Forum:SH:Symposium on internet citation templates

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. JocastaBot (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Symposium on internet citation templates

There has been tremendous progress on the front of citations and referencing in recent years, in particular regarding internet citation templates. We still have a lot to do, especially now that the quotation system has been updated to accommodate for references. But I also think it wouldn't hurt for us to discuss the potential ways to improve and develop further our citations system.

First, let me reassure you, I'm not trying to reinvent the system (Force forbid, I'm not that mad), but I think there is places for us to grow and improve, and over time I've come to feel I wasn't the only one to think this way. So, without further delay, let's open the discussion on all the small ways to do just that. You'll find beneath a series of topics for you to partake in, but fell free to add new topics (and sub-topics) if you think of something relevant to the global discussion. NanoLuukeCloning facility 11:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Standards

This probably has been noticed by a lot of editors, but while there is some standards in our internet citations system, it certainly not unified across the board. To illustrate what I'm talking about, let's select a few templates: {{Cite_web}}, {{SW}}, and... {{Gamespot}}:

  • {{Cite_web|url=|title=|author=|date=|format=|work=|publisher=|pages=|language=|quote=|archiveurl=|archivedate=|nobackup=|nolive=}}
  • {{SW|domain=|url=|text=|int=|archivedate=|archiveurl=|nobackup=1|nolive=1}}
  • {{Gamespot|url=|text=|archivedate=|archiveurl=|subdomain=|nobackup=}}

As we can see, Cite_web is much more detailed compared to the other two. Looking at SW (official website) and Gamespot (press), we lose important crediting information such as author and date of publication. In fact, with Cite_web being our template for most un-official websites, we observe a double standard within web citations between the very detailed Cite_web and everything else.

I'm not advocating to simplify Cite_web, as the profusion of information is relevant to assert the level of trustworthiness of a website. Instead I think we should reconsider upgrading some of our template pool with the author and the date parameters. To me those are essentials both for editors and readers. I do realize this would increase our workload to upgrade the templates (what is Wookieepedia, if not some kind of Sisyphus punishment we inflict on ourselves, really? ^^), but it's a bandaid I would rather rip now than later, as I really much think it's not something we can let by. NanoLuukeCloning facility 11:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Tbh I'm not sure how I'd feel about seeing authors and publication dates in Sources lists. And something to keep in mind is that there are already well-established differences in citation template usage between the sections of articles they're in. For example, we do page numbers (e.g., CSWECite) in references, but not in Sources; we do quotations in references, but not in External links, and so on. And regarding authors, I know personally it's sometimes very difficult if not outright impossible to track down either the authors or the dates for webpages, which results in web citations sometimes having them and sometimes not having them - which is a kind of unavoidable inconsistency, but one that I think I'd rather see in the references section, not in Sources lists. And finally, to be brutally honest, don't backup links already provide a guaranteed way for the reader to find out the author and/or date if they are available at all? Imperators II(Talk) 11:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression, or it was at least my interpretation, that this would only be used in references, and the fields would be left blank whtn the templates are used in "Sources." MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 16:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
      • To be completely honest, I was so focused on references that Sources were in my blind spot while writing this. So yes, as Fred suggest, my point would only concern References and notes, not Sources (like you said, that would create even more inconsistency, such as with books not indicating authors or year of publication). The idea, in the context of referencing, would be to provide author and date (without the need for going on another page) on web citations (not all, as again, we've never done this for books references). To be honest, it really bother me to see Gamespot not featuring those information while being a press citation. NanoLuukeCloning facility 07:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd personally like to see our website templates more closely match Cite_web, but I also think we have far too many templates for unofficial websites (like Gamespot) rather than using Cite_web for them. It makes sense for the official sources to stand out more with their logos. I've expressed on Discord several times that I wish the SW template included author crediting, specifically, to better keep track of what was written by whom! Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    • We agree on crediting. However, while I was of the same opinion (exact same argument about icons too, see my discord rant about it... but in retrospective, I feel I was overdramatic) about specialized template when CC8 created a template for Gamespot last year, but I've since changed my mind. While at the time I said "I can't feel bothered to even try to regulate this through a CT", I think it's time to ask the community it's final opinion on the matters (and a bunch of related ones) with a bunch of flash CTs. NanoLuukeCloning facility 16:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I 100% support this, though I think social media templates should continue Consistency is king and such information should be noted in the reference as standard citation practice :) Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

New templates

There is regularly new templates to be created when new official websites appear every now and then. However, I would like to examine exactly how we want to expand our pool of templates regarding already existing non-official websites. Let's first dismiss commercial and social websites, those are pretty well covered already. I'm thinking more about press, blogs and fansites. Anything currently covered by Web_cite is fair game, so to speak.

It was something that I once considered a Pandora box, as I wasn't really supportive of {{Gamespot}} when it was create. At the time, I thought that we would do better by leaving dedicated templates to official websites, as a sign of status and complete trust as a source, and I debated the idea with others on Discord a while ago. But I realized that my position wasn't popular, and mostly motivated by some bias on my part. I'm now very much supportive of the idea of creating dedicated citation templates (and their neat little icons ^^), but I think there is need for some limitation, as we certainly don't want to have a dedicated template for every blog out there only cited a handful of times.

So what criteria are we talking about? I think it boils down to two things: is the source relevant/respected/trustworthy (such as most press handle) and how much is it used on Wookieepedia. On the former, it will certainly be relevant that there is some project in the work to create a document to help editors evaluate web ressources (of which I need to hammer out the details with Ayrehead). On the later, well, I'm not sure, the more we wait and links are added, the more work there is to be done for switching to Cite_web to a new template (even if some of it can be done by a bot). One way to do it would be to say: ok, if we reach 50 citation instance for one website, the need to transfer it to a dedicated template must be prioritized, probably by people working for WP:Web. NanoLuukeCloning facility 11:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  • One thing I'd definitely like for us to avoid with respect to the latter point is having a situation like "this website is cited 30 times on the Wook, so it gets a citation template of its own, but this site is only cited 29 times, so nah, it has to stick to Cite_web. Imperators II(Talk) 11:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I see your point, and recommandations (there's no need to get policy prescriptive on this) would be about concern regarding the lack of specific templates past a certain point versus being about a hard minimum point. The idea is to keep it flexible, as we might want to create templates for even the very first link introduced from a need official website for example. NanoLuukeCloning facility 07:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the number should be used as a guide not as a strict defining factor. I've wondered occasionally if we need a template for merriam-webster dictionary website, which seems to be used regularly for IU articles with real-world counterparts Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Fansites

Another point I'd like to raise is the relation between fansite citation template and notability. Let's dismiss TheForce.net from the discussion, as it is already used at least 300 pages, as already it's own page, and really need get it's own specific template. However, what about other websites that are seeing noticeable use on Wookieepedia? For example, Jedinews is linked around 150 times, wouldn't it be a little hypocritical of us to dispose of this ressource without having at least a small article? The alternative would be to link to the future project page on "trusted web sources". Any thoughts? NanoLuukeCloning facility 13:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm hesitant with this, and I think this should remain as a case-by-case basis. For example, if a fansite covers some weird niche topic, it may be cited many times on articles surrounding that subject (BTS/reception/etc sections). However, the site itself is still not notable (likely because of that niche topic). Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    • It's something that could fall under the "sources panel" I've mumbled about in recent weeks (i.e. having a panel of editors reviewing documentation). More on that... later. NanoLuukeCloning facility 16:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

ArchiveAccess

Something that has bugged me for a while, is the lack of standardisarion of template syntax for archival links. There's a lot of variation between templates. Template:ArchiveAccess does a good job but this only works for centralised archive links and throws errors if an central archive page doesn't exist for the particular template. It would be great if we had one template to handle ALL archival link handling. So that if someone wanted to created a new citation template, all they would need to do is drop in the archival template with some parameters and not worry about getting the archive linking logic in the correct order. Maybe Template:ArchiveAccess could be updated to not focus just on a centralised archive. Plume Tray (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Turns out Template:ArchiveAccess already has the logic for handling templates without a central archive, just needed a few tweaks to work with social media citation templates. Testing a few changes now and it should be good to go. Plume Tray (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Love what your doing with this. Just moved the topic under it's own subheading ^^. NanoLuukeCloning facility 07:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • NB: Plume is currently working on updating our complete arsenal of citation templates, and the progress can be followed on this WP:Web forum topic. NanoLuukeCloning facility 09:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Image parameter - perhaps file instead

Current practise is to include a link to a screenshot for social media posts, such as for facebook linkedin, where wayback etc doesn't work on those websites. Most templates accommodate this using an |image= parameter. While this is absolutely fine, I'd like to future proof this by standardising the parameter, by renaming it |file=. This is because sometimes, its not neccessarily an image, and I've seen instances of PDF documents being used and the fact that everything here is prefixed with "File" namespace. Potentially, this could be opened up to video or sound files in the future. So using a more meaningful parameter name would help. This would require some minor template rework and botting, but eventually this will be controlled through the standard backup options provided by Template:ArchiveAccess as it already includes |file= parameter, and maybe update instructions on Template:BackupLinkHelp regarding files. Plume Tray (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  • We've discussed this (great) idea further on Discord, and it lead to the creation of a new parameter: "archivefile=". NanoLuukeCloning facility 09:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Not sure if I saw that conversation or not, but wouldn't it be better to have a single parameter instead of two? Archivefile is a better name for sure though. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
      • "archivefile" parameter replaces any instance where an image/screenshot/audio/video/pdf are used as a backup link. Many templates had different names for the parameter but all implied the same thing, this just unifies the naming convention for it. Template:BackupLinkHelp has already been updated to include "archivefile" as one of the archive options. Note, "archivedate" and "archiveurl" should always be the first priority, and where this isn't possible for whatever reason, then a file is still an option. Plume Tray (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Other comments

I think I will use the result of the discussion here to write some quick internet citations guideline for WookieeProject Web and add to its forum to create a hub for templates request. NanoLuukeCloning facility 11:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Also, I want to shamelessly remind editors that WookieeProject Web is a thing, and you can go there to join and start (or continue) any web-related project you might have or if you have any questions (one of the project goal is to craft some tutorials). NanoLuukeCloning facility 07:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going to create a page under WP:Web for the purpose of template standardization and calibration. It's a small side-project I've started working a while ago to make sure our icons are aligned, but it will also help to ensure text content follow sensibly the same structure on all templates. NanoLuukeCloning facility 10:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)