Talk:cone

Header

I placed "References" in the end with level 2 header because that's the clearest way with footnotes. However, a bot marks it as not good. There would be three different possibilities to place the footnote list:

• In the end and level 2, this is what I did.
• In the end and level 3, a slight problem is that it appears to be in the last section, this time "Portuguese".
• Upper in another section, but it would not be possible to have footnotes in two sections, and it could be confusing because readers look for footnote list in the end.

Any conversation and good advices would be very welcome. :) Best regards Rhanyeia 11:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What the bot meant was that (1) it belongs in the English section rather than the Portuguese; and (2) it needs three ='s (i.e., level 3 header), not just 2. —Stephen 15:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the bot says 3 ='s, however to place it with 3 ='s to the English section creates a slight technical problem. There can be only one footnote list on one page, I tested it. If it is in a section, then other sections couldn't have footnotes anymore. Best regards Rhanyeia 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know how that template works, but it seems to be rare that references are given for languages other than English. If it should crop up, then someone will need to change the template. Perhaps with a "|lang=xx" term as we do with some other templates. —Stephen 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Which template do you mean, do you mean using footnotes or something else? I didn't use a template for footnotes which come easily without. If there are usually references only in one section, then a footnote list in a section may work. However, if you look at the page aloe, to reference it all would require to add sources on later sections too, they have etymologies. Best regards Rhanyeia 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean <references/>. —Stephen 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't understand at first because it's not a template just code. :) I don't think it's possible to have many footnote lists on one page even with a template, nor would there be much need because footnotes already indicate which part has been sourced. Best regards Rhanyeia 18:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We flat out don't use footnotes. They are inlined. As you observe, there are multiple sections of a page that need attribution, and there is no reasonable way to collect them. (when the ref/ tag is used, it doesn't purge the list, so you can't start over in the next section). Put the source inline, right where you are referring to it. If it is a general source for the language section, then use level 3 (===) if it is for one part of speech, use 4, under the POS. Robert Ullmann 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting this. :) When I have been browsing around Wiktionary, I have noticed that with quotations the sources have often been inline. With definitions however, to place the source inline would be difficult: if there are for example six noun definitions and 2 of them are referenced to one book and 4 of them are referenced to another book, the name of the first book would be there 2 times and the second book 4 times. If definition references are under sections without footnotes it can be difficult to know which parts have been referenced. I have used footnotes because they are a very handy way to show what has been referenced and where, and when one book is used many times it can have the same footnote number. :) Best regards Rhanyeia 10:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

While examples can be found, they are discouraged. The new references "footnote" syntax was devised a fairly long time after en.wiktionary.org had decided to combine different languages on single pages (several years later, in fact.) Because we use the combined layout (instead of Wikipedia-style "disambiguation") the new references "footnote" syntax simply does not work here. The example you can find, are invariably from prolific Wikipedians who are less familiar with our formatting conventions. (That said, I have seen a handful of examples where it seems to have been helpful.)

The "footnote" syntax is most useful when it pinpoints several exact passages from a reference. Since Wiktionary references are typically referring to other secondary sources (which our Quotations section provide examples of use) it really isn't necessary to give such exacting passage references. That is, if we say in a references section (on Wiktionary) that "Encarta says..." then we really don't need to tell the reader what page to look on. Simply looking up the exact term in "Encarta" will bring the reader to where the reference is. So, our references tend to look more like {{R:1913}} (see also: Special:Prefixindex/Template:R:.) Note that these formats don't really correspond very well to "footnote" syntax.

Instead, on en.wiktionary.org, we use a L3 ===References=== heading at the end of each L2 language section. When you see it done wrong, it is only because we haven't had it blossom into a flame-war-worthy, policy-inflicting-discussion yet. For all the reasons you described above, I haven't seen a consistent way that en.wiktionary.org can adopt the "footnote" style. If you can think of a workable compromise that incorporates Wiktionary's traditional references style without the "footnote" style, it would be very interesting to hear it. So far, I haven't heard of a way to use the "footnote" style that works.

In your example above, you suggested "references" for definitions. We very strongly avoid that. As part of our "verification" process, we use {{nosecondary}} to remind people not to use secondary sources for the definitions themselves. (Instead, only for etymologies and usage notes.) The evidence we give to show that words are actual words used in a particular way, is to add quotations that show use. If three or less, they are added inline in definition sections immediately following the definition line, starting with "#:". For more quotations than that, we move them to a ====Quotations==== section (which can be "disambiguated" by gloss, similar to ====Translations==== sections.)

Note also, that the 'citations of use' are not hidden in a subordinate 'references' section. The idea is to show examples of use as close to where the term is defined, as possible. Jumping around a page with the references syntax doesn't provide a continuous flow to reading a page. With the "footnotes" style, the continuity is lost.

Additionally, I must note that using inline "footnote" style referencing is quite at odds with providing a brief, comprehensible definition. If a definition is more than three short sentences, it is too long. If it reads like an essay (or essay paragraph,) it is too long. While other sections (especially etymologies and usage notes) can sometimes be several paragraphs, definitions themselves should not be long. That would make us less of a dictionary and more of an, erm, well, an encyclopedia. Yes, it really is hard to devise a brief, accurate and coherent definition. Some suggest it is something of an art form itself. While it is easier to simply be long-winded, it doesn't help readers as much as a short definition does. While we regard accuracy above brevity, we can't ever discount brevity entirely.

I hope that all this helps. If someone can think of a concise way to summarize this debate, then please do so on WT:BP. It would be neat to have a policy discussion start without a flame-war, for once. --Connel MacKenzie 14:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the message! :) You wondered if it is possible to integrate the two ways and this is what I think. :) Inline referencing right after the text without footnotes is good for citations and supports the flow well. As you said dictionaries don't need page numbers, and when I used footnotes (for other than quotation referencing) I looked at the Wiktionary reference templates and tried to edit compatibly with them. Dictionary footnotes could help the next editor to know what has been referenced and what hasn't. If there is one book under a section without any footnotes and one doesn't have it, it becomes difficult to edit the section because it is difficult to know if everything is referenced there. And if there are several sources and one wants to check one sentence it would help a lot to know which source it's been referenced. It might be possible to have this kind of references like etymologies in the end of the page. I wonder if it would be fine to reference definitions on some pages too, with such words when the definition can't be derived from the usage, minerals for example. If there has been conversations about this before let me know please. :) Best regards Rhanyeia 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a question about this because I'm honestly quite confused about sourcing. There exists a lot of dictionary templates, so it's probably fine to use them, but how do I do it correctly. {{nosecondary}} template has a text "referring to other dictionaries is fine to clarify (or even correct) a definition." Does it mean that although a dictionary is not enough to tell what is relevant content, so does not count for "criteria for inclusion", there's a possibility to use them to source definitions when it's clear the definition should be here? It's not a copyright violation to take information from some source, reworded, if the source is marked, so there shouldn't be a problem in that regard. Some conversation about this would help me a lot, thank you. :) Best regards Rhanyeia 08:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)