| abstract
| - is there any rule about citing sources for quotes or pictures? cause i sometimes wonder were some of them come from. otherwise, how do we know if the quotes are legit? Timifer 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
* Pictures need source information. As for quotes: we tend to assume in-universe quotes come from one of the sources or appearances given in the article, but we're not yet requiring that editors specify which one. Often, it's clear from the context. Out-of-universe quotes by real people (like, say, something Timothy Zahn said) need to be sourced, however. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
* It would be great if there was some way to source quotes, though. All to often people just add quotes from their memory without checking the actual source. -- Ozzel 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
* The problem would be to keep the articles in-universe. Maybe a (Quote source) tag? Charlii 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC) We really should find some way to verify sources. That would also help with accountability with quote acuracy. Over the past day or so i have found tons of quotes from the movies alone that were misworded, thus skewing the meaning of what was being said. There is no excuse for misquoting something from the films. Timifer 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
* Pulling this up from the depths to agree that we need to find a way to cite quotes, that doesn't disrupt the in-universe flow of articles. Direct quotes should always be properly cited, but as it stands there's no real way to do that. jSarek 08:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
* Could we perhaps use footnotes, to tie a sentence to the source list at the bottom? QuentinGeorge 08:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
* That's the only way I can see to do it, but I'm not sure how best to implement it. It'd be nice to have it be a part of the quote template itself, so that only one template is needed to provide a complete quote. jSarek 08:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
* It would be great if it could be tied into the current quote template. But still, I wish there was some good verification system we could use. I mean, anyone could put {{quote|luke I'm youre father|Darth Vader|Empire Strikes Back}}, and that really doesn't help the problem at all. -- Ozzel 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
* Something like that is a start though. Maybe make the source info hidden text so it can be longer and not have to be precisely written. In any event something that requires source info would be best. -Finlayson 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
* We could really use one of our resident Wikicoders here to give us some ideas on what's possible and not possible. Perhaps we could add a section to the end of the quote template where a source would be named, that would manifest itself as a linked number or other symbol on the actual page? jSarek 05:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
* Adding another field to the quote template would be very easy, but adding a HTML anchor link to an article footnote is a very different prospect. The anchor link could be added to the template throught the use of the tag, but the problem is that the resulting link would lead nowhere. The footnote section (which would render the source information provided within the tag) would have to be added by hand to each and every page that contained a quote. (see: m:Cite/Cite.php and Wikipedia:Footnotes).– 08:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
* Another option could be to have a quote section in the discussion page that provides the source. That way it woiuld be possible to check the source if you wanted but people reading the article wouldn't have to worry. --Eyrezer 10:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
* I'd think we should keep all actual article information inthe article itself, if possible. The tagging might not be bad, even if the second part had to be done by hand, but there's another possibility, too: what if the last part of the quote template just linked to the article on the source itself, rather than the Appearances/Sources section? jSarek 10:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
* I like that! --Eyrezer 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
* I think the first source format below is very nice! 15:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
* I like both of those options, although I think I may prefer the second one (with the number). -- Ozzel 22:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
* The reason I like the first is that you can just hold your mouse over "source" to see what it is. You don't have to click or scroll down to the references to see what it is. 01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)