Forum:Sourcing between articles

Pretty simple discussion: when we cite other articles, what's the way to go?
 * 1:
 * 2:

I prefer 1, because I like to see where it points without needing to check the real link. Sources must be effective, and not "pretty".

Still, I think this needs a consensus on which option to apply.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First things first, this isn't a true citation. You shouldn't cite one article with another - this can lead to circular referencing.  In-game references linking to an article with more information are OK.  Otherwise, link to the other article in-line and not with a citation. -- 12:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What about using citations from books and quest? don't we link them anyway? The point is that we cite B in A, and we cite source in B.--Lon-ami (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Source should be in the article it's sourced for and not a link to other source, in case of ingame books, it's treated like a book in italics, and items and spells already have their own way of showing that the source is from that item/spell by having them show as a ingame item ex: Staff of the Qiraji Prophets or Flame Cat Form, in case of quests you're right it's not associated with the game enough we should had the quest icon used in wow before the image the golden !.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This Golden ! --Ashbear160 (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Already exists: Return to Nordrassil.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So you have no problem with quests being a source that way?, my suggestion was making like this:Return to Nordrassil so it was more intuitive but i have no problem with how the quests are currently used as sources.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The #1 is the exact opposite of what're your saying, it just shows a link to follow, #2 tells you who it is and where he is in wow, #2 is how it's done in wikipedia and other wikis, besides npcs appear in two different places saying different thing,examples:
 * What Matoclaw says in shrine of Aessina is different, than what she says on the shrine of Malorne.
 * Arthon from blade's edge, reappears in the molten front and gives a different gossip about firehawks.
 * And Wavespeaker Valoren which her gossip is used as a source but only while inside Nespirah and nowhere else.
 * So giving only the article links would be only be a bad source because it only points what character the source is from, without actually telling where the character says it, which is relevant because they say different things in different places, and frankly it looks like code and sources should be intuitive and be necessary to learn the code of the wiki to understand.
 * However some changes are in order to what i wrote so i think we need to add something before the actual character link, with something like you said "speech by" or "gossip by"
 * Besides what's actually written is: --Ashbear160 (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 3:


 * It isn't working so i'll use nowiki code to show what i meant,That's part of what i mean Pcj, you can't use articles as sources you need to point out where the source actually is
 * do you think we need to point that it happens in wow?, we don't say that quests are from wow because it's kinda obvious, my proposal currently is something like:

--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4:
 * Yeah, #2, #3, or #4 look OK. -- 12:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer #4 because it actually states that this information is given as a speech/gossip from the character, but i don't know if that's really important, or isn't obvious enough to waste space on.--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I like #4. We should not cite other articles. We can link to other articles in citation (with all the cleanliness and piping you would expect from a link), but we should not cite them. The point of citation is to say where you got the information from. No one should say that they got their information from a transcription on another page of Wowpedia. The transcription is there for the benefit of the reader, but the citation should be enough so they can check it for themselves. More is better.-- 19:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also like #4--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So should we start applying #4 to all known examples?--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What about this: (#5) ?
 * And in case we don't know the location, we don't write it (#6) .--Lon-ami (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * that's a better solution.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The citation at least needs to answer the question "Where was this information found?" As a side note, I dislike unnessisary blanket edits.-- 20:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you okay with #5 then(i don't think we need to say the information is from wow)? and blanket standards are usually good, there's a reason why companies use these in copyrights for example.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So long as the appropriate information is conveyed, I personally don't think it matters what format the source is in. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It probably doesn't matter in the long term, but a certain level of let's say "professionalism" should be required from information on wowpedia, in this case it was between using other articles as a source or using a source that tells us where to find the information, like they do in the wikipedia, with other articles added as a quick to use bonus which is far more "professional" than the first solution.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to mess with "professionalism", use Ref game with proper spelling and formatting.-- 21:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of that, so i guess that is the best solution
 * It would probably be


 * I guess--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The "problem" here is that we have the information on another article, and that article has its sources (be it references or a npcbox detailing the source).
 * I think it's stupid to use ref game when we can direct the user to the Matoclaw page directly, and then, there, use refgame or npcbox or whatever you want.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference should be to the game. The article simply provides more collected info on the matter. -- 12:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So we should be using this for all wow sources?--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Before this goes everywhere, one way or another, I feel that we should be sure of a few things. 1) That the template can be used in all instances. For example, this came about because I was citing "gossip" text that was not transcribed on the wiki. Should the "quest" field be used to denote that? See this edit for an example. Should new fields be added? Also, I tweaked what was in the "zone" field as a matter of personal preference, but I think it is better. And 2) That the template will be used properly in all instances. Ashbear160 is revving his "helping" engines. Can he do this properly and sanely? As I said a bit ago on my talk page, I would prefer if there was no actual rule, and things just made sense. Very little should be applied to everything.-- 20:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Once some sort of example is decided i will apply it Old Gods' forces article (since it's still under construction and has a lot of different types of sources), and we'll see what goes from there--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)