Forum:CT Archive/Sourcing revamp

Forums &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

One of the major problems Wookieepedia faces today is credibility. Anyone can edit a wiki, and this draws major criticism from several holds. Worst of all are the wiki bashers; people who, upon seeing Wookieepedia mentioned, will leap into a discussion and state how "Wookieepedia is useless as a resource." I'm sick of that, and I propose we do something about it: Revamp our whole sourcing system. We should switch to a more Wikipedia-like system, adopting footnotes as the proper way to source. With footnotes, we are able to cite specific pages in books, comics, and the like (Exact time in movies and TV shows). Sure, it looks less visually appealing, but it is much more academic and professional, and will silence the wiki bashers if handled well. To summarize:
 * Switch to a footnote system allowing specific citations
 * Less visually appealing, more professional
 * Helps boost credibility.

A hastily put-together example of the proposed system can be found here. &mdash;Imp 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For

 * Let's strike back at the wiki bashers. &mdash;Imp 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Looks fine to me. - JMAS 18:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * —Xwing328 (Talk) 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, or Silly Dan's amended proposal below. --Azizlight 06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Against

 * 1) For a few reasons...1) Visually unappealing, which you've noted...2) It just means that people will make up page numbers, so we'll still have to check everything...3) Just try sourcing articles like Anakin Skywalker like this...4) We use something similar over on the Stargate wiki and, even when there's only episodes that need referenced, it still causes so much work that I don't edit there much...5) New users won't know about it (they don't even know about the Appearances and Sources sections sometimes) and so won't use it, leading to almost all new users edits being reverted. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Very unsavory to look at, and distracts me from the IU of the article. It's like... I'm reading someone's story and then suddenly they have a random fourth-wall break. ---  V ladius M agnum ( Clan Magnum )[[Image:dasymbol.gif|20px]] 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For amended proposal
I'd suggest something similar, but less rigourous. I think it's a bit too much work to get, for example, the time at which a character appears in The Star Wars Holiday Special. Also, several books have been reprinted with varying page numbers: which printing do we have to use?

If we say no to page numbers, there may not be a point in footnotes for articles with only one source/appearance. Thus, I'd suggest:


 * Only the source needs to be given: the page number/time code/game level/etc. can be omitted.
 * No footnotes are needed for articles with only one source/appearance.
 * While we're phasing it in, we shouldn't jump down new users' throats for failing to footnote their articles, especially if they list a source according to our old standards.
 * We'd need detailed citations for all future "good" and "featured" articles, but sourcing all of our current articles will be expected to take some time: this isn't an addition to the policy, just something we'd have to bear in mind. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This will probably help get it started. —Xwing328 (Talk) 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I've actually wondered at the fact that this hasn't been imposed before, and this seems to be the most intelligent and diplomatic proposal. -- Wild yoda - talk - contribs -[[Image:Yoda_cartoon.jpg|20px]] 23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Imp 06:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Yeah, we really need this. --Azizlight 06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm not entirely sure we should be forgoing page numbers, but until we can think of a satisfactory manner of citing which book they come from, this will have to do. jSarek 08:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Going over all existing articles will take forever and be an immense pain in the choobies, so we'll need to be very forgiving during the phase-in--especially when it comes to new/casual users. I mean, a sourced but unfootnoted article is still valid and is preferable to no article at all.--Valin Kenobi 09:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Lot of work but definitely needed. Green Tentacle (Talk) 11:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
How do you propose we handle articles for which there is only one source? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've actually used references on some pages before. I presume that for the statement "Luke blew up the Death Star," we would just use one footnote, like Episode IV. However, what would we do to determine the proper source, since many sources tell of him blowing it up? Use the first published, with movies taking precedence? --Xwing328 (Talk) 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds good. --Imp 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a horrid example if I must say. Who is going to question that Luke blew up the Death Star? ;) --  Riffsyphon  1024 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By citing individual pages in that source. --Imp 20:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. In that case, I'll suggest an amended proposal (see above). &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If we do go the page-numbers route (which I'm not entirely convinced won't be more hassle than it's worth), it should be in the currently available printing or latest edition--which normally would be the paperback instead of the hardcover. No sense citing hardcover pages in, say, the Children of the Jedi hc that hasn't been in stores for a decade--whereas you can waltz right down to Barnes & Noble and pick up the ppb.--Valin Kenobi 09:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it...
The terms "Appearances" and "Sources" still cause confusion among some users, or don't actually make much sense. Should we make up new unambiguous terms, to make the purpose of these sections more obvious? Eg. "In-Universe references" and "Out-of-Universe references". Not a great example, but I can't think of anything better at the moment. While this may seem like a daunting task, it would be fairly easy to achieve with bots. --Azizlight 06:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about merging "Sources" into the "Appearances" section as a subsection titled "Reference books"? --Imp 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah that could work. Or call it "Reference materials", to include sources like the SWCCG and the Databank. --Azizlight 07:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hit am edit conflict there. I think renaming Sources to 'Reference materials' or 'Reference something' would fine.  Leave Appearances as is. -Fnlayson 07:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or 'Reference sources'.--Valin Kenobi 09:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So we can't make Sources anymore apparent for our new users? If any change is made, then Sources can be changed to References, but DO NOT change Appearances, as they signify in-universe "appearances", something I'm quite proud of that has stood up. I do hope your bot can take the pressure of this change. --  Riffsyphon  1024 11:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)