Module talk:reconstruction

Further reading needs to be included
Almost all the pages in Category:Proto-Samic entries lacking sources have sources, in the Further reading section. They clearly shouldn't appear in the category. —Rua (mew) 13:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I made a version that doesn't put entries in the category if they have "Further reading", but Victar apparently doesn't agree with that. How about an annoying compromise where there's one category for entries without the References header and another for entries without either the References or Further reading header ("entries without a References header" and "entries without a References or Further reading header")? Then you each could look at the category that you prefer, at the cost of having more hidden categories on some pages. — Eru·tuon 16:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugly, but I guess it works... —Rua (mew) 16:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * what if we had Category:Proto-Samic entries lacking sources for both "References" and "Further reading" and Category:Proto-Samic entries lacking references for just "References"? It's a bit less ugly, but would need disambiguation in the template header. -- 22:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you adding sources under Further reading and not as inline sources? -- 17:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because they contain too many pieces of information to add inline references all over the place, and because not all of the useful information in the source is present in the Wiktionary page. —Rua (mew) 18:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You could say that for most any etymological dictionary used as a source, and yet inline sourcing is the gold standard. What makes Proto-Samic any special? Why is inappropriate in your mind? --  22:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because of the descendants. —Rua (mew) 08:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean like in all reconstructed language dictionaries? Not seeing the distinction here. Also, since when did we start sourcing descendants on parent entries? -- 09:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)