  (Such as: <ref name="Byers">)  This would make it clearer to those who are not so familiar with the tags and markup language.

Have been using this style since Dale suggested it and really like it.  It is so much easier to edit the bio now.

To those who are concerned with "dictating" policies, this is only a guideline to help those who are editing and trying to clean up profiles.  It also is meant to encourage people to use inline citations.

---

Dale

what did you change?

I see the <ref name=individual/> is no longer there and after "Sources"  #1 is gone. There were two different sources. Now I can't see the first one.

I am confused...again. I thought I got it but apparently NOT!

mary beth

---

When you are using the source only once you do not need to set the "Name" you only need to use <ref>your source here</ref>  . You can use the "name" format if you wish but don't put the <ref name="whatever"/> at the bottom because if you do you will duplicate the sources.

---

Gaile, I made a small change to the profile for Lilly Heilberg. The change hides those meaningless footnote numbers under the word "Sources". I never tried this before, so let me know if you like it. Thanks.

---

I'm gonna chime in here Rick. I love what you've done (hiding the numbers). There are two problems: the <span> is not on the recommended tags list for this type of use and this organization (sources put together at the end) of sourcing has specifically been non-recommended, even though it only uses totally recommended tags. http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Alternative_Sourcing_Methods

---

Anne, I agree with your statements, but I would like to be able to discuss things that don't meet guidelines or expectations. This G2G forum is the only method I know of to discuss these technical details. I've learned a lot from the people on G2G. I don't want this learning/sharing/collaboration process to stop.

I don't think limiting G2G discussions to ideas that conform to certain recommendations or style guides is a good idea.

---

Excellent points Rick

---

Source Style Guide says:

"What we call sources could be called items in a source list, bibliography, or works cited."

Answer 1

Thanks Gaile. This looks great and I'll give it a try on a couple of the profiles I manage to see how I like it.

Answer 2

I've been using Dale's system (as explained above) for the past several weeks and like it. It keeps all the benefits of in-line citations while minimizing the clutter in the narrative.

Comments

You got it straight, Chase.  This is an attempt to put Dale's system into a formal proposal to become the official style.

I wanted to include a full explanation of how the codes work in order to include WikiTreers who are normally tunred off by anything tekky in the evaluation and discussion of the system.

It certainly does make a cumbersome document, but I figure people can pick and choose what parts of it they want to read.

---

Great work Gaile. I'd always been using the name= tags but had them inline. Since Dale brought this up I've been using them that way and absolutely LOVE it!

Answer 3

Thanks very much Gail.  Much clearer now.  I already discovered a couple of these while trying to make this work.  I kept bumping my head on the wall -- forgetting the end slash (/), but finally worked it out.  Also, you probably know this already -- you cannot use "numbers only" .(which is explained in the "help" but I missed it., or read over it.

From an editing standpoint, I think it would be extremely helpful to have a sort of cheatsheet on the eding page that could either be "copied" into bio text (or a  radio button that would auto drop the codes).  Think this would encourage use for those that are not all that "code savvy".

Comments

Sandy,

I'm glad you found it helpful.  I was a little concerned that the length of it would keep some people from even reading it, but I tried very hard to explain it in English, withougt any technobabble.

I mentioned in there that the name can be anything you want, as long as the first character of it is a letter.  It's not just that you can't use numbers only - the first character MUST be a letter!

I agree fully about the cheat sheet.  There is already one there, but I would like to see it explain it more clearly - the explanation doesn't need to be anything like what I wrote here.  I made a free space page with a template for Holocaust project profiles that displays both the editing page and the view page of a "dummy" profile.  You can copy the code in the editing page section there and paste it into a profile to get started, then just copy/paste the real content you want to use.  That page is at:

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:HolocaustProfileTemplate

If you want to use that, you could copy, then go to your profile page and paste.  It's still in your "buffer" after you copy it even if you leave the page it's on.  You might also use a separate tab in your browser to display that page, then copy what you want, switch to the tab with the your profile, and paste.

---

Thanks, I already copied onto my "to do watchlist" along with some other things I had trouble with.  I already use the multiple tabs, but sometimes have too much open which usually results in a "not responding".  I have pretty old equipment and it does not have enough Umpf.

Answer 4

I tried using it here. http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Chamberlain-2417 Is this right?

Comments

Perfect, Kirsty!

I just have 2 comments on what you did there.

1. I made a change, but it is not necessary - what you had worked perfectly.  Your 2nd paragraph has 2 sentences and you have a different ref tag for each sentence.  You continued on the same line after the first ref tag.  I changed it to start the 2nd sentence on a new line.  It will display EXACTLY the same on the view page, but I did this to make the editing page easier to read.  This way, there are never any tags stuck in the middle of content - they all are at the end of a line.
    
2. You have a couple of source citations that have all the data in the source displayed.  Is that what you intended?  If so, it's fine.  If not, let's talk about how to make ithe citation look the way you want it to.

---

If you can suggest a better way of displaying it, please do. The info is from the certificates, so i need to record it somewhere. Eg, a birth cert shows mum/dad names, this sometimes isn't the same as the mother/father's name, eg Edward is father, but might say Ted on birth cert, so I do want to show that information somewhere. Happy for ideas!

---

I'll make changes on Chamberlain-2417 - give me about 10 minutes, then look at it.  I'll document everything I do in a comment section at the end of the editing page.

A comment section is another kind of tag - you start it with   <!-- (left angle bracket, exclamation point, 2 hyphens)  and you end it with  -->  (2 hyphens, right angle bracket).  That will display only on the editing page - it will not be displayed on the view page.  You can delete the comment section - just delete the start and end tags when you do that - or you can leave it there if you want.

The way I work on profiles is to first collect all the source citations I can find.  For each one, I list all the data that is in the source.  Then I write the profile, putting the links in as I use the information.  When I'm all done, I keep those lists of data, just in case I ever want to see what's in the source without clicking the link to go to the website it came from.  I put all that in a comment section at the end of the profile.  If you look at the editing page of the one I used in the original question here, you can scroll all the way to the end and see it.

---

You are wonderful! I've just finished off that profile, and it looks much better!! Can you check it please?

---

Looks fabulous to me!!!  The way content is formatted is purely a matter of personal preference.  I only tried to offer an alternative way of formatting the citation so that you would have a choice of ways to do it.  There was nothing wrong with the way you had it - the same information was there.  It's just a question of which way looks better ... and better is in the eye of the beholder!

---

Thank you so much for your help :) It really is much appreciated!!

---

You're more than welcome - I'm glad there's something I can help with here - I'm on the receiving end of so much help from everyone else to teach me about genealogy.  A few months ago I thought sources were what I produced in my kitchen.  Now that I understand more about them, I still have plenty to learn about the rest of it all.

Answer 5

Dale and Gaile (you rhyme)    Thank you both!  love, love, love it! 

Actually very close to the existing Style Guide citation method, with one huge difference - placement of the tag which includes the citation, or the "long form" (I don't know the official name). 

The existing guide says to type the "long form" wherever you first use a repeating reference.

This method simply moves all the "long form" tags to the bottom of the page, under === Sources === .  Perfect.

Now, we need to make it official, (and get those extra numbers to disappear)

The other issue (raised by John), a method of providing page numbers.  If included when (word used deliberately) the new instructions are posted, it would encourage people to provide page numbers. 

All of the above methods, and I use both

1) in parenthesis at the end of the sentence (p. 28).

2) included in the "long form" citation, such as Author, [html Title], (Pages 82-88) City, Pub, Date, Accessed date

Which method depends on ... situation more than anything.  If debated or new information, I might use both. 

For instance - book focuses on the family for six pages (in the citation as a range), but also newly found parish records (p. 85).

They're both useful ... (bit of a digression)

Bottom line, YES!  Let's do it.  It solves a lot of problems very simply ...

an elegant solution.  Bravo! 

Comments

Cynthia,  The citation format is not changed with this system.  The only change is we are now giving the citation a "name" and only puting the <ref name ="name"/> in line with the bio and down below the actual citation would be <ref name ="name"> whatever the source citation is<ref/> so anyone who uses page numbers, or anything else has no worries.  With any change there will always be some who resist and try to find fault but this is actually no real change from what was already recommended except for "naming" every source and the placement of the "long citation".  I guess I will have to start using it myself now.

---

Hi Cynthia,

John asked a very good question - the way to include different page numbers when citing the same source for different statements is something that I did not address.  Although this system lacks a truly elegant way to do this, Anne and Helmut each suggested a different way to accomplish it.  I believe the two ways you outlined are essentially the same as the ones they mentioned in response to John.

I'm glad you like it - I got so excited when Dale came up with it that I could barely contain myself!!!

Answer 6

I did it!  I did it!  Thank you Gaile and Dale!  http://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Smith-84288&public=1  I don't feel like such a backslider now.  

Edit:  I used the author's surname for the ref name.  Seems to work well.  I wish the tag syntax was a special character combination on the toolbar, maybe in the special character horseshoe looking thing.  The tags are tough to type out on an iPad because you have to change back and forth between keyboards.  

Comments

Great Job, Kitty!!!!  You've taken the first step toward becoming a geek!!!!

---

Kitty, thank you for your perseverance and congratulations on your success.

I am an unabashed geek that has endeavored for months to understand the reasoning for, and nature of, this new methodology. It was not until just a few minutes age, upon yet again plodding through the entire discussion, that your exhibit profile caught my eye. My first impression upon opening up the profile's edit page was “why is the coding inversely structured?” (Actually my thought process was considerably less refined). Then the light in the attic suddenly and brilliantly lit. Eureka! Exactly the kick in the pants experience I needed.

You have succeeded in helping me more on this issue than anything else posted within this G2G topic.

I agree with Gaile Connolly. “You've taken the first step toward becoming a geek!!!!'

Answer 7

  I too have been using it and like it thus far.  A bit akward when you have more than one source for a fact but much, much better than the alternative.

Comments

Michael, I am so glad you like it!

I have been looking at Jonathan's bots - now THAT is a really exciting thing!!!  I'm not sure that it will have use for this, however - the jury's still out on that question.

Thie bot would require that the location in the narrative that is supported by a citation be marked in order for it to do its thing.  The result is that we would still have to do the same work on the profile to begin with to manually enter the citation and manually enter something at the location where the superscript number link is to be placed.  It seems to me that is the same thing that we have to do without the bot.

Where it could be very useful would be to change profiles that already have inline source citations, done the way the current Style Guide directs.  I don't see any need to do that, however - the view pages look fine - in fact, better than with this system because they don't have that extra line of worthless numbers.  Of course, the editing pages have "bloat", which is the main reason for making the change to this system.  The real value would be if a bot could go through all the profiles that have sources listed without footnotes to indicate what fact is supported by what source, but no bot would be able to figure that out - the footnote locations would have to be manually marked in some way for the bot to be able to do its thing.

---

I suspected somethink like that, which is why I asked you to look.  Jonathan seems open to suggestions and it sounds like you may have a few for him.  If you have not looked at his forum page, there are already some suggestions.  It is new, so it is short right now.

Answer 8

I prefer the way I'm currently putting sourced on profiled and fail to understand why others believe this area needs to be dictated. Standardization is great when there is apurpose for it, otherwise it is obstructive and dictatorial. I place the source (MLA) in the sources section above the footnote section. Tgen use the in-line citation to indicate the page number. When you use the same source just a different page number, it makes no sense ro constantly re-type the same information. I use the in-line citation as page 200, Brown . This tells people to look at the source written by Brown. I don't use un- line when referring to a record at the courthouse. When my source states, *Line 18, page 256, Birth Record Book, Pleasants County Courthouse, Pleasants County, West Virginia, I believe this is clear enoigh and doesn't require an in-line citation. The purpose of sources is to inform someone else where the information is licated and to give credit to authors.. let's not make this so confusing and bogged down with 'standardization' that people start not using sources. If they tell me where they found the information, I'm not inclined to hit them with a hammer because they didn't give me the page number. This is just my opinion and not meant to upset any person reading. I'm just saying, when we are gighting a battle to even get a source listed, does it teally matter how it's formatted?

Comments

The only advantage to this method is when another person edits the profile later they are less likley to remove the inline sources because they are easier to read during the editing process.  That was the reason I came up with this way, a newer member was having problems with the recommended inline sources, and another was complaining about their inline sources being removed.  I believe that by making it easier to read when editing others will be more likley to leave those sources in and minimize any damage later.

---

Don't get me wrong I believe your suggestion and Gail's are great.. if it helps our profile managers to understand sourcing and assists the to make it easier... I'm ALL FOR IT!.. What I'm against is dictating one method over another.

---

I think one could argue that there is some merit in standardization in the case of a single worldwide tree, where multiple descendants are reading and editing the same profiles, and there is no claim of ownership of the profiles.

---

There is actually a big push to "Standardize" the profiles to make WikiTree rank higher in the internet search and raise our credability.  I do not have a problem with most of the others source systems in use but I do believe that making it simpler to understand will help the overall health of the Tree in the long run, and we all should strive to attain that.

---

Dale, I had not thought about this being a reason for removal of in-line sources.

I Inline source almost every page that I add a source to and have I think from day one here and have never noticed any removal of them. Maybe I'm lucky?

There seems to be many different ways to do sources. I have chosen the Eevidence Explained method (they all have their pros and cons). I also tend chose the single Sources section vs. the two part Footnotes and Reference method when adding this t no profile or profile I am de-gedcoming, if that is a word. But when others have used methods different than mine I would avoid changing what approach they use. I just go chase the other 90+% of profiles i need of more basic work.   

Removing inlines sources would seem to be a rather egregious downgrading (corrupting would seem to be a better word) in my opinion. Unclear how you do that accidently.

---

Terri and Marty the discussion about the removal of inline sources is located here

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/153827/people-foregoing-inline-citations-removing-references-tags

I agree it should not be happening but it is and I feel that by standardizing and simplifying the chances of this happening because others just think what we are doing is just adding useless junk will be reduced.  If I don't respond for a long time it is only due to a family gathering that I am hosting.

Answer 9

For those of you who would like to see this in practice for comparison.

Three identical biographies (ignore the fact the bio doesn't match the person)

Edward uses standard <ref></ref> tags.

Unknown uses the <span> tag method

William uses this new method.

Comments

Anne, thanks for listing the different examples. The problem I have with all of them is that they're incomplete. None of the examples is a full citation. There are no page numbers and no relevant quotes from the citation.

For all, I continue to have concern that the <ref name> coding allows for no distinction of different pages, sub-citation (the source we looked at citing another source), nor quotes specific to the source being cited.  If it did, I'd embrace it gladly. Without it, I must rely on the standard <ref>...</ref> construction.

"Bloat" on the edit screen, in my admittedly not humble opinion, is a far inferior concern to accuracy in our source citations.

---

Jillaine, the fact that there aren't any page numbers cited, would be my fault, rather than the fault of the system. a) MLA source citation format doesn't call for page numbers. b) In this case there were no page numbers to cite. All the <ref name> statements came from the same page (which were unnumbered web pages)

You can put multiple page #'s at the end of a <ref name> statement. If there aren't more than say three, I don't think anyone would be offended at having to flip through a few pages.

I do understand your point about for instance 'Anderson GMB citing Vital Records', should be a different <ref> than 'Anderson GMB citing Hist of Wherever.'

? I don't understand the part about "no relevant quotes from the citation." If the quote was relevant wouldn't I have included it in the body of the text? Can you give me an example?

---

Ezra uses standard <ref></ref> tags.

Anne B  Compared to your Ref/ span version...

---

S Willson They do not communicate to the whole.

---

The examples, I created mentioned above, have been reverted back to their original states except Edward who used standard ref tags to begin with

---

Amy Selby, your comment appears to be about a different matter than being discussed here.  You may want to start a new g2g about your concern?

---

Understood, Jillaine don't follow my faverite coding topic. 

---

It would of been nice to see them

---

Amy, As one of the people who originally developed the sourcing style discussed here I have only this to say. The decision was made when this was first discussed to NOT RECOMMEND this style for sourcing and most of us have accepted that decision.

---

Amy, you can see and edit the tags you follow here:

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/following

Be sure to include "announcements".

Answer 10

I discovered this method when I joined the holocaust project this last week and after a few false starts got it too work, but from the explanations I can see I have some more work to do to get it right. Splitting up the ref tags and the citation itself onto separate lines for example.

The step by step instructions are great and the non-techy  explanations of how the coding works are so helpful. Having the reasons why makes it a lot easier than just blindly doing something because that's what it tells you to do on the help sections. I feel that a lot of those help sections need better explanations as they appear to assume a basic knowledge at least of coding and are offputting.   There have been times when I've been ready to give up because I haven't understood what I'm doing.

I think this method looks cleaner and neater and less confusing in the editing bio section and less likely for someone with no knowlede of coding to mess up the inline sources while editing the bio.  I've actually not invited some of my family to collaborate yet until I've got time to teach them the little I know about coding so they don't mess it up. When it's not quite taken blood, sweat and tears to get some of my profiles done it has involved a few curse words as I learn how to Wiki, the thought of some family member messing them up horrifies me!

While the decimilised numbers on the citations whre they've been used more than once are confusing, I don't mind the the row of numbers at the top of the list and in fact where I have a lot of sources it's handy to be able to jump down to a number near the end.

Comments

Oh, Anna, you have been using the system flawlessly!  There's nothing more needed to "get it right".  Separating the <ref> and </ref> tags on their own lines (as described in the document above) makes no change in the appearance of the view page.  The only thing it does is to provide the most possible visual separation between code and content.  The purpose of that is to make the editing page as easy as possible to read.  I figure that we want to do every little thing we can to make that page look more intuitive for people who read it - either while working on it or looking at it to see how things were done.

The multiple numbers with decimals listed is something that, although I find it hard to believe, many people actually like.  Of course, everyone aggress that the addition of the extra one (because of that extra line of numbers) is not desirable!

THANX for evaluating this!

Answer 11

Hi Gaile,  I have a question.  The new process is relatively painless, certainly more user friendly, and I like it.

I have edited my standard format (again) to copy and paste for simple profiles.  It is:

== Biography ==

  <ref name=“FAG” />

== Sources ==

<ref name=“FAG”>[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=XXXXXX Find-A-Grave Virtual Cemetery memorial #XXXXXX] in Name and location of the cemetery.

</ref>

<references />

 

=== Photographed Primary Sources ===

== Acknowledgments ==

Thank you to [[Cooper-1|Kitty Smith]] for contributions to this profile.

This is working well except when I paste it into WikiTree, it changes from plain text quotation marks to "smart quotes" which produce and error.  Do you know a code to make the plain text quotes permenant?  Would the Ascii code work?  Do you know the Ascii code for plain quotation marks?  Thanks, Kitty  

Comments

I have found that the name does not have to be inside quotation marks.  You can actually just leave them out like this:

 

<ref name=DeathCertificate>Death Certificate of William Monroe Williams, September 15, 1875, File No. 33107, Division of Health of Missouri (Dunklin Co.)</ref>

---

Kitty,

Andrea's answer is only part right.  If you do not have any spaces in the name you use then it will work without the quotation marks.  If you use a space then you MUST have the quotation marks.  I think it is just general good practice to always use them.

Your problem with the paste problem is not that it CHANGES them to smart quotes (the ones with different left and right versions, used for start and end) - it is that whatever document you are copying from is using a font that includes smart quotes.  Whatever you copy is going to paste EXACTLY the way it was in the place you copied it from AND the edit box is not capable of dealing with smart quotes - it MUST have only plain quotes used.

There is a very simple solution - store your "cheat sheet" that you copy from in a document that does not have smart quotes.  Here are some of the places that you can use for this:

• Windows notepad will store only plain quotes.
   
• If you use the "scratch pad" on your Nav page, that would be convenient - just make sure that the quotes there are the right ones.
   
• You can use whatever you are currently using - the file that creates the problem.  Just save the file as text instead of whatever the progam's normal file format is (Use SaveAs and select txt as the type) 

Edited to add:

PS  Yes, the Ascii code would work, as would the entity code.  I do not know the Ascii code offhand, but could look it up easily, however I do remember the entity code because it's easier to remember than a number:  Any place you want to use a quote, type:   &quot;   (that's the ampersand, the letters quot, and the semi-colon).

There are several places that list all the Ascii and entity codes.  The one I think is simplest to use is:   HTML Codes

Answer 12

Gaile (or anyone else who has mastered this),

I've been playing around with this idea since I very much like the concept. But mine doesn't seem to work quite so neatly in the ==Sources== section.

If you could look at this profile and tell me where I'm going wrong... now, it's not in standard narrative style, but it should still work, yes?

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Burgess-5076

Seems to have something to do with the </ref> tags.

Thanks!

Comments

Bobbie,

That's a really great profile you wrote!  You got the tags almost perfect.  I fixed one of them so you can see it.  The tags that contain the citation need to be:  <ref name="whatever"> the citation is here </ref>

The tags that are empty and only refer to the name need to be   <ref name="whatever" />

OOPS - I just saw that you changed my correction back - I did it again, only on the Death Record one.

---

It may help to think of it this way:

Tags are containers that are instructions about how to display things.  When you use the <ref> tag, a superscript number will be displayed at the location where the <ref> tag is (the software keeps track of the numbers it uses).  In order to communicate to the software what is contained, all tags have start and end tags and must be used in pairs.  The end tag is the same as the start tag, except for the "/" before it.  That's why you use <ref> .... </ref> to surround the citation.

A very few tags are empty - they don't contain anything.  To indicate that a tag is empty, you use a " /" (space + slash) after the tag name, as <ref />.  I think of that as a sort of shorthand for combining the start and end tags into one.

The other piece of the source tagging is the <references /> tag (note that this is also an empty tag).  When this tag is used, the software will place all the content of all the <ref> ...</ref> tags at that location.

When you use the "name" attribute of the <ref> tag, that indicates that it is the same source as the one in the <ref> ... </ref> container.  By putting all the <ref> ...</ref> containers just below the Sources heading, they don't muck up the Biography portion with all the extra source information - instead, they put all the citations in that one place.  It makes the editing page much easier to read when you're working on it..

---

Oh, *now* I see! Thanks for the great explanation, Gaile. I was just doing a cut & paste from one section to the next, so the "/" got carried over. Will write myself a note.

Many thanks for a great idea!

Answer 13

Gaile,

Can you or someone else experienced in this source methodology please look at

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Adams-20413

It appears to be using your proposed method but the citation text is not displaying. What went wrong? Thanks.

Comments

Jilliane,

I fixed it, it was simply a misnamed "name" tag and they forgot to close a couple of the sources with </ref>. Oh and the sources should be between the == Sources == line and the <references/> line

---

Thanks, Dale!

---

THANX for fixing it Dale!  Jillaine, I just made a change ONLY to the spacing on the editing page.  It did not change the spacing on the view page at all, but it makes the editing page much easier to read.

Answer 14

OK, so I'm going to weigh in on this discussion with my own experience.  I've been working with computers for decades, but never got into the programming side of it at all, so the whole technical discussion above is Greek to me.

I just finished entering sources in the desired manner in this profile: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Zapaglia-1

I had to ask Claude's help as things were simply not working right.  He fixed part of it for me as an example, and pointed out that I had used single quotes rather than double quotes.  (Thanks Claude.) Factually what I used was ''something''.  My keyboard is French, and the way it is set up, to get double quotes you have to put two single quotes together: ''.  Wikitree program sometimes recognizes them as a double, sometimes not, there's no telling when it will do one or the other.

Furthermore, the style guide is not written for those who are not used to this type of insert.  Where spaces go or don't go, where to put the slashes to not have them hiding everything after them, etc etc, are really not clearly laid out.  The multiple source quote tells us:

'In all following references you can just use this:

    <ref name="birth certificate" />

Done this way, all subsequent footnotes for this same source will point to the same footnote at the bottom of the page.'

Except that the example has a space before the slash, which kills the thing dead.  You get an error message instead of the cute green number referring to the source.

So, my recommendation to whoever is contents editor of the style guide would be to rewrite it in the manner of ''sourcing for dummies'', making extremely sure there are no spaces or slashes in the wrong spot nor missing examples within the text.  Referencing to a profile to show how it looks can be a last item, not part of the actual instructions.

And for the double quotes technical problem, maybe somebody in the tech side can tell me why this is sporadically accepted, or a way to fix it?

Thanks all,

Danielle

Comments

Danielle, When you use the <ref name="something" /> tag, that is a single tag that is both start and end tag all rolled into one - it is not a "container" for any text.  The name value is used to identify it as the same tag as a container in the document that *DOES* have the citation and looks like:  <ref name="something">this is the citation</ref>.  You do need the space before the slash in the one that is not a container.  If the page does not display properly, my guess is that you don't have the container tag anywhere on it, therefore the <ref name="something" /> doesn't have any <ref name="something">citation</ref> that it is a repetition of. 

THE DOUBLE QUOTE QUESTION:
There is a very distinct difference between a double quote and 2 single quotes, as far as the computer is concerned.  We (unfortunately, in my opinion) do not use html code here - instead we use something called "wiki code" instead of the html tags that are so much more intuitive and easy to recognize.  All html tags are between left and right angle brackets:   <tag name> for the start and </tag name> for the end.  Wiki code uses that system for a few of its tags, but many are made up of symbols and sometimes these symbols are interpreted as wiki codes but other times they are interpreted as text characters.  For example, to put something in italics, html code would be <I>these words will be italic</I> but here, we use wiki code instead, which would be ''these words will be italic''.  That is 2 single quotes at the start and end of the italic section!  If you use double quotes instead of single ones, then it will not be italic, but the phrase will have quotes at start and end.

There is a sample profile format for the Holocaust project that both uses and illustrates this system.  If you look at it HERE, I think it may help clarify everything.  Please let me know if there are any questions that are not answered there.

THANX!

Answer 15

I dont understand why you are creating this "false" ref below sources (red circle in picture). Its just confusing to find that one of the reference 1.0 1.1 1.2 is wrong

 

I always use unique names on the name attribute that I "steal"
from the source I am working with ex.

<ref name="v101931.b51.s93">{{Space:ArkivDigital
|l = en
|f =  Vånga
|b = AI:2
|t = Household record
|d = 1819-1823
|i = 51
|p = 93
|AID = v101931.b51.s93
|NAD = SE/LLA/13462
|desc = Household record No 25 in Vånga 
::?? [[Carlsson-366|Per Carlsson]] (17)83 26/12, v?
::Hustr?(hustru)  [[Persdotter-732|Kersti Persd(otter)]] (17)94 19/6, v?
::Son [[Persdotter-733|Carl]] (1)815 3/8
::[[Persdotter-734|Pehr]] (18)22 22/11
::[[Persdotter-731|Ingar]] (1)818 3/3 
::[[Persdotter-735|Anna]] (1)820}}</ref>[[Category:Vånga (L)]]

See sample profiles
http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Persdotter-735
http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Carlsson-366
http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Eliasdotter-20 
http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Olsson-374

---

 

Comments

Magnus, What you call a "false ref" is not false and the last link in each footnote is not "wrong" - it simply links to the number that appears in the group of number links that you circled in your illustration.  This is addressed in Paragraph 2.1 of the original question above.  Having that list of numbers appear immediately beneath the Sources heading is an unfortunate need for this citation system to work.  The main purpose is to make the editing page more easily readable for people who work on it, which is a very important consideration for a collaborative environment.  This system eliminates "bloat" in the Biography section by only having the single <ref name="something" /> tag at the end of a line on the editing page for each place that a footnote number is to appear.  In addition, it collects all the source citations in one single place - immediately below the Sources heading on the editing page.  The full citation that looks like <ref name='something">citation goes here</ref> MUST be someplace on the page and it must be above the <references /> tag in order for the citations to be displayed.  That list of extraneous numbers appearing on the view page is the price we pay for the benefits we gain on the editing page.

*** WARNING - THIS IS TEKKY-TALK - IGNORE IF YOU WISH ***

It would be an extremely simple matter for WikiTree to add one single class to the master css file that would permit removal of the display of this line of numbers.  It would also be possible - and easy - to remove the display of the line of numbers if WikiTree upgraded to a newer version of wiki code than it now uses.

​About your suggested names for the ref tags - It has been recommended that people who name their ref tags choose names that will be easily meaningful to all who look at the editing page.  I also always use name attributes on tags, but I try to name the tags in a way that describes what information the source supports that will be immediately meaningful to anyone.  The kinds of names that are recommended are things like name="birth", name="immigration", name="census1900", etc.  For your example, I would much rather see something like name="household" than the long number you used.

---

Mangus

Your way is fine. This way was to help new members to understand sources so that they can enter them and edit pages without so much clutter that they would remove a source. That has and will happen because people on a Wiki can remove things and will if they think it is just clutter. No one has said that this way must be used but if it makes it easier for new people to add sources then that is a good thing.

---

Thanks for your answer understand what you say but don't agree maybe the solution is a better editing tool...

---

Video I did with my thoughts

"unfortunate need for this citation system to work. "

yes and that I argue is wrong.... better use tags as they are supposed to...

"editing page more easily readable for people who work on it,"

Isnt it easier to have the ref where its used?!?!? Next to the fact it claims to prove. If you have bad unique names on the quotes you will find duplicates with the preview...

Normally you have a source and then you claim that this source prove some facts ==> start add the source at the first fact and then just reuse the name of the sources at the rest of the facts.....

This system eliminates "bloat" 

But if you use preview you don't see the "bloat"

Maybe an argument but I use more and more a timeline part of the bio and then a source often prove something at a specific time period so its work ok plus... I always use the preview to read the text ==> then the ref info is "gone" ;-) 

Maybe the solution is a better editing tool. If you add refs in MS Word you always did that at one place and the MS Word was hiding the citation or if you add a link in this editor you hide it.... or maybe start to learn people to use the preview?!?!?

---

Agree - No div with css style then you move even more far away from the original idea with one ref where its used and reuse a ref with the name tag...

rather see something like name="household" than the long number you used.

All people who are working with Swedish genealogy know AID and using it you jump directly to one page out of 55 million see video at 1:40m plus its so fast and easy to see if this source has been used before. 

Another question is this reference system good when you have a lot of citations?!?!?

When I create a profile with like Sofia Olivia Lindner that have 34 sources I feel its better to have the reference next to the fact.... A list of 34 sources at the bottom feels also "bloated" ;-)

There are no easy solution more than a better editing tool is my feeling...

---

We have to do the best we can with what we have. This system makes the edit page easier to read and minimizes the risk of others removing source data. Not everyone has or uses MS Word so that is not a good solution, so far this is the best we have been able to come up with under the current system. No one is forcing you to use this system, but most of us on here like it so making a change to your way is going to be next to impossible. I will not wast any more time debating with you because in the last 2 hours I have added 1 sourced profile and added many sources (9 on one) for 4 unsourced profiles and that is a better use of my time.

---

I dont speak about using MS Word...

I recorded this video have a look at  6 minutes how a new tool address working with citations at wikipedia

Wikipedia has identified  a problem that less people are editing articles. And one solution to that is the Visual Editor project to make it easier than it is today with the markup language.

As Wikitree is a platform where "everyone" should edit I feel we have a much bigger problem as in Wikitree you write profiles much more than you read at Wikipedia its a small number of people adding articles but they think they have a problem.....

Video at 6 minutes adding citations

• Why the Wikipedia project Visual Editor 
• Sandbox to test the tool
• Manual about editing references

Its still on test but the Swedish Parish project at Wikipedia has activated it and the user experience is great

 

Screen dumps

 

Reuse an existing reference

In the Reference dialog, look at the list for the reference you want to reuse, and select it. If there are many references, you can use the search box (labeled "Search within current citations") to list only those references that include certain text.

---

Last comment by me with you Mangus

I have looked at your contributions on WikiTree and for those that were not undone by the manager most made no sense and made the profile worse than before you started. They are very hard to read and only add clutter to the profile, If you made over 1000 contributions in 11 days you are just playing the system to get the badges and you are not doing any serious research to the person. That takes more time than just going thru profiles and adding templates or making up categories.

I will discuss nothing more with you because I am going to do real research on the profiles I manage and use the WikiTree Style Guide to improve them rather than your methods, That is the better way.

---

Dale its nothing to discuss... and good luck with your real research and thanks for the feedback about doing Swedish genealogy

A) You have found out that people have problem with adding references

Your solution with the tools we have today is a new style guide... Fine

B) Wikipedia has found out they have problem with less editors and one reason is Wikipedia syntax with markup language that is a major problem for people

Wikipedia address this in the Visual Editor project

Wikitree is based on an old Wikipedia engine and if we are lucky we could use the Visual Editor if not we will still have a big problem

My biased opinion is that Wikitree has a bigger challenge to make it easy for users to add information. And I feel one of the most important things is that we get people to start editing profiles and not just upload non-sourced gedcom files from Ancestry and then jump out the back....

The concept of Wikitree is that its a platform where everyone shall edit and add value. In Wikipedia land it is more the inner circle adding articles but still they have a problem with people understanding the markup language....

---------
To many contributions and not following good genealogy standards....
Most of my changes is not seen Dale ;-) as they are part of the Swedish Category project and on Category pages. Please join all feedback is welcome ;-)

---

http://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&who=S%C3%A4lg%C3%B6-1

---

I agree with the ancestry issue Magnus Sälgö it was not a issue in the begining because Wikitree view is ancestry.com is not a valid source, but we have a new set of wikitree people, that view ancestry.com as finial say it's God, and that is not wikitree, we are a different site.  doing the actual text work takes time and effort and takes asking people and takes looking it up.

---

The images are minor

Answer 16

The ref is easy, really very simple, you just need to remember pairs.

and to put in the call, and have the Displayer <references /> at the bottom which create all footnotes

this is in the source<ref name="whatever"> 

you put the call in the Bio<ref name="whatever"/> and it displays a [?] Number in the order it is postion, in the bio, fron other calls, so say five are before it, it is [6].

The source display the writing before it in the title, so you will see on the source 

this is in the source[6]

then it will put every thing else you write in the footnote.

if <references /> is above the sources it will create an error.

Comments

@Amy, this style is not recommended.  Read here:

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

---

Navarro Mariott No, you should do it the way you learned it, I learned a version in 2013, I asked why.. can't I do that.. Why Dale turned it to span.

---

I didn't turn it to span. The method Amy wants to use is not recommended.

DALE

---

Well it is span, it wasn't open, and it wasn't span.. and now it is span.

---

and if all the change is removing the title === Footnotes ===  and putting 

and the coding to the bio for ref's that is a altnative method I also use, not very often. 

== Sources == 

<references /> 

but if that is recommend.. I can use that.

---

It doesn't actually say what is not recommend in the style, guide lines and many groups use this coding, to get rid of a style used that is built in and default is weird.. and there is nothing wrong with fork styles.

---

It doesn't actually say?  How about this sentence, then:
However, despite their advantages, these alternative methods are not recommended. And as with all style rules, if they are not recommended, they should not be used especially on Open profile.

and this one
Here are some alternative methods that are not recommended:
(and 'The Proposed ULTIMATE Solution' is included)

---

Actually that alternative method for me...

Formatting Example

Here is an example of a properly-formatted sources section:

== Sources ==
<references />
See also:
* Smith, Elsie Hawes, ''Edmund Rice and His Family'' Boston, MA: Meador press (1938)

There should be no "Footnotes" or other headline above the references. You will see this on some older profiles because it used to be the default style.

Is the guideline exactly....

---

So my alternative method on all my dutch profiles will not be touched

---

and since I have been on for such a long time.. as per the guide line.. I will take the time to change the 1000+ profiles I do have in the old default style. I will do things per the guide lines... since I have over 1000+ Profiles with coding.