Template talk:Refbegin

Font size
Is it possible to increase the font size to 100 percent (for all readers of a particular page, not by editing a user's CSS)? A reduced font is good for the Notes section, but not so good when there's a separate References section. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Confused: This template is used for a static bibliography. If you don't want the font styling, don't use the template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's useful because it produces the columns easily, but it would be nice to have the option of making the font size a bit bigger. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see this has been requested before. Is there an easy way to make it happen? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I made the request before and requested it for the same reason SV is making the request. -- PBS (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reference sections using this template always had a reduced font size (as do those using for two years now). I don't think it's a good idea to allow custom sizing, as it will result in a very inconsistent look between articles. —  Edokter  ( talk ) — 23:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I put in the request for a change over a year ago (so two years is not very relevant). If not multiple sizes then two sizes ( Current and 100%). that would not result in any more inconsistency then there is now. -- PBS (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ; any deviation from the current size would introduce inconsistencies. There was a big RFC that resulted in the current styling of references, both using and, to be the same in order to remedy these inconsistencies. —  Edokter  ( talk ) — 10:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How would it introduce inconsistencies that do not already exist? -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very simple; if editors can choose their own preferred size, notes ans references would start looking different between articles. As it is now, all articles use the same size for notes and references. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Edokter, this isn't about or, which produce footnotes in a reduced font. Footnotes outside WP are almost always in a smaller font too.


 * This is about, which can be used in a separate References/Bibliography section, below the footnotes. Lists of references aren't always in smaller fonts outside WP (or if they are, I haven't noticed). Using a reduced font for the bibliography can make it hard to read all the details.


 * People already have the option of not using for the References section, so the font-size inconsistency already exists. I don't use it for References unless I want columns (see, for example Louise Lind-af-Hageby). But if you do want columns for longer lists, fiddling around with a columns template is a bit of a nuisance, whereas  produces the columns easily. Therefore, allowing us the option of setting  at 100 percent would be very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my confusion. Indeed, refbegin is not the same as reflist. An option for 100% is possible, in sandbox now. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 15:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we have lift-off? :) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, all done. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 08:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The agreement seems to be for an option, not to force it on everyone at the same time. SV above talks of "the option of setting", not making it mandatory. Personally I agree with Gadget850, but I have no problem with editors who disagree installing an option. Alternatively, a user script to display references at 100% for users so interested. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there any chance we can have some further discussion on this? For those editors that want a 100% option, can't they actually have that as an option? The default should be kept at 90%, otherwise the vast majority of the articles that use the template are going to to need altering to change the font back to 90%. Betty Logan (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The only reason I started using this template was because of the size change. It should default to 90, with an extra parameter allowing editors to choose a size. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, a sloppy mistake on my part caused a default of 100%. Should be fixed now. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this. What do we write to get the 100 percent option? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * |normalfont=yes (may also be true or 1 ). — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal
Hi Edokter, I've restored this after your removal, but I had forgotten you were the one you added it. It's useful for people who have difficulty reading the smaller font size, but where editors want columns. This template with columns and normal font-size option does the trick. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that refbegin should not be used just to have columns; we have div col for that. Refbegin should only contain references and act like {reflist}/&lt;references/>, which does not have a normalfont option. So I am merely trying to synchronize its behaviour. It still works, but I removed from the documentation so there will be no more new uses.  16:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not sure what deprecated means in this context. Refbegin with normal font is useful when people want to list citations using columns and 100 percent font size, because otherwise they're forced to use 90 percent, which may be too small for readers and editors with eyesight problems. I can't see a problem with telling people that it exists, i.e. I can't see a reason to limit new uses of it. I had to go hunting for it after coming here and not finding it; then I realized it had recently been removed. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My ultimate intent is to remove it. The 'too small' argument doesn't hold anymore, especially since the Typography update last year. This is something that should be solved on a user basis, not in the template. There are also only 61 uses of the parameter out of a total of 91463 transclusions. That really doesn't justify keeping this parameter anymore. It also stands in the way of consolidating other column templates in the future.  16:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you say what you mean by deprecated and unofficially deprecated (as in the edit summary)? Also, when you say remove it, do you mean stop it from working or remove it from this page so that people won't see it? Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I said above; it continues to work but is removed from the documentation only. Within the year, the option should be removed from the template alltogether, at which point it will stop working.  17:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, could you say what you mean by deprecated? If you are personally planning to remove it from the template, would you mind gaining consensus before going ahead? I think some people do find it useful, so it would be good to discuss it first. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you know what it means. Yes, I do plan to remove it, simply because of under-utilization, ie. it is hardly used anyway.  17:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is a very inefficient discussion. :) If I knew what it meant, I wouldn't ask, and I've seen you use it before, which is why I'm asking. "Deprecated" normally means that an organization has decided to stop offering support to people who use a certain piece of software, or a certain version. I don't know what it means when an editor says it on Wikipedia (and I would have preferred that you not add it above my post as though I had written it). So, please, explain what you mean by it, so that I know for this and future occasions. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, sorry. What I mean with deprecated, I mean "no longer of any use" and should no longer be used (hence why I removed it from the doc). In software, it is one step before being obsolete, meaning it is no longer guaranteed to work at all. 18:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If the refbegin small font size is an accessibility issue, then so is the font size of reflist, and many infoboxes. But this is why we have . --   Gadget850talk 19:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Font size (2)
, I restored this for now, as it seems quite useful. Is it that the template no longer offers it, or that no one is using it? SarahSV (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You said the exact same thing half a year ago. For one year now, I am trying to get rid of any options that keep my from harmonizing all column templates. So I will remove it again from the documentation, and later from the actual template, so I can finally start working on building a generic columns solution for reference templates. It is only use on 60 pages anyway. Please do not restore. "Seems usefull" is not what I call a a very strong reason for inclusion anyway.  10:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To add, if you want regular fontsize columns, use div col instead.  10:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

indent=yes on mobile
Lists using  display incorrectly on mobile browsers using the mobile site. The left margin falls off the edge of the screen. See images and their description pages for details. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Found this by chance today, guess better late than never. This is gonna be hard to fix, mostly because it was never implemented wisely to begin with (our habit of using : for indentation biting us once again). I think we should just let it be for now, hopefully in the future, when it will be possible to have stylesheets for a template, this will be easier to fix. FFR: This should have been 0 left margin, 1.6em left padding, -1.6em text-indentation for these definition description tags. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And I mess up the ping.. :) —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixing hanging indents
Hi, considering that hanging indents break display on mobile as mentioned a few paragraphs up and because of the usage of : for indentation, which creates a broken definition list, which is problematic for accessibility reasons, I propose to introduce a new site wide class to fix these problems.

In the Template:Refbegin/sandbox I have changed the implementation of indent=yes to add "hanging-indents" to the class list (name might change a bit at some point). The CSS that would be applied would then be: We could then start using * (unordered list) instead of : (a broken definition list used for visual indenting), in line with most other reference groups. Eventually, we can consider using a bot, to convert all existing : lists to * lists. I have prepared a demo in the Template:Refbegin/testcases. You can use this link to evaluate the suggested new solutions. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: This likely would also deprecate indentsize btw.. but this option does not seem to be widely used. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The reasons of making life more pleasant of users of assistive technology; fixing the mobile display; and emitting valid html5 are pretty compelling. I can't see any reason not to use css to determine presentation, rather than using defunct tricks that rely on browers' treatment of  tags. While you're doing this, is it worth considering removal of support for the fixed number of columns options like ? All of the discussion and work at reflist must surely apply just the same here. --RexxS (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * now ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also filed a bot request. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A belated thanks for this. I've just [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Refbegin/doc&diff=prev&oldid=801356251 finished updating the documentation for this template] accordingly, after finding such a case for the first time at Miriam Makeba. I just found out that you mentioned this problem at the accessibility guideline's talk page, but I was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Graham87&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end=2017-05-04 too busy] dealing with the boy band vandal to pay attention to much else. Graham 87 05:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A belated thanks for this. I've just [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Refbegin/doc&diff=prev&oldid=801356251 finished updating the documentation for this template] accordingly, after finding such a case for the first time at Miriam Makeba. I just found out that you mentioned this problem at the accessibility guideline's talk page, but I was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Graham87&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end=2017-05-04 too busy] dealing with the boy band vandal to pay attention to much else. Graham 87 05:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Using a bot to convert hanging indent uses of this template to proper lists
I recently discovered that there is a practice, where lists of references using refbegin are required to make use of : instead of * for listing references. This was in an attempt to create a visual indentation (hanging indentation) for references. This poses an accessibility problem and has since been changed to achieve the same result using alternative CSS styling. As such there is no need to use : any longer and the normal * list type can be used. In order to encourage this new style and to prevent further copy paste forwarding of the older style, I propose a bot will be run to convert current lists to this newer format. This concerns 1496 articles and will only affect the wikicode and not the visual representation of the content. Please indicate if you have any reservations about such a conversion (and why). —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wha..? What? What new style? What are "hanging references"? What are you talking about?  E Eng  14:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, lets' give an actual example:

For stuff like this:



The bot will change this:



into:



And it will render the same as before. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you mind converting an actual article, like 2013 Bulgarian protests against the first Borisov cabinet, to show the before/after appearance? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that that is a case which we would skip. In addition to use the wrong indentation format, it also uses ; for the purposes of creating pseudo headers. Instead consider something like 1966 New York City smog with these changes to become User:TheDJ/sandboxrefbegin. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 18:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. On my browser, the rendering is changed slightly. The new version does not allow column breaks within the references, apparently, which I would characterize as an improvement.
 * As for the Bulgaria article that you would skip, I picked that one completely at random. If you're going to have a bot traverse the articles, you'll have to provide skip conditions. With only 1,500 pages, it might be better for an AWB user to take on the task. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "The new version does not allow column breaks within the references" that is correct. That is a styling setting of normal references lists, which seems we never implemented for this 'old' situation. Probably because no one involved with adding that styling setting ever realized this older situation existed. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The fixed columns parameter in normal references lists (reflist) is strongly deprecated anyway, and it is actively being removed from articles because it causes the output to become unreadable on many non-wide monitors or with larger font sizes. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed columns is another issue however, it does not relate to this. Jonesey was referring to the fact that a single reference will not split across two two columns. All the other reference list types do this too, but refbegin was not recognized as a proper reference list before. Another reason to fix this I guess. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I finished the definition lists off and have removed the assorted CSS. --Izno (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I used this search to identify removal candidates. I used AWB with a really stupid regex (^:(.*?)$) to make replacements, which had maybe 1-3% false positives at most. (Mostly missed math articles.) --Izno (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Indent size
No indent
 * Colon indent


 * Refbegin with indent

Is there a reason why the default indentation size is so severe? I would think that the width of a single colon indentation would be more appropriate (see example above). czar 05:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A colon indent () has. The class  has   and   to create the hanging indent:

References



I took the example from the documentation at Template:Refbegin/doc which describes why the hanging indents are useful, but doesn't give a reason why 3.2em was chosen. You'll have to ask who made the edit to MediaWiki:Common.css on 12 May 2017 why he picked 3.2em. The background discussion is at Template talk:Refbegin et seq. HTH --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the hanging indent is to make it easy to cast your eye down the page looking for particular name. The example above suggests to me that 3.2em is plenty, and 1.6 might be enough. If we're not wedded to multiples of 1.6, I'd suggest 2.0.  E Eng  18:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I chose it, as it was the same as the previous default. The previous default was a dl > dd > dl > dd (so 2x 1.6em, with a 3.2 negative text-indent). I'm open for whatever. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think 1.6 would be good, to keep it consistent with single-colon commenting conventions. I'm only discovering the indent function of this template now (after having used it for how long?) but the 3.2em indent is jarring. czar  19:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been googling a bit, and I suspect that this is based of pre-existing conventions outside of Wikipedia. If you google a bit for "style guide hanging indent", you quickly find that ASA-style, MLA, Chicago etc all dictate 0.5 inch indentation, which I think is rather close to that 3.2em. I'v added an example of that below as well. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes I suspected that was just the default previously in use. Here's how the other suggested options would look:

Hanging indent 1.6em:        Hanging indent 2.0em:    </li> <li style="list-style:none; margin-left:0; padding-left:2.0em; text-indent:-2.0em;"> </li> </ul> Hanging indent 0.5in: <ul style="font-size:90%; list-style-type:none; margin-left:0;"> <li style="list-style:none; margin-left:0; padding-left:0.5in; text-indent:-0.5in;"> </li> <li style="list-style:none; margin-left:0; padding-left:0.5in; text-indent:-0.5in;"></li> <li style="list-style:none; margin-left:0; padding-left:0.5in; text-indent:-0.5in;"> </li> </ul> Any preferences? I think I quite like the 1.6em, but I wouldn't complain about any of them. --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the mockups. I think 1.6 is just fine.  E Eng  19:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Same—no complaints, but I think it would be best to match the existing site indent style, if that's 1.6em. (I.e., if 2.0em is a better first indent, I'd rather see it decided in a larger forum on site-wide indents.) This said, I look at my comment in preview and the indentation looks closer to 2.0 than 1.6 even though my browser site inspector says it's 1.6... And for what it's worth, I think the half-inch indent makes relative sense on a normal sheet of paper but doesn't translate well to webpages and small screens. czar  19:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and font size matters too. No matter what we should be talking in terms of ems, not inches, so that it's always relative to the text size.  E Eng  21:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * An indent of 1.6em is smaller when the text is 90% (as in reflist, etc.) than when it's 100% (as in your "colon" example), because em is a size relative to the current text size (and font metrics). I'd recommend just picking what looks approximately right (a 1.8em indent of text sized 90% would be roughly the same as a 1.6em indent of normal-sized text, but the eye is unlikely to pick up such small differences on usual-sized screens). --RexxS (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Default columns?
Given that Template:Reflist now defaults to 30em, should this template behave in the same manner? My instincts say it should. DonIago (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not the same use case—while reflist is used for all kinds of citations, usually on the shorter side, refbegin is most often used for bibliography sections, which are rarely broken into columns. czar  15:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Ordered list rather than unordered list
I'm not sure why the current practice is to use an unordered list, but almost always the lists employing these templates have been ordered (usually by e.g. last name). Could we at-least add support in the CSS for an ordered list inside of these templates? --Izno (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But all the other reference lists are unordered chaotic jumbles, so readers might become disoriented if they find one that's ordered. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to suggest we stop supporting definition lists, or maybe even to apply special CSS to say "this needs to be fixed because it is the wrong kind of list in this template". --Izno (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What's a definition list? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Definition list. Or MOS:DLIST. --Izno (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Contradictory info about columns needs clarifying
This whole page is extremely unclear about what is ACTUALLY correct, number of columns or width of columns. Number is given as the default, not width, but then called "deprecated" near the bottom of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snizzbut (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding this point and the section above, there is confusion about how the columns are used and whether the format matches that of reflist. Currently, the documentation says
 * If an integer n is supplied as the first parameter, the template will display the bibliography/references list in n columns. This may be useful for compact display for a lengthy list, and matches also the optional capability of reflist to display output in multiple columns.
 * However, at reflist, this column format has been deprecated:
 * The syntax (for example), which specifies two columns of equal width regardless of the available display width, is deprecated (and is disabled for mobile view). When you use 1 the template gives you a single column while 2 will pretend you specified 30em. When using higher column counts, it will pretend you specified 25em.
 * I don't know if this column format is deprecated in the sense of reflist (turned into a width parameter) or used in another way here, and I certainly don't understand what the preferred usage is, but surely the documentation should be updated. kennethaw88 • talk 18:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made some edits which remove an indication of the 'n' way of doing things. Izno (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the column count format is and does need to be deprecated more fully. --Izno (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This search identifies the majority of these pages. We could maybe add a category for a bot to work on to remove this. I think that's how reflist eliminated the numeric pattern. (Unlike with reflist, we can consider leaving the unnamed first parameter to continue to serve as a colwidth as it does today when the template finds non-numerics in the parameter.) --Izno (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

VE edit suggestions
Under VE the cite list should be searchable or the citations should be numbered, finding one specific citation block is irritating and tedious. Example: Analytical_Engine MarMi wiki (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Depreciated parameter 2
Per Template:Reflist, would I be correct in assuming that is depreciated, defaulting to 30em as if   had been specified? If so, then Template:Refbegin's documentation should be updated. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 12:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing column count?
Based on the discussions above, I'll update the documentation to remove instructions for adding a quantity of columns. I wonder if it would be acceptable to prevent the template from outputting column counts? This seems easier than writing a bot to fix them all. The vast majority of specified quantities are just "2". Here's a breakdown:

Rather than continuing to implement this, the template could just give "30em" which is the default for references. Or 30em for 2 columns, and 20em for higher. Or even ignore the counts altogether. This would fix any issues with editors specifying a fixed number of columns. Rjjiii (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps disregard the above post. After some digging, the template is widely used for non-ref purposes as a small text plus number of columns template. See this legend separated into columns on Schizophrenia for example. Rjjiii (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ugh, that is a misuse of this template. The template contains various CSS classes and styles that are applicable only to references. It should not be used for other purposes. That legend should use div col or one of the other column-generating template families listed in the documentation for that template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned out the 3-5 column usages. Using Izno's search syntax I don't see any more pages left. I've also converted a bunch of misuse (thanks for the div col link). There are still the 15,000 pages left using refbegin|2. I tried modifying the sandbox version of the template to give "30em" when a number of columns is requested. Rjjiii (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Making notes as I go: I've cleaned all of the  usage down to   and have made the sandbox treat   as if the 1 was not there. 2 or greater as a column count will creates 30em wide columns.  Rjjiii  (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 October 2023
Change the template to the sandbox version. The live version of the template permits defining the column width or quantity. The sandbox version only permits defining the column width and provides a fallback where any quantity of columns will result in columns at 30em (the default for references). The current default of 1 full-width column is still present, and a quantity of "1" will also give that default of 1 full-width column. Per talk page discussions, this is more flexible and matches the updates for reflist. Additionally, I have converted all uses of large quantities of columns (3–6) in articles to either narrow columns or a more appropriate template. Once all 2-column formatting is updated, the fallback can likely be removed. Thanks for your time, Rjjiii  (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)  Rjjiii  (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 12:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)