Forum:CT:Overdue update to sourcing policy

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Overdue update to sourcing policy

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 Amend Wookieepedia:Sourcing. Grunny (talk) 04:11, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

While browsing Ferus Olin tonight, I found something odd: a ref tag in a header. Without thinking, I hit "edit" and moved the tag to the end of the single paragraph that made up the section. Then it hit me: Wookieepedia:Sourcing actually says to reference headers when the whole section can be sourced to a single source. I haven't actually seen this done in the roughly 1 1/2 years I've been on the Wook, so it seems to me that it's past time to jettison that from the policy so that the policy matches current practice.

Specifically, the proposal is to make the following changes:

  • Under "Rules"/"Reasoning", change the ref note on item 6 to read, "For articles with more than one source, start out as general as you can with the reference tags. For example, if an entire paragraph is from one and only one source, tag the end of the paragraph. However, if there is more than one source, then reference specific sentences as necessary. Finally, if that is not enough, tag individual words as necessary, as a last resort."
  • Under "Rules", delete the current item 7 and its associated ref note.

—Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 01:00, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

AMENDED 01:45, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. As proposer. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 01:00, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Chack Jadson (Talk) 01:08, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  3. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:47, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Grunny (talk) 02:14, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 02:14, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  6. NAYAYEN:TALK 09:52, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  7. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 12:25, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 13:00, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Good idea. We're slowly de-2006ifying this wiki! :P Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:27, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  10. I like the idea of removing refs from headers, especially. Although, I am in favor of the most detailed sourcing possible within a paragraph for the sake of proper attribution. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:00, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Per Fiolli. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:06, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Better referencing++, also per Fiolli, never even thought about referencing headers. --Tm_T (Talk) 01:55, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 07:36, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
  14. --DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 08:42, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
  15. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 14:22, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
  16. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 10:11, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  17. -- 1358 (Talk) 10:46, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  18. When did we ever actually do the refs in headers thing? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:31, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  19. General consensus (at least by the Inq) in some distant memory was that refs in headers looked butt-ugly and messed up the Table of Contents. That's why we quietly abandoned them. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:32, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  20. Per Ataru. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:44, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  21. For those interested, here is the specific CT discussion that resulted in the header sourcing. I agree that it looks weird, sometimes makes it hard to see that things are properly sourced, and is not in particular any easier than copy/pasting the ref to the end of each paragraph in a section. jSarek 05:57, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  22. CC7567 (talk) 06:09, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  23. Bella'Mia 06:27, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  24. Yeah, the header sourcing never really caught on well, and I admit it does look a little bad. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:51, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

  • I suggest the proposed wording read, "...if there is more than one source, reference specific sentences as necessary." This proposed wording makes it seem like individual sentences must be sourced in the case of two or more references, which is just silly. Sometimes sentences/paragraphs that combine statements from different sources can be more efficiently referenced by sticking multiple reference tags to the end of a sentence or paragraph and no referencing information is lost. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:11, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • Or some variation thereof. That exact wording doesn't have to be used. But you get the idea. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:15, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • That's what I get for just copy-pasting the old text and deleting the reference to headers (did I just say that?). :P Amended per your suggestion. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 01:45, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess you can blame me for the policy saying to source headers in the first place ;) —Xwing328(Talk) 03:53, August 6, 2010 (UTC)