Template talk:Cite dragon

Paizo Publishing
Paizo only published Dragon Magazine from issue 298 forward. Prior to that it was Wizards of the Coast or TSR. Can we get the template changed to reflect that? Lethalox 20:21, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

Format of a Dragon Magazine Citation
I think we should probably agree on a format for these citations before we get too many of them and it becomes a pain to change. For citing the magazine in general we have this format: Template:Cite dragon/### where ### is the issue number. Then there are some that add the title of an article on the end: Template:Cite dragon/###/Article title which I think is logical. Then there are some are like this: Template:Cite dragon/Article title –OR– Template:Cite dragon/Article title/### which does not follow from the general citation in the first example, but does have the advantage if the user knows the title of the article but not the issue number&mdash;the auto-suggest will supply the rest if the user starts typing the title. So, which do you prefer?

EDIT: And what should the sorting field be for Category:Dragon citation templates? Article title or issue number? &mdash; Moviesign (talk) 23:58, September 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Same goes for Dungeon magazine too, I guess.
 * Personally, I don't think citation templates for specific articles should be necessary. We don't reference sourcebooks by chapter or section, and a reference for a whole magazine allows one to reference all content within it. Maybe extra parameters, similar to the page number, could be included to give a specific article title or feature of the magazine as well as its author. For example, Cite dragon/84 could allow say for the article "Flumphs of the World" by Eddy Greenwood on page 84. That would be adaptable to any article in the magazine, as well as columns, letters, even advertising. That would get complicated with multiple authors though.
 * So, I can also see the benefits in specific tailored citation templates. Well, both whole-magazine and single-article templates can exist side-by-side.
 * As for how to sort them... Each possible has its pros and cons. On one hand, if single-article templates are preceded by the issue number, then they sit together with the whole-magazine templates, and make it easier to pick one or the other. On that basis, sorting by issue number seems most logical, which also shows a progression from oldest to newest. On the other hand, sorting by article title collects a series of articles together, which is also handy though not essential. I dunno. If I had to pick, I'd say put issue numbers first and sort by them, it's not pretty but it is logical. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:06, September 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * How about this: We make templates for each magazine by number, as the first example above (and either zero-pad the number or use the sorting field), and list as the author the Editor in Chief (with ", Ed." or ", Editor" after the name). This allows someone to cite anything in the magazine, including pages with artwork or advertising. Then add individual citations for articles (like the second example above) that list the authors and/or illustrators in the usual fashion. That way, readers can see who wrote the article (maybe they are big fans of Eddy Greenwood) and we can categorize it under "Works by Eddy Greenwood". I'd like the references to be as useful to readers as possible and I feel that seeing the magazine article title is better than seeing just an issue number. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:58, September 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's what I thought, in more detail. :) I have to agree, article titles in the reference list are more useful, so citation templates for both whole magazines and specific articles is most useful. — BadCatMan (talk) 09:22, September 30, 2014 (UTC)