Talk:Bademus

Referencing issues

I've added the {{unreferenced}} tag to the article, because having a footnote attributing the information to "various sorces" is not referencing. You have to list the sources you take information from.--Carabinieri 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of this. The book integrates the work of several authors, but does not list a managing editor, or equivalent position. The main source mentioned, and the one from which most of the articles are directly derived, however, is Butler's Lives of the Saints. This website contains the text from an 1894 Lives hagiography of Bademus, and is word-for-word the same as the text in Little Pictorial Lives, my source. So, instead of rewording my current citation to emphasize that Butler is the only source, I will instead credit the website, the upshot being that at least the source will be more transparent. I trust that this will rectify the issue. Even so, I'm curious what Wiki policy would be for sources that do not list all contributors (Little Pictorial Lives puts it this way: Compiled from Butler's Lives of the Saints and other sources). It seems a terrible waste that these sources not be used at all. Alekjds ^talk 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Use part of the expanded template, the "| format = " or "| others = " parts, and just skip the author. It's nice, and admittedly easier, when sources line up perfectly with templates, but they don't always, so just bend them a bit to make them work. People can figure it out from there. Certainly they can figure out a compilation when it's stated as such better than they can figure out what "various sources" (which also has the unfortunate side effect of making you look too lazy to do it properly) is supposed to mean. -Bbik^★ 00:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sage advice. Alekjds ^talk 00:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)