Template talk:Cite book/Guide to the River Kingdoms
Simple or complex
We have the ability to make this citation much more specific, the same way we do for AP volumes. Since we know who wrote what, we can cite them each individually. Should we do so, or just leave the template as it is, perhaps changing it to Elaine Cunningham, et al? —yoda8myhead 06:30, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
- This question makes me wonder why we do the complex citation templates at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about specificity, but it does make creating templates pretty laborious. Really, isn't the reason we have citations so hat we have a paper trail that we can use to verify facts? Do we really need to know the specific article?
- If I'm missing something that's cool. In that case, I vote for a complex template. —aeakett 23:35, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
- The complex citation, while more difficult to code, enables the most specific credit be given to any piece of information. In books with more than three or four credited authors, I think we should do our best to cite each article/section to the person who wrote it. In many cases, this is simply not known (such as who did which monsters in a monthly bestiary or who contributed to which sections of the Campaign Setting.) In any instance that we know who wrote what, however, such as the Revisited line, we should do so.—yoda8myhead 17:54, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. If we feel that it has value, then I say we go ahead with the complex templates where we can. —aeakett 18:05, February 17, 2010 (UTC)