Regarding inline refs
edit@Grueslayer: - I don't think WP:CONSECUTIVECITE is relevant in this case as the example given is having multiple citations for facts in the same source in the same sentence, not at the end of a sentence. I don't think that the in-line refs are excessive, and I think they are necessary for verifiability. As it stands, claims like specific gameplay features being in the game that wasn't in the previous games like the UI-based inventory and auto-mapping are now unsourced given that the in-line cites are removed. Waxworker (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Waxworker,
- first, thanks for all your relentless work in the field of adventure and text adventure games!
- To my knowledge, it is reasonable for the reader to actually read the provided source so that not every half sentence needs to be cluttered with the same source. Mentioning a source once per paragraph should be absolutely enough (unless it's a source where different pages verify various facts of course).
- Kind regards, Grueslayer 11:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Grueslayer: - I think the inline refs could be removed in some sections, but not the gameplay and development sections. Per WP:VG/PLOT sources are unnecessary in plot sections, but I wrote the plot based on what sources said about the plot rather than from playing the game, so if there's anything like 'this was in review copies but not in the final game' or 'major plot point not mentioned' I thought it would be good for it to be clear where the information came from, but they could be removed. Per MOS:INFOBOXCITE references are unnecessary in infoboxes if the content is cited elsewhere, so putting 'X, X, and X worked on the game' under development would be fine in lieu of refs in the infobox for staff. Inline refs are necessary to show that 'this specific claim can be verified by this source' and I don't think citing a source once per paragraph is sufficient, if I saw some of the content that is now unsourced in the gameplay/development sections in a different article I would CN tag or remove it due to it being unsourced. Waxworker (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Waxworker,
- you don't respond to my core argument: That the reader is supposed to read the (relevant part of the) provided source and that due to that there is no need to repeatedly cite the same source. I think that's anchored somewhere in the MOS but I can't find it spontanously. I've never seen an article before though that cites a one page review 28 times or even 16 times.
- Kind regards, Grueslayer 19:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Grueslayer: - I already addressed that I believe that WP:CONSECUTIVECITE isn't applicable in this case, and that I think the citations are necessary for verification. If an inline cite is not present I don't think it can be assumed that a source elsewhere verifies the content - the inline cite is there to show that 'yes, this specific source verifies this'. Waxworker (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Grueslayer: - I think the inline refs could be removed in some sections, but not the gameplay and development sections. Per WP:VG/PLOT sources are unnecessary in plot sections, but I wrote the plot based on what sources said about the plot rather than from playing the game, so if there's anything like 'this was in review copies but not in the final game' or 'major plot point not mentioned' I thought it would be good for it to be clear where the information came from, but they could be removed. Per MOS:INFOBOXCITE references are unnecessary in infoboxes if the content is cited elsewhere, so putting 'X, X, and X worked on the game' under development would be fine in lieu of refs in the infobox for staff. Inline refs are necessary to show that 'this specific claim can be verified by this source' and I don't think citing a source once per paragraph is sufficient, if I saw some of the content that is now unsourced in the gameplay/development sections in a different article I would CN tag or remove it due to it being unsourced. Waxworker (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)