Forum:Sourced Articles

Forums → Hailing Frequencies → Sourced Articles (Reply | Watch)

Erm... Okay, it's showtime on the Sourced article thingie. I have the graphic and the info box. Now it's time to change the wording, change the graphic (Markedly more difficult), kick the Aabh, etc.

Here's the tag:

Template:Sourced

You can find it here: Template:Sourced

Comments?

Aabh 05:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Its good, but I have two concerns... first of all, the red links need to be addressed, secondly, it is rather large for the top of the page, and could interfere with, for example, a series continuity label. But overall, its very good, yes. --Luke80 08:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sourced template

Nice work Aabh. :-D But do we really need one of those on every page that has a source? I think articles with sources should be a given, and that articles without sources should have a thing on it. Here's something I had in mind: Template:Notsourced - the wording can change, and the logo obviously needs to read "unsourced" or something like that. But I guess I was thinking a template. :-P What do you think? --Hawku 16:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess it depends on how many Sourced vs how many non-sourced articles we have... Which do you think we'd have more of?

Alternatively, we could always only put the Sourced marker on the series main page of the Article, For example, we'd put a Sourced marker on New Voyages' main page, but not on Kirk and Spock

Luke, good points! What if we put it at the bottom of the page? And I'll address the red links today :D Aabh 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we have more sourced articles. But I could be wrong. ^Anyway, sounds good to me. :-) --Hawku 05:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I love your Un-Sourced graphic, Hawku! :D. I have a little bit of a problem with marking unsourced things, though... doesn't it sound a little like we are saying "You are bad because you have no sources"? I don't know, I mean, isn't Pendragon UnSourced? I kinda feel like we'd be "punishing" him a little for being unsourced by putting the label on his article... Or anyone's for that matter. I think it'd be better to put it on Sourced articles instead, it sounds like a goal to strive for, then. Also, anyone starting a new article would naturally be unsourced until whomever is in charge of putting the Sourced logo on it does so...

Which brings me to another thought: Who will be responsible for placing the "Sourced" or "UnSourced" (As we decide) Icon on the pages? The User? If so, how do we check that it is really sourced? Wow... this subject has a lot of twists and turns... Aabh 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion: Could we make it just the icon like they have on featured articles? Maybe blue for sourced and red for unsourced? It makes it less cluttered, and if people are interested in what the icon means, maybe have an alt tag with "Sourced: For more information, click the icon". And to answer Aabh's question, probably be best to let admin's deal with the placement? Or maybe add a person or team who is/are less than an admin but more than a user who would have that/those right(s)? --usscantabrian 23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)