This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes. |
For some time, I've been considering what to do about users who come and make good faith edits to articles thinking that their information is correct, but ends up not being correct, based on data on the article already being checked by multiple editors using the game editor (GECK). Since there's been an emphasis placed on more correct references here lately, I'd like to discuss how we can kill two birds with one stone here. I'd like to define a way we can add something to the articles that have data verified by the GECK informing users to that effect, and use that in such a way that we include it as a properly referenced source.
Adding a references section is the easy part, and figuring out how to properly word the reference should be easy. Something along the lines of:
- All data in the infobox and body of this article has been verified in the game editor and all calculations based on that information are based on calculations described at the official game editor wiki.
The only real question I have is where to put the ref tag? In the infobox somewhere? Every place where GECK data is used? This one I need some input on.
Comments on adding these references yes/no?[]
I'm planning on a more comprehensive reference policy forum soon, but my ideal position would be that we end up something like the Doctor Who Wiki Where every listed fact is backed up as to where it came from (although with only an episode present, and done in line, rather than with ref tags which i would prefer).
So should we include some sort of reference for it, absolutely. I think its really the form that we need to establish. Agent c (talk) 18:31, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
This is a very tricky topic, I feel. We have verified information in the past using information from the G.E.C.K., and later found out we had interpreted the information wrong. For instance, GeckAnon discovered that we had misconstrued the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. stats for most NPCs in both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Some Assembly Required! 18:31, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
- That's what talk pages are for. If someone finds an error in our use of the tool, it can easily be discussed on the talk page and then implemented when found correct. I'm not discussing locking any data, just adding references to where we got the data from and how we've interpreted it. The Gunny 18:52, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong - I think it's a great idea to confirm G.E.C.K. entries using refs. Just thinking out loud here, is all. Some Assembly Required! 18:54, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
- That's all good. I process that way best, too. I'd rather hash every angle out here and be sure we're doing the right thing when it goes on pages. The Gunny 18:57, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Presumably my opinion regarding referencing is more than obvious, considering the way I have taken on the film, whereby everything on the page is referenced. Personally, I think this should be the ultimate goal, so that all pages are like this. Examples for those who haven't seen:
- The form is more difficult, because you would need to have a cohesive form for them all, and so that they fit into a greater referencing policy. Chad, if you are really going to make a forum on it, can you please deal me in on that so that we can do it jointly: this is something that I am currently extremely passionate about: I've done pretty much all he film pages in order to use them as an example of what wiki pages should be, as part of my vision for the wiki which I'm still writing up. Essentially an open document laying out where I think we should be heading next. -- GOTW User | Talk 19:22, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
- That's all good. I process that way best, too. I'd rather hash every angle out here and be sure we're doing the right thing when it goes on pages. The Gunny 18:57, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong - I think it's a great idea to confirm G.E.C.K. entries using refs. Just thinking out loud here, is all. Some Assembly Required! 18:54, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to The Gunny for an invitation to contribute to this forum, after a text conversation we had. If Wikia has a "no mods" policy, and that policy means that you cannot even add a controlled, brief section that would be populated by the community about which mods (just names) change the number(s) or aspect of the game listed on an individual Wikia page; and if that policy cannot be changed or revised to simply allow the addition of such a section, which I believe would be beneficial for the community around any game, and would further enhance Wikia's image and usability as a "reference"; then by all means, I add my voice or vote as a user (and occasional contributor) to say that adding a (linked) reference to where the numbers or information came from would be not just useful for visitors, but important. I also believe that that (linked) reference should be the type that somehow, at least indirectly, teaches the visitor how to find the information themselves as users of that particular game, for example. Because if the user comes to the Wikia page, finds different information on it than what's going on in their game, and, say, the user is positive that their game is up-to-date and that this specific aspect is not changed or "modded", then they will start to wonder why there is clash between the Wikia page and what they see or experience in the game; one of the strong eventual possibilities or results from this is that the user falsely concludes that the Wikia page is wrong or needs to be updated, and goes ahead to change it. Unless...you give the user a prominent link or linked reference that they can follow to find out how to double check the information in their own game. But that can be complicated, especially for many users; in my opinion, having a simple list of what can change the information, values, or aspects on the Wikia page (like specific mods) would be much more straightforward and potentially useful to the common user.--Wisdawn (talk) 19:33, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
Comments on placement of ref tags[]
I personally believe that reference tags are the best way of referencing anything, from my essays to the wikis pages. I won't expand on what I've said above as that ties in, and could also go here. What I will say is that I think that references should come after the fact. SO in sentences, they should be at the end of the sentence, or in some cases, the relevant section (around 3 sentences max). If there are two references for the same sentence clause, there should be two references at the end of the sentence. If there is one for one sentence clause, and one for the second, then it should come after the comma that separates them. For data, it should probably come after each factual piece of data. I'm not 100 per cent on how the GECK works, but if it is by section, then it should be per fact, or if it is a page full of data, then I guess a tag more like the one Gunny suggested in the lead is more appropriate, though it seems currently far too long, and would make no sense to include in an in-line citation. -- GOTW User | Talk 19:29, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
- I very much like these suggestions and punctuation guidelines from GOTW. Heck, it probably means that while gamers are checking Wikia for info about games, they're simultaneously and subconsciously learning how to properly reference material, so they'd do it better for their school or university papers. So yeah, Wikia would be doing a lot of good things, including subtle education that is not game or entertainment-related. I also think that my suggestions below do not clash with what GOTW mentioned, because I was thinking about a different matter from the specific or individual "references"; I was thinking of linked "notes" to alert the visitor to the "general direction" from which the information came, and how they can find the same information on their own game installation on their computer, for example. Perhaps a short phrase directing the visitor to an instructional page about using GECK, hitting two birds with one stone: explaining that GECK is the most reliable way for them to double check their game's info, and directing them with the link to where they learn how to do this. This is different from individual references, which GOTW talked about; those individual references would be useful to someone already familiar with the whole concept: that they should check in GECK before coming to any conclusions, and how to do that. So someone already familiar with the concept would find those individual references superbly useful, as they have GECK already open and can, for example, follow the path mentioned in the reference to find the exact bit of data in question.--Wisdawn (talk) 19:49, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a prominent or highly visible area (say, a rectangle with a pale yellow background) at the top of pages with many tables that have many more numbers, like pages that list all the armor or all the weapons in a game. And somewhere in the usual table toward the right part of a page, which has numbers and stats about a specific weapon, for example; so that the user or visitor sees the link or reference as near as possible to the stats and numbers that they are checking or comparing.--Wisdawn (talk) 19:38, January 4, 2014 (UTC)