Forum:Cite source part numbers

Index → The Panopticon → Cite source part numbers

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

Opening post

Just a quick forum here: I want to change the current way parts are stylised in {{cite source}}.

Currently, we cite specific parts in sources like this:

(AUDIO: Project Twilight (part one) ^[+]Loading...{"part":"One","1":"Project Twilight (audio story)"})

Which, while it does get the information across, feels... inelegant to me. So I have a few solutions.

So here are a few different versions I've knocked up that convey the same information, but just stylise it differently.

(AUDIO Project Twilight: Part 1 ^[+]Loading...["Project Twilight (audio story)","''Project Twilight'': Part 1"])
(AUDIO Project Twilight: Part One ^[+]Loading...["Project Twilight (audio story)","''Project Twilight'': Part One"])
(AUDIO Project Twilight: Pt. 1 ^[+]Loading...["Project Twilight (audio story)","''Project Twilight'': Pt. 1"])

Alternately, we could place "Part One" in the same place we place chapters, so something like:

(AUDIO Project Twilight ^[+]Loading...{"chaptnum":"1","1":"Project Twilight (audio story)","2":"''Project Twilight''"})

Ignore that it uses "Chapter" for now. However, this wouldn't be ideal for pages like Jack Bannister (although this isn't the perfect example, it'll have to do because not many pages use cite source currently), as every citation would look identical until expanded.

Thoughts?

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

19:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Aesthetically, I prefer the first option to any other, and agree that it is an improvement in what we currently have (no slight to Bongo50 intended; they have done an absolutely wonderful job on creating the template in the first place), and as the entire thread is about aesthetics, and which citation method is considered the most aesthetically pleasing, I think that I shall stop there. (Goodness, I'm feeling loquacious today!) Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the idea of ": Part N" rather than "(part N)". However, what do people think of "- Part N" instead? However, I don't quite understand the reference to Jack Bannister, as that article features namedparts, rather than numbered parts. I'm not against the current way we do namedparts, but I also wouldn't be agaisnt changing it to "- NAMEDPART", in fact I think I slightly prefer that. Oh, and I think chapters should be cited like numbered parts are. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 20:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ettolrhc, I think Jack Bannister is being used as an example of a page where a lot of parts of a single source are cited. In this case they're named parts so the whole calculus is different (though I wouldn't oppose a "Title: Namedpart" format either, come to that, either), but the intuition is the same that pages like this are a good reason not to dismiss part numbers, or part names, to the collapsible part of the template. A page that cites different parts of the same stories would look just plain confusing in that scenario: imagine "after doing one thing, (PROSE: Example Book) the Doctor did another thing (PROSE: Example Book, Example Book)" when, with the part numbers expressed, it ought to read as the perfectly intuitive "after doing one thing (PROSE: Example Book: Chapter 1) the Doctor did another thing (PROSE: Example Book: Chapter 3, Example Book: Epilogue)".

In any case, I support the "Part 1" format over "Part one" or "Pt. 1". I'm largely neutral about colons vs. parentheticals vs. hyphens, although parentheticals likely wouldn't be generalisable to named chapters/episodes/parts, which is less than ideal if we want to also introduce the "Overall Title: Subpart" format for those. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Scrooge regarding both "Part 1" and the generalisability of parentheticals. – n8 (☎) 13:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I like it how it is: that's why I did it that way in the first place. However, I am happy to adapt the template to adopt whatever the consensus is. Currently, whether "one", "One" or "1" is used depends on how the section titles of the source's page are formatted. Hence, the easiest way to adopt a specific format would be to standardise these section titles. Otherwise, I will have to create some form of number words and their corresponding numerals, which is possible, if a little annoying and ineligent. Bongo50 ☎ 14:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say the best one is the third option, since the chapter/part/section is essentially a citation in the same vein as author and release date, with the title of the source overall being the priority. After all, in an essay, the reference is the title of the source, with specific pages left for the bibliography. BananaClownMan ☎ 22:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I still think that would look silly in a majority of use cases (see my first reply). Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been hesitant to make too many changes to cite source because I had a backlog of undocumented changes. However, I have now cleared through that so I should be able to act on this forum in the next few days. Bongo50 ☎ 15:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

(Ah, neat! Noticed that, thanks a lot… I can actually know what the CSJS function version is for now!

How have I missed this discussion? This seems precisely interesting relative to wiki decisions I've just been thinking about.

Is there a consensus here to act upon, anyway? A consensus against some things, but not clearly for any one option. I'm not someone who can decide that, though…)

Anyway, if this still means something — personally, aesthetically, I prefer parentheticals to all other options… but they really don't work in any case where you're citing two episodes/parts/chapters ow one thing alongside each other. See my horrible hack of "Logopolis (part one, ^[+]Loading...{"sect":"Part one","noital":"true","1":"Logopolis (TV story)","2":"''Logopolis'' (part one,"} part two) ^[+]Loading...{"sect":"Part two","noital":"true","1":"Logopolis (TV story)","2":"part two)"}", live at Essence at time of this message. So it'll probably have to be one of the other ones.

Maybe there's something specifically appealing about lowercase. Project: Twilight: part 1 ^[+]Loading...["Project Twilight (audio story)","''Project: Twilight'': part 1"] or Seeing I: chapter 8, "Morning Run" ^[+]Loading...["Seeing I (novel)","''Seeing I'': chapter 8, \"Morning Run\""] definitely look better to me than the equivalent capitalised versions. Might be some context I'm missing for this, though; say, if the capitalised versions are preferred universally by other sources…

There's also one more punctuation option besides "-" and ":" — not have punctuation at all. Distinguish the part name only via italics and context. Project: Twilight part 1 ^[+]Loading...["Project Twilight (audio story)","''Project: Twilight'' part 1"] rather than either of Project: Twilight: part 1 ^[+]Loading...["Project Twilight (audio story)","''Project: Twilight'': part 1"] or Project: Twilight - part 1 ^[+]Loading...["Project Twilight (audio story)","''Project: Twilight'' - part 1"]. That doesn't generalise to "named part" cases, but only if the decision ends up being that the title of the complete work is included there as well…

Again, for what It's worth, I prefer "Part/Pt. 1" over "Part one", and definitely over "Part One". Not sure how to explain it, but the latter makes the part seem like much more of its own thing than "parts" generally are, at least to me…

jsmith5504^{talk to me} 20:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

To throw my aesthetic sensibilities into the ring for this: I prefer uppercase to lowercase (for "Part" at least), I prefer numerals ("1") to number words ("one"), and I am in favour of punctuation, specifically the dash ("-") (ie: Project: Twilight - Part 1 ^[+]Loading...["Project Twilight (audio story)","''Project: Twilight'' - Part 1"]) - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 02:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)