Template talk:seeCites

Where?
Where in the article does the Quotations section belong? WT:ELE isn't helpful. —Michael Z. 2008-05-03 06:15 z 


 * This vote: Votes/pl-2007-06/ELE level 4 header sequence sets the preferred order of L4 sections. Quotations should come after Usage notes and Inflection, but before Synonyms. --EncycloPetey 18:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a bit more logical to put it at L3, given that Citations namespace contains citations for all the senses of L3 PoS of the entry? If it is put on L4, ====Quotations==== header with boilerplate template would ought to be repeated in every instance of L3 section having quotations, like it's now on hinder:. Looks a bit awkward to me. --Ivan Štambuk 07:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

lang=
I'd like to add support for lang= parameter to this template, so that foreign-language citations having L2 header ==Foreign language== in the Citations namespace pages can be directly linked to, e.g.  . Just to ease linking to specific sections in case of multiple-language citations. --Ivan Štambuk 07:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly, we don't actually seem to use L2 language headers on citations pages; instead, we use the odd template. But once we've fixed that, I'm all for the change you suggest. —Ruakh TALK 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Location
About a third of current usages of this template are not in a Quotations headers. I think it looks odd to have it as the only contents of a Quotations header and that it should be fine to put it at the bottom of a PoS section (e.g. abstemious). --Bequw → τ 16:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed doc. --Bequw → τ 13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

—Ruakh TALK 12:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On further thought, maybe we could have on option so that the notice floats on the right (a la ). That way we could include it in the POS section w/o the need for a spandrel =Quotations= header. --Bequw → τ 02:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I've been putting this template in the same place I'd put an actual quotation: Definition  But that approach became a bit less appealing once quotations became hidden by default, and anyway it never worked well when there were multiple senses with citations-page quotations. Something like would be very useful.
 * Done. If anyone would like to reword to make it fit on a single line, please do. --Bequw → τ 02:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

pos=right
Essentially when you enter  the template becomes an entirely new template; a right-floating one that works like. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reword
The current phrasing of this template, "For quotations of use of this term…", sounds very awkward to this native English speaker. The wording has been changed several times in the past (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Can we get a consensus on a (different) wording?

My suggestion: "For quotations using this term…".

I would just make the change, but this template is apparently used on thousands of pages, so I don't want it to be edited more often than necessary. Also, whatever wording is adopted here should probably be used (along with the word "more") in Template:seemoreCites, as well. - dcljr (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely happy with 'term'. It may be clear to us that it means in this context a given Language-Etymology-PoS, but it could mean a given Language, Language-Etymology, or even a specific definition. If it's the best we can do, let's use it. I suppose we don't have any evidence that it actually (rather than potentially) causes users problems. DCDuring (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, a Citations page for a given term is for all languages, etymologies and PoSes. For example, Citations:amœne has both English and French citations, and Citations:word has citations both for the term as a Noun and as an Interjection. The suggested replacement (using “using” instead of use of “of use of”) is an improvement. --Lambiam 12:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, well, upon further reflection, I'm not sure which of the following changes I prefer: In Template:seemoreCites, change "For more examples of usage of this term" to "For more quotations using this term". In Template:seemoreCites, change "For more examples of usage of this term" to "For more examples of quotations using this term". , and whoever else: which version(s) do you prefer, 1 or 2? Or something else (in which case, please suggest something specific)? - dcljr (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) In Template:seeCites, change "For quotations of use of this term" to "For quotations using this term".
 * 1) In Template:seeCites, change "For quotations of use of this term" to "For examples of quotations using this term".
 * The changes you propose seem fine, but there is a BP discussion about usage examples and citations that may become relevant. DCDuring (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Link, please? - dcljr (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean Beer parlour/2019/December, I assume. - dcljr (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Or Beer parlour/2019/December. - dcljr (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The #2 style seems more natural to me. To address 's valid objection, it should probably be "entry" rather than "term". E.g. it would be very handy to have usage examples of emoji and how they work in a certain context but those are not terms. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To me, in the context of a dictionary, the term means the whole rigmarole including POS, definition, and quotations or examples of usage. The sign ☮  is not an entry but has an entry. So I prefer “term” over ”entry”. We could give the templates a   parameter to override “term” when the latter is less appropriate; e.g. seeCites.  --Lambiam 12:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I prefer version 1, because it is consistent with the wording of [quotations ▼] / [quotations ▲] following the definitions and the Show quotations / Hide quotations in the side bar. --Lambiam 11:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * : Are you reading the options right? Both of them are proposing using the word "quotations". They differ only in the use or not of the additional phrase "examples of". - dcljr (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. If it had been [examples of quotations ▼] / [examples of quotations ▲] and Show examples of quotations / Hide examples of quotations, I’d have preferred version 2.  --Lambiam 15:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't sure… - dcljr (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(time passes…)
 * I'm not totally enthusiastic about the idea of quotations using a term. I would say that their purpose is more to e.g. illustrate or document the use, e.g. "For quotations illustrating the use of this term, see Citations:blahblah". Or is there a reason why we don't just stick with the term "citations", i.e. "For citations of this term, see  Citations:blahblah"? I know it repeats the word "citations", but the second instance is a link, so I think it is reasonable. Or do we want to explain it further in case people don't understand the word "citations"? Mihia (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to phrase it in a way that hints at what "citations" are. Here's another possibility: , how 'bout that? - dcljr (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "See Citations:… for documented uses of this term." / "See Citations:… for more documented uses of this term."


 * By itself this is fine, but I am slightly concerned with a proliferation of terms for the same thing: (1) “citation” on the Citations pages and in the Citations tab on top of mainspace pages next to Discussion ; (2) “quotation” in [quotations ▼] / [quotations ▲] and Show quotations / Hide quotations ; and now perhaps (3) “documented use”. While the latter is indeed clearer, new users will naturally not immediately see that all these different terms mean exactly the same thing. Is it too late to agree on one term for all uses? (Not here of course, but over at the Beer parlour.) In that case I think “citation” has good papers (see, sense 6). --Lambiam 12:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But as you know, our "quotations" don't have to be citations, so those are not always the same thing. - dcljr (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

(a lot more time passes…)

OK, I forgot about this discussion. Template:seemoreCites was just changed to use the horrible wording of this template, which we have been discussing here (I reverted the change). Something needs to be done about this. Unless there are any other objections in the next few days, I'm going to use the wordings I suggested immediately above: ? - dcljr (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "See Citations:… for documented uses of this term." / "See Citations:… for more documented uses of this term."
 * My main beef is with the inconsistent use of the term referring to the same thing, sometimes ”citations”, sometimes “quotations”. IMO this is confusing for casual users. But also, as I understand these terms, there is a difference. The term “quotation” implies the use of an exactly copied piece of text, usually shown to be such by enclosing it between quotation marks. The term “citation”, to me, merely implies the specification of the source of some idea or statement, possibly expressed in a different way. In a comparison:
 * Citation: Even when the spirit is willing to do whatever God asks, the flesh remains weak. (Matth. 26:41)
 * Quotation: Jesus told his disciples: “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
 * It is in general good practice to cite a quotation, but some are so well known that this would be overkill. For our use here, though, citing quotations has become the standard. In a slogan: No taxation quotation without representation citation. This is reflected in the request embedded in the rfdatek templates: “ Can we date this quote by and provide title, author’s full name, and other details? ” Cited quotations are documented uses, but I see no advantage in introducing yet a third term (“documented uses”); I think it creates more confusion. In our context quotations are texts that use some specific term of interest, so the phrasing “quotations using this term” is IMO perfectly adequate. Should we go for ”citations”, then ”citations of uses of this term”, as short for ”citations of quotations using this term”, would also do. But ”citations of this term” is wrong; the thing being cited is not the term but its use. Finally, our quotations are examples of use, so “examples of quotations” would mean, pleonastically, “examples of examples”. --Lambiam 10:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

In Template:seemoreCites, change "For more examples of usage of this term" to "For more quotations using this term".
 * Thanks for the ping, I think this is fine. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lambiam's comments. Further, possibly stating the obvious, quotation is better for normal users. That we expect a citation to accompany a quotation is a matter that is important for the relatively small number of those who provide quotations. Using quotation instead of citation seems to expose us to the risk of new contributors providing uncited quotations. I think this is a small risk. If it turns out to be a serious problem, we can probably deal with it then. DCDuring (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lambiam. Let's use "quotations" in both templates. - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. OK, so it sounds like we are coalescing around my original "#1" suggestion:
 * In Template:seeCites, change "For quotations of use of this term" to "For quotations using this term".
 * Right? (I'll make the change soon unless there are further significant objections.) - dcljr (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, so I waited so long, -sche made the changes. - dcljr (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge
So now that Template:seeCites and Template:seemoreCites have the same wording except for the word "more", is there any reason not to merge the latter template into the former (i.e., adding the option to say "more" to the former template)? - dcljr (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As long as is retained as a shortcut for  (or whatever), I don't care if the underlying functionality is combined. Since this are relatively simple templates, which don't need to do many (any?) fancy things like predict inflected form endings to add, and don't require frequent updates, it might not be worth the bother, but then again, I don't see any harm in it, either... - -sche (discuss) 23:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)