Template talk:Reflist/Archive 13

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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Clear:both?

To avoid bunching (see e.g. GLG1), it would be good if reflist was prefixed with {{-}}. Are there and potential problems with doing this? Is there a more efficient way of doing it?

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 05:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine some pages somewhere will get screwed up by this (using {{reflist}} in a table, maybe?). There are too many uses for there not to be some layout issue somewhere (Law of Large Numbers). That said, the template is already using a wrapper <div>, so it probably makes sense to just stick clear:both; in the style for that if there's a consensus to implement this. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not objections to adding clear:both to the div. The problem in GLG1 is not "bunching" btw. bunching is a rather specific problem with multiple floating elements. This is rather just content that is appropriately pushed aside by a single floating element. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't a clear in the template tend to disconnect it from the References section heading? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMO, that shouldn't be in this template; {{-}} is easy enough to use as needed. In particular, adding the clear:both to this template would lead to odder formatting than necessary:

Bad	Better
"Ugh, a big space between header and body" Blah blah. References 1. Reference.	"At least the big space is in a logical place here" Blah blah. References 1. Reference.

Anomie ⚔ 11:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Headatdesk obviously, that's why we never did this before of course. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Webkit

Trying to help someone who normally edits on the French Wikipedia, I took a look at fr:MediaWiki:Common.css. I noticed this rule:

/* https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14691 */
@media screen and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio:0) {
  ol.references sup.exposant { position: static; vertical-align: super; }
}

According to the notes at Template:Reflist/Safari testcase, 14691 is related to the Webkit column linking bug. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Webkit to understand what this does. Googletrans translates "exposant" as "exposing", but fr:Modèle:Références doesn't use it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the column linking bug is 17131. 14691 is an issue with the positioning (of relative positioned elements) and the distribution of actual content in the columns. The two probably share a common cause at a very low webkit level, but Template:Reflist/Safari testcase only demonstrates the symptoms of 17131. The french encyclopedia has some css where they change the behavior of some sup elements to be relatively positioned instead of using vertical-align super. This obviously broke due to that bug for them in these multi column reference sections. Not sure what they are using the "and" condition for .... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

separated rows, parallel to one another?

Here is an example of a reference section that needs forced horizontally parallel'd rows made. the refs. are short and many, it is too vertically long. Is there a way to do this? 70.59.142.186 (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The article uses mostly shortened footnotes with some long footnotes— it does not use parenthetical/Harvard. If it used only shortened footnotes, then you could use {{reflist|3}} to make three columns. See Chaco Culture National Historical Park for a perfect example. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

References

I will admit that the increase of "colwidth" from 30em to 50em is excessive, but 30em is not enough. All four of the references wrap affecting the appearance. Incidentally, why are there references in the template documentation anyway? -- allen四names 09:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My display is 1152px wide. At 50em, there are no columns. I'm not a fan of the column width feature as you have to make assumptions about the user's screen size. As to the purpose of the references— they support statements in the documentation, such as why IE8 does not support CSS3 columns. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. I will now seek a consensus on the question of multiple columns.

Shall the references contained in Template:Reflist/doc be kept in a single column?

A link to the page is here.

Agree - The list is short. -- allen四names 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't care IMO, WP:BRD would be a good way to proceed. Anomie ⚔ 03:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support single column There aren't that many references in the list. I agree with Anomie, though, in that it was not necessary to look for consensus first. Tim meh 21:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Having two columns for such a short section is silly. That's basically all there is to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Done It is just one column now. -- allen四names 22:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reflist font size

Mozilla makes reflist footnotes look smaller than IE does. In fact, it's painfully small. (I've 20/20 in one eye, a hopeless blur in the other).

I've tested and found that 93% font size in Mozilla would result in a slightly larger size, and in IE would result in the same-as-current size. Also, 93% looks the same size in Mozilla as in IE (and smaller than 100%). Example:

100% The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
93% The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
90% The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

I suggest that the reflist template use 93% font size instead of 90% font size. The Tetrast (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

I asume you use default font sizes in Mozilla. I have been lobbying to get IE to display the same fontsize as Mozilla (88%). The fontsize for references is set in Common.css, so that may be a better place to start this discussion; this page only applies to this template, which not all articles use. — Edokter • Talk • 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I Agree. I know many who have problem reading web pages when font sizes are to small and as far as I know there is no reason for having smaller size in the reference section. Wikipedias goal is to make knowledge available to everyone, so I think it should be our primary goal to make the articles as accessible as possible. I suspect this stems from the misuse of multiple columns, but that is another issue.
—Apis (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with rising Mozilla use, that tiny print is a pain for increasing numbers of readers. I've left a comment at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Reflist font size. The Tetrast (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

(edit conflict) It seems any decent browser these days has easily-accessible options for specifying a minimum font size for people who find websites specify too-small font sizes for them. And that works on the entire web rather than just this one corner of Wikipedia. Personally, I like the smaller font in refs even without multiple columns. Anomie ⚔ 22:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep this at the common.css talk page— that is where the change needs to be made. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Webkit-based browsers support

Hi. Why are the -webkit- CSS properties disabled in the template? I have tested them in Google Chrome and they seem to work fine. They have been enabled at the Spanish Wikipedia (see w:es:Plantilla:Listaref's code). Regards. --Diádoco (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically because Webkit is not the only browser being used. We strive for maximum compatibility with all browsers, and sometime, browser-specific properties have bugs that defeat their purpose, and somtimes interact with other browsers with unwanted results. — Edokter • Talk • 15:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

They're disabled because of a bug, see Template:Reflist/Safari testcase for details and test cases. Anomie ⚔ 21:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I added instructions for enabling column support for WebKit browsers at Template:Reflist/Safari testcase. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

{{reflist}} versus <references/>

Is there any official preference for {{reflist}} as opposed to <references/>? I normally use <references/> for improved readability if there are only two or three, but I notice that people tend to come round and replace it with {{reflist}}, e.g. [1]. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No— if there were a preference, it would be directed by a guideline, not the template. Reflist does make it easier to customize your personal view of the references. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Which guideline and how would people know about it? Hyacinth (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Use reflist rather than <references/>

{{reflist}} and <references/> are both used to list references and give a different style. In the interests of giving WP a consistent "feel" I would like to see a guideline adopted that makes {{reflist}} the preferred method of diplaying references at the end of an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the right place for such a discussion, you would have to get site wide support for this since it will affect all articles. I think we should have guidelines on how to format the references thought and I am sympathetic to the cause of giving WP a consistent "feel". Perhaps WT:MOS is the right place to start?.
—Apis (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also see previous comment by Gadget850 about this above.
—Apis (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Templates are technical solutions to make editing and reading easier and should operate within the guidelines. If you desire a certain look, then it should be discussed within the manual of style. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Editors should choose whatever style, in their best judgement, works best for the given article. Wikipedia does not impose a single aesthetic style on all three million articles. The default footnote group isn't always for references; sometimes it's used for explanatory text notes or for short citations. There are even times, such as when you want to quickly produce a more-or-less unified list of general references and footnotes, that Template:Reflist is the most complicated solution available.
Furthermore, many vision-impaired editors would like to see Template:Reflist entirely deleted, since the smaller text is harder for them to read. While I have some sympathy with standardization efforts, I can't imagine a sillier decision than requiring the use of that small-text template in articles like Low vision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Font size and columns: a feasibility question

This is not a discussion on what size font or how many columns reflist should use.

The question of font size and columns keeps returning, and there are current discussions here and at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Reflist font size.

Is it technically possible to:

Default reflist to 1 column for standard footnotes, 2 columns for short footnotes and 100% font size.
- If you use {{Reflist|short}} or something. Sure. —TheDJ (talk • contribs)
Add a |short= parameter to reflist to indicate short footnotes
Create a gadget that would show in preferences to set:
- Font size
- Number of columns for standard footnotes
- Number of columns for shortened footnotes
- Enable column support for WebKit browsers with a caveat on the bug
  - Gadgets are static, they are either enabled or disable, they cannot provide "settings". Adding settings to the Preferences requires changes to the core software, or rather to an extension for the core software. (as opposed to a gadget, which is site specific CSS and JS) —TheDJ (talk • contribs)

My reasoning for the |short= parameter: There are articles where a mix of column numbers is appropriate. For example: Magnetosphere of Jupiter. The References section currently uses 3 columns and Cited sources uses 2. Currently, the column number can be overridden in personal CSS, but only for all uses of columns.

If this is feasible, then further discussion should be at the Village Pump. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the reference section in that page actually uses the variable colwidth=30em setting, while the cited sources uses a fixed number of 2. Just saying so no one gets confused. Sounds like a good suggestion.
—Apis (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Caps

I've seen editors who prefer to use Cite rather than cite and Reflist rather than reflist. The documentation here mostly uses reflist is that preferred? If lowercase is preferred could the page be changed to say so, if it isn't can we change it to consistently be Reflist? I don't mind either way but want it to be clearer and more consistent and decisive. -- Horkana (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The first letter of a pagename (including those of templates) is case insensitive. Purely as speaking from the technology side, it does not matter, the software internally uppercases each first letter anyways. So it is purely a matter of esthetics and personal preference I guess. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on stray comments here and there (=don't rely on this), I think that AWB may be automatically capitalizing all first letters of all templates whenever it is used to edit a page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsable RefLists

The links between the inline cite and the reference list do not work when the reference list is enclosed in a collapsed box.

Then isn't the solution to autoexpand the list when the inline cite is clicked? Surely this isn't impossible to script, but current reflists (however necessary/wonderful/etc.) are an eyesore to those just reading for content & a massive waste of paper during printing. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be easy to implement indeed. I personally do not see this as a barrier. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Printable Version

For that matter, why does the printable version of the page even default to include the reflist? Should be a radio box to click for those who want it. Right now, to have a decent printout without pages of (well, not useless, but...) often unhelpful bibliography, you have to cut and paste into a word processor. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is beyond the scope of this template. See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion#Reference hiding. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A good suggestion that died on the vine

Some time back /Archive_5#empty reflist seemed like a good idea, but never got actioned. Can we revive the discussion? It would seem like a harmless improvement that would automatically highlight instances when an article has its only reference deleted.User:LeadSongDog come howl 16:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the advantage. Regardless, this can't be done by Reflist, as it simply styles the <references /> tag. Error checking would have to be added to Cite to check for a <references /> tag with no <ref>...</ref> tags. IT certainly would not be the highest on my list of issues. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering what's been going on with the backlog of unsourced BLPs, anything that reduces the error rate has to be considered. I'm not so concerned about the implementation technique, but the idea that when the list of references is empty there should automatically be a visible indication and an applied category.User:LeadSongDog come howl 22:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That would only work when the <references /> tag is applied. There are thousands of articles that use {{ref}} / {{note}} or a variant, or one of the Harvard templates. You can discuss this on the Cite talk. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just raised the question there. User:LeadSongDog come howl 04:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Template breaks on too many references?

References are not displayed in Vitamin D (on my Firefox+WinXP). Is this because of its 220+ refs or something broke down somewhere? Materialscientist (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you edit the entire page, you will see "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." at the top. If you check the page source, you will see:

NewPP limit report

Preprocessor node count: 112738/1000000

Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes

Template argument size: 434723/2048000 bytes

Expensive parser function count: 83/500

Bottom line: there are too many templates on the page and the parser pukes. When you edit the page, there is a list of templates transcluded below the edit window. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This had apparently nothing to do with this template, but with excessive use of cite doi and cite pmid templates, which are apparently treated as individual templates and overflow the template limit (also, it seemed as if one pmid is corrupted, this might affect the rest - not sure yet). Materialscientist (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You could probably get around this a bit by using <references /> instead of {{reflist}}. The page has a high load time, which is another hint. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This had apparently nothing to do with this template, but a broken "cite doi"/"cite pmid" template output had corrupted the page. No, somebody has tried <references /> and it didn't help. Materialscientist (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple columns in reflist

I'm no longer seeing multiple columns on pages using {{Reflist|2}} or {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. Was the template's behavior changed? {{refbegin|2}} does not seem to have this problem, judging by the Magnetosphere of Jupiter examples in #Font size and columns: a feasibility question. —Ost (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Works just fine for me under Firefox (the only supported browser for multi columns) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Refbegin}} supports Safari, but {{Reflist}} does not due to a Safari bug— see the template documentation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I now see the area in the documentation explaining that it only works for [[Gecko (layout engine)| ]-based browsers. I guess I was just used to Firefox and didn't attribute the behavior to both Chrome and IE. Columns seem to work elsewhere in the pages for those browsers. Is it necessary to use CSS3 when it only works on a subset of browsers? —Ost (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't use columns anywhere else. Most cases of columns are actually tables (which don't really work for dynamic content such as auto-generated references lists). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation so that I could understand the difference. I figured that it had to do with dynamic rendering, but I also didn't realize that the column templates used tables to achieve the results. —Ost (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

{{div col}} uses CSS3. Reflist merely styles the <references /> tag, so there is no way to determine column breaks. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

But {{div col}} seems to work with Chrome. What is the benefit of using {{reflist}} instead of surrounding <references /> with {{div col}} and {{div col end}}? Is it that the template prevents references from wrapping into the next column? —Ost (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See Template:Reflist#Browser_support_for_columns and the Webkit bug. See Template:Reflist/Safari testcase for a demonstration of the bug, along with information on how to enable columns for Webkit based browsers. Webkit is enabled in other templates such as {{div col}} and {{refbegin}} on the presumption that there will be no links into those types of content. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks once again. I hadn't tried clicking on wrapped links to see the effects and that makes sense now. —Ost (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Latin

I accidentally linked here in an edit summary. It should point to Template talk:Relist#Latin. Just making a note should anyone come here. Mkdw ^talk 18:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vmuskett, 31 March 2010

{{editprotected}} Please include this reference to the Rooibos list: Joubert, E; Gelderblom, WCA; Louw, A & De Beer, D. South African herbal teas: Aspalathus linearis, Cyclopia spp. and Athrixia phylicoides – A review. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 119 (2008) 376 – 412. It is for the citation needed after green tea leaves under the heading Nutritional and health benefits Vmuskett (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be on the wrong page as the request does not relate to this template. Which page are you talking about? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how that was submitted? The editsummary is Edit request from {{subst:REVISIONUSER}}, 31 March 2010: and the edit includes the comment . ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So you haven't been following the discussion at WP:VPT#Make it easier to submit edit requests? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zackbarnett, 31 March 2010

{{editprotected}} REMOVE: "http://president.uoregon.edu/speeches/zebrafishtalk.shtml" REPLACE IT WITH: "http://frohnmayer.uoregon.edu/speeches/zebrafish"

Zackbarnett (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced. Intriguing, as it has the same patter as above. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

suggestion

In the article's body the referrence are numbered, yet when editing a wiki-section these numbers becomes re-enumarated within the section. this bug is confusing, since the reflist template lists them all.

More importantly, the end result of the reflist tempalte actualyl lists URL's, and not the meaningfull names that users might want to give them, such as [www.singularity.com normal links] --Namaste@^? 01:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Default column width

A discussion has been started here on the best default value for the colwidth parameter. Input is welcome. Modest Genius ^talk 16:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not just use 89%?

It looks to me from this page that if we changed the font size for reflist from 90% to 89%, it would show up the same for Firefox and Chrome, but would also properly for Internet Explorer 7 and 8 (meaning it would look smaller, the same way as in Firefox), and probably other versions as well. So why don't we use 89% for the font size? Sorafune +1 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems silly that we need to try to cater to a standards non-compliant browser like MSIE. I don't have anything specifically against, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Font size is set by the references-small class as defined at MediaWiki:Common.css. Previous discussions on fixing the IE font size are at MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 5#Font sizes, MediaWiki_talk:Common.css/Archive_10 and MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 11#Reflist font size. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just tested the IE9 preview— every font size is different. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)