Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/New Citation rules and Featured Article Queue

In light of our new citation rules, I think it would be a good idea if, without too much delay, we at least cite the sources on those articles currently in the Featured Article queue. QuentinGeorge 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure, but a group of us in the IRC room agreed that current FA noms would not be required to have the reference tags added yet. Encouraged, yes, but not mandated. As per our discussion, Form IV: Ataru will be the first "fully" sourced new FA nom. (Quarsh Panaka and Battle of Borleias (Yuuzhan Vong War; Second) have already been done; previous FAs.) All successive ones should follow proper procedure. This is yet another reason why we need the Inquisitorius. These people will do a lot of the sourcing, because they care and because it's their job. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order.svg (Audience Chamber) 07:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Seems like you have full control of the situation then Ataru. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 07:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry. But I disagree. None of the noms at that page should be added to the queue unless they're fully sourced. QuentinGeorge 07:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • But they were nomed under false pretenses then. .... 07:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Doesn't matter. If sourcing is part of our MOS, it should apply for all of them - even those already in the queue. QuentinGeorge 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I just think that that's a tad unfair. That's like applying for something that says that you have to be an Australian citizen as a parameter, but as you're going through the process, they introduce a new parameter, say, that you have to come from Melbourne, and then you get excluded due to not adhering to the new rules, despite them changing post-submission. .... 07:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, tough. I won't remove any of my objections until they are addressed. QuentinGeorge 07:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree with QG. It's one thing if the noms have already passed muster and are in the queue (and even those, ideally, should be sourced before hitting the front page), but if they haven't been voted in yet they shouldn't pass any votes until they conform to our sourcing rules. jSarek 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Fine. If you want the current noms sourced, though, more people (you) are going to have to help. Because right now, an objection to sourcing on every article will merely give us a dozen stalled noms on the FA que. I think it's quite ironic that two people who by and large don't contribute to FAs (QuentinGeorge's excellent work on the New Sith Wars aside) are objecting to something that they rarely participate in. Perhaps this should have been thought about in the sourcing proposal, but it wasn't done. I also think it's not quite fair for me to already have discussed this in IRC with other admins and users and said so on the FA page only to have this thread pop up, but that's just me. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order.svg (Audience Chamber) 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Hey, I was just stating what I thought. I looked at the ones in the queue, but other than maybe the Death Star and maybe Zuckuss, they're all in areas I don't know enough about to help sourcing. At any rate, I think there's something amiss for us to be saying "this is the way a Wookieepedia article should look" without it looking the way a Wookieepedia article should look, but as I've said on the reform page, "I've kept myself completely out of FA affairs until now, so it's not really fair for me to jump in now and tell you how you should be doing things." jSarek 15:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
              • If it helps, I am willing to go and source the articles in the queue already, but I will need a hand. QuentinGeorge 20:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Gonna start with Luke and Jaina? If so, then I'm terribly sorry. :-P Cull Tremayne 20:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Make that a never mind. You do mean the articles that are "upcoming" correct? I can lend a hand. Cull Tremayne 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Yep. At the very least I think those in the queue, and those yet to be featured need to conform. The old featured articles can wait - they're in the past. QuentinGeorge 20:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Darca Nyl doesn't need sourced- it's all from one source. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order.svg (Audience Chamber) 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The current FA is now sourced by paragraph (there's little point in doing it more completely when everything but one line is from one source). However, the number of references to the one source screws up the formatting at the bottom. Havac 22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That's going to cause problems for our longer articles which draw extensively from the same source. Does anyone know how to fix it? —Silly Dan (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Check Brenn Tantor now. They way I did it is that if everything under a ==heading== of some sort is from the same source, you <ref> the heading with a small font. If more than one source are referenced though, you stick with the original method. This dramatically cut down on the references the article previously used. We can probably use a template for this too, which would cut down on the nasty coding in the article itself. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
        • You can now use {{Ref}} on an article's headers to get a small, consistent refernce tag, without having to add a bunch of HTML code. You just put {{Ref|NormalRefTagsGoHere}} —Xwing328(Talk) 01:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Example 1: ==Biography{{Ref|<ref name="Cloak of Deception"/>}}==
          • Example 2: ==Biography{{Ref|<ref name="Cloak of Deception">Cloak of Deception</ref>}}==