FANDOM


Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Citing sources?

is there any rule about citing sources for quotes or pictures? cause i sometimes wonder were some of them come from. otherwise, how do we know if the quotes are legit? Timifer 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Pictures need source information. As for quotes: we tend to assume in-universe quotes come from one of the sources or appearances given in the article, but we're not yet requiring that editors specify which one. Often, it's clear from the context. Out-of-universe quotes by real people (like, say, something Timothy Zahn said) need to be sourced, however. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be great if there was some way to source quotes, though. All to often people just add quotes from their memory without checking the actual source. -- Ozzel 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem would be to keep the articles in-universe. Maybe a (Quote source) tag? Charlii 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We really should find some way to verify sources. That would also help with accountability with quote acuracy. Over the past day or so i have found tons of quotes from the movies alone that were misworded, thus skewing the meaning of what was being said. There is no excuse for misquoting something from the films. Timifer 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Pulling this up from the depths to agree that we need to find a way to cite quotes, that doesn't disrupt the in-universe flow of articles. Direct quotes should always be properly cited, but as it stands there's no real way to do that. jSarek 08:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Could we perhaps use footnotes, to tie a sentence to the source list at the bottom? QuentinGeorge 08:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That's the only way I can see to do it, but I'm not sure how best to implement it. It'd be nice to have it be a part of the quote template itself, so that only one template is needed to provide a complete quote. jSarek 08:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It would be great if it could be tied into the current quote template. But still, I wish there was some good verification system we could use. I mean, anyone could put {{quote|luke I'm youre father|Darth Vader|Empire Strikes Back}}, and that really doesn't help the problem at all. -- Ozzel 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Something like that is a start though. Maybe make the source info hidden text so it can be longer and not have to be precisely written. In any event something that requires source info would be best. -Finlayson 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
            • We could really use one of our resident Wikicoders here to give us some ideas on what's possible and not possible. Perhaps we could add a section to the end of the quote template where a source would be named, that would manifest itself as a linked number or other symbol on the actual page? jSarek 05:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Adding another field to the quote template would be very easy, but adding a HTML anchor link to an article footnote is a very different prospect. The anchor link could be added to the template throught the use of the <ref> tag, but the problem is that the resulting link would lead nowhere. The <references /> footnote section (which would render the source information provided within the <ref> tag) would have to be added by hand to each and every page that contained a quote. (see: m:Cite/Cite.php and Wikipedia:Footnotes).–SentryTalk 08:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Another option could be to have a quote section in the discussion page that provides the source. That way it woiuld be possible to check the source if you wanted but people reading the article wouldn't have to worry. --Eyrezer 10:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • I'd think we should keep all actual article information inthe article itself, if possible. The tagging might not be bad, even if the second part had to be done by hand, but there's another possibility, too: what if the last part of the quote template just linked to the article on the source itself, rather than the Appearances/Sources section? jSarek 10:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • I like that! --Eyrezer 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • I think the first source format below is very nice! --Xwing328(Talk) 15:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
                        • I like both of those options, although I think I may prefer the second one (with the number). -- Ozzel 22:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
                          • The reason I like the first is that you can just hold your mouse over "source" to see what it is. You don't have to click or scroll down to the references to see what it is. --Xwing328(Talk) 01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FormatEdit

Here are two possible quote source formats:

Option 1Edit

CodeEdit

:"''{{{1}}}''"
:— {{{2}}} {{c|[[{{{3}}}|source]]}}

ResultEdit

"{{{1}}}"
— {{{2}}} ([[{{{3}}}|source]])

ExampleEdit

"Wipe this pathetic planet from the face of the galaxy!"
Darth Malak (source)

Option 2Edit

CodeEdit

:"''{{{1}}}''"
:— {{{2}}} <ref>{{{3}}}</ref>

ResultEdit

"{{{1}}}"
— {{{2}}} [1]

ExampleEdit

"Wipe this pathetic planet from the face of the galaxy!"
Darth Malak [2]

References

SentryTalk 08:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Option 1 would be much easier to implement, but I personally like Option 2…–SentryTalk 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while, so I thought I would bring this back up. Are we going to implement anything about citing sources for quotes or not? Also, from what I've seen, the mojority of images uploaded to this site don't say what their source is, and they really need to. Without citing sources there is no accountability for what goes on here. Timifer 21:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I have come up with an even less intrusive way of sourcing quotes:

User:Sentry/Template:Quote If you hover your mouse over the quote above, the source information will appear after a few seconds.–SentryTalk 21:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • WOW! That's really the way I was hoping for all along, but I wasn't sure if it was possible. I say we have a winner! -- Ozzel 21:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That's brilliant! Kudos to you. We should implement this! --Xwing328(Talk) 22:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, it was no big deal. I just realized that I could use the HTML "title" attribute because the information assigned to it is rendered as a tooltip within virtually every browser. :)
        I just implemented this update without further approval because I cannot think of any way that the modification could cause any problems. To add source info to quotes, just use the following syntax: {{quote|quote|attribution|source}} –SentryTalk 22:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • That's why it's so brilliant - because it's so simple. --Xwing328(Talk) 23:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Should the source be in italics? Ex: Source: Knights of the Old Republic If so, this would have to be changed in the template itself. --Xwing328(Talk) 23:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Can you even italicize text in a tooltip? Either way, I think it's okay in plain text. Also, Sentry, it'd be great if you could to the same thing to the quotetrans template. -- Ozzel 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Scratch that. Xwing already got it. :-) -- Ozzel 23:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Nope, unfortunately you cannot italicize the text in the tool tips. Maybe you could do it with Javascript, but I doubt it :-( BTW, Good job with the quotetrans template templat Xwing328! I forgot about it.–SentryTalk 00:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Page Citations?Edit

Okay, now that we have that elegant solution (thanks, Sentry!), a follow-up question. Should we have page cites for quotes? We normally don't worry about them in the texts of articles, but since quotes should be held to a higher level than the paraphrasing and summarizing that is done for articles, I think it might be a wise idea. jSarek 03:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • That could get kind of difficult when you take into account all the different variations of an individual source. For example, it could be on page 19 of the hardcover version of Ep. 1, but page 23 in the paperback version. --Xwing328(Talk) 03:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should just use the paperback version, since all (or almost all?) books are published in paperback, though only a select few are hardbacks. I personally think this is a good idea; the more detail, the better - Kwenn 10:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • If we state the edition, along with the page number that would be fine and all books should tell you what edition it is. Green tentacle 10:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I would love it if we could do this. I'm not sure exactly how we'd implement it, but it would be great if people want to look up the quotes. Also, what do we do about pictures that have no source? Timifer 15:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
          • In response to the images, find out where they are from, and list it on the image page.
          • I guess we could do something like this for the quote sources (mouse over to see): 17:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ohhh, i very much like that. Timifer 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know, I'm not sure I feel all that is necessary. -- Ozzel 04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • the reason this would be good is because then other people can look up the quotes, wether it be to double check them or if they are just curious about the context. otherwise it would be impossible to find the quotes to see if they are correct. most of the quotes are about a sentance long, and they come from books that are made of thousands and thousands of those sentances. trying to find the quote if you didnt all ready know where it was would be amazingly difficult at best. And we need to be able to check the quotes. If we can't check their accuracy their will be no accountability to make them correct. We tend to scrutanize every detail about things in the articles on this site, but unless we give a detailed cite on the source of a quote, we can't do anything to make sure they are correct. Timifer 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree; I'm just hoping there's a less unwieldy way to do it than ISBNs. jSarek 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.