Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/References

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

References[edit]

Voting on: Editing WT:EL#References.

Current text:

References

The validity of the dictionary has a profound effect on its usefulness. There is a need to balance respect for copyrights with definitions so inventive as to be inaccurate. References to dubious claims, such as the etymology of windhover, are also important to the credibility of Wiktionary. In due course, every entry should have one or more references which can be used to verify the content.

References here may be given in a normal bibliographic format showing author, title, place of publication, publisher and year of publication. Reference templates (beginning with “R:”) are used for some of the most common sources. Thus, for the 1913 Webster, we have {{R:Webster 1913}}, which gives:

Entry layout in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam, 1913.

References

(none)

Proposed text:

References
Main article: Wiktionary:References

The References section contains external sources where users can verify the information available on our entries. This improves the reliability and usefulness of Wiktionary. References are especially encouraged for unusual or disputable claims in etymologies — such as the etymology of windhover — or usage notes.[1]

References are listed using bullet points (the character *). References may be given in a normal bibliographic format showing author, title, place of publication, publisher and year of publication. Reference templates (beginning with “R:”) are used for some of the most common sources. See the example below for two references used in the entry water:

Code:

* {{R:Century 1911}}
* {{R:Webster 1913}}

Result:

References

Rationale and changes:

  • Adding the rule: "References are listed using bullet points".
  • Adding 1 more usage example + the result of the usage examples.
  • Formatting the usage examples with bullet points, showing actual usage.
  • Removing "There is a need to balance respect for copyrights with definitions so inventive as to be inaccurate." For semantics, we go by attestation.
  • Removing "The validity of the dictionary has a profound effect on its usefulness." It's a comment rather than a rule.
  • Minor change of punctuation and word order.
  • Making sure another WT:EL section is voted, a step in the direction of having the WT:EL completely voted.
  • Disclaimer: The References section probably could be expanded with more information. This is proposed as an improvement to the current text, not as the "final" version of it.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support - -sche (discuss) 10:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Chris Troutman (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    Vote struck due to user being ineligible to vote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support DCDuring TALK 23:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support - -sche (discuss) 05:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vahag (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support — I was especially glad to read “Disclaimer: The References section probably could be expanded with more information. This is proposed as an improvement to the current text, not as the ‘final’ version of it.” The proposed text is a considerable improvement, but there is still quite a bit more to be done on this. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support -Xbony2 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support This is fine. bd2412 T 16:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Issues. 1) 'References are listed using bullet points (the character *)': That is not always the case; sometimes, references are created using inline referencing in etymologies </references>. 2) References may be given in various formats and author is not always necessary. I know there is a "may" but still. 3) Webster and Century should usually be in External links section, IMHO, not references, and this AFAIK is the overwhelming practice. Agreements: 4) I agree with the two proposed removals. Note: I admit that the original is not very good but I would not put my name on the new wording. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    Your Issue 1 seems to be moot, since we're voting on the policy about the layout of the ===References=== section, not the policy about references in general. (This, on the other hand, should probably be made clearer somewhere in here.) --Tropylium (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Tropylium: For example, klokan entry contains a numbered list in a References section. The numbered list is result of use of <references />. The klokan entry seems fine, and its format does not match the statement that "References are listed using bullet point". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    My bad, I think I missed a point or two there. --Tropylium (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What is the relationship between the References header and the External links header? Almost all reference templates that I create and use have external links. AFAICT, we don't normally allow external links that are not references in some sense, though we view links to our sister projects as external links not worthy of being references. DCDuring TALK 13:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    @DCDuring: Again, you've voted twice. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    @DCDuring, reminding you again. If you don't strike one out, your votes will not be counted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

Decision[edit]

Passes 9–2 (81%). Daniel Carrero, can you do the honours and update EL? This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)