Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/References

References directly in specific senses

Is this accurate?

"References may be added in a separate "References" heading level or added directly to specific senses."

I don't remember seeing many entries with references added directly to specific senses. I would rather remove the "or added directly to specific senses", unless other people want it to stay. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed it from the proposed text, let me know if you want it back. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It is something I've seen on occasion in our entries, although I don't really think it needs to have official imprimatur. Considering that there would still be a References section, I feel like this is fine without that text. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

References are especially encouraged for more obscure words

I don't think so. For semantics, we go by attestation. External sources having the see-also character should be under External links, not references, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not understand the part "having the see-also character". But maybe {{R:Century 1911}} and {{R:Webster 1913}} are really fit for the External links section rather than References, like {{pedia}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

By "see-also character", I mean that the source answers the question "Where else do you recommend me to look" rather than "How do you know the information that you are presenting". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the statement "References are especially encouraged for more obscure words".

See: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/References&diff=35857294&oldid=35807038

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

References for less-documented languages

The section might need a restatement of this line from WT:ATTEST:

each entry [in a LDL] should have its source(s) listed on the entry or citation page

--Tropylium (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tropylium I know it is a topic concerning the inclusion of entries (and thus WT:CFI material), but does it affect the layout of references in any way (thus being WT:EL material)? I might be wrong, but I don't think WT:EL#References needs to include the information you suggested. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)