Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Style

Referencing style

When I've added references to articles, I've tended to use something pretty close to the Harvard referencing style, whereas others have used footnotes. I think it would be nice if we used just one style throughough all articles, but I'm open as to which. Any views welcome. Cheers --Pak21 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally like a combination. A reference section for general items that affect the enitre article (i.e. the army's codex), and a subsection of footnotes for individual facts not drawn from the 'main' sources or facts that may be contentious. -- saberwyn 23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to use the Harvard system, but lately I've been inclining much more towards footnotes. I think the Harvard style can tend to clutter an article a bit, particularly when referencing is frequent. Starship Troopers is an example of what I'd consider to be a very well-referenced article. -- Colm O'Brien 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are not allowed by Wikipedian policy used mixed reference citing. That is, use footnotes here, and Harvard system here in the same article. That said, let's move on.
The only way I know to reference thus far is by footnotes, and I have been forced to use footnotes in my recent papers (teacher's requirement), but for some strange reason, as often as I use and like them, I think there is something preferrably better. Especially since how we have very few number of references to go by on Warhammer40k.
The Harvard system, however, can also hold the same probolomatics. (Oops. Just made up my own word) I honestly don't like either of them.

1. Both will create problems for multiple same-sources. 2. Both do show where we're coming from, but can become quite extensive (see 1) 3. From what I see, the Harvard system puts the author and year after the text, and the rest at the end. I do not like that. (How many books has Andy Chambers and the others written?) 4. On the flip side, footnotes have the readers scroll down to a separate section of the article titled: "references". I do not like that either. It's all a matter of opinion: do you want your author and year right there beside the statement, or at the end of the read? 5. I don't think either system is fit for Warhammer 40,000 articles (although, footnotes I think would be better). The Harvard system was created for more "professional" works, when a writer of a paper is saying "This statement written by Einstein this year". Then the details follow at the end. The footnote system, however, just places the entire citation at the end. This doesn't work either as most references are going to come from 1-2 Codexes. Footnotes work best to show how much research a writer did and his great number of resources.

I suggest we use the Harvard system upside down. Take my suggestion from an excerpt from the Tyranids page for example: (not there, I didn't change anything)

Tyranid Invasion

Ahead of the main mass of Tyranids are Genestealers that infest and inhabit planets good for feeding the fleet. They are strongly linked to the Hive Mind and are considered some of the most independent creatures of the Tyranid make-up, luring their fleet to the planet for consumption. (Codex: Tyranids 4th Edition, Page 12) ....

References

Codex: Tyranids Fourth Edition: Phil Kelly & Andy Chambers, 2004 (^Tyranid Invasion, par. 1, par. 2; Hive Mind, par. 2, etc)

O.0 .... was I drunk? I'm way over my head aren't I? Still, I like the idea, but may not be practical. If you don't like that I'm in for footnotes, but each page or section used could be in its own footnote (e.g. same book, same page number is a footnote, same book, different page number is another). Colonel Marksman 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]