Forum:CT:Clarify the requirement to name all Refs

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Clarify the requirement to name all Refs
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. 1358 (Talk) 19:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Currently it is unclear whether all references should be named. Although naming references is common practice, the current policy is open to allow unnamed references using "<ref>" rather than "<ref name="example">.

Proposal is to clarify this and require all references to be named, updating current wording in Wookieepedia:Sourcing. This involves a rewrite of Insertion of a reference to include acronym examples and specify that references should be given a name or acronym; and a clarification of rule 3 that full names are not required.

First change

Replace Wookieepedia:Sourcing#Insertion of a reference with the following:

When inserting the first point of citation, use the following code and ensure you give the reference a relevant name or acronym: 

<ref name="Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope">[[Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope|''Star Wars'': Episode IV ''A New Hope'']]</ref>

OR

<ref name="ANH">[[Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope|''Star Wars'': Episode IV ''A New Hope'']]</ref>

For the second and all subsequent insertion points of citation using the same source/reference: 

<ref name="Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" />

OR

<ref name="ANH" />

Second change

Replace Wookieepedia:Sourcing#Rules Rule 3 with the following:

When naming references with <ref name="some source" />, users are encouraged to use full, linkable reference names to prevent accidental duplicates of a reference. Easy-to-follow abbreviations are acceptable in place of a full name and all references are required to have a name, whether it is an abbreviation or a full name.[1]

  1. ↑ Use of consistent linkable reference names prevents 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. See Forum:CT:Axing silly sourcing rule and Forum:CT:Clarify the requirement to name all Refs

Votes

Support

  1. As proposer, this will make it clearer for newcomers and returning editors Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    OOM 224 13:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    Absolutely: you can never know if you will use the same refernce again in the article, and it doesn't take much time to write the name of the ref. LucaRoR CIS roundel (Talk) 14:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Say no to instruction creep. It's useful to name refs when you reuse them in the article, but when you don't, it's just wasted editor time. Stake black msg 14:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • How is it instruction creep to clarify that refs should be named? They should always be named to make finding existing refs easier when adding new information, and to make sure duplicate references aren't made, which would result in a messy reflist. OOM 224 15:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • It's creating a new requirement. Also, naming references doesn't solve the issue of duplicate references. I've accidentally created duplicate references, and both had different names. If there's a need to reuse the ref in the future, when the future comes, you can name them. If not, it's a waste of time. Stake black msg 01:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. I don't think this is something that needs to be codified at all. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. I don't see a compelling need to codify this, and Lewisr's point below just reinforces my opinion. 1358 (Talk) 15:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  4. Per above. There is no need to codify this since it feels like instruction creep to me. We also have no control over which editor people use, so this feels like a way to just enforce people to use the source editor and not the visual editor, even though that would be ideal. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 15:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  5. Per above. VergenceScatter (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  6. I might have agreed to just the first part. Definitely not the second. But honestly, I mostly agree this is unnecessary. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 16:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  7. Would have agreed if not for Lewisr's point about vis editor. Wish everyone just used source editor, but to Erebus' point, we can't make people do it. Thus, I am opposed. Wok142 (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  8. Rakhsh (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  9. Tommy-Macaroni 19:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  10. Actually, after reading the current policy, it allows us to enforce the precedent anyway, so I don't see a need for a change. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 19:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  11. Per above. JRT2010 (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  12. IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  13. per frd JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 02:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  14. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  15. I've changed my vote mainly per Lewisr comment below and Fred. LucaRoR CIS roundel (Talk) 07:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  16. Green Tentacle (Talk) 10:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  17. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 18:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  18. Fan26 (Talk) 02:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  19. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 03:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  20. OOM 224 14:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  21. Unnecessary instruction creep. Nameless references rarely (if ever?) negatively impact the experience of a reader. And it's not like anyone else is likely to get irksome if someone adds appropriate names to an article's references; no one has ever called me out or started an edit war when I've named (or renamed) them in the course of my edits. jSarek (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  22. I have the tendency to name all my refs, but this is unnecessary instruction creep. --NanoLuukeCloning facility 11:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  23. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • There's a slight issue with trying to make it a requirement, if you use the visual editor it does not seem to allow you to name the references. Of course this can be resolved by switching to other editors, though in some instances I've tried asking the user to switch and they have not not switched for whatever reason and is still formatting the references without a name. So how would this CT resolve that issue? Lewisr (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, leaving refs without names would be a violation of policy if this is passed, but if it's because the user was using the visual editor, then I'm sure we're not going to allow people giving the offending user warnings citing this amendment since it's ultimately their choice whether to switch to the source editor. OOM 224 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Then I think this needs to included somewhere, because someone who isn't aware the visual editor doesn't allow them to be named could then issue some kind of warning to the user over it without knowing the user isn't intentionally doing it Lewisr (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
        • We have other policies that are hanfled only when the article reaches status and it can be fixed then, can this not be treated the same? we dont ping people for using the wrong dash, we either just fix it or raise it when the article is nominated for status... Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)