Template talk:Reflist-talk/Archive 1

Proposed changes

 * Change reflist to to close all previous references and not parse any following references. There is no way to guarantee that this template is after every instance of and refs after the template will be parsed. By closing the reflist, refs after the reflist will not be shown reflist.


 * Add to remove the section edit link.


 * Remove "Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made before this template."


 * Change the lavender background to a more neutral gray or the like.


 * Remove background— the box has a border, so this is not needed


 * Make References bold and not a headline

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * $0.02c: Unsure either way on Okay on the first item. Yes to removing the edit section link, and to removing the instruction (or at least the first sentence), and yes to color change (or to alternative discreet pastel hue). –Whitehorse1 16:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sandbox version at Template:Reflist-talk/sandbox. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those changes look good.   Will Beback    talk    02:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅} ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

close=1
I just found out the the 'close=1' does not work as expected; it must be placed *on* the page for it to be effective. In the template itself, it does nothing, see /testcases. — Edokter • Talk  • 21:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC) The template demarcates collected citations into a box. It's unlike which is for mainspace—pages that usually have a References section, always exist in the same place where readers/editors know where to look, so need no additional presentation or features. It's an altogether different usage case. According to the history, the is a recent addition. If a recent addition has a bug, the thing to do is revert that from the Live version not dump the template! The changes arose from the template's mention in this discussion. See template before & template after. It was great of Gadget850 to step up and act to make improvements; and as seen above the consensus of, umm, 2–3 agreed in principle. Turns out unfortunately the implementation of one addition isn't working as intended; that can be looked at in subpage-sandboxes or the main template Sandbox as well as at WP:VP/T or wherever. I'd help with the troubleshooting, but am not a template coder; I give props to those with Template-Fu like yourself though Edokter! But, I'm certainly willing to help test. :) In the meantime let's restore the resource and update its documentation—I'll go do that now. Best, Whitehorse1. 13:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've redirected this template to reflist, as it does not work as intended. Perhaps when someone comes up with a nifty safesubst trick (somthing which I'm still trying to comprihend), it can re restored. — Edokter • Talk  • 01:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was only just using it earlier today. :( –Whitehorse1 02:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And it should still work... provided it is the only occurence on that talk page (which held true for this template as well). — Edokter • Talk  • 11:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't wanna be whiny but, "it's just not the same!" More specifically …
 * You know what; I never noticed the border! Oh well, that's OK. I am going to study further on how to make close=1 work... — Edokter • Talk  • 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this bit of cargo-cult voodoo from the documentation. It wasn't passed to the parent template and thus did nothing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

refs= keyword?
The Reflist template allows defining a list of references with a refs= parameter. Is supposed to work? When I tried it I got an empty References box and a list of footnote numbers after the box, with no accompanying text. It would be useful if it worked. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It didn't pass the refs parameter, but it does now... — Edokter • Talk  • 14:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The footnotes now include the text, but still appear outside of the References box. Talk:IBM System/360 currently uses Reflist, but I'd prefer to put the footnotes in a box with reflist-talk. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you cannot use indents with reflist-talk. — Edokter •  Talk  • 23:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The documentation claims that you can. I have no idea whether that is a bug or a documentation error. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure it used to honor indent. Have to do some regression tests but had to go do the work thing. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Control or suppress heading?
I have a case where I'd like to use and Reflist-talk on the same talk subpage. Is there a way to suppress the heading References or to respecify it as Notes in ? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Added title. Set it to blank for no title. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As of today using the title= keyword with no parameter displays a single quote character, instead of displaying nothing. Pol098 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Voodo in action


--  Gadget850talk 01:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems to work as intended. The problem was it cannot be done automatically. Changed to "close=1" because the "close" spills through to the CSS part. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 01:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Shoot fire. I never noticed that. --  Gadget850talk 02:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a cleanup template
IMHO the category Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates should be removed, because this is not a cleanup template. (The parent category Category:Cleanup templates states that "this is a category of templates used for marking articles as requiring cleanup.") NiPu (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

close=1 (2)
Is there any way to work this flag into the template as the default, and let close=0 turn it off in the off-chance that's needed? czar ♔  19:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not possible; the close=1 must appear on the page iteself to work. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Not working as expected
Please see Talk:Great Stirrup Controversy Only the heading References is inside the correctly indented box while the references are listed below the box and not indented. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't indent the template. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 13:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change
I would like to propose that a parameter and functionality be added so that the reference list can be collapsed. Sometimes editors copy paragraphs from article pages that have multiple references. The resulting list of references can be a bit intrusive. Any thoughts on this idea?- MrX 13:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I like it! --75.188.199.98 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would be a big fan of this. Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

How to fix unexpected problem?
I noticed on Talk:Chabad that all sections after this template are indented a little more than the section that precede this template. Why, and how to fix that? Debresser (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried the only thing I could think of, and it didn't help. It also didn't make things any worse, so I left it the way it is. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was an unclosed .  23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was an unexpected solution as well. :) Debresser (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Stray template artifact showing when this template is used
Hi and any. At Draft talk:Sorcha Faal, above the instance of the use of there is a stray  showing. Where is that coming from and can you fix it? Ping me back as my Watch List is too long to monitor this discussion reliably. Cheers! 23:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unrelated to this template; it was caused by the (improper) use of small just above it.  19:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Trivial problem
Hi. I noticed here: User:Phil_wink/Sonnet_Uniformity_Act that the dashed box ... er ... underlaps the Sonnet template. The reflist content works perfectly: I can narrow the window and it wraps correctly within the visible space. That is, the text never disappears under the template, only the border. Same effect in mobile view. A truly trivial problem, and if there's no fix, that's fine. Just thought I'd mention it. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is how divs behave with relation to floating content. The container 'box' never resizes, only its content.  20:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

reflist and talk
What is the actual right way to put references into talk pages. Seems like one way is to put reflist or reflist-talk at the end of each section. But otherwise, for article pages it is usual for all the references to be at the end. That doesn't seem so bad for Talk pages. Also, I only just now found out about reflist-talk. Should that always be used on talk pages? Gah4 (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem with putting anything at the end of talk pages is that the "New section" link will add the new section at the very end. And if you don't add a manual reflist at the end, people may think at first look that references belong to the last section. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There was enough space after the last section that it didn't bother me, but then someone put a reflist in another section, and references ended up there. I wouldn't mind a ==References== section like article pages, but the New Section logic would need to be modified to keep that last.  Same for == External Links ==, if anyone wanted them. Gah4 (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And reflist or reflist-talk? Gah4 (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes, reflist-talk (and not reflist) is always the best one to use in Talk pages within the section that they apply to, because Talk pages should always be organized by section.

Unlike reference lists, external link lists (with or without section headers) can be placed anywhere without creating problems for other sections, but should also be placed within the section that they apply to.

Very long answer with examples [work in progress, July 8, 2017]: The person replying to you previously was implying, correctly, that the absolutely best solution for Talk page sections is to use reflist-talk. As its name implies, this template was designed to solve issues that appear when using the original template reflist within a section.

The parameters of reflist-talk even allow you to change the title of the section-level references. So you can title it something like References for this section or Sources for the Dubious tag discussion.

So, it's best to use reflist for (1) articles (which are in the Main namespace) and also for (2) pages in other namespaces that require any reference list to apply to the entire page, as is true in essays (in the rare instances that they have such a list [find example]).

However, while reflist-talk should not be used in articles (that is, in the Main namespace), it is by far the best choice for use in those Wikipedia project pages where the references for a particular section should remain within that section, either at the section's end when references apply to the entire section OR just after the part of the section it is relevant to, for example an individual's post or a quotation within a post of the section of an article that is in dispute.

About External links sections: unlike References sections, External links sections can be stuck anywhere without creating problems for other sections, because they're always created by typing things in, like any other body text in regular wiki markup (aka wikitext).

Unlike lists of external links, references lists are semi-automatically generated. Whenever there are  tags within any page's wikitext (unless the ref tags are put within   tags as I just did in that example), the Wikipedia software "thinks" [Oops! I believe this is accurate, but I should come back and double-check this.], "Hey, those ref tags mean there's supposed to be a reference list somewhere on this page. Do I see  or    anywhere? No? Okay, well, I'll just make one and slap it in at the end."

I found and am answering your question because, after recently stumbling on this useful template, I am interested in improving the documentation so more editors can learn about this template. I hope this helps! —Geekdiva (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Should parameter colwidth be noted as obsolete
It seems that the colwidth parameter should be marked as obsolete, as it is in the documentation. Or it should be marked as explicitly functional, if that is the case. Essentially there is a conflict/ambiguity between the documentation for the two templates. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Why hardcoded background color?
Back at in early 2010, it was proposed and then apparently implemented to have no background from the box because it has a border already. Then in April 2010, User:Ludwigs2 changed it to hardcode a white background with an explanation "for talk page use". I don't see any discussion surrounding that chagne and that editor is inactive since 2013. Does anyone understand its purpose? Hardcoding white (or any color) seems as un-necessary now as back then due to the border. And it's possible that this box would get used on an area that is some other color background. For example, a collapsed/hatted discussion is often green or something, and having this box white makes it stand out inappropriately. DMacks (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For example, see Articles for deletion/Corey Smith (artist), about half-way down. References should be a secondary aspect (why we relegate them to the end and render in a smaller font), not a brighter block than the main content it supports. DMacks (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * DMacks, since there were no objections, now removed. Frietjes (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DMacks (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Current implementation pulls in stray refs from other sections
TL;DR: Can the template be adjusted so that it only pulls in refs from the section in which it is placed?

I had cause to use Template:Reflist-talk a few times recently and have noticed that if, for example, I include a few refs as part of a proposed article edit I'm presenting in a talkpage discussion along with a  template to display them in proximity then I run the risk of also pulling in multiple refs other editors may have added in other sections without having included a template instance of their own.

Unfortunately this can introduce issues of bulky layout and obfuscation when one's goal in displaying rendered refs in proximity is to encourage others to explicitly examine the proposed refs in concert with the proposed copy. Manually sorting this out (ie mopping up after others) can feel somewhat cumbersome when multiple instances of stray refs are spread across multiple locations of a multiple section talkpage with sections before (and sometimes after) the section one is actually attempting to address.

I'm thinking it would be nice to have (if not by default then by assignable option) a behavior where an instance of the template would only pull refs from within the section (subsection?) in which it's placed. Perhaps with a few further refinements as well.

I'm curious what others think and am happy to elaborate when I get back to this page (tomorrow?) and can probably dig up some 'real world' examples if desired.

--75.188.199.98 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * just add this template to the other sections and the problem is solved. Frietjes (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, "Manually sorting this out (ie mopping up after others) can feel somewhat cumbersome when multiple instances of stray refs are spread across multiple locations of a multiple section talkpage with sections before (and sometimes after) the section one is actually attempting to address."


 * Perhaps adapting the template code so that it "creates a list of references for a talk page discussion within a particular section" (emphasis added), consistently, with minimal astonishment, might better provide utility to users than expecting them to manually compensate for a bug which leaves template behavior dependent upon the actions (or lack thereof) of previous editors. At present it seems that what we have is a template which in practice creates a page-level reference box—less any references included in a previous instance of the template further up the page—instead of consistently producing "a section-level reference box in a section" (emphasis added) as one might expect.


 * If someone well versed in template markup (or at least better-versed-than-I, pretty-please-with-whipped-cream-and-a-cherry-on-topSonic Chocolate Malt - The Cherry On Top.jpg) would like to take on the task of refining the behavior of this template please consider enabling indentation compatible with talkpage threading as well. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest asking at WP:VPT, since this would be a feature added to the backend . this particular template is ultimately just a wrapper for that tag (i.e., wrapper reflist which is a wrapper for ). Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

At end of the section?
It says that this template is put at the end of the section, but what if it is an ongoing discussion? Thinker78 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * then hopefully people will be clever enough to leave it at the end of the section. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I sometimes put a few blank lines before it, making it easier to add new discussion above. Gah4 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)