What is best, using full citation or 'hiding' the bulk?

Question

I've seen it done both ways, when citing sources, using the full citation, like from Familysearch, 
Example: 

1. ↑ "Georgia Deaths, 1928-1940," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QJXM-GGZ4 : 4 April 2016), Anna Collins, 29 Oct 1933; citing Oak Park, Emanuel, Georgia, United States, Georgia Archives, Morrow; FHL microfilm .

Or 'hiding' the majority of the text from the link, like so:
Example: He is mentioned on the death record of his daughter,  [[Moseley-590|Anna (Elianna) Collins]]<ref>[https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QJXM-GGZH Georgia Deaths, 1928-1940]</ref>.
which looks like this on the public profile: 

1. ↑ Georgia Deaths, 1928-1940   
   
   
   Frankly, I prefer the look of the second option, it's cleaner and less cluttered on the page, the link and pertinent information is still there. But it has come to my attention that maybe I shouldn't be doing this with Familysearch citations.   
   So, which is it?

Comments

I've done it both ways. Many of my old profiles have the trimmed-down version because that's the way I saved the citations. But a lot of useful information is lost when you remove "database with images, FamilySearch  4 April 2016), Anna Collins, 29 Oct 1933; citing Oak Park, Emanuel, Georgia, United States, Georgia Archives, Morrow; FHL microfilm." If the FamilySearch URL should stop working, those details could be very helpful.

---

I use both methods, also.

For inline citations, I do almost exactly what you have done, Debi. My main difference is that I make the title bold; I also give the ref a name, even if it isn't repeated (being proactive!). I prefer having a simple link to the source transcription; I will add some text if the source is related to a family member (birth of child, etc.).

I then list all the citations (unless I believe the source is incorrectly linked to the FS profile or it is a user-created link) from FamilySearch chronologically under a subheading, numbering them. For citations to other websites, I place them under another subheading (usually Other Resources). And I include the full citation for any inline-cited source.

I rarely alter the FamilySearch citations except to make the individual's name bold. Occasionally I will add a note if the transcription has a major error or omission.

edit: Visit Varney-195 to see an example of my work (using my nonconformist format!!).

---

You make a good point, Ellen. I started doing it with the full citation, but the monkey (me) saw someone's profile done the second way and I like the clean look, so monkey did it that way.

I like your proactive work, Lindy! Maybe I'll modify what I'm doing to include both... that just seems very redundant to me to have the same source written/included multiple ways. It's a bit of dilemma for me. I get into a groove adding things and my fingers automatically type '<ref>[ ]</ref>' so I can just drag and drop and have this neat and tidy bio.

---

I have no problem with the redundancy, Debi. I feel it accommodates different types of viewers. Also, it allows me to provide a properly styled citation for the source without having the citation clutter the biography section.

You are, of course, free to use the style that works better for you; so don't fret about it!!

---

Whichever format one prefers, if you choose to add a source to a profile that someone else manages - someone wbo has followed WikiTree guidelines and clearly invested time and effort in writing and sourcing, please don't "correct" (truncate) existing citations. It isn't necessary and is likely to drive away the very folks we want to attract.

---

No worries! I have been busily going through all my profiles and using the short version for inline references and adding a bibliography section at the bottom with the full citations. It helps me keep track of what profiles I've looked at recently and will ensure that there is a full citation to follow in case the links ever change.

Answer 1

My thoughts on sources.  I am not one who thinks any particular style is correct – there are many ways to write a correct reference.  However:

1. The source should provide enough information so the reader knows where the information came from and allow them to track it down if they choose.
2. You must always assume all links will one day break.  When the LDS moved all their references from BYU libraries to familysearch.org they broke millions of links.  When archive.org updated their protocols from http:// to https:// they broke millions of links.  Ancestry.com changed their source formats a couple of times breaking millions of links.  We are currently on internet protocol 6 (IPv6) and while backwards compatibility is always a goal with each new generation, eventually you have assume our current links will be incompatible with the internet itself.

Therefore, I think the second option is too simple.  I don’t really know what Georgia Deaths means and when the link breaks the citation becomes meaningless.

The in-between way to handle this is to put the full citation in a Source list/Bibliography/Works cited section at the end of a page, and then use short citations for inline citations in the biography itself.  So in the case of your familysearch.org reference, I would put the full citation in the Source list, and then use your second example for inline citations.

Comments

Thanks Joe, changing links is a worry. I think I'll do as you and others have suggested, adding a 'resources' or 'bibliography' section at the bottom. Someday I'll settle on what works best for me.

---

Good advice, Joe!

Point 1 is the basic rationale for citations, anyway. The citation is supposed to provide enough information to allow others to find it.

Point 2 is mainly directed at online sourcing. As you indicate, links may change or become inaccessible and websites may disappear. But if we include a properly styled citation, we will know where the source document is actually stored (its repository) so we can access there, if necessary.

I generally add a direct link to the matching FamilySearch profile. Yesterday I noticed that the link format had changed slightly and that my current links sometimes don't work properly. Now I have to remember to update them whenever I work on a profile - sure could use a template for the FS profile link (then Magnus, our template whiz, could update all my links at once)!!

---

I don’t really know what Georgia Deaths means and when the link breaks the citation becomes meaningless.

I stumble over this too. At a glance, it's probably a database, but which website is hosting it?  What records does it compile?  Would I need to pay or login to see the record?  Is it a thorough compilation or a selection?  Does the link lead to a search page or an individual record or a description of the database?  

A full citation like what familysearch.org provides at least (usually) reveals information about the locality/county where the record originated and the date on the record, which can help me understand why the link is being cited as source without having to click through and look at it.  

Of course, if I'm really making an effortful study of the ancestor I'm likely to click through anyway.  It is reassuring to actually find at the link what I expected from the citation.  It makes me trust that genealogist's citations more when I encounter them on other profiles.

Answer 2

I use the source citation and not just a direct link.

Comments

Thank you David. I see I am in the minority, so I will adapt my future sourcing to include the full citation.

Answer 3

I prefer a full citation. Just because the link works today, doesn't mean it will tomorrow. At least with a full citation, any researcher will know exactly what you are using as a source. It may look clunky but, I like it, especially when it is not a huge website like familysearch and is actually a more obscure site which may or may not have staying power.

Comments

Thanks Jeanie! Good points.

---

Plus 1 from me, Jeanie! I use inline referencing nearly exclusively, for the reasons you point out. I'm adding sources to a profile right now which has many sources listed, without footnotes denoting which fact goes with which source, and without referencing page numbers or specific web pages where the data can be found. Yechh!

(Not to mention all the ancestry.com links which more often than not are dead links.)

Answer 4

I like to put as much information as possible for a source, and list them in chronological order - I find that it helps me notice points that I might otherwise have missed.  So I use formatting (bold and italics) to help the eye find the important bits. E.g. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Withell-51

Comments

That is a great idea Deborah (also my full name!). I may adapt this in my future sourcing. I've done so many the 'short' way... ugh.

Answer 5

I add the full citation.