Similar to Wookiepedia's layout, I propose a "Sources" heading section below "Appearances". The Sources section includes all non-fiction canon material such as Encyclopedias, Guides, Visual Dictionaries, etc.
With Ezio being arguably the most notable and popular AC character he'd have the most sources attributed to him. This example is most likely the one with the most sources. Another reason why I'd think its necessary is that if we make the Sources section and put all non-fiction material a character appears in, someone could then chase up additional information on a character using the sources. Wookiepedia's Sources section is hella in depth, and I doubt ours will ever get to that point. That would be when it would be considered cluttered, as shown above – this would be our most 'cluttered' Sources section but only because Ezio would have more non-fiction sources attributed to him.
I don't think we've really used our References as something other than a source list. Typically we use the <ref> tags as citations for where information comes from, and the citation-needed templates point to filling that in.
I'm not sure if this is strictly necessary, but have no qualms against this. I understand the point is to have the equivalent of an Appearances section for things that aren't appearances, i.e. things that don't have a narrative to appear in, and for that purpose I don't disagree with its inclusion.
It's slight extra work for people that have the non-fiction books (I have none -_-), but given it's literally just a list, sign me up for a tentative aye, barring some heavy objections from others.
I really don't see the need for having another list. I wouldn't categorize these sources to show what's fiction and what's not, I'd rather put everything in the list keeping the "references" as the section's title, identifying those fictional with the word "fictional" between parenthesis in italic (meaning that these documents, books, data pages, etc. have a place in the AC universe).
I'm not against it, but I don't see it totally necessary, IMO.
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. This and the Appearances both essentially function the same thing so I suppose this issue can be solved if we include those books under appearances as well? Otherwise, we can stick to the current format since these books references can simply be found in the References section.
I would feel remiss to not support this as I find it similar to the Trivia vs BtS issue that I'm slowly (very slowly) working on. Maybe "Sources" can be renamed to something else to better show the IU vs OoU split from "Appearances".
I'm for it (and behind the scenes instead of trivia sections). It's not so much fiction and non-fiction but Appearances for stories and Sources for reference books. I'd consider the defunct Abstergo website or Handbook the latter when they're still presented from an in-universe perspective.
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.
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.