Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:36, 24 March 2014

Template:Reflist is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit protected}} to notify an administrator to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This page is used for general discussion about Template:Reflist, a Misplaced Pages references template, which is used on many articles. For help on adding a reference to an article, see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, or ask for help on that article's talk page.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Proposed change to "Multiple uses" doc

Per this discussion I'm proposing changing the the Multiple uses section to

If a single page contains multiple invocations of {{reflist}} (or variants such as {{Notelist}}), each invocation should specify |close=1 e.g.

• {{reflist|close=1}}
• {{reflist|close=1|group=Note}}
• {{notelist|close=1|35em}}

Otherwise unpredictable behavior, which may change in the future, will result/ Such behavior may include appearance of the message

MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references

or duplicate output of references.

I know the error message "quote" isn't quite right. Can someone remember how to trigger it? EEng (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What quote? If you mean the Cite error refs without references error, then it is transcluding properly. --  Gadget850 13:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what I was thinking. EEng (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

<bump> If I don't hear anything soon I'll install this new text live. EEng (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No, please don't: as noted at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Special:ExpandTemplates gives different page preview, advocating the use of |close=1 is unnecessary and likely to cause confusion. There is no need to give complicated advice when it can be simpler. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for remaining silent until the last possible moment. Here's the last part of the discussion from Village Pump. Too bad no one responded there at the end -- maybe you will now.

:

If {{Reflist}} is used multiple times without a parameter, each subsequent use will repeat the output of the first instance due to template caching. This may also result in a misleading error message:

MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references

Where a page include multiple uses of {{Reflist}}, each subsequent use should include at least one parameter, such as refs or group. If these parameters are not appropriate, then the practice is to use {{Reflist|close=1}}. Do not use close without the =1, as it will be parsed into the column-width.

--  Gadget850 14:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, here's my proposed wording from a few posts back, slightly modified:

If {{reflist}} is used multiple times on the same page, each invocation must specify |close=1 e.g.

*{{reflist|close=1}}

*{{reflist|close=1|group=Note}}

*{{reflist|close=1|35em}}

Otherwise unpredictable behavior, which may change in the future, will result. (Symptom of not doing this are sometimes the message MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references, or the same list of references output twice.)

Gadget, what in the world is the point of all that complex explanation? Why tell the user about caching, and document the repetition of the reflist contents as if it's a feature to be supported in future??? If we're gonna warn them "do not use close without the =1", then why not warn them "do not use the German Schließen instead of close", or "do not misspell Reflist"? I'm serious. What's all that stuff get us? Please explain. (I suppose we could put a footnote -- no kidding -- giving a technical explanation for those interested.) EEng (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no better wording. And I don't know why the Mediawiki page isn't rendering for you, but the way you modified it certainly breaks it. --  Gadget850 02:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You have no better wording than what??? Which wording are you talking about -- yours or mine? Are you saying mine is OK, or you prefer yours? And if the latter, why? Can you please give a straight answer so we can be done with this? EEng (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC) P.S. Not that it's a big deal, but the errmsg as you had coded it didn't show up at all on both IE and Chrome (whether I was logged in or not).

<bump> EEng (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I added "confusingly" to the current documentation. --  Gadget850 16:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

30em versus 2

I am very much involved with translating medical articles into other languages. 30em is not support while 2 is. Thus I typically use the later. Is there any preference? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedias may not have a version of Reflist that has all the features of the one here. What language are you using? --  Gadget850 11:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I am working on the 60 languages listed here. So far we have translated more than 3 million words of text. Will stick with the simplier format than. Some in fact only accept the even more basic <references /> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just glancing at the versions of Reflist:

• German does not exist
• French, Chinese, Hindi, Indonesian, Macedonian, Tagalog seem to have most of the features
• Persian uses formatnum ro rationalize column-width and column-count and has a font size feature
• Swedish has a very basic version

And I know there is at least one version that includes the heading. And then there is the supporting CSS which would vary. --  Gadget850 14:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Misplaced Pages very much would be easier if there was greater consistency in markup across languages. I know however that some want great inconsistency to prevent translation. This however is unfortunate IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

To return to your question "is there any preference?": the policies, guidelines and practices of English Misplaced Pages have no bearing over what is preferred at Misplaced Pages in other languages; indeed, some of our preferred practices are contrary to the preferred practices elsewhere. You would need to find out at those other Wikipedias if they have any preference of their own. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure I am trying to keep what we do within Wikiproject Medicine in English compatible with other languages. Am not suggesting any change in formatting in those other languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Surely if a target width is available (i.e. on en-wp) it should be preferred over a fixed number of columns, because it produces better results on a range of viewing devices. Kanguole 15:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref style is determined by discussion on the talk page. Translation is of greater importance and we should keep thing simple. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, as Reflist isn't portable, restricting to "|2" instead of "|30em" doesn't seem to gain much portability, at the cost of better layout on en.wiki due to fixing a manual number of columns instead of automatic. Widefox; talk 00:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As there is no consensus that "|30em" is prefered, which is used should be left to the primary editors of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's a column feature request for <references /> which (if implemented) will be portable across all wikis. Widefox; talk 03:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. That would be excellent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Capitalized <ref> causes extra backlink_causes_extra_backlink-2014-03-06T15:34:00.000Z">

When using List-defined references and {{reflist}}, if the <ref> tag is capitalized in any manner (Ref, REF, reF, etc.) then an extra backlink is created that does not have a matching anchor:

<ref name=foo/>
{{reflist|refs=
<Ref name=foo>Reference 1</ref>
}}

But if <references> is used, then the extra backlink does not occur:

<ref name=foo />
<references>
<Ref name=foo>Reference 1</ref>
</references>
}}

--  Gadget850 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)_causes_extra_backlink"> _causes_extra_backlink">

My best guess is a bug in how #tag:references is handled. — Edokter (talk) — 16:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That's it. Filed Template:Bug - Using capitalized <ref> inside reference list creates extra backlink

<ref name=foo/>
{{#tag:references|<Ref name=foo>Reference 1</ref>}}

--  Gadget850 18:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)_causes_extra_backlink"> _causes_extra_backlink">

Deprecating fixed number of columns

I would like to propose removing the capability to specify a fixed number of columns (like with |2 or |3) and move to width-based metrics (like |30em) for all of our multi-column needs. This appears to be the consensus for what will be implemented for the <references /> upgrade based on: . The main reason is that narrow screens can't display 2 or 3 or more columns comfortably; they should be able to drop columns to fit the screen size. For example, anything that has 2 columns is slightly awkward to read on my Android phone, and anything with 3 or more is downright ugly. Another benefit is that very wide screens can make additional columns, resulting in a column width that remains easier to read, and saving space.

We can use as a guide to which articles are using the feature I propose to deprecate; it looks like about 1400 articles are currently doing so, which is a number which can be fixed manually. (Or a bot could do it.) What do others think? -- Beland (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone going to make this work across all languages? If not I oppose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand that, as there is no standard implementation of this template across the various language versions. And many, such as the German Misplaced Pages don't have this template. --  Gadget850 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think he's talking about Bugzilla:51260, which talks about adding the columns feature into the Cite extension. — Edokter (talk) — 23:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand Beland's reference, which I replied to below. But I don't understand Doc Jame's comment "make this work across all languages." We have no purview over the other Wikipedias, the reflist template is not consistently implemented across the various Wikipedias, and many don't have a version of reflist.

• You link to {{columns}}, which is not used for references (it's a table-based column template). By far the most uses for reflist already use the column-width functionality, and the few that don't can be edited, either by hand or bot. But I don't see a reason to deprecate column-count; it is merely a option, sometimes usefull, to tell the browser how to render columns. — Edokter (talk) — 23:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would argue the missing reason for disallowing column-count is that it doesn't work on narrow screens, like smartphones. Only one-column layout works for those screens, so I would argue good editors would either never use columns or only use options that automatically determine the number of columns based on the screen size. -- Beland (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I edit across 60 languages and {{reflist}} appears to work in all of them. {{reflist|30em}} doesn't and {{reflist|2}} at least doesn't break anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral appears issues fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The Guaraní Misplaced Pages has a different implementation of {{reflist}}. You need to use {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}. The Guaraní also supports a |title= parameter that we do not have here, but it does not have the fix for orphans/widows. --  Gadget850 01:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• And given the state of older and more serious bugs on the Cite bug list, I would not put a lot of faith in Template:Bug being implemented any time soon. --  Gadget850 23:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Using {{reflist|width=30em}} {{reflist |colwidth=30em}} - which is best practice - wouldn't break anything when translated onto other wikis either. The continued use of two fixed columns looks ridiculous both on my phone and on my 1920px-wide monitor. With 2560px panels becoming more available, we really need to move towards columns based on a width in ems that will adjust easily no matter the resolution of screen in use. @Edokter: Unless we actually deprecate a parameter, we do not indicate that a better method is preferred and we end up repeating the same arguments time-and-again to editors who don't realise that their screen width isn't the standard for the whole world. --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It does appear that the issues around the 30em bit has been fixed. It doesn't break it is just not do anything which is fine with me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

RexxS, I don't like removing options that could be usefull in certian places. Shall we set up a tracking category (or better method) to see how often fixed columns are actually used? — Edokter (talk) — 23:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Edokter: I completely agree with your philosophy about removing options, but I'm at a loss to see where |2 could be more useful than e.g. |width=30em. Nevertheless I'd be happy to be enlightened if we can find any instances. There's no rush because this is a niggle, not a major problem, so let's do the tracking and see. --RexxS (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to James, the correct parameter is |colwidth=, but I checked and it doesn't break anything on gn-wiki either. --RexxS (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The cat already is picking up 23,526, thats a lot of editors choosing to use that option. Think its likely still populating so will be interesting to see the final figure, however surely this would need wider consensus before removing that option.Blethering Scot 23:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support the concept but Oppose the default of 30em which is a tad too small on many devices and causes the second column to appear in too small of vertical space. Using 33em seems to work better on most of those devices. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Tracking

Added tracking category Category:Articles using fixed number of columns in reflist to {{reflist}} and {{refbegin}}. Let's see in 30 days what comes up. — Edokter (talk) — 01:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

At least one blank line is now appearing after the list of references. I presume it is due to this change. Please correct it. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed it too, so I fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Deprecate

What do we me by deprecate here? Would a bot go through 26k articles and update the parameter? Or would we update the template to convert a column value to a column width? --  Gadget850 01:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the bot, or simply let it 'break', so authors will fix the template use. Changing the meaning of "2" to mean "30em" was tried before, and it was not received well at all, so any static number should be ignored. How would people feel about making "30em" the default? — Edokter (talk) — 01:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

support 30em as the default value would go a long way toward improving the presentation of reflists; then a bot could be used to remove instances of col=2, etc. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What is meant by default? That 30em is applied as the default, regardless of the number of references (which we cannot detect)? That is no going to be seen as visually appealing where there are one or two references. --  Gadget850 12:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. In which case, "|2" and such should do nothing, ie. no columns. — Edokter (talk) — 13:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean 30em as the default in the absence of a parameter; not being visually appealing is a matter of debate. It is not uncommon for an article to have 0 or 1 reference, but that is not the desired norm - it is an indication of the poor sourcing that wikipedia has in some areas. Consider the lack of visual appeal in these cases as a sign of an underdeveloped article -- an indicator the work needs help, not unlike the more informative but less in-your-face stub-templates --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In which case, Oppose - where an article has primarily or exclusively shortened footnotes in the reflist, like NBR 224 and 420 Classes, narrow columns are beneficial. But where an article has primarily or exclusively full-length citations in the reflist, like Ipswich railway station, narrow columns are detrimental. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of a page with a 30em reflist - it has six entries. For me, there are three columns, and the third column consists of the single word "or" and a closing parenthesis. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Curious what your browser is. I only get two columns, no matter how wide. The "or)" should not break off. — Edokter (talk) — 23:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Firefox 27.0.1 - where I've just noticed that in Gadget850's example below, the "edit" link is similarly orphaned to a third column. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Firefox still needs to implement it. — Edokter (talk) — 00:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In Chrome, 1920px wide, I get refs 1-4 in col 1; ref 5 in col 2; ref 6 in col3. But when I lessen the window width I get two columns which remains even when I go back to 1920px wide. Or are we being too optimistic by expecting <ref>...</ref> tags to work properly with {{harv}} nested inside them? --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

With Firefox 27, a single citation always gets orphaned across the columns, whereas two or more do not. More examples added. --  Gadget850 02:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure FF27 is capable of orphaning two citations across multiple columns just as easily - see screenshot below. Nevertheless I'm convinced the problem above in Devon heraldry is an artefact of trying to nest references improperly. --RexxS (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In that example I get the same weirdness but 33em, as I suggested above, works just fine. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"deprecate" can also mean that it gets added to AWB and bots that do general cleanups, rather than having a bot edit all the articles. Anomie⚔ 11:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing that we change the default one-column layout if no parameters are supplied; that's actually my preferred layout, so I would oppose that as well. 8) I was thinking we could edit (either by hand over time or by bot - bot would make a lot of sense if it really is 26K) all the articles that currently use the fixed-column layout into the variable-column layout, and then once the number of articles is zero, either neuter the fixed-column parameter so it shows one column, or cause it to print an error so editors can learn about the new way of doing things. -- Beland (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Examples

Here is an example at standard and at 30em:

1. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1 instead.

1. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1 instead.

--  Gadget850 16:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Two citations at 30em:

1. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1 instead.
2. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1 instead.

Six citations at 30em:

1. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1 instead.
2. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1 instead.
3. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1 instead.
4. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1 instead.
5. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1 instead.
6. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10764-013-9672-1 instead.

--  Gadget850 02:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Firefox 27 is quite happy to break two citations across columns as well as breaking one citation across multiple columns - with a near-comical orphaning of the link as shown in this screenshot at around 2200px wide. IE11 behaves almost identically. Chrome and Opera behave much better, never breaking a ref across columns, with Chrome sometimes placing the second ref of two in the third column. If we are going to accept that readers will view references at very wide-screen resolutions, then to accomodate FF27 and IE11 we ought to be advising against using columns when there are less than (perhaps) four references. --RexxS (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Forget the default. The code for avoiding breaks in columns is still experimental. I thought Firefox would repond to it, but it apparently does not (at least with one item). — Edokter (talk) — 16:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I never go to multi-columns unless there are at least ten refs, or the article uses Shortened footnotes exclusively. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reflistp

I just stumbled across {{reflistp}}. I'm trying to understand why this is needed if it isn't to be saved in an article. --  Gadget850 21:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the doc, it is supposed to show only in preview, and should auto-hide after saving, when accidentally left in. — Edokter (talk) — 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

When I'm editing a section, I sometimes want to see how the changes I made to references show up, so I add <references /> at the end of the section. On occasion, I have forgotten to remove it when I saved the section. This results in a bit of mess until either I or someone else spots my mistake and corrects it. The {{reflistp}} template looks just like what I've been looking for, because it is intended to have no effect on display once the section is saved. Admittedly it's a bit less likely to be spotted, but in the meantime it does no harm as it only exists in the wikitext. Thanks for bringing it up: I'll be using it regularly in future. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have that problem too. But shouldn't the template have a tracking category so it can be cleaned up? Kanguole 01:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)