Template talk:Reference page

Multiple sequential use
With regard to "Overuse of this template is seen by some editors as making prose harder to read." all u de d to in rp. In the SI article we have "... languages[2]: 125 [3]: iii [4] and...". It's a little harder to parse the multiple sequential uses in "[2]: 125 [3]: iii [4]". Would it be possible to introduce separators and perhaps remove the blank spaces, as in "[2]:125;[3]:iii;[4]"? Or something like "[2](125)[3](iii)[4]" fgnievinski (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The hair spaces exist just to make it better parsable (and more in line with normal grammar rules). Semicolons would look syntactically odd for this purpose (that is, for anything but a list of pages or other in-source-locations) unless you would move them out of the superscript - but that would significantly increase the occupied space (and still look odd IMO), and some people would object to it. (In theory, this could be added as another style, but I would not support it, because I think it would look worse.)
 * However, changing to your proposed style is easy. If you have support for that on the article talk, you will just have to add ama to the template.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would change the text to something more accurate like "many readers despise this horrendously ugly and illegible template. However a few of us obstinate editors insist on using it and nobody can stop us muahahaha ." –jacobolus (t) 21:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Spacing between Rp and the next (adjacent) reference
I'd like to suggest including in this article some guidance on spacing between an  page number and a subsequent (adjacent) reference number – whether or not another   is involved – for reasons of typographical aesthetics. As you know, in default two successive references look like this:

Inserting a thin space (equal to a narrow no-break space; also equal to half of a standard space) produces:

For comparison (I think it's too wide), a single standard space produces:

Over to you for discussion. :-). SCHolar44 (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Recommended edit in article
I suggest getting rid of the apostrophe in the second numbered sub-paragraph under the "Intent" heading. It shouldn't be there – it's a greengrocer's apostrophe – and it confuses the meaning. Currently it reads:

It can be eliminated with the following wording (please note also the deleted comma after "cited"):

SCHolar44 (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Template documentation is typically not protected, so you could have edited it yourself. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jonesey95. :-)
 * If only I had known... SCHolar44 (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

ref extends
I chanced upon ref extends a moment ago. The docs there state that this feature is only available in the beta cluster. But it might be worth mentioning in the documentation here that this is another possible solution, already in the pipe for special users, and perhaps in the pipe for everyone, someday. &mdash; MaxEnt 03:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the ref feature of the CS1/CS2 templates already makes effectively obsolete (and I say that as the author of the template). It was very much needed when first invented, but has really been surprassed now. For a crash course on effective use of ref, see User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 199.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

meaning of "Seen to be" distinction
SMcCandlish, I am not sure how it is nonsensical: for an individual, overuse either makes it hard to read, or it does not. If enough editors (who are readers, if not a perfect representation) have said it is hard to read, such that the point should be represented here, I don't understand the purpose of adding a layer of vaguery on top of it. Remsense  留  23:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't about "seen to do" versus "can do" something (and I just switched to the latter wording; I never cared about that). It was nonsensical because "Overuse of this template can make prose harder to read for some users. Used judiciously, however, other editors say that ..." starts with a statement of alleged fact (which is really just an opinion), and follows it with a statement of opinion not masquerading as fact, and then pits the "fact" (opinion) of some readers ("to read for some users" = "users who are reading" = "readers") versus the opinion of some, but they are not the same category. Anyway, I fixed it just now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)