Wiktionary talk:Votes/2023-08/Changing how the section "References" works

"bare templates"

@Vininn126: "Allow only bare templates/links/names of works to other works in the reference section" - err, so not the page number of the entry etc.? Would definitely oppose that as phrased. Why not just inline vs. not inline? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna Sure. Vininn126 (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Further readings that are not references

For example etymological dictionaries that don't mention the term, articles about certain cultural phenomena only using an exonym, wikilinks... What to do with them? Thadh (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This is something @Catonif has mentioned as well, as well as the fact notes is used for certain things. Perhaps not notes? Vininn126 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Why not add “Notes” as its own section like Wikipedia does? AG202 (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

But Wikipedia places those under "Further reading" and not "Notes", which is for editorial notes written in Wikipedia's own voice. The point of this vote, as I understand it (@Vininn126), is to abolish the qualitative distinction between "References" and "Further reading" and replace them with rigorously distinguished sections for footnotes and general sources. So any further reading would now go under "References". It might warrant a better title ("References and further reading", "Bibliography") though I'm fairly indifferent. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography could be nice. We just need a good second name. Vininn126 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly how Wikipedia does it, but to be fair, Wikipedia's Notes section is not only for notes written in Wikipedia's own voice. I envision:

• Footnotes: Inline citations
• Bibliography: List of general references
• Further reading/External links: Self-explanatory

Either that or:

• References:
  • Citations/Footnotes: Inline citations
  • Bibliography: List of general references
• Further reading/External links: Self-explanatory

The second option is what's done at w:Jeju language. Basically I would much rather prefer that further reading be separated from general references. There's an important distinction to be made there imho. AG202 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Catonif Had a better idea. I'm not sure what @Benwing2 would think. Vininn126 (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@AG202: This seems to be precisely the problem, though; there are some people who are unhappy about there being a distinction between general references and further reading because it's based on editorial discretion rather than a technical distinction. Wikipedia's policy is basically the same as our (notional) existing one at WT:EL: as WP:Further reading says, "Further reading is not a list of general references. General references are sources actually used by editors to build the article content, but that are not presented as inline citations. By contrast, Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend." I take it that's also your preference, and mine too. The example at Jeju language is something a bit different from the schema above: the inline citations that use Template:Sfn are just short "Bloggs 2000, p. 1" style footnotes that point to the full citations in the bibliography. That's also the usual understanding of "bibliography" in an academic context—it's just a list of the things cited previously. I don't see any obvious way to satisfy all parties. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

A good point is that Notes is already used for... notes. I think We need a different name. Vininn126 (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there's a way to satisfy everyone, but I at least wanted to put my own opinion/take out there before the vote is finalized. AG202 (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

limitations of MediaWiki

The <references /> tag is hard-coded into MediaWiki, right? We can't locally rename it to <notes />? I like the spirit of this proposal, but having a <references /> tag that can only be used outside the References section is sure to confuse people. Can anything be done to solve this problem? Thanks, —Soap— 00:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

We can discourage the use of bare <references />, as Wikipedia does, and rename {{reflist}}. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Should this be incorporated into the vote for proposals #2 and #3? Perhaps renaming it to "citelist" if either of those pass? Megathonic (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Good practices, bad naming

I agree that References should only hold inline sources, which is common practice for many, but renaming the section to Notes is a misnomer and hijacks an already in-use header. --{{victar|talk}} 00:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're not the only one expressing this thought, please read the above threads. Would you suggest a different name? Vininn126 (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Why change it at all? --{{victar|talk}} 03:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

A proposal: nested headers

As Victar mentioned and Vininn noted above, I would oppose the vote since =Notes= is already used for notes, see lutra, arcazón, etc. Inline references are, well, references, notes are notes. We should firstly be honest on what things are instead of using placeholder names. This is why I'm also dissatisfied with the current practice of placing non-inline references in =Further reading=, since non-inline references are also, surprisingly, references. For this same reason, I would also oppose moving actual "further readings", chiefly pedia links, into a header called =References=, since they're not references (or at least, shouldn't be). Hence my proposal: keep both inline and outline references into =References=, since that's what they are, so both ===References=== <references/> and ===References=== * {{R:xx:Dictionary}} would be allowed, and whenever there are both inline and outline references in the same entry, we pull out a subheader to separate them (for which wording is open to suggestions), so for example: ===References=== <references/> ====Additional sources==== * {{R:xx:Dictionary}}. This allows both types of references still being under =References= while tackling the problem of having them touch each other. Catonif (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but uh I will say that Notes as a header is technically not allowed currently per WT:EL, so any notes section is existing right now just on the fact that no one's brought it up yet. AG202 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I'll have to start a separate discussion to formalise them into EL. Catonif (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This would be my preferred option too, or something like it. I agree it's preferable to distinguish general references from further reading, as @AG202 also said above. I don't think that distinction is vague or confusing. If others do, though, then it's better for general references to be combined in a way that makes clear they're still sources, but there would need to be a better header title for it than "References". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I also would be fine with this system, I could change the proposal? Vininn126 (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we want the name "Additional sources"? I think that or "Bibliography". Vininn126 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"Additional sources" is probably better since it's unambiguous, if we go with Catonif's suggestion that the subheaders are only used when there are both inline and non-inline citations. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

So the current plan is to keep further reading, and allow a subheader called additional sources for noninline refs? Vininn126 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I also think the name of the vote should change if we do this. Vininn126 (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have updated both the vote and the name, please someone let me know if they think it should be otherwise. The point of this vote is try and make everyone happy, so I'm looking for cooperation. Vininn126 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126: The problem like I mentioned above is that Catonif's solution still requires editorial discretion between general references and further reading, which a few people (@Benwing2?) oppose. But several people have now said they want that distinction to be maintained (and I would prefer it to be). You either have it or you don't, so there's probably no unanimous solution available on that question, just quantitative consensus. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna You are right, but I think the overall proposal satisfies more people overall and is still somewhat of a compromise. Vininn126 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna You are right that I oppose this because (a) I've not seen any practical evidence that people can keep the distinction straight, (b) it makes it impossible for a bot to clean it up. I will vote oppose in any such vote, which seems to be completely changing the nature of the original proposal. Benwing2 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean people here have stated that they've kept the distinction straight :-/ Wikipedia folks generally keep it separate as well. AG202 (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the vote proposal should list a few examples of what would go under "Additional sources" and what would go under "Further reading", and then if it passes, these examples would be written into the policy to help provide clarification. Right now it seems too open to interpretation. Megathonic (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Megathonic Do you think I should tighten up the wording? If so, how? Vininn126 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure how off the top of my head. The original thread began because of a question about whether to list other dictionaries under further reading or references, and from my understanding of this proposal, they would now be listed under additional sources, unless they include an in-line citation, in which case they go directly under references. The current further reading guidance allows dictionaries to be put there, but this vote would change that, so perhaps the vote proposal should state what would now go (or not go) under further reading. Megathonic (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe the current vote forces the user to put all dictionaries under the new subheader - rather, dictionaries used as a reference. Vininn126 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I'm not sure that this vote will solve anything. The same inconsistency that currently exists will remain. Megathonic (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me give you an example: Wikipedia links, or even other encylopedias, would make great candidates for "Further reading". Rarely do we take something lexical from them. However, most of the time we link to dictionaries because we used something from them, making them a reference. So we might have an inline reference for the etymology, a reference dictionary in "Additional sources", and then a link to 'pedia in "Further reading". Vininn126 (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no conceptual inconsistency: either a source was used to prepare the entry itself or it wasn't. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it would work in practice, though. And even if it were perfectly implemented, it would lead to having the same dictionary listed under "additional sources" for some entries, and under "further reading" for others, depending on if that particular editor used the dictionary for anything. I don't see how that's ideal. Megathonic (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is both the academic standard and the long-established policy on Wikipedia and seems to cause few problems in either case, so the practice does not seem to be an issue. I don't understand why you think a particular source has to be categorised based on the source itself and not how it was used in a particular entry: that's just how references work. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"I don't understand why you think a particular source has to be categorised based on the source itself"

Because otherwise it will continue to look extremely inconsistent to the everyday reader.

It's not normal on Wikipedia for the same source (e.g., a particular dictionary) to be used across thousands of articles. Here it is, and it appears wrong when they aren't categorized the same. The original thread sparking this vote mentioned how Belarusian dictionary sources are sometimes listed under "References", sometimes under "Further reading", and how this is inconsistent. But according to how you wish to categorize them, there could actually be no "inconsistency" there at all; it just reveals whether a particular editor used them in creating the entry. I argue the vast majority of users will never ever view it this way. It's attempting to enforce an unenforceable distinction.

It would make far more sense to distinguish between lexical sources and non-lexical sources. Then it would look something like this:

1) One spot for an in-line citation list.

2) One spot for all other lexical reference works. Thus, almost everything which is not used for in-line citations would go here, including all dictionaries.

3) A "further reading" section for anything else. This section should be rarely populated and normally not used at all. A link to an encyclopedia entry could go here, but almost nothing else. We aren't Wikipedia and a general list of further reading is out of our purview.

Additionally, categories like "External sources" and "External links" would be abolished. There's no realistic way to maintain any type of distinction between them and the aforementioned categories. Removing them reduces unnecessary complexity. Megathonic (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Megathonic: You would probably be better served by simply voting for what is now proposal 3 which abolishes the "Further reading" section entirely, the rest of your proposal looks idiosyncratic given other people's sentiments on this page. You should also read through the existing policy at WT:EL; things like "External sources" and "External links" do not exist (there are no articles with an "External sources" header, and the only one with an "External links" header is James, where it should be renamed). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Where on earth are you getting idiosyncratic? Proposal 3 is what I support and is akin to the original vote proposal. I'm completely on board with scrapping the further reading header. Yet, I was also trying to find a solution that could accommodate the wish of other people who'd like to maintain it and could be enforced.

I'd read WT:EL numerous times, thank you. I took those phrases from Daniel's comment and mixed myself up. Megathonic (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Megathonic This does definitely not just take us back to square one. Releasing =Further reading= from the practical burden of containing non-inline references, we can think more theoretically on what should be its acutal scope. I personally don't see this as a grey area, and believe the distinction is useful to keep. =Further reading= per its name should contain links to "read further" than what is in the entry, that is, information that we purposely don't include in the entry, as it's not dictionary material. Since Wiktionary disallows encyclopedic content, among other things, this section is well-fitted for encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, along with other sister projects which contain information that is of course not our department. References, on the other hand, are works that back up information that is contained in the entry. This also confirms that sister projects should not be in =References= since they aren't acceptable as citations. So about dictionaries, we cite them to back up information we have in our entries, so they should go under =References=. If one finds themself preferring to place a dictionary under =Further reading= rather than =References=, that likely means the entry is not complete. In which case they may leave it under FR with some request template somewhere in the entry. Catonif (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If the issue is that people don't like the header name ===Further reading=== for non-inline materials, why not call it ===Appendix===? That's the usual catch-all name. --{{victar|talk}} 18:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't hate it. Vininn126 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I do I'm afraid, it's even vaguer and does nothing to indicate that sources were used as references. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I also don’t like that it could be confusing with our existing Appendix. AG202 (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

So I'll keep the proposal as is, adding perhaps some examples and further wording. Vininn126 (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no current Appendix header. --{{victar|talk}} 03:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it can be confusing with our Appendix namespace. Ex: some entries link to the Appendix in a See also section. Having "Appendix" as a header right after that can be confusing. AG202 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Disagree that the two would ever be confused, but sure. --{{victar|talk}} 16:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I will oppose prop 1 / adding a third header ("additional sources"); people already interchange and don't distinguish the last extra header we added ("further reading"), and while we might, in theory, one day find the energy to enforce a two-way distinction between "further reading" and "references" (whether under those names or as renamed by prop 2), I don't see a three-way split as being remotely maintainable in practice, or as making much sense anyway. - -sche (discuss) 16:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@-sche: It's worth noting though that both the extra header in Catonif's prop 1 and prop 2 in general are enforceable at a technical level, since bot runs can easily sort out inline citations from plain bullet points—that's part of the point of the proposals as I understand it, so I'm not sure this is a fair criticism. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

A bot could patrol a category for inline citations, but for prop 1, it's not possible for a bot to differentiate between "additional sources" and "further reading". I think it's entirely realistic that a distinction will not be maintained between these two in practice, so I do think this criticism has some merit. Megathonic (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Megathonic: It is the existing policy to distinguish references and further reading; prop 1 does not change that other than further distinguishing inline and general references, so the change made by prop 1 itself is technically enforceable. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The distinction is still two-way: it asks "does this back up information that is on the entry?" vs. "does this contain further information we don't have? meaning we either shouldn't or the entry is incomplete" (explained better at diff). This theoretical question is contaminated by the pragmatic solution to not being able to have <references/> close to anything else, forcing us to format entries as if non-inline references aren't references, which is not true, hence causing confusion. I believe the inconsistency and confusion arise exactly because of us missing this third header. You would see inconsistency and confusion as well on where people throw out plastic if the only recycling bins available are paper and scrap metal. Adding the plastic bin decreases inconsistency, not the opposite. The people that would oppose that are the ones that spent so much time in these conditions as to make them firmly believe plastic is just metal and there's no way to distinguish between the two. Catonif (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing the vote to an options vote

Because there seem to be two "well-populated" camps, I have decided to change the vote to an options vote, providing both options. Vininn126 (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of the initial proposal

This vote is changing very rapidly, and both the proposals now don't match what I understood to be initially intended in the proposal put forward by Mahagaja. What I understood it to be is the following:

Three headers. One ("Notes") for inline references, one ("References") for non-inline references, and a third one ("Further reading") for links to Wikis and other materials that wouldn't be able to be used as mentions/cites. Obviously the names can be changed somewhat, but it is important that the reader understand that "References" claim to be cites, and "Further reading" doesn't.

Right now, neither of the options seems satisfactory: The first one doesn't address Mahagaja's issue with inconsistency between entries (after all, in some entries "References" would be used for inlines and in others for non-inlines), while the second one doesn't address my issues: No distinction would be drawn between works that could help cite the term and those that couldn't, leaving the reader to figure out which ones are the actual references.

Why don't we take a step back and discuss this? Because as it stands now, I couldn't vote for either of the two proposals. Thadh (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: FWIW the proposals have not changed much as far as I know, Vininn just added Catonif's suggestion above and I removed some ambiguity to follow what was originally proposed more closely. What you are describing is essentially @Catonif's proposal 1, with the principal distinction that Catonif wants the first two that you list to be handled as subsections under "References". IMO handling them as subsections better upholds the distinction between "References" and "Further reading" than having three different same-level sections. There is then a further question about whether it's necessary to introduce the explicit subsections if only one type of reference exists in an entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Summary of rationale?

Can somebody please summarise the rationale for the two options? (We used to have a "rationale" section on votes, but no longer.)

If the concern relates to the disharmonious styling of the MediaWiki inline reference list vs the bulleted list, that can surely be improved with some local CSS overrides. This, that and the other (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other I added some rationale, perhaps others will want to change the wording. Vininn126 (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

We were both adding it at the same time, lol. I just tacked on another argument Catonif mentioned above for prop 1 (the recycling bins). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both. It really wasn't clear to me what problem was trying to be solved here, but now I understand. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Let the headers naturally merge as "References"

"Further reading" vs. "References" for Belarusian shows most editors in WT:BP are struggling to make this distinction with barely any difference. Separating these headers will be even harder for beginner editors who don't know how to use WT:BP. Users won't care to notice if the headers are mixed/swapped/renamed/merged unless someone starts lawyering. They only care that links/citations go in that general location. Editors don't want to have a headache thinking which links/citations go where. The prescriptivists need to stop their futile crusade. "Further reading," "Citations," "External sources", "External links", "Footnotes," "Bibliography," and "Further information" are too confusing.

Let's come back to common sense and just have one "References" header. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That's still not helping to decide whether a term already does or doesn't pass RFV. Unlike Wikipedia, we actually do have this issue. Thadh (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: I would still be confused in RFV with the complexity of either of the proposals or the status quo. If you're saying the issue is dictionaries go in "External sources" and don't count for "References," then I would also say that this distinction in WT:CFI is moot because the dictionaries bothering to include the word suggest with high probability that attestation elsewhere is easy to find. Furthermore, inline quotations would be clearer for RFV than any heading. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh? All I'm saying is that Further Reading shouldn't include materials that prove a term's existence and References shouldn't include materials that don't. See my proposal above - I'm not satisfied with either of the two current proposals, but yours definitely doesn't help. Thadh (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: If Wiktionary really needs this thing, I will rescind my proposal today and switch from oppose to abstain tomorrow. Perhaps I will understand how this works after it passes and a bot runs to fix all the page to show me concrete examples. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel.z.tg This doesn't have to do with RFV or helping terms pass them or not. It just has to do with how we show links to other dictionaries, etc. Vininn126 (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126: Wiktionary:Votes/2016-12/"References"_and_"External_sources"'s green box and User:Thadh say that it does have to do with RFV.

As for showing links, I was saying above that I won't see the difference when reading, and I would be annoyed to have to find the difference when editing. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it'd be pretty clear if "References" included titles like "A grammar of Foojian" and "A comprehensive dictionary of Barian", while "Further reading" included "Foo in the Foojian edition of Wikipedia" and "A history of Baristan: How did Barians use coal?". Thadh (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: Thank you for you "A grammar of Foojian." I see that being a Reference (-> Citations) included with <ref></ref> in a Etymology or Usage notes section. That would work for Proposal 1, but may conflict with Proposal 2 requiring these <ref></ref>s to be citations (assuming this word has the same meaning as for the Citations: namespace). Proposal 2 may conflict with this widespread usage in Etymology sections like in Latin -tus and Ancient Greek ἦλθον (êlthon). Proposal 2 would make my Canadian French-English citations in pages like French autosoins make sense, but will break all the Etymology <ref></ref>s.

I just learned about WT:LEMMING, and this kind of relates to attestation. I think that "A comprehensive dictionary of Barian" belongs in the Further reading section if it links to the specific page with the word. If the link is not specific to the word, the dictionary should not be referenced. Then your other examples, "Foo in the Foojian edition of Wikipedia" and "A history of Baristan: How did Barians use coal?" could attest to the word "foo" and "Baristan/Barians/coal" respectively.

Now I am informed about this vote. I don't think Proposal 2 will work because it will force Etymology sections to stop using footnotes. Proposal 1 seems to be like my proposal, except with some formatting ceremony I have to memorize but at least it's automatable and easy for editors. Proposal 1 merges the sections by removing the attestation distinction and enforces some formatting in the References section only. Proposal 2 just renames the sections but keeps the attestation distinction while enforcing formatting that would require changes in other sections. I'm now leaning towards Proposal 1. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

We can't use other wiki projects as a means of attestation, and if the text of "A history of..." doesn't provide the Barian term for "coal" (or any lemma on whose page it is given), it cannot, either. It's not only a matter for us (quickly seeing how many cites we already have for the term), but also for the reader, who may want to verify our information, and may not want to list through five articles about how important coal was to Barians before arriving at the one dictionary entry for Barian bar ("coal"). Thadh (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: OK, now I understand your goals of quickly determining attestation. If that's the case, then Proposal 2 renaming References to Citations is misleading. You said above that "Further Reading shouldn't include materials that prove a term's existence and References shouldn't include materials that don't." I was mistaken, now I get that the Citations: namespace talks about attestation and Proposal 2 wants to rename References (which talks about attestation) to Citations (which also means attestations), which makes sense.

As for the "how important coal was to Barians," it shouldn't be added to Wiktionary because we are WT:NOT an encyclopedia. The only way an article like that could be linked is if it talked about "how Barians use coal for heat" in order to illustrate how the Barian word for heat derives from the Proto-Barian word for coal. However, that article would probably contain the Barian word for heat, and whether it counts for attestation depends on whether you believe in WT:LEMMING. An example that would never count for attestation is an article about Proto-Barian sound laws in the etymology section of an entry that only underwent one sound change, and we wanted to explain that one change for comparison.

The problem is Point 3 of Proposal 2 "Allow only references cited inline in the "Citations" section, handled by <references/>". This is a problem because there are more usages of <references/> for non-attestation and for etymology than for attestation. Attestation usually uses a {{RQ:}} template, which doesn't generate a footnote. Also, as I see it, the problem with Proposal 1 is that it does not achieve your goals. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Further reading can be used to link to Encyclopedias, and if one's missing, why wouldn't we want to link to a related article?

And yes, this was my point in the previous thread, that both of these proposals aren't satisfactory for my needs. Thadh (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal #2

I think proposal #2 would have a better chance of passing if it was simply "create the new L3 header Citations above References for only <references />". Further reading still has use as a header for things other than references. --{{victar|talk}} 04:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2 is specifically because some people want a format that is purely bot-enforceable, as Benwing confirmed he does above. This is incompatible with maintaining any reference/further reading distinction. Since you and @Thadh both seem to prefer three L3 headers it might be better to add that as a separate proposal. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It is still possible to create yet a third proposal as a sort of middle ground. Vininn126 (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The above would still be bot-actionable, and would still rename instances of the header References with just <references /> under it, but would leave non-inline references untouched. The point is that we don't need to delete Further reading for the sake of what this vote is trying to acomplish.

If proposal #2 means to changes instances of L3 header References to an L4 header, that should be very explicitly stated. --{{victar|talk}} 17:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Victar: To be clear, the people who support proposal 2 specifically want to abolish the "Further reading" section because they feel that the distinction between general sources and further reading is either hard to understand or because it can't be enforced by bot. What you think the vote is trying to accomplish is just different from what they are trying to accomplish. Part of the point is, I think, to demonstrate whether there is still consensus for the existence of the section. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna, Benwing2: As I understand this (see diff), I think that Proposal 1 is bot-enforcable while Proposal 2 is not. Here is an algorithm for Proposal 1, and it doesn't touch the other sections in the page:

1. Check if there are any <ref></ref>s in the page
2. Parse the plain list of references ({{R:}}) from both the contents of the References and the Further Reading section
3. Delete those sections
4. Exit if there are neither <ref></ref>s nor {{R:}}s
5. Print ===References===
6. If there are <ref></ref>s but no {{R:}}s
   1. Print <references/>
7. Else if there are {{R:}}s but no <ref></ref>s
   1. Print * {{R:something|something}} for each
8. Else (there is at least one of each type)
   1. Print <references/>
   2. Print ====Additional sources====
   3. Print * {{R:something|something}} for each {{R:}}

Proposal 2 is problematic. In the entries I work with, I see both Etymology footnotes (like in Latin -tus and Ancient Greek ἦλθον (êlthon)) and attestation footnotes (French autosoins). If you "Allow only references cited inline," then it will be a hard AI problem coding a bot that can convert <ref></ref>s in the Etymology section to plain references in the References section while keeping things clear. The problem is that the situation has 2*2 possibilities, not 2:

	Counts for attestation	Doesn't count for attestation
Plain references	A ἀνέρχομαι#Further_reading	B {{R:Sihler 1995}} in edo#References
Inline references	C lēctiō sense 3 "chapter"	D Latin -tus and Ancient Greek ἦλθον (êlthon), Etymology

Point 3 and 4 of proposal 2 gives these formatting requirements, which when combined with details about attestation at WT:ELE, say we need to convert everything of type D to type B, and type A to type C. This is impossible.

Proposal 1 says we should merge type A and B, and have a separate subheading with C and D merged. This would cause far fewer problems. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel.z.tg Thank you for this. I haven't had time to follow these discussions in detail lately but you are completely right that my main concern is bot-enforceability. Benwing2 (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel.z.tg: I'm not sure how you've interpreted proposal 2, but the proposal merely calls for inline citations and non-inline sources to be sorted into different sections. Neither proposal calls for any kind of conversion between one form and the other. By definition proposal 2 is fully bot-enforceable and proposal 1 isn't to the extent that proposal 1 still maintains the distinction between general references and further reading, which must be determined by the editor. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna: As WT:ELE currently stands, one of the sections (i.e. References) is for attestation, and the other one (i.e. Further Reading) must not be used for attestation. It says "This section is not meant to prove the validity of what is being stated on the Wiktionary entries." Now after Proposal 2 renames things in point 1 and 2, the distinction would be still kept. When it tries in point 3 and 4 to "call[] for inline citations and non-inline sources to be sorted into [those two] different sections," a conversion will have to take place. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct on your first point @Daniel.z.tg, the proposal will result in a change to ELE and the abolition of "Further reading". The conversation is this very vote, since it's one proposal, not four separate proposals. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I misread and didn't see "It also clarifies that non-inline references used as sources for an entry are still references and not supplementary reading." in Proposal 1 last time.

@Al-Muqanna: If Proposal 2 involves the abolition of the attestation distinction between the two sections, could you make that explicit on the proposal? Daniel.z.tg (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've done so. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Now Proposal 2 says that we should merge A and B in one section, and C and D in another. Proposal 1 reads like it would force B to convert into D. The Additional sources part would be D only when the others are present, and if they are, they merge in <references/>. Proposal 1 is not bot-friendly, while Proposal 2 is. Therefore, I am thinking of supporting Proposal 2. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Re "proposal 2 is fully bot-enforceable": how? Based on the wording ("Add a new header"), I am taking it that proposal 2 means there will be three headers in total. I can see how a bot could enforce a two-way split, "all inline refs, and only inline refs, go in section 1; all non-inline refs, and only non-inline refs, go in section 2", but I am not seeing how a bot would enforce a three-way split, whether the three headers are at the same level or one is a subheader as in proposal 1. I see a variety of kinds of references cited for a variety of reasons, including 1) "I cited this reference for a specific claim (inline)", 2) "I cited this reference for so many claims throughout this entry that I'm just listing it at the bottom", 3) "this reference supports that the definitions are correct, but we don't cite definitions to inline refs for this language (we require quotes) so I'm listing this reference at the bottom", 4) "I consulted this reference while writing this entry, but not for anything in particular, so I'm listing it at the bottom" (which some people have said they do, for better or worse), and 5) "I didn't use this as a source (because e.g. it's Wikipedia and can't be used as a source), but it's got more info on the topic if you want it". I can see how a bot could consistently sort type 1 into one section all by itself, but it's less clear to me how a bot would figure out which of the two remaining sections (in proposals 1 and 2) types 2-5 go in. (Are you restricting the scope of "further reading" so that only other wikiproject links go in it?? Is that spelled out somewhere in the vote?) - -sche (discuss) 03:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@-sche: When this thread was created, "proposal 2" was what is now "proposal 3" Thadh (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I see. It looks like I am still left in the position of opposing both the current prop 1 and prop 2, since neither is maintainable and indeed both make the maintenance problem worse by adding even more headers people (currently do not and therefore expectably) will not, and bots cannot, consistently sort content between. - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving the date

@Al-Muqanna I think we may want to move the start date some, I'm thinking a week, let some more discussion happen. Thoughts? Vininn126 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds reasonable. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Third proposal

@Victar @Thadh So what do you two propose for the third proposal without the subheader? What should we call it? Can you give me a short rationale as well? Vininn126 (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I've given it above: Three headers, one for inline references, one for non-inlines that are attestations (e.g. dictionaries and grammars) and one for non-inlines that are not attestations (e.g. encyclopedias).

My initial proposal is to call the first one "Notes", second one "References" and third one "Further reading", but I'm willing to use different names if need be, as long as it is clear that the first two are references, and the third one isn't. E.g. "References", "Bibliography" and "Further reading" works for me.

The rationale is that the readers should know which of the given works are sources (so directly prove at least some of the information we provide), and which are not. As a bonus, we as editors can easily see how many cites/mentions an entry already has, which will help with RFVs. Thadh (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh I guess the main thing differing from proposal 1 is that we will always have the same headers for inlines and non-inlines, which makes it easier for new editors and readers to understand which section is for what. Thadh (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the exactly what I suggesting far above as well, and I'd support this proposal. AG202 (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: The problem with "Notes" is that it's already in use (although non-canonically) for editorial notes. @Catonif I think has said that he wants to have a vote at some point to allow that use officially. It was changed to "Citations" in proposal 2 accordingly although that one runs the risk of being confused with the Citations tab. "References" and "Bibliography" is probably fine. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I cannot support a header called Notes for this usage. --{{victar|talk}} 16:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I propose we change notes to references and the other section to bibliography. Vininn126 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Victar: would "References" for inlines and "Bibliography" for non-inlines work for you? Thadh (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Dude, that's just proposal #3 with different names. --{{victar|talk}} 17:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It still adds a header. Vininn126 (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I would honestly vote for #1 over this. :/ --{{victar|talk}} 17:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're on the same page - I thought you wanted three sections, 0 subsections, no? Vininn126 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be favorable to proposal #2 if the section was called "Citations", and not "Notes". --{{victar|talk}} 18:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was asking and talking ab out Vininn126 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Examples

I added examples to each proposal. Correct if wrong. Remove if hated. --{{victar|talk}} 20:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems mostly fine. Perhaps we could add the further reading sections just for clarity. @Al-Muqanna? Vininn126 (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. --{{victar|talk}} 20:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Wording for proposal 3

It was already mentioned that "References and further reading" may be a better title instead of just "References", and I'm wondering if we shouldn't change it to that. Then the issue of non-reference material being categorized as a reference is removed. This is what German wiktionary does, where inline citations are listed under "Quellen" (Sources) and the rest gets put under "Referenzen und weiterführende Informationen" (References and further/additional information). It seems like a straightforward system that keeps it simple, accurately describes the content in each category, and remains 100% bot enforceable. Megathonic (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Modified the proposal. Megathonic (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the changes made that option worse. --{{victar|talk}} 06:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

More input is needed. @AG202 @Thadh @Catonif Vininn126 (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah there’s too much to follow right now, but I personally wouldn’t support this. I already don’t support collapsing them, and this header would also be too long comparatively. AG202 (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I've changed it back to "References" pending further discussion. I still think it would probably be a good idea to come up with a more fitting name, whatever that name may be. Megathonic (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

"Bibliography" might work. Vininn126 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving the vote up

Would anyone mind if I moved the vote up? It seems like things have calmed down. Vininn126 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh @Al-Muqanna @Catonif @Victar @Megathonic Vininn126 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me. -- Sokkjō 17:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me, too, although I don't really see the benefits of option 1 when compared to option 2. Thadh (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections. Megathonic (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

A clarification

More information

Reading this talk page about everyone’s opinions has been confusing to me, so I’d like to clarify the changes in the proposals. If I got anything wrong, or omitted anything relevant, please tell me so that I can edit this post appropriately. Categorisation People in this talk page mainly agree on at most five groups of sources placed in the sections References and Further Reading, and any future sections affected by this vote: Further reading, which includes content not used at all when editing the entry. Examples: etymological dictionaries that don't mention the term articles about a cultural phenomenon described in the entry it is cited in links to relevant Wikipedia articles(listed as type 5 by -sche) Plain references which do count for attestation. (categorised as type A by Daniel.z.tg) Examples: grammars and dictionaries of the language ἀνέρχομαι#Further_reading Plain references which do not count for attestation. (categorised as type B by Daniel.z.tg) Examples: references used for several claims (-sche’s type 2) references which support definitions (-sche’s type 3) references consulted over the course of editing (-sche’s type 4) Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰéǵʰōm#Further_reading Inline citations, which: count for attestation. (categorised as type C by Daniel.z.tg) Example: lēctiō sense 3 "chapter" do not count for attestation, and are instead cited for specific claims.(categorised as type D by Daniel.z.tg) Examples: Latin -tus, Etymology Ancient Greek ἦλθον (êlthon), Etymology The numbering of these groups will be used throughout this post. Proposals Before the vote is completed, the status quo is that inline citations(groups 4.1 and 4.2 above) are always put under References, because they are generated by <references/> or {{reflist}}; some content recommended for further reading(group 1 above), like Wikipedia links and articles with supplementary content, are always put under Further Reading; groups 2 and 3, and some of group 1, are variously put under References or Further Reading. Using <references/> to represent group 4, as inline citations can’t be separated according to this nature, the proposals in the vote may be shown as follows: Proposal 1 When there are only inline references: ===References=== <references/> ===Further reading=== * 1 When there are only non-inline references: ===References=== * 2 * 3 ===Further reading=== * 1 When there are both: ===References=== <references/> ====Additional sources==== * 2 * 3 ===Further reading=== * 1 Proposal 2 ===Citations=== <references/> ===References=== * 2 * 3 ===Further reading=== * 1 Proposal 3 ===Citations=== <references/> ===References=== * 2 * 3 * 1 Alternative suggestion Thadh is not satisfied with any of the proposals and believes that “Further Reading shouldn't include materials that prove a term's existence and References shouldn't include materials that don't.”I’ve taken the liberty of attempting to present Thadh’s suggestion: (again, if this was not what was intended, please tell me) ===Citations=== <references/> ===References=== * 2 ===Further reading=== * 3 * 1 Bot enforceability The distinction between group 4 and the other groups is very simple and can easily be enforced by bot, as demonstrated by Daniel.z.tg. If in an entry, group 1 was consistently sorted to Further Reading and groups 2 and 3 were consistently sorted below <references/> or {{reflist}} under References, bots would be able to enforce any of the current Proposals. However, the distinction between group 1 and groups 2 and 3 currently cannot be made by many editors, not to mention bots. In entries where group 1 is not already properly divided from groups 2 and 3, bots cannot enforce Proposals 1 and 2, only Proposal 3. This is what bot owners such as Benwing are concerned about. Current and proposed section names References Currently used for group 4, and sometimes groups 2 and 3. Kept in proposal 1 to include group 4 and optionally the header Additional sources, which includes groups 2 and 3; kept in proposal 2 to include groups 2 and 3 only; and kept in proposal 3 to include groups 1, 2 and 3. Also once proposed to include all 4 groups. Further reading Currently used for group 1, and sometimes groups 2 and 3. Kept in proposals 1 and 2 for group 1; abolished and merged into References in proposal 3. Citations Used in Proposals 2 and 3 for group 4. May be confused with our citations, a.k.a. quotations, which are used for attestation. Additional sources Used in Proposal 1 for groups 2 and 3. Notes/Footnotes Originally proposed for the section containing only group 4. Regarded misleading because it contains only inline sources and no editorial notes at all, it is now in none of the proposals. Bibliography Proposed for groups 2 and 3. Not in any of the proposals. Appendix Proposed for groups 1, 2 and 3. May be confused with our Appendix: namespace. Not in any of the proposals. References and further reading Proposed to replace References in proposal 3, i.e. for groups 1, 2 and 3. Pending further discussion. Links to comments above Mcph2 (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mcph2: I find this a confusing summary to be honest because Daniel's taxonomy conflates arguments in support of particular proposals with the proposals themselves. The vote is simply about where to put inline vs. non-inline citations and whether to maintain the distinction between references and further reading, a distinction that's already laid out in exising policy: any other distinctions between types of sources are not part of the vote itself. When Thadh (and Victar) said they opposed all the proposals, the current proposal 2 had not been added: Victar added that proposal to represent their viewpoint. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna: Alright, I must have overcomplicated things. I’ve put a strikethrough. Mcph2 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposals #1 and #3 diff examples

Isn't #1 just

===References===
<references/>
====Additional sources====
* {{cite-book}} [source used for creating the entry]
===Further reading===
* {{cite-book}} [source not used for creating the entry]
* {{pedia}}

and #3

===Citations===
<references/>
===References===
<references/>
* {{cite-book}} [source used for creating the entry]
===Further reading===
* {{cite-book}} [source not used for creating the entry]
* {{pedia}}

Catonif (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Either is fine with me. -- Sokkjō 16:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's accurate. Megathonic (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Incompletely used materials

For Proposal 2, I can think of the following situation for Thai, a WDL.

1. The 3 quotations scraped up don't really establish the meaning of the word.
2. A dictionary does confirm the the meaning, and is therefore cited.
3. The dictionary gives a lot of derivatives and (arguable) idioms.

Can the dictionary therefore be listed under both "Citations" and "Further reading!"? --RichardW57m (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Mentioned non-Supporting Materials

Under Proposals 1 and 2, may materials not used to support the entries be referenced? For example, the etymology might say, "Other, far less plausible etymologies have been suggested.<ref|group=s>{{cite-book}}</ref>" and then say no more about them. Would it still be in order for the details of the reference to be given in "Further reading"? --13:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC) RichardW57m (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

That's still supporting the entry, specifically the claim within the entry that other far less plausible etymologies have been suggested. The ety section is part of the entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna: But those etymologies themselves are further reading. --RichardW57m (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Status quo?

I’m confused why the status quo of listing non-inline citations under ===Further reading=== and inline sources under ===References=== is not one of the options in the vote. I appreciate the vote offers newer options of listing citations, but not recognizing the longstanding status quo is a big drawback, especially when it is easier to reinforce the status quo. (By the way, can someone explain to me why we actually need the new options (i.e. proposals 1, 2, 3) in the first place? I’m interested to hear the flaws of the status quo that has led to this vote’s creation.) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 3 is the same as the current practice except that the header names are different. I also notice an obsession in the vote with having a separate header for “source not used for creating the entry” despite the fact that such sources are scarcely used. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe that should've served as a clue that that is not the status quo. Thadh (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: What you're describing is not the status quo—the vast majority of Latin entries with references list them under "References" with no inline citations, for example—but in previous discussions some people have said they wanted to implement it, hence this vote. Resources explaining the status quo are linked at the start of the vote page. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna, Thadh: The layout I described is what I understand as Wiktionary’s unofficially longstanding layout for references. I picked it up from others when I joined the project, and have not only always been sticking to this layout just as several other editors, but also fixing the layout of any entries I found not adhering to it. The fact that many editors don’t adhere to it is simply because they are unaware of it, so they started adding references in their own way. It’s disappointing that the old and currently used layout has been totally omitted, and unfortunately participation in this vote is low too. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If most people don't know of a rule, then it's not a rule. I have never heard of such a "longstanding layout", and have never followed it. Thadh (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It is absolutely not the policy, and you should not be updating other entries like that. Even WT:References, though not official policy, has a clear example of a non-inline reference under the References header. The Further Reading section at WT:EL also states: "This section is not meant to prove the validity of what is being stated on the Wiktionary entries (the “References” section serves that purpose)." AG202 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, strange take @Inqilābī. It sounds like you've intuited a nonexistent rule and are now upset about others not following it. Like AG said, there's official policy, WT:EL, that says something else. But just use common sense: if this was already settled practice we wouldn't have been having this discussion over the last month. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

As this vote is failing, I should create a vote in future to enforce the layout I talked of, used in tons of entries. The problem is just that the written policy doesn’t match actual practice. There are merits of implementing this layout with consensus: less number of entries would have to get fixed, in contrast to one of the current proposals of this vote hypothetically gaining consensus in which case every entry needs to be edited. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a statistical analysis on that? All entries I have created (except for a couple Kashubian ones), and also most entries created in LDLs throughout our dictionary uses "References" as the sole header for non-inline sources. I wouldn't be so sure that this is a minority. Thadh (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think most of our reconstruction namespace lemmas as well as several European languages entries use ===References=== for inline sources, and also distinguish non-inline sources using ===Further reading===. I believe apart from myself @Victar, Rua, Mahagaja are among the people who use this layout. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If (when) this vote fails, there should be a followup vote to codify the above status quo. --{{victar|talk}} 17:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that what y'all say is the status quo would pass easily if formalized. Proposal 3 is the closest to that, and it's failing more than the others. I agree with @Thadh and what he's described as it's almost universally what I've seen and used, especially in LDLs. AG202 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

===References=== for non-inline sources might be the most commonly used right now, but differentiating between inline and non-inline sources is preferable and tidier, and while we’re at it, the more smart layout (a.k.a. our good old status quo) naturally comes to mind, rather than the newly proposed (similar or different) layouts. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what proposal 2 is aiming to do. Separating out inline & non-inline sources, while also maintaining Further reading as a separate header with no references, as our current policy states. AG202 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, sources not used for creating the entry could just be listed together with non-inline sources under the same header. But then you guys seem to prefer this threefold distinction rather than a simpler twofold distinction of solely inline & non-inline sources… ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)