I think we lost information :( I believe it is better to know in what page exactly an information is written. I have found several contradictions in the sources for Katapesh. So I keep cross-checking page by page and paragraph by paragraph. I don't believe that the exact page number is so important in this specific info for the districts of Katapesh but it is inconsistent with the other articles on Katapesh. I will try to retrace this information. Was there any reason for this change ? --Dmeta 00:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I changed it because when using APA citation style, when possible, its proper format to cite a chapter, article, or section rather than an individual page or pages. Some of the older citations on the project may list only a single page, but that's primarily due to the fact that we hadn't figured out how to include a range of pages as part of some of the early templates.
- We could cite each subsection individually if we wanted and still be within those parameters, but the information really only comes from one source and this article is about information in the outlined pages as a whole; I don't think we have anything to gain by doing so. -- Heaven's Agent 01:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think there's something to be said for specific pages being cited. If it were a two or even four page range I wouldn't think it as necessary to include, but someone looking to read the actual sources would have to flip through quite a bit to find the actual passage we drew information from for this article. One of the most common reasons I got from freelance contributors I spoke to as PaizoCon why they do not use the wiki is that they prefer the original source. But down the road, when there are more sources, someone may want to use the wiki as an index. Directing someone to an entire chapter of a book is not as helpful as it could be, and it doesn't take that much more effort for us to code the citations individually. Sure, it takes up more lines at the bottom of the article, but that's not a huge deal in my book. --yoda8myhead 02:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Heaven's Agent don't take me wrong. I'm not saying your change is catastrophic. For this specific article there is no difference at least for now. We can leave it as it is, if you like. But I found a lot of cases where information from different sources were in conflict and I had to go back and check the sources paragraph by paragragh. In these cases due to the accurate citations I knew exactly were to look. And the consolidated article looks fantastic. I didn't know that we could refer to a specific part of a page. :) I may keep on adding small articles. It is more convenient to me, but I count on the fact that we could consolidate the small parts later. --Dmeta 16:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good points both. Personally I'm not sure specific pages would be feasible, at least not in this article. It would result in a massive list of citations, not only under the References heading but within the text of the article itself. And we also have to take into consideration that we'll probably be adding additional sources to this article in the future, further expanding the clutter.
- When you get right down to it, this is really nothing more than an overview article in the first place; more defined citations will be found within the articles for each POI. There is a lot to be said, though, about more concise citations. As an overview article I can see citing the section for each district itself as viable. I'll make some changes, and we'll see how it turns out. -- Heaven's Agent 16:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I changed the citations to reflect the individual subsections. What are your thoughts on the result?
As an aside I noticed the article introduction, which I took from the article Katapesh (city), was in turn taken from the source word for word by whoever added it originally. We'll want to reword the thing in both places before too long. -- Heaven's Agent 16:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think a single citation per paragraph is fine. If we find at any point in the future that one district or another has enough information to warrant its own article, we can always add those in where needed. We wouldn't have to make an article for each of them, reserving that only for sections of the overview article that become too weighty.
- As for the rephrasing of a direct quote from a source, our plagiarism policy currently states that the entire article should be deleted since the plagiarized section remains in the history. When this has come up in the past, I have copied the entire page to a text document, deleted and recreated the page by pasting back in the rest of the document except what was plagiarized. I don't know if this is too much work to make the standard policy, but if not we should revisit this as well as the other guidelines on our list to revise and/or update.--yoda8myhead 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)