Forum:Copying content from the Prima guides

Editing at Nukapedia, I was used to fixing incorrect English conventions that were regularly utilized by the external company known as Prima, in regards to their secondary Fallout guides. Not only that, but a lot of their information is blatantly false, such as seen with the alleged location of Dinner Bell in Fallout: New Vegas.

Coming back to edit here at The Vault, I have been planning to do the same, except after a few reverts, it has become clear to me that there is an established precedent to leave Prima content, verbatim. I have a real issue with this, and I would like to begin earnest discussion over how we should handle our Prima sources.

I, personally, consider the link we provide in our 'References' sections, to be all that we need in regards to the original content that we are basing our references off of. But the quotes we use, are actual content on our actual articles, which means if Prima's quotes are ever unprofessional, we are also adding unprofessional content into our articles.

This is bad. Not just because our wiki should be holding itself to the highest-quality content, but also because we are using direct quotes from the Prima guides as crutches, when we should be writing everything in our own words. We need to stop using crutches such as this one - if a quote has unprofessional content in it, then we should be converting the quote into original content, in which the reference links we provide, allow for our readers to check into what was actually written by Prima, should they choose to do so.

I am interested in hearing what everyone has to say, but I feel strongly that this is a change that we will need to make - especially with Prima guides already being confirmed and made for Fallout 4. Misspellings, improper nouns being capitalized, fragment and/or run-on sentences, and other grammatical mistakes, should be avoided whenever possible. Official transcripts are one thing - but secondary sources such as Prima, really need to stop dictating our content - especially when they are wrong. GarouxBloodline 22:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments
Adding the reference verbatim is what proves the claim. Whether it's a primary source (dialogue file), a secondary source (guide section), and/or a developer quotation. When quotation becomes the entire section verbatim, it is blatantly wrong and must be correct posthaste.--Ant2242 (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the guide errors themselves there is sections on their respective pages to add them.--Ant2242 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. What proves the claim, is the external/internal link that we provide. Outside of said link, we should be writing everything in our own words - so long as the original intent still exists, and the link is there to prove that what we wrote in our words, is true.


 * I reiterate: using the guides as a crutch by copying them verbatim, is 110% wrong - especially when they are wrong. GarouxBloodline 00:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

In general, I always rewrite the content and leave the original quote in the references (a link is insufficient). I think you both say the same thing - keep the quote in the refs, our own words in the article body - but simply use different words. Tagaziel (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It might make more sense to me, if it was explained why a link is insufficient. The cases that brought this forum into existence were not too bad, as there were just a few capping issues. But over my years of working on Fallout reference, I know very well that Prima tends to get their facts and spelling wrong, too, which is something we should not even have as a quote, for the same reason that we do not allow improper grammar on the VB articles, even though technically, most of them are created almost entirely based off of quotes. GarouxBloodline 17:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's there to reduce the number of clicks and provide context for the statement, so that the reader can easily examine and compare the content with the source. Tagaziel (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A re-write should be staying true to the original intent of the quote(s) being referred to. I understand the need to have less clicks necessary, but with proper re-writes, instead of unprofessional quotes, the extra click will not be necessary - it will merely be at the curiosity of our readers, to click at their own leisure. GarouxBloodline 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is also to verify if a claim is correct or not. For example that list of claims that the guide makes but has not page number. Therefore I cannot verify it.--Ant2242 (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To be fair, we should have the guides in their entirety on this wiki, for internal references, or we should be linking to external versions of the guides, as I know already exist. So if we are linking to sources that do not actually confirm anything by themselves, then that is an issue. GarouxBloodline 21:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

[User:Ant2242/guidecash01#Claim_made_but_not_substantiated_using_guide_link]--Ant2242 (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)