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)

You're right, I'll have to start a separate discussion to formalise them into EL. Catonif (talk) 19:04, 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)

@Al-Muqanna You are right that I oppose this because (a) I've not seen any practical evidence that people can keep the distinction straight, (b) it makes it impossible for a bot to clean it up. I will vote oppose in any such vote, which seems to be completely changing the nature of the original proposal. Benwing2 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean people here have stated that they've kept the distinction straight :-/ Wikipedia folks generally keep it separate as well. AG202 (talk) 14:35, 23 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)

Indeed, there is no conceptual inconsistency: either a source was used to prepare the entry itself or it wasn't. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it would work in practice, though. And even if it were perfectly implemented, it would lead to having the same dictionary listed under "additional sources" for some entries, and under "further reading" for others, depending on if that particular editor used the dictionary for anything. I don't see how that's ideal. Megathonic (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is both the academic standard and the long-established policy on Wikipedia and seems to cause few problems in either case, so the practice does not seem to be an issue. I don't understand why you think a particular source has to be categorised based on the source itself and not how it was used in a particular entry: that's just how references work. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:02, 23 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 don't 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)

I do I'm afraid, it's even vaguer and does nothing to indicate that sources were used as references. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I also don’t like that it could be confusing with our existing Appendix. AG202 (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

So I'll keep the proposal as is, adding perhaps some examples and further wording. Vininn126 (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no current Appendix header. --{{victar|talk}} 03:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it can be confusing with our Appendix namespace. Ex: some entries link to the Appendix in a See also section. Having "Appendix" as a header right after that can be confusing. AG202 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Disagree that the two would ever be confused, but sure. --{{victar|talk}} 16:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I will oppose prop 1 / adding a third header ("additional sources"); people already interchange and don't distinguish the last extra header we added ("further reading"), and while we might, in theory, one day find the energy to enforce a two-way distinction between "further reading" and "references" (whether under those names or as renamed by prop 2), I don't see a three-way split as being remotely maintainable in practice, or as making much sense anyway. - -sche (discuss) 16:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@-sche: It's worth noting though that both the extra header in Catonif's prop 1 and prop 2 in general are enforceable at a technical level, since bot runs can easily sort out inline citations from plain bullet points—that's part of the point of the proposals as I understand it, so I'm not sure this is a fair criticism. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

A bot could patrol a category for inline citations, but for prop 1, it's not possible for a bot to differentiate between "additional sources" and "further reading". I think it's entirely realistic that a distinction will not be maintained between these two in practice, so I do think this criticism has some merit. Megathonic (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Megathonic: It is the existing policy to distinguish references and further reading; prop 1 does not change that other than further distinguishing inline and general references, so the change made by prop 1 itself is technically enforceable. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The distinction is still two-way: it asks "does this back up information that is on the entry?" vs. "does this contain further information we don't have? meaning we either shouldn't or the entry is incomplete" (explained better at diff). This theoretical question is contaminated by the pragmatic solution to not being able to have <references/> close to anything else, forcing us to format entries as if non-inline references aren't references, which is not true, hence causing confusion. I believe the inconsistency and confusion arise exactly because of us missing this third header. You would see inconsistency and confusion as well on where people throw out plastic if the only recycling bins available are paper and scrap metal. Adding the plastic bin decreases inconsistency, not the opposite. The people that would oppose that are the ones that spent so much time in these conditions as to make them firmly believe plastic is just metal and there's no way to distinguish between the two. Catonif (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing the vote to an options vote

Because there seem to be two "well-populated" camps, I have decided to change the vote to an options vote, providing both options. Vininn126 (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of the initial proposal

This vote is changing very rapidly, and both the proposals now don't match what I understood to be initially intended in the proposal put forward by Mahagaja. What I understood it to be is the following:

Three headers. One ("Notes") for inline references, one ("References") for non-inline references, and a third one ("Further reading") for links to Wikis and other materials that wouldn't be able to be used as mentions/cites. Obviously the names can be changed somewhat, but it is important that the reader understand that "References" claim to be cites, and "Further reading" doesn't.

Right now, neither of the options seems satisfactory: The first one doesn't address Mahagaja's issue with inconsistency between entries (after all, in some entries "References" would be used for inlines and in others for non-inlines), while the second one doesn't address my issues: No distinction would be drawn between works that could help cite the term and those that couldn't, leaving the reader to figure out which ones are the actual references.

Why don't we take a step back and discuss this? Because as it stands now, I couldn't vote for either of the two proposals. Thadh (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: FWIW the proposals have not changed much as far as I know, Vininn just added Catonif's suggestion above and I removed some ambiguity to follow what was originally proposed more closely. What you are describing is essentially @Catonif's proposal 1, with the principal distinction that Catonif wants the first two that you list to be handled as subsections under "References". IMO handling them as subsections better upholds the distinction between "References" and "Further reading" than having three different same-level sections. There is then a further question about whether it's necessary to introduce the explicit subsections if only one type of reference exists in an entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Summary of rationale?

Can somebody please summarise the rationale for the two options? (We used to have a "rationale" section on votes, but no longer.)

If the concern relates to the disharmonious styling of the MediaWiki inline reference list vs the bulleted list, that can surely be improved with some local CSS overrides. This, that and the other (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other I added some rationale, perhaps others will want to change the wording. Vininn126 (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

We were both adding it at the same time, lol. I just tacked on another argument Catonif mentioned above for prop 1 (the recycling bins). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both. It really wasn't clear to me what problem was trying to be solved here, but now I understand. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Let the headers naturally merge as "References"

"Further reading" vs. "References" for Belarusian shows most editors in WT:BP are struggling to make this distinction with barely any difference. Separating these headers will be even harder for beginner editors who don't know how to use WT:BP. Users won't care to notice if the headers are mixed/swapped/renamed/merged unless someone starts lawyering. They only care that links/citations go in that general location. Editors don't want to have a headache thinking which links/citations go where. The prescriptivists need to stop their futile crusade. "Further reading," "Citations," "External sources", "External links", "Footnotes," "Bibliography," and "Further information" are too confusing.

Let's come back to common sense and just have one "References" header. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That's still not helping to decide whether a term already does or doesn't pass RFV. Unlike Wikipedia, we actually do have this issue. Thadh (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: I would still be confused in RFV with the complexity of either of the proposals or the status quo. If you're saying the issue is dictionaries go in "External sources" and don't count for "References," then I would also say that this distinction in WT:CFI is moot because the dictionaries bothering to include the word suggest with high probability that attestation elsewhere is easy to find. Furthermore, inline quotations would be clearer for RFV than any heading. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh? All I'm saying is that Further Reading shouldn't include materials that prove a term's existence and References shouldn't include materials that don't. See my proposal above - I'm not satisfied with either of the two current proposals, but yours definitely doesn't help. Thadh (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: If Wiktionary really needs this thing, I will rescind my proposal today and switch from oppose to abstain tomorrow. Perhaps I will understand how this works after it passes and a bot runs to fix all the page to show me concrete examples. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel.z.tg This doesn't have to do with RFV or helping terms pass them or not. It just has to do with how we show links to other dictionaries, etc. Vininn126 (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126: Wiktionary:Votes/2016-12/"References"_and_"External_sources"'s green box and User:Thadh say that it does have to do with RFV.

As for showing links, I was saying above that I won't see the difference when reading, and I would be annoyed to have to find the difference when editing. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it'd be pretty clear if "References" included titles like "A grammar of Foojian" and "A comprehensive dictionary of Barian", while "Further reading" included "Foo in the Foojian edition of Wikipedia" and "A history of Baristan: How did Barians use coal?". Thadh (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: Thank you for you "A grammar of Foojian." I see that being a Reference (-> Citations) included with <ref></ref> in a Etymology or Usage notes section. That would work for Proposal 1, but may conflict with Proposal 2 requiring these <ref></ref>s to be citations (assuming this word has the same meaning as for the Citations: namespace). Proposal 2 may conflict with this widespread usage in Etymology sections like in Latin -tus and Ancient Greek ἦλθον (êlthon). Proposal 2 would make my Canadian French-English citations in pages like French autosoins make sense, but will break all the Etymology <ref></ref>s.

I just learned about WT:LEMMING, and this kind of relates to attestation. I think that "A comprehensive dictionary of Barian" belongs in the Further reading section if it links to the specific page with the word. If the link is not specific to the word, the dictionary should not be referenced. Then your other examples, "Foo in the Foojian edition of Wikipedia" and "A history of Baristan: How did Barians use coal?" could attest to the word "foo" and "Baristan/Barians/coal" respectively.

Now I am informed about this vote. I don't think Proposal 2 will work because it will force Etymology sections to stop using footnotes. Proposal 1 seems to be like my proposal, except with some formatting ceremony I have to memorize but at least it's automatable and easy for editors. Proposal 1 merges the sections by removing the attestation distinction and enforces some formatting in the References section only. Proposal 2 just renames the sections but keeps the attestation distinction while enforcing formatting that would require changes in other sections. I'm now leaning towards Proposal 1. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal #2

I think proposal #2 would have a better chance of passing if it was simply "create the new L3 header Citations above References for only <references />". Further reading still has use as a header for things other than references. --{{victar|talk}} 04:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2 is specifically because some people want a format that is purely bot-enforceable, as Benwing confirmed he does above. This is incompatible with maintaining any reference/further reading distinction. Since you and @Thadh both seem to prefer three L3 headers it might be better to add that as a separate proposal. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It is still possible to create yet a third proposal as a sort of middle ground. Vininn126 (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The above would still be bot-actionable, and would still rename instances of the header References with just <references /> under it, but would leave non-inline references untouched. The point is that we don't need to delete Further reading for the sake of what this vote is trying to acomplish.

If proposal #2 means to changes instances of L3 header References to an L4 header, that should be very explicitly stated. --{{victar|talk}} 17:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving the date

@Al-Muqanna I think we may want to move the start date some, I'm thinking a week, let some more discussion happen. Thoughts? Vininn126 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds reasonable. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)