As it stands now, references is being used for two different things, as is reflected by the usage guidance, I wrote. It is being used for:
This shows that this tag is not unambiguous. So, How should we use it and/or change it?
“Questions looking for specific references” is not a useful tag. It characterizes answers, not questions.
I'm perfectly aware that several sites have such a tag, including one that I moderate (where it's called reference-request). But the tag serves no useful function. It vaguely indicates the nature of the expected answers, but it is not a subject of expertise, and it is not useful in a search (if I'm looking for a reference for X, I won't limit my search to questions with the tag reference-request, because many answers on questions that weren't specifically requesting references do include references).
So forget about looking for a name for a tag meaning “questions looking for specific references”. For the meaning “references in books”, I like muru's suggestion allusions.
We could split it up into sources (or maybe citation?) and allusions, which are unambiguous about which meaning of "references" they use. Of the four posts currently tagged references, I think three would fall under allusions:
None would be suitable yet for sources, since I don't see what references has to do with What section of literary theory does "pure" analysis fall into? (unless OP is asking for sources which define sections of "literary theory").
