FamilySearch Wiki talk:Format for Citing and Linking to Works in FHLC, Worldcat (OCLC)

Format for OCLC and FHLC works
If a work is available in both WorldCat and FHLC, should both references be given in the Wiki? I propose that they both be listed, with OCLC reference first and FHLC reference second, in this format:

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (WorldCat 68627254; FHL book 941.5 D27gj.)

Alan 20:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, Alan. Ritcheymt 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On 21 April 2009 those in attendance at the Community Meeting reached consensus that we should have not two links to a work in a collection, but one. So instead of a reference like this...

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (WorldCat 68627254; FHL book 941.5 D27gj.)

...the reference would look like this...

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (WorldCat 68627254; FHL 941.5 D27gj.)

The idea behind the simplification of links is this: The links should be simplified to avoid confusing the user. In the earlier iteration, the link on "WorldCat" leads to the Worldcat Home page or About page so that a reader unfamiliar with WorldCat can easily find out what it was. The other link -- the one to the WorldCat title number -- leads right to the listing for the book in question. The link to "FHL" leads to a wiki page about the FHL; the call number leads to the Family History Library entry for that book. It was posited that having two links -- one to define the collection/library and the other to lead to the book entry -- is confusing.

In Community Group meeting, it was posited that the links to the pages that describe the libraries/collections/catalogs (such as FHL or WorldCat) be nixed, that these links should be consolidated to go only to the catalog entry in question, and that if the user who is led to the catalog entry still has questions about the nature of the catalog/library/collection itself, they can simply navigate around that catalog's site for answers. Ritcheymt 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer the second version above, the one with WorldCat listed first followed by FHL. I prefer to see one link to the FHL catalog, instead of having no inclusive link for the word book/film/fiche. Anne 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Going to assume consensus on this sub-issue
Since user group (community meeting) members came to a conclusion about this, and since it felt unanimous, and since nobody is raising objections here after the fact, I am assuming we have reached consensus on this subset of the issue: Namely, that references should appear like this:

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (WorldCat 68627254; FHL 941.5 D27gj.)

Ritcheymt 13:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is more useful this way. Alan 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Replace "Family History Library" with "FHL" in references
FamilySearch Wiki references thousands of books, microfilms, and fiche at the Family History Library. Each of these references contains the words "Family History Library," such as the following:

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (Family History Library book 941.5 D27gj.)

For readability's sake, some users are calling for the words "Family History Library" in these links be shortened to "FHL" and made into a link which introduces the FHL to those who don't already know the acronym.

So the new style would look like this:

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (FHL book 941.5 D27gj.)

This idea was proposed by Dsammy. I am serving as his scribe here. Ritcheymt 19:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As mentioned below, I suggest FHL not be linked. When they click on the call number link, they will learn quickly enough that FHL stands for the Family History Library.  I prefer the acronym for the same reason, and it's shorter.  Bakerbh 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with bakerbh. The acronym is sufficient. I'm sure one day we'll see the acronyms TNA (The National Archives), LOC (Library of Congress), ACPL (Allen County Public Library), NARA (National Archives Records Administration), and so forth.


 * The volunteers who started the project of linking call numbers to the catalog were given guidelines. After that, volunteers chose to do what they thought best. Some chose to type Family History Library; some FHL. Some linked an entire string, including the words Family History Library or FHL. Some chose to link only the film/fiche of book number. Some chose to link the book number, then link a film/fiche number separately, even though the links went to the same catalog record. Anne 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming consensus on this issue
Again, since we discussed this issue in user group/community meeting as we discussed the issue above, I'm going to assume consensus here. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we have consensus. There were literally no dissenting opinions in community group meeting, and we had a robust discussion. Ritcheymt 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing OCLC/Worldcat works
It is proposed that references to works found on OCLC/Worldcat should be linked to the "All editions and formats" entry for that work in OCLC/WorldCat. One question is how the entry should look. Which of the following (or some variant) would work best if we adopt this proposal?

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (OCLC 68627254.)

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (WorldCat 68627254.)

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (OCLC/WorldCat 68627254.)

Ritcheymt 19:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The second style seems the best--WorldCat is more recognized, is part of the domain name, and putting both OCLC and WorldCat looks unattractive. Alan 20:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as the record identifies what resource you are in (when you click on the item number), I don't think the resource name or acronym needs to be a link. I would use WorldCat because that is what appears in the record when you click on the link.  Bakerbh 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Linking to works in the FHLC
FamilySearch Wiki references thousands of books and microform at the Family History Library. It is proposed that each reference be linked to the FHL entry which lists all editions of the work in question. So a reference like this:

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (Family History Library book 941.5 D27gj.)

...would look like this:

Grenham, John. Tracing Your Irish Ancestors: The Complete Guide. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan, 1992. (Family History Library book 941.5 D27gj.)

Ritcheymt 12:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the Chicago Manual of Style, due to wide recognition/acceptance.


 * For the large project of linking the BYU Family History Archives local histories, what do you see for the link to that entry as well as the FHLC entry. Just let one link to the FHLC do the job, or should there be the other link, such as you have done for WorldCat and the FHLC? Adkinswh 13:00, 30 Apr 2009 (UTC)


 * If a work were in the FHLC and in the BYU Family History Archives, I would lean against just linking to the catalog. In fact, if I were going to link to only one, I'd link to the digitized book on the BYUFHA. I think users looking for records want to find the records first and the catalog entry second. Ritcheymt 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as I recall correctly, someone was going to talk to the FHLC people about opening up the standard numbers that is used by WorldCat, etc. that is currently stored internally by the FHLC people. Okay, I am having a slight brain-cramp on the name of this. I hope you understand what I am trying to type. Anyway, that seems like it would be great. Also, I am of the opinion, if at all possible, that the links in FHLC references should be done in a template, plug-in, or something. When the FHLC changes, it would be very nice to change it in one place. Thomas Lerman 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thomas, remind me: What's the use case for having the FHLC display the Worldcat number? And how does it affect how we will reference works which appear in both catalogs? Ritcheymt 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I may be missing something obvious, but why direct wiki readers to the FHL for a book? What percentage of wiki users would have access to the FHL book collection in SLC (since the FHL doesn't loan, right?).  It makes perfect sense to link to a microfilm in the FHL catalog because anyone can do something with that information (i.e., go to a FHC and order the film). I think book references should link to a more universally accessible resource (like WorldCat or Google Books). Eirebrain 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The rule is try to find Google books, other places having the same books and list them first with FHL books always listed last, unless it's Family History Archive at BYU. dsammy 04:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Lembley, this movement isn't about linking to FHLC and not to WorldCat or Google Books. It's about which order we're going to link to them in a book reference, and how those links will look. So if a book is on Google Books, Worldcat, and FHLC, the links to each of these systems will appear in that order in the reference. Google Books link will come first, then WorldCat, then FHLC. Ritcheymt 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

General Opinions
I definitely agree with a single link to WorldCat's number, not to a descriptive page about WorldCat. I feel the same way about linking directly to the FHLC entry for that book or film or fiche, rather than to a link to a description about the Family History Library and its catalog.

The use of FHL instead of spelling out Family History Library everywhere makes much more sense. It reduces the size of the entry, the amount of typing or copying, and doesn't lose much in understanding for the user. Most family history users would likely already know what FHL means. If they don't, it is not difficult for them to find out. Furthermore, using the abbreviation is less "in your face" for the worldwide user. It's bad enough that some contributors are still referring only to the holdings of the Family History Library instead of trying to locate an on-line source or other depository source for that record. I think the abbreviation is a nice compromise.

In everything I add to the Wiki, I try to think of the users out there in the world (1) who have only internet access to sources being listed, (2) who may have relatively easy access to a records depository in their area where they may access copies of the records, (3) who may gain access to the source (book or microform) through inter-library loan at a public library or through film loan through a Family History Center, and (4) who have the time and means to come to Salt Lake City to use the Family History Library. I try to list the references to the records in that order of priority, so FHL book references are always the last reference given, since it is the least accessible means of seeing the source.

I agree with the comment about the limited value of listing books only available at the Family History Library. However, providing the bibliographic information for a source is important and it doesn't hurt to have a link to the FHL catalog for an item, since the catalog entry may provide some additional information about that book.

I think there is value in listing two or three references to a source, such as WorldCat and FHLC, or NARA holdings, or unique holdings of a university or historical society archives, but too many references to multiple copies a single source gets way too confusing to the user.

Jbparker 16:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like consensus on all sub-issues
Again, I'm going to assume we have reached consensus on this issue. The only pushback we've had is from folks who didn't quite understand what we were trying to do, but it feels like we've addressed their concerns. Ritcheymt 14:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)