Template talk:Ref/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Redirecting

I've redirected this template to Template:Anb. It is virtually the same, and this one came later. I don't see any reason to update all the existing references to this format because...

Wikipedia:Footnotes seems to indicate that it is correct style to say "Note:" before the footnote rather than the little arrow. I don't see a problem with putting the little arrow in Template:Anb in addition to the word Note.
This causes incompatibility with existing footnotes, meaning that note/ref cannot be used alongside with an/anb. There's no reason to switch all the existing citations when we can just redirect and change one
An and anb were here first, and they seem to follow the style guidelines. Why create a whole new layer when you can just use what already exists?
Note/ref are longer to type. It's easier to type an or anb. Redirecting means that you can use whatever you want- you're not bound by what's being used by the article.

Feel free to revert me if you think I'm wrong, but please explain why. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverted. See Wikipedia_talk:Footnote3#Ref_and_Note_templates. (SEWilco 18:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))

^

Does anyone else dislike the ^ symbol? I think it is too small. 119 05:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's the best symbol for the job, but the previous arrow was far worse. The ^ was the best symbol I could find which is widely available and looks decent. I'm not an expert on unicode - there may be some other arrow symbols I've missed. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it as much as the bigger unicode arrows, but it is more portable, since each other type of arrow comes out nastily on some browser. I suggest leaving it until we start to seriously play with CSS and get the presentation right in all situations. Mozzerati 14:49, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

↩ ? Derex @ 19:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This needs numbers

The citations in the references section need numbers attached to them so we know which reference we're following. The little arrow alone does not help. - Omegatron 18:51, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

The citations have numbers; unless your talking about somethin different? Could you please explain? Mozzerati 19:09, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Software_patent_debate#References No numbers there. - Omegatron 19:13, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're talking about numbers ahead of the entries in the References section. The Wikipedia Style recommendation is that the editor uses the # numeric list symbol to do that. If you think that should be included in Template:Note, that can not be done. See the end of Wikipedia_talk:Footnote3#Please_get_rid_of_the_redundant_.27Note:.27_before_every_footnote where it points out that if that is done then all notes have to be on the same line (because the implied end of line after each template would otherwise result in a blank line, which starts numbering at 1). Someone has to edit the above example article, and organize the References entries to match the order in which they are cited. (SEWilco 19:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Ok. Yes that's what I was talking about. Are we absolutely sure that there is always an implied break at the end of a template? Can that be fixed? - Omegatron 20:13, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. There's not actually an end of line (otherwise it wouldn't work with them all on the same line, either), but it somehow closes the <ol> tags if you put them on separate lines. Hmm... Seems like a software problem. Of course, this would also require you to keep the references section in the same order as the citations in the text so that the numbers lined up. Doesn't really seem like this is a job for templates; more for a software enhancement. - Omegatron 20:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Seems like a software problem"? What does that mean? Of course it's a software problem. --Doradus 18:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

:-P - Omegatron 19:48, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Printing problem.

When we print documents using this template, it shows the full URL of the note in the printed text. How do we suppress this? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. There are few abilities for template coding. Ask in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Template (SEWilco 03:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC))

Bullet point references

The same template, only using asterisks, is at Template:bref. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

blue arrow pictures like for external links?

Some recent change caused blue graphic arrows to appear next to every footnote reference. This clearly is very misleading, since those arrows were reserved for external links. What's going on? Conf 12:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted Lupo's "plainlinksneverexpand"... strange thing is the change disappeared from the history when I reverted. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The arrows has indeed disappeared. The history displays OK now, I have encountered this history bug at least twice recently after my own edits. Do you understand why did the style resulted in the arrows being displayed? Conf 15:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the "plainlinks" class was changed to "plainlinksneverexpand"... since that class does not exist it didn't do anything; and the links returned to normal external links. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to solve TBSDY's printing problem. I just forgot about that stupid link arrow... Since this is fixed now in MediaWiki:Monobook.css, I re-instantiated the class "plainlinksneverexpand" again. I hope it really works this time for everybody, not just for me. If it does, do we have to port the change to the other skins (Cologne, Classic)? Lupo 18:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I confirm it works (no arrows). Conf 19:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the whole idea grew out of this discussion at the Village pump. Lupo 20:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Great! That works EXACTLY how I needed it to :-) Great work, Lupo! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Alas, no - arrows are back (on and off for the last few hours) - is this just my machine, or is this harder to fix permanently than it appeared? --Francis Schonken 13:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes broken?

Is it possible that recent edits to monobook.css, {{note}} or {{ref}} broke the working of footnotes? This was pointed out by Raul654 at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Extremely important problem!. I've crossposted this at the two relevant talk pages (Mediawiki talk:Monobook.css]] and here) as I don't know where to search for the problem. — mark ✎ 17:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not the cause. Consult User:Cesarb for better ideas (see User talk:Raul654#Reference templates). — mark ✎ 17:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Footnote3#template:note_now_broken: Apparently an HTML-handling change broke the <cite> incantation which was used by {{note}}. (SEWilco 03:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Well, it's still broken. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Working now! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please explain what is working. And did someone notice any announcement of a change? (SEWilco 05:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Sorry. Clicking on the link was not jumping to the correct note in the notes section (and vice versa). This is now working. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are statements of "fix" in bugzilla:2309. Somewhat lacking in details. (SEWilco 05:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC))

New issue - don't use <1> <2> etc as parameter

It does weird things. Example: ">[1] as opposed to ^[2]. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes in Wikisource

Hey could someone help me use this in Wikisource please. I tried implementing it on this page: Wikisource:The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam - Is Religion Possible?. Everything works fine, except for the numbering in the Notes section at the bottom. It numbers each note as "1" rather than incrementing. Thanks. --82.194.62.22 29 June 2005 14:53 (UTC)

A blank line ends a list, so you had many lists with one item each. And it is a good idea to give names, such as the author's name, to each reference so as to prevent future edits from losing the connections (even if numbering gets messed up the connections can be restored if the names are recognizable). (SEWilco 29 June 2005 15:09 (UTC))

The new little arrow

Regarding the latest change to {{note}}, I can hardly recognise it as an arrow - this was the original reason I changed the symbol to an ^. I was going to bold it, but I realised it is already bolded. Does anyone object if I change it back? Unfortunately there aren't any good text arrows. Talrias (t | e | c) 5 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

none at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 04:18 (UTC)

Doubly linked footnote

In Wikipedia_talk:Footnote3#Footnotes_vs._inline_web_references, one user expressed a preference for inline links and wondered if both footnote and inline links were possible. I observe that for external links with a text label, such as [http://www.example.com/ Example], it is quite simple to use that and add a {{ref}} link after it.

For external links with no text label, such as [http://www.example.com/], only the external link symbol is created. Although a {{ref}} link can be added after that, it creates two symbols for a single reference. Is someone aware of an incantation which can produce the footnote-number link of {{ref}} with an external link symbol underneath? (SEWilco 8 July 2005 20:19 (UTC))

Added ref links

I've encountered many citation methods, and added {{ref_num}} (equivalent to Wikipedia:Footnote4 {{mn}}) and the pair {{ref_label}}/{{note_label}}. ref_num is for blind links to notes, while ref_label/note_label are bidirectional. A {{note}} may have several {{note_label}} next to it; the editing of the note_label backlink symbol can now begin. (SEWilco 8 July 2005 22:36 (UTC))

For examples of the usage of these, see the article Jew. There were {{ref}} links present but those were not sufficient for the situation. (SEWilco 9 July 2005 07:01 (UTC))

Plainlinksnoexpand is not working again!

Can anyone tell me what's happening here? When I print the URL is expanding.... I thought we didn't want to do this. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

On what page? Note that the last time I looked, it was called plainlinksneverexpand... Lupo 08:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got it. First, the class of the link has changed from ".urlexpansion" to ".external.autonumber", and second, someone has added the following to our common printing CSS:

#content a.external.text:after, #content a.external.autonumber:after {

/* Expand URLs for printing */

content: " (" attr(href) ") ";

}

Someone should disable this for a.external.autonumber if it's within a SPAN of class ".plainlinksneverexpand". It should be done in commonPrint.css, which I don't know how to edit. Lupo 09:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

(I've also copied this discussion to MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css. Lupo 09:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC))

This is evidently something we don't have access to. I have raised a bug asking for us to gain access to commonPrint.css so we can sort out these issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed this in MediaWiki:Common.css. Lupo 08:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The plainlinksneverexpand class

This template uses the plainlinksneverexpand class, where is it defined? I didn't find it in MediaWiki:Monobook.css —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It's in MediaWiki:Common.css. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see it being included in the source like MediaWiki:Monobook.css is, how is it included? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It's included in MediaWiki:Monobook.css (and the other skin stylesheets too). View the source of Monobook.css; it's included on the 5th line. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Additional option

I have encased the contents in a span tag, using a class called reference. For all those who don't want references, all that you need to do is add the following to your stylesheet:

.reference {

 display: none ! important;

}

Ta bu shi da yu 07:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Multiple references [1, 2, ...]

Is it feasible to have collapsed references like [1, 2], besides [1][2]?

Protected

Too many articles use this template now. After seeing Template:Note replaced with an image of a penis, it's time to protect the template. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This template messes with line height

I'm working on the article Jehovah's Witnesses and blood, which due to its controversial nature, required copious references. Only thing is that the references affect the line height, so the lines of paragraphs are too far apart. I assume that's because the CSS formatting is for superscript. Any chance of editing the CSS class so that the height of line the ref is on is not affected? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, one could add a around the ... Lupo 08:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if that would work, but it's worth a try. I can't edit the template. Admins? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 15:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that will help, but not completely solve the problem. It's very annoying for readers, because the extra line space is easily confused for a paragraph break.[1]

I would be happy if a note was identical to an external link/reference, either full-sized as above, or smaller, like this.[2] —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 06:41 Z

I like the idea of making the note smaller to decrease line height, as long as it works. Michael, I am not sure what your suggestion means. Sorry, and thanks, SteveMc 01:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting formatting the citation link as just a plain number in brackets, instead of a superscript. This would make it look just like an external link, but without the little extra icon.

Alternately, giving all Wikipedia text a bigger line-height could also solve the problem, but that change would require a very broad consensus. —Michael Z. 2006-01-8 05:59 Z

Given Wikipedia's otherwise very good text formatting, the inconsistency this and other footnote templates produce in line spacing is (to my eyes) particularly unfortunate. Using alongside the may be a fudge that works, but perhaps at the expense of keeping numbers readable without eye-strain. Is it possible to implement a slightly lower positioning than the default? Also, I feel the option not to have the numbers square-bracketed should be offered. Thanks to all you nifty coders. David Kernow 16:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's not Wikipedia's fault, just the way browsers render superscripts, to keep them from overlapping text on the previous line. Too bad, because it really disrupts page readability by adding what looks like extra paragraph breaks. Smaller font doesn't really help much.

Personally, I could also live with footnote references being full-size on the text baseline, in brackets, just like external links.

I've put the following in my WP:CSS, to improve the situation for me. It resets the vertical alignment from "superscript" down to "baseline", and then uses relative positioning to displace the letter upwards without affecting the line-height. —Michael Z. 2006-02-17 19:21 Z

/* keep superscript references from breaking the line-spacing */
.reference {
    font-size: smaller;
    vertical-align: baseline;
    position: relative;
    bottom: 0.5em;
}

Thanks for your thoughts and css code, Michael. I created my own monobook.css page with the above, but to no apparent avail, then read here that:

In the default configuration, any User Style code will be ignored. To enable User Style, the following two settings have to be enabled through LocalSettings.php:

$wgAllowUserJs  = true;
$wgAllowUserCss = true;

Forgive my ignorance, but how/where do I make these changes? Thanks, David Kernow 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you can ignore that configuration note; it sounds like software settings that have already been set for the English wikipedia. Wikipedia's caching means that it can take a while for your updated style sheet to start working. You may be able to prompt it to load sooner by clicking shift-reload or alt-refresh (or whatever your browser prefers) on any Wikipedia page.

By the way, this will only affect superscripts that are generated by the {{ref}} template. You can make it affect all superscripts in the English Wikipedia by changing the selector from ".reference {" to "sup {" (with no dot). I haven't done this in my style sheet because it might adversely affect math equations or something, but come to think of it, it's probably safe. —Michael Z. 2006-02-20 01:30 Z

Thanks again, Michael. I've updated my .css file to "sup {" and will see what happens. I suppose I could also try fiddling with the "bottom:" parameter, but first I hope to see some sort of change in those articles I know with footnotes. Best wishes, David Kernow 03:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

{{ref}} in image caption messes up numbering

Look at User:Skagedal/Sandbox (current version), which is my attempt at convert the schizophrenia article from using {{fn}}/{{fnb}} to using {{ref}}/{{note}}. The first {{ref}} is under the heading History ("However, a recent study..."). However, this ref does not turn into [1], but [2]! [1] instead appears further down, in an image caption under "Early neurodevelopment". Any ideas why this happens? /Skagedal 16:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Image numbers are assigned before text numbers. That's based on behavior as I have not looked at the code. The links still work despite this quirk. We have to see how it behaves with new code that's been created but not installed yet. (SEWilco 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Skagedal, I edited your sandbox with a work around. I added a {{ref label}} at the end of the first paragraph in the section Early neurodevelopment, that fixes the numbering. Of course, you will have to place that reference somewhere in the text that is relevant. And, I added {{note label}} to footnote number 25 at the end of the article. Good luck, SteveMc 01:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Cannot customizeTemplate:Ref to function across my wiki?!?

I have burned way too many hours trying to figure this out -- it is definitely time to ask!

I am using mediawiki, but for some reason, couldn't get Template:Ref to work using {{NAMESPACE}} or any other generic tag, therefore, I cannot use the same template across different pages.

I first employed template:ref on this page. (at [5])

The Template:ref that I tried to appropriate: [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}#endnote_{{{1}}}]

Would not work in any way shape or form, so I had to resort to this:

[http://wiki.uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/European_Commission_Policies_and_Initiatives#endnote_{{{1}}}]

How can I fix this so my Template:Ref can be compatible across the wiki and not have to make a new Template for each page?

according to the Mediawiki Handbook, FULLURL is a magic word and should translate into the full url of the page, but is only supported as of version 1.5 and beyond. — Gregor, 1 Feb 2005

Redirects

This template breaks redirects. Also, it has little brackets around each note. It's pretty annoying. Ashibaka tock 18:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How does it break redirects? Do you have an example? The little brackets around each note aren't something that can be removed, I don't think. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you go to Che guevara and click one of the references, it will reload the page. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not really a break in redirects, it's due to the fact that MediaWiki doesn't redirect to the correct article title, it just pretends it's at the correct article title. Do you have a solution to this problem, aside from having MediaWiki do a actual redirect to the real article title rather than pretending? Talrias (t | e | c) 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's apparently "fixed in CVS head" according to this bug so hopefully people will use that when it becomes the next version. But the current way is pretty annoying, just sayin'. Ashibaka tock 23:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The "AUTOINCREMENT" feature allows changing "ref" to point within the current article. But I don't think it has been moved to these servers. See Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. (SEWilco 04:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Removed "_"

Greetings, I removed the underscore symbol "_" in {{ref_label}}, {{ref_harvard}}, and {{note_label}}. I believe the templates will work without it, as they were, they did not work properly when the templates were used without {{ref}} and {{note}} . Steven McCrary 00:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That was because in manually-typed links, Wikipedia confounds spaces ( ) and underscores (_), right? Using dashes (-) instead will solve this problem, retain the readability of the anchor links, and may also someday be useful because it allows the use of the special CSS2 hyphen attribute selector, to pick out individual parts of the id attribute. 01:33, January 2, 2006 by Mzajac

That is correct. As far as future use, I am not aware of CSS2 features so I am ambivalent to the suggestion. Thanks, SteveMc 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

For category problem. Dropping the citation templates cat here instead, so people can find this template in the citation templates category. Hope that's okay. 01:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

^ revisited

[see also #^, above]

Something else, please! For the sake of its meaningless semantics, and therefore poor accessibility, as well as sheer graphical ugliness. The ^ (U+005E CIRCUMFLEX ACCENT) is not an arrow, and doesn't really look like an arrow. It's a circumflex, a diacritic used in some languages, and on its own indicates mathematical exponentiation in primitive ASCII-only displays.

Please let's replace it with an arrow, something that means "back", or "return", or "up". We're past typewriters now, folks; we have Unicode. Please don't tell me Microsoft still doesn't support any of these (or explain in slowly and patiently; I'm a Mac user):

↩ (U+21A9 LEFTWARDS ARROW WITH HOOK)
↑ (U+2191 UPWARDS ARROW)
⇡ (U+21E1 UPWARDS DASHED ARROW)
⇧ (U+21E7 UPWARDS WHITE ARROW
← (U+2190 LEFTWARDS ARROW)
⇠ (U+21E0 LEFTWARDS DASHED ARROW)
⇦ (U+21E6 LEFTWARDS WHITE ARROW)

^ primacy

Would anyone also like to see the back-link at the end of the note where its function naturally falls as subordinate to the note's content, instead of before the actual note, where it takes the front seat? —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 06:19 Z

Michael, sorry, but I do not understand this question, please clarify. Thanks, SteveMc 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; that wasn't too clear. Wouldn't back-links look better if they were changed to the way they look in numbers 4 to 6, below? —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 22:55 Z

^ Bloggins, Joe (2006). Old-fashioned carat back-links. Oldville: Tradition.
^ Brown, Sam (2006). Align at the beginning of the line: look like labels. Oldville: Tradition.
^ Smith-Jones, John (2006). They attract a lot of attention. Oldville: Tradition.
The Great, El Borbah (2006). New-fangled back-links. Newtown: Innovation. ↑
Verne, Jules (2006). Citations start with authors name: just like in books. Newtown: Innovation. ↑
Who, Joe (2006). Back-links are visually subordinate to the note's content. Newtown: Innovation. ↑

versus this look:

↑Who, Joe (2006). Back-link is now in front of the note's content. Old Newtown: Less Innovation.

--SteveMc 16:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael,

I like the up-arrow much better than the up-carrot.
It does make sense to move the link to the end of the reference. However, I am starting to get used to it. Plus, a lot of pages would have to be changed manually to implement the change. I think we would need to be absolutely certain about this as a need, or as a very strong preference before it be a stated preference. So, I can live with it at the front.

Thanks, SteveMc 16:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Native solution to referencing available

Just in case anyone didn't get the heads-up, m:Cite/Cite.php has been installed, allowing native citation. This means, yes, we can now use footnotes in section editing and previewing! See this diff for an example of how this works. Johnleemk | Talk 17:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Somethings not working

Looking at the polylogarithm page (reference section) which makes use of this template, the recent edit was displaying some text which shouldn't be there, so I reverted. PAR 21:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This template creates an unnecessary citation middle layer

In my interpretation it's better if citations link directly to their source using the standard bracket URL method. What were the people that implemented this on many pages thinking and/or what are their requirements? For starters the superscripted citation links mess up paragraph text formatting in my browser. Secondly, requiring a Notes section only will increase the size of articles. Thirdly, the citations links are too small now, the standard larger size is better because readers would be more likely to click on it and read the source. But most importantly this system creates an unnecessary citation middle layer, what was wrong with directly linking to sources? zen master T 22:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cite sources explains why proper citation is necessary. For one, not all sources are online. Another thing is that webpages are dynamic. We need to indicate clearly when the source was accessed so we'll all be on the same page, so to speak. Johnleemk | Talk 05:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not and have not disputed the need for citing sources, I am disputing the reduced readability, needless sytax, anti-free-form (and hence anti-wiki) data presentation restriction and increased article size that has resulted from use of the {ref} template and Notes subsection. The formerly preferred inline [URL] citation method is not perfect but the cure as implemented by the {ref} template is worse than the disease. Everything you are trying to do can be accomplished without using the {ref} template. zen master T 05:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean with m:Cite? Hell, yes, I agree. Johnleemk | Talk 06:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No I do not mean m:Cite, was unaware of that. What are the requirements for having citations be formatted any differently than they are now/were previously and what exactly is deficient with the formerly preferred [URL] citation method? What features does m:Cite or {ref} provide that Wikipedia actually needs? Superscript text messes up paragraph formatting in my opera browser but even if that is fixed superscripting and the smaller font Notes section deemphasizes citations and sources (which is not good). All citations and sources will still have to be managed manually so both {ref} and m:Cite seem completely unnecessary even if not detrimental (as outlined above). What are the benefits? Page number and synopsis info can be put after the [URL] citation or that wikisyntax feature can be enhanced to accomodate any actual beneficial requirements (leaving current [URL/source] behavior unchanged). zen master T 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

(indent break) Neither m:Cite nor {{ref}} use a different font for notes/references; that's an editorial decision some editors make (many articles with footnotes like ketuanan Melayu or Windows 2000 don't have a footnotes section in small font). m:Cite greatly simplifies footnote management, making it little less troublesome than just dumping all the references in a References section. (Trust me, I speak from experience. {{ref}} was a pain in the ass.) Putting synopses and other relevant information directly after the URL citation (which, as I said, still excludes non-internet references) makes the article even more convoluted, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 06:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A big part of the problem can be fixed if superscripting is turned off. In my interpretation use of the {ref} template (and perhaps m:Cite too) is more convoluted than the previous status quo. How does m:Cite benefit organization? Everything still has to be managed manually so all you have suceeded in doing is putting a wrapper around and hence increasing (both in complexity and size) what you have to manage manually. And each subject/article may have different requirements for citations (URL vs book vs legal vs academic, etc etc etc). Free form text, an essence of wiki, as the need may individually arise on a case by case basis should be the guiding principle here. zen master T 07:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The superscripting problem can be brought up with the devs for m:Cite, I think. I presumed its benefits would be obvious, but if they aren't, I think Wikipedia:Footnotes covers the explanation well enough. m:Cite is very very different from {{ref}} -- as I said, it's almost like chucking everything into the References section like we used to do. (Peek at the wikicode for ketuanan Melayu and you'll see what I mean.) I don't see the problem WRT "free form text". You're free not to use m:Cite or {{ref}}, and if you choose to do so, they don't inhibit you at all when it comes to writing out the description of the source. Johnleemk | Talk 07:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the 1 or 2 discussion pages where I've questioned conversion to the {ref} template I've gotten mostly silence, so it's not a matter of not using it, it's a matter of reverting someone else's changes given the decreased readability and other reasons outlined above. It looks like m:Cite uses html-esque tags to do whatever? Free form text is not a "problem" it is an essence of wiki and should be prefered over excessive templatization. Perhaps a data entry widget can be created for use on the edit page to (somehow) help with citation organization/formatting at the editing stage rather than force a larger wiki syntax footprint/templatization into each article at the saved wikitext level? zen master T 08:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

(indent break) If you can think of a better solution, feel free to propose it. Right now m:Cite seems to be the best to me, given pretty much all of the problems associated with {{ref}} are absent from it. Johnleemk | Talk 08:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I will have to learn more about m:Cite, hopefully it's significantly better than {ref}. zen master T 18:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Url problem

This template uses "{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}" to link to its reference. The result of that is that if the page is loaded from a redirect (e.g. PAGE → The Page) the REF links will still show up as "The Page#link", and thus clicking on one causes the entire page to reload (this time from its true name rather than the shortcut), rather than just causing the browser to skip down a few screens. Is there a reason for this "fullpagename" trick, and would there be any objections if I changed this? (cc: village pump) >Radiant< 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

One solution would be to migrate to m:Cite, which has none of these problems -- even previewing is fixed. Johnleemk | Talk 05:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds nice; but AAA is a dev so they must have some reason why this isn't implemented? >Radiant< 10:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's already installed. See it in action in articles like ketuanan Melayu or Windows 2000. Johnleemk | Talk 11:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 - If you know some more of about this CITE works and how we can replace this template by it, I'd be happy to help. >Radiant< 17:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Basically you enclose your citation in ref tags like this: <ref>Foo, Bar (2002). ''Book title'', p. 69. Random Publisher. ISBN 053336909.</ref> This replaces any instances of {{ref}} or whatever. Then wipe out the Notes section and replace it with a section titled something like "Notes and references" consisting solely of <references/>. You can see how this works by glancing at the code for articles already using the system. Johnleemk | Talk 17:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Style problem - interlinage

This template makes extra space between lines where it is used - perhaps not a big deal but I can't keep the graphic designer in me from speaking about it. I have tested the template through several browsers - all of them with the exception of Firefox have this problem. I'm sure this has something to do with the css - but I can't find a "references" class anywhere in any of the imported CSS sheets.

Would it be possible to make the reference number a) slightly smaller and/or slightly lower b) with a negative margin above it to bring it into order with a page's 'normal' interlinage? I would have liked to run a trial or two to be sure but the page is protected.

Thanks, take care,

THEPROMENADER 17:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The following in my user monobook.css fixes this problem for me, in Safari. —Michael Z. 2006-02-23 15:37 Z

/* keep superscript references from breaking the line-spacing */
#bodyContent sup {
    font-size: smaller;
    vertical-align: baseline;
    position: relative;
    bottom: 0.5em;
}

[update: #bodyContent sup restricts the effect to the page body. —MZ]

Seems more and more people are spotting this unfortunate formatting effect – perhaps a more visible acknowledgement needs to be made, not least to reduce how often helpful folk such as Michael need to reply as above and further above and... I know, however, I'm not au fait with what to announce or the most effective place to announce it. Meanwhile, Michael, it seems your script isn't having any effect for me in Firefox; I hope I haven't done (or not done) anything obvious, but don't think so. Thank you nonetheless for responding to us! David Kernow 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you cleared your cache? Press shift+F5 or shift and click refresh. Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the style sheet can sometimes be stubborn in updating in Safari, too. —Michael Z. 2006-02-23 19:10 Z

Thanks Johnleemk, Michael; I realised I hadn't knowingly seen a ref number for a while, so I've just revisited my test article for this behavior (Wernher von Braun, where I first noticed the incorrect line-spacing) and it does now appear to be working. (I also added the #bodyContent sup modification first.) Here's hoping it will continue to work elsewhere. I vote that Michael's code be made more easily available to Wikipedia users! Best wishes, David Kernow 21:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Resolution passed, one to zero (I abstained): I've put it at User:Mzajac/monobook.css/Superscript fix, and linked from Wikipedia:Browser notes#Mac OS X. —Michael Z. 2006-02-24 01:03 Z

Hey, thanks for the code - it works. I must add though, as a web designer, that it would be optimal to work toward making the existing Wiki code render uniformly through all browsers - this is completely possible; one just has to be aware of how different browsers interpret CSS code and single out a single 'all-working' method. Safari (and OS X) users are far from few these days - and to date, Safari is the only browser to pass the Acid 2 test [3]... I don't find this negligible either. Just my thoughts. THEPROMENADER 07:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Added Template:ref_harv

A number of people prefer using the harvard style references, but dislike the formatting of the references as normal text. This template is identical to the {{ref_harvard}}, but formats the links as ^superscript. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Embedded reference style--can't find

I found in some articles a very nifty way for citing references that avoided having to keep track of which number went where. In the text, at the location for the reference, one inserted something of the form: <ref>{{cite_whatever|title= etc etc.}}</ref> and then, in the references section, one cuold pull all of those in with t he inclusion of a single template reference, which I *thought* was {{references}}, but no, that's a note that there aren't any references, or maybe <references/>, but no, that doesn't seem to do anything. And now I can't find either where I've used it before successfully or any help on how to use it. Anyone? Elf | Talk 17:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it does indeed seem to be <references/>, but it doesn't show up in Preview mode. (I'm using it for one thing in dog at the moment.) Elf | Talk 18:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

New reference system

In case anyone stumbles across this, the {{ref}} templates should no longer be used. They have been replaced with a new referencing system. Information and instructions are at Cite.php.

On what basis is it claimed this template is deprecated? I have not been able to find such a discussion. Could someone point me to such a community-wide discussion? - Amgine 14:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, all the discussion leading to the creation of Cite.php is one. (I think such things can be found on the talk pages for Wikipedia:Footnotes (maybe Footnotes2, or 3 also), and probably on the mailing list(though I don't have a specific citation). If you wish to start further discussion on this, feel free to make a section on Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes and link it from the VP, WP:A and whereever else you feel like. But it has already been discussed. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that {{ref}} is not deprecated but there is community movement toward Cite.php instead of {{ref}}. FloNight ^talk 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Deprecated

I'd like to remove the deprecation notice. If no-one objects I'll do it in a day or too. - FrancisTyers 11:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please remove the vandalism by Cyde at once. This rogue admin has been pushing against consensus on reference styles for quite a while, including converting pages explicitly contrary to article consensus (using the tool he wrote). Vandalizing this template is apparently the latest wrinkle in his admin abuse. LotLE×talk 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on The admins' noticeboard Will (^E_@) T 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Circumstances where this may be used in addition to cite.php

See the featured article Rabindranath Tagore for an instance where the ref templates are used in addition to cite.php to produce a joint system of notes and references. In line with that, I would recommend using cite.php for the references (citations) and the ref templates for notes. TheGrappler 09:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2