Wiktionary talk:Votes/2017-03/"External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading"

Examples

It would be great if we could be shown a few carefully chosen examples of how these headers are used, for example, some entries (if any exist) where the "external links" section contains offline sources, entries where there are many external links, and entries that demonstrate the current extent of interplay between "references" and "external links". This, that and the other (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Here are a few entries.

• Goldbach's conjecture -- "External sources" linking simply to Wikipedia, and "References" backing up a statement about the truth of the math conjecture
• dog -- "External sources" linking to a print dictionary and also Wikipedia, Commons and Wikispecies, and "References" backing up a few statements in the etymology
• windhover -- "References" backing up a statement in the etymology.

See also Template:R:ga:Dinneen (WhatLinksHere). That template serves the purpose of linkinging to a print dictionary. If it's just a simple recommendation of a place to look, it should be in the "External sources" section in all these entries, and never "References". It should only be in the "References" if it proves something like a statement in the etymology or usage notes (but not senses, which are attested by quotations). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Irish is a limited-documentation language, so that template can back up senses as well. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright. If a reference to an online or print dictionary is used to mean "look, we can say that this word/sense exists because it's in that dictionary!", then in principle I'm okay with using the "References" section for it. I'd suggest using footnotes pointing from the sense to the reference at all times when it happens, but I'm aware that the point 4 in the previous vote failed. (The point 4 was the proposal of requiring footnotes always for references.)

But, just using the references that way pointing to the sense does not make it clear why we are doing it. Some people may look at these references and think that it's OK to use a "References" section in whatever language to link to any dictionaries.

I know this takes more work, but I'd suggest doing this whenever a dictionary is used to back up a sense in a limited-documentation language: Creating a "Usage notes" section saying (preferably by using a templare) "This word is not well documented and it may not have 3 durably-archived citations, but the existence in A Dictionary proves its existence.", with a footnoted reference pointing to the exact info (title/author/year/ISBN/whatever) of the dictionary. Anyway, these are my two cents. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Further reading

I am missing "Further reading" heading in the list. This one is actually used, and seems to fit the purpose well. It seems to be my preferred, or External links. "Further reading" can include non-links without being slightly inaccurate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Some examples, both online and ad hoc from my bookshelf:

• Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/animal/amphibian/Evolution-and-classification has "Additional reading" (it also has External links); I like how "Further reading" has fewer syllables than "Further information" and "Additional reading".
• Wikipedia: "Further reading" seems to be well established in Wikipedia, per google:"Further reading" site:wikipedia.org.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has "Bibliography".
• Code Complete: Steven McConnell's Code Complete uses "Further reading" sections.
• Gödel, Escher, Bach has "Bibliography".
• Hughes, Cresswell, A New Introdution to Modal Logic has "Bibliography"

I think Bibliography is not so good for us since it implies books and printed materials; indeed, Britannica separates online items into "External links". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Opposing options

'Don't "oppose" or "abstain" any of the options of the proposal 2.': I am not sure this is the preferred way. I can be neutral about an option or outright opposing it. Actually, it seems it would be better if this were more poll-like and the section 1 of the vote were note there. In any case, thank you for this vote; I was considering to create something similar myself since I think we can do better than "External sources".

One structure that would make sense is create support-oppose-abstain for each option; then you do not neen section 1 of the vote since then an option passes or not, and if multiple options pass, one of multiple candidate methods can be chosen to pick the winner. With a bit of luck, one of the option will pass. If not, an amplification vote can be created, picking the winner. A weakness of this is that it can yield ambiguous results, but with a bit of luck it won't. When multiple options are on the table, no voting method is really flawless.

This may seem overly bureaucratic, but then, let us keep in mind that we are choosing a title that will probably be cemented for years, or decades. And the title concerns all languages and a huge number of entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Alright, I'm OK with creating support-oppose-abstain for each option. Before doing that, maybe we should wait a few days first, to see if other people have something to say about the voting format.

@Wikitiki89, if I remember correctly, it was you who designed the voting system of Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Placement of "Usage notes". Do you think that system works for the current vote or do you agree with the idea of creating support-oppose-abstain for each option? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I implemented the voting system that @Dan Polansky proposed above. I postponed the start of the vote a bit: it's scheduled to start in 7 days. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)