Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2023-12/Notes section

Voting on: Adding the paragraph ===Notes=== to WT:ELE, right before ===References===, with the following content:

Notes

The “Notes” section contains explanatory footnotes mostly used to declutter other sections from overly detailed, yet valuable, information. When defined as <ref> tags, they should be grouped in the n group. For example:

<ref group=n> ... </ref>

===Notes===
<references group=n/>

Alongside this, "Notes" should of course also be added under "List of headings" and "Headings after the definitions" in the policy, always right before ===References===.

As was discussed, although not standardised the header is already relatively widespread, as for example in arcazón or κινούβοιλα ~ sinupyla. Read the discussion page for anything unclear.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Vote created: Catonif (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2023-08/Changing how the section "References" works
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2023-12/Notes section

1. Support. Catonif (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. Usage notes does not cover everything, and it can be useful especially for dead languages with poor attestation where the original text might be interpreted multiply ways, etc. Vininn126 (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 09:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Support, but I do agree with Chernorizets' comments below. PUC – 21:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Support — Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
7. Support with the hopes that the text within a ===Notes=== header can have a different CSS class from those in the References section, allowing the user to see it in a smaller font or perhaps a collapsible. Some of us may want it the other way around, as well. I believe this is possible so long as the editor uses {{refn}}, should it be given its own class separate from the existing mw-references-wrap. Alongside those pages listed above, foetus (both English and Latin sections) is one place where this might be useful. —Soap— 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
8. weak support ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
9. I weakly support this proposal, but I would strongly support the proposal made by CosmicMuse on the talk page. 0DF (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Oppose The examples given under the vote are unconvincing. To read and fully digest the etymology of these terms, one has to keep visually jumping back and forth between the Etymology and Notes sections. It would be even worse if the entry was long and the Notes block was not visible on the same screen as the Etymology. There's nothing stopping Etymology sections from being broken up into multiple paragraphs; I feel like this is a better solution than footnotes.

   I also inspected some other entries which currently have Notes sections, and they fall into four classes:

   • Entries like those mentioned under the vote, and others such as English relative and Latin laus, would benefit from having the note text integrated into the part of the entry to which it belongs.
   • About 100 entries (e.g. lady-in-waiting) use the note to state the museum or art gallery where the artwork displayed as an illustrative image in the entry is housed. This information is of limited relevance to a dictionary (and can in many cases be found by clicking on the image), and these notes should just be removed IMO.
   • A few entries use the "Notes" heading for footnoted references. We have a "References" header for this.
   • Other entries have a "Notes" header where "Usage notes" is meant, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this vote.
   I was unable to find a single entry which I felt was better off with the Notes header, as opposed to without it. This, that and the other (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

   I should add that I'm not firmly opposed to a "Notes" section being added to EL, I'm just thoroughly unconvinced by the use cases presented. It sounds like Vininn126 has some ideas on how it could be used fruitfully? This, that and the other (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   I have mentioned, there are some older texts that are not entirely legible and could be read (litearlly) a few different ways, and adding a note about the form would be useful. It doesn't belong in Etymology, and it doesn't belong in Usage notes, as it's not about usage, and it doesn't belong in Trivia. Vininn126 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   @Vininn126 I would probably put this material, rather non-ideally, in Usage notes, although it would be good to see an example. It's true that we don't have a great place to include this information in an entry, but there is no reason to force editors to use clumsy footnotes as this vote seeks to. This, that and the other (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

   so the better option is to clumsily force it in a section that doesn't fit? That seems completely backwards. It's not a usage note, it's a note. This is not a clumsy solution, using usage notes for a note is. Vininn126 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

   @Vininn126 Well, let's have a vote where a "Notes" section is added to EL with clearer guidance as to what it is meant to be used for (and more convincing examples), a more logical place in the order of headings (equivalent to Usage notes, I suppose), and no requirement to use footnotes. Perhaps even merge it with the rarely-used "Trivia" heading. This, that and the other (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose Per the above. Maybe if the font were smaller or something similar, it'd be better? In the examples given, I find it rather jarring to have a Notes section on an entry with such little other information, with the Notes having the same size font as everything else. My eyes immediately see the notes section which sort of takes away the point of having it, especially if it's right under the lemma. If the entries were longer like a Wikipedia article is, I'd understand it more, but as is, I don't really see the need at the moment. AG202 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

   I believe it will be possible to set a different font size, and other elements of style, so long as the editor uses the {{refn}} template, to which we could assign a separate CSS class. If the editor uses <ref> then I suspect is it not possible. I've just now voted support above, but with a recommendation that it be given a separate CSS class to allow editors to change its appearance (and perhaps to even serve a different appearance as the default). —Soap— 09:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

3. Oppose As has been stated more than once, the usage of notes seems seldom useful and might even be confusing to non editors. If the section is added we should at least assign it a definit use and not toss in whatever trivia does not fit in such sections as usage notes, etymology or pronounciation. Moreover, struggling to define it shows how trivial it would happen to be. I won't budge as long as I'm not presented a well defined (content-wise and appearance-wise) exemple to justify its using. Tim Utikal (talk) 9:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   As stated below, the header for trivia already exists, therefore we already have the potential to add whatever trivia. This would not be for such things. Vininn126 (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   Shouldn't we delete the trivia section though? PUC – 16:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   That seems irrelevant to the topic at hand. While I would support that, what's important is that already the possibility exists and people don't abuse it, showing that "well people could" doesn't happen in practice. Vininn126 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

4. Weak oppose Changing my vote due to TTATO's convincing post above. – Guitarmankev1 ^(talk) 14:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose per TTO and AG. IMO the content that people are putting in ===Notes=== is better either put directly in the etymology (if it's important for an average reader of the etymology to know, let's not make them flip back and forth), or in the ref tag (if it's some minor point 'this reference assumes X, however cf. B who argues Y instead'). - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose per TTO, I'm not convinced the proposal would result in better, cleaner entries. Here's a list of the existing Notes sections in case anyone is curious. As already mentioned, almost none of the current match the proposed usage and most them would probably be better off without a Notes section. JeffDoozan (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose The current examples confuse me counting (although this could theoretically be mitigated by CSS) and I prefer other sections for its content types. Fay Freak (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
8. Oppose Per above. Ioaxxere (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Abstain, per my comments on the talk page. I don't believe the examples given really demonstrate a need for a Notes section - some of those notes could easily have been moved to the Etymology, and a few could've been left out. Overall, I don't see the addition of a Notes section as solving a problem that actually exists today, at least based on the information in this vote. Furthermore, I am in favor of people thinking hard about how much detail in an entry is truly necessary to users, and exercising restraint. I'm afraid that a Notes section will become a dumping ground for "interesting tidbits" of questionable incremental value to readers, or a source of contention between editors as to what should or shouldn't be moved to Notes. I have voted "Abstain" since I haven't worked on too many very large entries, and therefore I'm not the kind of editor who would benefit the most from a Notes section. Chernorizets (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

   I strongly disagree - we already have the floodgates open for fun facts, the trivia section is already an official header. Second of all there are plenty of non-etymological notes that are important to a text - an example would be for old texts that are hard to read and a word could be interpreted multiple ways. Vininn126 (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

   @Vininn126 in my experience, when it comes to ancient texts with several possible readings due to missing or unreadable sections, each reading is tied to one or more scholars' publications, which IMO can (and maybe should) be handled as References. Do you have examples of old text entries which either have, or would benefit from, non-etymological notes listed under their own separate header? Chernorizets (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

   @Chernorizets This is something that happens in Old Polish regularly. Vininn126 (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

   Reading debates is exactly when I use usage notes, because it discusses what was actually used. E.g. farfarum. If shorter then the References section, palanca, or inline as per {{var}}. We don’t reach the level of having an apparatus criticus to tie scholarly publications. Fay Freak (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

2. Abstain I do not grasp the big picture well enough to give a good vote for or against, nor can I immediately see how I would employ this. Perhaps it would declutter Peking or similar? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Abstain I'm not against notes per se, but I agree with others that the examples given don't necessarily justify a new section. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Abstain I agree that the examples given don’t do much to justify the need for this, although I could imagine some situation might come up in the future where giving users the latitude to use such a header might be useful. For now, without concrete examples, I’m left unsure as to whether using a ‘Notes’ header is the best solution to any particular problem. I do, however, quite like the proposal made by User:CosmicMuse on the talk page, and support that as (to my mind) a more elegant solution in cases where notes would be desirable. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a question. Since this is a vote only on updating WT:ELE and not a vote for removal of notes sections, does the status quo remain if there is no consensus for a change to WT:ELE? — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Technically, if WT:EL was enforced, then the Notes sections that already exist should be deleted as is. Good luck to anyone that tries to do that though. There are plenty of entries that violate WT:EL, not just for this, but also nonstandard POSs and other issues. It's just up to people to enforce the rules if they choose. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ AG202 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No consensus 9-8-4. Vininn126 (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)