So this was technically supposed to have been closed two weeks after it was first posted, and it was entirely my bad for missing this. I was going to conclude it now and finalize the results based on the consensus reached here without my input (for fairness). However, it doesn't seem like a consensus was ever reached?
I think first of all that there seems to be some misunderstanding over what a Sources section would entail. If we are to assume that Vilka is basing his idea entirely off of Wookieepedian practice, as we did with the Appearances section, then the two are not alike at all.
XOdeyssusx wrote:
Agreed with Cristy's view on this. The games and the books are considered sources as well so I don't see why there's a need to differentiate whether they are fiction or non-fiction.
We normally won't list works like Assassin's Creed Encyclopedia, Assassin's Creed: The Essential Guide, and game guides under the Appearances section because Appearances, going by Wookieepedian practice, is strictly for appearances of the subject within the universe.
As well, Sources are distinct for References because References are for citations, sourcing individual lines of information precisely to where we got that information, whether or not the subject actually appears in that source or not. In some rare cases, the subject might not even have ever been mentioned in that source. For example, maybe as part of the flow of writing, we happened to mention some context with a date that can only be cited to a work otherwise irrelevant to the subject—I couldn't think of an example off the top of my head.
However, Odey's case might still be valid because if we think some way works better, we don't have to copy Wookieepedian practice to every last detail. It's not impossible for us to simply broaden "Appearances" and include a "non-fiction" subsection as Vilka suggested. To that, I think one the main counter-points revolve around terminology. For one thing, whether or not "Appearance" is the accurate term in a non-fictional context since we're not really specifying whether or not the subject "appears" in the non-fiction work but whether information can be found on the subject. For another thing, would there ever be any "non-fictional" book which presents itself as a book within the fictional universe? Star Wars's essential guides are essentially (pun intended) this. I'm not actually sure whether the word non-fiction applies to works describing a fictional universe from a real-world perspective.
The primary function of a Source section is to serve as a guide to every work that information on the subject can be found, regardless of whether or not we've cited them. For editors, especially, this is extremely useful to locate where we can find information that might be missing from the article on the subject.
But this is not the very first time a Sources section had been proposed. Years ago, when the Appearances section was first proposed with my backing, a former administrator, Crookandcharlatan, initially approved of it. At the time, I mistakenly thought adding an Appearances section meant we would be adding a Sources section as well, but Crook corrected me that the agreement was only for an Appearance section not a Sources section, whereupon he also admitted he had soured to the idea of an Appearance section. In those days, the difference between an Appearance and References was not clear either since that was before our citations were narrowed. In any case, Crook's main concern then was that he thought the Appearance section was rather redundant and a Sources section especially so, and he was concerned that having too many sections like these was creating unnecessary clutter.
Of course we're keeping Appearances section, but I actually had thought his concern then was persuasive in that I decided that yes, a Sources section might just be too much clutter. I should point out, however, that the deciding factor was that back in 2016 or 2017, we did not have as many reference books on Assassin's Creed as we do now. Game guides aside, we only had the Encyclopedia, and I don't remember if we even had The Essential Guide. There are more reference books on Assassin's Creed now, but I still question if there are enough to warrant a Sources section.