Wiktionary talk:Votes/2023-08/Changing how the section "References" works

"bare templates"

@Vininn126: "Allow only bare templates/links/names of works to other works in the reference section" - err, so not the page number of the entry etc.? Would definitely oppose that as phrased. Why not just inline vs. not inline? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna Sure. Vininn126 (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Further readings that are not references

For example etymological dictionaries that don't mention the term, articles about certain cultural phenomena only using an exonym, wikilinks... What to do with them? Thadh (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This is something @Catonif has mentioned as well, as well as the fact notes is used for certain things. Perhaps not notes? Vininn126 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Why not add “Notes” as its own section like Wikipedia does? AG202 (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

But Wikipedia places those under "Further reading" and not "Notes", which is for editorial notes written in Wikipedia's own voice. The point of this vote, as I understand it (@Vininn126), is to abolish the qualitative distinction between "References" and "Further reading" and replace them with rigorously distinguished sections for footnotes and general sources. So any further reading would now go under "References". It might warrant a better title ("References and further reading", "Bibliography") though I'm fairly indifferent. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography could be nice. We just need a good second name. Vininn126 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly how Wikipedia does it, but to be fair, Wikipedia's Notes section is not only for notes written in Wikipedia's own voice. I envision:

• Footnotes: Inline citations
• Bibliography: List of general references
• Further reading/External links: Self-explanatory

Either that or:

• References:
  • Citations/Footnotes: Inline citations
  • Bibliography: List of general references
• Further reading/External links: Self-explanatory

The second option is what's done at w:Jeju language. Basically I would much rather prefer that further reading be separated from general references. There's an important distinction to be made there imho. AG202 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Catonif Had a better idea. I'm not sure what @Benwing2 would think. Vininn126 (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@AG202: This seems to be precisely the problem, though; there are some people who are unhappy about there being a distinction between general references and further reading because it's based on editorial discretion rather than a technical distinction. Wikipedia's policy is basically the same as our (notional) existing one at WT:EL: as WP:Further reading says, "Further reading is not a list of general references. General references are sources actually used by editors to build the article content, but that are not presented as inline citations. By contrast, Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend." I take it that's also your preference, and mine too. The example at Jeju language is something a bit different from the schema above: the inline citations that use Template:Sfn are just short "Bloggs 2000, p. 1" style footnotes that point to the full citations in the bibliography. That's also the usual understanding of "bibliography" in an academic context—it's just a list of the things cited previously. I don't see any obvious way to satisfy all parties. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

A good point is that Notes is already used for... notes. I think We need a different name. Vininn126 (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there's a way to satisfy everyone, but I at least wanted to put my own opinion/take out there before the vote is finalized. AG202 (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

limitations of MediaWiki

The <references /> tag is hard-coded into MediaWiki, right? We can't locally rename it to <notes />? I like the spirit of this proposal, but having a <references /> tag that can only be used outside the References section is sure to confuse people. Can anything be done to solve this problem? Thanks, —Soap— 00:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

We can discourage the use of bare <references />, as Wikipedia does, and rename {{reflist}}. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Good practices, bad naming

I agree that References should only hold inline sources, which is common practice for many, but renaming the section to Notes is a misnomer and hijacks an already in-use header. --{{victar|talk}} 00:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're not the only one expressing this thought, please read the above threads. Would you suggest a different name? Vininn126 (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Why change it at all? --{{victar|talk}} 03:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

A proposal: nested headers

As Victar mentioned and Vininn noted above, I would oppose the vote since =Notes= is already used for notes, see lutra, arcazón, etc. Inline references are, well, references, notes are notes. We should firstly be honest on what things are instead of using placeholder names. This is why I'm also dissatisfied with the current practice of placing non-inline references in =Further reading=, since non-inline references are also, surprisingly, references. For this same reason, I would also oppose moving actual "further readings", chiefly pedia links, into a header called =References=, since they're not references (or at least, shouldn't be). Hence my proposal: keep both inline and outline references into =References=, since that's what they are, so both ===References=== <references/> and ===References=== * {{R:xx:Dictionary}} would be allowed, and whenever there are both inline and outline references in the same entry, we pull out a subheader to separate them (for which wording is open to suggestions), so for example: ===References=== <references/> ====Additional sources==== * {{R:xx:Dictionary}}. This allows both types of references still being under =References= while tackling the problem of having them touch each other. Catonif (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but uh I will say that Notes as a header is technically not allowed currently per WT:EL, so any notes section is existing right now just on the fact that no one's brought it up yet. AG202 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This would be my preferred option too, or something like it. I agree it's preferable to distinguish general references from further reading, as @AG202 also said above. I don't think that distinction is vague or confusing. If others do, though, then it's better for general references to be combined in a way that makes clear they're still sources, but there would need to be a better header title for it than "References". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I also would be fine with this system, I could change the proposal? Vininn126 (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we want the name "Additional sources"? I think that or "Bibliography". Vininn126 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"Additional sources" is probably better since it's unambiguous, if we go with Catonif's suggestion that the subheaders are only used when there are both inline and non-inline citations. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

So the current plan is to keep further reading, and allow a subheader called additional sources for noninline refs? Vininn126 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I also think the name of the vote should change if we do this. Vininn126 (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have updated both the vote and the name, please someone let me know if they think it should be otherwise. The point of this vote is try and make everyone happy, so I'm looking for cooperation. Vininn126 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126: The problem like I mentioned above is that Catonif's solution still requires editorial discretion between general references and further reading, which a few people (@Benwing2?) oppose. But several people have now said they want that distinction to be maintained (and I would prefer it to be). You either have it or you don't, so there's probably no unanimous solution available on that question, just quantitative consensus. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna You are right, but I think the overall proposal satisfies more people overall and is still somewhat of a compromise. Vininn126 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the vote proposal should list a few examples of what would go under "Additional sources" and what would go under "Further reading", and then if it passes, these examples would be written into the policy to help provide clarification. Right now it seems too open to interpretation. Megathonic (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Megathonic Do you think I should tighten up the wording? If so, how? Vininn126 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure how off the top of my head. The original thread began because of a question about whether to list other dictionaries under further reading or references, and from my understanding of this proposal, they would now be listed under additional sources, unless they include an in-line citation, in which case they go directly under references. The current further reading guidance allows dictionaries to be put there, but this vote would change that, so perhaps the vote proposal should state what would now go (or not go) under further reading. Megathonic (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe the current vote forces the user to put all dictionaries under the new subheader - rather, dictionaries used as a reference. Vininn126 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I'm not sure that this vote will solve anything. The same inconsistency that currently exists will remain. Megathonic (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me give you an example: Wikipedia links, or even other encylopedias, would make great candidates for "Further reading". Rarely do we take something lexical from them. However, most of the time we link to dictionaries because we used something from them, making them a reference. So we might have an inline reference for the etymology, a reference dictionary in "Additional sources", and then a link to 'pedia in "Further reading". Vininn126 (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Megathonic This does definitely not just take us back to square one. Releasing =Further reading= from the practical burden of containing non-inline references, we can think more theoretically on what should be its acutal scope. I personally don't see this as a grey area, and believe the distinction is useful to keep. =Further reading= per its name should contain links to "read further" than what is in the entry, that is, information that we purposely not include in the entry, as it's not dictionary material. Since Wiktionary disallows encyclopedic content, among other things, this section is well-fitted for encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, along with other sister projects which contain information that is of course not our department. References, on the other hand, are works that back up information that is contained in the entry. This also confirms that sister projects should not be in =References= since they aren't acceptable as citations. So about dictionaries, we cite them to back up information we have in our entries, so they should go under =References=. If one finds themself preferring to place a dictionary under =Further reading= rather than =References=, that likely means the entry is not complete. In which case they may leave it under FR with some request template somewhere in the entry. Catonif (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If the issue is that people don't like the header name ===Further reading=== for non-inline materials, why not call it ===Appendix===? That's the usual catch-all name. --{{victar|talk}} 18:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't hate it. Vininn126 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)