singhals wrote: > http://www.progenealogists.com/citationguide.htm > > offers numerous examples of citations for electronic sources. Yes, > it differs from ESM. > > I note with interest, not necessarily approval, that these citations > begin with the author's given name, not the surname. > > Is that name-reversal common these days? In fact, if I recall my ESM correctly, she does it both ways. Put the surname first when compiling a bibliographic list, and alphabetize the entries. This way, no bibliographic entry in the list will be "lost." But this advantage only applies (and is only necessary) to such a list. When writing footnotes to accompany text, lead off with given names the first time you cite a source. If you cite it again, substitute the author's surname only, followed by a brief title and page number(s). If your work is to appear in a major journal, the editor probably won't even bother with a bibliographic list. > I have no problem with my bibliography showing Allen Xavier, Barbara > Yurs, Charles Wier, David Urias, Elsie Truelove, and so on, but I > can't help thinking that as soon as I arrange them that way, someone > will have a cow when Xavier, Allen or Wier, Charles or Truelove, > Elsie isn't where they're looking ... The major point of unclarity that I see in the ProGenealogists page is that its author does not distinguish between footnotes and list entries. One style, the writer implies over and over again, should suffice for any citation we care to write. Never mind that ESM, whom the author endorses at the end of the guide, says something quite different. Nor does it help that where the surname comes first, the examples place a comma in every place where, according to the rules of bibliographic presentation, there should be a period. > Cheryl <[email protected]> Austin W. Spencer <[email protected]>