Forum:CT:Axing silly sourcing rule

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was The proposal to removal the rule mandating the full source name was approved; abbreviations in referencing are officially accepted. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, Wookieepedia:Sourcing states that "When naming references with <ref name="some source" />, use the full source name, not abbreviations," with a footnote saying, "Use full, linkable reference names to prevent accidental duplicates of a reference. For example: one ref tag named "Return of the Jedi" and one named "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi" will result in duplicate references on the same page. The word linkable does not mean that you actually [[link]] to the article, simply that if you did add the link brackets, it would go to the article on Wookieepedia."

While this generally isn't enforced, at least in FANs/FAs, it's a silly rule. For long articles, such as Luke Skywalker or something, yes, it makes sense, but for articles such as Window it's cumbersome, unnecessary and increases the article's size for no good reason. I'd like to change it to something like this:

"When working on long articles or collaborations, users are encouraged to use full, linkable reference names to prevent accidental duplicates of a reference, though this is not a requirement. This is not necessary on shorter articles, and abbreviations are acceptable." -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 15:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 15:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I've always felt this was an unnecessary formality. Enforcing this would be kind of silly. Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Abbreviations are fine, and have been in use for as long as I can remember. The last thing I want is for someone to start objecting over the current rule on the FAN or GAN page. Greyman^(Talk)
4. I did this for Starfighter combat, using full names in ref tags like the original rule states, but learned fairly quickly thereafter to use abbreviations. The new rule indeed makes more sense.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. As someone who struggled through a sea of other users' often redundant ref tags for Dooku, I do approve of full source naming in much of that context, but yeah, its not necessary for the small stuff Yrfeloran 16:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I never even knew this was a rule until a non-Inq pointed it out. It just seems unnecessary. I've never enforced it, and I've never seen it enforced. As long as there's consistency within the article, the ref nomenclature isn't really relevant. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 16:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Per Greyman. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 17:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Per Greyman and Culator. On longer ones, yes, this is more important. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 18:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
9. I confess that my addition of that edit to Window might have been ever so slightly a violation of WP:POINT . . . which we apparently don't have, so I'm blameless! Woot. jSarek 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Unit 8311 19:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Graestan^(Talk) 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
12. A rule which is never enforced is not a rule. —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
13. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Gliggity-click. Thefourdotelipsis 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Glad to see this one go. Din's Fire 997 05:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Per Greyman in the comments. --SoT ^{Holonet of the Hand} 07:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Seeing as how I never really wrote <ref name="YaddaYadda" /> correctly to begin with... <<; >>; Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 07:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Acronyms are your friends, so MTFBWY. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, I gotta disagree. Yes, it does seem pointless for shorter articles, but I like that placing your cursor over the source shows the exact source that will come up. By that, I mean the name comes up at the bottom of my window when I put my arrow over the source link. Also, why should this not be enforced? It really helps out the user, and the only reason I can see for doing away with it is because people are lazy. Cull Tremayne 23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I might support an approved list of abbreviations or something, but other than that, no. —Xwing328^(Talk) 20:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• To respond to Cull: I don't think it's down to laziness. It's just about practicality. It takes me a few seconds longer to type "The New Essential Guide to Characters" than "NEGTC," and when I'm writing an article with bundles of refs, that amounts to a little bit of time that could well be better spent. Also, in a way, using abbreviations can actually prevent laziness; people are more likely to ref thoroughly and correctly in sections such as the P&T when they have to type less, rather than lumping a ref note or two at the end of a paragraph. Also, in articles where lots of info from multiple sources is included, in the edit screen, abbreviated sources will make it far easier on the eye -- and easier to add extra info into -- than fully written out ref names. Your point about hovering the arrow of the link is a good one, but, if decent abbreviations are used, experienced users who know what "RotJ" and "NEC" mean can still utilize it—and, possibly, non-experienced users wouldn't even know to use the arrow like that, anyway. Also, clicking on the ref itself, while yes, it does take a fraction longer, is almost as quick as hovering the arrow over the ref and seeing the URL. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A few seconds longer? How is that not related to laziness? :P Those precious seconds! Because, you know, when you're writing an article, finishing it thirty seconds earlier means everything. I'm not sure how fast you type, but it seriously can't add up to that much more time. I have to disagree with your point about people being too lazy to ref if they have to write out the entire name, there's no way that's true. The problem people have with refs is the templates, not being able to abbreviate. In the edit screen, I'm not sure how abbreviations help it be easier on the eyes, it's definitely not uglier with the entire name spelled out. I also disagree with the abbreviations, sure, average users will recognize abbreviations for the films, but for stuff like the New Essential Guide to Droids? Cloak of Deception? Those are things that people are much less likely to recognize, even for the regulars, there are a ton of abbreviations, that honestly, even with only a few refs, do not help. The problem for me about clicking the refs is not that it takes a while longer, is that it takes me to the bottom of the page, that's disconcerting, at least for me. I still say it basically only boils down to laziness. Cull Tremayne 00:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • And I could say that it's lazy of you not to hit the "Back" button after clicking a ref tag, which will take you right back to the citation you clicked and thus, where you were at (my mouse has forward and back buttons on it). To be honest, "lazy/not lazy" fails to pass muster as a valid argument, whereas the "a rule that is not enforced is not a rule" argument put forth by Silly Dan does, with flying colours.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 00:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • You're confusing laziness for the viewer with laziness for the editor. We're supposed to make it easier for the viewer are we not? Convenience for the user, at the expense of a few extra seconds for the editor, I'm on the viewer's side every time. "A rule that is not enforced is not a rule" only begs the question of why the rule isn't being enforced. Not sure how it passes with flying colors, when that argument basically says that any rules that aren't followed or punished should be done away with. Cull Tremayne 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure where you get that from, that we're supposed to make it easier for the viewer than for the editor—after all, it is we, the editors, who so often define policy, not the "viewers". In any case, what you point out about hovering the cursor over the inline citation and seeing a URL (or a link) doesn't always work, not to mention I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to show up when I do that, and since you were the first to point that out this means that not everyone would know to do that. As for the second bit, this is, in part, the entire basis for the concept of "rule of law" -- laws in the Real World(tm) that are not enforced diminish the respect for all laws in a given system of laws, rules, norms and mores. In my—and others'—opinion, precedent often defines policy, and it seems to have been precedent to use a consistent set of abbreviations for articles for a long time.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 01:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I sure hope no one agrees with that, because it has always been my understanding that a lot of our policies are made in order to make casual users of the Wook able to use the site more easily. I'm not entirely sure what me being the first to bring it up has to do with this. I'm just pointing out that it's a convenient thing for me, and therefore, I assumed that others might use that as well (hovering over the ref rather than clicking on it). The only reason I can see for doing away with it, is because it' "easier" to go with the abbreviations. I still don't see how it's that much easier, and why we should use them when they are confusing to a lot of casual users. Additionally, I'm glad that you're trying to inform me on the the rule of law, but I don't think it applies in any sense in this case. I for one find this rule to be useful and a good habit for editors. Just because it's not enforced doesn't mean it's not a good rule, which was the entire point of my statement. Cull Tremayne 02:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Ultimately, what it comes down to is ease of use for editors vs. easy of use for readers. Obviously, at least imo, the latter is more important, but there's nothing wrong with trying to strike a balance. I think this proposal is not unfair to either side and manages to strike this balance successfully, but obviously others disagree, and that is fine. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 17:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Can we focus on the vote now, please? The two here arguing have different opinions, and, to me at least, it's going in a circle over and over again. Cull feels one way, Goodwood another. Continuing the circular argument isn't going to achieve anything, in my opinion. It feels like I'm watching an old rerun of a DarthMRN wiki-lawyer fun-hour, which I had hoped were things of the past. Greyman^(Talk) 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If we insist on using the full name of the ref in the "ref name" tag, why not skip the "ref name" tag entirely? As I understand it, using <ref>Source Name Here</ref> does the same thing as <ref name="Source Name Here">Source Name Here</ref>. The whole point of using "ref name" is to make repeating the full title less tedious; if you're repeating the title, then it makes it MORE tedious than the other method for no appreciable gain. jSarek 02:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • My apologies, Greyman. At any rate, jSarek brings up another good point.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 03:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• How formal is Wookiepedia? How formal would you like Wookiepedia to be? Ajeanette 30 June 2008
• In response to jSarek (and anyone else curious about the two reference tags): The two ref tags do different things, but I understand what you're getting at. The <ref name="Source Name Here">Source Name Here</ref> allows for people to use multiple reference tags (future uses using <ref name="Source name here" />) for the same soucebook/appearance and have it appear like this (Note, please either click on the ref tag[s], or scroll down to the "Notes and references" section) →

"Luke Skywalker was a Human male who lived on Tatooine,^[1] was the son of Padmé Amidala and Anakin Skywalker,^[2] the brother of Leia Organa Solo,^[3] and was raised by his father's stepbrother, Owen Lars.^[1]"

Now, if you scroll down you'll see in the "Notes and references" section that Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope has 1.0 1.1 to the left of it, meaning that there have been two citations to that source. However, if we cut out the use of <ref name="Source Name Here">Source Name Here</ref> in favor of just using <ref>Source name here</ref> then it will look much different, since that code is meant to be used for a single mention/use of a reference in an article. The <ref>Source name here</ref> can be seen in the above Luke example for the non-A New Hope tags, since they are used once. So, ya, if there's only one use of a citation in an article, then the writer is supposed to use <ref>Source name here</ref> instead of <ref name="Source Name Here">Source Name Here</ref>, since using the second one implies that there is going to be more uses of that particular citation tag and so that MediaWiki knows to group those future citation tags together. If not, then every time a writer uses <ref>Source name here</ref> for the same source, it^[4] appears^[5] like^[6] this.^[7] So, we essentially have reference tags 4-7 all citing The Empire Strikes Back, but each having their own citation in the reference list, which (for larger articles) severely clutters it, and for smaller articles just looks unprofessional (in my opinion, anyways). Regardless, the point of this CT (which is to allow abbreviations or not) only applies to the reference tag that is not a one time use deal. For the ref tag that is a one time use (<ref>blah blah</ref>) then abbreviations don't/can't apply since you need to list the full source, so MediaWiki knows what to link to. For the other sort of reference system, MediaWiki needs <ref name="SOURCE">Source Name Here</ref> to be there, so that the source name is defined for when a writer uses <ref name="SOURCE" /> later on in an article, whether they choose to use abbreviations or not. Anyways, I hope I understood your question correctly ( heh :P ), and that this answers what the precise difference of the two different reference tags are :) Greyman^(Talk) 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Greyman's little test. It's obvious that we're wasting time by writing out all of these titles, especially with the movies, when we could be using those acronyms, and find some way to post this to the viewers. Ah, why not have a References Key page? Furthermore, Gray demonstrates that the <ref name/> is the way to go when citing the same thing over and over. See list of phrases and slang for examples in proper referencing of multiple sources that repeat. And it is not hard for the user to find that clicking the number takes them directly to the bottom of the page and identifies that source. If we have a problem with people not being to do even that, then we should inform them on our Key. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes and references

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.