Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Referencing for beginners - A simplified reference proposal discussion


It has come to my attention over the course of the past few weeks that recent reference proposals have gone mostly uncontested and, it is my fear that, this is because people are simply intimidated by its length and repetition.

That said, they were excellent prototypes and things were learned from them that now allows me to construct a new discussion to make the final proposal as professional as possible.

What follows is another attempt to generate awareness of the subject in a more organized and condensed fashion.

Supplemental reading[]

  1. Wikipedia:Citing sources
  2. Wikipedia:Use common sense
  3. Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines
  4. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  5. Wikipedia:Style guide

Citation style for highly referenced information[]

Some, but by no means all, information in the Fallout franchise is frequently referenced by multiple sources and as a result, contradicting at times. Examples include: FEV, Mutation, Etymology of pure and prime humans, etc.

These pages often have many conflicting ideas and opinions that are often crucial to the plot and story of various Fallout games and Fallout lore. In order to organize the information conflict, we need to implement a footnote style for our wiki.

What follows are options for footnote and citation styles.

The classic way[]

The classic way to reference information in articles is to simply put...

<ref>[[Source]]:(Maybe some information)</ref>
... at the end of every claim that source happens to support.

What happens with this is that some of the more frequently referenced facts might get a whole barrage of numbers following it, making our citations invasive and obstructive in articles -especially- if it's in the middle of a paragraph.

People instinctively breathe. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]...

Even though all those citations may actually be genuine and the sources may be very fluid when it comes to fact checking, it still looks unprofessional and rather clumsy.

Not only that, but the fact checking of such citations would require specific footnotes depicting each time the source was used. This could be rectified if our citations could be further specified as something like, "[1a] = source 1, claim a" but I have not found a way to do that with our referencing templates.

Regardless of this template, this style promises the bulky number usage inside the body of articles. The only pro for this style is that the references section looks smaller by stating each source only once and having footnotes tailored for each usage in the article.

Due to an interest in having the article content being as concise as possible at the expense of our references section I do not advocate this style.

The proposed style[]

In order to remove the bulk at the end of those claims, make fact-checking a little easier, and our articles just as, if not more, professional-looking, I propose we use a style like this.

People instinctively breathe. [1]

This time, that single citation brings users to sources addressing that claim -alone-. These sources will be listed in alphabetical order and footnotes will depict how each source supports that claim.

The immediate advantages of this style are obvious, the number train is removed. The only con of this style is that sources may be listed multiple times across the various citations in the references section.

Due to a fact I think people will be more interested in the article content and only editors/scholars will be interested in the references, I think this style is a good solution without making the reference section much worse than it was.

Comments for the citation styles[]

A few nitpicking details about footnotes and citations[]

Footnotes[]

Footnotes are placed right after sources in references.

<ref>[[Source]]:FOOTNOTE</ref>— Like so

While the footnotes themselves are important, they are universal to both of the proposed citation styles and as such, I think they should follow a systematic format.

Here is a list of a few things I propose each footnote reads.

  1. Footnotes should be structured as, "For "claim x", see "description of location in source"."
  2. Footnotes should make use of ampersands (&) when denoting "and" if the source verifies a claim multiple times. Example: For x, see lines 135 & 148.
  3. If you are not sure how to describe where a source verifies information, put down the excerpt from the source that verifies the information after "see", such as a quote or passage.

I find these are relatively straightforward and indisputably helpful, but I should note that the Ampersand one is purely cosmetic on my part.

Citations[]

Regardless of style, I feel there are a few ways citations should be used.

Here is a list of a few things I propose where citations should be added.

  1. Citations should be placed at the end of paragraphs to cut down on its impact in articles. This will only work if the citations are accompanied by footnotes that specify which claims in the paragraph sources reference.
  2. Citations should NOT be placed in the opening paragraph of articles.
  3. Citations are permissible to add after the "Person who said quote" at the end of a {{Quotation}} template. This citation should be replaced by a voice file of the quote wherever/whenever possible.
  4. Citations are permissible to add in infoboxes if and only if they are not covered in the article in some way. Examples of this include casualty/soldier #s for each faction in conflict articles, terms of office for politicians in the games, affiliations, etc. Editors are trusted to use common sense when it comes to adding/re-wording the article to include such information in the body paragraphs.
  5. Pages that exist as copies of source information should not be traditionally linked and instead treated as citation links.
  6. The article's overall content takes precedence over citations, but the article should be built with citations in mind. As in, don't state anything you can't cite and isn't speculation either. Safe-extrapolation of a source is left to editor discretion.

As before, I find this relatively self-evident but the opening paragraphs one is purely cosmetic on my part. I would argue they should not have one because the opening paragraph is purely the ultra simplified description of the article and any specific information that can be cited should be said elsewhere and cited there instead.

Comments for the nitpicking details[]

Potential questions editors might encounter[]

A few specific situations in referencing I feel deserve extra attention, proposed solutions for such situations will go here.


Q: What's the easiest way to add a citation?

A: The easiest way to add a citation is by adding a claim first. If you find something in the game you wish to note on a page and you have verification for it, then by all means place whatever you can as a reference for it. It will be refined by a later date or a patroller so don't worry too much about proper form or information if you aren't sure what to put down. Pre-existing claims that lack citations are a more difficult task to handle but should you know of a verifying source, then do not hesitate to add it.


Q: Is it okay if I word information in articles like, "In his dialogue files..." or, "According to information in the GECK..." and link the pages we have as copies of this source information as links inside the text?

A: No, instead, state what you were going to say right after such openings like those and add a citation on the end of them using the relevant sources. The sources themselves should NOT be linked in traditional fashion purely because it defeats the purpose of citations in the first place, which is to organize primary sources in a condensed and professional manner.


Q: Should I do anything in particular if there's only one source for a claim(s)?

A: If the page deals with controversial information (like with a faction or mutation) then make note of it.

A good example is the citation on this page.

That page is, however, dealing with uncontroversial information (like a mentioned NPC unaffiliated with any major faction) then you can ignore specifying it as a lone source.

A good example of this is the second citation on this page.


Q: Should I do anything in particular if there's only one claim for a source to verify in a paragraph?

A: Yes. You simply won't need to use the, "For this claim, see this location in source" format of them. All you'll need is the, "See this location in source".


Q: What if the source used can't be disambiguated any further? Like, if the link takes you to where the corroboration is?

A: Inverse of the above answer. All you'll need is the, "For this claim."


Q: What if the source used can't be disambiguated any further and it covers all of the claims made in a paragraph?

A: Then a footnote is simply unnecessary.

For an example, see the 2nd citation on this page.


Q: Can I cite the GECK for verifiable information?

A: Yes actually. As the source just link the GECK like so, [[G.E.C.K. (editor)]] and follow the typical footnote format. When you get to the "see where" part, add the Form ID of the file you're addressing as the where. Just make sure you follow the citation nitpicking list above as pages often include Form IDs of the article topic in them.


Q: What if I don't know how to say where a source verifies information?

A: Copy and paste the specific excerpt from the source that verifies information. Another user will refine it if necessary/possible.


Q: What are good sources to use for referencing?

A: Anything that pertains to article information that can be checked and verified by other users as being factually true. Events experienced as the game runs do not count. For example, "Jed Masterson is scripted to die when entering Zion Canyon." would have to be sourced by the quest Form ID in the G.E.C.K. (editor) in order to be a true citation.


Q: Are there sources I can use that aren't from the game files?

A: Yes actually. Developers often reply to questions in various social-media devices and their insight is credible enough to be used as sources. -HOWEVER-, developers often have their own view of the Fallout universe and lore that not only can but often does contradict other developers' views and even in-game information itself. So if these are used as sources you -must- note that they are the thoughts of the developer referenced in the source and do not serve to canonize, corroborate, or otherwise contradict other source information.


Q: What should I do if I find a citation that doesn't follow the guidelines or simply does not clearly indicate how it supports the claim it's added after?

A: Try to the best of your abilities to bring them in-line with our guidelines or ask another user who may be interested to do so. If you cannot do either, place the template {{Citation needed}} after the reference in question and an interested user will give it the necessary attention at a later date.


Q: What should I do if I find a claim that needs verification?

A: Add the aforementioned {{Citation needed}} template at the end of the claim itself. This should be done sparingly as articles may have those templates on them for a long time and a project template for mass-verification for articles should be available in the near future and used instead.


Q: What should I do if someone adds a claim and doesn't cite it?

A: If possible, message them on their talk page or in chat as to where they got that information. If you cannot get a hold of them then delete the claim and move it to the article's talk page for further discussion.


Q: I'm getting a big red, "Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found" at the bottom of the page, what do I do to solve this?

A: Add, ==References== at the bottom of the page but above the navbox templates. Underneath that header put the {{References}} template we have constructed for our own unique wiki-code and the problem should be solved.


Q: What exactly is the difference between "Citing something" and "Referencing something"?

A: I apologize if you were confused about the two due to my tendency to use them interchangeably at times. To cite something is to simply list and use sources of information that verify your claim in order to reinforce it. In that regard, referencing something is very similar but it is the overall point of how these citations are notable or noteworthy. Basically, to cite is to mention sources and to reference is to make note of other sources.


Q: What should I do if there's a claim that's on the page in two different places but only cited in one? What if one contains more claims than the other?

A: In regards to the first question the claim should be cited once if it is repeated multiple times throughout an article. In regards to the second question, it doesn't matter so much. If a page can be organized to compress the amount of citations than it'd be a welcome improvement so long as it didn't interfere with our other article content policies.


Q: When I'm editing, what takes precedence, the article paragraphs or the citations?

A: Article paragraphs take precedence.

Comments about these situations[]

Some of you may have noticed the addition of G.E.C.K. (editor) citations. I wish to get direct feedback for this one as it is the most novel addition to the policy.


Rewording suggestions[]

This isn't quite a "rewording suggestion," but have you considered constructing a sample page in your sandbox so everyone can see how the referencing would look like all together in one page? 69.l25 (talk) 01:21, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

I have, the only thing that's stopping me is the lack of a well-cited page that is big enough to point out the difference between styles in and my unfamiliarity with sandbox pages.
For the most part, I've been referring to these wikipedia pages in the previous proposals listed above.
The line-break one is the citation style I propose.
This details what the classical style would cause and what my proposed style would eliminate.
I will try and construct an example of our own for the final proposal rollout.
I greatly appreciate your input and hope to see more in the future. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 01:50, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Referencing right seems to be something that a lot of people seem to agree that we should do... but either the majority don't have the time to deal with the huge amount of information involved, or the personal knowledge to contribute to the discussion. We have consensus that there should be a policy, but getting enough interaction in the detail to get it over the quorum line is difficult.

I'm wondering if maybe we need to go another way on this.... A Statutory Instrument approach. We (as the community) appoint a number of people who are clearly interested in getting the nuts and bolts right to hammer out a single unified referencing policy and just implement the end result. This committee gets dissolved when its done.

Obviously both I and Ever would be in this as we're pushing the hardest on this, and hopefully a few others at various levels of wiki user-ship - but ideally looking for those with some sort of experience with referencing - studying or have studied at university level or otherwise produced documents or reports with significant referencing, etc.

I would see this working like the Nukapedian of the Year committee, or the good work thats been done on Featured Articles.

I don't think this is anything super-new, just a natural extension of both projects, and these other bespoke events.

Any thoughts on this? It is just a thought at this stage. Edit - put the thought on its own forum here Agent c (talk) 03:03, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement