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 on to take action. When referencing forums in articles, it is suggested that the writer chose to use a consistent form for how they present forum posts titles in references; however, there is no consensus on establishing a hard layout that writers must follow.Greyman@wikia(Talk) 01:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
For various reasons, we sometimes need to cite specific posts or threads on a forum; we don't really have a consistent way of doing so, though, so I figure we should come up with a citation format.
A few things that I think every forum citation should have:
The thread title.
The forum name.
If it's citing just one post in the thread:
A specific link to the post.
The time and date the post was made.
The poster name.
So I propose a formatting something along these lines:
This isn't a CT item, but rather advice. If we do have an MoS entry on this, we should probably include something like this so people know how to do it.
A lot of forum software has some way of linking directly to a post; usually a link on each post that says "URL" or "anchor" or "#". Unfortunately, the two most commonly cited forums, the Jedi Council Forums and Starwars.com message boards, don't.
But that doesn't work for someone with 15 or 50 posts per page. Click on "Post History" under the post, which takes you to jasonfry's post history. Then, and this can be tedious if the poster has made a lot of posts, go through the pages until you reach the date and time of the post you want to quote (for Fry, we'd be lucky; it's his second to last post when I quoted this). Then copy the URL:
Note the "start=1815": that's the post count. Just count how many posts below the first one Tasty's post is, and add it to that. In this case it's 3 after (that is, it's the fourth one on the page), so adding 3 gives you 1818:
Not that I'm ignoring this Hydro, but I just don't care too much as long as it's consistent. Atarumaster88(Talk page) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. It's structure that we need. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I like this, though I'd like editors to have license to alter the titles of the threads ever so slightly. As in, one might not include the "Vader wants his damn pants back!" part of the example Hydro posted above, or (like I've done on Dass Jennir) leave out the numerous exclamation marks in the thread title, simply because they often look bad. Thoughts? Another thing I just thought of: perhaps a dating system different to 1/1/01 might work best, since Americans put the month first and then the day (which makes absolutely no sense to me, but whatever) while people in the UK and probably Australia put the day first. Maybe just "1 January 2001" or something would work best for readability. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Acky's idea about dates makes sense, but I agree with 4dot when it comes to titles. Since what we're citing is the thread, we should include the thread's name as it's written. - Lord Hydronium 22:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, though I don't really agree. It's not like we'd be changing the name, just leaving out a portion; the same way we leave A Novel of the Old Republic out of PoD. Not a big deal, anyway. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 22:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thread titles are malleable, so I'm not sure how effective a hard requirement on sticking to the full thread title would be. Furthermore, should we be citing the thread title of the first post (the one that a thread is listed under on a forum), or the one of the particular post we're quoting? A thread title change after the post in question often results in these two things being different. jSarek 22:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)