FANDOM

 
16,495 Pages

  • Hi all,

    How in depth do we make our citations? I've been wanting to cite weapon descriptions for use on other pages, could they be sourced as ''[[Assassin's Creed: Odyssey]]'' – [[Dagger of Kronus]] for example?

    There's some uncertainty on what we should cite and all. Weapons descriptions being one of them, however if we count weapons as items and items and documents it could work.

    Normally when we cite we cite the memories or chapters/issues. For instances like Initiates we were doing ''[[Assassin's Creed: Initiates]]'' – [[Surveillance#What's an Initiate|Surveillance: "What's an Initiate?"]] Which then followed onto when citing AC2's glyphs, and Rogue's War Letters, even the Discovery Tours. All of these count as documents however, so when citing things like the modern day story citing something as "Before sequence 9" is wrong but it's more specific. Correctly it would be ''[[Assassin's Creed: Odyssey]]'' – [[21st century conversations#Assassin's Creed: Odyssey|Modern day]] and thats it.

    So concluding that, the main question here is when should full citations be used? For specifics memories and documents yes, but beyond that - should we cite weapons and items or just use the minimal ''[[Assassin's Creed: Odyssey]]''?

      Loading editor
    • I’m fine with citing weapon/item descriptions. But I think the notation should look like Assassin's Creed: OdysseyDagger of Kronus: Description to bring it inline with how we cite Discovery Tour, Historical Locations, Rebellion character bios, etc.

        Loading editor
    • I would like to clarify just in case for everyone, including Vilka, that what I meant by full citations before are the kind of citations people use in the real-world for academic papers, scholarly works, etc. where the author's name' the title of a section, article, or entry in the source; title of the source; the publisher; the publishing date; the page number if applicable, etc. are all included. We already have been using full citations when citing to real-world sources outside Assassin's Creed, but we have never done this for Assassin's Creed sources for the sake of simplicity and convenience for our editors.

      The is the most straightforward way to resolve this persistent question of how "deep" we should cite is to require full citations in all cases. This also simultaneously resolves the issue regarding formatting since we had a former moderator insist that we use unconventional symbols to demarcate different levels and information of the source being cited. We should recognize that at a certain point if we intend to include more and more information in our citations that we really should not be inventing our own original citation style because that would be confusing for readers.

      The main problem with requiring full citations for even Assassin's Creed sources is that that may pose a burden for our editors and increase their workload as it would take a lot more time to write out the citations. Because of this, I am neutral on whether or not we should implement this solution.

      If we don't go this route, we come back to the question of how "deep" we should be citing. As I said on Discord, I found it awkward to treat items as documents that can be cited but also recognize the benefit. Lacrosse brings up a good suggestion. Previously when I saw someone citing to Rebellion character bios (might've actually been Lacrosse), I was a bit uncomfortable with that as well for the same reason. However, I came to accept it—notwithstanding that I later discovered that I set the precedent for it on a whim but forgot lol. I think that Assassin's Creed: OdysseyDagger of Kronus: Description might be a good idea. My only concern to that would be "Description" not always being a title. With the Rebellion characters, I was able to justify it by the fact they had a tab titled "Bio". But then to be honest I might just be too fastidious here, so I'll definitely remain open to this idea.

      Apart from the question that Vilka raised, I would like to introduce several other questions about formatting style for sources.

      Abbreviating the main title in subsequent citations

      You guys can see this example in the Ezio Auditore da Firenze article. Francesco was the one who first began doing this, where all subsequent citations to Assassin's Creed II, for example, are abbreviated to "AC2" followed by "– [memory]". How do you guys feel about this? I was initially opposed and even reverted it but as I was rewriting the article, I realized that it made the reference section neater.

      My proposal for this is that we don't require this, but it can be recommended for particularly massive articles with many citations.

      The one issue with this is that we would need to standardize abbreviations. For example, does ACR refer to Assassin's Creed: Revelations, Rogue, or Rebellion? In years past, before even I edited here, the old editors seemed to have standardized the abbreviated forms for the main installments. I would not mind re-visiting this. I also recommend that only main installments and some prominent side-games have abbreviated forms. More obscure works should never be abbreviated.

      Repeated hyperlinks

      Darman brought this matter up to me recently on my talk page. He asked why do we have a practice of re-linking main titles which we have already cited, so for example "Assassin's Creed IIPower to the People" then "Assassin's Creed IIMob Justice" instead of "Assassin's Creed II – Mob Justice". I told him that we don't have a hard rule either way, and it is just owing to consistency that we incidentally normalized the "double links".

      My proposal for this is the same for abbreviations. I don't think we should require it to be either way provided its consistent within an article.

      Quotation marks

      Many months back, it dawned on me that if we're being technical, memory titles should be set within quotation marks and perhaps so should any documents we cite. This is because English formatting rules has always been that titles of large works like books, video games, films, etc. are italicized (in typed writing, underlined in handwriting) while titles of articles, chapters, and any source within a large work are situated within quotation marks. The quotation marks are not optional; they serve the same role as the italicization.

      Because of this, I've started to think that memory titles should technically always be surrounded by quotation marks and maybe Database entry titles as I well. I was the one to popularize citations to memories, not just the video game, so I felt pretty bad about not having done this from the beginning because I think the mind has a tendency to see quotation marks as unnecessary when a title is already highlighted by its hyperlink... I later discovered this article, "Emmanuel Barraza", where a former administrator went into specific entries for Assassin's Creed: Initiates throughout the article at a time when this was not common practice on this wiki. He did this before I had the same idea much later, but unlike me, he had included the quotation marks. However, he only situated the third-level of titles in quotation marks, not the second, e.g. Assassin's Creed: Inititaes – Surveillance: "Osaka's Underworld" instead of ''Assassin's Creed: Inititaes – "Surveillance: Osaka's Underworld". I have no idea which is technically correct.

      But requiring or not requiring quotation marks felt like too trivial of a matter to press. We had not been using quotation marks in any of the memory citations all this time, and I don't want to burden us all by suddenly mandating them. So my question for you guys is: do you guys think that quotation marks should be used with documents and titles within larger works? Do you think we should just exempt them from missions and database entries?

      Full citation format

      Whether or not we require full citations for Assassin's Creed works, we are using full citations for real-world sources. So a relevant question is which formatting style should we use for the full citations, like MLA, Chicago, APA, etc. I recommend the same guideline as Wikipedia. We will not require a particular style as long as the same style is used throughout an article for consistency. I think this would be most convenient for all editors who may favor one over another.

      EDIT: By the way, Vilka, I edited the title of your thread to reflect it being a broader thread about amendments to citation style since I wanted these other questions to be covered as well.

        Loading editor
    • Aside: don’t think citing the rebellion bios was me. I’m notoriously bad with remembering to do citations.

        Loading editor
    • Meant to post earlier today but wikia wouldn't work on my phone...


      We could just cite the descriptions as Assassin's Creed: OdysseyDagger of Kronus.

      The abbreviated titles to me seemed unnecessary, but definitely agree that they make things neater only on massive articles, ones with 50+ refs. When used on articles with less than 20 it looks dumb.

      And I'm fine with using repeating hyperlinks, been doing that anyway.

      Assassin's Creed: InitiatesSurveillance: "Osaka's Underworld" seems the neatest to me. I've been using it that way for also discovery tour and other documents too.

      As for full citations for real world info, we have the 'cite web' template...I suggest we use that. Also for info we took from wikipedia we just use the WP ref template instead of just using wikipedia's refs. Citing just "Wikipedia Egyptian hieroglyphs on Wikipedia" looks way neater than copying wikipedia's "Allen, James P. (2010). Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs. Cambridge University Press. p. 8."

      Ive also made several other referencing templates to use too, for Youtube, Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter.



      Side note: I started the citing Rebellion character bios to have something more concrete to reference.

        Loading editor
    • I've been mulling over this for a bit and I'd like to apologize if my thoughts are a bit too jumbled.

      Being in academia, I understand the need for citations. I also hate doing them. I don't think I've ever met a person in academia who likes doing them. To ask this of volunteer editors, I don't think would pan out well and probably would lead to articles without any references or articles with less edits (due to people going "ugh, i just won't bother").

      Besides that, the formatting, as Sol pointed out, is still an ongoing debate and everyone just does what each journal asks of them. It is not uncommon to have to redo citation multiple times in order to submit your paper. Geography also plays a part in it: different countries have different "official" citations. In Brazil we follow the norms from ABNT, the Brazilian association of technical norms.

      I agree with Vilka's citation of weapons as just Game Weapon.

      On the point on abbreviating the games' names, I don't really like the idea. Using the full names is bulkier, I'll give you that. But it keeps the memory/documents on the same eye level. Contrast

      Assassin's Creed: Unity – I Like Elise
      Assassin's Creed: Unity – I Like Arno Too

      with

      Assassin's Creed: Unity – I Like Elise
      ACU – I Like Arno Too

      and

      Assassin's Creed: Unity – I Like Elise
                                          – I Like Arno Too

      The first and the last (almost, the preview button LIES, people) keep the different titles on the same level, allowing for a quick glace. The second one does not.

      That said, I thought we already had standard abbreviations for them, the ones used in the memories templates, like ACReb for Rebellion and ACS for Syndicate.

      I'm voting no on quotation marks for missions and database entries.




      Sidebar: Should we archive the Rebellion Bios in case Rebellion goes down like Pirates? Or do we already do that, I just never noticed?

        Loading editor
    • (Short and sweet) Yes to citing as Game – Weapon.

      VilkaTheWolf wrote: The abbreviated titles to me seemed unnecessary, but definitely agree that they make things neater only on massive articles, ones with 50+ refs. When used on articles with less than 20 it looks dumb.

      Agreed. Personally, prefer the full version (Soranin explained why), but I can see how it might be useful.

      (And yes to archiving Rebellion Bios! Have a slew of 'em waiting in the wings, if ok'd to be added to wiki.)

        Loading editor
    • I like the abbreviations idea, but only if there's a mass of refs. I'd write the first citation of a source to look something like Assassin's Creed [Game] ("AC [Game]") – [Memory] so readers know which game we mean later, but that's personal taste. Think of it as citing (Smith, John. Work, p.X), then ref'ing it later as (Smith, p.X). We know ACR = Revelations, but only because we play the games. As for acronym confusion, why not use the ones written in the Era Icons? Thus, Revelations, Rogue, and Rebellion are RV, RG, and RB, respectively.

      My view on double links is on Sol's talk page, but in short, I see it as unneeded; we've already linked AC2 – Memory X, so why link AC2 on the same page again for Memory Y? But so long as the formatting with or without duplicates is consistent on a page, I don't think I'll mind.

      As precise as proper APA/MLA/etc citations are, I feel they'd drag on casual readers, never mind being an insane workload here, what with 15K pages (and counting!). The {{Cite}} template also has already encoded a format, so why adopt another one for games? I'm fine with quotation marks in refs. A little specificity to as broad a citation as [Database] or [Weapon] can't hurt.

        Loading editor
    • Soranin wrote:

      On the point on abbreviating the games' names, I don't really like the idea. Using the full names is bulkier, I'll give you that. But it keeps the memory/documents on the same eye level.

      It was actually because while undoing Francesco's abbreviations in the article Ezio Auditore da Firenze, I noticed that the abbreviations kept the memory/documents on the same eye level as opposed to not using abbreviations that I came around to being more open to them. This is the one and only reason why I reconsidered my position. There were actually some cases where the memory title was long enough that the citation crossed over into another line.

        Loading editor
    • While on the topic of citing and sources might I also direct people's attention to a nearly 6 month old thread about a Sources section after the Appearances section. We never really got a clear answer. Figured its partly related to this subject...

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+