Wiktionary talk:Votes/2023-08/Changing how the section "References" works

"bare templates"
"Allow only bare templates/links/names of works to other works in the reference section" - err, so not the page number of the entry etc.? Would definitely oppose that as phrased. Why not just inline vs. not inline? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Al-Muqanna Sure. Vininn126 (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Further readings that are not references
For example etymological dictionaries that don't mention the term, articles about certain cultural phenomena only using an exonym, wikilinks... What to do with them? Thadh (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This is something @Catonif has mentioned as well, as well as the fact notes is used for certain things. Perhaps not notes? Vininn126 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Why not add “Notes” as its own section like Wikipedia does? AG202 (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia places those under "Further reading" and not "Notes", which is for editorial notes written in Wikipedia's own voice. The point of this vote, as I understand it, is to abolish the qualitative distinction between "References" and "Further reading" and replace them with rigorously distinguished sections for footnotes and general sources. So any further reading would now go under "References". It might warrant a better title ("References and further reading", "Bibliography") though I'm fairly indifferent. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Bibliography could be nice. We just need a good second name. Vininn126 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not exactly how Wikipedia does it, but to be fair, Wikipedia's Notes section is not only for notes written in Wikipedia's own voice. I envision:
 * Footnotes: Inline citations
 * Bibliography: List of general references
 * Further reading/External links: Self-explanatory
 * Either that or:
 * References:
 * Citations/Footnotes: Inline citations
 * Bibliography: List of general references
 * Further reading/External links: Self-explanatory
 * The second option is what's done at Jeju language. Basically I would much rather prefer that further reading be separated from general references. There's an important distinction to be made there imho. AG202 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Catonif Had a better idea. I'm not sure what @Benwing2 would think. Vininn126 (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be precisely the problem, though; there are some people who are unhappy about there being a distinction between general references and further reading because it's based on editorial discretion rather than a technical distinction. Wikipedia's policy is basically the same as our (notional) existing one at WT:EL: as says, "Further reading is not a list of general references. General references are sources actually used by editors to build the article content, but that are not presented as inline citations. By contrast, Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend." I take it that's also your preference, and mine too. The example at  is something a bit different from the schema above: the inline citations that use  are just short "Bloggs 2000, p. 1" style footnotes that point to the full citations in the bibliography. That's also the usual understanding of "bibliography" in an academic context—it's just a list of the things cited previously. I don't see any obvious way to satisfy all parties. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A good point is that Notes is already used for... notes. I think We need a different name. Vininn126 (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think there's a way to satisfy everyone, but I at least wanted to put my own opinion/take out there before the vote is finalized. AG202 (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

limitations of MediaWiki
The ''' 00:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you're not the only one expressing this thought, please read the above threads. Would you suggest a different name? Vininn126 (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why change it at all? -- 03:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

A proposal: nested headers
As Victar mentioned and Vininn noted above, I would oppose the vote since =Notes= is already used for notes, see, , etc. Inline references are, well, references, notes are notes. We should firstly be honest on what things are instead of using placeholder names. This is why I'm also dissatisfied with the current practice of placing non-inline references in =Further reading=, since non-inline references are also, surprisingly, references. For this same reason, I would also oppose moving actual "further readings", chiefly pedia links, into a header called =References=, since they're not references (or at least, shouldn't be). Hence my proposal: keep both inline and outline references into =References=, since that's what they are, so both  and   would be allowed, and whenever there are both inline and outline references in the same entry, we pull out a subheader to separate them (for which wording is open to suggestions), so for example:. This allows both types of references still being under =References= while tackling the problem of having them touch each other. Catonif (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, but uh I will say that Notes as a header is technically not allowed currently per WT:EL, so any notes section is existing right now just on the fact that no one's brought it up yet. AG202 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'll have to start a separate discussion to formalise them into EL. Catonif (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This would be my preferred option too, or something like it. I agree it's preferable to distinguish general references from further reading, as also said above. I don't think that distinction is vague or confusing. If others do, though, then it's better for general references to be combined in a way that makes clear they're still sources, but there would need to be a better header title for it than "References". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also would be fine with this system, I could change the proposal? Vininn126 (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we want the name "Additional sources"? I think that or "Bibliography". Vininn126 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Additional sources" is probably better since it's unambiguous, if we go with Catonif's suggestion that the subheaders are only used when there are both inline and non-inline citations. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So the current plan is to keep further reading, and allow a subheader called additional sources for noninline refs? Vininn126 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think the name of the vote should change if we do this. Vininn126 (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have updated both the vote and the name, please someone let me know if they think it should be otherwise. The point of this vote is try and make everyone happy, so I'm looking for cooperation. Vininn126 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem like I mentioned above is that Catonif's solution still requires editorial discretion between general references and further reading, which a few people (?) oppose. But several people have now said they want that distinction to be maintained (and I would prefer it to be). You either have it or you don't, so there's probably no unanimous solution available on that question, just quantitative consensus. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Al-Muqanna You are right, but I think the overall proposal satisfies more people overall and is still somewhat of a compromise. Vininn126 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Al-Muqanna You are right that I oppose this because (a) I've not seen any practical evidence that people can keep the distinction straight, (b) it makes it impossible for a bot to clean it up. I will vote oppose in any such vote, which seems to be completely changing the nature of the original proposal. Benwing2 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean people here have stated that they've kept the distinction straight :-/ Wikipedia folks generally keep it separate as well. AG202 (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the vote proposal should list a few examples of what would go under "Additional sources" and what would go under "Further reading", and then if it passes, these examples would be written into the policy to help provide clarification. Right now it seems too open to interpretation. Megathonic (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Megathonic Do you think I should tighten up the wording? If so, how? Vininn126 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm not sure how off the top of my head. The original thread began because of a question about whether to list other dictionaries under further reading or references, and from my understanding of this proposal, they would now be listed under additional sources, unless they include an in-line citation, in which case they go directly under references. The current further reading guidance allows dictionaries to be put there, but this vote would change that, so perhaps the vote proposal should state what would now go (or not go) under further reading. Megathonic (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not believe the current vote forces the user to put all dictionaries under the new subheader - rather, dictionaries used as a reference. Vininn126 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm not sure that this vote will solve anything. The same inconsistency that currently exists will remain. Megathonic (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me give you an example: Wikipedia links, or even other encylopedias, would make great candidates for "Further reading". Rarely do we take something lexical from them. However, most of the time we link to dictionaries because we used something from them, making them a reference. So we might have an inline reference for the etymology, a reference dictionary in "Additional sources", and then a link to 'pedia in "Further reading". Vininn126 (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is no conceptual inconsistency: either a source was used to prepare the entry itself or it wasn't. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how it would work in practice, though. And even if it were perfectly implemented, it would lead to having the same dictionary listed under "additional sources" for some entries, and under "further reading" for others, depending on if that particular editor used the dictionary for anything. I don't see how that's ideal. Megathonic (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it is both the academic standard and the long-established policy on Wikipedia and seems to cause few problems in either case, so the practice does not seem to be an issue. I don't understand why you think a particular source has to be categorised based on the source itself and not how it was used in a particular entry: that's just how references work. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "I don't understand why you think a particular source has to be categorised based on the source itself"
 * Because otherwise it will continue to look extremely inconsistent to the everyday reader.
 * It's not normal on Wikipedia for the same source (e.g., a particular dictionary) to be used across thousands of articles. Here it is, and it appears wrong when they aren't categorized the same. The original thread sparking this vote mentioned how Belarusian dictionary sources are sometimes listed under "References", sometimes under "Further reading", and how this is inconsistent. But according to how you wish to categorize them, there could actually be no "inconsistency" there at all; it just reveals whether a particular editor used them in creating the entry. I argue the vast majority of users will never ever view it this way. It's attempting to enforce an unenforceable distinction.
 * It would make far more sense to distinguish between lexical sources and non-lexical sources. Then it would look something like this:
 * 1) One spot for an in-line citation list.
 * 2) One spot for all other lexical reference works. Thus, almost everything which is not used for in-line citations would go here, including all dictionaries.
 * 3) A "further reading" section for anything else. This section should be rarely populated and normally not used at all. A link to an encyclopedia entry could go here, but almost nothing else. We aren't Wikipedia and a general list of further reading is out of our purview.
 * Additionally, categories like "External sources" and "External links" would be abolished. There's no realistic way to maintain any type of distinction between them and the aforementioned categories. Removing them reduces unnecessary complexity. Megathonic (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You would probably be better served by simply voting for what is now proposal 3 which abolishes the "Further reading" section entirely, the rest of your proposal looks idiosyncratic given other people's sentiments on this page. You should also read through the existing policy at WT:EL; things like "External sources" and "External links" do not exist (there are no articles with an "External sources" header, and the only one with an "External links" header is James, where it should be renamed). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where on earth are you getting idiosyncratic? Proposal 3 is what I support and is akin to the original vote proposal. I'm completely on board with scrapping the further reading header. Yet, I was also trying to find a solution that could accommodate the wish of other people who'd like to maintain it and could be enforced.
 * I'd read WT:EL numerous times, thank you. I took those phrases from Daniel's comment and mixed myself up. Megathonic (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This does definitely not just take us back to square one. Releasing =Further reading= from the practical burden of containing non-inline references, we can think more theoretically on what should be its acutal scope. I personally don't see this as a grey area, and believe the distinction is useful to keep. =Further reading= per its name should contain links to "read further" than what is in the entry, that is, information that we purposely don't include in the entry, as it's not dictionary material. Since Wiktionary disallows encyclopedic content, among other things, this section is well-fitted for encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, along with other sister projects which contain information that is of course not our department. References, on the other hand, are works that back up information that is contained in the entry. This also confirms that sister projects should not be in =References= since they aren't acceptable as citations. So about dictionaries, we cite them to back up information we have in our entries, so they should go under =References=. If one finds themself preferring to place a dictionary under =Further reading= rather than =References=, that likely means the entry is not complete. In which case they may leave it under FR with some request template somewhere in the entry. Catonif (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If the issue is that people don't like the header name  for non-inline materials, why not call it  ? That's the usual catch-all name. --  18:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't hate it. Vininn126 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do I'm afraid, it's even vaguer and does nothing to indicate that sources were used as references. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also don’t like that it could be confusing with our existing Appendix. AG202 (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So I'll keep the proposal as is, adding perhaps some examples and further wording. Vininn126 (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no current Appendix header. -- 03:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it can be confusing with our Appendix namespace. Ex: some entries link to the Appendix in a See also section. Having "Appendix" as a header right after that can be confusing. AG202 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree that the two would ever be confused, but sure. -- 16:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I will oppose prop 1 / adding a third header ("additional sources"); people already interchange and don't distinguish the last extra header we added ("further reading"), and while we might, in theory, one day find the energy to enforce a two-way distinction between "further reading" and "references" (whether under those names or as renamed by prop 2), I don't see a three-way split as being remotely maintainable in practice, or as making much sense anyway. - -sche (discuss) 16:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting though that both the extra header in Catonif's prop 1 and prop 2 in general are enforceable at a technical level, since bot runs can easily sort out inline citations from plain bullet points—that's part of the point of the proposals as I understand it, so I'm not sure this is a fair criticism. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A bot could patrol a category for inline citations, but for prop 1, it's not possible for a bot to differentiate between "additional sources" and "further reading". I think it's entirely realistic that a distinction will not be maintained between these two in practice, so I do think this criticism has some merit. Megathonic (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the existing policy to distinguish references and further reading; prop 1 does not change that other than further distinguishing inline and general references, so the change made by prop 1 itself is technically enforceable. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The distinction is still two-way: it asks "does this back up information that is on the entry?" vs. "does this contain further information we don't have? meaning we either shouldn't or the entry is incomplete" (explained better at ). This theoretical question is contaminated by the pragmatic solution to not being able to have ". Further reading still has use as a header for things other than references. -- 04:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Proposal 2 is specifically because some people want a format that is purely bot-enforceable, as Benwing confirmed he does above. This is incompatible with maintaining any reference/further reading distinction. Since you and both seem to prefer three L3 headers it might be better to add that as a separate proposal. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is still possible to create yet a third proposal as a sort of middle ground. Vininn126 (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The above would still be bot-actionable, and would still rename instances of the header References with just  under it, but would leave non-inline references untouched. The point is that we don't need to delete Further reading for the sake of what this vote is trying to acomplish.
 * If proposal #2 means to changes instances of L3 header References to an L4 header, that should be very explicitly stated. -- 17:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the people who support proposal 2 specifically want to abolish the "Further reading" section because they feel that the distinction between general sources and further reading is either hard to understand or because it can't be enforced by bot. What you think the vote is trying to accomplish is just different from what they are trying to accomplish. Part of the point is, I think, to demonstrate whether there is still consensus for the existence of the section. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I understand this (see ), I think that Proposal 1 is bot-enforcable while Proposal 2 is not. Here is an algorithm for Proposal 1, and it doesn't touch the other sections in the page:
 * Check if there are any s in the page
 * Parse the plain list of references from both the contents of the References and the Further Reading section
 * Delete those sections
 * Exit if there are neither s nor s
 * Print ===References===
 * If there are s but no s
 * Print 16:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I propose we change notes to references and the other section to bibliography. Vininn126 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * would "References" for inlines and "Bibliography" for non-inlines work for you? Thadh (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Dude, that's just proposal #3 with different names. -- 17:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It still adds a header. Vininn126 (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would honestly vote for #1 over this. :/ -- 17:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we're on the same page - I thought you wanted three sections, 0 subsections, no? Vininn126 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be favorable to proposal #2 if the section was called "Citations", and not "Notes". -- 18:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I was asking and talking ab out Vininn126 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Examples
I added examples to each proposal. Correct if wrong. Remove if hated. -- 20:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems mostly fine. Perhaps we could add the further reading sections just for clarity. @Al-Muqanna? Vininn126 (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. -- 20:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Wording for proposal 3
It was already mentioned that "References and further reading" may be a better title instead of just "References", and I'm wondering if we shouldn't change it to that. Then the issue of non-reference material being categorized as a reference is removed. This is what German wiktionary does, where inline citations are listed under "Quellen" (Sources) and the rest gets put under "Referenzen und weiterführende Informationen" (References and further/additional information). It seems like a straightforward system that keeps it simple, accurately describes the content in each category, and remains 100% bot enforceable. Megathonic (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Modified the proposal. Megathonic (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the changes made that option worse. -- 06:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * More input is needed. @AG202 @Thadh @Catonif Vininn126 (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah there’s too much to follow right now, but I personally wouldn’t support this. I already don’t support collapsing them, and this header would also be too long comparatively. AG202 (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back to "References" pending further discussion. I still think it would probably be a good idea to come up with a more fitting name, whatever that name may be. Megathonic (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Bibliography" might work. Vininn126 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving the vote up
Would anyone mind if I moved the vote up? It seems like things have calmed down. Vininn126 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Thadh @Al-Muqanna @Catonif @Victar @Megathonic Vininn126 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. -- Sokkjō 17:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, too, although I don't really see the benefits of option 1 when compared to option 2. Thadh (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. Megathonic (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

A clarification
Reading this talk page about everyone’s opinions has been confusing to me, so I’d like to clarify the changes in the proposals. If I got anything wrong, or omitted anything relevant, please tell me so that I can edit this post appropriately.

Categorisation
People in this talk page mainly agree on at most five groups of sources placed in the sections References and Further Reading, and any future sections affected by this vote:


 * 1) Further reading, which includes content not used at all when editing the entry. Examples:
 * etymological dictionaries that don't mention the term
 * articles about a cultural phenomenon described in the entry it is cited in
 * links to relevant Wikipedia articles (listed as type 5 by -sche )
 * 1) Plain references which do count for attestation. (categorised as type A by Daniel.z.tg ) Examples:
 * grammars and dictionaries of the language
 * ἀνέρχομαι
 * 1) Plain references which do not count for attestation. (categorised as type B by Daniel.z.tg ) Examples:
 * references used for several claims (-sche’s type 2 )
 * references which support definitions (-sche’s type 3 )
 * references consulted over the course of editing (-sche’s type 4 )
 * Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰéǵʰōm
 * 1) Inline citations, which:
 * 2) count for attestation. (categorised as type C by Daniel.z.tg ) Example:
 * sense 3 "chapter"
 * 1) do not count for attestation, and are instead cited for specific claims. (categorised as type D by Daniel.z.tg ) Examples:
 * , Etymology
 * , Etymology

The numbering of these groups will be used throughout this post.

Proposals
Before the vote is completed, the status quo is that inline citations(groups 4.1 and 4.2 above) are always put under References, because they are generated by 17:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I doubt that what y'all say is the status quo would pass easily if formalized. Proposal 3 is the closest to that, and it's failing more than the others. I agree with @Thadh and what he's described as it's almost universally what I've seen and used, especially in LDLs. AG202 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ===References=== for non-inline sources might be the most commonly used right now, but differentiating between inline and non-inline sources is preferable and tidier, and while we’re at it, the more smart layout (a.k.a. our good old status quo) naturally comes to mind, rather than the newly proposed (similar or different) layouts. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  19:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what proposal 2 is aiming to do. Separating out inline & non-inline sources, while also maintaining Further reading as a separate header with no references, as our current policy states. AG202 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, sources not used for creating the entry could just be listed together with non-inline sources under the same header. But then you guys seem to prefer this threefold distinction rather than a simpler twofold distinction of solely inline & non-inline sources… ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  21:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)