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 of the debate was Change Sourcing rule No. 5 to Articles with only one source or appearance can be sourced, although it is not required. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:50, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

In our current sourcing policy Rule number five states that articles with only one appearance should not be sourced due to redundancy. Under this rule, articles appearing in only one appearance/source are only cited if they also contain information not appearing in that one appearance/source, such as in Atrivis, or Bormus Testing Facility. However, we often source articles with only one appearance anyway; usually to source information certain page numbers in order to make it easier to check factual accuracy. In this sense, Rule 5 has pretty much been ignored before now; several Good articles: including Berrus, Chreeto, Amm Natejeka, Gordus Grime, and Apatros (colony), are all sourced throughout, despite the fact that they have but one source/appearance and no other included information from other sources.

As the purpose of this type of sourcing is to be more specific—for example: to source to certain pages for greater ease in checking facts and looking for related information—I think that sourcing an article with a single appearance/source should be specifically allowed in the Sourcing policy in order to ensure that the current rule 5 does not remove helpful content from an article or prevent an article from reaching GA or FA status. So my proposal here is simple. Change the current reading of rule 5 to say:

If you would like to suggest any other wording, please do so in the discussion section below. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 02:09, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

VoteEdit

Change rule 5 to the proposed wordingEdit

1. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 02:09, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
2. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 02:11, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
3. Xicer9^(Combadge) 02:19, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
4. --Eyrezer 02:29, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
5. Yup. Mauser^Comlink 04:46, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
6. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 05:59, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
7. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 06:01, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
8. --Xd1358 ^Talk 06:04, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
9. GENIUS GENIUS GENIUS. No reason someone should be restricted from sourcing something if they want to. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:06, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
10. Per everyone else, blah blah blah. CC7567 ^(talk) 06:28, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
11. Grunny ^(Talk) 06:30, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
12. —Tommy9281 ^{(No truth in me)} 07:11, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
13. Per Tope. jSarek 10:22, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
14. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 10:25, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
15. Always agreed with this, but never really practiced it because it was against established policy. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 10:31, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
16. Of course. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 10:57, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
17. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:03, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
18. I wholeheartedly embrace this.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 19:06, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
19. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 20:41, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
20. Plus it has the benefit of leaving correct sourcing in the article should the person/place/thing/event appear in a second source. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith ^{-Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!-} 19:48, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
21. I absolutely support this. As I see it, there are very few articles that would ever qualify for this amendment to begin with because thorough research will often require citing something outside of the original sources. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 19:51, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
22. Like it needs one more vote, but, per Taral et al. Nayayen^(talk) 19:52, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
23. I heartily endorse this event or product. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 20:14, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
24. This is a good change. More helpful articles will be the result. ~ SavageBob 16:44, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
25. I'd be inclined to require it. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 20:17, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
26. Because my vote is surely needed :P --Xd1358 ^Talk 18:38, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
27. —Xwing328^(Talk) 01:28, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
28. Longest bandwagon ever? QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 21:23, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
29. Per Xd and Acky. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 21:40, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
30. Graestan^(Talk) 21:46, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep rule 5 as isEdit