Wiktionary talk:Votes/2013-10/Reconstructions need references

Rationale
@Neitrāls vārds: Can you please write a rationale? I know it is probably obvious to you, and looks like an idle exercise, but anyway. The rationale would answer the question "Why is the proposal made in the vote a good thing?" --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How's the below? Do I leave it here? I'm not sure what's the typical length/format for such things, feel free to delete parts (I think the part up to the first comma could be left 'cause that's really all that there is to it.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

By previous consensus Wiktionary is a secondary source (Wiktionary is a secondary source), the aim of this vote is to explicitly codify that this explicitly applies to etymological information as it does to attestation and other aspects of the dictionary (particularly to address concerns of some users that this hasn't ever been explicitly codified.)


 * In Wiktionary's striving to be a highly multi-faceted dictionary, etymological information takes a very important position.


 * Reconstructed forms by their nature are unattestable the way that regular dictionary entries are expected to be. Requiring references for reconstructions ensures their verifiability.


 * Furthermore, the use of references offers a tool for disagreement resolution.


 * An issue with the above is that, by referencing academic sources on reconstructed terms, Wiktionary becomes a tertiary source; the academic sources to be referenced are the secondary source and the direct evidence of use of terms is the primary source.
 * What comes to mind to me as a rationale is that requiring references for reconstructions ensures their verifiability. In the absence of both attesting quotations and references, there would be no instrument of verifiability applied. Since we have not come up with anything like attesting quotations for reconstructed terms, references are the obvious alternative to achieve verifiability. Furthermore, the use of references offers a tool for disagreement resolution. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Those sound like good points to incorporate, as by their nature reconstr. forms are not secondarily attestable. The "Wikt. is a 2ndary source" page doesn't seem applicable, a community consensus could be established "from the ground up" so to speak...? I edited it some, added bullet points. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I enclosed the rationale in a div, to make it clear it is a thing discussed and updated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The following is misleading, IMHO: "etymological information [...] is to be subject to the same verifiability criteria that rest of the content is". Definitions in the mainspace are not subject to the same verifiability criteria as reconstructions. They cannot be. Attestation via quotations of use and referencing are two fundamentally different verification methods. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed (also agree about tertiary sourcing of etyls mentioned on the other page, though, I guess, this vote essentially implies that.) I trimmed it down and moved it up as an "introduction," perhaps it could be removed altogether as the other two points seem to cover what really matters (verifiability and conflict resolution.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky, so, I was wondering, if it says "open on Aug 30" do you just vote and ignore the yellow box or does it need to be removed (I have no idea how these things work.) Also, does a short notif need to be posted in BP? (There were no complaints in BP, so I presume it's good to go...?) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can remove the yellow box and vote if you feel the proposal is ready to be voted on. And a short notice in the BP that the vote has started is helpful. - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! Neitrāls vārds (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

2013?
Why was this vote created as 2013? --WikiTiki89 22:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pereru created this vote on 18 October 2013 . --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, I didn't notice that. What took so long for this vote to be started? --WikiTiki89 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Maybe the originator felt there was not enough interest? When an editor expressed a wish to create a similar vote in Beer_parlour/2015/August, I reminded him that this one already existed, which is how it got moving again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. That makes sense. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)