Template talk:Reflist - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Davidwr (talk | contribs) at 19:37, 27 February 2020 (→Limitations: rewriting section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:37, 27 February 2020 by Davidwr (talk | contribs) (→Limitations: rewriting section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Reference number ordering?

What determines how references are numbered? I'm used to them being numbered in order of when they're cited in the article. But, looking at Electronic cigarette, The first reference is 77, the next is 3, then comes 78, etc. What's the magic here? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A bunch of references are in note 1.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Dooh! Thanks for spotting that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please amend the protection of this template so that template editors can edit it (like, e.g. {{infobox}}). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done: Given it's extremely high usage here (unlike template:infobox) this template shouldn't ever need to be edited, If you've spotted an error let someone know. –Davey2010 22:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Davey2010, You aren't an admin, so you couldn't have done it anyway. Why did you post this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Koavf - Open your eyes - I said If you've spotted an error let someone know. - I never once in my reply stated I could do anything, Why did you post this? - Because it's common courtesy to post a response with the template?. –Davey2010 18:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Davey2010, You also wrote "Not done" but you couldn't do it anyway. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC) The template doesn't remotely imply I'm an admin and I'm not acting in an admin capacity. Don't you have content to be removing or whatever it is you do that you think is "productive editing" .... –Davey2010 18:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Davey2010, Unfortunately, yes, your hateful invectives, irrelevant posts, and pointless editing that doesn't even make a cosmetic change are definitely taking up my bandwidth. It would be a lot easier if you stop stalking my edits, antagonizing me, and posting lies about me but I can't exactly control your behavior and how rude, off-putting, un-collaborative, and vicious you are. At most, I can just fix when you make mistakes that I happen to notice and keep on doing what I can to make this encyclopedia better in spite of other editors who want to drive away those who are working alongside them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC) I would hardly call amending the infobox spacing as pointless editing - It makes it tidy inside and helps our readers who may want to edit it, I suppose you're going to tell me edits such as this and this aren't pointless edits...., You stalked my edits so I thought I'd return the favour, tit-for-tat really, I think it's fair to say you've antagonised yourself. If I make mistakes you're more than welcome to fix them - I'm not the perfect editor nor have I claimed to be one but if you want to follow me around like a little lapdog and correct every minor mistake I make then you by all means knock yourself out. Sorry to rain on your parade but this isn't improving the encyclopedia... it's doing the exact opposite, Given your recent track record of "improving the project" one would've assumed you would've steered clear of people and disruptive editing for a while but apparently not. –Davey2010 19:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Davey2010, Maybe you're not familiar with our requirement that all information here needs to be sourced but it's actually a bedrock policy here. We don't publish original research. Maybe you could try steering clear of people and let me know how that goes, Davey. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Davey2010, You aren't an admin, so you couldn't have done it anyway. Why did you post this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Koavf - Open your eyes - I said If you've spotted an error let someone know. - I never once in my reply stated I could do anything,

Why did you post this? - Because it's common courtesy to post a response with the template?. –Davey2010 18:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010, You also wrote "Not done" but you couldn't do it anyway. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The template doesn't remotely imply I'm an admin and I'm not acting in an admin capacity. Don't you have content to be removing or whatever it is you do that you think is "productive editing" .... –Davey2010 18:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010, Unfortunately, yes, your hateful invectives, irrelevant posts, and pointless editing that doesn't even make a cosmetic change are definitely taking up my bandwidth. It would be a lot easier if you stop stalking my edits, antagonizing me, and posting lies about me but I can't exactly control your behavior and how rude, off-putting, un-collaborative, and vicious you are. At most, I can just fix when you make mistakes that I happen to notice and keep on doing what I can to make this encyclopedia better in spite of other editors who want to drive away those who are working alongside them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I would hardly call amending the infobox spacing as pointless editing - It makes it tidy inside and helps our readers who may want to edit it, I suppose you're going to tell me edits such as this and this aren't pointless edits....,

You stalked my edits so I thought I'd return the favour, tit-for-tat really, I think it's fair to say you've antagonised yourself.

If I make mistakes you're more than welcome to fix them - I'm not the perfect editor nor have I claimed to be one but if you want to follow me around like a little lapdog and correct every minor mistake I make then you by all means knock yourself out.

Sorry to rain on your parade but this isn't improving the encyclopedia... it's doing the exact opposite,

Given your recent track record of "improving the project" one would've assumed you would've steered clear of people and disruptive editing for a while but apparently not. –Davey2010 19:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010, Maybe you're not familiar with our requirement that all information here needs to be sourced but it's actually a bedrock policy here. We don't publish original research. Maybe you could try steering clear of people and let me know how that goes, Davey. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Also, requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, Contacting the protecting admin isn't needed for templates and he hasn't edited here in a year. I've posted to the page you suggested, thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Although I'd bet that the 90% of template editors are more comfortable editing templates than 90% of admins, there is a principle of "minimum exposure" for editing of very highly used templates. I sympathise, because I've often felt frustrated in the past when the protection level of a template prevented me from editing it (usually I ended up working in the sandbox and requesting the update when finished). Nevertheless, this template hasn't needed to be edited in over two years, so it's unlikely its protection level will be downgraded. Let me make you an offer: if you need to edit this template, just make an edit request – it's on my watchlist – and I'll do my best to fulfil the request for you, if practical. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

RexxS, That's very thoughtful of you. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: In Misplaced Pages:Protection policy, I can't find the part that says that contacting the protecting admin isn't needed for templates - please direct me to the relevant section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, In the page you directed me to: Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection, you can see: "Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:REFLIST" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:REFLIST. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Preview with nonempty refs parameter

I'm pretty sure it used to be the case that {{reflist|refs=...}}, when editing and previewing the references section, would format and display the references in the previous window, even though they are unused within that section. In the past few weeks, that has stopped happening, making it difficult to edit references sections formatted in this way. The template itself hasn't changed in years. Anyone have an idea how this might have changed and how to get the preview of references back again? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

WMDE has been working on Extension:Cite code recently. They may have broken reference previews in a different section functionality. I'd recommend going straight to Phabricator. --Izno (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T245376 —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Limitations - original draft

I added a "limitations" section, but its contents should probably be moved to the documentation for <references /> with a link here.

There is a bug (example here) that makes references not work right if they are in lists under certain circumstances. It needed to be documented.

This bug tends to rear its ugly head if a block of WikiCode that contains something like

:<references />

:{{reflist talk}}

is later surrounded by {{collapse top}}/{{collapse bottom}}, {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}}, or something similar. This happens routinely in places like requests for comments or deletion discussions.

This example does NOT use :, *, or #. It is what things should look like:

<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF;">
Discussion with footnote<ref group=test>Doe, John, ''Example book''</ref>
:<references group=test />
More discussion here.
</div>

renders incorrectly as

Discussion with footnote

Doe, John, Example book

More discussion here.

but if you remove the colon before <references /> it renders correctly as

Discussion with footnote

Doe, John, Example book

More discussion here.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

But the bug demonstrably doesn't apply to {{reflist}}:

<div style="background-color: #F3FFF9;">
Discussion with footnote<ref group=test>Doe, John, ''Example book''</ref>
:{{reflist|group=test}}
More discussion here.
</div>

renders correctly as:

Discussion with footnote

Doe, John, Example book

More discussion here.

--RexxS (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Please ignore the above and use the more detailed section below unfortunately, I can't use {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} due to the very bug being discussed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Limitations

I added a "limitations" section, but its contents should probably be moved to the documentation for <references /> with a link here.

There is a bug (example here) that makes references not work right if they are in lists under certain circumstances. It needed to be documented.

This bug tends to rear its ugly head if a block of WikiCode that contains something like

:<references />

:{{reflist talk}}

This example does NOT use :, *, or #. It is what things should look like:

<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF;">
Discussion with footnote.<ref group=test>Doe, John, ''Example book''</ref>  This should be highlighted.
<references group=test />
More discussion here.  This should also be in the highlighted section.
</div>
More discussion after the close of the HTML '''div''' tag. This should be below the highlighted section.

renders correctly as

Discussion with footnote. This should be highlighted.

Doe, John, Example book

More discussion here. This should also be in the highlighted section.

More discussion after the close of the HTML div tag. This should be below the highlighted section.

Putting a colon before <references group=test /> so it reads :<references group=test /> renders incorrectly as

Discussion with footnote. This should be highlighted.

Doe, John, Example book

More discussion here. This should also be in the highlighted section.

More discussion after the close of the HTML div tag. This should be below the highlighted section.

Notice that the reference is not numbered and the highlighted HTML div seems to "close" early.

The same behavior is observed with {{#tag:references||group=test}}, which is what is used by templates like {{reflist}}:

<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF;">
Discussion with footnote.<ref group=test>Doe, John, ''Example book''</ref>  This should be highlighted.
:{{#tag:references||group=test}}
More discussion here.  This should also be in the highlighted section.
</div>
More discussion after the close of the HTML '''div''' tag. This should be below the highlighted section.

renders incorrectly, the same as above:

Discussion with footnote. This should be highlighted.

Doe, John, Example book

More discussion here. This should also be in the highlighted section.

More discussion after the close of the HTML div tag. This should be below the highlighted section.

Interestingly, adding |responsive=1 to #tag so it reads {{#tag:references||group=test|responsive=1}} seems to work. |responsive=1 is used by {{reflist}} and other templates when |colwidth= is used and possibly under certain other circumstances. It is used by {{Template reference list}} in all circumstances.

<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF;">
Discussion with footnote.<ref group=test>Doe, John, ''Example book''</ref>  This should be highlighted.
{{#tag:references||group=test|responsive=1}}
More discussion here.  This should also be in the highlighted section.
</div>
More discussion after the close of the HTML '''div''' tag. This should be below the highlighted section.

renders as

Discussion with footnote. This should be highlighted.

Doe, John, Example book

More discussion here. This should also be in the highlighted section.

More discussion after the close of the HTML div tag. This should be below the highlighted section.

Takeaway: Put <references /> and the templates that call on lines without :, #, or *, since what you write today may be put into an HTML div tomorrow if it is archived or collapsed. 19:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)