Correcting the References/Discussion Templates Instructions

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Introduction

---

As the title implies, the purpose of this thread is to correct all the obsolete instructions regarding the insertion of references and discussion templates on our instruction pages due to the recent changes in the Common Editing Mistakes and also the nature of this forum (An XF issue, basically).

What will change:
As Wokistan suggested, we should adhere to reputable study guides and place references outside of most punctuation marks but within parentheses.

• Agree: Wokistan, Me, Antvasima, Damage3245, LordGriffin1000, Tllmbrg, Propellus, DarkDragonMedeus, Sir Ovens
• Disagree:
• Neutral:

COMPLETED: The instructions regarding how tags are inserted when it comes to the discussions template will be replaced by the new instructions because our current tag conversion instructions only work for old tags (before the forum migration), and not for newer tags (after the forum migration). Basically, older tags and newer tags will have their own separate conversion process when it comes to the discussions template in the new instructions.

Pages affected by this thread:

• References
• Standard Format for Character Profiles
• Standard Format for Verse Pages

The changes on the instructions regarding the discussions template are actually quite significant, so if this gets accepted, I recommend that you read the new instructions. The conversion of accented letters are put on a blog post instead, because it will clutter the instruction pages due to its length. You can use the blog post that I made for your convenience (if the special character that you are looking for is not present in the instructions).

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Any input would be appreciated.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Shadowbokunohero @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Agnaa

Your attention would be appreciated here.

 

[Antvasima]

@JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Maverick_Zero_X @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @EliminatorVenom @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @DMUA @Jasonsith @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @KLOL506 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @The_Divine_Phoenix @ZackMoon1234 @MistaClean @MonkeyOfLife @FinePoint @Propellus

Your attention would also be appreciated here.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Proposals look alright

 

[Dereck03]

This should be fine, yes.

 

[LordTracer]

The proposals here look fine

Can’t say I’m a fan of references being required to go outside of parentheses, especially when there’s multiple references in a sentence, all of which are inside the parentheses, except for the last one, but ig this isn’t the thread for that

 

[Psychomaster35]

Can’t say I’m a fan of references being required to go outside of parentheses, especially when there’s multiple references in a sentence, all of which are inside the parentheses, except for the last one, but ig this isn’t the thread for that

Personally agree with this. I’ve always found that weird.

(Also agree with the OP, by the way)

 

[Crabwhale]

Apologies if I'm being a gogogaga baby brain, but I don't quite fully understand the intention of this change?

 

[Planck69]

The change looks fine to me.

 

[DarkGrath]

No issues I can see. Fixing obsolete aspects of important pages can't really be a bad thing.

 

[ElajRuengies]

The proposals here look fine

Can’t say I’m a fan of references being required to go outside of parentheses, especially when there’s multiple references in a sentence, all of which are inside the parentheses, except for the last one, but ig this isn’t the thread for that

Personally agree with this. I’ve always found that weird.

(Also agree with the OP, by the way)

Obligatory [Not Staff] but, when I asked staff about references going before or after the parentheses, KLOL said that DontTalkDT stated references go inside/before of parentheses.

 

[Psychomaster35]

I’ve figured, considering how I always get notifications of Butler fixing the format of profiles with citations I made where the citation goes after the parentheses as opposed to before it

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Apologies if I'm being a gogogaga baby brain, but I don't quite fully understand the intention of this change?

For the references, the current link for instructions in the references/standard format page on how to apply the references/citations will be replaced with a new one in accordance with the new changes on our Common Editing Mistakes page. Basically, as we speak right now, the instructions fall under editing mistakes.

The linked instruction that I am talking about is the hypertext: "Here is an example of how to properly insert references into pages." located in the references/standard format page.

For the tag/discussion template instructions, how we insert the tag links on the discussion template will have to be altered because our instructions only work/apply to tags BEFORE the forum migration.

This is because of the nature of the forums (XenForo stuff basically), old tags convert some special characters into UTF-8 sequence for example & -> 26, and some get deleted, but new tags don't do that and just simply erase most special characters with some exceptions (due to XF).

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Obligatory [Not Staff] but, when I asked staff about references going before or after the parentheses, KLOL said that DontTalkDT stated references go inside/before of parentheses.

I suggest you check the new additions here.

 

[Propellus]

The proposals here look fine

Can’t say I’m a fan of references being required to go outside of parentheses, especially when there’s multiple references in a sentence, all of which are inside the parentheses, except for the last one, but ig this isn’t the thread for that

I do personally agree with this myself as well, because when I saw the references being moved outside of the parenthesis. I was thinking, shouldn't that actually depend on the user's choice on where the references should be positioned?

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

I do personally agree with this myself as well, because when I saw the references being moved outside of the parenthesis. I was thinking, shouldn't that actually depend on the user's choice on where the references should be positioned?

I have my preferences too, and it's not really exactly aligned with the standard convention, however, it's most likely necessary for consistency, so I'll just have to accept it.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

I’ve figured, considering how I always get notifications of Butler fixing the format of profiles with citations I made where the citation goes after the parentheses as opposed to before it

I'm sorry, I hope that didn't spam your notifications.

 

[Antvasima]

The proposals here look fine

Can’t say I’m a fan of references being required to go outside of parentheses, especially when there’s multiple references in a sentence, all of which are inside the parentheses, except for the last one, but ig this isn’t the thread for that

Hmm. Maybe we need to modify that standard then. Can somebody show examples of each alternative/option please?

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Hmm. Maybe we need to modify that standard then. Can somebody show examples of each alternative/option please?

Maybe he's talking about something like this?:

[[Ability 1]] (He can use mind techniques[1] to fool others into thinking[2] that he can do this[3] which scares others in the process),[4]

Our current standard basically says this is valid, but people think it's weird because the other references are inside, so it's usually asked why the last reference/citation is outside just because of the punctuation.

So, his preference probably aligns with this (which conflicts with the current voted/accepted standard):

[[Ability 1]] (He can use mind techniques[1] to fool others into thinking[2] that he can do this[3] which scares others in the process[4]),

Then there's also this option:

[[Ability 1]] (He can use mind techniques to fool others into thinking that he can do this which scares others in the process),[1][2][3][4]

 

[Antvasima]

Oh. I personally prefer to place the references at the end of each sentence in that case.

Thank you for the information.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Oh. I personally prefer to place the references at the end of each sentence in that case.

Thank you for the information.

Okay, I see, so I take it that your preference is aligned with the third option that I mentioned? The first and third options do not contradict the currently accepted format.

No problem.

 

[DarkGrath]

It seems like an unnecessary expenditure of time and effort to debate over semantics like this, but I would argue the second and third options are more coherent than the first option. If you're adding footnotes for referencing a sentence contained within parenthesis, it seems reasonable that the footnotes should either be entirely inside or entirely outside of the parenthesis; having situations where the footnotes are partially inside and partially outside of the parenthesis looks disjointed.

My preference would be for the second option, due to the extra specificity that it provides; the second option allows sentence fragments to be footnoted as needed, while the third option only allows the entire parenthesis text to be footnoted at once.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Oh. I personally prefer to place the references at the end of each sentence in that case.

Thank you for the information.

So, if there's a second sentence in the justification, would it look like this?:

[[Ability 1]] (He can create 10 clones of himself with this technique.[1] He can create 20 clones of himself with this other technique),[2]

or this?

[[Ability 1]] (He can create 10 clones of himself with this technique.[1] He can create 20 clones of himself with this other technique[2]),

It seems like an unnecessary expenditure of time and effort to debate over semantics like this, but I would argue the second and third options are more coherent than the first option. If you're adding footnotes for referencing a sentence contained within parenthesis, it seems reasonable that the footnotes should either be entirely inside or entirely outside of the parenthesis; having situations where the footnotes are partially inside and partially outside of the parenthesis looks disjointed.

My preference would be for the second option, due to the extra specificity that it provides; the second option allows sentence fragments to be footnoted as needed, while the third option only allows the entire parenthesis text to be footnoted at once.

The reason why the first one is like that is because of reference vs punctuation consistency, it was there so there's consistency on where to place references when it comes to punctuation. Though, I agree, that it can be really tiring to talk about these kinds of semantics. It's why I simply just accepted the voted standard by the majority in the Common Editing Mistakes addition thread because anything would do as long as we have a standard to follow.

Thank you for the input though.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally prefer the second option in your last post above, JaRB, as it looks better to have references at the end of each sentence within a parenthesis.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Okay, when it comes to justifications in parentheses, we may need to alter or specify more then.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but I would prefer some input from @DontTalkDT and @Agnaa regarding this issue.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Yes, but I would prefer some input from @DontTalkDT and @Agnaa regarding this issue.

Okay, I see.

About the discussions template one is it okay to apply the changes now, as there seem to be no disagreements regarding that issue? Or do we wait for more input?

 

[Antvasima]

Can you explain the reasons for why the code for our discussions templates have changed more in-depth please?

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Can you explain the reasons for why the code for our discussions templates have changed more in-depth please?

For the tag/discussion template instructions, how we insert the tag links on the discussion template will have to be altered because our instructions only work/apply to tags BEFORE the forum migration.

This is because of the nature of the forums (XenForo stuff basically), old tags convert some special characters into UTF-8 sequence for example & -> 26, and some get deleted, but new tags don't do that and just simply erase most special characters with some exceptions (due to XF).

As the quoted text above said, & for example, would be converted to 26, and this would work only for tags before the migration, but & would simply be removed for tags that are new.

This means that Barney & Friends (A tag that existed before the migration), will still remain as Barney 26 Friends when it comes to discussion templates. But any other new tags made after the migration would most likely have the & just removed.

This is the draft, there will be separate instructions for linking older tags, and linking newer tags.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, but I still do not understand the context for why exactly that the code has changed. My apologies.

Has XenForo changed its automated URL naming practices for tags?

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Okay, but I still do not understand the context for why exactly that the code has changed. My apologies.

Has XenForo changed its automated URL naming practices for tags?

I'm not sure if the code has just changed, or if the instructions just simply didn't take it into account and did not specify more. I think it's just the latter.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

But yes, the explanation/instruction that we have only works for older tags, and it was probably overlooked because (I think), at the time of the migration, there were barely any new tags.

An example of this is the page named: "Thor (Marvel's Avengers)", the current discussions template link followed our current linking instructions, which is "Thor Marvel27s Avengers", and it's not working, because the tag for the page is new, and if it's new, it would be "Thor Marvels Avengers".

{{discussions|Thor Marvel27s Avengers|Thor (Marvel's Avengers)}} (which is for older tags) is not working
{{discussions|Thor Marvels Avengers|Thor (Marvel's Avengers)}} (which is for newer tags) is working

However, tags that exist before the migration, for example, "Assassin's Creed" would still be linked as "Assassin27s Creed". So, it would have to follow the specific instructions for older tags.

{{discussions|Assassin27s Creed|Assassin's Creed}} (which is for older tags) works
{{discussions|Assassins Creed|Assassin's Creed}} (which is for newer tags) won't work

 

[Antvasima]

Oh. I see. Thank you for the explanations, and my apologies for being initially dense.

It would probably be good to mention that our members might have to test which of the tag naming versions that work properly in practice before settling on using one of them as a wiki link then.

 

[Damage3245]

So, if there's a second sentence in the justification, would it look like this?:

References should not be outside the brackets IMO.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

References should not be outside the brackets IMO.

Thanks for the input. I halted the proposed changes to the referencing conventions as we will probably need to have a more in-depth discussion when it comes to that. Ant said that the input of DontTalk and Agnaa is also needed in the discussion.

It would probably be good to mention that our members might have to test which of the tag naming versions that work properly in practice before settling on using one of them as a wiki link then.

Okay, sure.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am not sure whether or not Agnaa is currently sufficiently active to comment here.

 

[LordTracer]

So, if there's a second sentence in the justification, would it look like this?:

The second option, with all references inside the parentheses, is definitely better imo.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Crabwhale]

I also agree that references within parentheses look better.