Forum:CT:Card game citations

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Card game citations
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 Oppose proposal. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:06, July 10, 2015 (UTC)

As discussed here, currently sources lists require each individual card to be listed. This proposal is to change this, so only the expansion/set would be listed once, with the specific card being used only for referencing purposes. This will significantly lower the amount of sources listed with cards. For example, the current sources list for the Invasion of Naboo article lists almost 700 cards, which is still incomplete. This proposal would lower that list to a relatively smaller list of about 170 card game expansions. The changes to be made would be:

  • Layout Guide#Sources: *Only a card game expansion should be listed in the sources using the relevant template, not individual cards.
  • Layout Guide#Notes and references: *If a card game introduces new information, the specific card to introduce the information should be referenced. If the new information is not on a card, such as inside a rulebook, the game's expansion should be referenced followed with {{C|a note}} being used to specify the origin of the information.
  • Manual of Style#Citation templates: (This would be a new subsection in the citation section) When citing information from a card game, the card containing the information must be specified. The exception to this is if the information's origin is not from a specific card, such as a rulebook. In this case, the expansion should be referenced with {{C|a note}} being used to specify the origin of the information.
  • A note would be added to the page of each card game citation's template: When using this template within the Sources section, only specify the set. A card should only be specified when this template is used for a reference.

Tags such as {{1st}}, {{1stID}}, {{1stm}}, {{Po}}, etc would thus be applied across the entire expansion, not individual cards. I.e. we treat the expansion as a single source.

I have been in contact with MJ, who helped ensure a change would create no problems, and he assures me a change could be implemented by a bot very easily.

Examples:

TL:DR - we treat card expansions as a single source, rather than individual cards. Individual cards are specified for referencing purposes only.

Support

Manoof (talk) 03:01, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
Coruscantfan (Talk) 03:17, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  1. Support. Card expansions ARE a single source, even if their parts are separable after purchase, and the sheer number of unhelpful citations of individual cards means actually looking through a Sources list on articles particularly beleaguered by card citations becomes untenable. One should not confuse a desire to make an article manageable and readable to our readership as "laziness." jSarek (talk) 03:36, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
    Wookieepedia doesn't cite individual action figures either, so this simplification isn't unprecedented. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:37, June 26, 2015 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Insufficient mainspace edit total over previous six months -- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:46, June 26, 2015 (UTC))
    Yeah, actually we do. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:59, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. This basically codifies laziness. The cards are unique items that aren't all located together, like pages in a sourcebook are; the point of the card names is to signify which of those unique cards feature the subject. How would someone reading a sources list know which cards in the set actually reference the subject? Only a handful (if any) will be listed in the references. You're basically asking us to abandon our list-all-sources-comprehensively policy because the sources lists are too long. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 03:17, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
    Not laziness and not abandon the policy, simply efficiency and a streamlined version of the policy in this specific case. Most readers look at the sources list to see what books cover a subject, and if you actually look at the list of sources in the Invasion of Naboo article, there are several books "hidden" between long lists of cards, very easily skipped past. Out of 668 listed sources on that page, 570 are individual cards. What I am talking about is not "laziness", simply efficiency both for the readers, who would find scrolling through long blocks of the same template to find the next non-card source tedious, and editors, who either cannot look at every card and add the card as a source to every relevant article or assume a sources list is complete (whilst it is missing several cards) and have the article reach status with an incomplete sources list, because nobody wants to go through a card game's card listings and images for a subject that may have been mentioned or appeared in a background image. The point of referencing specific cards is to highlight those cards that are important. For the purposes of referencing, the sources list would be used to narrow down the search - I wouldn't have to look through the entire library of CCG cards, of which there are 3729 cards, according to tradecardsonline.com, simply the specific expansion, which have at most 200 cards. Still an effort but a relatively lower one. If, in all seriousness, you can tell me that you have, in the interests of getting an article to status, checked every game's expansion and card for unique information, then you have my respect for that effort. Manoof (talk) 05:38, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Per Cade.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 03:32, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Card sets are not single sources, and they shouldn't be treated as such. This is no different than how we handle individual comic issues or individual magazine articles. Wookieepedia uniquely exists to document this sort of Star Wars minutiae, and we should never compromise our mission to be as comprehensive in detail as we possibly can be. This is also infringing dangerously close on the terrible idea of "only list items in Sources lists that contain new information," which is neither objective nor practical, not to mention not comprehensive. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:59, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  4. Per all above. Expanding on Toprawa's point, the growing tendency to only list sources that offer unique information is unprofessional and shoddy. We exist as a comprehensive encyclopedia that pays attention to all of the details. CC7567 (talk) 05:05, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, because I feel that laziness has a little to do with the motivation behind this proposal, per Tope, Cade, and Manoof's own reply to Cade. However, I primarily oppose because I think I've worked out a superior compromise that offers completeness and a streamlined approach, thanks to Richter below, making both sides happy. It's in the comments. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 06:46, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  6. Per all the above. Sometimes, there's such thing as good complexity. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 07:03, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  7. Per above, and I also like Richter and Jorrel's proposal below. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 14:45, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  8. While initially supporting this effort in order to streamline, the opposing arguments have convinced me otherwise. Additionally, Jorrel and Richter's suggestion below is a good alternative. Coruscantfan (Talk) 18:09, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  9. Purely for the option below. Quite disappointed that nothing was mentioned in a discussion that was up for over a month where I wanted opinions above, in which case I wouldn't have worried about making the CT... Manoof (talk) 01:12, June 28, 2015 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I hadn't even thought of it until Richter said something, and then I figured out how such coding would actually work. Had the idea existed then, I'd definitely have whipped something up. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 02:09, June 28, 2015 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't assume that silence from others on a Senate Hall thread is complicity or disinterest. Quite the opposite, in fact. That some users may choose to not comment on a given SH thread usually speaks volumes. The Canon/Legends tab switch is a primary example. Just because some people may be voicing support on a SH thread, it's important to weigh what influence, if any, those users have in the larger community. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:53, June 28, 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't feel disappointed. I'm glad you brought this to a CT. It brought out ideas from people that may not have otherwise come out, and this has led us to a viable solution.--Richterbelmont10 R2 sig(come in R2!) 21:31, June 28, 2015 (UTC)
  10. Per above, and I love the idea below. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:11, July 4, 2015 (UTC)
  11. Per everyone else. Jorrel's idea is a neat solution. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:26, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Is there any way of placing all the cards that belong to one set in a "show/hide" spoiler-block? That way we can list the expansion set and all the cards, but at the same time streamline our Sources list, making it look better. For example, the Invasion of Naboo sources list would then have the set, Young Jedi Collectible Card Game — Battle of Naboo Card: Show cards, but would only take up one bullet point instead of 87. Next to it is an option where the reader can click on a "show" button to see all the cards.--Richterbelmont10 R2 sig(come in R2!) 03:53, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
    • There is, and while I don't understand the current way such templates are made (both "invoke" and the entirety of the Mediawiki page for collectable card game templates elude me) I managed to mock up such a design. Now, I'm not sure of the feasibility of controlling the parameters on such a template, because in theory you'd have to account for infinite entries, but if there's a way to have a template constantly pull from each field after the first, it'd work just fine. I mocked up such a template here, shown below.
  • Card 1
  • Card 2
  • Card 3
  • As this will be controlled by a template, the coding will (of course) look far cleaner, will save an editor from having to use the same template over and over, and will save a reader from having to scroll through pages of unique cards (if they so choose). The information is still there, and the requirement to find each card is also still there, but it's far more convenient and readable for users. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 06:46, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
    • This is a great idea, Jorrel. Nice job. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 07:03, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
      • I tweaked the hide button size and added a bullet point to the card set, but otherwise it's pretty good. We can look at making that a template where URLs are provided for the cards. Also, laziness might not have been the right word; was a bit tired at the time. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 13:07, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
        • I think this new spoiler-block formatting looks wonderful! It will make the Sources list more manageable and at the same time preserve the card names.--Richterbelmont10 R2 sig(come in R2!) 16:48, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
          • Really like this, and it could possibly be used for other citation templates, like that databank... Manoof (talk) 01:12, June 28, 2015 (UTC)
            • I was thinking of other ways this template could be used, and I came up with mostly merchandising stuff (LEGO, action figures, etc.), but the Databank/Encyclopedia is an interesting idea. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 02:09, June 28, 2015 (UTC)