Stricter References Standards

[The_Impress]

Tor's free

 

[KLOL506]

Tor's free

Yeah but it's godawful slow, and I still don't see le funny credit card number

 

[Bobsican]

Guys, stop talking about piracy, we shouldn't be encouraging it to begin with as much as piracy websites can't be mentioned for the sake of keeping the site up.
In any case, several legal sources (such as TV services) tend to cut a segment of a movie/episode just for the sake of fitting other stuff in their daily catalog (most often skipping credits or the intro), let alone ads in-between, and so those would be more valid reasons to not standarize timestamps for references.

 

[KLOL506]

Guys, stop talking about piracy, we shouldn't be encouraging it to begin with as much as piracy websites can't be mentioned for the sake of keeping the site up.

I haven't mentioned any websites tho? And the 7 seas thing was a joke.

But aight.

 

[Armorchompy]

Not really that useless, no.

Often more than not, modern games will have Mission names so using those to pinpoint feats would no doubt make the job considerably easier.

Again that's case by case still, plenty of games don't do that.

 

[Agnaa]

I really disagree that References should be this mandatory, ultimately in certain cases they're completely useless, I don't think a page is improved by slapping a "References All references come from Game (Year)" at the end. So no, I'm opposed to this.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier:

The rule could only apply for media that's demarcated enough for references to be sensible.

i.e. needs to have missions, acts, chapters, episodes, literally any separation between portions of its content.

We could also advise staff deleting these profiles to copy it onto a sandbox for the user, and to tell the user that their page was deleted due to a lack of references.

 

[Armorchompy]

I'll reiterate what I said earlier:

So... that means references aren't mandatory for all profiles and as such we shouldn't summarily delete them like you're suggesting, given it's at least partially up to the discretion of the profile maker.

 

[Agnaa]

"Does the work you're indexing have different installments, chapters, acts, episodes, missions, or literally anything else separating it from just being a single unbroken block of content?" Isn't really something I'd say is up to discretion. I think that can pretty easily and objectively be determined.

 

[Armorchompy]

... Yes, if you know the verse, which 99% of the time the people tasked with deletion won't, so we can't just go deleting new profiles without asking.

 

[Agnaa]

... Yes, if you know the verse, which 99% of the time the people tasked with deletion won't, so we can't just go deleting new profiles without asking.

Mate, most of the time that sort of thing can be found with a quick search.

"Oh, what's Naruto? Oh, Wikipedia says it has chapters (manga) and episodes (anime), guess it should have references then."

And if someone needs to be asked, they can be asked.

 

[Armorchompy]

Mate, most of the time that sort of thing can be found with a quick search.

"Oh, what's Naruto? Oh, Wikipedia says it has chapters (manga) and episodes (anime), guess it should have references then."

That is an insane simplification, like maybe a game has chapters, but none of the scans on the profile are related to those chapters and are simply based on gameplay mechanics that are universal across the entire game. That case would not warrant references. Or maybe the profile is for a recurring miniboss who is from a game with all sorts of chapters and all, but all the enemy does is throw hands and scale to the main character, I'm not sure what you would even reference there. Maybe a profile is just really basic to the point that references aren't needed, like a kaiju whose stats all come from its calculated size, and all P&A is immediately obvious upon looking at them.

So no, it can't be accurately determined with a quick search, because the format isn't the only factor.

 

[Agnaa]

Would you be okay with references being mandatory unless any of a number of exceptions are met? With staff members needing to ask the page creator before deleting the profile in cases where there's doubt?

So far those exceptions seem to be "The piece of media isn't demarcated at all." and "The video game is demarcated, but literally everything indexed on the profile can be done at every point at the game, making the selection of reference to use arbitrary."

 

[Armorchompy]

Would you be okay with references being mandatory unless any of a number of exceptions are met? With staff members needing to ask the page creator before deleting the profile in cases where there's doubt?

So far those exceptions seem to be "The piece of media isn't demarcated at all." and "The video game is demarcated, but literally everything indexed on the profile can be done at every point at the game, making the selection of reference to use arbitrary."

I edited another possibility in, and I'm sure more could be thought of. So no, I think requiring specific criteria to be met is wrong, because more situational cases could very well pop up in any sort of profile and it would just turn the entire process into an overly bureaucratic mess, we should strive to make profile-making as intuitive and accessible as possible, not gatekeep it with a bunch of hyper-specific rules that might very well not fit the situation.

Bottom line is there is a bunch of profiles that don't warrant references and they cannot be easily described. Hell, maybe the profile itself sources the powers making references redundant, something like "Originally obtained in north-west Brinstar, the Long Beam greatly increases Samus' attack range", just spitballing here, but I have seen it done.

 

[Agnaa]

Then how about references are mandatory unless a sufficiently good excuse is provided, with a few potential excuses being listed?

 

[FinePoint]

I really disagree that References should be this mandatory, ultimately in certain cases they're completely useless, I don't think a page is improved by slapping a "References
All references come from Game (Year)"
at the end. So no, I'm opposed to this.

I don't think any page should be exempt from a reference.
If the content being discussed applies to a verse which is too small to reasonably break up, or referring to the entire thing- then just cite the entire thing.

You don't need to re-reference the same thing in every sentence, just at the end. It's all then implied to be from the same source.
You are not allowed to exclude a source from your works cited just because you said its name earlier in the essay.
I understand that it's technically superfluous, but it provides consistency and professionalism, as well as provides a precedent that will reduce the number of people who release a page with no references because they saw their favorite page didn't have one.

 

[Armorchompy]

Then how about references are mandatory unless a sufficiently good excuse is provided, with a few potential excuses being listed?

Where would such an excuse be communicated? I think it's pretty stupid to force someone to debate their profile in a thread just to not put references in it and it's just another layer of bureaucracy one might need to go through just to put out a profile, which to be quite honest is one too many.

I don't think any page should be exempt from a reference.
If the content being discussed applies to a verse which is too small to reasonably break up, or referring to the entire thing- then just cite the entire thing.

You don't need to re-reference the same thing in every sentence, just at the end. It's all then implied to be from the same source.
You are not allowed to exclude a source from your works cited just because you said its name earlier in the essay.
I understand that it's technically superfluous, but it provides consistency and professionalism, as well as provides a precedent that will reduce the number of people who release a page with no references because they saw their favorite page didn't have one.

It's just a formality though, it doesn't improve the contents of the page at all, and forcing all profiles to at least do this (and even getting them to act as examples as you suggest) will just lead people to do stuff like "All scans in this page come from Game (Year)" for bigger profiles that'd warrant more detail, which will once again require all profiles with references to be evaluated case by case, except this way it's virtually impossible to do for all profiles given just how many are made and how much research it'd warrant.

 

[Antvasima]

There is no need to delete them, just tell the OP to add refs to it slowly.

This still seems like the most realistic idea to me. We could simply post the following standard message on the wiki walls of members who have created otherwise sufficiently high-quality pages without reference sections:

Hello.

You need to add references to your recently created page(s):

References

References is a section in character profiles where the source references can be shown. They should be used whenever and wherever possible to increase the reliability of the information presented in the pages and to improve the overall quality of this wiki. To use them, switch to the source...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Mariogoods]

i.e. needs to have missions, acts, chapters, episodes, literally any separation between portions of its content.

It is tricky when you try to add a reference for interactive fiction since they tend not to have a official or (generally agreed) name for separating the content, despite it may be easy to find the script of certain interactive fictions. (IFDB is helpful)

This still seems like the most realistic idea to me. We could simply post the following standard message on the wiki walls of members who have created otherwise sufficiently high-quality pages without reference sections:

Right. It may not be good if we delete a non-bad-quality profile simply for this.

 

[Elizhaa]

This still seems like the most realistic idea to me. We could simply post the following standard message on the wiki walls of members who have created otherwise sufficiently high-quality pages without reference sections:

Yes. There is also the option of making a CRT on reference additions; deletion is largely a last resort if the pages if no or bad justifications.
I kind of largely agree with the OP. Maybe re-defining what is important information for reference additions could be ideal since it seems subjective to others.

References could probably be clarified to be included for feats, statements, and notable or confusing abilities, especially for standard profiles.

These Editing Rules are the current reference rules:

• Always include the References section in character pages, explanation pages, information blogs, and verse-specific powers and abilities pages to source all the important information covered within them. To learn more regarding how to use them, read the References page.

• When creating new character profiles it is strongly preferred that you add explanations for the extents and natures of less self-evident and more confusing powers and abilities, especially with references and evidence such as scans. Examples include Reality Warping, Conceptual Manipulation, Time Manipulation, Soul Manipulation, Mind Manipulation, and Causality Manipulation. Such powers are likely to be inaccurately interpreted, whether by casual visitors or in versus matches. As such, it is appreciated if you specify the nature and scope of these abilities, preferably in "Notable Attacks/Techniques" sections, near the bottom of the character profiles.
  • When applying approved changes from a content revision thread, the respective references, explanations, and evidence, such as scans, for these types of powers and abilities must be included.
  • When using evidence that includes text in other languages than English, it is mandatory to include a translation of it, a transcription of the text that's being translated, and the source of this text (like its name and specific page), with its name in its original language if the source doesn't have a localization. This way, people can easily research this on their own and even try their own translations if they distrust the one available. Here is an example.

---

Also, regarding the stricter standards, from the discussion rules and related the rule from the Power-scaling Rules for Marvel and DC Comics, I think a change to the discussion rules should be added. Most CRTs don't have references or sources for the source material which could be an issue in the long run as references will be integral in the long run.

There are cases where the OP fake scans so without more contexts is hard to check like in this case. There are also possibilities that thread can be made with poor contexts with justifications being uncited; in those cases, text tends to be left out which makes checking and verifying evidence hard without knowledge. There have been cases where even the OP of CRT doesn't know the source of the proposals.

So, I think the rule 7 from Power-scaling Rules for Marvel and DC Comics, the additions would be limit change being accepted from out-of-context or fake scans.

• Content Revision Threads need to be supported by scans, quotes, video clips, accepted calculations, or any other direct proof that claimed events actually happened in the source material. In the absence of this evidence, CRTs may be closed without notice.

I think this rule should change in this case:

• Content Revision Threads need to be supported by scans, quotes, video clips, accepted calculations, or any other direct proof that claimed events actually happened in the source material. Always add the reference for the stories or source materials such as books' chapters, novels' chapters, comics' issues, series' season and episode number, game's title, etc. In the absence of these types of evidence and references, CRTs may be closed without notice.

Or maybe what in rule 7 of the Power-scaling Rules for Marvel and DC Comics can be expanded to the discussion rule. In any case, suggestions or improvements are welcome.

 

[Agnaa]

Where would such an excuse be communicated?

In the summary you provide when posting a page, or in reply to the message wall posts a mod provides when asking about it.

I think it's pretty stupid to force someone to debate their profile in a thread just to not put references in it and it's just another layer of bureaucracy one might need to go through just to put out a profile, which to be quite honest is one too many.

If you make a new page and make it properly, the only layers of bureaucracy are getting calcs accepted and getting cosmology accepted for Low 1-A or above pages. I don't think a minority of pages needing to answer a staff member's question when asked why there aren't any references makes things too high of a barrier.

 

[Armorchompy]

In the summary you provide when posting a page, or in reply to the message wall posts a mod provides when asking about it.

If you make a new page and make it properly, the only layers of bureaucracy are getting calcs accepted and getting cosmology accepted for Low 1-A or above pages. I don't think a minority of pages needing to answer a staff member's question when asked why there aren't any references makes things too high of a barrier.

Former solution might be ok I suppose but I'm not a fan of users debating it out with one single content mod, it isn't a really professional way to do things, for all you know that mod gets something wrong or has a bias against verse/user.

Well, I do. To be quite frank, I think ant's solution is a much less aggressive way to do things that ultimately leads to the same conclusion.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think it leads to the same conclusion, since a rule's not a rule if nothing happens upon breaking it.

But I think at this point we've thoroughly presented our cases; all that's left is a tally of people's votes.

 

[Armorchompy]

I don't think it leads to the same conclusion, since a rule's not a rule if nothing happens upon breaking it.

A warning, followed by possible deletion is nothing?

 

[Agnaa]

A warning, followed by possible deletion is nothing?

Oh, I was under the impression that you'd just say "You should add references" and never delete anything. I thought that because Ant gave that suggestion when replying to someone saying "There's no need to delete them", and because Ant earlier expressed the view that it isn't realistic to delete pages that are otherwise statistically fine.

Anyway, something like that does sound fine, yeah.

 

[Confluctor]

I suggested that the OP should be asked to add refs, and doesn't have to be done immediately. And ofc, shouldn't be deleted, unless the page in question is lacking/or bad

 

[KLOL506]

Oh yeah, in case I didn't clarify, just because a page doesn't have references, doesn't mean it straight up gets to be sent to the chopping block, that'd be ridiculous in and out of itself, especially if a page is extremely well done but doesn't have references. (Chances are if it's that well done people will immediately jump in to fix it up and add the references like we do with comic file pages).

 

[Bobsican]

TBH I'd still give some time limit, especially if it was done by a new user, otherwise users will just stall out by saying they'll do it later, it never happens and both parties lose interest to the point the respective issue is forgotten and we're just left where we started.
Perhaps a category could be added automatically to pages without references? That'd probably make monitoring of this stuff easier.

 

[Armorchompy]

Are we really so mistrusting in our common editors that we assume that a significant percentage of people would just lie about adding references or otherwise stall like this? For most profiles it only takes a few minutes, they have no reason to do that.

 

[Antvasima]

I suggested that the OP should be asked to add refs, and doesn't have to be done immediately. And ofc, shouldn't be deleted, unless the page in question is lacking/or bad

Oh yeah, in case I didn't clarify, just because a page doesn't have references, doesn't mean it straight up gets to be sent to the chopping block, that'd be ridiculous in and out of itself, especially if a page is extremely well done but doesn't have references. (Chances are if it's that well done people will immediately jump in to fix it up and add the references like we do with comic file pages).

This seems to make sense to me at least.

A warning, followed by possible deletion is nothing?

This is also a possibility, but how would we be able to keep track of the people that we have given instructions to in this regard, and what kind of time limits would they work under in theory?

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT

What do you think?

 

[DontTalkDT]

This seems to make sense to me at least.

This is also a possibility, but how would we be able to keep track of the people that we have given instructions to in this regard, and what kind of time limits would they work under in theory?

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT

What do you think?

I think a reminder is enough for me if the pages are otherwise fine.

If someone volunteers to do the additional work for deletion (i.e. keep track of who they have reminded, give a 2nd warning mentioning deletion after an appropriate amount of time (a week or so just to reply) and then bring it up in the deletion thread to get it nuked) I'm fine if with them doing so on their own accord.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems to make sense.

Would the rest of you be fine with that solution?

 

[Elizhaa]

It seems fine.

 

[Agnaa]

Sounds workable to me!

 

[AKM sama]

Sounds alright to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so should we make and addition to our Editing Rules page based on DontTalk's suggestion then, and if so, what should it say exactly?

 

[Agnaa]

Okay, so should we make and addition to our Editing Rules page based on DontTalk's suggestion then, and if so, what should it say exactly?

I don't know if that's needed, the Editing Rules page already says:

Always include the References section in character pages, explanation pages, information blogs, and verse-specific powers and abilities pages to source all the important information covered within them. To learn more regarding how to use them, read the References page.

All that's going to change is whether that's enforced or not, idk if that warrants a change in those written rules.

If it does need something, perhaps it should be along the lines of appending it with "New pages without that section may be deleted after ample warning if no adequate justification is provided (such as the series lacking any useful demarcations, or none of the justifications on the page coming from only one specific part of the source material), and no indication that they will be added is given."

Could also say "credible indication" if we want to explicitly require people to show some progress, so they can't just forever say that they're working on it while doing nothing.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Such an addition seems sensible to me.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Elizhaa]

What Agnaa mentioned seems fine. I am curious about possible opinions on what I mentioned in my first post; though, I don't mind waiting for another thread.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't know if that's needed, the Editing Rules page already says:

All that's going to change is whether that's enforced or not, idk if that warrants a change in those written rules.

If it does need something, perhaps it should be along the lines of appending it with "New pages without that section may be deleted after ample warning if no adequate justification is provided (such as the series lacking any useful demarcations, or none of the justifications on the page coming from only one specific part of the source material), and no indication that they will be added is given."

Could also say "credible indication" if we want to explicitly require people to show some progress, so they can't just forever say that they're working on it while doing nothing.

Okay. Such an addition seems sensible to me.

What Agnaa mentioned seems fine. I am curious about possible opinions on what I mentioned in my first post; though, I don't mind waiting for another thread.

Thank you for the reply. I think that Agnaa's suggestion can probably be applied then (with "credible indication" included). What do other staff members here think about this?