Question

If you create an in-line reference in a profile Biography, do you then also need to create a Source separately?

Comments

If you use "text goes here and here and here<ref>source goes here</ref>" then underneath the ==Sources== header where <references /> should immediately follow, the source automatically appears.

Answer 1

No. The standard style is to give full source citation information in between <ref></ref> tags the first time you use the source. If you are going to use the same citation again, you give the source citation a name in the ref tag the first time you use it - eg <ref name="NEHGR2:147"> and then just use <ref name="NEHGR2:147"/> each subsequent time you use the source citation. Note that, if you cite a specific page in your source citation, you need to create a separate source citation if you cite a different page in that source.

All the source citations you create within <ref></ref> tags will automatically appear in the profile wherever the <references/> tag is placed, which should be immediately under == Sources ==.

Comments

Thanks Chase. I nearly got that. I've tried it before to my utter confusion. Really need to learn to do it as some of my source lists are horrendous. Do the names have to be chosen to ensure that the same name has not been used by someone else for something else?

---

After much (G2G) debate, the Magna Carta Project settled on using bibliography/notes/short notes based on "Evidence Explained". Mainly because span ids within sources are no longer approved for use, so it made referencing the same source, different volume/chapter/page cumbersome. The project created source pages for Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry and Royal Ancestry (its main references) with suggested use. In implementing it, I'm finding that first ref is often better made to the particular entry in a chapter (e.g., BOHUN 7 instead of just BOHUN), so I've been doubling up the first ref - one to the entire chapter (BOHUN) followed immediately by the entry specific to the person whose profile it is.

See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Royal_Ancestry & https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Magna_Carta_Ancestry

---

C - yes, each named ref needs to be unique. If you have two with the same name, both with text, the text in the first one is the only text that will display in the references list. (And it will now trigger a database error.)

---

But it has to be unique only within the same profile, right, Liz?

---

C, have a look at the Holocaust Profile Template for an example that shows both edit page and view page display, with explanations of using <ref> tags.

For a comprehensive explanation of tags in general and the <ref> tags in particular, see Footnoted Source Citations 101 that I posted in G2G a few years ago.

If you have any questions, feel free to write to me.

---

Unique within the same profile is correct.

---

That's a relief.

---

what a nightmare otherwise! Although I do find it useful to use the same naming convention, as that makes it easier to copy a fact/source to family members' profiles (for example, name="raI243" for Royal Ancestry, volume I, page 243) - especially if you're copying marriage info from one spouse to the other. Then you just have to check to have the text if the cite in one is already a second of the name (e.g., <ref name="raI243" />).

---

On the same profile they need to have different names so the computer knows which source is referenced.  HOWEVER, you could use <ref name="birth"> on every single profile you create.  

So different names within one biography; but different biographies can have the same reference name.

What I usually do is <ref name="cc birth"> for Cecilia and <ref name="Hoak wed"> for a marriage of the family to Hoak.  Then I don't usually run into duplicated references and can copy the source to a parent's or spouse's file without problem.

Answer 2

According to WK Sources Style Guide, yes, you also need to create a Source separately:

• "Sources in this list [source list, bibliography, or works cited] should always be complete citations [sic], while the references that refer to them can be abbreviated."

Comments

I think the statement in the Sources: Style Guide is somewhat misleading or, at least, not fully consistent with the Sources help page. When you use in-line citations, you do end up with a list of your citations listed under Sources. But the Sources: Style Guide seems so say that even though these are listed under Sources, they are not "sources" and what are "sources" are what are separately listed under "See also". If, however, you use in-line citations with full source citations, which is the method shown on the Sources help page, then also listing the full source citations under "See also" is total a waste of time. If, on the other hand, you use abbreviated in-line source citations, then you do need to provide the full source citations under "See also". Personally, I think it is preferable to provide full citations in the in-line references because: (1) It is easier for the reader to get to the full citation since the footnote flag takes you directly there. If you use abbreviated citations in the references and full citations under "See also", then to get to the full citation, you need to separately find the applicable source listed under "See also" since (unless you use span ID tags) there is no link between the in-line reference and the full citation. (2) The "See also" label suggests that what follows are relevant materials that were not relied upon in the bio, which is consistent with what you put there if you use full citations in the in-line citations, but it not a proper label if what follows "See also" is all the full citations for the materials you relied upon. One advantage to using abbreviated citations in in-line references and having separate full citations under "See also" is that it reduces the amount of citation clutter in the bio. There are other ways around that problem, however - eg putting all your ref source definitions at the bottom of the bio and just using the definitions in the bio.

---

I agree that Sources Style Guide (SSG) is misleading but according to pre-1700 self certification questionnaire:

• The Style Guide ultimately decides the proper style and format for a WikiTree profile's data fields, biography, and sources.

SSG is crystal clear that a source is a source list item, a bibliography item or a work's cited item.

Use of See also header designation 'under the line' is a poorly thought-out misnomer. For example,Wikipedia  differentiates between notation-only Notes, References, Bibliography and See also headers. And so should WT. 

WT should call a spade a spade and allow Source list, Bibiliography or Works cites to be used interchangeable instead of See also.

The convention described in Best Answer above is good convention applicable for most WT profiles. But for more complex profiles, SSG should optionally be as currently described in SSG such that any given Bibliography item is interrelated with at least one inline citation reference.

---

"should optionally be as currently described in SSG such that any given Bibliography item is interrelated with at least one inline citation reference"

I agree. It definitely is an approved option. It's not one I use, so I wasn't thinking about it when I wrote my original answer.

Answer 3

Here's my updated response, based on my discussion with D May:

If your in-line references include full source citations (e.g., Reed, James. The Reed Genealogy. Oxford Press, 1945. p 33), you don't need to create Sources separately. However, if your in-line references just use abbreviated source citations (e.g., Reed, p 33), you need to add full source citations under "See also:" (e.g., Reed, James. The Reed Genealogy. Oxford Press, 1945.)

Comments

Srtictly-speaking, the Sources Style Guide (SSG) is the only acceptable way of interpreting WT in terms of Sources. It is possible to talk about or promote roque conventions such as described in the above Best Answer, including in terms of describing SSG as an 'option'. However, push comes to shove, SSG ultimately decides the proper style and format for WT sources. Unless reflected in SSG, rogue source conventions such as advocated in this discussion are ultimately counterproductive to the need for WT Style Guide continuous improvement. 

---

That being said, "See also'' is clearly not consistent with 'any given Bibliography item being interrelated with at least one footnoted inline citation reference'. "See also" name header below <references /> is a poorly thought-out misnomer that needs to be replaced by Source list, Bibliography or Works cited.

---

You will see a fair amount of variety on the profiles in the recommended Examples of Person Profiles, but generally what you will not see is a complete list of sources separate from the references. It is unclear whether the Sources Style Guide is recommending that method or only approving it as an option. Other official help pages, such as the Sources help page, do not seem consistent with that method and, as you note, the mandated use of "See also" seems inconsistent with that method. As a practical matter, that method is not considered by the WT community as the only approved sourcing method and it is not a method that is generally used on WT, even by the most respected WTers. While a separate bibliography apart from the footnotes/endnotes is standard in certain fields, it is far from clear if that is the most desirable method for WT's digital format. Given WT's current technology, all the various source citations methods that are used have drawbacks. The citation method described in Best Answer is considered an approved method on WT, is not a rogue method, and is far more standard on WT than having a complete list of sources separate from the references.

---

So, I get it, a case of a Sources Style Guide not being a Sources Style Guide.