 |
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes. |
|---|
I wish to bring the already completed Reference Policy from Gamepedia to here at Fandom. As this wiki is lacking a policy on reference format, and there is one already completed there, I don't see the reason on why we shouldn't have it here.Here is the link to the page itself.
Comments[]
References should follow proper grammar rules. Like the rest of the wiki. Great Mara (talk) 11:52, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, if its something we write. However the exception should be when we link to an in game source. If Bethesda gets their grammar and/or spelling wrong we cannot change it.--Ant2242 (talk) 12:03, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- Only if it’s actually part of a transcript or quote. Otherwise, we follow normal grammar rules. The Vault’s citations are overcapitalized. Great Mara (talk) 13:49, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- Please cite an example. From what I can tell the major disagreement is between whether you consider the in game terminal name and section header as part of the transcript or not. The reference policy on Gamepedia does because it cites the specific terminal and section as the reference. With the transcript of that specific section being directly linked from it.--Ant2242 (talk) 14:38, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- Don't give me that cite an example line when you know very well what I'm talking about, Ant. If a terminal name is not part of the accompanying quotation or in a transcript template, it will follow normal grammar rules. Great Mara (talk) 21:31, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- Please cite an example. From what I can tell the major disagreement is between whether you consider the in game terminal name and section header as part of the transcript or not. The reference policy on Gamepedia does because it cites the specific terminal and section as the reference. With the transcript of that specific section being directly linked from it.--Ant2242 (talk) 14:38, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- Only if it’s actually part of a transcript or quote. Otherwise, we follow normal grammar rules. The Vault’s citations are overcapitalized. Great Mara (talk) 13:49, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
I support Mara here. Unless it's a straight quote, standard formatting rules. Overcapitalization might be due to the Fo4/F76 holotapes/notes retaining their in-game capitaliztion, which was always a problem due to efficiency trumping adhering to standards. No excuse now. 
Tagaziel (call!) 21:59, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
I personally find The Vault's manner of referencing incredibly unwieldy and leads to instances where entire terminal entries have been copied into the reference section wholesale, making it unclear what the relevant part in the referenced text is. I've run into this multiple times while merging character pages and often leads to me having to pick through the reference text (which at times is not at the link which has been included) to find specifically where the information is from so I can verify it. Maybe it's not the problem of the policy itself but how it's been applied. Also this is not the right place for a policy vote. --L84tea 
Would you like a cup of tea? 12:22, December 6, 2019 (UTC)
- Can I please have an example of this? I am very curious.--Ant2242 (talk) 12:50, December 6, 2019 (UTC)
- Some quick examples of issues I have run into which I remember off the top of my head are below. These are illustrative of more general issues I have seen.
| Gamepedia article | Comments |
|---|---|
| https://fallout.gamepedia.com/Grant_McNamara | Ref 1: Entire terminal entry copied for three sentences worth of information |
| https://fallout.gamepedia.com/Hank_Madigan | Ref 1: Copying the entire text makes it less visible when the reference is actually missing |
| https://fallout.gamepedia.com/Roger_Maxson | Ref 5: I appreciate the desire to replicate the reference number but it makes it hard to wade through the reference to find the exact sections to verify. If people want to read the whole entry, they can click on the link. That's why it's there. Alternatively, if the reference refers to the entire text of a terminal entry/note/holotape, clearly there are no qualms in other places with just placing a link to the entire text (for example, see Ref 6, 12 and 13 on this page), there's no need to duplicate it in the reference section. |
| https://fallout.gamepedia.com/Ash_forge | Ref 1 has full text, Ref 2 does not. They both link to exactly the same page.
Unrelatedly, the text from Ref 2 does not exist on the page its linked to. |
- Like I said, this may not necessarily be an issue with the policy itself, but its application. However, its application on Gamepedia is the only example I have of how it works in practice, so I have to draw my conclusions about how well it works from there. Also, I work mainly on FO76 content so the nature of the game's release may have exacerbated the issues I'm seeing. However, based on the times I've looked at lore pages from other games, this is not an isolated issue. --L84tea Would you like a cup of tea? 22:14, December 6, 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said, this may not necessarily be an issue with the policy itself, but its application. However, its application on Gamepedia is the only example I have of how it works in practice, so I have to draw my conclusions about how well it works from there. Also, I work mainly on FO76 content so the nature of the game's release may have exacerbated the issues I'm seeing. However, based on the times I've looked at lore pages from other games, this is not an isolated issue. --L84tea
| Gamepedia article | Comments |
|---|---|
| https://fallout.gamepedia.com/Grant_McNamara | Ref 1: That entry is not in format. The format would be [[Camp Venture terminal entries#Training Starts|Camp Venture terminal entries; Commander's Terminal, Training Starts]]
|
| https://fallout.gamepedia.com/Hank_Madigan | Ref 1: I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, however there is no source page. I'm assuming its a holotape and that is the transcript. In that case it would be a link to the holotape page. If this was a NPC conversation it would ideally be the conversation followed by their dialogue files as in format. |
| https://fallout.gamepedia.com/Roger_Maxson | Ref 5: Agreed, probably best that one was just a single link to the page. |
| https://fallout.gamepedia.com/Ash_forge | Ref 1 and Ref 2 Agreed, neither is a reference. |
(←) This therefore brings me back to my initial conclusion that the policy is unwieldy/difficult to understand or apply in practice which is the concern I wanted to voice. --L84tea Would you like a cup of tea? 06:32, December 7, 2019 (UTC)
- So your opinion is that if someone doesn't format their reference, and instead apply a very generic link that may or may not source a reference the entire policy is bad?--Ant2242 (talk) 10:31, December 7, 2019 (UTC)
- I never said the policy was bad, I said I personally found it unwieldy. The proposal invited comments, so I commented. --L84tea
Would you like a cup of tea? 10:56, December 7, 2019 (UTC)
- I never said the policy was bad, I said I personally found it unwieldy. The proposal invited comments, so I commented. --L84tea
I'd love to see some consistency with references so this policy is definitely much better than what we have right now. As Tag already noted, TV couldn't really uphold their own standard very well because of a lack of manpower, but I think we won't suffer that same problem.
That said, what I think the policy at TV is missing is the requirement to include the page anchor where possible. The anchor is the part after the # in a link. For example, you can link directly to line 12 in Abbot.txt by linking to Abbot.txt#12. Similarly, with terminal entries, you can link specifically to Natick Banks terminal entries#The Gate if you're referring to a particular entry on a terminal. I think our policy should require that the reference link is as specific as possible for internal sources.
Something to consider for external sources would be including the date of access. That is, add the text "accessed December 18, 2019" at the end of your reference to tell others when this link was added. That way, others can quickly see which external sources are likely to be out of date.
By the way, @L84tea, if you have any concerns with the wieldiness of the policy, I think this is the place to discuss that and to add improvements to it before adding it to this wiki!
- FDekker talk 09:20, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
Yes, on Gamepedia the structure of the dialogue file pages didn't have an anchor number added. Instead we use the quote itself in its context and clearly label its source files on a separate line. As for the terminal entries references, what you are referring to is what is standard. For example the dialogue just above your comment wherein it was explained and a failure to format was brought to light. I haven't been able to figure out how its "unwieldy".--Ant2242 (talk) 12:08, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
- Except for my last paragraph, what I'm saying has nothing to do with unwieldiness. It's just some improvements over the TV policy I'd like to see.
Good to see that the TV policy already requires linking to sections in terminal pages; I seem to have overlooked that part when reading it.
- FDekker talk 17:05, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
One addition to the policy page that would make it easier for those who are uncertain but at least attempting to follow policy would be to add some clearer examples of what it looks like when policy has been applied correctly and incorrectly, similarly to the sections seen here. Everything on the Vault page makes sense as a purely mechanical guide to see references done, but the only thing it really does not do is go to any length to explain what problems, like those that 'tea mentioned above, could arise.
Technically, it shows how to both cite full text and sections of text, but there is no guide or help given to explain when either of those might be practical in application. It’s all instructional information with no context. Just based on what is present in the problematic references linked above, there’s very little on the Vault policy which clearly states which would be in violation, not counting obvious errors like the information cited not being there. At the very least, there should be some basic considerations suggested on the page that might help an inexperienced user who does not know strengths and weaknesses of particular references (or even act as a reminder to a veteran user whose area of expertise may not be dealing with references.)
I do not know if that’s what was meant by unwieldy, but I do think it is an issue worth addressing before it should ever be brought to a vote. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 17:07, December 20, 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good point! I like the suggestion. I think it would be worthwhile to make a quick draft of the policy with the necessary improvements before moving it to a policy vote. Maybe do some copy editing and get Tea on board to improve the wieldiness.
- FDekker talk 10:31, December 21, 2019 (UTC)- I still don't understand what you mean by "unwieldy". If it's the "lack of explanations" as to why the references are like they are is simply not true. It clearly states the complete format to keep it in context. However I am not against adding the clarification(s) of this into the page.--Ant2242 (talk) 19:56, January 1, 2020 (UTC)
- I have kicked a hornet's nest. I shall be more blunt – the policy is apparently neither easy nor intuitive to apply even after reading the guide because history has shown it applied inconsistently across The Vault pages, even on pages which have been written by experienced editors. The policy content itself is fine but the policy page is a giant wall of text and a practical nightmare to read, which dissuades casual (and not-so-casual) editors from using it. If we can produce an easy "cheat sheet" for the thing, I'm more on board. --L84tea Would you like a cup of tea? 21:04, January 1, 2020 (UTC)
- I have kicked a hornet's nest. I shall be more blunt – the policy is apparently neither easy nor intuitive to apply even after reading the guide because history has shown it applied inconsistently across The Vault pages, even on pages which have been written by experienced editors. The policy content itself is fine but the policy page is a giant wall of text and a practical nightmare to read, which dissuades casual (and not-so-casual) editors from using it. If we can produce an easy "cheat sheet" for the thing, I'm more on board. --L84tea
- I still don't understand what you mean by "unwieldy". If it's the "lack of explanations" as to why the references are like they are is simply not true. It clearly states the complete format to keep it in context. However I am not against adding the clarification(s) of this into the page.--Ant2242 (talk) 19:56, January 1, 2020 (UTC)
Vote[]
- --Ant2242 (talk) 11:05, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't how votes are done lol. Paladin117>>iff bored; 11:17, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- - a good policy to have as references with context of the question asked, then the response, and where the text is kept saves a lot of future headaches of picking out stuff pulled from thin air. It also stops lines that go "According to this note/person, yada yada" from being a staple of every page. Devastating DaveZIP ZAP RAP 14:30, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- - it's a no-brainer, frankly. There's no extant policy, GP has one readily available. Tagaziel (call!) 21:58, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- Addressing the lack of policy is something that does need to be done, but I do not feel this policy is currently ready for an official vote. Please see my comments above. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 17:09, December 20, 2019 (UTC)
- What Paladin said. - FDekker talk 10:31, December 21, 2019 (UTC)
