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

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/References. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/References, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/References in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/References you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/References will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/References, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

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)Reply

I removed it from the proposed text, let me know if you want it back. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
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. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
Good point. I removed the statement "References are especially encouraged for more obscure words".
See: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://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)Reply

References for less-documented languages

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

each entry should have its source(s) listed on the entry or citation page

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

@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)Reply