Template talk:Reflist/Archive 13

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 &lt;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. —Th e DJ (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)
 * 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:


 * Anomie⚔ 11:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Headatdesk obviously, that's why we never did this before of course. —Th e DJ (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:

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 .... —Th e DJ (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 to make three columns. See Chaco Culture National Historical Park for a perfect example. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 10:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * ✅ 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)

—Apis (talk ) 22:27, 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.
 * 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. The Tetrast (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC).
 * 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  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)

== versus   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? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zackbarnett, 31 March 2010
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, MediaWiki_talk:Common.css/Archive_10 and MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 11. ---— 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)