Forum:CT:Sourcing revamp revamp

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Sourcing revamp revamp

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 See Wookieepedia:Sourcing —Xwing328(Talk) 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the sourcing revamp has gone through, I have contemplated hacking my head off with a knife for not voting against it. But since we've gotta have it, let's have it easy, at the same time as having it right. At the moment, you will have to source each paragraph, sometimes, each sentence, if the source differs. This is just a simple tweak to that idea: We add a little note to the end of each section header, and make that correlate with the source from the "Appearances" or "Sources" lists below. If, within a paragraph, there is info from another source, then we would use the standard footnotes. Makes sense? You know it does. What does this achieve? Well, it makes life a hell of a lot easier, for one. And it will make the footnotes a lot tidier. One hitch, unless we find a way around - for these wholesale refs, we won't have page numbers. Just a thought.

Support

  1. .... 08:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Somehow it just seems easy to predict your vote based off your option titles, Fourdot. Havac 07:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. The {{Ref}} tag is useful and good. —Silly Dan (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Based on my comments/"rules" below —Xwing328(Talk) 16:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. I've already started using this. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Make life harder

Comments

Wait, voting for both? Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable 08:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm grumpy. .... 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you do a simple article as an example? Thanks. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a note: the proposal that came closest to being consensus at Forum:Sourcing revamp doesn't require page numbers. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I sourced Herrit according to what I think .... is suggesting. How does that look? —Silly Dan (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not quite a good example for what I'm talking about, and I personally don't know how to make a footnote go to a certain appearance or whatever. .... 04:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I guess I'm not quite getting what you're saying, Fourdot. Do you mean footnote numbers like on the paragraphs in SillyDan's example, but on section headers instead of in the main text? -- Ozzel 06:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes. And then make those footnotes correspond to the relevant source in the exsisting lists, if possible. .... 06:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Let me see if I can restate what I believe Fourdot's basic idea is. Each section header would have a footnote that linked to the source where the bulk of that section's information comes from. Then, within the section text itself, only information *not* from that source would need to be individually footnoted. jSarek 06:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
            • This is kind of only tangentially related, but when did that fugly "src" tag appear on quotes? I thought the whole idea behind the tooltip method was so that we didn't need things like that. - Lord Hydronium 07:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
            • jSarek, ....: would that be something like on Second Battle of Bothawui? The only thing that's missing is the ability to have the footnotes point to the books listed under "Appearances", rather than repeat the listings under "References", which I suspect there's no easy way to do. (I also didn't put footnotes in the infobox for now: not sure how footnoted things have to be.)—Silly Dan (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Giant [1]s = bad. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Dan, that's exactly what I was talking about, bar the appearance thing, which is no biggie, but I agree with Tentacle: The 1's are ugly. But then, they're ugly in the prose too. .... 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Functionally, I think that's perfect, but aesthetically, pretty gross. Is there a way to shrink those numbers down a little bit? Oh! Maybe some of that nested superscript we're banning from signatures would shrink it up a bit! (Just kidding. Don't shoot me!) Wildyoda 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • If that could be put in small font, it'd be much better. -Fnlayson 22:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • You can't make it smaller on the page itself. If it's even possible, we'd probably have to go into the css codes for all the skins to find a way around that. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • I recently sourced the article Tunroth, and I like the section informatin idea. Most of the info in that article came from the GG12, with minor bits from elsewhere. If it wasn't so big and ugly,the section breaks would be great. --Eyrezer 05:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, I found a kinda happy medium: See Quarsh Panaka. When the whole paragraph pertains to a certain source, just use it once. I don't know whether that was the original plan or not... .... 01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That's how I've been handling it. jSarek 12:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • There's now an even easier way. See Brenn Tantor. If all the info under a header is from the same source, there's a special way to tag it (without giant [1]s). Otherwise, stick with paragraphs and sentences (when necessary). I explained it in more detail here: Forum:New Citation rules and Featured Article Queue —Xwing328(Talk) 04:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I just modified Panaka to fit this format too. If you don't mind, I'd like to hijack this thread to set some standards for referencing. Some of the following are Wikipedia standards, others will prevent confusion and promote consistency:
          1. References go immediately after punctuation and outside of quotation marks, with no space between the end of a sentence and a reference tag.
          2. When naming references with <ref name="some source"/>, use the full source name, not abbreviations.
          3. Do not add links to references, unless the source is not linked to elsewhere in the article.
          4. Italicize references when appropriate, as with book titles, etc. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
          • The only one of those suggestions I'm unsure about is the second one. I agree confusing abbreviations should probably be avoided, but I don't see a problem with <ref name="Return of the Jedi">''Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi</ref> or <ref name="Galaxy Guide 12">''Galaxy Guide 12: Aliens — Enemies and Allies''</ref>. (ROTJ and GG12 might be pushing it, though.) —Silly Dan (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
          • And another thing: in cases where a section is primarily sourced via one source, except for one sentence which comes from another source, is it reasonable to use the {{Ref}} template on the section as a whole while footnoting individual sentences (as Volemlock and I did here)? —Silly Dan (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Seems reasonable to me; very much in the spirit of MLA citation. Gonk 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
              • In response to the abbr. vs. full names, one of the other reasons I suggest full, linkable names is to prevent accidental duplicates of a reference. For example: one "Return of the Jedi" and one "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi" on the same page. In response to referencing the header: Personally, I would only reference the header if it is the only reference in that section. When you reference a header in addition to a random reference in the content under that header, how do you know how much information comes from the other reference? Is it the sentence immediately preceding the ref tag, or two sentences, a paragraph, or just a phrase? Yet almost anything is better than nothing at all, and I know it can be a pain to ref. every paragraph (and sometimes even sentence). —Xwing328(Talk) 06:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
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.