Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum talk:Citation

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

The example here uses the <sup> tag; does anyone have any objection if I use <ref> instead? (example on my userpage) Marasmusine 19:33, 29 July 2008 (CEST)

YES! Sorry, but the ref-tags slow down big pages and in the past have led to the inaccessibility of certain ref-heavy pages. That's the reason why they are banned and have been replaced with sups. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 19:58, 29 July 2008 (CEST)
Okay, thanks for the prompt reply. Marasmusine 10:28, 30 July 2008 (CEST)
Shouldn't this page now show the {{Fn|1}} and {{Endn|1}} method, since it's the recommanded one? Nash 16:09, 15 April 2013 (CEST)


Hi! I've gone ahead and updated the page per what appear to be current practices. Apologies for not waiting on feedback; while I couldn't help myself, I did make sure to be as thorough as possible. Information and/or examples and formatting have been taken from Lexicanum:Sourcing, Template:Howtosource, and Lexicanum:Canon among others.

A few things to note:

  • LEX:Sourcing mentioned adding page numbers for novels: "..with novels a Chapter number can suffice if you are extracting a large amount of information from said chapter. However if the information is only on a precise few pages then they must be sourced precisely, similar to the codex style." I don't know how significant the variation between print runs or even print/e-pub versions is in practice, but I figured the "small quote" compromise would be easier to put into practice when checking sources (in the Ctrl+F way).
  • There is now considerable overlap with LEX:Sourcing. I'm planning to overhaul it too in the next few days, with more of a focus on official sources and canonicity (I don't want to mess about with something as strongly debated as LEX:Canon, but unholy mother of Khârn and all her whacky nephews a little work would not go astray). I'll put up an example this time and feedback is welcome.
  • "Missing citations" section may yet go back under LEX:Sourcing, if anyone's worried about the current double-up. On that note, citation templates also have a bit of overlap but, ah, perhaps that's for another day?
  • Forgot to include whether to manually update footnote formatting when coming across articles in the old code format - not sure whether there is any bot function we could utilise. Ctrl+H works fine meanwhile.
  • Haven't put in a "what not to do", but until the <ref> issue comes up again, I imagine we'll be just fine without it.

In closing, I would like to apologise in advance if I've stepped on any toes, and for the walls of text. Maybe for my cooking, too. No, actually, not for my cooking. Never for my cooking.--Prattlebarge 21:12, 9 May 2013 (CEST)

Added: dealing with old citation formats.
Still to add: Dealing with e-books (Proposal: adding (e-book) at end of citation).
Worth noting that if the lead section is a summary of the (sourced) information contained in the article, a footnote is not necessary for this section? --Prattlebarge 00:44, 13 June 2013 (CEST)
It is better to have sources everywhere, not only in the summary. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 15:14, 13 June 2013 (CEST)

Confliction of how to cite Novels.

Currently, this page states that Novels may only be cited with Chapter numbers due to the disparity between printing editions - fair enough. However, in the same breath, further down it mentions:

'It is absolutely compulsory to include page numbers (in the case of novels chapter numbers)!'

Now, am I to take this just as a typo, or is this the case that Chapter numbers AND page numbers are needed? Personally, I've been editing quite a bit of the Salamanders pages, updating them with all the stuff from the latest trilogy. I'm being very thorough, but I'm currently just citing each piece of info with the Chapter number, for example:

Am I right in thinking this is an acceptable form of citation?

On some pages, others have cited the same book as me, but have given page numbers. In this case, another editor/administrator has come along and put a 'citation needed' tag before the page number. Hence, I've found the appropriate chapter number and replace the page number citation with a Chapter number citation. Again, is this acceptable?

My final issue (Yes, there were MANY :D), again this article states:

'In the case of novels, no page numbers should be given (they vary between translations and print runs, and will only cause confusion). In this case chapter numbers are compulsory. Chapter names and other divisions (e.g. "Part III") are to be used if that is how the novel is formatted.'

First and Only (Novel) by Dan Abnett, Part Three: Fortis Binary, Ch. 4

This probably answers my first question, however the issue here is that it states divisions such as 'Part III' are needed. Does this mean I have to cite information based on a novel's division into parts, each part including a few chapters, OR is it asking that I cite information based on a chapter's subdivisions? For example, most of the Tome of Fire novels have their chapters divided into two parts. If I am to cite these chapter divisions, as well as the Chapter number itself, then I fear the sourcing list, and in line citations as a result, will become incredibly convoluted and would be more of a hindrance to readers than a benefit.

I apologise unreservedly for this huge section, but if answered it would greatly set my mind at rest with regards to improving articles and citing them acceptably.Adranus 21:43, 25 June 2013 (GMT)

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a more scholarly citation structure, like Wikipedia's--title, author, edition, page, ISBN. The use of an edition and ISBN to identify the precise version cited would mean there's no harm in putting down page numbers, as it's clear that it's not intended to be a universal page reference. Under the standard book citation that would mean you'd be looking at something like "Goto, C.S., Eldar Prophecy (2007). Black Library. ISBN 9781844164516". Appending page references to that leaves a reader in no doubt that the page numbers are for a very specific edition and might differ in subsequent printings. I wouldn't say force this through as a universal standard but perhaps just be open to using it when it would make sense. Misanthropy 23:02, 25 June 2013 (CEST)

Thanks for the prompt reply, and I agree that the ISBN number would remove doubts regarding editions, however for the here and now, following the current method of citation on Lexicanum, is it acceptable to simply cite a information in the following manner:

If I have one reservation regarding the use of ISBN and edition numbers is that it excludes those with a different edition, meaning that whilst those with the edition cited can accurately find quotes, those without the particular edition have a limited precision regarding where to find quotes - in this case having just the Chapter number caters for all editions - however that's a matter for another day I guess...

If precision is the desired outcome, I suppose having the chapter listed as currently, with an ISBN-specified page number as well is the best way about it--those with the exact edition know exactly where to look, and those with a different one will at least have a decent ball-park from where to start (if you know it's Chapter One, and a different edition lists it as page twelve, then it can't have moved too far in either direction from there, after all). Misanthropy 23:33, 26 June 2013 (CEST)
Remember that Black Library has a certain fondness for Omnibuses though, in which the amount of words per page is dramatically higher, and that's not even mentioning the fact there are 2-4 different novels within the same book. What might be page 32 of Hereticus by Dan Abnett for you will be page 561 of the Eisenhorn Trilogy for me. BrotherKeef 02:27, 27 June 2013 (CEST)

Hmmm,I think perhaps using the ISBN may get a bit confusing so, unless there is any solid objection to it, I'll continue to cite novel based information in the format I've present above. Unless a prevailing portion of editors start using ISBN numbers, I think I'll avoid them for the moment. Thanks to both of you for the replies and clarifying the situation. Adranus 19:15, 27 June 2013 (CEST)