Fallout Wiki

READ MORE

Fallout Wiki
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Nukapedia's Citation Style: a discussion of options
 
Gametitle-Wiki.png
Gametitle-Wiki.png

Yes, it's me again, Ever, starting yet another forum about Nukapedia's Citation Style after the marginally ineffective citation committee and the failure of not one, not -two-, but THREE discussion sessions. Don't worry, this time I've got a plan to make this as simple and user-friendly as possible and it begins here.

What follows is an outline of options you, as users, have in deciding what our citation style ought to be when it comes to content verification. But before you begin, a few things you should know if you don't already.

First off, a Citation are those little superscript numbers you may have seen on wikipedia or in journal articles after certain claims (you know, these things[1]) and they reference a source that -should- verify the claim it's connected to. Supplemental text following the linked source is a Footnote.

Secondly, a Citation Style is merely how we choose to display our citations on pages. It has no effect on verification or content policies other than how it looks, is coded, and is patrolled.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, none of the styles presented will become required quality control policies for articles. The styles will merely systematize how we want our end-product to look as we accomplish citation goals at our own pace.

Secondary Footnotes

Secondary Footnotes are the verification aid offered in a the form of text (Ex. "... see this." where, "this" is the aid) They may or may not be accompanied by primary footnotes (Ex. "For this..." where, "this" is the claim).

No Secondary Footnote

Nothing follows the source in the footnote.[2]

Pros: Minimal reference section visual obstruction, synergizes with a plural superscript frequency (see below) to form a cited sources list
Cons: Minimal verification ease

Transcript Excerpt

A copy of the relevant portions of a transcript is added as a verification aid.[3]

Pros: Maximum verification ease
Cons: Maximum reference section visual obstruction and potential load-time burden

Bread-crumb Trail

A bread-crumb trail, such as a line number, paragraph number, sentence number, page number, etc., is added as a verification aid.[4]

Neutral: Intermediate verification ease; intermediate reference section visual obstruction

Superscript Frequency

Superscript Frequency is how many times a superscript should be allowed to follow another

Plural

A superscript can be followed by further superscripts. This option may lead to citation overkill.[5][6][7][8][9][10] See: Wikipedia: Citation overkill

Pros: Can synergize with no footnotes (see above) to create cited sources list, thereby minimizing reference section visual obstruction
Cons: Maximizes article body visual obstruction

Singular

A superscript appears and is not followed by another under any circumstances. Citations have to be bundled in order to guarantee adherence.[11] See: Wikipedia: Citing sources#Bundling citations

Pros: Minimal article body visual obstruction
Cons: Only synergizes with footnotes (see above) to create duplicate links of the same sources, thereby maximizing references section visual obstruction

Cited Footnotes (Hypothetical)

Particular footnotes under sources are cited rather than the source itself followed by footnotes.

Note: This is purely hypothetical, I have never seen this nor do I have any idea how it could be coded
Pros: Minimal references section visual obstruction regardless of footnote option
Cons: Citation overkill is just as likely as the Plural option and can only synergize with footnotes

Superscript Placement

Superscript placement is where the superscript takes place in a body of information.

At the end of Paragraphs

Superscripts go at the end of the paragraph containing the information.

Pros: Minimal article body visual obstruction
Cons: Have to back-track in paragraph for verification, requires primary footnote (see above) regardless of footnote option, thereby minimizing verification ease
Neutral: Requires primary footnote wording, which may improve or worsen text-source integrity

At the end of Claims

Superscripts go at the end of claims regardless of how many there are in a sentence,[12] preferably after punctuation.

Pros: Unmistakably attached to the claims in question, thereby maximizing verification ease
Cons: Maximum article body visual obstruction
Neutral: Requires claims to be coherently isolated from others in order to ensure text-source integrity, which may improve or worsen text-source integrity

At the end of Sentences

Superscripts go at the end of sentences that may contain several claims within them.[13] The claims are then broken apart by primary footnotes like in the paragraphs option.

Neutral: Intermediate article body visual obstruction; requires primary footnote wording, which may improve or worsen text-source integrity

Altered Appearance of the References Section (Optional)

The Altered Appearance of the References Section concerns how our references section looks regardless of whatever combination of previous styles.

Note: Unlike previous option sections, these options can be combined freely with one another (assuming no coding problems)
Note: I've seen these options on other wikis but have no idea how they would be implemented. Coding assistance would be required

Columnized

The references section is divided into columns (preferably 2, but no more than 3) to help condense page length.

Pros: Synergizes well with shorter footnotes that may not fill up an entire line
Cons: Minimizes readability, thereby minimizing verification ease

Windowed

The references section is cropped into its own in-page window to add a fixed, condensed page length

Pros: Synergizes well with any footnote style
Cons: Minimizes readability, thereby minimizing verification ease

Collapsed

The references section is simply collapsed in a collapsible section that (hopefully) gets opened when citations are clicked.

Note: I've yet to see this done on a wiki. Coding assistance would be required
Pros: Synergizes well with any footnote style
Cons: May not expand when citations are clicked, minimizing verification ease

References Examples

  1. Remember now?
  2. [[Source]]
  3. [[Source]]: "These are the things that can follow the sources linked in a citation, it can include anything from a copied transcript excerpt..."
  4. [[Source]]: See [[Source#Bread-crumb Trail]]
  5. [[Source 1]]
  6. [[Source 2]]
  7. [[Source 3]]
  8. [[Source 4]]
  9. [[Source 5]]
  10. [[Source 6]]
  11. [[Source 1]]
    [[Source 2]]
    [[Source 3]]
    [[Source 4]]
    [[Source 5]]
    [[Source 6]]
  12. [[Source]]
  13. [[Source]]: For end of sentences...
    For several claims within...

How the Voting will Work

The different style sections will each get their own vote as well as their own proper discussion forum separate from this one. By no means are they all going to appear on the same vote forum at the end of this week :p

Depending on how users respond, some styles may hold their respective voting session before others. Some of the styles may synergize with others and if there is a perceived consensus in one more than other, that one will go first. It may be ideal to combine certain style section voting sessions.

Note: AND THIS ONE'S VERY IMPORTANT: I -will- be making use of the preferential voting/ranked voting system that was used in the Strategic Nuclear Moose affiliation Review vote. I feel it beautifully alleviates the dilemma of plurality v. majority that was faced back in the Endorsements referendum forum. Only problem is, I'm going to have a difficult time wording it and may require help.

If not, I'm sure I'll figure something out. I am also interested in leaving this discussion open for several weeks to make sure all possible input is gained.

Comments

Have any questions? Have any opinions? Think you could've conveyed this information better?-... still alive?-... DID YOU EVEN READ THIS FORUM?!

Note: For the sake of coherency, in what is anticipated to be a rather complicated and complex discussion, please categorize your comments under the following headers appropriately.

As the forum writer I reserve the right to reformat comments to maintain coherency. If any reformatting of mine seems unjust, shoot me a talk page message or speak with me on chat and I'm sure we can work something out.

Further Option Suggestions

I mentioned earlier how we could even include canon statements after particular sources in the footnotes either instead of or alongside those warnings used in article bodies. Let me know your thoughts on that one.

There's also the option of indented footnotes beyond certain source-footnote lines in citations. They would serve as deduction trails for how a conclusion was reached from a source whose information is limited yet sufficiently specific enough to expand upon using other facts or claims at your disposal.

An example of this in action can be found on Vault 22's references section. As before, let me know your thoughts. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 05:12, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

Option Preferences

The styles I personally advocate:

  • Secondary Footnotes = Bread-crumb Trail
    • Transcript Excerpts if load times are no concern and we go with a collapsed references section is preferred
  • Superscript Frequency = Singular
  • Superscript Placement = At the end of Paragraphs
    • I have absolutely no problem with at the end of claims if that's what people prefer, but I'd like to try and avoid end of sentences
  • Altered Appearance of References Section (Optional) = Collapsed (preferably if it'll expand upon clicking a citation)
    • If Bread-crumb Trail footnotes are preferred, I'll also advocate a two columned section

--The Ever Ruler (talk) 05:12, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

The ever so exciting topic of citations! In reality though, I'm impressed Ever, this is pretty accessible. Anyhow, on with opinions. I'll follow the order the forum follows, so first are footnotes. I prefer the "bread crumb trail" method, it quickly shows users where relevant information is located on a source, but also limits page clutter and just looks a little nicer.

For the frequency of superscripts, I gotta go with singular for once again looking a bit nicer. We can always bundle citations, right? As for placement of superscripts, at the end of a claim is preferable, it will eliminate any confusion for source heavy paragraphs and will take the user straight to the references section where they could easily find info about that specific claim.

As for altering appearances, collapsed would be dandy. -- MHsig.png Watch in awe! 05:14, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

I like Breadcrumb, Singular, Claim. Agent c (talk) 00:23, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Voting Session Wording Suggestions

Misc.

Happy to see this back up. Hopefully this time, we will get some proper attention. I have no idea when I can find time to read this, let alone comment on everything, but I will see what I can do whenever I can. ForGaroux.png Some Assembly Required! 07:06, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement