Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum talk:Citation

Citations and images

So, i would like to understand one thing about the ^{[Needs Citation]} tag which is thoroughly added to every single text below an image in the miniatures section.

When you click on an image, you have a description (easy to add), a copyright status, and a source (less easy for old miniatures).

Why should there be a need to basically double down on the citation work on every page where there are images, when the source and description can be seen when clicking on said image?

I'm asking this question, because the ^{[Needs Citation]} tag creates an horrible visual chaos in every miniatures pages, and asks for a question which has already been answered.

If the lexicanum is a Wikimedia project, then go check on wikipedia : the source of the image is not directly shown under the image within an article, you only see it when clicking on said images.

Thank you in advance for answering this existential problem that i have!

--Siegfriedfr (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary remark 1: Please sign your talk contributions with --~~~~ which will be automatically transformed into a time-stamped signature. This (together with indentations (: - :: - ::: etc.)) makes discussions easier to follow.

Preliminary remark 2: While the Lexicanum certainly is inspired by the wiki(pedia/media) principle it does not feel bound or obliged to follow all of its rules or recommendations. Mostly because while some are logical and sensible others have been tried and found out not to work in the given context of the Lexicanum.

@ 1: "why the need for a in-article source if there is a source in the file": Because it makes it much easier to police and control an article without having to open every single file to see if there is a source. As you talk about the miniature pages in particular this becomes fairly obvious. Scrolling through one continuous page and spotting missing footnotes is infinitely quicker than opening every single file page contained in it. The main problem being that way too many files (especially but not exclusively pre-stricter rules ones) have no sources at all or sources that are not accepted such as private fanpages.

@ 2: "the 'cite this' tag creates an horrible visual chaos in every miniatures pages": That is, at least partially, on purpose. If the reader feels disturbed by it he or she might be encouraged to fix it. The alternative that is still being pondered is to delete any unsourced bits immediately on sight. There can (should) not be any unsourced information in the Lexicanum.

@ 3: "and asks for a question which has already been answered": See @ 1. You can compare it to your kitchen cupboard. You don't want to have to take down the cereals box and open it to actually be frustrated to find out it is empty ;)

@ 4: "the source of the image is not directly shown under the image within an article, you only see it when clicking on said images": See preliminary remark 2. Maybe the Wikipedia editors can be trusted to always properly cite their contributions, many Lexicanum editors unfortunately can not.

I hope this answers your existential problem and if not feel free to ask follow-up questions. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

As someone who does deal with this regularly I must agree that it is a tremendous amount of additional work for something that is essentially redundant, you’re doing the same thing twice. If an image is cited in the file I don’t see much point in additional footnotes unless the description in the thumbnail significantly differs from the file description. I don’t see much purpose in it but as always defer to Inquisitor S’ final word and authority because he’s done this site good for decades Harriticus (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That is the problem of an ideal world vs. reality. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I also think that in this case it's redundant. Also, if in the Image info there is NO citation, the mark (Citation needed) in article will show the reader that this image is doubtful. In situation when we use it now, (Citation needed) mark in article, despite that in the image info there IS citation, may confuse the reader.--Darkelf77 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@User:Inquisitor S. I understand you're the leading decision-maker on Lexicanum and i respect your involvement in setting up and managing this excellent database.

Here is a concrete idea i'm proposing to accommodate your rulings, while saving precious time.

• Use a citation tag for every image ^[S] which links to this: "This image has been sourced by a Lexicanum' :editor. Click on the image to view the source material."
• This way, we avoid double-sourcing every image, and we potentially gain alot of space at the bottom of the :page.
• I am willing to do the legwork of image-sourcing in the miniatures section under such parameters.
• here is a concrete example (check the 7th edition):
  • https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Miniatures:_Tyranids#7th_Edition

S: Source : This image has been sourced by a Lexicanum' editor. Click on the image to view the source material.

Respectfully,

--Siegfriedfr (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Wayback machine And games workshop websites

So since around the beginning of 2022 i have been unable to create archives of games workshop pages (warhammer community and webstore pages). i have the wayback machine extension on my browser which detects and attemps to archive any page i visit. it systematically fails to do so, showing me a «protocol error« error page.

two questions: 1} can other contributors still archive pages? did you encounter this problem? did you solve it? 2} if its indeed a general problem, how are we to follow the sourcing guidelines when citing GW online content, if we cant archive it anymore?

--Siegfriedfr (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Answer 1: That seems to be a general problem, at least with GW pages. And no, we have not found (unfortunately) a solution.

Answer 2: As long as it does not work we probably have no other choice than to use the original links. if nobody comes up with a work-around... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Can the guidelines be officially amended to account for the fact that archiving Games Workshop pages is, as far as we know, no longer feasable ?--Siegfriedfr (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)