| abstract
| - __NOWYSIWYG__ I would like to propose that we reformat the way we write quotes to exclude the episode title as given at the end of every descriptor. We endeavour when writing our articles to maintain an in-universe perspective, and yet the quotes, which are in most cases the first thing on the article, immediately places the article out-of-universe by mentioning a specific episode. I believe a more useful/appropriate format would be to describe the location or specific event to establish where the quote has come from, rather than the episode itself. To take an example, the quote for Aang could be rewritten as follows: Current: Proposed: The proposed format has the added benefit of allowing us to specify more precisely where the quote has come from, as the example above shows, rather than generalising it to within a particular episode. 21:48, April 20, 2013 (UTC) Support. I oppose. While it is definitely true that it is somewhat OOU as opposed to the rest of the article, the fact that we include the exact episode in which something was said is akin to including a reference, and we've always tried to omit that little number from the quote box since it looks somewhat odd having it there. Having the exact episode there makes it easy for everyone to see instantly from which episode a certain quote was taken, thus making it easy to verify the quote -or look up the specific transcript for the context or whatever. Replacing "The Siege of the North, Part 1" with "prior to the Siege of the North", isn't exactly pinpointing the time of the quote down as "prior to the siege" can also mean that Arnook said that quote in 118 as opposed to 119. 22:35, April 20, 2013 (UTC) I agree with lady lostris, the siege of the north is an entire event, while the siege of the north part 1 or 2 is an episode. Best to keep it as is.--Boomeraang Squad, always right back at ya. (wall • contribs) 22:47, April 20, 2013 (UTC) Lostris summed up my concern best; it gets a bit harder to pinpoint when the character said it - take the PQ on Appa's page for instance. Aang said that in a random flashback. We can easily say it came from "Appa's Lost Days", but if we remove that, what do we say? Just "when Aang was younger"? That makes it pretty broad. 23:43, April 20, 2013 (UTC) i too am with LL - the episode titles should remain in quotes. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) Oppose in the interest of navigation. It's common for those who read the page to be curious about where the quote came from, and it's not in the article itself, so it can have OOU information, just like the infobox does. -- 01:39, April 21, 2013 (UTC) I oppose your idea, HammerOfThor. If we did remove the episode titles, then people would not know where to start searching for where the quote comes from. Basically, I agree with Lady Lostris. 10:03, April 20, 2013 (UTC) The main point of opposition here seems to be that the addition of the episode title aids in navigation. I can concede to that point, but that can easily be fixed by providing a reference for the quote at the end of the descriptor, in the same manner as we do within the articles themselves. I don't agree with Lostris' assertion that having a ref number looks odd; taking my original example: I don't see what's wrong with that. The proposal removes the OOU information, bringing it more in line with the perspective used throughout the rest of the article, the addition of the reference fixes the problem of navigation, in a manner consistent with that used elsewhere, and we gain the extra ability to be more specific with the descriptor. In reference to KFB's point, with the addition of a reference, the descriptor would not need to have to reference a particular location; the quote for Appa could be rewritten to something like: which again is more specific than merely stating the episode. 11:18, April 21, 2013 (UTC) That is not the only problem. I stand by that it looks sloppy to have the number in the quote box, but that's personal preference, so there is not much that can decisively be said about that that it is wrong or not. A problem with omitting the episode names and replacing them with some vague notion of when it happened is that you take away part of the specifics of when something happened. There are quotes that are difficult to clearly pinpoint -like PSU already pointed out. Omitting the episode names is just making is more difficult on ourselves and taking away some of the clarity for a debatable useful goal. The issues that will arise from this far outweigh the slim benefit of having it completely IU, which thus makes me still oppose this proposal. 11:24, April 21, 2013 (UTC) The specifics, as you call them, would be covered by having the reference to the episode right there, so I don't see why this would become an issue. The proposed rewrite for Appa's quote, for example, provides additional information that the quote is from their first meeting, which is not explicitly stated by the current quote, whilst also providing the episode it comes from, in a way which is more consistent with having an IU perspective. Trying to maintain consistency in this way, I don't believe this is a debatable goal, as we have always rewritten things to be IU. This is no different. 11:55, April 21, 2013 (UTC) After reading Thor's arguments, I have to say that I sympathize with his ideas. IU was always something we strived for, and I also think the reference is not that bad and far from being distracting, but like LL pointed it out, this is a personal preference. Anyway, I also don't think that it is so problematic to find suitable descriptions of situations to replace the episode names. DyingFlameTsui (wall • contribs) 16:13, April 21, 2013 (UTC) Per the opposing, I do find that it would become harder to pinpoint when it was said. Although it is in-universe, the episode when the character said the quote is more important than the event surrounding the quote. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhao's Fanboy (wall • contribs) 01:43, April 23, 2013 (UTC) I don't see how it would be harder to pinpoint the specific episode if a reference is given as in the examples above. We use the same format within the article, of using a reference rather than an explicit statement of the exact episode, which has worked perfectly well so far, and thus I do not see why such a system cannot also work just as well here, bringing with it the added benefits detailed above. 15:59, April 23, 2013 (UTC) In my opinion, adding the ref looks perfectly fine. Since we strive for IU I stand my Thor. Why sacrifice convenience for IU? The ref could work, but imo, it looks tacky. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhao's Fanboy (wall • contribs) 18:59, April 23, 2013 (UTC) I don't see how it would be such an inconvenience. Finding the particular episode would take one extra click, just as the refs within the article do, which has never been stated as an inconvenience so far. As for why we should aim for IU, we have always strived to write articles from an IU perspective, rewriting and altering things (even small things like not using the word seen etc.) to achieve this. Here, we can make a minor change that will help achieve this, without losing anything, but that at the same time gives us the extra benefit of being able to be more specific and descriptive with the "descriptor". 21:55, April 25, 2013 (UTC) I agree with how it is in the current. It's simpler and it makes more sense. 00:32, April 26, 2013 (UTC) Makes more sense in what way? The current format is entirely inconsistent with the format used on the rest of article. To me, it makes more sense to have things consistent. 09:49, April 26, 2013 (UTC) I've never really been bothered by using the episode title in the quote description. The body text of an article is where in-universe consistency is most important, since the subject is being directly discussed and a reference would therefore seem more appropriate than outright saying the name of an episode. The quote, however, is not part of the article's main description - as emphasized by how it is confined within a colored box. It just serves as a precursor to the body text. Profile quotes are taken directly from the episodes and are therefore primary sources. Even though an in-universe description would be nice, noting the source of the quote is probably more important. What I like about the current format is that the episode name is given right under the quote, which is far more appealing and simple than a tiny superscript number hanging off the side of a sentence, linking to another part of the same article that gives the name of the episode. Using a reference seems inefficient. In my opinion, it's better to be efficient than having an in-universe description for each quote; often times, such an explanation is not even necessary as the overall message of the quote is easily conveyed without it. Aang's quote, for example, shows he has grown past his earlier passive attitude and is ready to fight for peace. Detailing that Aang had said that before the Siege of the North does not develop the message any further, because the concept is universal. It would not matter if Aang had said that during or after the battle, or at any other time. 01:41, April 27, 2013 (UTC) The current format of quotes is a deprecated extension of the old style our articles: out-of-universe. Don't forget that references were implemented very recently, considering the site's existence. I'm not sure why that was not applied to quotes as well; I don't think it was a conscious choice, but a oversight. All the arguments about how a ref looks "bad" inside a quote box or how the out-of-universe reference adds more reading value to the quote than a ref, frankly, is just rationalizing the status quo to preserve it. A reference there looks (arguably) as bad as the plethora of others throughout the entire article. Personally I don't see any quantifiable reason to keep out-of-universe references in quotes when everything else that follows it has references (including the infobox). I agree that we should use references per our in-universe style of writing. If the issue is an aesthetic one because of the number appended to the quote, then we can use [src] ("source") and link it directly to the episode. ― Thailog 00:27, April 28, 2013 (UTC) The fact that the in-universe issue has been overlooked for years only further shows that the supposed problem is not really a problem. Perhaps there was never an official decision to keep the quote format that way, but I doubt it was an outright oversight either, because profile quotes are pretty prominent. I wasn't on the wiki at the time, obviously, but it seems more as if everyone made a "silent" mutual agreement that the changes weren't necessary. It's a lot more tedious to add OOU references to the main article, and you end up with something choppy like: Aang's immediate predecessor was Avatar Roku, as revealed in "The Southern Air Temple", and his immediate successor is Avatar Korra, from The Legend of Korra. But in quotes, it's the opposite. You don't impact the fluency of the one-line description by having an OOU reference, and it is a lot more convenient for the reader to have all the information about the quote right there, versus splitting it up. Perhaps this is all just rationalization, but really, when you look at the pros and cons of the proposal, there isn't much overall net gain. The benefit of IU consistency comes with the downside of unneeded division. 16:54, April 28, 2013 (UTC) I agree with Thailog. It's wasn't ever true that we made a silent decision to not touch the quotes when we converted everything else – for me at least, it was a true oversight. Now that it has been raised however, it is an inconsistency and we should move to address it. If our goal is to create an in-universe encyclopedia, that goal is either achieved or it isn't, and we create a pretty glaring exception for a prominent quote, then we have 100% failed to achieve our goal. There are no qualifications to be made here. The 888th Avatar (talk) 13:33, April 29, 2013 (UTC) Is keeping the episode name in the quote OOU? Yes, indisputable. Is it a "glaring oversight" and a "100% failure"? No, it isn't. The main point of an encyclopedia is to be informative and to the point. The references are not a bother inside the body of the text, because there it isn't so important to be episode specific -meaning that the reference at the end of the relevant paragraph is the needed prove to state that the given information is canonical, but it doesn't really matter there from which episode exactly it came. When talking about a specific quote, the episode it came from is important, as that is part of the quote. Yes, while it is true that a reference at the end -which would redirect you to the references- or the source tag -redirecting you to the relevant episode page- would also convey the needed information, it is also undeniably true that just keeping the episode name there for all to see is the most clearest and easiest to use for every reader of the page. 13:44, April 29, 2013 (UTC) All exceptions, great or small, breed inconsistency - especially when it comes to unnecessarily combining OOU elements in what should be entirely IU articles. As AW mainspace articles are constructed meticulously with IU always in mind, I would contend that the style used with the quote boxes is most definitely a "glaring oversight" which should be corrected as per 888. The entirely aesthetic contention that you're plugging is entirely subjective - no case can be made for either party here, since it is plain ridiculous to argue "what looks better to me vs what looks better to you". References looking cumbersome inside the quote box (mind you, only for certain people) should not matter - that the required information is included, is accessible, and is done in a professionally consistent style with respect to the articles is all that should matter. Furthermore, the point that adding a reference or source is somehow less clear or not easier than just having the episode in the quote is just bogus. If someone wanted to know where a quote came from, it doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together and figure out that the only adjoining reference/source probably contains that information - not mentioning that this is the way that reference/source information is handled in the article proper in the first place. And even if that strawman was a valid point, I would believe consistency would be far more valued anyway. KettleMeetPot • wall 14:25, April 29, 2013 (UTC) To fall back on the aesthetic argument that "[we] are plugging" is completely irrelevant as it was already stated above that it was indeed a subjective matter. We never contested that, nor went further on that stating that it wasn't, thus reviving that now is beating a dead horse. What is bogus about the fact that adding an episode name in the quote box is clearer than adding a reference? That is not bogus, that is a plain and obvious fact. You cannot hope to argue that a reference -thus literally, something that will refer you to another place where you can then find the information you were looking for- is more clear than that information just being given directly. It's just basic logic to go "where is that quote from? Oh, episode X" is more easy to use and clearer than "where is that quote from? *needs to click a redirect and is referred to an entire lists of references in which it is easy to miss the one you needed if you overlook the relevant number*". Is it rather stupid of said hypothetical person to miss that number? You can certainly say that and I'll agree with you. Do I think such hypothetical person would be an odd duck among all the logical persons who would get it easily? No, I don't think so. No, it indeed doesn't take a genius, but don't forget either that not only logical people visit this wiki and read our pages. For older people and those who had to write a paper before are accustomed to working with references and it is thus completely normal for them to use them. For the younger audience -which make up a lot of this wiki's reading audience- references are something completely alien. As stated before, for in body text information, that doesn't matter all that much. For stating a direct quote, that is another case and then it is important to be really specific as to where that quote came from. The consistency point is also rather debatable, cause it really depends on with what you want to be consistent. As it is now, all quotes, be it the main quote at the top or the in body text blockquotes, refer directly to the episode so it is perfectly clear when something was said. You can indeed bring to the table that it is not consistent with the rest of the body text, but it is consistent with the other quotes, and I don't see a reason to get rid of that obvious-to-everyone and to the point clarity in favor of some vague description and a reference. 17:45, April 29, 2013 (UTC) You cannot hope to argue that a reference -thus literally, something that will refer you to another place where you can then find the information you were looking for- is more clear than that information just being given directly. It's just basic logic to go "where is that quote from? Oh, episode X" is more easy to use and clearer than "where is that quote from? *needs to click a redirect and is referred to an entire lists of references in which it is easy to miss the one you needed if you overlook the relevant number*". That argument could be used to revert the use of references overall. For the younger audience -which make up a lot of this wiki's reading audience- references are something completely alien. As stated before, for in body text information, that doesn't matter all that much. If someone can't follow ref/source on a quote, then isn't it worse if than happens in the body of the article? "Azula was transferred to a mental health facility on a nearby island, where she was continuously monitored.[12] 'Huh, when did that happen??? Why doesn't it say??'". I don't buy that it's that much harder to spot and follow a reference in a quote than anywhere else. "You can indeed bring to the table that it is not consistent with the rest of the body text, but it is consistent with the other quotes" Is a consistent anomaly correct? It was not too long ago that "Beifong" was spelled differently. It being misspelled consistent throughout the site didn't make it correct. Consistency is one of our goals. We strive to make everything consistent. Article formats, headings placement, templates codes and effects, image sizes, introductory paragraphs, etc. We even have a MoS for source mode so that every article looks the same while editing. This is a departure from that goal, especially when there's no tangible benefit of one style over the other. The sensible thing here would be using one referencing format. ― Thailog 00:17, April 30, 2013 (UTC) It's just basic logic to go "where is that quote from? Oh, episode X" is more easy to use and clearer than "where is that quote from? *needs to click a redirect and is referred to an entire lists of references in which it is easy to miss the one you needed if you overlook the relevant number*". I disagree with this representation entirely. If you've ever clicked on a reference, you would be taken to the bottom of the page where the actual reference is brought up and clearly highlighted - that's not any less clear than putting a link in the quote box itself, since you're literally spoon-fed the reference anyway; it just takes one extra click. A high price for consistency, if at all? Absolutely not. What you're talking about is "easier to use" a.k.a convenience, which is something that I just don't care about when it is an extra one click. But the point that references are portrayed to have far less clarity in use, to such a significant extent that it would affect this debate on what should be purely a matter of consistency vs inconsistency, is what I am calling bogus. Is it rather stupid of said hypothetical person to miss that number? You can certainly say that and I'll agree with you. Do I think such hypothetical person would be an odd duck among all the logical persons who would get it easily? No, I don't think so. Irrelevant per how references actually work. How references are handled on this wiki is perfectly in line with common sense, which is the base attribute that we assume all users have - and if that was not the case, references would not be used anywhere. No, it indeed doesn't take a genius, but don't forget either that not only logical people visit this wiki and read our pages... For the younger audience -which make up a lot of this wiki's reading audience- references are something completely alien. As stated before, for in body text information, that doesn't matter all that much. For stating a direct quote, that is another case and then it is important to be really specific as to where that quote came from. The assumption that is being made here is so unexpected that I can only say no. Avatar Wiki has always catered to simple common sense, not just logic. References do not go against common sense. And the generalization that references would probably be completely alien to younger people, when references and sources are on every wiki and its parent nowadays, is laughable. Even if this is the case, so what? Why are we to assume that they would be so utterly confused that they must be spoon-fed and have their hands held? It's clicking a link, and being directed to the reference, nothing more or less - it's not rocket-science. And if it's alien to them, then chances are, they will learn about a new concept that they will encounter further on in life anyway - which is not a bad thing at all. Furthermore, since you want to be "really specific" about where the quote came from, well with references, you would receive the episode of origin, the writers, the book, the series, and the air-date. Far more specific and informative than just the episode, isn't it? You can indeed bring to the table that it is not consistent with the rest of the body text, but it is consistent with the other quotes, and I don't see a reason to get rid of that obvious-to-everyone and to the point clarity in favor of some vague description and a reference. The reason why its "consistent" with other quotes in the first place is because it is an oversight that no one caught until now. The only thing that the quote box OOU style can be compared to is the article proper. Which brings in an inconsistency, and should be corrected as per Thailog. KettleMeetPot • wall 04:02, April 30, 2013 (UTC) That argument could be used to revert the use of references overall. I already addressed that above: "The references are not a bother inside the body of the text, because there it isn't so important to be episode specific -meaning that the reference at the end of the relevant paragraph is the needed prove to state that the given information is canonical, but it doesn't really matter there from which episode exactly it came. When talking about a specific quote, the episode it came from is important, as that is part of the quote." I don't buy that it's that much harder to spot and follow a reference in a quote than anywhere else. I never said that it is harder to spot the reference in the quote, nor did I mean to. I said it was more convenient and to the point. As for the references being more important in the body of the text, I already copy/pasted my take on that above. Is a consistent anomaly correct? It was not too long ago that "Beifong" was spelled differently. It being misspelled consistent throughout the site didn't make it correct. Extremely important difference: that was incorrect with a canonical source, even though our consistency was okay. Here we are talking about something that no official source has anything to say about for obvious reasons, so that's a moot point. This is a departure from that goal, especially when there's no tangible benefit of one style over the other. The sensible thing here would be using one referencing format. I respectfully disagree that is it a departure from the goal of being consistent. As mentioned above, all quotes have that same clear to use style. There is a vast difference between writing a story with canonically given information, and as such, give the reader much more than just a reference number to know what episode you're talking about, and with taking one quote completely out of context and then add a vague description of when sort of it was said and add the reference to make it specific. Imo, both styles can be used as there is a vast difference between the things that you (broadly used to reference everyone in favor of this, not just you specific) want to put on one line. If you've ever clicked on a reference, you would be taken to the bottom of the page where the actual reference is brought up and clearly highlighted - that's not any less clear than putting a link in the quote box itself, since you're literally spoon-fed the reference anyway; it just takes one extra click. Yes, I clicked a reference before, and miraculously enough, I knew how to work with one. Does that mean that it is some sort of standard and that everyone who views our pages knows what those numbers are and how to work with them? No. Can this be attempted to be countered with the argument that that fact is the same for all references? Yes, but with the vast difference about referencing in quote and in text as I have said above already. What you're talking about is "easier to use" a.k.a convenience, which is something that I just don't care about when it is an extra one click. As mentioned again above, that "one click" extra is just the hurdle that some people who have never worked with references before will debatably know how to take and thus be denied instant knowledge of when precisely a quote was said. But the point that references are portrayed to have far less clarity in use, to such a significant extent that it would affect this debate on what should be purely a matter of consistency vs inconsistency, is what I am calling bogus. Already addressed that consistency point. How references are handled on this wiki is perfectly in line with common sense, which is the base attribute that we assume all users have - and if that was not the case, references would not be used anywhere. Already explained why this is a false premises to build on as well. References do not go against common sense. And the generalization that references would probably be completely alien to younger people, when references and sources are on every wiki and its parent nowadays, is laughable. When one has never worked with references before -read, nearly everyone below higher education- then references are something alien -regardless whether or not they are a standard on wikis, cause then you are also starting from the presumption that every user visits multiple wikis, which is definitely a debatable claim to start from. (And by referencing those "below a higher education", I do not mean by any means to say that all those people cannot work with references, it is just a broad indication to those who have never had to work with them, which is something different than "cannot work with them".) Even if this is the case, so what? Why are we to assume that they would be so utterly confused that they must be spoon-fed and have their hands held? It's clicking a link, and being directed to the reference, nothing more or less - it's not rocket-science. So what? So what is that we are supposed to be an encyclopedic and thus need to give our readers information in the best and the clearest way possible. I have addressed multiple times already why the clearest way to do so with a quote and the sensible reason to distinguish them from in body references, so I'm not going to repeat myself again. And if it's alien to them, then chances are, they will learn about a new concept that they will encounter further on in life anyway - which is not a bad thing at all Now it is my turn to say that the statement being made here is so unexpected that I can only say no. So what are you starting from here? "Oh, you don't understand? Too bad for you, grow up and learn to use references." Are you going to say that to our young readers? Sorry, but that is just a laughable statement. Since you want to be "really specific" about where the quote came from, well with references, you would receive the episode of origin, the writers, the book, the series, and the air-date. This is a ridiculous and far-fetched counter argument as you know that people don't care about that when they want to know from what episode a quote came. The reason why its "consistent" with other quotes in the first place is because it is an oversight that no one caught until now. I am not convinced at all that this is a simple oversight, nor is there any decisive reason to say so. This is an argument that can easily be used by both sides, so as such, it is rendered moot for both sides, no matter how much one wants to emphasize the "oversight" part. 07:45, April 30, 2013 (UTC) I already addressed that above: "The references are not a bother inside the body of the text, because there it isn't so important to be episode specific -meaning that the reference at the end of the relevant paragraph is the needed prove to state that the given information is canonical, but it doesn't really matter there from which episode exactly it came. And I absolutely disagree with this. References inside the body of the text are equaly, if not more, important than on quotes. They not only prove that the information is canonical, but they all answer a common question that arises while reading: "when did that happen?". That's why we used multiple references for on single event. I said it was more convenient and to the point. Per KMP, we don't cater for spoon-feeding or handhelding. Here we are talking about something that no official source has anything to say about for obvious reasons, so that's a moot point. Our in-universe standard says it is incorrect. As mentioned above, all quotes have that same clear to use style. Because it has never been fixed to comfort to our in-universe style of writing. It was an oversight, and just because no one had brought this up before, it doesn't make it any less relevant, let alone and accepted norm. taking one quote completely out of context and then add a vague description of when sort of it was said and add the reference to make it specific Actually, I'm not supporting the vague reference at all. I'm simply supporting the replacement of the out-of-universe episodic citating with a reference. If a quote needs that much context to be understood, then it should be replaced. But that's another discussion. To be clear, I'm supporting this: ― Thailog 10:38, April 30, 2013 (UTC) "Yes, I clicked a reference before, and miraculously enough, I knew how to work with one. Does that mean that it is some sort of standard and that everyone who views our pages knows what those numbers are and how to work with them? No." Did I suggest that absolutely everyone knows how to use a reference? No. I did not. But on this, just like with many things in the wiki, a line must be (and has been) drawn - we can't cater to absolutely everybody, yet we have to maintain a professional and consistent standard to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. I maintain that yes, at the very least, some basic knowledge of "what is a reference" is required - but that is not sufficient reason to completely disregard the use of references in a quote box. Such knowledge is neither hard to acquire nor is a huge stretch above common sense, however much you would like to exaggerate that point. And on encyclopedias, it is a standard - every analogous encyclopedic site similar to our own assumes that there is some basic knowledge of references beforehand and uses them to set out the derived source/supporting information. That is the dictionary function of an inline citation, and the reality is, that is what people have to know and work with on all encyclopedias. "So what? So what is that we are supposed to be an encyclopedic and thus need to give our readers information in the best and the clearest way possible" Yet, I fail to see why references are any less clearer in giving the majority of people that read this site the required information, as opposed to the current style. Your advocacy on the point that references are just plain harder to understand or work with has interestingly never been an issue to anyone before now in our history of using references. "So what are you starting from here? "Oh, you don't understand? Too bad for you, grow up and learn to use references." Are you going to say that to our young readers? Sorry, but that is just a laughable statement." Yeah, I was totally saying that. No, I just disagree with your sentiment that younger readers require spoon-feeding if they have never encountered something like references before. Sorry if I don't think that those readers are not at all capable of understanding or using references. Though, I always did think learning about an unknown was better than remaining blissfully ignorant, since ya know, encyclopedias are all about informing people at a professional standard and all. "This is a ridiculous and far-fetched counter argument as you know that people don't care about that when they want to know from what episode a quote came." I was being flippant. Though I do believe that presenting more detailed information is a legitimate pro for references. "I am not convinced at all that this is a simple oversight, nor is there any decisive reason to say so." Yet Thailog has already mentioned that this was the same style used in the old OOU articles, that people forgot to change, or even think was important, after the transition... Until now, where it is being vigorously debated. I would say that is a very reasonable indication that this was an oversight. KettleMeetPot • wall 12:28, April 30, 2013 (UTC) And I absolutely disagree with this. References inside the body of the text are equaly, if not more, important than on quotes. They not only prove that the information is canonical, but they all answer a common question that arises while reading: "when did that happen?". That's why we used multiple references for on single event. References in body text are not irrelevant, not at all, however, they are not the only means by which one can deduce from which episode the information was given. As said, the text provides a more elaborate story to paint the context of an event than a loose, stand-alone quote does. Per KMP, we don't cater for spoon-feeding or handhelding. As an encyclopedic, we want to be clear and to the point. Sure, that can come off as "spoon-feeding" or "handhelding", but that personal opinion does not deter away from the fact that the other way is clearer and in that regard, more preferred imo for quotes. Our in-universe standard says it is incorrect. Quotes on themselves are already different from in-body text, thus completely comparing the situations without regard of the context and the purpose is a false comparison, one that cannot just be made without considering all sides -and the side affected here would be the clarity of the quote. Because it has never been fixed to comfort to our in-universe style of writing. It was an oversight, and just because no one had brought this up before, it doesn't make it any less relevant, let alone and accepted norm. Why would it be an oversight? Simply because no one changed it thus far. Just imagine this situation: someone did take notice of it, but thought it was completely acceptable, logic, easy to use, and to the point, and thus did not think about changing such a working system. Oversight? No. More something like "don't fix what isn't broken". We can't cater to absolutely everybody, yet we have to maintain a professional and consistent standard to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. I completely disagree with the implied statement that we deter at all from our encyclopedic goal by having those episode references. To this day, we are regarded as one of the best and most organized wikis etc which provides clear and accessible information -with, so it seems, OOU quote-references. Such knowledge is neither hard to acquire nor is a huge stretch above common sense, however much you would like to exaggerate that point. And on encyclopedias, it is a standard - every analogous encyclopedic site similar to our own assumes that there is some basic knowledge of references beforehand and uses them to set out the derived source/supporting information. That is the dictionary function of an inline citation, and the reality is, that is what people have to know and work with on all encyclopedias. It's not about how much I "would like to exaggerate that point", it is about how much that point is true. You can try to minimize that all you like to try to make your point, but that does not change anything about the fact that we, as the Avatar Wiki, have always had a young audience -both the show, as the wiki itself. You can claim common knowledge all you want, but the fact that we cater by default to a young audience means that we need to be as clear and accessible as we can, and references for quote do not aid that goal imo. Yet, I fail to see why references are any less clearer in giving the majority of people that read this site the required information, as opposed to the current style. Your advocacy on the point that references are just plain harder to understand or work with has interestingly never been an issue to anyone before now in our history of using references. Who says that it has never been an issue before. Part of my point -a part that you now conveniently ignore- was also that the in-body references are less important because there are more indicators given to the reader to know by from which episode a certain bit of information was taken. With quotes, however, that one sentence stands alone and that's all you get. Thus the reference there is the only aid one has to find out the episode from which it was taken, and then it does become very important that everyone knows how to use references, which is not common knowledge or so easy to learn for every youngster, no matter how much you want to exaggerate that point. No, I just disagree with your sentiment that younger readers require spoon-feeding if they have never encountered something like references before. Sorry if I don't think that those readers are not at all capable of understanding or using references. Though, I always did think learning about an unknown was better than remaining blissfully ignorant, since ya know, encyclopedias are all about informing people at a professional standard and all. It's not about spoon-feeding, it's about refraining from making something unnecessarily complicated when it does not have to be. Some will definitely be able to navigate the references perfectly fine, others -likely the younger readers- will have (more) trouble with that. This has nothing to with being "blissfully ignorant", this is about being clear. And yes, encyclopedias are about informing people about the subject they are about, thus people come here to learn about all things relating to Avatar, not to learn how to navigate references -an nor should that need to be a required skill in order to find out where a stand-alone quote is taken from. Though I do believe that presenting more detailed information is a legitimate pro for references. That is a pro for references in general, as it is a nice plus to have much information about the episode there, but it is completely irrelevant when someone just immediately wants to know where a certain quote came from as opposed to all the technical details about it. Yet Thailog has already mentioned that this was the same style used in the old OOU articles, that people forgot to change, or even think was important, after the transition... Until now, where it is being vigorously debated. I would say that is a very reasonable indication that this was an oversight.:: Yes, it is undeniably the same style, but that is in no way a decisive proof that it is therefor an oversight as I mentioned already in my reply to Thai when he said more or less the same. The fact that it is only just now vigorously debated is also no proof whatsoever that it was an oversight. It is just as much a proof of that, as it is of the fact that people noticed it and thought it was just perfectly fine as it is now -which is also a very reasonable possibility. 16:10, April 30, 2013 (UTC) I've been following this discussion closely since it began, and I'll start off by weighing in that I'm for refs in quote boxes in order to eliminate the OOU aspect and preserve the consistency that we've thought we had with the in-universe prerogative. Ever since I joined this wiki, a time when the ref system had already been implemented and the wiki was obviously an in-universe perspective, the quotes have mentioned the episode they come from despite the view Avatar Wiki upholds. I've always let my cringing eyes pass over these as I figured, "Well hey, no one saw anything wrong with it, so maybe there isn't anything wrong with it." Now I see that this standpoint is flawed; there's no reason to have the OOU perspective in the quote boxes at all, from my view. I don't really see how the use of refs in a quote box could throw off younger readers, especially not in this generation when hyperlinks and what happens when you click on them is common knowledge, as it the recognizable appearance of hyperlinks and the highlighting that occurs over the intended ref once the link has been clicked. I'm not sure this back-and-forth quotation match is going to get us closer to the unanimous decision that has not and probably will not be reached. Anyone else think it's time to get down to the voting? 18:33, April 30, 2013 (UTC) The fact that the current generation is more tech savvy is not a good point to generalize the statement that every youngster knows how to use it. The fact still stands that clicking a link, be redirected elsewhere, and than having to scroll back up to actually start reading is more tiresome than letting a totally harmless standard stand for clarity sake. 18:54, April 30, 2013 (UTC) One could say the same thing for scrolling up all the way after clicking a ref in the quote box as he could for when he clicks on a link in the opening paragraph, or the first subsection, or anywhere else that he finds it annoying to scroll up from after clicking. With that philosophy, we'd need to cater to everyone and simply remove refs altogether, which is not on the table. And also, if you are one of those who finds clicking the ref and scrolling back up to be tiresome like me, LL: after clicking the ref and being redirected to the references section of an article, simply clicking the arrow in the corner of the screen that normally takes a person to the page he last visited in that tab will instead take the user to the exact place on the article he had been before clicking the ref, so that could fix the scroll issue. But again, it looks like everyone is resolute in his opinion, no? No new points are being made as far as I can see, so why don't we just get to the vote? 19:13, April 30, 2013 (UTC) With that philosophy, we'd need to cater to everyone and simply remove refs altogether, which is not on the table. As I have addressed numerous times already now, there is a vast difference between a stand alone quote for which the reference is all you got for determining the quote's origins, and the in-body text references where the surrounding text paints the context. after clicking the ref and being redirected to the references section of an article, simply clicking the arrow in the corner of the screen that normally takes a person to the page he last visited in that tab will instead take the user to the exact place on the article he had been before clicking the ref, so that could fix the scroll issue. I know that, you know that, everyone who knows how to work with references knows that -how much are you willing to bed that everyone knew that. I'm not about to wager much on that statement. 19:20, April 30, 2013 (UTC) References in body text are not irrelevant, not at all, however, they are not the only means by which one can deduce from which episode the information was given. Readers aren't supposed to deduce anything, for the sake of clarity, which you keep bringing up. Please show me one sentence in which we can deduce the episode it refers to without a reference. You say that making our readers click on a little number which takes them down to a highlight link is making things less clear than the current formant, which is just "in episode X" next to the speakers, but references in the body text are dispensable because readers can deduce the episodes where our information was taken from. Sorry, but that logic is just flawed. As said, the text provides a more elaborate story to paint the context of an event than a loose, stand-alone quote does. We are not supporting the abolition of references. We are supporting the change of "in episode X" with [insert random number] or [src], which either links the reader down below and to a highlighted references or directly to the episode in question. Your (the opposing party in general) argument is basically two-fold: 1) it's ugly, and 2) it's bothersome to inconvenience some intangible portion of our readers to click on one or more characters between brackets. No one can be so clueless so as to gaze dumbstruck at the reference wondering what that is and where that quote was taken from. And even if there's such a creature, well, per KMP, a line must be drawn somewhere. And while it can be inconvenient to click on the thing instead of reading it right there, that argument falls flat when our articles have up to 30 references all over. So, it's difficult to prove that a reference on a quote hinders clarity in any shape or form when our readers should pretty much be accustomed to them. [...] but that personal opinion does not deter away from the fact that the other way is clearer and in that regard And that's an opinion too; one that can't very quantified. Per what I said above, if references are not clear on quotes, then they aren't clear anywhere, so their use should be revised. But as it stands now, the de jure standard is in-universe and we need references to avoid out-of-universe meta-references. Why quotes are exempted from this norm, still remains to be proved. Why would it be an oversight? Simply because no one changed it thus far. Just imagine this situation: someone did take notice of it, but thought it was completely acceptable, logic, easy to use, and to the point, and thus did not think about changing such a working system. Oversight? No. More something like "don't fix what isn't broken". Again, per above, it is an oversight because we adopted an in-universe style of writing, and quotes contain out-of-universe references. Yeah, maybe some noticed and prefered it that way, regardless of our norm, but that doesn't change the fact this is a double standard. Its being brought up now, doesn't invalidate its pertinence. ― Thailog 19:34, April 30, 2013 (UTC) Actually, LL, when I went on with the quote of mine that you put up there, specifically "With that philosophy, we'd need to cater to everyone and simply remove refs altogether, which is not on the table," I was speaking not about the differences between putting the ref in a quote box and refs in the rest of the article (as has been debated with no end in sight already, hence my proposal to just start voting), but rather about what it appeared you considered a problem about scrolling all the way back up to the top of the article after reading the ref at the bottom of the article. Specifically, I was using that sentence to reply to your saying of "having to scroll back up [after clicking on a ref tag] to actually start reading is more tiresome than letting a totally harmless standard stand for clarity sake." What I was saying, to be as precise as possible, is that if we followed the idealism that someone will get annoyed at scrolling back to the top of the article after clicking on a ref tag in the quote box, then next we'd have to remove quotes from, say, the entire opening paragraph as someone else might think scrolling back up from the opening paragraph would be difficult; I meant by this to say that it would be subjective to anyone what too much scrolling would be. Then I mentioned the backtab approach of retuning to the top of the article in order to tell you about it, since, from you saying that it's tiresome to scroll all the way back up, it didn't appear that you did know. That's as clear on the quotes that I can be about it, LL. These things render the "having to scroll back up to actually start reading [being] tiresome" point that you made moot. And once again, I say that the back-and-forth-quotation idea will not bring this discussion closer to an end. It seems that everyone who wants to way in his full opinions has done so, and that everyone is resolute in his position. Again, can we please initiate the vote? 19:45, April 30, 2013 (UTC) We only vote when a majority rule can't be reached. ― Thailog 19:56, April 30, 2013 (UTC) You say that making our readers click on a little number which takes them down to a highlight link is making things less clear than the current formant, which is just "in episode X" next to the speakers, but references in the body text are dispensable because readers can deduce the episodes where our information was taken from. Sorry, but that logic is just flawed.::: This logic is seemingly flawed to you because that is not what I have been saying, or at least, not completely. While it is definitely true that I believe that it is more clear for a quote to have the easy accessible episode link next to it, I am not not at all saying that the references in body text are dispensable. What I said about those is that they are less important when compared to the references with quotes in the fact that a quote has only the reference to make it clear from where that quote originates, whereas you have usually a larger paragraph in the body of the text to give you an idea from where something came. Thus the reference there is usually less to not at all needed to find out from which episode the information was taken as opposed to the stand alone quote. Take Suki's page for example. The quote is: This particular quote could've been said in any episode Sokka and Suki met, though due to the obvious and noticeable "The Warriors of Kyoshi" tag, one instantly knows it is from that particular episode. Why go through the relatively difficult way of having to be redirected all the way to the bottom to then go all the way to the top again, when all you wanted to know was "which episode is that from". (and my usage of the word "difficult" is not a reference to the actual tasks you have to perform to get there, but more to the fact that you have to click twice, once to go down and once to go up, to find something that you can just clearly see now without having to do anything else but read.) One sentence of the Suki article as an example: "Suki interrogated the group, threatening to throw Sokka to the unagi after he made a sexist comment about being kidnapped by a "bunch of girls"." This sentence already gives a more broadened view of when exactly the events that are being detailed in that paragraph take place. The big difference is that such sentences never stand alone. You often have an entire paragraph of text, allowing the reader to deduce the episode of which that all took place, as opposed to the stand alone quote where you just get one sentence and that's it. We are not supporting the abolition of references. I don't believe anyone here is in favor of abolishing the references. Your (the opposing party in general) argument is basically two-fold: 1) it's ugly, and 2) it's bothersome to inconvenience some intangible portion of our readers to click on one or more characters between brackets. No one can be so clueless so as to gaze dumbstruck at the reference wondering what that is and where that quote was taken from. And even if there's such a creature, well, per KMP, a line must be drawn somewhere. I don't know about the others, but as I told KMP above already and even before either you or him mentioned it, I immediately acknowledged the subjective preference of the looks of a reference or not in the quote and I never reiterated it as an official argument. The second argument still stands though for the reasons that I mentioned above: now it takes one glance to know from where a certain quote is from, as opposed to at least two clicks to find out that same information. A line must definitely be drawn somewhere, but this is not the place. There is no reason to get rid of something that isn't a bother and is clear to use for something more complicated that brings forth a loss of clarity. And while it can be inconvenient to click on the thing instead of reading it right there, that argument falls flat when our articles have up to 30 references all over. So, it's difficult to prove that a reference on a quote hinders clarity in any shape or form when our readers should pretty much be accustomed to them. Really, how many times do I have to repeat what the obvious difference is between a reference in the text and a reference in the quote and how important the context of said references is? My point with the difference is that the readers in the text do not necessarily follow the references at all -or even need to use them- because the explanation and the way our articles are written in the text provide sufficient information for them to know when something took place and from which episode it was taken. That is vastly different from having only one sentence from which the reader should then have to know everything. And that's an opinion too; one that can't very quantified. What is not verifiable of that? One is a reference deferring the reader to the bottom of the page after they clicked on it, and the other is just "read on". You don't need a field investigation to know which one is objectively the most clear. Per what I said above, if references are not clear on quotes, then they aren't clear anywhere, so their use should be revised. Per what I said above as well, the context in which both references are used is vastly different, making it in one case not necessarily needed for someone to be able to work with references and in the other case (of the quotes) making it an absolute requirement if someone wants to know from where a quote was taken. But as it stands now, the de jure standard is in-universe and we need references to avoid out-of-universe meta-references. Why quotes are exempted from this norm, still remains to be proved. The easy proof would be "for clarities sake as mentioned numerous times above". Yeah, maybe some noticed and prefered it that way, regardless of our norm, but that doesn't change the fact this is a double standard. Its being brought up now, doesn't invalidate its pertinence. Not every double standard is by definition bad and should always be removed. Some double standards have a point -as it is in this case for clarity reasons and for the fact that it is just easier to see directly from where a quote was taken, thus proving the validity of the double standard as well. I never contested the validity of this proposal, what I contested was the validity of the claim that leaving the quotes with an OOU reference was an oversight. These things render the "having to scroll back up to actually start reading [being] tiresome" point that you made moot. Not at all really: 1.
* I was speaking not about the differences between putting the ref in a quote box and refs in the rest of the article (as has been debated with no end in sight already, hence my proposal to just start voting) 1.
* I'm sorry for misinterpreting you then. However, in that regard, that statement could easily be refuted by referring once again indeed to the difference in the necessity for readers to have a reference there in order to find out where something come from when comparing a quote to an in-body text sentence/paragraph. 1.
* What I was saying, to be as precise as possible, is that if we followed the idealism that someone will get annoyed at scrolling back to the top of the article after clicking on a ref tag in the quote box, then next we'd have to remove quotes from, say, the entire opening paragraph as someone else might think scrolling back up from the opening paragraph would be difficult; I meant by this to say that it would be subjective to anyone what too much scrolling would be. 1.
* Too much scrolling could rather easily be defined as "when reading a text, having to unnecessarily scroll down and back up only to find an episode a quote was taken from". Again, the point you're trying to make here can yet again be answered to refer you to the difference between the need of a reference on a quote to know where exactly something was taken from and the exact need for that quote in a long(er) paragraph. 1.
* Then I mentioned the backtab approach of retuning to the top of the article in order to tell you about it, since, from you saying that it's tiresome to scroll all the way back up, it didn't appear that you did know. 1.
* You doubt the fact that I didn't know about the tab function based on the fact that I mentioned scrolling. By your applied logic, you would thus also assume that I don't know in general how to use references, as I have stated multiple times that people don't know how to use it. However, as you apparently missed from the arguments, each time, I was referring to a younger audience that didn't know how to work with said references and to the general convenience of having the episode directly in the quote. So you misinterpreted my statements as being a defense for myself and my own skills rather than what they truly are and that is the defense for those that aren't used to working with references. 21:20, April 30, 2013 (UTC) "Why go through the relatively difficult way of having to be redirected all the way to the bottom to then go all the way to the top again, when all you wanted to know was "which episode is that from". Because we do it for everything else? Sorry, but this line of reasoning borders on fostering laziness. Next thing you know, we'll start uploading audio recordings of our articles for those who don't want to be inconvenienced with the troublesome chore of reading. "One sentence of the Suki article as an example: "Suki interrogated the group, threatening to throw Sokka to the unagi after he made a sexist comment about being kidnapped by a "bunch of girls"." Umm, how exactly can a reader infer that this took place in "The Warriors of Kyoshi"? You could even have a picture of that scene next to that text, but without a reference or a statement that this happened in "The Warriors of Kyoshi", there's no way anyone can know that. Anyone who doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of Avatar, that is. "I don't believe anyone here is in favor of abolishing the references. And yet, you are so adamantly against this change that it seems like we're taking away references from quotes altogether, whereas what were are discussing is the replacement of the out-of-universe format in favor of the accept norm: in-universe. "now it takes one glance to know from where a certain quote is from, as opposed to at least two clicks to find out that same information This is a gross exaggeration of a problem, which isn't even a problem in the strictest sense of the word. Sorry, but two measly clicks do not qualify as an inconvenience. Redirecting the user to an external link where they'd have to create an account in order to see the information, or even asking them to insert certain CSS or java scripts on their personal CSS pages, now that's an inconvenience. Clicking twice is just really, clicking twice. I wager that a lot of clicking will follow while reading the rest of the article. "There is no reason to get rid of something that isn't a bother and is clear to use for something more complicated that brings forth a loss of clarity. More complicated? Loss of clarify? Another gross exaggerations. A loss would be met if we were removing references from quotes, out-of-universe or not. As I made sure to point out above, we are not, so, nothing is loss here. The information is right there next to all the other out-of-universe references. And the reason to do this have been mentioned profusely: consistency and uniformity. "Some double standards have a point -as it is in this case for clarity reasons and for the fact that it is just easier to see directly from where a quote was taken, thus proving the validity of the double standard as well. You keep hitting the "clarity" button, implying that a reference is not clear. That's a misrepresentation of facts, because we are not hiding the reference in a collapsible box, or in must-highlight-to-read code. The reference is right there and it's even highlighted. You're minimizing the use of references and misrepresenting their utility. We've never said that the out-of-universe method is bad; both are acceptable because both are informative, but both are different formats, and we don't need two when one of them only have our readers from clicking twice. Therefore, we just need to enforce our policy and replace the out-of-universe format to conform to our in-universe tenet. ― Thailog 22:28, April 30, 2013 (UTC) "Really, how many times do I have to repeat what the obvious difference is between a reference in the text and a reference in the quote and how important the context of said references is? My point with the difference is that the readers in the text do not necessarily follow the references at all -or even need to use them- because the explanation and the way our articles are written in the text provide sufficient information for them to know when something took place and from which episode it was taken. That is vastly different from having only one sentence from which the reader should then have to know everything." It seems that the base of your case now rests on the (still flawed) position that "references for quote boxes are unsuitable because in-body references have context from which you could guess the episode, while you won't get any from a quote box". Per Thailog, I see absolutely no way you could derive the name of an exact episode from reading a few contextual sentences unless you were a die-hard fan and memorized a bunch of episode names. References in the text are just as comparable to references in quote boxes - and they both work at giving our readers, however young they may be, the required information without issue. But since that doesn't seem to matter at all to you, I direct your attention to another completely comparable element to quote boxes that use references: our infoboxes - the template on every article that provides the most visual summary of basic character information. On there, you get no "context", as per your gripe with quote boxes, just one line of information with some references - and yet they do their jobs well. Out of the hundreds of thousands that read this site, there has yet to be an issue on our referencing system in that regard - people have managed perfectly fine without being utterly spoon-fed, and I follow on that this point you have brought up about "quote boxes are different b/c in-body has contextual deduction" is absolutely unfounded. "There is no reason to get rid of something that isn't a bother and is clear to use for something more complicated that brings forth a loss of clarity." Not a bother? Really? It is a bother to us when a double-standard is unnecessarily kept for the heck of it - and we've argued so much against the "references = mind-blowingly complicated = loss of clarity" point that I think there is no need to reiterate. KettleMeetPot • wall 03:59, May 1, 2013 (UTC) Because we do it for everything else? Sorry, but this line of reasoning borders on fostering laziness. Next thing you know, we'll start uploading audio recordings of our articles for those who don't want to be inconvenienced with the troublesome chore of reading.:: There is no need to completely ridicule it all. The context point still stands overall, no need to repeat it yet again. Umm, how exactly can a reader infer that this took place in "The Warriors of Kyoshi"? You could even have a picture of that scene next to that text, but without a reference or a statement that this happened in "The Warriors of Kyoshi", there's no way anyone can know that. Anyone who doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of Avatar, that is. A reader that knows a bit of Avatar can deduce from that sentence that the scene takes place where the unagi lives and since the team only encountered that episode once, it has to be by default the KW episode. And in any case, if that sentence is not enough for the reader to deduce the episode by, then there is no problem, cause there is an entire paragraph worth of sentences to find the episode by. Moreover, the in-body text also sports a chronological built-up, so by just the mere placing of a paragraph on the page, the reader can know that -in this particular case- the events happened in one of the early episodes with Suki. It is still possible that one still does not know when the events took place then and still have to rely on the references -and that is also exactly what they are for. However, in this case, I am willing to bet that a lot of people who have seen Avatar can deduce from an entire paragraph from which episode something was taken, as opposed to the debatable fact that a lot of people can instantly know the episode from with a stand-alone quote was taken. There is nothing else in that last case to deduce its whereabouts from next to the reference, which then becomes vital to find out the information. And yet, you are so adamantly against this change that it seems like we're taking away references from quotes altogether, whereas what were are discussing is the replacement of the out-of-universe format in favor of the accept norm: in-universe. Then that was a wrongful deduction on your part that has nothing to do with me, as I am not for the abolition of references as a whole. This is a gross exaggeration of a problem, which isn't even a problem in the strictest sense of the word. Sorry, but two measly clicks do not qualify as an inconvenience. Redirecting the user to an external link where they'd have to create an account in order to see the information, or even asking them to insert certain CSS or java scripts on their personal CSS pages, now that's an inconvenience. Clicking twice is just really, clicking twice. I wager that a lot of clicking will follow while reading the rest of the article. How is that an exaggeration? It's one glance as opposed to two clicks. That's not an exaggeration, that's summing up the facts. The other example is irrelevant to this case, as I have also explicitly stated that the "difficulty" of it all needs to be seen in context, which in this case means weigh it off against the "one glance" situation we have now. More complicated? Loss of clarify? Another gross exaggerations. A loss would be met if we were removing references from quotes, out-of-universe or not. As I made sure to point out above, we are not, so, nothing is loss here. The information is right there next to all the other out-of-universe references. And the reason to do this have been mentioned profusely: consistency and uniformity. Again, not an exaggeration, and I refer you again to my explicit statement of how one should interpret my use of the word "difficult" in this case. Adding a reference as opposed to the actual text is by definition a loss of clarity as one just requires you to read, while the other requires an action in order to be able to read. The reason why this double standard we now have can easily be justified and thus remain in use has also been mentioned profusely: easy to use and complete clarity for a stand-alone quote. You keep hitting the "clarity" button, implying that a reference is not clear. That's a misrepresentation of facts, because we are not hiding the reference in a collapsible box, or in must-highlight-to-read code. The reference is right there and it's even highlighted. How is that a misinterpretation of facts? What's the most clear to everyone, [12] (or whatever number) or 'in "The Desert".'? That is the clarity I am talking about. I am not in any way saying that references are not visible -as you are implying by your addition. And before anyone would again try to refute this by making a comparison to how it is also done like that in-body text: we've been over that profusely and there is more than the reference alone there for the reader to find out the context in which that given information takes place as opposed to, again, a stand-alone quote. You're minimizing the use of references and misrepresenting their utility. We've never said that the out-of-universe method is bad; both are acceptable because both are informative, but both are different formats, and we don't need two when one of them only have our readers from clicking twice. Therefore, we just need to enforce our policy and replace the out-of-universe format to conform to our in-universe tenet. I am not minimizing anything, and I honestly don't know where you got from that I am. All I am saying is that for a quote, when that is all you get, it is the easiest and clearest to go with just the episode name. Since quotes, by their very format, stand alone and outside the text, it does not compromise the text integrity or uniform look or whatever. It is a justifiable double standard that is not in dire need to be removed. I see absolutely no way you could derive the name of an exact episode from reading a few contextual sentences unless you were a die-hard fan and memorized a bunch of episode names." You really believe that someone who has seen Avatar and then reads a description of the events taking place in a certain episode will not remember the actual episode it takes place in? You don't need to be a die-hard fan for that; you don't need to be a die-hard fan to remember events that took place based on a description from it. You just need to have seen the series for that. However, you do need to be a die-hard fan to know instantly from which episode a quote was taken. You may insert things as "still flawed" all you want, but that doesn't mean in any way that I am not right on this. A context is important, and when you deprive people from that context -by taking a quote to stand on its own- every non die-hard fan becomes heavily reliant on the explanation given with that quote to find out where it came from, and as such, it becomes a vital to use the reference, whereas now, one can just read the rest of the quote's explanation and instantly move on to the rest of the text without having to do anything more. References in the text are just as comparable to references in quote boxes - and they both work at giving our readers, however young they may be, the required information without issue. No, they're not, please read my statements above again. But since that doesn't seem to matter at all to you, This is not about "matter to me", this is about just refuting your claims. Apparently, when I do it, it's "flawed", and when you all do it, it's completely justified. Cause also, as stated in my arguments, references do matter to me, I just see a justification for the double standard that we are confronted with here. So no offense, but that sentence was completely unnecessary, as it makes it seem like you're making this a very personal discussion, which it is not. I do not believe that it was your intention to give that impression, I am just giving this as a random note as it does seem to come off that way. I direct your attention to another completely comparable element to quote boxes that use references: our infoboxes - the template on every article that provides the most visual summary of basic character information. On there, you get no "context", as per your gripe with quote boxes, just one line of information with some references - and yet they do their jobs well. Out of the hundreds of thousands that read this site, there has yet to be an issue on our referencing system in that regard - people have managed perfectly fine without being utterly spoon-fed, and I follow on that this point you have brought up about "quote boxes are different b/c in-body has contextual deduction" is absolutely irrelevant. And then for the easy rebuttal: there is simply no room whatsoever to add in episode names in the infobox without making it look completely crowded and unreadable -a problem that simply does not exist in the spacy quotes- thus this comparison doesn't fly at all. Not a bother? Really? It is a bother to us when a double-standard is unnecessarily kept for the heck of it - and we've argued so much against the "references = mind-blowingly complicated = loss of clarity" point that I think there is no need to reiterate. Yes, not a bother. As said before, I completely agree with you that it is a double standard, but just as every other double standard: some are uncalled for, and some actually serve a purpose and can be justified. The double standard in question serves a purpose and can be justified as I have done above numerous times, so to contradict you: it's not "kept for the heck of it". 07:20, May 1, 2013 (UTC) A reader that knows a bit of Avatar can deduce from that sentence that the scene takes place where the unagi lives and since the team only encountered that episode once, it has to be by default the KW episode [...] I am willing to bet that a lot of people who have seen Avatar can deduce from an entire paragraph from which episode something was taken, as opposed to the debatable fact that a lot of people can instantly know the episode from with a stand-alone quote was taken. Wait, so references are not vital on the body of the text because die-hard fans can deduce where the information was taken from, but these same readers are the ones who can't figure out how references work? Don't we cater for non-fans who know nothing about the shows or only watched each episode once? Aren't the references vital for them? We can neglect these readers but we must coddle the hypothetical numnuts who would scratch their head at the sight of a reference inside the quote box? I ask again, what about the other references? Won't those make their heads explode? Oh, those aren't vital because we cater only for the dumb and the die-hard fans. Screw everyone else. Sorry, but this logic makes no sense whatsoever. Adding a reference as opposed to the actual text is by definition a loss of clarity as one just requires you to read, while the other requires an action in order to be able to read. And the latter is a standard practice among the AW, since we use references to cite everything else. And I'm sorry to refute your argument by making a comparison to how it is also done like that in-body text again, but that argument would only carry any weight if we only catered to Avatar fans who can infer episodes and comics titles by reading shorts paragraphs. Since quotes, by their very format, stand alone and outside the text, it does not compromise the text integrity or uniform look or whatever. Their format is merely to make them stand out, but it is not a reason to exempt them from complying with out in-universe policy. You really believe that someone who has seen Avatar and then reads a description of the events taking place in a certain episode will not remember the actual episode it takes place in? You don't need to be a die-hard fan for that; you don't need to be a die-hard fan to remember events that took place based on a description from it. Again, see above the whole catering to fans vs. newcomers or blissful ignorant. And sorry, but you kinda do need to be a die hard fans to pull out a name of an episode for most cases. Over time, titles become muddled, and you can't remember if an event took place in this or that episode. Regardless, your entire case rests on the notion that this wiki is meant only for fans who don't need references because they can deduce titles from sentences, and can't be bothered to click twice on a reference next to a quote. This would only be an issue if these people didn't click on any other reference ever. I still have to meet such individuals. What about all the other links? Take this as an example: "Nyla was a male shirshu who served as the mount and constant companion of the bounty hunter June". What's a shirshu? Who's June? A reader would have to click on those links and then back again to find out more. That's four clicks right in the first sentence. Or they don't need to because any fan would know about these subjects? Again, we don't cater only for these people. Besides, following links is a common practice in any wiki, so yours is not a solid enough case to keep this inconsistent format. ― Thailog 11:01, May 1, 2013 (UTC) " You just need to have seen the series for that. However, you do need to be a die-hard fan to know instantly from which episode a quote was taken." Which is why we have the references. "A context is important, and when you deprive people from that context -by taking a quote to stand on its own- every non die-hard fan becomes heavily reliant on the explanation given with that quote to find out where it came from, and as such, it becomes a vital to use the reference, whereas now, one can just read the rest of the quote's explanation and instantly move on to the rest of the text without having to do anything more." That's what references are there for. To be referred to. To cite sources. They are meant to be vital, since they are the basis from which we stake our information. And in terms of relative convenience, the difference is so little that the case against us can be described as an assumption that readers are automatically too stupid to effectively use a reference system that was designed with clarity and functionality in mind, and that they're far too lazy to even click once to get the source information they want. At this rate, it might as well be suggested that we go for the Wikipedia style of floating reference boxes to accommodate for this one issue, as that would certainly solve all our problems. "Cause also, as stated in my arguments, references do matter to me, I just see a justification for the double standard that we are confronted with here. So no offense, but that sentence was completely unnecessary, as it makes it seem like you're making this a very personal discussion, which it is not. I do not believe that it was your intention to give that impression, I am just giving this as a random note as it does seem to come off that way." Was not my intention at all, so I apologize if the wording was a little unwarranted. However, your case continues to push one thing: that glancing at the episode as opposed to 1 click and 1 glance is more convenient, and thus, clearer than the references - now I agree that it is slightly more convenient, but what I do not agree on is that less convenient = less clear. Clicking on a hyperlink to get said information is less convenient, sure, but it does in no way provide information any less clearer than the current style to persons who have knowledge, in the most basic sense, of what a reference is. Which is the majority, as I will reiterate from Thailog: "No one can be so clueless so as to gaze dumbstruck at the reference wondering what that is and where that quote was taken from". In contrast to you, I just do not see enough justification to keep the current style. "And then for the easy rebuttal: there is simply no room whatsoever to add in episode names in the infobox without making it look completely crowded and unreadable -a problem that simply does not exist in the spacy quotes- thus this comparison doesn't fly at all." No, that was in response to your point that a majority of readers, given a reference instead of hyper-linked words in elements lacking context (such as quote boxes), would be less able to find out the source. That the infobox is not conducive to fitting in entire references or sources is irrelevant; that can be said for almost all elements. What I was specifically referring to is that it uses references in the fashion that you believe would confer inaccessibility to quote boxes, and yet, it has been generally successful at providing the required source information from the very get-go. If the majority of readers on this site have been clearly able to work with with our infobox references throughout the system's duration of existence, then they will most certainly be able to work with references introduced into quote boxes. "Yes, not a bother. As said before, I completely agree with you that it is a double standard, but just as every other double standard: some are uncalled for, and some actually serve a purpose and can be justified. The double standard in question serves a purpose and can be justified as I have done above numerous times, so to contradict you: it's not "kept for the heck of it"." I agree that the current style does serve a purpose. But it is a purpose no less able to be sufficiently achieved by the use of references, which is why this double standard fails to necessitate itself to me. KettleMeetPot • wall 11:15, May 1, 2013 (UTC) Wait, so references are not vital on the body of the text because die-hard fans can deduce where the information was taken from, but these same readers are the ones who can't figure out how references work? What I said in regards to die-hard fans is that you need to be a die-hard fan in order to know by heart from which episode a certain quote was taken. You don't have to be a die-hard fan to remember the events of an episode based on several sentences of description. That was the distinction that I made. Don't we cater for non-fans who know nothing about the shows or only watched each episode once? Aren't the references vital for them? We can neglect these readers but we must coddle the hypothetical numnuts who would scratch their head at the sight of a reference inside the quote box? I ask again, what about the other references? Won't those make their heads explode? Oh, those aren't vital because we cater only for the dumb and the die-hard fans. Screw everyone else. Sorry, but this logic makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, we do, and as such it is best to be as clear as possible and thus keep the current format. I feel little to once again explain/copy and paste where the justifiable difference is between the usage of the references in the text and the references in the quote. And the latter is a standard practice among the AW, since we use references to cite everything else. And I'm sorry to refute your argument by making a comparison to how it is also done like that in-body text again, but that argument would only carry any weight if we only catered to Avatar fans who can infer episodes and comics titles by reading shorts paragraphs. Yet again, this argument can be refuted by the same thing that you claim it can't be refuted by as well as by the justification of the double standard the quotes form to the rest of the article. Their format is merely to make them stand out, but it is not a reason to exempt them from complying with out in-universe policy. That alone, no, it isn't. However, combined with the reasoning of clarity and the extra need for that, it is, or at least, can justifiably be. Regardless, your entire case rests on the notion that this wiki is meant only for fans who don't need references because they can deduce titles from sentences, and can't be bothered to click twice on a reference next to a quote. No, it isn't. My entire case is resting on the notion that we do not need to make things unnecessarily complicated (again, my usage of complicated is only in comparison to the the current standard, just as I used "difficult" above), as well as on the notion that a context of a paragraph gives the reader more foothold to deduce by from where something was taken. Yes, that will definitely not always mean that those readers will know from which episode title it came from, but in most cases that will likely mean that they do remember the events of the episode and thus remember the episode sans title -and just remembering the episode is usually the goal. I deliberately inserted bits of doubt here as it is obviously impossible to back this up with actual statistic data further than own knowledge and interpretation. The whole idea of giving a quote goes usually hand in hand with the urge to also know from where exactly that stand-alone bit of information came. Often, people might not even care, but by deliberately highlighting it, it becomes more of an eye-catcher and thus it is important to also clearly state the episode, so people can immediately get the answer to their question, being "who said that and when", something that is dealt with cleanly and easily as it is now. "What's a shirshu? Who's June?" A reader would have to click on those links and then back again to find out more. That's four clicks right in the first sentence. Or they don't need to because any fan would know about these subjects? Again, we don't cater only for these people. Besides, following links is a common practice in any wiki, so yours is not a solid enough case to keep this inconsistent format. That example doesn't fit at all in this debate, as the question "what's a shirshu/Who's June" has nothing to do with "can it be solved by just adding a reference, or would it be clearer to have the episode name there?" If one does not know a shirshu/June, they would always have to click that link, regardless of the fact that there is a reference or an episode title behind that, cause the answer to the question asked there is much broader than simply "what episode is this from?" Neither of the two defended sides here could answer that question. Which is why we have the references. Yes, though as I have been repeating numerously before, references are good, though the current system is better and clearer in regards to quotes. And in terms of relative convenience, the difference is so little that the case against us can be described as an assumption that readers are automatically too stupid to effectively use a reference system that was designed with clarity and functionality in mind, and that they're far too lazy to even click once to get the source information they want. Your words, your assumption, not mine. I am merely going on the very reasonable assumption that a younger reader is not as well versed with how references work as others. And the rest can be refuted again by referring to the difference between in quote and in text reference usage -which, by now, is getting very old to repeat again. At this rate, it might as well be suggested that we go for the Wikipedia style of floating reference boxes to accommodate for this one issue, as that would certainly solve all our problems. No need to ridicule the situation when there are perfectly plausible alternatives, like "keep everything as it is" ;-) "that glancing at the episode as opposed to 1 click and 1 glance is more convenient, and thus, clearer than the references - now I agree that it is slightly more convenient, but what I do not agree on is that less convenient = less clear." Important additional note, I defend that position only for the quotes. As for the last part of that sentence, you can agree with that or not, but it is still a simple fact that just reading something is more clear and convenient than having to click something and be directed to the bottom of the page. But I see the misunderstanding here, as I meant clear as in obvious, clarity by not having to click anything. it has been generally successful at providing the required source information from the very get-go. If the majority of readers on this site have been clearly able to work with with our infobox references throughout the system's duration of existence, then they will most certainly be able to work with references introduced into quote boxes. An who says that they can? Who says that the majority can perfectly navigate the references and do not just simply deduce the episodes from the paragraphs and then the list of appearances given on the page itself? I am fully aware that this is also a speculative explanation, but I am just sharing it here to point out that the fact that the majority isn't complaining about it, that it therefor has to mean that it were the references that made it all work. And specifically for the infobox references: there really aren't that many, and a lot of the reference that are used, are then explained again in text, thus also negating the absolute necessity of those. Before I will be quoted again on this, I want to emphasize that by saying "thus also negating the absolute necessity of those", I do not mean that references are useless and whatnot, but that does become a relevant point when comparing thus that usefulness of those references and the usefulness of the reference in the quote. I agree that the current style does serve a purpose. But it is a purpose no less able to be sufficiently achieved by the use of references, which is why this double standard fails to necessitate itself to me. I am certainly in agreement that we can't cater for everyone and we definitely don't have to. However, in this case I do not believe that the proposed system will serve it all just as well as you claim it to be, so just as I have failed to convince you of the justification of the double standard, you (thus all the supporters of this idea) have failed to convince me of the necessity of pushing through this change. 13:27, May 1, 2013 (UTC) "You don't have to be a die-hard fan to remember the events of an episode based on several sentences of description." And I disagree with this assertion. I've watched every episode of, say, Arrested Development quite a few times, and I would certainly recognize every event from a description, but I would definitely have a hard time pinpointing the episode, let alone its name. "Yes, we do, and as such it is best to be as clear as possible and thus keep the current format." I'm growing quite tired to disputing this notion that references on quotes are somehow less clear. This is simply not true, and you still haven't given a suitable scenario where anyone would have a hard time finding it. KMP already pointing out that inconvenience is not tantamount to less clarity, and it's you who have to prove otherwise. And saying so repeatedly, is not proving. "Yet again, this argument can be refuted by the same thing that you claim it can't be refuted by as well as by the justification of the double standard the quotes form to the rest of the article." That's just troll logic now. As per above: you can't prove that a ref on a quote is less clear than a ref on a paragraph. And for the umpteenth time, this site is not specifically meant for people who don't need references to know in which episodes certain event took place. So that whole "readers can infer episode titles from context in the article body" has no merit. "However, combined with the reasoning of clarity and the extra need for that, it is, or at least, can justifiably be." Same "clarity" song. See above. Note, you keep saying "clarity" when all you mean is "convenience". "Yes, that will definitely not always mean that those readers will know from which episode title it came from, but in most cases that will likely mean that they do remember the events of the episode and thus remember the episode sans title -and just remembering the episode is usually the goal." Really? Let's paraphrase HoT's quote from his original proposal: "Prior to the Siege of the North, Avatar Aang told Chief Arnook that we was determined to make a difference this time, after previously failing to protect his people when the Fire Nation attacked them." You said his quote without the episode title was ambiguous, because "'prior to the siege' can also mean that Arnook said that quote in 118 as opposed to 119". Well, that's true in my paraphrase too. Without a ref, we may not remember the exact episode, which means we'll need to follow the ref to find out the episode in which that happened. So, unless you want to argue that this too is inconvenient and we should go back to using out-of-universe references again, you can't say that in-universe references on such sentences are ok, but they're not good enough for quotes. "it becomes more of an eye-catcher and thus it is important to also clearly state the episode, so people can immediately get the answer to their question, being "who said that and when", something that is dealt with cleanly and easily as it is now." Sigh. People could as easily and immediately get the answer to their question with one click, which would be in compliance with our already generally accepted in-universe perspective, as opposed to having one noncompliant format which only purpose is to not inconvenience readers from... clicking. Somehow a quote is that important that someone can't be bothered to follow a hyperlink to see the source, but they can do so for everything else? And that's what this issue boils down to: we can either have one coherent format for in-universe references which readers click on to get the source, and thus nothing changes because this has been the case ever since references were implemented, or we have two clashing formats (in-universe and out-of-universe) just so that readers save two clicks to find out that source. Spin it as you want it, but this is it. There's no loss of clarity or mind-boggling system; it all comes down to a personal, subjective preference to keep one inconsistent format vs. having one objectively consistent wiki-wide format. "That example doesn't fit at all in this debate, as the question "what's a shirshu/Who's June" has nothing to do with "can it be solved by just adding a reference, or would it be clearer to have the episode name there?" The example fits this debate like a glove. It was meant to disprove your claim that clicking on links is an inconvenience, and I showed that that's something that happens every time you come across a topic or sourced material. "you (thus all the supporters of this idea) have failed to convince me of the necessity of pushing through this change." Sorry, but we don't need to convince you of anything. The current policy advocates the use of in-universe references. Quotes have out-of-universe references. The policy as it stands already supports this change. If we have to garner consensus every time we stumble upon an inconsistency, then what's the point of having policies? ― Thailog 15:30, May 1, 2013 (UTC) And I disagree with this assertion. Funny then that I have the complete opposite experience and I know actually more people who shared that experience than those who didn't, but that would be a hard fact to prove for both sides since no one knows both people. I'm growing quite tired to disputing this notion that references on quotes are somehow less clear. This is simply not true, and you still haven't given a suitable scenario where anyone would have a hard time finding it. KMP already pointing out that inconvenience is not tantamount to less clarity, and it's you who have to prove otherwise. And saying so repeatedly, is not proving. Welcome to the club, only I have to constantly repeat myself to two people. It is simply true, whether you want to accept that or not. You can dig yourself in your attempted reasoning all you want, but that still does not change the obvious fact that literally stating the episode name and keeping things as they are is clearer than adding a reference. Referring to KMP's argumentation to defend your point is also rather pointless as I refuted his arguments as well on tat account -not that either of you want to believe that. Btw, please explain to me why when I say something and you just don't want to accept it, you can just dismiss it by saying that he burden of proof is on me, while I have given you that proof, but you just don't want to believe it cause you can't refute it. The burden is met, it thus no longer falls on my shoulders but on yours, no matter how much you want to pass that on. That's just troll logic now. As per above: you can't prove that a ref on a quote is less clear than a ref on a paragraph. And for the umpteenth time, this site is not specifically meant for people who don't need references to know in which episodes certain event took place. So that whole "readers can infer episode titles from context in the article body" has no merit. Ah yes, you all forcing me to repeat my arguments over and over cause you just keep on giving false interpretations from them and then I am suddenly the one with the troll-logic? I can prove that and I have. What I apparently cannot do is make you understand that it is basic logic that just having the episode name there in a quote is obviously more clear (and I have already explained the meaning of the word clear) than a reference number. It has merit, just because you don't want to agree with that and simply say so, does not mean in any way that your opinion is thus a decisive statement and goes without saying. I have explained more than one that I agree that this site is not only for such people and it isn't, but if you want to keep ignoring my explanations, then you don't need to get peeved that I am forced to keep repeating them. Same "clarity" song. See above. Note, you keep saying "clarity" when all you mean is "convenience". Not, I mean them both. It is more convenient and the episode name is clearer than a number So, unless you want to argue that this too is inconvenient and we should go back to using out-of-universe references again, you can't say that in-universe references on such sentences are ok, but they're not good enough for quotes. When will it finally be accepted that I am not against the usage of references at all? References definitely serve their point, they definitely have their value and they are needed. What more do you want me to do? Bold it? Mark it in red? I am not against the usage of references overall. I can definitely say that in-universe references on such sentences are ok, but they're not good enough for quotes, and I have stated that numerous times above for why I believe that. Sigh. People could as easily and immediately get the answer to their question with one click, which would be in compliance with our already generally accepted in-universe perspective, as opposed to having one noncompliant format which only purpose is to not inconvenience readers from... clicking. Somehow a quote is that important that someone can't be bothered to follow a hyperlink to see the source, but they can do so for everything else? Explained profusely above why I believe the cases are different. Sure, I get that you want to keep ignore all that, but that doesn't make the reasoning go away. It all comes down to a personal, subjective preference to keep one inconsistent format vs. having one objectively consistent wiki-wide format. Wrong, reasons are profusely given above for why the double standard can easily be justified. Again, you can ignore those arguments, but that doesn't make them go away. It was meant to disprove your claim that clicking on links is an inconvenience, and I showed that that's something that happens every time you come across a topic or sourced material. You are seriously trying to push a square through a triangle here. You haven't refuted a thing, not even close. When I said "clicking on links is an inconvenience", that was in the context of answering the simple question in regards to a stand-alone quote: "which episode was this from", something that can be answered either by having the episode name directly there, or by having a reference there. That is the only case, the only instance, the only context in which my statement of "clicking on links is an inconvenience [in regards to the simplicity of the answer and the easy way of answering that question]" can be used. In no way did I ever even remotely close imply that clicking a link is always an inconvenience, and certainly not in the case that you try to imply I meant it in. Sorry, but we don't need to convince you of anything. The current policy advocates the use of in-universe references. Quotes have out-of-universe references. The policy as it stands already supports this change. If we have to garner consensus every time we stumble upon an inconsistency, then what's the point of having policies? Yes, you do have to convince the majority to overrule the current majority on this forum and the ruling status quo; we have 8 voters in favor of the status quo, the quote referencing system as it is. As was debated above already, there is no certainly whatsoever that the quotes were an oversight as opposed to a silent, unwritten accepted exception of the policy in regards to the quotes. As such and as I mentioned above already, those two render each other moot, and thus it is the majority on this forum that needs to decide what's going to happen further, and as of this moment, the burden to convince the majority here that a change is needed still falls short. No, we don't have to garner consensus every time we stumble upon an inconsistency, but as mentioned many a times before, double standards can be accepted and justified, and the supporters of this forum still have failed to convince the opposers that this is in fact a policy breach and not such an accepted standard. The oversight could've just as easily have been in the writing of the policy that detailed about the IU references. 16:12, May 1, 2013 (UTC) "Btw, please explain to me why when I say something and you just don't want to accept it, you can just dismiss it by saying that he burden of proof is on me, while I have given you that proof, but you just don't want to believe it cause you can't refute it. Your alleged proof has been refuted to death by two people. Now, who doesn't want to accept what? It's funny how you say that you've disproved our arguments, just by claiming stuff, but dismiss our rebuttals because, naturally, you don't accept them... So far you haven't provided one concrete and believable example of how references are less clear than the current format. You've claimed that they are, but that doesn't make it so. It's just your opinion, really. The only other reason raised was it being "tacky", which itself is obviously subjective. "Not, I mean them both. It is more convenient and the episode name is clearer than a number" Gross oversimplification of reality. It's not a "number". It's a hyperlink that takes you to the information. Again, like every other single little reference that certainly populates every page which has a quote... "in-universe references on such sentences are ok, but they're not good enough for quotes, and I have stated that numerous times above for why I believe that." And I'll just say that I'm not convinced of those reasons, and you refuse to accept that a reference on a quote is not any less clear than on a text. "Explained profusely above why I believe the cases are different. Sure, I get that you want to keep ignore all that, but that doesn't make the reasoning go away." Oh I don't ignore it; I just don't buy it. It's a flimsy reasoning pulled out of this air to support a subjective preference. That's the only reason why anyone would oppose references on quotes when we used them everywhere else: personal preference. So any other reasoning is just verbose to conceal that fact and make their cause righteous. "When I said "clicking on links is an inconvenience", that was in the context of answering the simple question in regards to a stand-alone quote: "which episode was this from", something that can be answered either by having the episode name directly there, or by having a reference there." Saying it is an inconvenience does not make it so without a concrete, down to earth example. You say it's inconvenient, I say that's irrelevant because it's consistent with other sourced material. Which opinion is more objective? "Yes, you do have to convince the majority to overrule the current majority on this forum and the ruling status quo; we have 8 voters in favor of the status quo, the quote referencing system as it is." Really, we're doing this? Ok. You do not have 8 voters in favor of the status quo. You have Intelligence4, PSUAvatar14, AvatarRokus Ghost and GokuSSF2, against the original proposal, which concerned removing references and replacing them with a contextual description. Another proposal, or addendum, or amendment, whatever you wanna call it was made, which concern replacing the current format with one in compliance with our policy. That is the current discussion and the opposers I've cited haven't said anything about it, one way or another. And their votes certainly do not count as "in favor of the status quo" (unless each one of them states it so). That's ludicrous. Claiming that those who initially opposed the proposal also oppose the amendment, but didn't say anything because they assumed their opposing vote still counted for that, is an assessment that no one is entitled to do, unless they're mind readers. No one speaks for anyone else and no one interprets someone else's vote into something else. That's a travesty of our democratic system. So, I count you, HenryJh 98, Suzon and Sparks opposing the replacement of references, while I, HoT, DyingFlameTsui, Tech Addict, Krazykid51, KMP, and 888 support it. That's 7-4. "The oversight could've just as easily have been in the writing of the policy that detailed about the IU references." But it is not. And no one here is entitled to selectively decide when the in-universe perspective applies and what fields are exempted. If they want to, they need to make a different proposal, because as it stands, the current policy supports in-universe references in in-universe articles. ― Thailog 17:23, May 1, 2013 (UTC) Your alleged proof has been refuted to death by two people. Now, who doesn't want to accept what? Since this is a three-way debate really, two people opposing the other isn't really that shocking and can in no way be used as a definite argument to say that I don't want to accept anything, as I have accepted plenty of your statements, but then I just see that you both keep replying with false interpretations (sometimes at least) of what I am saying, so I am prompted to reply then. As for the rest, I think I can suffice with a general, "see previous" as the responses to the given issues are bound to have been mentioned somewhere else before :-p Though I would like to say that by your counting is should at least be 7-6 since Boomeraang Squad literally said "best to keep it as it is" and Intelligence said "the episode titles should remain in quotes". Perhaps even 7-7 if counting ARG's "so it can have OOU information, just like the infobox does", which makes this a tie. 17:32, May 1, 2013 (UTC) Boomeraang Squad says that in response to HoT's proposal to remove the references, so "keep it as it is" as in "don't take references from quotes", which is not the same as "don't change references to in-universe". Same goes for Intelligence. As for ARG's comment... it can be argued that quotes and infoboxes are not in the same league just because they are templates. But this is why these votes should be ascribed to the proposal that their refer to: so that no one is accused to being partial and subvert votes to one's advantage. ― Thailog 17:54, May 1, 2013 (UTC) I will perhaps agree with BS, but Intelligence literally made a reference to fact that he wants the episode titles to remain in the quote -which would put his vote against either of the proposals as they are both in favor of removing the episode titles. 17:58, May 1, 2013 (UTC) Well, this is my first comment since way up near the start. To put it simply, I agree with Lostris and continue to support the status quo after catching up on reading. Whether this was an “oversight” or it was left out of the shift to IU style for a reason is simply a wiki-historical question, which isn’t really to the point. Deciding the optimal way to do things going forward is a more direct way to resolve this. Just like pretty much everyone agrees with references, the same can be said for consistency. The encyclopedic article can be consistently IU aside from the quote box. Like the infobox, a quote is separate from the rest of the article. It’s a colored in, spoken slogan for the topic of the page. It’s essentially different from the article at large because it’s primary purpose is to be catchy. One glance versus two clicks may seem trivial, but in terms of someone viewing an internet page for the first time, that’s actually an enormous difference. What percentage of users do you think made a reference as their first edit on here? It’s probably really small, and it’s nearly entirely users who went to other wikis before this one. On this site there are many users that are only 13 (and, let’s face it, below.) Many people don’t know a lot about references before they actually write real research papers. I first started occasionally browsing wikipedia in high school, so I had no real knowledge of how online encyclopedias worked until then. @Thailog: minor, not that relevant technicality, but the quotes are in a template too. The main similarity is that they're not part of the article at large. -- 05:23, May 2, 2013 (UTC) I'll just have to throw in that I'm with Lostris on this one. Honestly when I read an article, I prefer to - well, keep reading. The quote is a nice intro at the beginning, and the little episode name takes care of any curiosity I might've had. I return to reading the actual article without much thought afterwards, and I would think that's the natural pattern of readers who visit the page. Call me lazy, but a reference honestly feels a little annoying when it sends me all the way to the bottom of the page, when all I hypothetically wanted to know was an episode title. I think that people's natural 'interested reading habits' would make them prefer not to feel this "choppiness," and may very well cause them not to click on the reference at all. For me at least, I'd actually learn more by having the episode title right there - otherwise, it doesn't matter to me enough to get so curious as to go clicking the reference just to hunt down the episode name before reading the content of the page that motivated me to be there in the first place. With the episode title in the quote, it becomes a nice "interesting fact" for me that just adds more to the article. Stuffing it away into a reference at the bottom of the page makes it become "fact that's more effort to look up than it's worth." I may not know all the technicalities of wiki consistency and whatnot, but I honestly don't feel like something's off with the page just because I can see a literal episode title in a quote box. You can define the flaw formally, but what's important to me is simply whether the "inconsistency" is causing a problem with the passage of information to the readers themselves. At the end of the day, I'm only seeking to read an interesting and accurate set of information. Episode labels next to every fact within the article would cause problems by cluttering up the information, and thus references are most definitely better there. But for quotes, which are short and already boxed out separately and (to me, at least) give an "extra fact" vibe, an episode title doesn't feel out of place at all. References are also more likely to be used by readers when they're placed in articles, because that's the content they truly care about, and what they would more likely be interested enough in to look up the sources. Either way, the information's still verified and organized very clearly - but the way it is now really makes the overall presentation more fulfilling as an encyclopedia page. Just my opinion. --MinnichiFile:Dai Li Sprite.gif 09:13, May 2, 2013 (UTC) "Like the infobox, a quote is separate from the rest of the article. It’s a colored in, spoken slogan for the topic of the page. It’s essentially different from the article at large because it’s primary purpose is to be catchy." "@Thailog: minor, not that relevant technicality, but the quotes are in a template too. The main similarity is that they're not part of the article at large." But they are part of the article, regardless of how you want to spin it, otherwise they would not be there. Moreso, they are included in the "in-universe area" of articles. They convey in-universe information, which is sourced with references. Take a look at Zuko's infobox: plenty of in-universe references there. "One glance versus two clicks may seem trivial, but in terms of someone viewing an internet page for the first time, that’s actually an enormous difference. What percentage of users do you think made a reference as their first edit on here? It’s probably really small, and it’s nearly entirely users who went to other wikis before this one." This has been disputed profusely above, so I'll just paste some quotes, because I'm tired of repeating myself: KMP: "And the generalization that references would probably be completely alien to younger people, when references and sources are on every wiki and its parent nowadays, is laughable. Even if this is the case, so what? Why are we to assume that they would be so utterly confused that they must be spoon-fed and have their hands held? It's clicking a link, and being directed to the reference, nothing more or less - it's not rocket-science. And if it's alien to them, then chances are, they will learn about a new concept that they will encounter further on in life anyway - which is not a bad thing at all." No one can be so clueless so as to gaze dumbstruck at the reference wondering what that is and where that quote was taken from. "Call me lazy, but a reference honestly feels a little annoying when it sends me all the way to the bottom of the page, when all I hypothetically wanted to know was an episode title." Then all the other subsequent references must really put you off. Don't you see how illogical that reasoning is? "I think that people's natural 'interested reading habits' would make them prefer not to feel this "choppiness," and may very well cause them not to click on the reference at all. That can be said about all other references, so that's an unfounded claim. "Stuffing it away into a reference at the bottom of the page makes it become 'fact that's more effort to look up than it's worth.'" Again, plenty of references on every article... I still fail to see how a reference on a quote box is more inconvinient than anywhere else. "Episode labels next to every fact within the article would cause problems by cluttering up the information, and thus references are most definitely better there." No, they wouldn't, because that's how it used to be. We just adopted in-universe references, because we decided to use an in-universe perspective. "References are also more likely to be used by readers when they're placed in articles, because that's the content they truly care about, and what they would more likely be interested enough in to look up the sources." Yeah, because clicking on a link is such complicated and hard work... You're overcomplicating the process of following references just to suit your point. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the people who oppose in-universe references on quotes are willing to sacrifice overall consistency in favor of a whimsical preference sustained by subjective reasonings. That's not very in-sync "community" spirit. You'll notice that none of the supporters of this measure have said that they prefer in-universe references because they "look better". All our arguments have been based on objective logic. Per 888, "If our goal is to create an in-universe encyclopedia, that goal is either achieved or it isn't, and we create a pretty glaring exception for a prominent quote, then we have 100% failed to achieve our goal." ― Thailog 10:34, May 2, 2013 (UTC) Then all the other subsequent references must really put you off. Don't you see how illogical that reasoning is? No need to scrutinize her for voicing a valid opinion -one she further explained later as well, pointing out the difference between in text reference use and the in quote reference use. I hardly see the need to go further in on this as this has already been repeated so many times why apparently more than I alone see the value distinction between those two reference methods and thus find the justification of the double standard. That can be said about all other references, so that's an unfounded claim. It is not an unfounded claim per her own further explanation of saying, "Episode labels next to every fact within the article would cause problems by cluttering up the information, and thus references are most definitely better there. But for quotes, which are short and already boxed out separately and (to me, at least) give an "extra fact" vibe, an episode title doesn't feel out of place at all." Again, plenty of references on every article... I still fail to see how a reference on a quote box is more inconvenient than anywhere else. It has been explained profusely why some of the participants on this forum feel that it is more convenient elsewhere, just as you and KMP has profusely claimed that it is not. It all comes down to the level of technical abilities someone has, and not matter how stupid or easy you might find the logic of a reference, it isn't so for everyone -as again, profusely debated over above already, so no need to go through all that again imo. No, they wouldn't, because that's how it used to be. We just adopted in-universe references, because we decided to use an in-universe perspective. The reasoning for changing those episode names in the text to reference may have been different, but that does not deter away from one's opinion that it can clutter up the text and take attention away from the core of the information given. That's a valid opinion to have and there is nothing wrong with that. Yeah, because clicking on a link is such complicated and hard work... You're overcomplicating the process of following references just to suit your point. And as debated over profusely above and reiterated here again: "It all comes down to the level of technical abilities someone has, and not matter how stupid or easy you might find the logic of a reference, it isn't so for everyone." And yes, we know the rebuttal answer to this is "that can be said for all reference", but then we start turning the circle again of how the references in quotes are different from in body text references, and then you would deny then, and then we would again explain why it is, and so the wheel keeps on turning, ergo, we've been through that before, there are some very different opinions on this case starting from different points of view that are both valid. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the people who oppose in-universe references on quotes are willing to sacrifice overall consistency in favor of a whimsical preference sustained by subjective reasonings. That's not very in-sync "community" spirit. You'll notice that none of the supporters of this measure have said that they prefer in-universe references because they "look better". All our arguments have been based on objective logic. Please, just stop using the "subjective" argument if the only way to back that up is "cause you said it looks better" which has been immediately admitted that that was a subjective preference and nothing more. It was never -except for Nozus- a core argument. This is about way more than just "a subjective reasoning", though I definitely see the easy appeal in painting it off like that, but that doesn't make it a valid point, cause it isn't. Community spirit has nothing to do with this. This has turned out to be rational debate over a justifiable double standard (but yes, I know what you think of that, I have read it about a dozen times already, just as you read the other side a dozen times already, and no matter how much both sides repeated it, it didn't change anything to the other side's pov). Per 888, "If our goal is to create an in-universe encyclopedia, that goal is either achieved or it isn't, and we create a pretty glaring exception for a prominent quote, then we have 100% failed to achieve our goal." I didn't agree with that the first time it was brought to the discussion, I don't agree with it now, even after this having been debated over so much, so per my earlier response, "Is keeping the episode name in the quote OOU? Yes, indisputable. Is it a "glaring oversight" and a "100% failure"? No, it isn't. The main point of an encyclopedia is to be informative and to the point." Now in general, we can indeed get back to taking apart everyone's reasoning for supporting one or the other side of this debate, but the question really is then "what's the point of that?" It is clear that both sides cannot be reconciled in this case, no matter how one side attempts to claim to be "the right side". No matter how much both sides will keep repeating their arguments, it is not going to change anything anymore at this point. Everything has been said -more than once I might add. All what we are doing now is repeating the same things over and over again but in different wording and perhaps to different people. And is that changing anything about the debate? No, it's just elongating it without a point. This debate really is going nowhere as there is nowhere left to go with it. 11:07, May 2, 2013 (UTC) I tire of this endless back-and-forth debate. But voting will not begin until an addendum to the proposal is discusses. The base of your case has been that references are just not convenient to work with - what with onerous task of going down to the bottom of the page and all - so Thailog and I have created a solution that should solve your great problem. References have had something extra added that follows on from Wikipedia's referencing system - at mouse hover, the reference will display its content. At this moment, it is functional for your perusal, however a few tweaks and modifications will be done to make it meet AW quality standards. I believe that should make the convenience "problem" infinitely more to your liking - and if it doesn't, well... It will only show that if you can't agree with Wikipedia's catering-to-everyone standards, since even Simple English Wikipedia designed with children in mind always uses this type of referencing system to site sources, then I must say I will have to agree with Thailog that those opposing this forum "are willing to sacrifice overall consistency in favor of a whimsical preference sustained by subjective reasonings." KettleMeetPot • wall 11:40, May 2, 2013 (UTC) Sure, let's see this system. Oh, and btw, good job on staying away from the personal and snappy comments. It's not because you can't refute someone else's argument that it is by definition flawed and/or subjective. All you've done now with that last addition is basically passively aggressively offending everyone's intelligence and style of argumentation if they would not like the system you both came up with (even before they could take a look at it and objectively gauge it on its worth and usability) -which, needless to say, was more than uncalled for. Then again, that's just my two cents on general debating ethics. 11:45, May 2, 2013 (UTC) You may comment on my debating style all you like, but those are your words and your assumptions - not mine. I never agreed there was a problem, and neither am I being personal - snappy maybe, but I think it's only warranted if achieving consistency turns into an experience akin to pulling teeth. I believe I have a right to state my own opinion too, so if you could get to something more relevant to the debate, that would be nice. KettleMeetPot • wall 11:57, May 2, 2013 (UTC) Ah yes, cause referring to "not agreeing with something that was designed with children in mind" is not at all a subtle jab at someone's intelligence. Okay, sure, I guess I'm just reading and assuming things that aren't there . . . And again, your opinion of this is just as good as everyone else's, no need to get snappy and personal for that just because the majority is not behind that claim. Never did I state that you don't have the right to voice your opinion. However, in a debate, it is never productive to insert jabs at the other party's intelligence and try to force them into a corner, cause that will only put them on the defense and is a very low attempt in justifying something that you couldn't do otherwise, cause if you could, then why resort to subtle bashing? Dress it how you want, those last comments were uncalled for. So to return to the core of the case, let's see this system -and everything else you said about it will definitely be ignored for being unwarranted and out of place. 12:05, May 2, 2013 (UTC) What? "It will only show that if you can't agree with Wikipedia's catering-to-everyone standards, since even Simple English Wikipedia designed with children in mind always uses this type of referencing system to site sources, then I must say I will have to agree with Thailog" - I was not taking a stab at anyone's intelligence, thank you very much. I got the idea for the new referencing system from the Simple English Wikipedia site, which I looked to because it was asserted that we cater to younger readers and you said they would not be able to effectively follow our referencing system because of inconvenience, and because the Simple English Wikipedia site is designed specifically for children in mind and this is the referencing system that they use. That was all there was to that post - it solved your main problems and it works on that site. I mentioned that sentence only because of that - no more, no less - and I don't know how you could have taken that out of context. KettleMeetPot • wall 12:15, May 2, 2013 (UTC) I think the new system should work fine. To take my original examples: We can change to an IU perspective, in keeping with the rest of the article; something is still provided to aid with navigation; the new system requires no more clicks than the current format, so is no less convenient; any issues of people not understanding how references work is covered, since there would be no need to click on the ref itself, merely hover over it, to be given the episode clearly, and per what KMP has said, this system has already been used successfully on a wiki catered towards children, so if there aren't issues with it working over there, I don't forsee there being issues using it here. 12:24, May 2, 2013 (UTC) Before we move on, a few correction: "No need to scrutinize her for voicing a valid opinion -one she further explained later as well, pointing out the difference between in text reference use and the in quote reference use." Please don't make my replies out as some sort of attack. And it's not a "valid opinion" when I pretty much pointed out the absurdity of its reasoning. If on quotes "a reference honestly feels a little annoying when it sends me all the way to the bottom of the page", then there's no way that doesn't happen on text, no matter how you try to explain the difference. "It is not an unfounded claim per her own further explanation of saying, 'Episode labels next to every fact within the article would cause problems by cluttering up the information, and thus references are most definitely better there. But for quotes, which are short and already boxed out separately and (to me, at least) give an "extra fact" vibe, an episode title doesn't feel out of place at all.'" It's unfounded because I've rebutted her argument, which you've quoted, whether you like to admit it or not. "The reasoning for changing those episode names in the text to reference may have been different, but that does not deter away from one's opinion that it can clutter up the text and take attention away from the core of the information given. That's a valid opinion to have and there is nothing wrong with that." There are plenty of Wikis that are written in a out-of-universe perspective and therefore use episode labels next to text, namely Wikipedia. So, clutter is not an issue; the issue is whether you want an in-universe encyclopedia, or a real world one. You can't have both and claim you strive to uphold consistency overall. I could just as easily claim that those labels on quotes clutter the whole thing and detract from what's really important: the quote. Take a look at Azula's quote. The name of the episode alone is as long as half of the quote and takes up half the space of the speaker's line. This is why this argument carries no weight. "Please, just stop using the "subjective" argument if the only way to back that up is "cause you said it looks better" which has been immediately admitted that that was a subjective preference and nothing more. It was never -except for Nozus- a core argument. This is about way more than just "a subjective reasoning", though I definitely see the easy appeal in painting it off like that, but that doesn't make it a valid point, cause it isn't." I would gladly do so, if you (your side in general) would stop clutching at straws to find reasons to justify a personal preference and make it out as a pragmatically issue. And please do not attempt to make it seem that we are somehow minimizing your case. You have none; it all comes down to aesthetical reasons buried under rhetoric. "Community spirit has nothing to do with this." It sure does. It's about adhering to a community reached policy (in-universe) and not trying to implement exceptions on selected fields to pander to individual predilections. "The main point of an encyclopedia is to be informative and to the point" Well said. and a references in no way detracts from that goal, which is what that assertion and all your arguments imply/claim. And yes, I also read your argument about the difference between both types of references. It's still overreaching. "It's not because you can't refute someone else's argument that it is by definition flawed and/or subjective." It is not because you don't accept the rebuttal that an argument hasn't been refuted. "no need to get snappy and personal for that just because the majority is not behind that claim." Please stop misrepresenting facts. We've been over this. Even now with ARG and Minnichi's outspoken objections, you still are in minority. However, I do agree that we're running in circles, so KMP's amendment should solve the "issue" of not being given the episode title without having to follow a reference. I believe that this way we can have the best of two worlds: a consistent in-universe format and the wanted information displayed on the spot. ― Thailog 12:29, May 2, 2013 (UTC) Edit conflict times three: I didn't literally quote you in my last message, I paraphrased of how your entire passage comes across. But in the spirit of remain on track, I will apologize since you thought I was quoting you and thus laying words in your mouth that you did not literally say and thus perceived as me taking it out of context, I should've made that clearer. As a minor clarification, my point about the inconvenience was mainly -as Minn probably made it clearer since she condensed her post more- "With the episode title in the quote, it becomes a nice "interesting fact" for me that just adds more to the article. Stuffing it away into a reference at the bottom of the page makes it become "fact that's more effort to look up than it's worth." But whatever, I know that you are set on ignoring and not agreeing with that fact, and that's fine by me cause to explicitly point it out as well "everyone is entitled to their opinion". @Thai: I'm not even going to bother with responding to all that as whether you like it or not as well, your "refuting" of her arguments was also flawed, just as you think mine are. So you are allowed to find my arguments flawed, just I am allowed to find your flawed, but that doesn't mean in any way that yours are somehow the higher power here. And no, with ARG and Minn's outspoken counter of the proposal, it is at least 7-7 and that is a tie -even by how you want to count it. But sure, the new proposal can work. Nice work. 12:35, May 2, 2013 (UTC) I can also sign on with the new proposal; it would remove that issue of reading choppiness and make sure we do indeed continue with the IU format. Otherwise, it would just be silly, as Minn noted, to have that prominent quote's location be shoved at the bottom of the page and also have that jump up and down the page. But this system can resolve that, and seeing this debate go back and forth with several paragraphs that are just repeating arguments and clearly going nowhere, it's a consensus I can agree with. 12:53, May 2, 2013 (UTC) Best of both worlds. I'm in. -- 13:38, May 2, 2013 (UTC) Heh... Is anyone but me finding it funny that a proposal that started out as trivial as taking out episode titles from quote boxes just culminated in a majority consensus to overhaul our entire referencing system? This will go down in history as the most unexpected forum ever to have been. KettleMeetPot • wall 13:42, May 2, 2013 (UTC) And it only took 24,000 words of typing to get there. -- 13:54, May 2, 2013 (UTC) And I didn't even say much! The 888th Avatar (talk) 00:34, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)