Forum:Reference Formatting and Timeline

From Ultima Codex
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Codex Discussion > Reference Formatting and Timeline


 I'd be happy to help you with the Timeline project. What do you mean about references not being well thought out? You mean you don't quite know what the proper format for material is? Usually I goto Wikipedia for inspiration in this regard, but I guess they usually reference publications, while ours go back to computer programs. It's probably not practical for us to follow their example precisely. A few things come to mind:
  1. Is the reference technology a new thing? For how long have you been at it?
  2. How much do you know about the technology? It seems to me that there's just a computer-read label, then some text that contains the reference material (or a reference to the reference material). Does it have any other features?
  3. Since many other wikis on Wikia are computer games, whatever we should be doing is whatever others should be doing. Do you know of any? If no one uses reference anymore than we have, we'll never find them :(

After your reply, we should probably take this to forums. AngusM 19:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

About the references not thought out, I was refering mainly that I quickly decided a formatting style for the references, but I haven't spent much time thinking about or discussing if it is the proper one. I took some basic formatting from Wikipedia, and tried to merge it with what we have in our style guide regarding quotes. But the formatting I'm using should be discussed, and the definitive one should be in the style guide. For example, I'm not so sure I like putting quotes inside references with italics only, as I think they may not be very readable. But as the style guide indicated only italics for quotes, I didn't spend much time fixing that.
  1. About the ref tags, as far as I know they are a standard MediaWiki feature. It has always been in this wiki, but nobody had used it before. In general, I always try to add references to all the Wikis I contribute to. This wiki is the only one I contribute to that had no references at all, so I have started adding them some months ago. But I haven't added too many references yet, mainly to Ophidian related articles and the Timeline (which is where I started, as I hate exact years stated with no sources).
  2. About the tags themselves, in their most basic form, you just put a <ref> tag and it's closing pair, with some text between them, and add a <refences/> tag at the end of the article, usually in a "References" section, which automatically generates a list of the "ref" tags in the article. The ref tag can also have a name, like this <ref name="RoseName">blababla</ref>, so if you want to use the same reference again in the same article, you just put <ref name="RoseName" /> instead of copying the whole thing. That's basically it. It's up to the user to decide how to format the info inside the ref tag. Wikipedia has also a fancier template, "cite" or something I recall, which, as a template, is used inside a ref tag, and you add info to the defined attributes of the template, to help mantain consistency. I'm not sure if Wikia has that template, and I'm not sure if it is that useful to as, as it is better suited for publications and the like.
  3. Another wiki I sometimes contribute to is the Warcraft Wiki, which uses references. I'm not sure I like their style much, as they are in the process of chaning some of the book references they use, but we could borrow some ideas from that wiki.
And yes, we should continue this, starting but how to use and format references, in a forum.--Sega381 01:14, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I <3 references. There are only about 60 pages on the wiki that has them. Discounting the nitpick pages almost all of them are by Sega381 or myself. Although I tried to be consistent I know I didn't do the best job. I mostly tried to use MLA standards.
References Extension - Gives a lot of good information about the extension that makes the references possible.
As I know some have you have already surmised I also participate a bit on the Guild Wars Wiki. They use references quite a bit there. However they're still a bit tricky to track down. Fortunately a sequel for it is coming out and it has it's own wiki and due to a plague of people posting rumors they cite stuff extensively and a large percentage of their pages have references. Click here for a search showing many of them.
For formatting standards I think we would probably need Books, Magazine, Webpages, and Transcripts... And perhaps a separate one for In-Game Books. Any others?
Here's a few examples of where I've used it Cancelled Games#References, Ultima II#References, Lord Blackthorn#References... As I said not very consistent. :(
I don't much like having the actual quote listed in the citation as seen on the Timeline of the Ultima Universe article. I don't think I've ever seen citations done like that before. I think going with an MLA style would be best for most of them. For transcripts perhaps something like this?
Kytyn. Transcript. Ultima VI. "Museum"
It's sort of like the MLA Interview format. The last bit is the keyword that gives the information. This could probably be omitted in some or most cases. -- Fenyx4 21:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
(BTW, the following was written before Fenyx made his post above, so it doesn't make use of his wisdom)
Actually, I was later of the mind that this should be discussed in the style guide's discussion page, but it'll probably be noticed more here.
Ok, well Sega's discovered that we can use references for articles. Examples of his handiwork (which are currently few and far between) can be found in Brotherhood of the Rose and Timeline of the Ultima Universe. I don't think it should come as a surprise to anyone that I believe we should be referencing the hell out of everything. This would make fact-checking so much easier, and even unnecessary sometimes.
I'm not entirely certain how the format should be. As I've discussed at the beginning of what is now this thread, established, formal referencing styles are probably less than perfect for the Codex. Our sources vary, so maybe we should work out formats for the following sources:
  • Documentation: this would be the hardcopy material that Origin distributes w/the games.
  • Game text: this would be things like scrolls, books and so on that are to be found in games.
  • Gameplay: this would be discovering a fact, because that's how the game ran for you. This would be a little subjective, because the very nature of software means you can't expect a game to react the same way twice. An objective enough editor can probably deal w/this, though.
  • Dialogue: what the NPCs say. This is like a subset of gameplay, and subject to even more subjectivity, since dialogue can be deceptively inconsistent.
Or maybe dividing it along those lines is the wrong way to go. Perhaps it's not a matter of finding the original source, but explaining the method by which the information was achieved. This would make the references of the following type:
  • Documentation: same as above.
  • Gameplay: this would mean the editor did research by playing the game.
  • Web source: this would mean the editor researched the issue by visiting some web site which gives expository. Notable Ultima's a common source I goto.
This would be a departure from typical referencing, however, and would be a matter of the editor justifying himself by explaining how this research would be done, and the same reference would be different for everyone, since everyone researches things differently. This sort of rubs me the wrong way, because this is not the way research should usually be conducted. But maybe the way I'm rubbed isn't the point, and maybe what's usual isn't either, since this Codex is not a usual beast. AngusM 22:27, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
It's good to know you were adding references to the Codex too, Fenyx. Though still few, there are some more references than I had thought there were. About having the actual quote cited, it is something that is not too common, but I have seen it in a few places, such as here. I'm open to remove them, though. Their main use is that one can easily see the original material, whereas on the classical citations, you would have to actually go and get a copy of the book or whatever to confirm how it is said in such source. It could be enough if we have links to the sources, be it PDF scans of manuals or transcripts. Though I'm always afraid that our transcript sources will go down...
So, based on all that has been said, I'll start suggesting styles (or compiling some suggestions above). Please feel free to change them as much as you want until we reach some consensus. In each citation, anything that can be linked should be linked to its corresponding article, or to its external sources if no article applies.
  • Books (and probably Magazines too)
AuthorLastName, AuthorFirstName. "SectionIfNeeded". BookTitle (<in-game> if it is an in-game book). Ultima Game (if in an Ultima game). Pages-if-needed.
  • Transcripts
AuthorLastName, AuthorFirstName. LinkToTranscript. Ultima Game. "Keyword".
  • Web sources
AuthorLastName, AuthorFirstName. "PageName or description". Site name. Date retrieved?
--Sega381 01:16, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
I like it. Just a couple small things. The author name for Transcripts is sort of hard to figure out. Replacing that with the NPC's name would help people find the source better. And I think the "Site name" should be a link to the site (this may have already been your intent). I do like the date retrieved. -- Fenyx4 05:42, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, some fixes then (though I'm still missing someway to reference "gameplay" or the like):
  • Books (and probably Magazines too)
AuthorLastName, AuthorFirstName. "SectionIfNeeded". BookTitleWithArticleLink (<in-game> if it is an in-game book). Ultima Game (if in an Ultima game). Publisher: Year (only if we don't have an article for such magazine or book). Pages-if-needed.
  • Transcripts
NPCLastName, NPCFirstName. LinkToTranscript. Ultima Game. "Keyword".
  • Web sources
AuthorLastName, AuthorFirstName. "PageName or description". Site name (including link to site). Date retrieved.
--Sega381 01:16, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
The more I think about that idea I had about using references to explain the steps in doing research, the more I realize that it isn't a very good one. I don't see authors justifying their methodology is being helpful, so perish the thought.
I'm not sure that this LinkToTranscript idea is the right one either. Transcripts are fallible. They're great as research tools, but lousy for references and it's the games that are cardinal. So if we were to do that, we should at least only use transcripts that we've certified.
A format for gameplay is a very rough trail that we are going to have to blaze, unless... unless... you guys have been talking about other game wikis you've been on. What do they do about referencing gameplay?
One last thing, I think we should have as much deliberation on this as possible before we put this into the style guide. If we're forever adding to it, and tweaking it, we'll be creating confusion, and I don't relish hunting down all those out-of-date references. This means we should probably goto some of the regulars' talk pages, and give them a heads up on what's going on in this forum. Then, once we are satisified we've squeezed every idea out of them, we'll put it in the guide. AngusM 03:24, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
If you are using something for research then you are referencing it. And hence you should probably cite it. Not everything needs to be validated through gameplay. Gameplay does indeed trump transcripts though so a transcript can be invalidated by it. And if it is then we have a nice citation telling us which transcript is proving to be faulty.
And mostly transcripts suffer from lacking information not from incorrect information. So it is safe to say "Here look this person says this."
Citing gameplay strikes me as being similar to citing personal experience. You don't really need to do it. We can pretty much assume information is coming from the game unless stated otherwise. I'm trying to think of an example which wouldn't be from an in-game book or a conversation (which are both covered by Sega's formatting above) that we'd want to make a point of where the information is coming from in the game and nothing where it would be necessary is coming to mind. Could you provide an example? -- Fenyx4 19:33, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) P.S. I put a list of all pages with references here. And I can easily make this list again now that FenyxBot has been trained to fetch those pages like a good automaton. So don't be afraid to keep referencing things while we hash this out. :) -- Fenyx4 20:26, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps others are more aware of the philosophy of research and citing references than I am. And, I suppose some materials overlap, and in the event of a contradiction, one will be superior to another. Yes, transcripts are usually incomplete and not inaccurate, however, this lie of omission can cause reasonable, but incorrect, assumptions.
As for assuming that uncited material is straight from gameplay, I don't know where to begin: the Codex is full of material that came from nowhere else but editors' minds. If we were to make that assumption about uncited material, we'd be making a grave error many times over. This is the dragon that I was hoping references would slay.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but I would think that millions of examples could be had for material that could only be extracted from gameplay. The fact that some monsters go into "Fleeing!" mode in U4, the colour of a certain shield, music, texts that no one deemed necessary to record, like what the player is told upon entering a U3 whirlpool, the fact that reflections are visible in U6 mirrors, bugs, easter eggs, you can't get any of this w/out playing the game.
Yes, in the short time, we might as well add references right way. My fear is that formats keep being changed as we go, which is not something that even a bot could easily fix. Unless a reference could be given a version number. I don't suppose that's possible (or even practical to expect editors to use it). AngusM 21:08, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I just finished doing Aidon, wow what an undertaking, no wonder no one wants to do it! It will probably be easier when I get to work w/another transcript. So what do ya think? Did I do good? Huh, did I? Huh, did I? Did I, huh? Huh, did I?
I looked to Fenyx's list of references for inspiration, but the ones I looked at didn't seem to use the prototype standard we have for transcripts, so I did my own thing. When I gave the keyword, I just put a string in there that would lead the reader to find the right text in the transcript. AngusM 02:14, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
That is certainly thorough!
Yeah, that list is there partially for examples of what has been done previously and as a list of things that need to be updated with the standard once it is decided on. I don't recall how conversations worked in U9 (been too long since I played it) but what was meant by keyword was "name", "job", "health", etc. that triggers the line of text being referenced. -- Fenyx4 15:31, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good job. I'm not sure we need to do that kind of detailed referencing for every page just yet; we should at least start referencing the most dubious assertions. But eventually every page may end up with the level of detail you provided here.
A couple of comments:
  • The standard above defines period "." as a separator between the sections of the references, and you used a comma ",". If we do want to start using the above as an standard, you should update the references to use the period as a separator.
  • I'm having seconds thoughts about having a direct link to the Transcript, based on what has been commented before. Maybe the correct thing to do would be to add a reference to the Transcripts page that was recently created, so we can have a list of "official" transcripts to work on?
  • If we do mantain the direct transcript link, I think the transcript should be given a name (such as Quill Dragon's Lair U9 Transcript), and put the link hidden by the name. I think it would be more pleasant to the reader.
For example, the second ref should become this:
Jared. Quill Dragon's Lair U9 Transcript. Ultima IX. "rains".
or
Jared. Transcript. Ultima IX. "rains".
or
Jared. Quill Dragon's Lair Transcript. Ultima IX. "rains".
I think I like the last option (or something similar to that) better. Including the link in every reference could be tiresome, specially if the links moves, and if we want to mantain an official list of transcript links--Sega381 02:10, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "name", "job" and "health" would be very practical in referencing U4 quotes, but becomes rather meaningless by U9. So until we come up w/a better standard, I'll just keep going w/the style I used in Aidon.
I agree w/Sega's idea on including link text with the URL when referencing transcripts. And I'll fix the comma problem in Aidon. AngusM 18:41, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
So, I think this have been waiting here long enough. I'll try to sum up what has been discussed, and if no one has a problem with this, I'll add it to the style guide (or wherever it should go):
  • Books and Magazines (in-game or not)
    • Format: AuthorLastName, AuthorFirstName. "SectionIfNeeded". BookTitleWithArticleLink (<in-game> if it is an in-game book). Ultima Game (if in an Ultima game, with link to article). Publisher: Year (only if we don't have an article for such magazine or book). Pages-if-needed.
    • Examples:
Mempto. Mempto Rays: A Qualitative Study In Metaparaphilosophical Radiation (in-game). Ultima VII.
Doe, John. "Ultima Secrets". SuperDuper Ultima Guide. RandomHouse: 1995.
McCubbin, Chris and Ladyman, David. Ultima Collection Guide. 13-15.
Jared. Quill Dragon's Lair Transcript. Ultima IX. "rains".
  • Web sources
    • Format: AuthorLastName, AuthorFirstName. "PageName or description". Site name (including link to site). Retrieved: Date retrieved.
    • Example:
Doe, John. "Ramblings on Ultima VII". John Doe's Ultimate Ultima Fansite. Retrieved: 2010-09-14.
--Sega381 19:14, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
I like it! -- Fenyx4 21:02, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. If it doesn't belong in the style guide, I don't know what does. (In fact, this post belongs on the style guide's talk page)
Include the examples. They'll be helpful. AngusM 03:48, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

How many references is too many?[edit]

Unfortunately, the referencing I did for Aidon has been deemed "stupid", and I'll bet you can't guess by whom w/out looking! I think we need some guidelines as to how much referencing is needed, and if the work I'd done on Aidon does not reflect the right answer, I think we need to certify material as proper (aka "stupid"). With all the faulty information in articles, I'd like a way to avoid going over it all again, and making sure it's properly stupid. The Ultra-Mind 18:58, 2 December 2010 (PST)

I don't really see a problem with having "too many" references. I'd feel more comfortable having too many than too few, for the exact reason you said. I can understand your frustration about the Aidon article; references are a good thing and it seems counterproductive for them to have been removed. --Terilem 22:37, 2 December 2010 (PST)
It is true that an article may have what looks like too many references, but of course it depends on how many we decide it should have. The Aidon article did strike me as having too many references, but not being sure on how we were going to define it, I let them be. For now and for a long time to come, I would vote to allow everybody to put as many references as they like. We have waaay to few references right now. In the meantime, I guess we will work out the proper amount, and removing a few references later is far easier than adding them.--Sega381 19:16, 5 December 2010 (PST)
I couldn't put it better. I completely agree. -- Fenyx4 22:45, 5 December 2010 (PST)

Rich Editor messes with References[edit]

Everytime I go into the rich editor, the references get screwed up with 5 extra characters at the end of every reference line. So annoying when working with tables. - Iceblade 21:00 24 Feb 2012 (EST)
The solution is easy, we all ditched the rich editor since it isn't worth a damn.--Tribun 18:17, 24 February 2012 (PST)
It's worth it with tables, though. - Iceblade 21:18 24 Feb 2012 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ultimacodex.com/index.php?title=Forum:Reference_Formatting_and_Timeline&oldid=92379"