FANDOM


  • Hi.

    I would like to suggest to the administration that we use the references as they are used in the Marvel Wikia.

    Here we use <ref name=WW-V5-25>{{c|Wonder Woman Vol 5 25}}</ref> and for all other equal references we have to use <ref name=WW-V5-25/> so that they appear as a single reference in the end.

    I do not need to say that a lot of people do not do this and so a lot of footnotes are messy, full of references that are the same repeated.

    In Marvel Wikia they use it simply like this: {{r|Hawkeye #4}}

    They do not need anything else and all equal references appear as a single reference in the end.

    So I wanted to know if it's possible to adopt it here?

      Loading editor
    • We use the naked ref tags with no standard on ref names. Just about every page is a jungle.

      The downside to such a r template is that we sometimes simply referece storylines, or several consecutive comics. Also, conversion and enforcing will be a pain.

        Loading editor
    • So, instead of tidying up the few articles that need references reused, we adopt a new system which means we have to redo all the articles? A smart reference template would be good provided a bot can change the old ones. If not, it’s more work.

        Loading editor
    • I definitely understand the issue, because I have found several duplicated references. Especially in long articles. That said, it's not as simple as it sounds.

      While the template doesn't seem that hard to elaborate, this would require for us to manually remove every single reference and replace it with the new template. Unless it is feasible to bot this, such task is impossible to achieve as we simply don't have the manpower to do that.

      But the biggest issue is that the majority of admins here are against using any of the methods used in the Marvel wiki. While I agree in some instances, I aslo see the advantage of adopting some methods, but my word weights little against our top admins. But then again, such changes mean a complete overhaul and that's simply put, not good.

        Loading editor
    • Would not it be possible to use both systems at the same time, and little by little people would start adopting the simplified model? Also, anyone who had a disposition could edit the old references from time to time as well.

        Loading editor
    • We'd end up with two referencing systems, adding to the confusion that is editing and sourcing in the wiki.

      As for editing duplicated references... If there's someone up to the task of actively searching through hundreds of articles and double check thousands of references... be my guest.

        Loading editor
    • SforHope wrote:As for editing duplicated references... If there's someone up to the task of actively searching through hundreds of articles and double check thousands of references... be my guest.

      Some people already do this (including me). Naturally, it is not for someone to spend the rest of their lives editing all of this without stopping, but when one set out to edit a page one could handle that as well.

        Loading editor
    • Someone could make a maintenance template for “reference clean up” so even if you didn’t want to clean it up yourself it can be marked for someone who will.

        Loading editor
    • Considering the amount of content editors we have; it doesn't seem likely that we'll have cleaned up all references anytime soon. And a notice template for duplicated references... sounds ultimately lazy.

      I definitely think that the r template could be useful, because there's always gonna be those editors who reference something, unaware that it has been already referenced somewhere in the article. This happens in long articles and even constant vigilance can't prevent duplication of sources... but, as mentioned above, the alternative requires too much work.

      Long story short, we're screwed.

        Loading editor
    • The ref duplication seems especially prevalent in power sections.

        Loading editor
    • I would also like to point out another problem with this idea (and that shows up on the wikis that use it): if the first reference get removed or changed that all the other based on that reference "break".

        Loading editor
    • BruceGrubb wrote: I would also like to point out another problem with this idea (and that shows up on the wikis that use it): if the first reference get removed or changed that all the other based on that reference "break".

      You're talking about the current system, aren't you?

        Loading editor
    • Yep. I should point out that Rationalwiki has a different system for references that appear a lot in a particular article.

      A Bibliography with "cite" is used and the main article uses sfn to reference back to the cite in the Bibliography section. It would look something like this:

      { {sfn|WWV5I25} }-

      Bibliography

      { {cite book|title=Wonder Woman Vol 5 25|ref={ {WWV5I25} } } }

      This breaks if somebody messes with the Bibliography section but isn't effected by sfn references getting deleted.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message