Forgotten Realms Wiki talk:Help-Citing sources

Reference Names

“

Note that this will only work if the full citation appears before any shortened ones, although you can use the shortened format many times in one article if necessary.

”

—  Help:Citing sources#Reference_Names

This is not technically correct. The current (as of 01/09/2008) version of wiki in use only requires the full (for example) <ref name="MM-p45">{{Cite book/Monster Manual|45}}</ref> appear somewhere in the text (before the <references />, I believe) Can I suggest it be changed to

“

Note that this will only work if the full citation appears somewhere before the reference section. You can use the shortened format many times in one article if necessary.

”

Hurtzbad 07:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Danilo Thann

in the page referring to the masked lords of waterdeep Danilo Thann is cited as "Danilo Thann: Masked Lord, cousin of Khelben Arunsun" in the book Elfsong page 21 2nd paragraph 4th line Khelben is referenced as his uncle NOT cousin.

Jode_at_home@yahoo.co.uk

---

Citation Template Proposal

After accidentally creating a new citation template for "Player's Handbook, 3.5 Edition" because I missed it in the template list due to irregularities in the way the citation templates were named, I propose that we revamp the way the Core Rulebooks are listed in the citation template. Currently, there doesn't appear to be a standardized way they are input for their nomenclature; reference the various ways the PH & DMG are entered by various edition. What I would think would work best would be one of the two following methods for naming the templates for the core rulebooks. First, the longhand format:

Players Handbook, 1st Edition

* NOTE: 1st Edition did not include an apostrophe in its nomenclature.

Player's Handbook, 2nd Edition

Player's Handbook, 2nd Edition (Revised)

Player's Handbook, 3rd Edition

Player's Handbook, 3.5 Edition

Player's Handbook, 4th Edition

Here is the same sort of standardized entry scheme with a shortened version:

Players Handbook 1.0

Player's Handbook 2.0

Player's Handbook 2.0 (Revised)

Player's Handbook 3.0

Player's Handbook 3.5

Player's Handbook 4.0

On the plus side, this should make future references easier and can be carried over into new citation templates whose sourcebooks have multiple editions also.

On the not-so-good side, this will probably break a few citation links causing us need to repair them. Thoughts anyone? --Crazyhorse75 09:08, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

---

About cite consistency

Maybe it's not a big deal, but I've seen several section names (Sources, References and Notes) used indistinctly and interchangeably in the wiki for the Notes and References sections mentioned in this article:

==References==
* {{Cite book/Monster Manual|45}}

and

==Notes==
{{refs}}

And I was wondering if I should update articles that way, for example, in this one.

Mpj 07:10, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying and it's a good question. I believe we should be using "References" as the title of the section. The contents of this section are more than simply "Notes", they define where in the source material the statement can be verified and often, where more can be read, so this is well-defined when using the word "References", even if it is a little bit more typing. ;)  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 20:02, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

But what should we do when in the same article there are {{refs}} and list of books without an explicit <ref></ref> tag in the text? From what I read in this article, those citations are only suitable when all the text is from the same source, but I've used it (and seen it used) as a "Further reading" section. Is there such a thing? Mpj 21:15, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Another valid point. If the text is all from the same source, then you might think it would be valid to do something like this:

==References==
* {{Cite book/Shining South|193}}

You might think it does not matter that there are no in-text citations because all the information is from the same source. The problem is that these are usually short, incomplete articles, and later, someone comes along and adds information. Seeing that there are no in-text citations, this someone adds a reference to the references section like this:

==References==
* {{Cite book/Shining South|193}}
* {{Cite book/Monster Manual IV|100}}

The problem now is that you don't know which pieces of information can be attributed to which source. In view of this, it would be better to always use in-text citations like this:

A goblin is green.<ref name="MMIV-p100">{{Cite book/Monster Manual IV|100}}</ref>

==References==
{{refs}}

This includes situations where there is only one source, because there is likely to be more than one source in the future.

For existing articles where there are many sources listed at the bottom, I have been converting these to "Further reading" sections, since they only serve to indicate where to read generally about the article's subject, not where to find verification for specific statements. I was really waiting to gauge reaction to this rule of thumb in the hope that we can reach a consensus.

I've mentioned this before and I think it's worth re-iterating: we're in the strong and rare position of being able to directly attribute each statement on the wiki to a very specific point in the source material. This is something that would be impossible for Wikipedia and most other wikis. In fact, I believe this is essential in order for this wiki to maintain the utmost credibility. Unlike other communities, the Forgotten Realms community is full of those who are very knowledgeable, very intelligent and very scrupulous when it comes to factual accuracy, so I believe it's our duty to be as clear about where our information is coming from as possible.

I think as long as, while editing, we're constantly asking ourselves, "could someone be unable to find the verification for this statement in the source material" and as long as the answer is "no", we are doing as well as we can! Differences of opinion and counter-arguments welcome, as always!  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 22:13, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and further to the above, it's probably time we re-visited this help article itself, so provided we can reach a consensus amongst active editors on what we think the "right" way to go about this is, I or someone else can edit the help article to be more up-to-date.  Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 22:15, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Great insight and answer to my concerns. I'll use primarily in-text citations, and I'll create a "Further reading" section when I find references without in-text ones. Eventually, they can be converted to in-text if someone has the time to check the source. Agree with your points about factual accuracy and the Realms, too. Thanks. Mpj 22:38, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia

How does one cite Wikipedia? I'm assuming everything on there is considered canon for the purposes of this wiki.

—Lemony Sn (talk) 16:17, March 22, 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a canon source, nor an official one. It can be a great starting point for research, but should never be cited directly. --Ir'revrykal (talk) 16:26, March 22, 2019 (UTC)

Citing Multiple Sources for the Same Information

Should multiple sources be cited for the same information in the text of an article, particularly if the sources are from different editions or were published several years apart? If so, should this also be done in Infoboxes? If not, is there a preference for the most recent source?

A good example is the Goliath featured article. The description cites only the 4e Player's Handbook 2 (2009) for height and weight. It does not cite the original 3.5e Races of Stone (2004) or 5e sources Elemental Evil Player's Companion (2015) and Volo's Guide to Monsters (2016), which have the same height and weight information. The benefits of multiple citations in the text would be to show the consistency throughout publication history (i.e., to show the absence of contradiction) and giving the main places the information can be found. The drawback could be articles littered with footnotes. If we are against multiple citations for the same information, should the singular citation follow the canon policy hierarchy? And, in cases where the sources of the same information are of the same level (e.g., realms sourcebooks), should the initial source or the most recent source be used?

Continuing with the goliath article example, the 5e sources Elemental Evil Player's Companion (March 2015, pp. 10-11) and Volo's Guide to Monsters (November 2016, pp. 108-109) contain the exact same information. The Player's Companion was essentially a digital release for the Princes of Apocalypse adventure while Volo's Guide was a subsequent D&D core sourcebook (but also a realm sourcebook, as it was written by Volothamp Geddarm) that, among other things, incorporated previously released information. Should both be cited? Or should the initial source (Player's Companion) or subsequent sourcebook (Volo's Guide) be cited?

Using the 5e goliath example above, should multiple sources be cited in infoboxes? (Feel free to move to the Infoboxes talk page if this question should go there.) --