Forum:CT:FAN red link addendum, pt. 2 - Sources

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:FAN red link addendum, pt. 2 - Sources

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 was 11 to 5 in favor. No consensus per Wookieepedia:Consensus. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

For Part 1, please see Forum:FAN red link addendum.

Requirement 8 of Featured article nominations states that a Featured article must "…have no more than 3 redlinks and none in the introduction." As currently worded, this allows the sources, appearances and references of an article to contain redlinks. While I happen to think a very small number of redlinks in a Featured Article encourage readers to get involved in our project and are thus a good thing, there is no excuse for a Featured Article to lack complete bibliographic information. Wookieepedia's method of sourcing and referencing relies on the existence of articles on the sources in question to provide that information. Thus, an article with redlinks in its sources, appearances, or references is not completely sourced, as is required by FAN Requirement 11, which states an article must "…be completely referenced for all available material and sources." Thus, we ought to clarify that redlinks are not permitted in those sections. jSarek 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. jSarek 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. I can support this if only because it just looks bad to see red links in an article's appearances list. But yes, it makes all too much sense to allow the reader the opportunity to be able to click on a source in order to learn a little bit more about it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. I'm only supporting if I can get someone with Star Wars Insider 49 to help me make an article :P JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 01:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. I'm anti-laziness. Graestan(Talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. --Eyrezer 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Makes sense. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Might as well. Unit 8311 17:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. I'm supporting in direct disagreement the points Ataru made below. If it is a source, it needs an article. Particularly if we got information from it for the article listing it as a source. (Even if that information was nothing more than "this subject showed up for one tenth of a second in this source). And if we are properly sourcing things, there shouldn't be redlinks in a FAN. Wildyoda 18:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Per my vote on part 1. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 19:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. —Xwing328(Talk) 20:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Thefourdotelipsis 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I disagree, on the basis that there are a bajillion Wizards.com web supplements that don't have articles and basically, IMHO, don't really need them, because the exact source is online, and while yes, in principle we should have them, it's not worth fighting and dying over, if you catch my drift. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that we shouldn't have articles on them, but there's a way to alter the template to just link to the article with an external link, meaning there's no redlink. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If a proposal was made where we treated all Wizards.com pages and HNN, etc. links like that-not including Hyperspace, though-then I would support this measure. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • There are two possibilities here; either these bajillion supplements should have articles, or they shouldn't. In the former case, the articles should be created to properly source the FA candidate article; in the latter, they shouldn't be internally linked at all, since there should never be an article for them in the first place. Either way, they shouldn't be redlinked. jSarek 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
          • As to what Acky said, whenever I see them, I change them back to the one with the internal link. That other template is only for the actual article on the WotC source. grrr. --Eyrezer 07:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Disagree, on the above reason (although I -did- make articles for many, many Wizards.com sources) and the fact that I've been given on occaision snippets of obscure European sources that I have no idea how to make an article on. Yrfeloran 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per Ataru. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Ozzel 07:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per Ataru and Yrf. It's good for these obscure sources, etc. to have articles, but I don't feel it is the nominator's job, per se, to make sure that sources/appearances have articles on the site. For that, I don't feel that this is necessary to hold up FANs. Greyman@wikia(Talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's already necessary they make sure all but three sources/appearances have articles, and only if there are no other redlinks in the article. Is making three more stubs that burdensome? jSarek 00:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Depending on where they come from, yes. Speaking from experience (Willrow Hood), it can be very difficult to make an article on a source you don't have, and harder still to try and convince someone with the source to make it for you - or even give info. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 00:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Per Jorrel. Like I said, I don't think it's necessary to hold up the FAN over it. In my opinion, they still count towards the allowed 3 redlinks. It's also tiresome having others question other's votes; mine isn't going to change on this specific topic any time soon :) Greyman@wikia(Talk) 00:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
        • If you don't have the source in question or a reliable user providing you information from it, you shouldn't be adding info from it to the article in the first place. As for questioning votes, that should be encouraged, not complained about. These are supposed to be discussions to build consensus, not silently tallied ballots. jSarek 00:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
          • That's not how mine worked, however (in my case); the reference to Hood in the Insider article was a small portion of a larger article, and the only bit of information I got dealing with the article. I can hardly make a stub based on a paragraph of information, when I'm not even sure what the article was about. (Er, I could, but I wouldn't be comfortable with it.) JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 00:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, no offense, but we don't agree about that. What's the point in having the freedom to vote how you want, and speak your mind, when others are just constantly going to question your freedom to voice the said opinion. If you'll notice, even though I might not agree with what some of "Supporters" have said, I'm not trying to make them change their mind to suit my views. In fact, I leave their votes to them since that's what they are: their votes. I guess we just view the voting process in different terms, is all. Again, my vote isn't going to change. Greyman@wikia(Talk) 00:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Responded to both in comments section. jSarek 00:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I'm fine with this for smaller articles, but when you get into the hundreds of appearances and sources this is just a bit much, given the sheer number of very obscure sources that are out there for some main characters. Yrfeloran 20:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • If anything, it's the obscure sources that need articles more. "Everyone" knows what the novels are, but the rarer ones are those that will draw a blank and so are more necessary to explain. --Eyrezer 07:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Jorrel: The thing is, if the other user wouldn't even provide basic bibliographic information, then the information is not verifiable, and shouldn't be added to the article in the first place. You don't need to describe the article in any sort of detail (that's why it's a stub), but there should at least be the basic bibliographic info so that readers should know where to go to verify the information that's been added. Greyman: No one is questioning your freedom to voice an opinion. They're relying on it; and relying on the same freedom to voice opinions ABOUT that opinion. That's what discussion is all about. While I agree it's sometimes aesthetically unpleasing and/or confusing to have long arguments in the voting section (which is why this comment is down here), the basic idea that we should be discussing and addressing one another's opinions, rather than just stating our own, is I think MORE conducive to freedom of speaking one's mind, not less. jSarek 00:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you elaborate on the basic bibliographic info? I'm a little lost on that. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 00:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • To a point, maybe, Jsarek. Though, again, I think due to various RL factors, we just don't/won't necessarily see eye to eye on this subject. So, with that, I'm just going to stand by my original vote and leave it at that. Greyman@wikia(Talk)
    • Lack of article on the source doesn't mean the source itself cannot be verified. In fact, people should be checking the actual sources, not articles about them. -- Ozzel 00:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Ack! Edit conflicts abound! Jorrel: The sort of stuff you'd see in the endnotes of a book, or that your teachers made you include in your research papers: author, title of work, title of work it was in (if any), publisher, and publication date. Greyman: I understand we won't see eye to eye, but I do think it was (and is) important to air our differences of opinion, even if we're unlikely to change one another's minds, to help inform others who may share similar points of view. That said, I think we've covered both of our bases on the topic, so I'll be leaving it at that, as well. Ozzel: That's exactly my point. You can't verify the source without the basic bibliographic info to FIND the source, and that info should be making up a bare minimum stub of every work cited. jSarek 01:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I have all of the things you mentioned (Dan Wallace, The Ultimate Empire Strikes Back Insider's Guide, Insider 49, Umm, whoever publishes Insider, May/June 2000). However, even with this information, I cannot comfortably make an article, even a stub, with that information. I'm talking about even a little bit of substance - the basic gist of the article, what the article itself is about. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I have no such qualms. :-p Better to make a stub with that bibliographic information available so people can find the article to expand it, then leave it a redlink. jSarek 04:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.