Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/"Complete" guides - included as sources?

There are a few "Complete" guides out or soon to be published (Complete Visual Dictionary, Complete Locations, Complete Cross-Sections) which collate info from previously-published guides along with some new info.

Question: do we include these guides as a Source if the original source is already listed, and the Complete version does not include any new information on the subject? For example: Star Wars: The Visual Dictionary contains two pages on Han Solo; the Complete Visual Dictionary contains those same two pages reprinted from the original. Can we just take it as given that any info found in the guides will obviously be found in the Complete version, and thus they don't have to be used as Sources for anything other than new info? - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I think they should be included because, as you said, the "complete" guides usually have new or updated content, even if no new info is revealed about the element in question. Also, they are just as useful as the original sources they are compilations of. Adamwankenobi 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but isn't the Sources section meant to be reflective of the sources used within the article, not just a list of every source the subject has appeared in? If so, we only need to cite one source in this case. To be honest, I'm not bothered either way; I just think it's a little redundant to basically add the "same" source twice, at least in terms of the info presented in the source - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I thought the appearances/sources sections were meant to serve the purpose of both listing the sources used, as well as directing the reader to all sources the element appears in, for the sake of completeness. Has a policy on this been set? Adamwankenobi 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I think if there is a Complete version of the guide out, it should be listed as the source. Think about it this way. The complete guide is going to consolidate all the information from the previous multiple editions. It isn't going to have less information than the previous versions, if anything, it will have more, expanded, or updated info. Therefore, I think using the Complete __________ as the source makes more sense, though I'm not opposed to one or the other either way. - JMAS 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm partially speaking in reference to images also. Re: there were some scans I took from the Complete Visual Dictionary, and listed them as such as the source of the image. But an admin changed it to the Attack of the Clones Visual Dictionary stating the reason as "that is originally where the image was from." But I did not scan it from that particular reference book. So when sourcing images from these new complete guides and dictionaries, should the source be the original ref book, or the actual book the image was scanned from? *shrug* - JMAS 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Well we're not always going to know the source, if the uploader doesn't provide it, so it's probably best to cite the original. That way, also, we know what book it is from, and what section of the Complete version it's from - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 19:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Oh,I agree. But if an unsourced image is discovered to be in this guide and this complete guide, either one should suffice. And in the instance where the uploader put the source as a Complete Visual Dictionary, because that is the book he scanned it from, then it shouldn't be changed to another source. - JMAS 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that under Sources we should just cite the original Visual Dictionary/Cross-Section, etc. and only cite the Complete version when said content doesn't appear in the originals. For example, the VisDic has some expanded content, and the entire ROTS Incredible Locations cross-sections only appear in the Complete edition. But I also agree with JMAS' post immediately above: that when someone scans from the Complete edition, that's how it should be cited, although maybe with a note that it was originally in VisDic XYZ.--Valin Kenobi 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think both should be cited in general. Someone may be looking for the information in their own copy of the Complete Guide or whatever, and should know that, yes, the information IS in there. In the case of "this image originally showed up HERE and not THERE," if the image was actually SCANNED by the user from a newer source, that's how it should be marked reguardless of where it originally appeared. If it appears in both places and it is unknown where the scan originated, then the newest source would probably be the best way to mark it. The goal at any rate should be to present the most possible information on a subject and its source, so anywhere it could be mentioned that it appears in multiple sources would be desirable. Wildyoda 22:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Both. We're here to provide complete information. Havac 00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)