Template talk:Reflist/Archive 5

Multiple columns bug
The documentation claims that the multicolumn versions work in Safari 3. I use Safari 3.1.1, and they still don't render correctly. The documentation should be changed.

By the way, this bug is a real pain. Is it really true that they don't render correctly in any browser except Firefox and Mozilla? Any hope of a fix? CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just realized you guys have already been discussing this for awhile. I agree they should be deprecated or fixed. CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes list
See Wikipedia talk:Citing sources for an extension of the ref tag to add notes. Do we want a separate template like reflist to format the notes list, or do we want to add a switch to reflist? --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  18:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone finally implemented this? Wow! I vote for adding a  parameter to reflist to most easily support whichever arbitrary grouping parameter people may want to use. This change would do it. Anomie⚔ 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I did some testing and it looks good to me. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  13:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could really use some more input here... --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  18:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

editprotected Since no one else seems to care, let's go for it. Someone please implement this change. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 11:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Need to update the documentation.  WP is being cranky at the moment, so I will work on it in a bit.  --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  11:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If discursive notes are separated out and meant to be read, then they should have the same font size as the rest of the text, and not be in a smaller font. Reflist for a list of discursive notes makes even less sense than it does for citations. Gimmetrow 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While notes are one use of the groups extension, it can be used for most any purpose. For example, as labels within a table.  The size and usage of notes should be determined by the style guide, not the template.  --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  02:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So we'll have busybodies changing every group references to reflist, and this template will govern usage? Gimmetrow 03:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And we'll have busybodies changing around citation templates, and changing settings for non-auto-formatting dates, and so on. What's your point? Anomie⚔ 13:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's exactly my point. Let's not add more stuff for people to flip flop. Before this feature gets in common use, we should determine one way to format discursive notes, and one way to format table notes. Gimmetrow 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Templates should never govern usage— there use should always be within the MOS. This is not the place for a discussion on notes formatting— it should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Footnotes.  I am certain that there will be other creative uses of ref groups other than notes and labels.  --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  17:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point is that instead of worrying about stuff people will actually fight over, you want to complain about this feature that will probably seldom be used? Wow. Anomie⚔ 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And your point is that, while you apparently agree with me, you want to encourage people fighting and encourage templates governing usage? Is that a double wow? Gimmetrow 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

empty reflist
Rather than display nothing when there are not references in the article, could the reflist template display the Template:nofootnotes? This would serve as a visual reminder that the article needs to be improved with properly sourced references.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this really a problem? I can't recall ever seeing a references section with no references.  --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  11:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, unreferenced would be better, as that is usually the case rather than there being references with no in-line citations. For Gadget, yes, many times a reference section is added that has no reference as a reminder that they are needed :-P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats what I was thinking. It would also catch the situations where references are removed but the reference section remains.  Can we get this change made?--Rtphokie (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hanging widows
Hi there. I was wondering if there was any way that the reflist template could automatically avoid hanging widows (where the last line of text from the first column appears at the top of the second column). It's just a little strange to have the reference split up like that. It's not an urgent matter, but just something I wanted to note. Thanks for all your hard work. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple template bug
This came up on a talk page, where appeared several times, and we couldn't figure out why no references were showing for the last one. If you specify either the colwidth or the column count (i.e. or  it works fine:  it displays all the references that haven't already been displayed in the previous reflist, allowing separate notes sections for separate sections of the talk page, as here for example: . However, if you just say    with no parameters, then each instance of the template lists only the references that are in the wikitext before the first template; other references are not displayed. Does anyone know where to find documentation for this part of the code? " {{#tag:references " or at least for the "#tag:" part?  I just don't know where to look.  It isn't on m:Help:ParserFunctions, for example.  I thought of a possible workaround:  move this template to ReflistA, and make a new Reflist template that calls ReflistA with all the same parameters that were passed in, except that if no parameters are passed in, then it passes in a default, e.g. column count 1. I think that would work, but it's clunky. It would be better to find out how #tag:references works and see if it can be fixed. Thanks to anyone who can find any documentation on it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure reflist was ever intended to work that way. If you want multiple reference lists, then use the new groups parameter— see the doc. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the " {{#tag:references ", as the same thing happens if I copy {{tl|reflist}} into my sandbox and replace it with the standard (GRAB 'IT' in edit mode)
 * 1) Check a whatlinkspage or two and make sure it's showing up properly, and maybe make an explict link to that TFD subpage {{indent|3}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_1/reflist#Template:reflist
 * 2) I subst'd the above and checked the link so cut and paste that above directly, so you can all the working in one try... for this will affect lots of pages. Thanks // Fra nkB  19:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If all I have to do is copy and paste the above, at the very top of the template (before anything else), I can handle this. I know nothing about code/script/parser/whatever, so I want to be clear. - auburn pilot   talk  19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, this template is one of the 10 most used templates on WP, on 537,205 links, so whoever fills this request, BE CAREFUL.  MBisanz  {{sup| talk }} 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not done. We're not going to have 500,000+ pages re-render so that an incredibly visible template can show an advertisement for a deletion discussion. Advertise it on the village pumps and noticeboards and put a note in the /doc subpage. Editing this template is unnecessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. TFD is not the proper way to draw attention to making a revision on a template. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to agree it's a handy sucker... OK. With those counts, let it stay a virtual nomination... here!

Cheers all // Fra nkB 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Belated Imported section from here

Usage statistics and rewrite proposal
I decided to download the pages-articles dump from http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20080724/ and extract statistics on the usage of this template. Out of 523160 uses (give or take a few) of the template in mainspace on that date, I get the following statistics:

Usage for  in this sample ranges from 0 to 6, with outliers at 8 and 17, and   from 15em to 90em.

If we rewrite the template to use CSS classes, each value for  greater than 1 and each value of   would have to have their own classes added to MediaWiki:Common.css to remain supported. Appropriate defaults could be chosen for existing values that are no longer supported (e.g. a count of 6 could use the maximum supported count). Once that is done, instructions could be added to the documentation (and gadgets could even be added) to allow overriding of both the font size and the multiple columns.

IMO, 3 columns and 30em columns might be worth adding based on the above numbers, but not any of the rest. I have put together a proof-of-concept rewrite of reflist at User:Anomie/Sandbox3. Anomie⚔ 15:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Font size
Is there particular reason for using font-size:90% here? Are there objections to changing it? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To what? Gimmetrow 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Essentially removing it. Making it font-size:100%. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) And why? It has been that way since May 2006; the font size reduction was originally applied to all articles across Wikipedia, but some people objected (apparently some based on individual browsers/articles where a small font size caused a problem and some based on the general inability to override it on a per-page basis) and the current references-small class was created. Discussions seem to have been at (in no particular order), , , and.
 * Any editor who is extremely bothered by it can simply override the CSS font-size declaration on the  class in their monobook.css or other skin css file. Is there current discussion on the issue, or is this it? Anomie⚔ 22:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the size should be increased, but it is kind of complicated.
 * This template only does two things, both of which are disliked by some editors (partly just when used incorrectly):
 * put the refs in columns (but only in firefox/safari) (See /Archive 2008#Multiple columns deemed bad)
 * make the font smaller (see /Archive 2008#Font size again and /Archive 2008#Font size (see this last one for my previous synopsis on the size issue)).
 * As was said at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css/Archive 4, after testing various sizes, I and a few other editors vastly preferred 95% as a "small" font size.
 * It'd be wonderful if someone proficient with wiki-code and web-usability would take this in hand and fix things. Please! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally use 85% in all my tables and lists. Not too big, not too small. SharkD (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In your browser/settings. In my browser, anything under 90% requires leaning forward and squinting to read. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have all my font sizes set to "medium". If ~90% causes you to have to squint, then maybe your settings are too small. SharkD (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I leave all my settings as stock, so that I see what other users who use the default setup see (for accessibility/usability testing). I also encourage older acquaintances to give me feedback on how well Wikipedia works for them, and have been told a few times that legibility of small fonts is a problem. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)