Log in

Forum:'other sources' area in articles?

From PathfinderWiki
Forums: Grand Lodge > 'other sources' area in articles?

So I was thinking today about some of these articles (such as the Slurk) that have other easy to identify sources. Some of these may have more information, some may only have information that we already know, but I thought we should mention them somewhere on these pages, either a 'other mentions' section or 'other sources'... similar to wikipedia's 'external links' section
Cpt, I am not exactly sure what you mean. Could you give an example? Thanks.
Sure, in the example I had above, Slurk, Most of the data used from the blog can also be found in module D1, which is also the print source with the biggest reference to Slurks. Yet, the only reference to D1 in the article is the picture. I was thinking something similar to the external links (see the paizo wikipedia page) section of wikipedia, a semi-standard section that includes other books that have information.. if A DM is looking for slurk info and owns D1, but buys the guide to Darkmoon Vale for more information (as it is the only print material referenced), then finds there are only 2 mentions of slurks in the entire book which mostly just point back to D1, they could get a little mad about spending money on something that isn't very helpful.just my 2cp
I agree that we should include as many different references as possible. Another option is to add the Citation template for the uncited sources without ref tags after the {{refs}}. This will list the source in reference format among the other references, without an in-line citation but will lead people to the source and maintain the existing article structure.
Thanks Yoda, I'll try that out when I get home on the Slurk page (unless someone beats me to it)
not exactly the same issue, but something I thought I would bring up. those times that you are working on a article, and can only finish one reference, but have other references finished, is there a way to list those other reference material? Maybe another version of the stub template that lists sources that havn't been used, but contain new information, in case someone else comes across it and decides they want to finish it?
There isn't something like that currently, but it sounds like an excellent idea! I don't know format a template like that would take without being too obtrusive, and I hope we could make one that didn't draw too much attention to the things we're not including. It's certainly something to think about. Perhaps we can throw a few options together in our user pages/sandboxes and see what we come up with?
maybe just add a ==Other sources not included yet== and a regular template that appears at the top to alert readers/chroniclers that there are references which have not been added in that section? What do you think?
I think that adding an additional section to every article will increase clutter and, again, draw attention to what we haven't done yet, instead of what we have accomplished. I think it's good to keep note of what sources should be added, but perhaps the talk pages or hidden text (using <!-- text here -->) is a better way to go. In both cases, regular users won't see it, but any Chroniclers making edits to the page will most likely see one or the other. And if we standardize it, people will know where to look.

All that said, though, if we go systematically though the books that have been and will be released, we should catch everything on our own. As we go page by page through the CS, we're bound to start articles on topics that have been covered more thoroughly somewhere else. We don't need to point those sources out, but when we get to those sources and go page by page through them, we'll see that info on whatever topic hasn't been included in the wiki yet and we'll add it then. I just think making a whole system for this is a lot of work when we could be spending our time trying to get info up, not talk about and draw attention to what isn't up yet.