Forum:CT Archive/Citation for Real World FAs

I wrote this up back when I nominated Shadows of the Empire (soundtrack) for FA, but after much time, bickering, and gnashing of teeth, it finally squeezed through. But now, with another article, the same thing's happening, so for this and for OOU articles in the future, I propose the following amendment to the current rules and policy.

And just to get this out of the way first: Yes, we are not Wikipedia. Duh.

Now, this concerns all potential OOU (and even some IU) Featured Articles. The issue regards sourcing (or citing, or whatever you wish to call it). Aside from a few articles before the FA reform, Wookieepedia only has two real world FAs. Other than that, all of our current FAs are about fictional subjects, and our requirements seem to work rather well. However, when it comes to real subjects, our rules, when interpreted in a certain manner, seem to not fit very well at all.

The problem stems from a strict interpretation of the rules, which while usually appropriate for IU content, doesn't apply as well to OOU. Since most of our articles (and practically all FAs) are about fictional subjects and are written in an IU perspective, we don't name book or game titles in the main text. Therefore, this problem doesn't occur (except perhaps within a BTS section). Also, it generally goes that every bit of text in an FA is in fact sourced. But what about a real world article? Now, call me crazy, but I would say that an OOU FA here might have more in common with a Wikipedia FA than one of ours about a fictional character. Without a doubt, it should have to fit in with all of our FA requirements. But what works for fiction doesn't always work for non-fiction. So I propose that we tweak FA Rule 11 and expand WP:Sourcing to better fit real world articles.

This is the current Rule 11:

"…be completely referenced for all available material and sources. See Sourcing for more information."

I suggest we change it to this:

"…be referenced for all available material and sources where appropriate. See Sourcing for more information."

Then, we add this section to WP:Sourcing, borrowing some wording from Wikipedia:

All in-universe content from more than one source (aside from introductions) must be completely cited with inline references.

Out-of-universe content can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references—books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article—and inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements. Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations.

Hopefully, this would cover the extreme situations that have proven problematic and would allow for a little common sense instead of blindly following the rules just because "them's the rules." Frankly, most of our OOU coverage sucks, and we should be encouraging more FAs, not holding them back with rules meant to apply to fiction. -- Ozzel 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Ozzel 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) For now. I might change my mind if someone comes up with a good counter-arguement. Unit 8311 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) —Xwing328 (Talk) 22:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. This makes for good sense. Thefourdotelipsis 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) This one supports the proposed ammendment.-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 03:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Common sense! Love it!  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 03:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Imperialles 05:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Yep. -Fnlayson 06:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Why double source something? Adamwankenobi 06:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Every fact should be individually sourced, unless the OOU article in question happens to be based on a single-source. jSarek 02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Imperialles 05:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
George Lucas created Star Wars. &#91;source?&#93; -- Ozzel 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You could easily cite Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope; if you were being particularly meticulous, you'd add a note pointing out that it says so in the end credits. You might also or instead cite  The Annotated Screenplays, The Making of Star Wars, or a host of other publications stating this fact. jSarek 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or you could just leave it. That thing sources itself. I think a fundamental issue here is that some people (not you, jSarek), don't understand the difference between sourcing and inline citations. Thefourdotelipsis 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)