Talk:Hexuma

Regarding inline refs

@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)

Hi Waxworker, I am aware that citing the same sources all over and over again for each half sentence is your personal style of writing articles, but that is not how other authors work. If you may please have a look at other articles - let's say from the same Category:1990s interactive fiction: Eric the Unready, Gateway (video game), Spellcasting 101: Sorcerers Get All the Girls, Zork: Grand Inquisitor. I find this unpleasant to discuss as I'm under the impression that we're talking past each other - might be worth to take this elsewhere. Kind regards, Grueslayer 07:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grueslayer: - I've left a notice of this discussion at WikiProject Video games to get input from other editors. Waxworker (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Suppose we have two sentences. I'll break this argument into three cases:

1. If both sentences are dependent on just a single source, then it should be written as Sentence one. Sentence two. We should not have Sentence one. Sentence two. This error occurs several times in the article and should be fixed.
2. If sentence one and sentence two are dependent on different sources, then it can be written either as either Sentence one. Sentence two. or Sentence one. Sentence two.
3. If both sentences are dependent on a source, but sentence one is also dependent on another source, then it should be written as either Sentence one. Sentence two. or Sentence one. Sentence two. (the latter is preferable in most cases). We should not write it as Sentence one. Sentence two., since then it would be reasonable for someone to assume that sentence one is only dependent on the first reference, (like in the first example of #2). A user may then remove content, since it appears that sentence one has claims which are not supported by a source.

Lastly, as an aside, we should almost never end a paragraph without a source; this happens multiple times in the article. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 21:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in your approach, since in all three examples your recommended version is exactly the way it should be written if Sentence one is completely unsourced. Thus, a believer in my approach (which is that it should always be clear where a statement came from) would think Sentence One is unsourced, and a believer in your approach would think that claims which are completely unsourced have multiple supporting sources. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grueslayer, Pbrks, and Martin IIIa: - I've made a mockup in my sandbox here (linked as a revision as the contents of my sandbox are obviously subject to change) where the amount of in-line cites are reduced (primarily from plot and infobox per WP:VG/PLOT and MOS:INFOBOXCITE) but retained where I believe they are necessary for verification (gameplay and development) and credits that were sourced in infobox and not discussed in the body of the article are now mentioned briefly under development. Thoughts? Waxworker (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Well then, let's have a look at the "Development" paragraph.

"Hexuma is the finale of a trilogy of text adventure games about time travel by developer Weltenschmiede; Hexuma is preceded by Das Stundenglas (1990) and Die Kathedrale (1991)."<Source 1>, <Source 2> - Fine, but Source 2 would have been sufficient, because it covers the content of the entire sentence and Source 1 doesn't mention Das Stundenglas at all.

"Publisher Software 2000 describes Hexuma as an "Artventure" game due to the addition of graphics to the text adventure format – one of eight games in this range."<Source 1> - Nothing of this is dealt with in Source 1 (neither in Source 2). But even if - Source 1 was cited one sentence ago. If the reader is unwilling to read sentence 1 and the attached source, but reads sentence 2 only and demands a source for that, I'd just point out that the source is right there, namely behind sentence 1.

"Hexuma was written by Harald Evers, programmed by Andreas Niedermeier, and includes art by The Pixlers Studio."<Source 1> - This is trivial information that doesn't need a source. Besides, the source has been used for the sentence before (although it didn't mention any content of that sentence) and for the sentence before that (where it mentioned only part of the content).

"The game's score was composed by Chris Hülsbeck."<Source 1> - Trivial information again, and the source for it was already used for the sentence before, and for the sentence before that, and for the sentence before that.

"Hexuma was bundled with feelies, including a replica of Owen Jugger's diary, a poster, a letter detailing the significance of the crystal shards and the awakening of Kal, and a replica crystal shard."<Source 1>, <Source 2> - Why two sources for a simple, non-controversial sentence? Oh, Source 1 doesn't mention the poster or the shard, Source 2 doesn't mention feelies at all. And again, Source 1 was already used to verify the sentence before, and the sentence before that, and the sentence before that, and the sentence before that.

Pushing aside the fact you your sources don't verify what you're writing - are you really claiming that a source must be cited over and over again because the reader might pick a random sentence from a paragraph and demand citation for that sentence? If that is what the rules demand, then stand ready to see me adding that two sources another 20 times to the article.

Kind regards, Grueslayer 21:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grueslayer: - I've doublechecked and removed anything that isn't in the given refs, as well as some content that was originally translated from the German Wikipedia article for the game and was unsourced, primarily info about Höhlenweltsaga. Your corrections are largely accurate, except that the ASM review does mention the crystal shard. I disagree that staff that worked on the game doesn't need sourcing, and yes, ideally every sentence should have in-line refs that verify the content or they should be removed as unsourced. Waxworker (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Waxworker, the ASM review mentions that the shard is an in-game item, but doesn't mention that a (bad^^) replica of it is part of the feelies. In terms of the frequency of the repeated usage of sources we won't come to an agreement, but if your way of seeing it is supported by the WP rules and/or by common practice I'll of course not stand in the way. So far I still see WP:CONSECUTIVECITE as applicable. Kind regards, Grueslayer 05:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The standard is that we look for the closest reference after a statement. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References