CZ:History Workgroup/Style Guide: Difference between revisions
imported>Russell D. Jones (beef with mushrooms and carrots after a two hour braise; oooooohh yum. When beef melts in your mouth it's a good thing.) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Historiography?) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
==Naming Conventions== | ==Naming Conventions== | ||
===For Royalty=== | ===For Royalty=== | ||
==Historiography, bibliography, external links== | |||
Let me mention one example, but it's a general concern with [[historiography]]. I'll observe, in passing, that I believe that there's no good reason to have separate Bibliography and External Links: a given print book might move from one to the other because the copyright expires and someone scans it. As an informal convention, what would people think of only using Bibliography? | |||
While [[Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain]] tends to be treated extremely well in historical works, there are several articles that suggest that most historians depend too much on his own writings, which are voluminous and often beautifully written. Now, I hate to call anything revisionist history, but there are also some authors that go more deeply into his important relationship with his wife, some known as feminist historians. | |||
Where should this sort of discussion take place? It makes a certain amount of sense in Bibliography. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:36, 16 June 2010
If you are in the History Workgroup, please contribute to the style guide for history articles. Please also follow our agreed style. Thanks.
Citation Style
Chicago citation style 1.
References
References should follow the following form:
Authors: first name first
Titles: magazine, newspaper, or journal articles it quotation marks. The titles of magazine, newspapers, and journals themselves in italics. Followed by volume and issue numbers (if available)
Titles of books in italics set it Title Case.
Publication dates: always in parentheses after publication information.
Bibliography
Authors: Last name first
Naming Conventions
For Royalty
Historiography, bibliography, external links
Let me mention one example, but it's a general concern with historiography. I'll observe, in passing, that I believe that there's no good reason to have separate Bibliography and External Links: a given print book might move from one to the other because the copyright expires and someone scans it. As an informal convention, what would people think of only using Bibliography?
While Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain tends to be treated extremely well in historical works, there are several articles that suggest that most historians depend too much on his own writings, which are voluminous and often beautifully written. Now, I hate to call anything revisionist history, but there are also some authors that go more deeply into his important relationship with his wife, some known as feminist historians.
Where should this sort of discussion take place? It makes a certain amount of sense in Bibliography. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)