Talk:Tunalock

A sentence was updated to make less sense, and I'm wondering if someone forgot a word or phrase? Current sentence:

"Tunalock" formed of a larger trend in Sherlock fandom of making fanworks in which Sherlock and/or John Watson are portrayed as animals.

Previous version:

"Tunalock" is part of a larger trend in Sherlock (BBC) fandom of making fanworks in which John Watson and/or Sherlock Holmes are portrayed as animals.

Did someone mean "Tunalock" formed out of a larger trend? --aethel (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Adjusted this, must’ve just been an oversight during mine and enchantedsleeper’s build-out of the page. Joanna R (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

citation template formatting problem?

Whatever magic split the reference section into "citations" and "works cited" is actually very confusing and hard to read. Even clicking on each item under citations doesn't easily show me which citation refers to which work cited. The works-cited formatting is readable, but it's completely divorced from the citation itself so it's not easy to see which one goes with which footnote. Even if the association between work-cited and citation worked better, it's still adding an extra click to get to the information. (I'm using Firefox BTW. I don't know if this looks different in different browsers.)--aethel (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree, and it’s why I haven’t made any changes yet to the citations. I agree from your Featured Article page comments that dates are important, and I also like summaries so I know what I’m clicking on, and including archived links is good too, but I haven’t changed anything yet because I don’t understand why the “citations” vs “works cited” is now split. It’s hard to tell which “citation” goes with which “work cited”, and I’m also not sure why the “notes” are separate too. I don’t personally have a preference whether we include the # of notes on a Tumblr post as a measure of popularity, but if we do, I’m not sure why it’s separate from the citation, because now it’s just a lot of scattered info. I’ve put an internal question to the gardeners if this is a new formatting we’re supposed to be following. Using Safari. Joanna R (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm the one that implemented the change.

On different browsers: it shouldn't look different between browsers. The way that the short citations work is the same as inline links + linking a section of an article via the title and a hashtag, e.g. using #citation template formatting problem? on this talk page. What's going on is that in the works cited section, every source has an ID. This ID is then linked in the citation for the source.

I personally implement this change because information on the works cited with all the necessary information: dates, URLs, archive links, etc. - get long fast and makes an article very hard to edit if they're mixed into the main text of an article. It also increases the likelihood of future editors accidentally editing the citation, creating incorrect information or broken links.

I had more discussion about this style of citation with other editors back in April over at the talk page for the Furry article: Talk:Furry#Web Citation Formatting. Some more explanation of my rationale is over there, as well as examples. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m familiar with the stability of using the Template:Cite web. It’s the way this is displaying that I’m questioning, not the template itself. Joanna R (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

E.g. on the Furry Page example you used, there is a single References heading with two numbered columns, with all the citation info by the relevant citation number. Is there a reason this can’t have the same appearance? Joanna R (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we're on two different pages here due to some confusing syntax that I used in my earlier reply, so I'm going to try and straighten things out.

I am not talking about the cite web template; I am talking about splitting citations and works cited, and my method of implementing the split. When I refer to examples, I was not referring to the Furry page itself. Rather, I am referring to the example of the split I posted on the talk page for Furry. The example I posted there is taken from The Thing (1982), which does include the split.

Again, my reasons for splitting citations and works cited with the method I'm using is to make articles easier to edit and prevent accidental edits to citations. My thoughts are further elaborated upon in the section linked on the Furry talk page.

If the issue is the number of columns used for works cited, that can be rectified by changing the column-count value in the container div to a lower value. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

OK with that clarification, then yes I am specifically questioning the Citations/Works Cited split and the formatting of that split. Of course not everyone processes information or layout like I do, so everyone’s mileage will vary. I find this split confusing and difficult to comprehend + sprawling in terms of page aesthetics. Stabilizing the links is widely useful, but as someone relatively in this fandom, I would’ve liked to discuss the layout, since I liked it previously. Joanna R (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I made the point over on the Furry Talk page that the problem with this method of citing is that it presents a high barrier to entry to newcomers to the page. You mention the danger of future editors altering a citation, but with this system I would worry that future editors to the page will feel like they can't add citations because they don't understand the system or how to work within it. Do we have a good solution to this? Because I would be wary of implementing it on pages unless we're confident that it can be made newbie-friendly. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Enchanted! Please give me a moment to respond; you were editing this talk page with your reply at the same that I was creating my response to Joanna. I'm not ignoring you, just want to prevent further editing conflicts. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, after banging my head against Wikipedia help articles, I think I found a potential solution that cuts out the middle man of Works Cited, while still keeping references separated from the rest of the article- list defined references. There's a help page on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Help:List-defined references), but the TL:DR is that references are still defined in a link at the bottom of the page, and the <ref> tags take the user directly there, number and everything. I've included a screenshot of an example from Wikipedia to more easily show what I'm talking about

Can I get your and Joanna's thoughts on this? Pinky G Rocket (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m going to have to poke around on this, but in the meantime, I appreciate the passing reference of Works Cited as a “middle man”, otherwise I wasn’t really following how the info was split. (I did skim the Furry Talk page but I didn’t dig into the code details.) Joanna R (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Intro sentence

I’d also like to raise the issue of reverting to the original introductory sentence:

'''Tunalock''' is the term for fanworks in which [[Sherlock Holmes (Sherlock character)|Sherlock Holmes]] is a tuna (yes, the fish).

For two reasons 1) because it internally links the character which includes the BBC version, not just the BBC fandom (although that’s where it started) and 2) because frankly, I think the “(yes, the fish)” is a cute informal way to express yes, this is a crack concept. Joanna R (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)