Voting on: Creation of a Citations: namespace to be populated by all current /Citations subpages, explicitly for listing quotations and references of English words and phrases.
Rationale:
To meet CFI, quotations must be accumulated and may exist independently of an as yet unattested entry. This includes references in slang dictionaries and other secondary sources.
Quotations should be grouped under a root and do not follow the main namespace convention of distinguishing standard inflections, hyphenation, etc.
(A motion has been made to strike this point.) Contributors should be able to add a single quotation of a term that may or may not merit inclusion without having the entry itself immediately nominated for deletion, as per Care Bears.
Support, though I haven't seen any discussion of this, and reserve the right to change my vote if opponents present good arguments. :-) —RuakhTALK19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to note that the third rationale (while irrelevant to the vote) is quite misplaced.
Point of order: what is the procedure for removing it? I agree and regret that it is both irrelevant and misplaced. DAVilla18:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to entries in the Citations: namespace will have the same CFI applied to them as main namespace entries, as they do now. Edits to a particular entry (or related page) are likely inspiration to review any entry, with no particular rhyme or reason. Being reminded of an entry that mistakenly was not RFD'd long ago, by watching Special:Recentchanges, won't change because the edit occurs in a different namespace. I'm sorry if my RFD of Care Bears inadvertently offended you. But the Citations: namespace (as we discussed ages and ages ago) is still a good idea. --Connel MacKenzie20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least I'd make you type in "Care Bear" to see if it even existed. ;-) In my opinion, and probably in practice as this
is carried out, the citation of certain terms will have a little more flexibility than indicated by the specifics of CFI. For instance, if we decide to allow trademarks only if they have become genericized—and mind you this is strictly hypothetical as I am not proposing it, but—in this clear case, it would be necessary to amass quotations even if a trademark was not yet genericized in the mind of the general public. My proposal of out of context quotations would be similar, as is the lousy current stipulation of attributive use if it were clarified to three instances thereof. DAVilla20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other note: The last time this was discussed, the problems with /Citations sub-pages hadn't been explored much. I assume the new namespace will have the ability to hold "Quotations" sections as well as an area for "raw" citations that aren't broken down by sense. --Connel MacKenzie20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had imagined the quotations being broken down using glosses, and only when necessary, so as to avoid fully defining the term. DAVilla
Not a big issue, although a standard for linking to the secondary page of quotations would be nice. I would hope that all quotations could be moved to the Citations: space, and only a handful, if any, replicated in the entry. The /Citations tabs already link back via the {{citation}} template. DAVilla20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it isn't a big issue. :-) Currently, WT:PREFS' Javascript creates a [citations] tab to the right of [discussion] (red-linked if not there, blue-linked if present.) Yes, moving the pages to the new namespace is trivial. The Javascript changes are straight-forward too...but changing it from a WT:PREFS to a MediaWiki:Common.js section might be quite worthwhile. Likewise, changing it from an opt-in thing, to an opt-out thing. Hopefully that won't require another vote! --Connel MacKenzie22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean that little tabby thing. Okay with me to just get rid of it. I mean, it's not like there's a thesaurus tab up there either. Or you can experiment as you wish. DAVilla18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRobert Ullmann 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC) all serious dictionaries collect citations, far beyond what are used in the published entries. Our modus operandi does not make this as essential, because we use Google and gbc at any given time. Disagree with Connel in one respect, entries may not meet CFI in some ways; particularly prologisms, where it might be useful to collect some. Can the link be only the tab? With the needed redirects inside the Citations namespace? Needs lots of detail attention, but firmly yes, lets get the namespace ID number! Robert Ullmann23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it still could be useful to collect cites for a term that currently fails CFI, if it seems likely that it could come to pass CFI. —RuakhTALK06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Connel, but the rationale supporting the change specifically states that "quotations...may exist independently of an as yet unattested entry". If you do not agree with that language then you need to state so explicitly in your vote. DAVilla18:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did. But now I'll have to reconsider this. While it was a basis for objection a long time ago (was that a year?) it is less so, now. --Connel MacKenzie06:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose that unidiomatic terms also be allowed, subject to some scrutiny to prove they hold water and eliminate truly random phrases. But such an idea would require a policy change, as I'm sure Connel would assert. Anyway the discussion is premature. First of all, there aren't any examples yet of terms that are unidiomatic. If there were we would have something to discuss. We would be talking about maybe a single quotation without any definition or other form of free expression. An illustration would make that so much more concrete. Right now we're reduced to speculation. Second, we haven't even settled on how to select among proper nouns, and quotations may or may not be instrumental to that. I apologize for going into it above, as the battles really need to be fought in the correct places. DAVilla18:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWidsith12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC). I agree wholeheartedly with the rationale. I do think citations should, like definitions, be grouped in senses though, so users can see examples of specific definitions. Sometimes we do this, sometimes we don't.[reply]
For clarification, the vote does not specify the layout of the page, only that it is to be populated with "quotations and references".
My own opinion is that, although the breakdown by meaning can be done when so willing (edit:) and would not be reverted, this should not be required of contributors, especially since I'd like to see the wording (not enumeration) of definitions stripped down as much as possible, and completely excluded in the case of one sense, to avoid turning the Citations: space into an effective Protologism: free-for-all. DAVilla 16:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Edited.DAVilla05:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The primary point in having citations is so that users can quickly see examples of specific sense in use. It is vital that examples are examples of specific senses of a word. If someone wants to see the difference between a verb used transitively or intransitively they should be able to see that quickly without having to look through hundreds of examples. Similarly they shouldn't need to look through hundreds of unlabelled citations to find an example of a word used in a particularly rare sense. Widsith06:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be able to collect citiations for words not yet meeting CFI (which may well meet CFI as soon as enough cites are collected). I support providing a mechanism. This mechanism seems to be appropraite, but I would support any mechanism resolving the problem. — This unsigned comment was added by Richardb (talk • contribs) at 12:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
SupportAtelaes21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC) This is an excellent idea. I only have one quibble in that there was no discussion preceding the vote. We really have to get out of the habit of springing votes on the community without a bit of discussion first.[reply]
Support, but agree that more discussion would have been helpful ... this is what I always thought the "Concordance:" namespace should have been used for, but this works just as well (except that we'll continue using a very outmoded sense of concordance). -- Visviva07:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeH. (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I don’t like the citations tabs as well. I think quotations should be put between definitions. It is often very confusing which sense the citation is trying to reflect. Hm, or maybe indeed I should think the other way round, and see the citations as a ground for refining definitions. Well then, at least the citation page should be divided into sections following the senses.[reply]
With multiple senses, a number of quotations / citations after every sense makes the entry messy and difficult to read (and makes scanning through the many definitions for a word pretty much impossible). Whilst adding one’s quotations / citations immediately after the definition is fine if there is only one sense given (this is what I do), for entries with multiple senses, the quotations / citations are presently best given on a citations subpage or in a separate quotations section. Of course, in both those cases, the citations need to be separated by a short gloss of what sense is being shown in use. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, what we could do, is something like {{trans-top}} and friends, where the quotations are collapsed by default and a "show" button shows them. This isn't a perfect solution — we'd still use all the bandwidth to send quotations, and users without JScript/JavaScript enabled would still see all of them by default — but it might be the best compromise. (Of course, that only applies to words and senses that meet CFI. Words that don't meet CFI would still have to gather quotations outside an article page.) —RuakhTALK15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeConnel MacKenzie 04:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC) I'm not convinced the technical workings to prevent "promoting" the citations: namespace (via search engines) is adequate. Having misread the preamble, I misunderstood the intent to exempt this from normal CFI, or at least thought it wouldn't feed search engines. Having thought more and more about this, we really should have separate namespaces for "Quotations:" as well, rather than commingling the two dissimilar items in this namespace. (Other possible future votes for additional namespaces? Examples:, Synonyms:, Antonyms:, Homophones:, Related terms:, Derived terms:, Etymology:, Translations:, Definitions:, Conjugations:, Mutations:, Inflections:, Trivia: and Shorthand:?) Seriously, I thought the intent was to build a repository for borderline terms, not a free-for-all. But the wording above unambiguously puts no restrictions at all on the new namespace. --Connel MacKenzie04:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I see a need for a Citations: space, which you're welcome to argue the naming of, but I'll leave you to defend the other proposals. By the way, the Synonyms and Antonyms sections already have their own namespace as Wikisaurus.
I am very much opposed to turning this into a free-for-all. True, there are no restrictions on the namespace as of yet, but that doesn't mean they can't be hammered out in WT:RFDO. It's not clear, for instance, whether one reference in a slang dictionary is sufficient to merit the existence of a citations page. After all, the quotations that must be accumulated to meet CFI do not include such secondary sources. While the text above declares that the citations page may exist independently of the article, and that it may contain references, it does not claim that secondary sources alone are useful for meeting CFI. So there's still more than enough wiggle-room even outside of an overriding vote.
But we'll need to let time tell if any of this is really a problem in the first place. Just look at the urban dictionaries and you'll see that writing definitions can be fun. Finding references and quotations? That takes a bit more work. Leave out definitions entirely, using only glosses to distinguish senses (when necessary, which already means at least two quotations), and I don't see the flood gates opening with this proposal. DAVilla21:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support DAVilla 19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose H. (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I don’t like the citations tabs as well. I think quotations should be put between definitions. It is often very confusing which sense the citation is trying to reflect. Hm, or maybe indeed I should think the other way round, and see the citations as a ground for refining definitions. Well then, at least the citation page should be divided into sections following the senses.
