Template talk:Reflist/Archive 29

Deprecating |2, |3 etc.
I don't object to the general thrust of the documentation, but truly deprecating these in favor of your average editor knowing what an "em" is is problematic.

I have only seen articles use |3 once in a blue moon. It would possibly be better to just treat |2 as |30em under the hood, and to simply update the documentation here that |2 means "multiple columns" and |3 means tighter columns (however that might work), etc.

First I've heard of it was when my recent edit was reverted because |2 was "deprecated". Well, OK, but what's the old saying about Perl, do what I meant not what I said? I meant to eliminate a bunch of extra whitespace in the references. I don't care how wide you screen is. -- Kendrick7talk 05:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, |1 (the default) is also a fixed number of columns. I would support |1 = |50em, |2 = 30em and |3 = 20em.  Kanguole 12:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The intended default is set to be 30em (see the archives), once I get the code in check. That means other dynamic widths (like 20em) are optional. Fixed- width count columns are already discouraged.  13:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Any one of the 27 archives in particular? Kanguole 13:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Try 25 onward.  13:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "fixed-width columns are already discouraged" - where? -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Documentation: This feature [fixed columns] is now deprecated in favor of the option described above [dynamic columns], which is better suited to flexible formatting for a variety of display screen sizes, ranging from mobile phones and tablets to wide-screen "cinema" displays.  18:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a fixed number of columns, not a fixed width of columns. Fixed-width columns is the form, which is not deprecated - indeed, it is the one referred to in your quote as "the option described above". -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When I say 'fixed', I mean fixed number; dynamic means auto-adjusting number of columns...  21:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At 13:21, 26 March 2016 you wrote "Fixed-width columns are already discouraged." -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I made a typo.  23:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the info. If what is now (generally, on a typical non-wide screen) "|2" is set to just become the new default columnization, that would eliminate about 95% of the confusion I was predicting could come to pass. 's idea is also something I could get behind if for some reason that didn't work out. In the meantime, keep up the good work User:Edokter! -- Kendrick7talk 01:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC) maybe someday I'll get a day job as a historian and want to code in my spare time, instead of what is currently the other way around
 * No, that is not the new default... Let me explain again, without tripiing over my own words.
 * Using a fixed, static number of columns, as done with |2, |3 etc. is bad and therefor deprecated. Unless for specific situations, it should not be used.
 * Using a widht for columns, as with |30em, is good and should be promoted, as it adapts to every screen. And I intend for one day to make |30em the default.
 * OK, no I hope that clears out any confusion I may have caused. The only problem with |30em is how to handle single references.  11:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "And I intend for one day to make 30em the default." – Have you considered that there may be articles where he omission of any parameter, relying on the current default behaviour of no columns, is a deliberate choice? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. I deliberately choose without params when there are fewer than about ten references, unless all of them are short (by which I mean that none of them will wrap at the chosen column width, whether that be 20em, 25em or 30em). Have a look at  on an average-sized (1280 px wide) screen. I get four columns: ref 2 sits comfortably in column 4, but ref 1 is split over three columns - the first split is between 'for' and 'passengers', the second between 'Retrieved' and '31'. Not very good presentation at all, hence  -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As a first step towards fixing this annoying usability problem with fixed numbers of columns, the template should populate Category:Articles using obsolete parameters whenever one of these deprecated parameters is used. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to this
Kendrick7, I think that's a great idea. It should improve accessibility on smartphones and for people using large font sizes. RexxS, do you think you could re-write the template to make 2 behave like "30em" or "35em" instead? And maybe 3 should behave like "20em" or "25em". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made a version in Template:Reflist/sandbox that I think might do the job. It seems to handle the usual values OK as well as colwidth. It treats  as   and   (or any other number) as. You can change those in line 8 of Template:Reflist/sandbox to taste. Preview different values in the following if you want to do your own tests:

Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

References

Hope that works = let me know if not. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest also interpreting  as a plain  . Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. I'm surprised by this, but if I guessed the regexp right, then there are >11,000 articles that specify a single column.  (If we think that this is a bad idea for some reason, then we could ask the WP:CHECKWIKI folks to look into it.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My usual next step would be to add a tracking category for articles using the parameter  to have a look at the size of the issue and check some examples, but unfortunately I'm not allowed to edit this template. The code would be something like:
 * Perhaps somebody who is allowed to edit the template can add that and then we can take a closer look? If it does need to be fixed, then it would be fairly simple to set a switch for 1, 2, 3 or more so that the column width is so large when 1 is supplied that only one column displays. If that's a bit too "hacky", then I suppose I (or someone else) could re-write that bit of the code completely to disable the columns in that case. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * [Addendum:] Actually,, I forgot to say you were right about the regex and there does appear to be over 11,000 articles in that category. On reflection, perhaps we don't need a tracking category after all? I still think we will eventually need a tracking category for "articles using reflist with deprecated parameters", but that can wait. I'll knock up a hack for  in Template:Reflist/sandbox2 so that we can test it. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, that was easier than I thought. Try previewing   in some articles when you get the chance. It seems to work in Ulmus glabra 'Fastigiata' and looks ok here:
 * Ok, that was easier than I thought. Try previewing   in some articles when you get the chance. It seems to work in Ulmus glabra 'Fastigiata' and looks ok here:

Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

References


 * Is sandbox2 looking like a solution, now? --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS, I think that /sandbox2 is looking pretty good. It behaves as expected for 1, 2, 3, and π.  0 (which is not used anywhere, AFAICT) behaves like 3.
 * I don't think that we need to add a tracking category at this time. Nikkimaria, what do you think?  Should we perhaps wait a few days and see whether anyone else has any questions or comments?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think tracking is required. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be useful to talk this over with anyone else? A note at WT:ACCESS to see if we've missed anything else? Do we need another pair of technical eyes on this? (It's a heavily used template, so I'd rather make all the changes at once, if any other changes are wanted.) Or are we ready to ask User:Redrose64 or User:Nikkimaria to copy /sandbox2's contents into the template? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I left at note at WT:ACCESS. Unless someone has further thoughts or objections, then I think we're ready to go.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll bite. While the intent's good and I fully support deprecating the  and   style, the fudge to partially support old markup risks being confusing. Is there any plan to migrate old markup away from the style? For example, might   be migrated instead to a clearer keyword like "narrow" or similar? {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 17:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the point was to completely move away from having fixed numbers of columns and only render "fixed width" columns (should be "fixed-minimum-width", really). That seems to me to necessarily entail re-purposing  style parameters, while directling parameters like   to be used as the norm. That, of course, has to be done without breaking templates that use the currently deprecated   style parameters. I see that there are currently at least 128,421 articles using   and 7,125 using , as well as the 11,065 that quite redundantly use  . I would expect the documentation to simply state that   and its ilk are now unsupported, hopefully without causing confusion. I'm not sure what you mean by migrating   to a clearer keyword; I'd much prefer those to be eventually replaced by   so that we use one system across all articles, but that's possibly just the way I like to order things. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We're in complete agreement that  is better practice than  . I don't like the version currently at Template:Reflist/sandbox2 because it includes partial support for the current parameters that could end up confusing (both despite and because of documentation).
 * In particular, it's awkward that  maps to  : if we support it at all it should disable columns entirely as expected, rather than hackishly setting column-width to a high value.   and  's behaviour is even worse, because it's not obvious why those numbers should map to   and   (or whatever).
 * I think we should focus on our goal state, i.e. what we'd putatively end up with after a bot run that corrected deprecated values. In that state, either we support an option that implements certain presets, or we don't. If we will support such presets, then we should implement them properly and cleanly now but with temporary aliases; if we won't support prefixes, then we should replace values that imply them rather than doing awkward aliasing. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 21:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see with your reasoning is that the fixed number of columns has been deprecated since at least the discussion in March 2014. That's three years and still no improvement on the very unsatisfactory state of affairs. Did you read the comments from above, all of whom asked for a solution akin to what /sandbox2 offers right now? The implementation may be what you consider "hackish" and "awkward", but I think you'll find it works, and it works right now, not in another three years' time. I don't agree with what you call "our goal state", in that my goal is to eliminate the amateurish display that occurs with a fixed number of columns. I'm not particularly bothered about supporting "presets" or "prefixes" as both are a bad idea when values ranging smoothly across the range 25em to 40em will allow editors to optimise for a pleasing display with any practical screen resolution. --RexxS (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS, would it be easy enough to add aliases for "narrow" (the column size for 3+) and... um... whatever Nihiltres wants for not-so-narrow dynamic columns? It's possible that some AWB users would be willing to swap out the deprecated parameters for us (to convert   to  ) if we asked, but even if they do, people will still add new instances of   on occasion, so I think it'd be desirable to support both.  In my experience, it often takes two years for editors to get used to a change to a major policy, and I expect that it will be about the same timeline in this case.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for a specific "narrow" solution or (RexxS) trying to delay long-due improvements. I'm saying that the endgame isn't clear. We should have a plan to eventually either a) get rid of these deprecated values entirely (and throw error messages during the "occasional new instance" period), or b) support a system that allows some sanely-named presets. I see the sandboxed update as effectively implementing "badly-named presets" through its aliasing of deprecated values—OK as part of a migration strategy, but not OK to leave around indefinitely. I am personally more fond of approach (a), but I see a certain appeal in (b) in that it might make migration politically easier. In either event, we should migrate away from deprecated values to modern ones. I don't see a plan to do that, and feel that the situation we'd be left with in the meantime risks being confusing. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with you: (a) might be good, but (b) is feasible now.  So as part of said migration to sanely named values, we can (I think?) provide and document aliases.  Perhaps normal vs narrow?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for a specific "narrow" solution or (RexxS) trying to delay long-due improvements. I'm saying that the endgame isn't clear. We should have a plan to eventually either a) get rid of these deprecated values entirely (and throw error messages during the "occasional new instance" period), or b) support a system that allows some sanely-named presets. I see the sandboxed update as effectively implementing "badly-named presets" through its aliasing of deprecated values—OK as part of a migration strategy, but not OK to leave around indefinitely. I am personally more fond of approach (a), but I see a certain appeal in (b) in that it might make migration politically easier. In either event, we should migrate away from deprecated values to modern ones. I don't see a plan to do that, and feel that the situation we'd be left with in the meantime risks being confusing. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with you: (a) might be good, but (b) is feasible now.  So as part of said migration to sanely named values, we can (I think?) provide and document aliases.  Perhaps normal vs narrow?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sanely-named presets
User:RexxS, what do you think? Can we add an alias for a dynamic number of narrow columns vs a dynamic number of normal-width columns? If narrow (or whatever you like) was the "preferred" way to indicate narrower column widths, then it might make it easier to justify replacing the 3 thing that's currently in use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, introducing more parameters isn't my idea of a way of reducing confusion, but what do I know? Yes, of course we could add aliases, although there really needs to be agreement about how aliases should be implemented, and what "narrow" or "normal" actual meant in ems, because the css styling has to be eventually rendered as ems. I can think of multiple ways of having a "narrow" alias:
 * So we'd need to agree on which of these would be required (bearing in mind that colwidth is deprecated for some reason), and how many ems they represented. Similarly, you will want a "normal" parameter, so how many ems would that be? Are you considering a "wide" parameter? if so how big is that? --RexxS (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My thinking is this: "narrow" is exactly the same behavior as, "normal" is exactly the same behavior as , and "wide" – if wanted (and I don't feel strongly about this, so I'm inclined to omit this) – would be exactly the same behavior as .  As for how to implement it, my preference is to do whatever is the least amount of work for you.  Of the options you list, I'd be happy with colwidth (because it already exists, so I assume that makes it easier for you) or , because I assume that would also be easy for you.  If my assumptions are wrong, then you can tell me what I really believe, and I'll cheerfully change my mind.  ;-)   WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Try the latest version in Template:Reflist/sandbox2 which implements narrow and normal as aliases for 25em and 30em. That is the easiest to implement. The downside is our deprecation of colwidth, although at the current rate of progress, that won't present a problem in my lifetime. The upside is compatibility with other language Wikis that still use colwidth.
 * So we'd need to agree on which of these would be required (bearing in mind that colwidth is deprecated for some reason), and how many ems they represented. Similarly, you will want a "normal" parameter, so how many ems would that be? Are you considering a "wide" parameter? if so how big is that? --RexxS (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My thinking is this: "narrow" is exactly the same behavior as, "normal" is exactly the same behavior as , and "wide" – if wanted (and I don't feel strongly about this, so I'm inclined to omit this) – would be exactly the same behavior as .  As for how to implement it, my preference is to do whatever is the least amount of work for you.  Of the options you list, I'd be happy with colwidth (because it already exists, so I assume that makes it easier for you) or , because I assume that would also be easy for you.  If my assumptions are wrong, then you can tell me what I really believe, and I'll cheerfully change my mind.  ;-)   WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Try the latest version in Template:Reflist/sandbox2 which implements narrow and normal as aliases for 25em and 30em. That is the easiest to implement. The downside is our deprecation of colwidth, although at the current rate of progress, that won't present a problem in my lifetime. The upside is compatibility with other language Wikis that still use colwidth.
 * My thinking is this: "narrow" is exactly the same behavior as, "normal" is exactly the same behavior as , and "wide" – if wanted (and I don't feel strongly about this, so I'm inclined to omit this) – would be exactly the same behavior as .  As for how to implement it, my preference is to do whatever is the least amount of work for you.  Of the options you list, I'd be happy with colwidth (because it already exists, so I assume that makes it easier for you) or , because I assume that would also be easy for you.  If my assumptions are wrong, then you can tell me what I really believe, and I'll cheerfully change my mind.  ;-)   WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Try the latest version in Template:Reflist/sandbox2 which implements narrow and normal as aliases for 25em and 30em. That is the easiest to implement. The downside is our deprecation of colwidth, although at the current rate of progress, that won't present a problem in my lifetime. The upside is compatibility with other language Wikis that still use colwidth.

Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

References


 * All the rest of the changes still seem to work as expected. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me.  Nihiltres, does that address your idea of providing a migration path?  We will move from a (bad) fixed of number columns whose width (and therefore legibility) is determined by screen width, to a (good) dynamic number of columns in a width that is determined by editorial judgment, as expressed by 'normal' or 'narrow'.  (Also, anything that works correctly today will still work tomorrow.)
 * RexxS, it appears that these parameters were marked as "obsolete" in February 2015 because they're not necessary and weren't originally intended to be necessary. Template talk:Reflist/Archive 27 has a discussion about it.  I skimmed it, but I'm not especially convinced by the arguments against providing the option.
 * If Nihiltres is satisfied, then I think the last step here is to find an admin to copy the sandbox file into the template page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a strong argument either way for deprecating a named parameter like colwidth. It's certainly preferable to make use of named parameters when there are several in a call, but it's a non-argument when there's only one. I checked a few other language implementations and Italian uses only "colwidth" to do the job; French similarly uses a parameter called "taille"; the Dutch don't have a named parameter and use two positional parameters (font size and columns), but only cater for 30em and no other value for "fixed width" columns. It seems to me that anybody could easily adapt our code if we allow both named and positional parameters, but I guess that will be the next stumbling block. --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree; we should prefer named parameters and provide support for positional parameters as aliases, preferring the named parameter in the event of a conflict. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the sandbox version has slightly different behaviour between named and positional parameters: it recognizes,  , and   only in positional arguments and   and   only in a named   parameter. While it's OK to not support  ,  , and   in the named parameter (we want to deprecate those anyway), we should probably support the named presets in the positional form for consistent behaviour. I can tweak this myself sometime in the near future if someone else doesn't get there first.  I'm an admin (and surprised you're not); once we've got consensus on a version I can update the main template for us. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 23:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree; we should prefer named parameters and provide support for positional parameters as aliases, preferring the named parameter in the event of a conflict. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the sandbox version has slightly different behaviour between named and positional parameters: it recognizes,  , and   only in positional arguments and   and   only in a named   parameter. While it's OK to not support  ,  , and   in the named parameter (we want to deprecate those anyway), we should probably support the named presets in the positional form for consistent behaviour. I can tweak this myself sometime in the near future if someone else doesn't get there first.  I'm an admin (and surprised you're not); once we've got consensus on a version I can update the main template for us. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 23:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Responsive
Thanks for the heads-up, WAID. I've looked at Tech/News/2017/11 and the detail at T33597 - that is: will automatically wrap the list in. Any list with more than 10 references will also get the class mw-references-columns. In this mode, the references list is automatically split over multiple columns based on the available space on the screen. E.g. on narrow screens 1 or 2 columns, on wider screens 2 or 3. Given that this happens automatically, it is no longer necessary for editors to manually enable/disable the columns mode of a template.

I've created a simple version of Reflist at Template:Reflist/sandbox3. If I have the syntax right, here's a demo (taken from Oxygen toxicity) that we can check on 16 March when the extension is rolled out to en-wp: The effects of oxygen toxicity may be classified by the organs affected, producing three principal forms:

Oxidative damage may occur in any cell in the body but the effects on the three most susceptible organs will be the primary concern. It may also be implicated in damage to red blood cells (haemolysis), the liver, heart, endocrine glands (adrenal glands, gonads, and thyroid),   or kidneys, and general damage to cells.

References

Hopefully that will then automagically create sensible columns as there are more than 10 references. We can test it on mobile, narrow screen, wide screen, etc. to get an idea of how good a job it does. Then we can decide whether to stick with the current road-map (adding in sensible presets to complement flexible widths), or to scrap it all in favour of the new extension (which probably only has one fixed preset). --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

[Update:] The automatic column changing works. On a vector skin it transitions from 1 to 2 columns at around a window width of around 1290px; from 2 to 3 columns around 1795px window width; and 3 to 4 columns around 2300px. Monobook is similar. That's roughly equivalent to setting colwidth=39em, which is rather wider than we seem to use commonly. There's an automatic transition to columns between 10 and 11 references, which is commonly done here anyway. The downside is that I've not yet found a way of implementing the list-style-types. It seems placing the style on a container div no longer works. Do we need to set the CSS for  as , perhaps? --RexxS (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's 35em btw. as the web inspector and the commit show. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I found that I needed to increase to in order to match the columns transition for Reflist/sandbox3. Perhaps that's because reflist sets 90% font-size and 35em is 90% of roughly 39em? --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 39em or 40em seem fine for me. 30em is still too narrow - with this setting references often come out distorted using larger display fonts (as used by visually impaired). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is class reflist who adds list-style-type:inherit Special:Diff/770821387. --Vriullop (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I was trying to simplify the template as much as possible, given that the new tag already applies the class "references" to the . You're right that we need to keep the class "reflist", as proven by the fact that list-style-type now works with , etc. following your fix. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. We can just add the same definition to MediaWiki:common.css for mw-references-wrap as we now have for reflist.. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have the permissions to do that, so we have what we have now. I understand that there is a general preference against introducing extra definitions into MediaWiki:common.css without prior discussion, so it may not be a trivial exercise to get the consensus needed for that change. Otherwise, I agree with your solution. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS, this looks good to me (and WFM in Firefox 52/macOS 10.12). As a practical matter, whatever you and TheDJ agree upon will be fine with me.  I totally trust you two to find the best solution for me.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest a two stage approach here. First explicitly disable responsive for reflist, then switch the default for english wiki (so that all other uses of the references tag get the responsive benefits). Give some time for feedback to roll in, so that we might be able to process that. Then consider deploying the reflist with this responsive flag enabled by default. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. I've now explicitly disabled responsive in Template:Reflist/sandbox2 which I believe could replace Template:Reflist immediately. Switching the default for responsive could happen by request as soon as we're happy with that. After some time, we could re-evaluate what would be best: (1) stick with our own, rather more flexible solution (/sandbox2); or (2) adopt the uniformity of the built-in responsive solution (/sandbox3). How does that sound? --RexxS (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we actually have enough articles left that use the  code to get useful feedback?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A search on  says we have 105,820 pages in article space. [OOps] Plus another 153,408 if you miss the space out! --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What you have looks good, but assumes responsive always. Take a look at Wikiversity:Template:References. That doesn't have the list style, but it does allow the user to disable responsive if desired. I can't think of a good reason to disable responsive, but it's an option, so I included it. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the Wikiversity template. Since "" is also truthy, for Reflist/sandbox3, disabling/enabling responsive would be just a matter of passing a parameter with a value of "0" or "1" and setting responsive to the parameter, rather than the fixed value of "1", but as you say, I can't think of a good reason to. Optionally, editors could just use, I guess. --RexxS (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the Wikiversity template. Since "" is also truthy, for Reflist/sandbox3, disabling/enabling responsive would be just a matter of passing a parameter with a value of "0" or "1" and setting responsive to the parameter, rather than the fixed value of "1", but as you say, I can't think of a good reason to. Optionally, editors could just use, I guess. --RexxS (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Automagic columns for refs
This may throw a spanner in the works: Village pump (technical). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See the section above ^^ --RexxS (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See the section above ^^ --RexxS (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)