User talk:NightHammer

Source
Hello, why did you remove the source that I added to the plasma repeater page? 88.120.49.44 18:37, 24 November 2014 (EST).
 * Likely because it wasn't done properly, from what I see in the diff. Please see this guide on how to reference sources.-- 18:43, 24 November 2014 (EST)
 * Yep, that's why I did it. In hindsight, I probably should have stated my reason in the edit summary. - NightHammer (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2014 (EST)
 * Ok, I understand. Thank you for the explanation. 88.120.49.44 19:05, 24 November 2014 (EST).

Book editions and page numbers
Which editions of the newer books (e.g. Broken Circle and Glasslands) are you using to cite sources? I've noticed your page numbers don't always match up with mine (I have the standard paperback editions for said books). I noticed this recently with the references you added to the Doisac page but this isn't the first time so I doubt it's a mistake on your part and assume you're simply referencing different editions.

I bring this up because I'm wondering if we should include notes to specify different editions in our sources whenever necessary (the page numbers in the classic books are fairly consistent but there appear to be inter-edition differences in the newer ones). ISBNs would be straightforward on a conceptual level, though looking them up every time when citing a source would get tedious very fast. Would the distinction between paperback, hardcover, and digital editions be enough or are there layout differences within those too? --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 01:21, 30 December 2014 (EST)


 * I use Google Play's digital editions of the books (the only non-digital Halo book I own is The Flood). I just checked and Broken Circle ' s digital edition is only 306 pages, while Halopedia lists it at 352. I'm assuming this is a difference in versions. I'm not sure how many editions there is of each novel, but I believe it would also be tedious and potentially cluttering to add page numbers for every edition. I honestly have no idea how to solve this issue at the moment. We could have the user just cite what edition they are using, but that could be unhelpful to a user or reader with another edition that would like to look at the source. - NightHammer (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2014 (EST)


 * I agree that listing page numbers for every version would be an unworkable solution—most people don't own more than one edition—but we could mention the edition after the page number much like we do with the reissued first three books and the Encyclopedia. For the sake of users with a different edition, mentioning the chapter number could be helpful in pointing them in the right direction. Like so:  or   (the latter is assuming all paperback editions of the book are consistent in their page numbers; if not we'll have to be more specific). It adds a little more work and could take some time to get used to (I still don't always remember to tag the Del Rey/Tor editions) but it would help with the confusion. And if a user who happens to own more than one edition is feeling helpful they may, of course, add more edition-specific info to the source (e.g.   --Jugus  (Talk  | Contribs ) 03:28, 30 December 2014 (EST)


 * Sounds like a pretty reasonable solution to me. I would also suggest that we shorten "Chapter" to "Ch.", and "page" to "pg.". That would help prevent some clutter in the citations. - NightHammer (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2014 (EST)


 * The chapter would be very helpful, sometimes it's very hard to find the page if I have a different edition. On a completely unrelated note, I also know that the old edition of Halo: The Fall of Reach (with old cover, old content, old mistakes, etc) is still published by Orbit Books, the one I saw had been printed in 2013 so it seems it's still around (though Orbit has been publishing some Halo novels for quite a while). I don't actually own any Orbit book, I already have The Fall of Reach in 2001 (Del Rey) and 2010 (Tor) editions so I don't really feel like buying more editions. More generally, I think that what Jugus said is alright, and there's no need to have something too long, but if needed two or three editions won't hurt, we're far from having Wikipedia's lengthy references. Of course that depends entirely on whether it's hard to find the reference depending on one's edition. Imrane-117 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2014 (EST)


 * It should also be noted that including the chapter should generally be enough of a reference for broader statements about events and such that happen over multiple pages. Meanwhile, it's better to cite more specific information (e.g. technical details or descriptions and the like) with precise page numbers so that info like that can be easily checked. But in general I don't believe that the difficulty of adding citations should stop one from adding information as long as it's valid. Unless we're talking about some extremely specific and contested bits of info or an upcoming product. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 04:16, 31 December 2014 (EST)