Wiktionary:Votes/2020-06/Citation formatting guidelines

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Citation formatting guidelines

[edit]

Voting on: Adding the following guidelines to Wiktionary:Citations#How to format quotations:

  1. Cite book titles without their subtitles.
    • Persuasion, not Persuasion: A Novel
    • Psudodoxia Epidemica, not Pseudodoxia Epidemica: Or, Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenents, and Commonly Presumed Truths
  2. Do not cite chapter titles.
    • "Partition II, Section II, chapter 3", not "‘Ayre Rectified. With a Digression of the Ayre.’, Partition II, Section II, chapter 3"
  3. Although the citation year should show the earliest known date of the citation (typically the year of the first edition), other publication details should only reflect the edition actually being cited.
    • i.e. do not record a separate title, publisher etc. of the first edition unless you're quoting from it.
  4. Printing location, publisher and publication date should be given, but not their addresses or connecting prose such as "printed for".
    • "London: J. Johnson 1791", not "Printed for Joseph Johnson, 72 St Paul's Churchyard"
  5. Date of cited edition should be given, but not other descriptive details.
    • There is no need to say that something is a "Newly enlarged and corrected edition".

(Slightly adapted from the Beer Parlour discussion – point 2 was removed as it didn't seem to have consensus.)

Some examples of the kind of thing the vote is trying to reduce:

    • 1650, Thomas Browne, “Of Some Others”, in Pseudodoxia Epidemica: […], 2nd edition, London: […] A[braham] Miller, for Edw[ard] Dod and Nath[aniel] Ekins, […], →OCLC, 3rd book, page 152:
      Much wonder is made of the Boramez, that ſtrange plant-animall or vegetable Lamb of Tartary, which Wolves delight to feed on....
    • 1577, Socrates Scholasticus [i.e., Socrates of Constantinople], “Constantinus the Emperour Summoneth the Nicene Councell, it was Held at Nicæa a Citie of Bythnia for the Debatinge of the Controuersie about the Feast of Easter, and the Rootinge out of the Heresie of Arius”, in Eusebius Pamphilus, Socrates Scholasticus, Evagrius Scholasticus, Dorotheus, translated by Meredith Hanmer, The Avncient Ecclesiasticall Histories of the First Six Hundred Yeares after Christ, Wrytten in the Greeke Tongue by Three Learned Historiographers, Eusebius, Socrates, and Euagrius. [...], book I (The First Booke of the Ecclesiasticall Historye of Socrates Scholasticvs), imprinted at London: By Thomas Vautroullier dwelling in the Blackefriers by Ludgate, →OCLC, page 225:
      [VV]e are able with playne demonſtration to proue, and vvith reaſon to perſvvade that in tymes paſt our fayth vvas alike, that then vve preached thinges correſpondent vnto the forme of faith already published of vs, ſo that none in this behalfe can repyne or gaynesay vs.

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support

[edit]
  1. Support as proposer. Ƿidsiþ 05:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support My responses: — SGconlaw (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support point 1 in part: long subtitles can be hidden using {{nb...}}, but I think it is acceptable to provide fairly short subtitles in full.
    • Support point 3 if I am correct in understanding that it does not call for the 1st edition's publication date to be stated if it cannot be ascertained whether the text quoted from a later edition appears in the 1st edition.
    • Support point 4 in part: I generally agree; additional information can be hidden using {{nb...}}. However, if the publisher is not known and only the printer's name is available, I think it is bibliographic practice to indicate that the name given is that of a printer rather than the publisher (e.g., "Printed by [...]" or "[...], printer", depending on the actual imprint statement).
    • Support point 5.
    @Sgconlaw: I don't think it makes any sense to support a point "in part"; without knowing whether other people support your emendation to that point, you are effectively not voting on the same thing as everyone else is. If I close this vote, I will count all points with {{support}} as being supported, regardless of whether they are claimed to be in part or not. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Metaknowledge: I see. In that case it looks like I have to change all the qualified "supports" to "opposes". — SGconlaw (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - TheDaveRoss 15:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support points 1 and 3-5. As for point 2, I mostly support it, except in cases where there is no chapter number, where chapter numbers exist only in some editions of the book, or where inclusion of the chapter name would aid in finding the quotation (such as if the chapters were only numbered within the text and not in the table of contents). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Sheedy: I think you mean point 2? — SGconlaw (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I've corrected it...thanks for catching that. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support point 1. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support points 1, 3 & 4. I'm in agreement with Andrew Sheedy on point 2, which I support with his provisos. --Uisleach (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Imetsia (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support points 3, 4 and 5. – Einstein2 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support points 1, 2, 3 and 5 and thank you very much for the vote. The Sgconlaw style of citations is something that frustrates me to no end. The citation identification has to be subordinate to lexicographical purpose and therefore minimized; the quoted passage itself must play the prime role. I know of no dictionary that uses the Sgconlaw style of citations, nor do I know of any other type of source that uses that style of citation. I further submit that the Sgconlaw style of citations does not represent a long-term practice used by multiple editors and is not status quo ante. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support points 2, 3, 4, and 5 NativeNames (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support all points SemperBlotto (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support wholesale. I'm not sure what the current state of the wikicite project is, and they seem to be mostly focussed on scientific publishing, but something to keep in mind, it could be a place to keep hyperdetailed information about editions etc. – Jberkel 17:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support 1, 2, 3, and 5. Note that I also support 4 but only as a reduction of excess information that is currently present (as it drops "addresses or connecting prose"); I often omit and would not mandate adding things like "printing location [and] publisher". - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Yes, that's actually what I had in mind. But fair enough, the wording wasn't the best. Ƿidsiþ 07:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  15. Support as long as it is guidelines that can be deviated from if necessary. (F.ex. if chapters are not numbered and only named, chapter names rather than numbers should obviously be allowed.) MuDavid (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support points 3 and 4. The information is little more than clutter.​—msh210℠ (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support with reservations, especially re points 1, 2, 3, as below.— Pingkudimmi 15:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. Modern subtitles often have something to add about the content of the book. Occasionally they use the term being cited.
    • 2. In many books I have cited, different chapters have different authors. This particularly applies to conference proceedings.
    • 3. A particular couple of cases are of note: when the new edition has a new title, and when it has a new publisher. I tend to think of the book details as in two parts (original details and the cited edition edition), I guess much as described, but with a bit more leeway according to the type of book.
    • Overall, I have reservations about treating all books as the same. The examples used in the preamble give great weight to pre-20th century works. As a perhaps trivial example, a mention of what details to include about the original of a translated book might be useful. (Probably minimal; perhaps not nothing.)— Pingkudimmi 15:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose My responses: — SGconlaw (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose point 1 in part: I think it is acceptable to provide fairly short subtitles in full. Long subtitles can be hidden using {{nb...}}.
    • Oppose point 2.
    • Oppose point 3 because it tries to provide a blanket rule which is difficult to apply. In some cases, a later edition of a work is essentially a reproduction of the 1st edition with no change in the text (e.g., a paperback version of an earlier hardcover, which is common for modern novels). In this case, I think it's fine to indicate the date of the 1st edition and the date of the actual edition being cited. However, in other cases the later edition differs substantially from the 1st edition. In that case, I think the 1st edition date should not be given at all, unless it is known for certain that the passage quoted is identical in both works. For older works, when the 1st edition is not readily available, this may be difficult to ascertain.
    • Oppose point 4 in part: Additional information can be hidden using {{nb...}}. However, if the publisher is not known and only the printer's name is available, I think it is bibliographic practice to indicate that the name given is that of a printer rather than the publisher (e.g., "Printed by [...]" or "[...], printer", depending on the actual imprint statement).
    @Sgconlaw I don't think that's what the vote is trying to accomplish. In fact, I think the wording as it stands is tailored to address your concerns. Hence, the "earliest known date of the citation" is "typically the year of the first edition" but not always. The earliest known date might be the later edition that the editor is using. So there is no need for the 1st edition to be readily available. I'm not sure what concerns you about this particular point. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Sheedy: OK, I see. I'll amend my vote on this point. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sgconlaw As for "I think it is bibliographic practice to indicate that the name given is that of a printer rather than the publisher", can you please provide some resources that use that bibliographic practice? And do you know of a dictionary that uses that bibliographic practice for their quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose all except point 4. To point 2: Did the author even think that a chapter may be easier to find by title and chapter numberings may differ (or be unnumbered)? To point 5: Maybe there is need and it is informative, depends on the descriptive details; the example is a strawman. To point 3: For more obscure works publication details of the first edition may be helpful. While I do not generally use any of them I do not generally agree to ban all. And this still does not adress the formatting of translations quoted. I affirm that the amount of information given in the Alastair quote at stier is good. Fay Freak (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose point 2. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose point 5. Extra information is a widecast net and it seems hasty to ban it totally. --Uisleach (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose points 1 and 2. – Einstein2 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose point 1 in part per User:Sgconlaw. For a long title followed by a long subtitle, fine; but for a short and likely ambiguous title with a short subtitle, keep both parts. bd2412 T 19:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: Would not any ambiguity of title be resolved by the provided year and the author? That is, could there be two publications in the same year by the same author with the same title, differing only in subtitle? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is not unheard of (particularly with volumes of a series), perhaps the thing that really does it for me is that for titles like Persuasion versus Persuasion: A Novel, the shorter one just sounds less complete. Perhaps we could impose a distinction based on the number of words in the title and the subtitle (e.g., a three word main title with a four or five word subtitle is okay, but a four word main title gets no subtitle, or a two word main title with an eight word subtitle gets cut off at the main title). bd2412 T 18:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: Thank you. I don't think "Emma" by Jane Austen is incomplete; I don't think it has to be "Emma: A Novel. In Three Volumes." or "Emma: A Novel." And I don't think there is the slightest chance of misidentification if we only say "Emma", provided we state the author and the year. Do you know of any sources, whether dictionaries or other kinds of sources, that use these kinds of subtitles to refer to works? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never been impressed with the implication that we should impose the kinds of limitations on ourselves that other dictionaries have carried over from the time when they were limited to printing on paper. bd2412 T 18:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Late note: The proposal never was about print limitation; it was about saving human attention of the reader. But let me admit that I now entered On Immunity: An Inoculation as a work title and it seems perfectly fine, whereas I would not have entered Emma: A Novel.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose point 4, "Printing location, publisher and publication date should be given, [...]", since I do not think that information should be given but rather I think it can be omitted when other information suffices for identification, and it is preferable to omit location and publisher. In general, the year, the author and the title suffice for work identification. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose point 1 Subtitle is still part of the title. NativeNames (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @NativeNames: Do we need "Pseudodoxia Epidemica: Or, Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenents, and Commonly Presumed Truth" rather than "Pseudodoxia Epidemica" and why? Do you know of a dictionary that uses this kind of quotation identification? Or, on a similar note, should we use "On the Origin of Species" or "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan Polansky: The point of an encyclopedia is to compile knowledge. As such it matters to be accurate. There are only so many words in the English language too, I worry for the time where, even if one-in-a-million, titles without an ISBN overlap due to this hypothetical reform. Not to mention, we have {{nb...}} for this exact reason. NativeNames (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @NativeNames: This is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. It compiles knowledge about words, not about quotations. Providing subtitle is not a matter of accuracy. Since each quotation has a year number and usually an author, overlap of titles is not a problem, and furthermore, this vote does not propose to forbid ISBN. As for {{nb...}}, it can be used for a varienty of different purposes so its exact reason is not to allow hiding of long subtitles. Do you know of a dictionary that uses this kind of quotation identification? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Dan Polanksy You misunderstand what I meant. I'm not saying ISBN is meant to be dissolved with this vote. My vote still stands and I still believe a subtitle should be included. NativeNames (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that the post to which I responded contains incorrect arguments, viz. this is not an encyclopedia, etc. I do not understand what is meant by "I worry for the time where, even if one-in-a-million, titles without an ISBN overlap due to this hypothetical reform" in so far as that is supposed to be an argument in support of anything; an elucidation would be welcome. Maybe someone who understands your argument (which I am not) could try to rephrase it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose points 1, 2, and 5. I can imagine circumstances in which this info can be needed to pin down which publication is meant. I especially strongly oppose point 2 because there are unnumbered chapters in many works.​—msh210℠ (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose point 1. Many books have identical or similar titles, and subtitles can be useful for disambiguation. Subtitles can also communicate helpful contextual information about a term or its usage. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose points 1 and 2. Per WordyAndNerdy's rationale for point 1 and Msh210 's rationale for point 2. If exceptions exist, particularly for point 2, they should be more clearly designated and stated.
     Comment I hold a view similar to DTLHS overall. Specifically, I believe that this vote's results should be tabled for future reference and another vote should be created after this one closes that discusses what the technical implementation looks like, whether that is how templates should be change or if something like using {{nb...}} should be used. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain points 3-5. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain Does not address any actual structural concerns with entries or templates. I think this information should be retained. I also think it probably should not be shown in entries but rather on the template documentation page, or displayed optionally with some other technical solution. Therefore I feel this vote is misguided. DTLHS (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain. I don't think I am falling foul of any of the above points, but some of the examples given probably include more detail than is really necessary. DonnanZ (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]

I counted (if the vote did not specify any points, it is assumed to have supported, opposed or abstained on all points):

  • point 1: 13 support, 8 oppose, 2 abstain. Support/oppose ratio = 1/2 < 13/21 < 2/3 → no consensus.
  • point 2: 11 support, 6 oppose, 2 abstain. Support/oppose ratio = 1/2 < 11/17 < 2/3 → no consensus.
  • point 3: 16 support, 1 oppose, 3 abstain. Support/oppose ratio = 16/17 > 2/3 → passed.
  • point 4: 13 support, 2 oppose, 3 abstain. Support/oppose ratio = 13/15 > 2/3 → passed.
  • point 5: 14 support, 3 oppose, 3 abstain. Support/oppose ratio = 14/17 > 2/3 → passed.

I will leave revising WT:Citations to someone else. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here also the ratios as percentages, as usual, to get a quicker idea of the size and easing comparison to thresholds:
  • point 1: 61.9%
  • point 2: 64.7%
  • point 3: 74.1%
  • point 4: 86.7%
  • point 5: 82.3%
--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2020-06/Citation_formatting_guidelines&oldid=75928688"