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 Amend sourcing policy and Comprehensive article nominations page with proposed changes. —Cal Jedi(Personal Comm Channel) 22:44, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
9. ...(Comprehensive article nominations must) be completely referenced for all available material and sources. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information. While this is not required for an article possessing a singular source, it is encouraged, as it provides both uniformity and a good infrastructure should the topic be referenced in any future materials.
Articles with only one source or appearance may be sourced, although it is not required.
I believe we need to update this policy. In GANs and FANs, it is required that both the infobox and body of an article be sourced. I believe we should carry this over to all articles. This CT is proposing that the CAN page be updated to read as the following:
9. ...be completely referenced for all available material and sources. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information.
(Specifically, the part that begins with "While" and ends with "materials" would be removed.)
In short, this CT proposes that all articles will be required to be fully sourced. It is already common practice to reference the body if the infobox is sourced, and to reference the infobox if the body is sourced. Rule 8 of the Sourcing policy states that References are required in infoboxes. (emphasis added) Thus, according to common practice, we should already be sourcing all articles completely. In addition, this will be a big step towards bettering the wiki. I realize that this will require some additional work in some situations. However, we should be more worried about Wookieepedia's quality than our laziness. Completely sourcing articles provides greater ease of access for references. Also, it will help out in the future if the article eventually does need more sources. Anyway, enough chit-chat. Here is the vote.
What this does for the reader is reassure him or her that a single-source article is indeed properly sourced, and not one of our relic articles from the days when our sourcing was lackadaisical at best and nonexistent at worst. That's the value-added that makes this more than just arbitrary. jSarek (talk) 14:15, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
This is probably going to pass anyway, but since I think that single-source articles look cleaner without references, here's my token vote of protest. —MJ—Comlink 23:19, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
I have never encountered an article where having to update it from a single source to a multiple source article has been frustrating. Not once. In fact, I see it as a prompt to go back through the original source and double check everything, to see how it relates to the new material. Occasionally, this leads to finding new information, like continuity flaws. It is for that reason that I do not see how this will achieve anything of true substance. It does not make articles look better, it does not make the articles any more organized, it does not add information, it does not make us look any more or less professional to readers who don't know we think about these things. It's just forcing the preferences of those who vote yea on the people who vote nay, in an instance where there doesn't have to be conflict between either group. NaruHinaTalk 00:43, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
If arguing that something shouldn't be made mandatory when it has no effect is arguing in favor of laziness, then I propose a vote to mandate that the room any Wookieepedian edits the site from must be painted Star Destroyer White. If you disagree, you're too lazy to go to the hardware store and paint the rooms. PAINT ALL THE THINGS! NaruHinaTalk 01:31, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
Wow, what a creative strawman you've built there. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 01:34, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
I see it as an equivalent situation, not a strawman. I'm not trying to misrepresent your point as something different. We're in a bit of a grey area though here, I agree. From my point of view, I could read your calling it a strawman as a strawman argument, too. x) Anyway, my point is that I see a successful vote here as about as beneficial to the Wook as having an official Wookieepedia color. I oppose the idea that not doing something is automatically considered lazy when the proposed addition doesn't actually add anything. Will a reader know that your room is painted Star Destroyer White? No. They'll never even know someone brought it up. They won't care. NaruHinaTalk 01:45, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this. I agree with MJ that articles with a single source look cleaner without all the footnotes (and not adding them is not laziness so much as an aesthetic choice), but I also tend to fully source anyway. I did have a question, though. If this CT passes, will it also do away with "self-sourcing" of certain paragraphs in BTS sections? For instance, we often assume that if a source says, "Bongo Beebo first appeared in Star Wars: Bad Mamma Jamma 2, which was released in 2012," that it's self-sourcing. Would this CT require it to have a footnote? Again, I have no strong preferences either way, but I wanted to clarify. ~Savage 16:20, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
This particular CT wouldn't really change that. "Completely sourced" has never been fully explained when it comes to BTS. If this CT passes, it would require that all infoboxes and main bodies be sourced. The BTS matter would still be ambiguous, and it would need to be worked out in a separate SH/CT.—Cal Jedi(Personal Comm Channel) 17:43, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see clarification in the actual source policy for the BTS issue. JangFett(Talk) 17:46, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
Side note: we should also make it mandatory to specify the pages where the information comes from, if it's a written work. It'll only increase our verifiability. Stake blackmsg 17:50, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
In an age of multiple-language editions, hardcovers, softcovers, TPBs, book club editions, legal ebooks, and not-so-legal ebooks, requiring such a thing doesn't really fly. It's nice to do it if you can, but if you have an edition other than the one the page numbers are specified for, then the page numbers are useless. Or you can just claim to have the legal ebook edition if one exists, and then you can justifiably claim you can't provide page numbers. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 03:45, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
Chapters may be a better alternative in that case. Or a more comprehensive referencing system, Harvard or APA. As an anonymous user I constantly had page numbers removed by users, even when cited from the original Del Rey hardcovers so I gave up. However, if the admins are saying that it is a perfectly acceptable practice then I'd be tempted to go back to adding page numbers from 1st editions. Rokkur Shen (talk) 04:11, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
I generally only use page numbers when 1) there is only one common edition of the book (e.g. the Jedi Apprentice books), and 2) I'm citing something obscure, like a single mention, that would otherwise be difficult for someone to find quickly. There's no point creating tons of references for different page numbers if the article you're writing (e.g. Mission to Melida/Daan) is nothing but a narrative of the events of the entire book. —MJ—Jedi Council Chambers 04:20, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with you there. Rokkur Shen (talk) 04:52, February 2, 2013 (UTC)