Wikia

WoWWiki

Citations getting a tad ridiculous?

101,985pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Revision as of 22:10, August 7, 2009 by Benitoperezgaldos (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Forums: Index WoWWiki policy Citations getting a tad ridiculous?

Just my opinion, but I think we're starting to go a little bit overboard with citations at times. I mean, do we really need to cite that lances are more effective on horseback? Or that "village" is sometimes interchangeable with "town"? These are not exactly obscure pieces of information, or in any way shape or form unique to Warcraft. When you can just as easily cite Wikipedia as some random line in a Warcraft book about how a real-life item is used in the same manner as in real-life, I think a citation is pretty much unnecessary.

And while I'm on the subject, do we really need three citations on Garona thinking she's half human? --Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you rather have an uncited paragraph about how the subject works in real life, or a page with no content?--SWM2448 18:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If the entire article is just on how something works in real life, it begs the question of whether or not it's really necessary on this Wiki. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"The citation of sources provides a way to ensure that the information contained in this wiki is correct, and defuses the common criticism that information in a wiki is unreliable." - from WW:CITE.
That means that all needs to have sources so that the information is reliable, if we start removing citations we wouldn't be following that rule. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I would think it implied that it's referring to Warcraft-specific information. What, are you going to wait for Thrall to say, "huddle around the fire for warmth" just so you can source that fire keeps you warm? People aren't coming to this wiki looking for accurate and well-researched information on reality; they come here for information on Warcraft, and I see little point in using citations to point out the veracity of statements about how real-life objects work in real life, especially when said sources consist of little more than one character or another mentioning it off-hand. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with this, but moreso that if it's true in the real world does it even need to be stated (and thus cited) on the wiki page? Unless it plays a part of any importance in lore and not just some passing remark, I don't think it does. The fact "Human lancers were used in the defense of Stormwind City during the First War." remark on the Lance page is probably good, the Sargeras fact is good. I don't think any of the other cited lore "facts" on that page need to be there at all. However, limiting stuff like this comes close to an issue of "notability" which I know some editors on this wiki shy away from for fear of mirroring Wikipedia's obsession with it. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C62,301 contributions and counting) 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What I think is that the citations should be kept just that people can see that they are the same in Warcraft Universe than in real life. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, though, why? Shouldn't that be assumed unless otherwise stated? In fact, how many examples are there of things that DON'T work the same way?
Well, the citation is there so people know that it didn't come from wikipedia or was made up by a user. Also, so people know where "lancers" or that quote came from. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 04:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It's cited so that people know that "knights use lances" wasn't just MADE UP!? Are you insane? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I have had things in the past that seemed common knowledge to me to be questioned or asked if I had made it up. I was told pretty much to cite as much as I could. Although, sometimes it does look a little "busy". This may not be relevant, but the whole "undead AND deceased" thing seemed to be common knowledge to me but people wanted to make a category telling us that characters who are "undead" were also "deceased" before they became undead or something. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 05:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Since Benito keeps reverting it back when I remove the cites, I'm asking for an official admin ruling on this issue before starting an edit war. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if someone wrote "Thrall jumped off the cliff onto his kodo" then people would want that cited probably. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 05:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

IF you are only removing the citations for aethetic reasons... STOP. Consider that a ruling. If the cite is valid, it should stay. Common knowledge is a slippery thing. Not everyone who plays WoW is a total medieval fantasy geek. Bozos at Wikipedia have criticized WoWWiki in the past for not citing enough. Please don't give them ammunition. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:58 PM PST 29 Jul 2009

I still disagree, but if that's the official word then I'll abide by it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
But one more question that no one really answered from my initial query... Do we really need three different citations on the same sentence saying that people thought Garona was half-human? Shouldn't one be sufficient, especially for such a major character? How much is too much? Personally, I'd say that having a dozen different citations for the same piece of information throughout four paragraphs is going a bit overboard. Yes, citations are helpful. Yes, not everyone is as familiar as we are with the source material. But when every other line has a citation - sometimes two or three - it starts to become clutter in my opinion. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"Providing citations is especially helpful where different sources describe two conflicting versions of lore." - from WW:CITE.
That means that if sources contradict each other they should be present with citations. For example, if a guy who hasn't played the past games nor read the manuals would probably ask: "hey who are those others who believed that she was half-human?", so the citations must be put. And, as Fandyllic, we shouldn't remove citations. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Although it does look "neater", sometimes you will add something that has only one or two citations and people will still challenge you saying "that is only in one or two sources". That is why I use the {{ref}} tag because it looks better when you have multiple citations than the {{cite}} tag. Although, I don't really like the version some people use where they write too much information like the company name, the date, etc. because it makes the References section look complicated. If you don't know that Warcraft III was made by Blizzard Entertainment than I don't know what to say. Or just go to the article on Warcraft III and you will find that Blizzard Entertainment created it, the date it was created, etc. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 02:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not a case of neatness, Rolandius, that's a case of profession citation format. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Which I don't think we need for every citation since we are not writing a novel. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 03:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I want a citation saying Thrall is Durotan's son. If there's no citation, then it didn't happen!
Seriously, there's a point when citing is just STUPID.
As stupid as citing 40 different sources for the same damn thing (aka Garona problem). Take the best one and ignore the other ones if they don't add nothing the best one doesn't have.
Of course, when putting a piece/paragraph directly from an official source, it should have cite, just to know where it did come from.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually someone who has just played WoW and haven't read any other lore would probably want to know where it says that Durotan is Thrall's father. And there should be an actual citation that confirms this, if not, then you would not be saying as an example. And, as Fandyllic said, if it isn't cited then others could say that WoWWiki isn't reliable for the lack of them.
Of course that Durotan being Thrall's father doesn't require tons of citations, but that's because there isn't any contradictory source. According to WW:CITE when something is contradicting between sources we should present all of them, Garona's case is very contradictory, so the citations must be put. Besides the template above from Garona's article says: "Source information needed!" and if we start deleting them, then that template will never be removed. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the comic explains pretty everything, so I don't see contradictions anymore. Garona is half-draenei, but she believed to be half-human because Gul'dan lied her so.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I still don't have that number of comic. But the problem is that I don't think it's explaned why other orcs "saw human hands, too pale, too weak, and too ugly" on Garona. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think controversial issues like Garona should have every side, even if it has been proven wrong. So people know even if something said something, or was rumored to be something, it is now something else.--SWM2448 18:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Benito, that is what Garona says, we don't see any orc saying that. About that, Sandwichman, just leave "Garona believed to be human" and everything is fine.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I don't have the book, can you put specifically that quote please? If it's wrong in the article it should be corrected.
And the problem with this case, is that it was very disputed until it was confirmed. When Warcraft: Orcs & Humans was released she was probably created as a half-human, but then the initial 16 years of skirmishes and raids from the orcs were retconed out of exsistance and Blizzard had to change her parentage. So, all this information must be given to the readers. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have it around, will search, but basically she tells that to Khadgar when he asks her about the life as a half-breed.
Also, no need to say she was human before and got retconned, because, I repeat, the comic says it was a lie created by Gul'dan.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Most times something is retconed out it is present in the article, why should Garona's be the exception? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Where's the retcon? they explained she believed what wasn't true. They haven't retconned anything, just expanded it. It's not like they say "that didn't happen", they say "that did happen but was false".--Lon-ami (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is the retcon: They said she was from orc and human lineage in the Warcraft I manual. 16 years were completely removed from the timeline. When Blizzard removed the 16 years they had to invent other thing to explain Garona's parentage. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Do they actually say she was half-human out of "character speak"? If the reference is just a text written by Garona herself, instead of a story pov, then it's the same.
And yeah, i know it's a retcon, just like Muradin's death. Oh, no, but they all believed what was wrong. If they tell the retcon well, with a good excuse, it's no technical retcon at all.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Retcon: historical facts which are rewritten and are meant to be taken as having always been that way.
So the comic rewritten the facts and stated that she was half-draenei instead of being half-human, so it is a retcon.
Also this case is different than Muradin's, because this retcon was caused by another retcon (16 years removal). Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't know what's on Blizzard's mind. They could have intended this since the beginning, no matter Garona's age. Unless it appears in story-mode, like the first version of the Eredar, it won't be retcon, just change of things, like Muradin's and Mal'Ganis' deaths and whatever.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Really you think that Blizzard planned her to be half a race that they hadn't even invented at that time? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting slightly back to what I was talking about before... Azeroth. In particular, this little gem: "In Warcraft: Orcs & Humans the term Azeroth refers to the kingdom in most cases,[3][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]" Do we honestly need *TEN* citations for *ANYTHING*, let alone a piece of information that explicitly refers to a single source? Six of those citations are from consecutive pages of the WC1 manual. Two are from the SAME page! Can anyone honestly tell me that this isn't going overboard even a tiny bit? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is consecutive pages then it would be one citation saying pg. X-Z. I have seen a lot of citations where they are from the same page but in different parts of the article if that is what you mean. If two citations are on one "thought"/"sentence", then it would only be one citation. That brings the total of 8 citations down to 2. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 11:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess I would have to see the examples or something. I am guessing the articles being referred to are "Garona" and one or all of the "Azeroth" articles. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 11:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, the Garona article does say "Source information needed" telling users that they should/could add more sources. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 11:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it has to do with some of the citations having quotes with them. Rolandius Paladin (talk - contr) 11:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Dark T Zeratul you shouldn't make the same conversation in several pages because it cause confusion, that was one of the issues that was discussed as a problem caused by Rolandius in the past. I have answered in Azeroth talk page. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
On this forum, I was referring to that example in particular to point out the larger issue in general, as the issue isn't limited to that page; that was just the most egregious example of it. I was attempting to get some discussion going about the overuse of citations, especially with regards to multiple cites for the same piece of information. In many cases, the reason there are multiple cites is because it's fairly well-established and thus mentioned pretty much everywhere, which in and of itself seems to eliminate the need for such heavy citation. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
As long as readers know where things come from. I think in that case it can be merged into one, unless that one work disagrees with itself. Do we have that source text on WoWWiki? EDIT: I found The Destiny of the Orcish Hordes and Chronicles of the War in Azeroth. If it is from that part it could be like a 'see also' note.--SWM2448 21:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well actually I don't think that massive citations of the same source is required as I have said in the talk page, I just used them as notes in my sandbox but I copy-pasted it without fixing it. Right now I have to study for exams so I can't fix it in this moment, but I'll do it later if no one has. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki