Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/2017-03/"External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading"

< Wiktionary:Votes

"External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading" edit

Context:

  • This is a follow-up to Wiktionary:Votes/2016-12/"References" and "External sources".
  • The aforementioned vote passed, except the point 4, which was about requiring the use of tags <ref></ref> and <references/>.
  • This proposal passed: now the "References" section is to be used only for links that back up something in the entry (except for senses and definitions, when they are attested through quotations) and the "External sources" section is to contain simple recommendations of further places to look, including other dictionaries and encyclopedias. WT:EL was edited to reflect this.
  • Some people in the aforementioned vote discussed about the idea of using "Further information" or "Further reading" instead of "External sources", or just keeping "External links" as before, hence this follow-up vote.

Voting on:

  • Choose the name for the "External sources" (previously known as "External links") section in all entries.
    A. "External sources"
    B. "External links"
    C. "Further information"
    D. "Further reading"

Procedural notes:

  • Feel free to vote in multiple options.
  • The purpose of this vote is using a single name for that section. If the final result is inconclusive, we might decide the name by discussing and/or voting again later.
  • The status quo is using "External sources", because it was approved in the previous vote.

Schedule:

Discussion:

A: "External sources" edit

Support edit
Oppose edit
  1.   Oppose. This one looked fine earlier and I supported it in the previous vote, but now that we have four options, I do think that "Further reading" is better. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose: "Source," at least on en.WP, is used often and closely with "references" and "citations" and so this title implies the external sites were used as references. —Geekdiva (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain edit

B: "External links" edit

Support edit
  1.   Support This is fine for external links, that is, for resources that are online. And these are the most important ones; for many a reader, it does not matter all that much whether the sought information about the specific word is in Wiktionary or whether it is one click away from it. For offline sources, the heading title is slightly misleading, but then the question is whether we could use Further reading for offline sources alone, following the lead of Wikipedia. External links is a well established heading both in Wiktionary and on the web; it is used by Wikipedia as well as by Britannica, e.g. in tiger article[1]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'd still prefer using "Further reading" for all further-reading purposes.
    I believe the heading title "External links" is not only slightly misleading for offline sources; it appears to be just false.
    I oppose splitting that section into "Further reading" for offline sources and "External links" for online sources, because I believe the purpose of both sections is the same.
    Sure, it's an additional hassle to readers if the physical book has to be bought. Still, you posted here a link to britannica.com which appears to have a paywall, which is a hassle for me. I don't intend to "activate a 7 day trial" for Encyclopedia Britannica at this point, so I didn't get the full article and didn't see the "External links" you mentioned (that said, I believe you that the website uses "External links" even if I didn't get to see the empirical proof at this point). My point is: an "External links" section does not necessarily equate to easy, immediate, free access to the intended information.
    An external dictionary may have both an offline and online versions and thus would fit both sections anyway. If we did that split, we would have one more rule to remember, and one more section to edit, organize and read in all entries. Whatever we choose, we still have to remember "See also" for internal links on top of that.
    If other people eventually decide that they want to split "Further reading" into "Further reading"/"External links", I can only assume they want to do all the splitting work, which is going to be hard. (Then again, the distinction between "section A if no links" and "section B if yes links" might be bottable. But if it's a distinction so simple as to be bottable, then I'm back to the point where both sections do the same thing anyway.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1.   Oppose: If sources other than URLs (such as references to books) are to be included in this section, then I think the word links is inappropriate. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose per Smuconlaw. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain edit

C: "Further information" edit

Support edit
  1.   Support — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1.   Oppose. If I don't oppose this one, then "Further information" will technically have 100% support like "Further reading", and I don't want to allow that. ;) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain edit

D: "Further reading" edit

Support edit
  1.   Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Per @Dan Polansky in "Further reading", in the talk page. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support: I don't mind "External sources", "Further information" or "Further reading", but since there seems to be more support for "Further reading" at the moment I am happy to help achieve consensus. Also, "Further reading" would be in line with the usage at the English Wikipedia. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support – This option sounds the most natural to me, as the name of a section that combines what used to be References and External links. I'm unsure that it will make sense in all cases: some External links are just database sites that do not include much readable text. For instance, many of the translingual reference templates create links to taxonomic databases, like {{R:EOL}} (Encyclopedia of Life; see transclusions). But the header makes sense for entries in other languages, where the section will mainly consist of links to dictionary entries. — Eru·tuon 00:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll repeat something, just to be extra clear if needed: we'll still continue to use the "References" section separately. Specifically, the "References" section proves what is being said in the entries. For example, you may want to use the "References" section to prove statements given in etymologies and usage notes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Right; I was referring to a so-called reference template that's actually used in External links sections. It doesn't contain much readable text, so it will be a little odd to now place it in a section titled Further reading. — Eru·tuon 01:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, but maybe I'll disagree with you on one point. You mentioned EOL, but I'm not sure that website really is a good example of somewhere without much readable text.
    I take your point that the content of EOL appears to be largely generated by filling fields from a database, but we humans read it nonetheless. The EOL has quite a bit to read, in multiple tabs, doesn't it? The article about Echinacea, for example: http://eol.org/pages/59379/details
    Basically any dictionary is likely to have its content in some form of database, too.
    So, IMO a section named "Further reading" should do the job well to store links to that website. (unless we want to prove stuff in the entry based on it, and use the "References" section)
    If there are any other examples of websites without much readable text, I'd be happy to discuss about them. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support - TheDaveRoss 13:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 01:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support —Geekdiva (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit

LATE: This name does not well characterize the use of "External links" in the taxonomic entries. I wonder why no one brought this vote to my attention or noticed the widespread use. DCDuring (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

Decision edit

"Further reading" passed!

Vote results:

  • "External sources" = 0-2-2 (0%-100%)
  • "External links" = 1-4-0 (20%-80%)
  • "Further information" = 1-1-0 (50%-50%)
  • "Further reading" = 10-0-0 (100%-0%)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2017-03/%22External_sources%22,_%22External_links%22,_%22Further_information%22_or_%22Further_reading%22&oldid=42927813"