Wiktionary:Votes/2017-03/Reference templates and OCLC

Reference templates and OCLC
Voting on: Placing OCLC identifier on any reference or external link template for which OCLC is available, to be directly seen in the mainspace, and never admitting its removal once a correct OCLC was placed in a template. An example of OCLC is "OCLC 494050821".

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2017/March
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2017-03/Reference templates and OCLC

Support

 * Fine with me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 1)  — JohnC5 17:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) . It is seldom necessary to have both an ISBN and OCLC indicated, but I think it is useful to indicate this information where available as it helps to more precisely pinpoint the particular edition of a work referred to, and makes it convenient for readers to find out more information about the work by clicking on the link. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If OCLC is useful, that alone does not explain why it is better to have it in the mainspace rather than in an appendix one click away. Furthermore, is does not seem true that OCLC more precisely pinpoints a particular edition of work as long as enough other identifying information is provided, such as year, author and work title. In fact, the year and work title alone often provide unique identification. I wonder whether someone can give an example of where OCLC provides unique identification where year, author and title combined do not. If such an example can be found, it still needs to be clarified why we need to place OCLC to sources for which the other identifying information is uniquely identifying and therefore, no increase of "precision" is possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It will sometimes be the case that information about a source cannot be obtained from the source itself, but is provided in the OCLC record (e.g., the work is anonymous or pseudonymous, or lacks a date, but the OCLC record indicates the author's name or the date of publication). — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @SMUconlaw: If the year of publication is known, whether from the OCLC record or elsewhere, that year of publication can be placed in the human-readable identification visible in the mainspace, in which case OCLC not longer provides that as an added value; ditto for author's name. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The OCLC would act as a citation for the information that is not actually obtainable from the source itself. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would that citation need to be in the mainspace? Anyway, do you have an example of such a source that needs OCLC as a "citation" or is it merely hypothetical? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see:
 * , 1969 quotation – the year of publication is not indicated in the source.
 * , 1824 quotation – the source indicates the author as "a lady"; OCLC identifies her as Maria Eliza Ketelby Rundell.
 * — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The examples you are giving are for attesting quotations whereas this vote is for reference and external link templates. That makes quite some difference since I cannot just click on "oont" to take me to a source and see whether I can find the identification.
 * On a tangent, looking at the quotation at oont, I see that the first link on "OCLC" does not even take you to the specific source but rather to OCLC; what an inferior design, confusing the reader for where to click. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, what do you mean by "reference and external link templates", then? I assumed this discussion included citation and quotation templates as well (those starting with and  ). I presume the reason why "OCLC" is linked is so that readers who don't know what it is can easily find out, which is no doubt why "ISBN" and "ISSN" are also linked. I don't think it's that confusing; the actual ISBN, ISSN or OCLC number is also indicated as a blue link. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean the templates that are in "References" and "External links" sections, e.g. R:Webster 1913. Attesting quotations are not references. The vote says "on any reference or external link template"; had I known this phrase was open to misreading, I would have been more explicit.
 * The OCLC link certainly was confusing to me: I expected there to be a single link on which I click and it takes me to the OCLC record; instead, I had to learn there are two links, and I had to click the right one. If the same design is used for ISBN, that is inferior as well, especially since ISBN is much more familiar. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , especially if OCLCs are, indeed, so much more exhaustive than ISBNs. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Such numerical identifiers add very little value but they make skimming harder and make the pages look more busy; this is especially so when both ISBN and OCLC are added. Numerical identifiers can be added to an appendix that can be one click away from the reference template. Wiktionary pages are already very busy with various information items, so much so that some users report they cannot find the definitions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  -Xbony2 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  Why adopt a system that has little support or value? --Victar (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I favor ISBNs when available, and displaying both makes the references too long in my opinion. Germyb (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I'm not qualified to vote yet. Germyb (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  Ƿidsiþ 07:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  – I like the idea of putting these things in an appendix, as their presence makes the entries harder to read. Better to keep the more human-readable information in the entries, and the machine-readable stuff elsewhere. The appendices have yet to be created, though. — Eru·tuon 23:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  Daniel asked me to vote. No fucks given. Equinox ◑ 02:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I didn't ask Equinox specifically because that would be canvassing. I just asked generally on the BP for more people to vote.
 * Equinox's vote is fine by me. Sorry for the trouble. I believe encouraging more people to vote was a good idea because it should show better where exactly the consensus is, if anywhere. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  I had never heard of OCLC until this instant, so I don't feel qualified to make an informed vote. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  Ditto. --Droigheann (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  per above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Decision
Failed: 3-5-6 (37.5%-62.5%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, just to be clear, what action is to be taken as a result of the vote? That the addition or removal of OCLCs from reference and external link templates is to be discussed on a case-by-case basis? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , would you like to answer this?
 * , based on previous discussions and votes like Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup, it seems the correct course of action is as follows. Maybe we don't have to do anything in the entries that currently have, or don't have OCLC, but if anyone tries adding OCLC to a large number of entries, we can tell them: "Please stop and revert what you have already done, because that action failed in a vote." In other words, this seems to serve as a precautionary vote, to avoid letting anyone add OCLC to a large number of entries without getting consensus for it first. Of course, if someone wants to do that, they are free to create new discussions and votes with that proposal, to see if the community changes their mind and starts supporting that idea. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When a vote fails, no action needs to be taken. It just shows that there is no consensus for the proposed action, but it is not forbidden unless it had already been forbidden. --WikiTiki89 16:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One negatively specified action that I see is that users should refrain from adding OCLC to reference templates since not only is there no consensus for this but also there is a majority against this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarifications. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't a majority against this. More people abstained than opposed. --WikiTiki89 18:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Abstains do not count. From among people who care, a majority is against this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Votes are one-directional. A vote failing is not the same as the opposite vote passing. If the vote had been on whether to forbid OCLC, some of the abstain voters might have opposed instead. --WikiTiki89 18:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That kind of logic does not seem to work at all. For example, the vote Votes/2017-03/Request categories 2 passed. But if your reasoning were true and the vote failed, then I could have renamed all the request categories anyway, unless some other vote with the proposal "forbid renaming request categories" passed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because you needed the vote in order to move the categories. We didn't need a vote for people to add OCLC's in the first place. The point is, when a vote fails, nothing changes. --WikiTiki89 19:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that when a vote fails, nothing changes. In other words, I'd say the status quo remains the same. Still, I believe we need a vote for the proposal that is essentially "add OCLC everywhere", and since this vote failed, we can't add OCLC everywhere. Adding or removing a few OCLCs seem fine. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --WikiTiki
 * Re: "when a vote fails, nothing changes": Not really. Before a failing vote, there is uncertainty about consensus and balance of preference. After a failing vote, that uncertainty is reduced or removed. That has practical impact on editing. A vote is not just some sort of formalistic procedure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)89 20:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Votes are there to find out whether there is consensus and where the balance is swinging. In a disagreement about inclusion of OCLC on a particular template, this vote does have an impact. OCLC is not really forbidden from reference templates, but the vote does give weight to a party that opposes OCLC on any particular template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say it gives some weight, but you can't conclude that a majority opposes it. --WikiTiki89 19:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)