This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result was no consensus. Graestan(Talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, based on feedback received with the last CT, I have created a revised proposal.
(If you didn't follow the last one, are too lazy to look at it, or something else, the idea in a nutshell is: this is a proposal to fix FA Rule 11 and Wookieepedia:Sourcing, which as currently worded seem to imply that everything in every article, whether it is IU or OOU, needs to have a reference tag. The following would establish a more reasonable policy for sourcing OOU information.)
So, the revised proposal is as follows:
This is the current Rule 11:
…be completely referenced for all available material and sources. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information.
We would change it to this:
…be referenced for all available material and sources where required by policy. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information.
All in-universe content from more than one source (aside from introductions) must be completely cited with inline references.
Out-of-universe content must be verifiable by external sources. Information should be sourced with inline citations (with introductions and infoboxes exempt, provided the facts are sourced in the body of the article). However, citations are not necessary in some instances:
For media, if the source itself is the topic of the article (e.g., no need to cite Dark Apprentice when the article is Dark Apprentice).
If the source of the information is already mentioned in the text, or is "self-sourcing." Examples:
Even in similar situations, inline cites may also be needed, particularly for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged or include contentious material about living persons. Also, references may be needed if information is exclusive to a particular edition or version of the source (e.g. a trade paperback, a 3rd edition, etc.)
It's all good, except for the "infoboxes exempt, provided the facts are sourced in the body of the article" part. People shouldn't have to read an article to verify the information in an infobox. --Imperialles 14:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Gah, in all of my readthroughs I missed the part that Imperialles just pointed out. Fix that, and I also am fine with it. jSarek 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Per both of the above. Although Chris Trevas escaped my objections due to a nearby intra-article link to the appropriate citation, I cannot see other such exceptions in the future, and I simply cannot support this loosening of the FA rules. Although I intended to abstain from voting on this in order to prevent conflict, I have concluded that the author of this issue has created enough negativity already. In all honesty, I see this as a much more narrow issue than it is being advertised as, and have tried several times to mediate and resolve it, to no avail. Sorry. Graestan(This party's over) 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"Infoboxes are exempt" is not what was discussed in IRC. "Chris Trevas is male" is what was discussed and agreed that it was stare-you-in-the-face obvious. Atarumaster88(Talk page) 06:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Per Imp and Ataru, though I think a case could be made for the Trevas "Companies" field being self-sourcing. Gonk(Gonk!) 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
For Christ's sake, just source the fucking thing. You'd think you were being asked to take a kick in the balls. Havac 17:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Per Imp and Havac. Policy shouldn't be dictated by laziness. Wildyoda 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Per the above. Does it really hurt anything to be meticulous? Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 16:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm washing my hands of this whole mess. You guys can do whatever the hell you want. jSarek 10:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to respond to some of these misconceptions here, like this "loosening" the standards or allowing for "laziness". This is not a loosening of rules; it is an establishing of rules for the future. The sourcing of IU infoboxes in FAs is something that only began within the last few months, and our first two OOU articles (if people want to consider those precedent) passed without refs in their boxes. 98.7% of our FAs are about fiction, and in our kind of fiction, canon and common sense are often at odds. But to assume that the way we handle OOU material is fine just because that's the way we do it and it has worked for everything else is silly. This is still fertile ground, and we can change things. We have so little experience with OOU FAs; there's no tried and true formula, no streamlined process as with our fictional subjects. Now, what seemed to get to jSarek above was the pointing out of a double standard here. We don't require citations in introductions, because the information should always be cited in the body of the article. (This is why I think citations in infoboxes are generally unnecessary as well, because they are simply condensed lists of facts from the article body.) The problem is that the "everything" rule does have exceptions, like it or not. To enforce it as if it doesn't is a problem. (Now, I want to make it clear: I am not trying to get into the issue of sourcing intros; if someone else wants to take that up elsewhere, that's their business.) I'm not saying we should never use refs in infoboxes; I'm just saying that we should be doing so only when they are needed.
I would really appreciate it if everyone took a look at Wikipedia:When to cite. While it's technically an "essay," it is linked to as part of their featured article criteria. This is one place I looked when forming my previous proposal, so it's kind of where I'm coming from. What I've proposed above is far, far more restrictive than anything there, and yet it still isn't enough for some people. Look, I ask that you read the above because I think too many people have become attached to the Wookieepedia style of referencing, a style which, while great for fiction, does not work so well for real topics. As I've said, I think Wikipedia has just a little more experience in this area. Of course a Wikipedia FA =/= a Wookieepedia FA, but I think it is fair to say that they have the process of documenting the real world down better than we do. I'm not asking that we adopt their policies wholesale, but just that we use them as a base from which to form our own in this case.
I'm only asking that people think here, just use a little common sense, instead of following the rules simply because they are the rules. We should be adding a citation because one is needed, not because a rule requires one. -- Ozzel 22:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the part of your proposal I voted against—not requiring everything in infoboxes to be reffed—is there for the same essential reason we have the rule about nothing being reffed in the intro? Gonk(Gonk!) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)