Forum:Vote: Reference policy addendum 1.2

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

The vote below determines support for three addendum proposals discussed here and drafted from changes suggested here. Gaining approval, the following will be reflected in the reference guideline policy. Thank you for your time in voting on the following. -kdarrow ^{take her for a spin!} 00:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Addendums[]

I. Publications[]

II. Dialogue/Content policy[]

III. Dialogue/Editing guideline[]

Vote[]

Poll finished on 6:16 pm February 6, 2022 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes[]

1. -Rubbinmahbelly ^{Have a great day} 00:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
2. I would like to point out that there are essentially three votes being made here, one for each addendum. I agree with all three however, so if some split occurs in the future, feel free to mark me up for all of them. In addition, I think the examples from the discussion page should be copied over here, rather than using vague summaries. I had to navigate back to the discussion just to gain further context on the changes being made. As for the changes themselves rather than the format of this vote, the only disagreement I have is with the new inability to use basic math to justify references. In the Nadine example presented on the discussion, maybe not a specific age in the infobox, but a note somewhere stating that "According to Nadine's mother, Nadine is around the same age as the Lone Wanderer." In cases where math can actually be applied (as in real numbers are used rather than just a person saying someone is "about the same age" as someone), similar notes can be used that specify a range of numbers. Sigmund Fraud 00:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
3. sure JustDoggo2 The Warden of the Escapists Wiki 04:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
4. SeriousHex Agreed on all fronts, as i said in the previous iteration of the discussion.
5. Scribe-Howard (waster_93) (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
6. I think this will work well for us format wise. -kdarrow ^{take her for a spin!} 06:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
7. Sounds good to me boss -Dare Rodeo IX 06:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
8. I agree with the proposals, and the changes made to it since the previous draft. The Appalachian 09:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
9. All three are reasonable changes. –Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 13:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
10. Gilpo1 (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
11. CamelChip (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No[]

1. Specifically because of the line "game year math justifications" under Dialogue/Content. See comments. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutral[]

Comments[]

Game year math justifications I take to me using the information received via multiple sources, which would not concisely fit into navigation without a blurb explaining the connection between the two. Unrelated sections of dialogue, which independently would not necessarily mean anything on their own, could provide a valuable source... we would just have to do the math. For instance, we have two characters

Character A: My mom, Sandy, was killed in a super mutant raid during the spring, X years ago.

Character B: Event Y happened the same year that Character A's mom, Sandy, was killed by super mutants.

Neither of these would independently be able to provide a year for Event Y, since Character A never mentions the event, and Character B never mentions when the mother died. But together, we would be able to know Event Y happened three years earlier. These two quotes appearing absent any note explaining how math played a role identifying when Event Y happened or these two quotes being ignored as a source, would represent a loss of information. And it need not necessarily be two speakers, could be one speak and note, a speaker and a terminal, etc. I understand removal of speculation, imagining where dots might be, but there is seemingly no back door here for information to be used in tandem to provide a source which meets the standards of any quote, purely because it would require the wiki to connect the two dots which very much are there. If the intent of the section is not to blanket ban any use of math ever being used as a justification for a source being quoted, we probably ought to reword it to focus more or the specific instances of math which are not allowed or make sure the policy has examples of what bad math looks like and what makes it bad. If the intent is to say we cannot use multiple sources, any of which would have otherwise been trusted as independent quotes but must be paired to become relevant to the topic, then I strongly disagree.

I am a little wary of saying narrator unreliability should never be noted, but that is at least something which could be handled in the natural flow the article. I hate math as much as the next guy, but I do not believe we should wholesale remove it as a rationale for information which is available, just not from a single point of contact/source. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that this policy change aims to forbid reasonable connections between references, editors should totally go ahead and name an exact year, if there are proper sources for the claim. The original intent regarding game year math justification was to remove small notes after a reference, whose only purpose is to speculate about the most likely date of something, as seen in the original draft.

I then went somewhat off-topic about general numberwang in the comment section of said draft, with an example in reply to another user. Which may or may not have confused people over the original intent of Addendum II. As Kate pointed out in her reply to my comment:

“Noting information on character pages is a little different than the scope of this addendum, which is just the current practice of adding a note following dialogue reference. Character pages or information therein isn’t impacted by this.”— Comment in the original draft

I think her statement is still valid, as this forum is merely about reference format, not how or where we can list contradicting sources in an article.

Lastly, I agree with you, we should totally mention any contradicting sources in an article. I think the most suitable place for them would be the Notes section, and I did so just recently on an NPC article. However, I do no think it appropriate to judge a character regarding their reliability - we can point out that their statements contradict all other sources, but we should do so in a neutral tone without being judgemental in our writing. Though, as already pointed out in the previous paragraph, this topic would likely be better off in another forum, as it is not really related to the proposed change, at least in my opinion.

–Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 13:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Intent vs interpretation matters. If the intent is not to remove the ability for valid connections to be drawn between sources, and it is just being specific about one particular type of speculation, that is fine. But right now, it does not read that way, and depending on how it is written in the reference policy, whether or not that is conveyed easily might be a point of contention in the future. Rather than this be a kerfuffle in the future, where editors who may not know what the unwritten intent is or had the benefit of participating in the conversation, are having to read further into what is written, it needs to be made clearer. But right now, I do not see anything in the policy being voted for which makes exceptions for math which is tied to sources in game vs only speculative math, just Removing "game year math" as a concept. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Result[]

The vote passes and will be implemented into the reference guideline policy. -kdarrow ^{take her for a spin!} 06:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)