Retired or "retired"?[]
Sorry to bother people, I'm going through this character's journals to verify the retirement thing mentioned on the page. The first link does mention retiring and has a short piece, but the second with the more recent entries talks about her working with the PPC again, among a bunch of other jobs Ginger has held. Do we really treat her as retired, then?
(PS: Still Ekyl, my computer's kinda shot so I'm borrowing one on which I can't log in.) 72.228.2.25 19:04, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
- She's actually retired (and even if there were some doubt, her author's been away from the PPC for years, so chances of Ginger coming back are basically nil). Unfortunately, the reason I know this is that I was involved in AIM RPs with her author when it happened, and I don't think there are any surviving logs that can confirm it—at least not in my possession. I'm not quite sure how to source people instead of stories. Maybe ref tags, but instead of links, say something like "Interview with So-and-so, day-month-year"? "Interview" seems a strong word, though... Any ideas?
- ~Neshomeh 16:12, December 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was just confused because the source that mentions her retirement also features her coming out of retirement and there doesn't seem to be anything other than those RPs saying she left again. Anyway, for citing people directly, that seems to be how to do it, though you might want to include information on what was actually said or somesuch. The problem is that if you don't have the logs, those RPs/chats are not recoverable data you can use as a reference. Everything I remember says you really shouldn't do it since it can't be verified, but in APA you cite direct conversation with a source in text like this: J. Smith (personal communication, August 15, 2009); Structure: Soriano, A. (2008, April 5). Email interview. That might be different on a wiki, but it's how I remember it.
- 72.228.2.25 17:01, December 27, 2013 (UTC)