Forum:Can we change how stories are cited?

Instead of my previous idea how about this to clean up the article. We can put the topic on top of the episode information. Kind of like when you leave a message. Do you get what I'm saying?--The 10th Doctor 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please answer my question!!!The 10th Doctor 01:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't get what you're saying. What do you mean? --


 * I think he might mean having the title of the episode as a header above the information given in that episode. In which case, we won't be doing that as it would make the articles even more disorderly and, even worse, out-of-universe. 08:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an out-of-universe style now I am trying to make it an in-universe syle but all my ideas have been shot down!! So give me a good suggestion or let me do what I have to do. Thank YouThe 10th Doctor 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not an out-of-universe style now. It's slightly out-of-universe, but less than your current idea would be (presuming that we've interpreted it correctly). And what do you mean by "do what [you] have to do"? 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You did get my idea correct, I was just playing with the do what I have to do quote, and I've tried to make it completely In-Universe but again all my ideas have been shot down. So do you have any ideas to make it an In-Universe style?The 10th Doctor 4 Januaray 2008 (UTC)


 * It is in-universe, other than the notes about the episodes which, being in brackets, are easily ignorable. The only other option would be to do what Wookieepedia does, and that idea isn't liked by many members here. And what's with editing under the username "Mater Chief"? 07:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess when I logged into Halopedia as The Master Chief it logged me in as that name here so I changed my name to The Master Chief-117. I should take this idea to a leader of this site (I know that's not what they are called but it sounds cool). While I do this can you see if anybody else wants to do this idea maybe we can get some support.The Master Chief-117 01:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the whole log in thing or the other idea. The log in thing, all the wikias are interconnected and in theory you're able to transition between them using the same log in and name. --Tangerineduel 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

But my names were different.The Master Chief-117 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

One question...couldn't the life events part of the article be used as refrences?The Master Chief-117 00:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know why we even have those sections... 15:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well can we do it?User: The Master Chief-117 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The key life events are just that and don't list every single story and don't list all the stories used in the writing of each page, therefore they wouldn't be able to serve as references for the page. --Tangerineduel 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Man, this is hard. It's not that I mind the episode names it's just that the page would look much better without them if anybody has an idea to get rid of these episode names I'll listen (figuratively speaking of course).The Master Chief-117 23:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what we've been telling you. There aren't any ways to remove the episode names from the main body of the article, other than the ways which have already been rejected for various reasons. 11:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There ARE ways to get rid of them. Don't give up hope. I will (o.k. might) find a way. The Master Chief-117 01:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that there aren't any ways at all, just that there aren't any ways other than those which have already been vetoed and those which will be. 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have been at this for a few months now, and I have yet to actually see you give a good and logical reason for it at all. Initially, you were complaining that you wanted the episodes removed so you could print out the pages. Here you've been saying that it is because it would make them more In-Universe. It would seem that the actual reason is simply because you yourself do not like the episode titles being there. Though I have been here less than a year, it seems to me that there is not anyone else with this particular problem regarding the titles. Your ideas have been shot down because they add needless scrolling and side-tracking to the articles. The veterans of the sight have said numerous times that your ideas just do not work with the way things are done here. Yes, other wikis might do things differently, but this is not any of those wikis. This is the Dr. Who wiki, and much like how the Doctor does things, things here are going to be done differently than what you might expect. --Colleyd 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Woof.

Oh now come on I know that's not how you guys feel. I know that you know the pages would look much neater. And Colleyd your words hurt man they really really hurt. But I can shake them off. I will NOT quit. The Master Chief-117 22:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually that is how I feel. You haven't thus far given a good and justifiable reason aside from your own personal feelings on the appearance of the pages. I believe I have said it previously, but if we were to change how everything is referenced do you have any idea how many pages that would need changing? Colleyd is correct that the Doctor Who wiki is different to several other Wikias in that the spread of different stories and medias necessitates a slightly different style to other wikias you may have seen out there. --Tangerineduel 02:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh so it's too much for you? The Master Chief-117 23:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What he is saying is that there is no point in making any of the changes you are constantly insisting upon. They are needless, unwarranted, not required, not needed, useless, and if I may add, rubbish. On top of that, this would seem to be the ONLY thing you try to contribute to the wiki, only for you to be denied, vanish for a month, then reappear again to try all over. While determination is usually something to be admired, in this case it makes you almost similiar to a troll on a message board. --Colleyd 16:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Woof

I am a fighter I will not stop so go ahead and try to stop me but it won't work. So let's put it this way your attempts to stop me are needless, unwanted, not needed, useless, and if I may add rubibish. Oh yeah I went there. The Master Chief-117 23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please let me know what you are actually asking for here. And may I suggest no being silly, or you may end up blocked. Jack's the man - 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on it's fun to be siily I'm sure you don't have a problem with and please explain what you mean by explain what I mean. The Master Chief-117 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean "what is it that you are actually asking"? It's not very clear what your proposal is. Jack's the man - 08:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean about the episode names? And if not can you please put more detail in your question? Because I still don't understand what your asking. The Master Chief-117 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty clear. "What are you actually asking for in this topic"?  "What are you tryign to change here?" Jack's the man - 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K. now I get your question thanks for explaining it to me and I'm sorry I asked for an explanation so many times. What I'm trying to do is get the episode names on the bottom or put them on a different section instead of right beside the description of the episodes. Does that answer your question? The Master Chief-117 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, so Instead of "The Doctor batteled x (DW:story)" - you're suggesting "The Doctor battled X1" with a reference section.
 * I don't see a problem with that myself - I think that would make the pages less cluttered. I the line is "this is a reference to story X", then it should be kept as text, but stuff like the other example above is probably better as a reference.  Jack's the man - 15:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a perfect idea!!! It's not what I had in mind but it is a 1,000 times better I love the idea it's wonderful and...there I go rambling on again so let's do it. The Master Chief-117 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not that simple. If we are to do that, we'd need a vote. There are several good reasons for this idea, but there are also good reasons against it. First of all, we should have a description of exactly what this new policy will be. I'm going to make a new section because this topic's quite long now. 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Description
So, basically, the idea is that, instead of (PF: Story) we shold have x after a statement or paragraph, linking to a reference in a section at the bottom, like on Wookieepedia. Am I right? 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the general idea that he's wanting. Though as you yourself put it in a reply above, that would make the page seem more Out of Universe. --Colleyd 17:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Woof.

That is what I am saying. I don't really care about making it in-universe right now that's another project for another time right now I would like the pages to be more clean (although in my opinion if we do this to the article it would seem more universe). So what do you say should we do it? I say yes. The Master Chief-117 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It would make navigating and finding the references more complicated (a lot of needless scrolling). It also makes it much more easy to understand the sources with them right beside it.
 * Also as I've previously stated there is also the problem of switching over to the footnote system which is that of logistics, the amount of pages that would need to be altered is mammoth.
 * Using the footnote system would also tend to suggest that the pages are more out of universe than within an in-universe structure. As some factual pages should use the footnote system to back up their stated facts with references, by having a definite line between the in-universe pages and the factual pages there is a line of continuity that is easily understandable. --Tangerineduel 14:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out that, with the current method of referencing, the type of source is easier to find (you can see if something is from the TV series since it has a DW next to the source).
 * So, no, I'm not a big fan of unnecessarily changing the referencing style. --

My comment about it being out-of-universe is to do with the proposal at the top of the page, which is different to this one. No needless scrolling would be required if the references work like they do on most wikis, in which you would just click on the little reference number and that will take you down (and you could click back again to get to where you were). Also, I see no reason why the reference section could not have the prefixes. The main reason for not doing this, it seems, is that several hundred - if not several thousand - pages will need to be modified, and that seems like a very good reason. Supporters of the new proposal should think about whether it's really worth it. 19:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'm looking at is a little teamwork if we work together it won't be so hard so who's with me?! The Master Chief-117

I asked, "Who's with me?" The Master Chief-117 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It would also need a lot of organisation. After all, people picking whatever pages they want to change wouldn't be very efficient. And then some people might have more problems with this proposal. 07:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very much against the proposal. As Ghelæ has said it would require a massive organisation, it wouldn't just be a matter of cutting and pasting within the articles every reference would need reference tags placed around them. Additionally most of the help pages would need restructuring and rewriting. The system we have currently works, is easy to read and has a structure that follows through the whole site (and has an understandable logic for new users). --Tangerineduel 13:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The current setup is one of the things that attracted me to here in the first place. My vote is against the proposal as well. --Colleyd 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Woof.

If you need organization I'm your man. Come on guys that's why we are here to work as a team. The Master Chief-117 22:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The current setup works no argument needed.--Skittles the hog 18:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)