Wikipedia talk:Use reflist

Should be standardized?--Yutsi  Talk/  Contributions  21:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm neutral. I change out the old form tag for the template form tag whenever I bump into it. However, I strongly disagree with the statement "In an attempt to further unify Wikipedia's look and feel across all of its pages, a standard must be set." There are too many "standards set" about appearance already, and the obnoxious Manual of Style is part of the reason it is hard to get new content writers up to speed. It is contrary to the spirit of the policy of Ignore All Rules. So while I am for deprecation of the old form, I think that is a natural process already and am against mandating the change in the interest of eliminating a "discrepancy of appearance" of the code. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do it Get a bot to do a find/replace and have done with it.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but make the standard two-column reference layout the default in block, and from an editing point of view this is horrible with  (you have to mix template-style and XML-style tags and you end up with a template with one parameter value that's many times bigger than the entire rest of the template).  It's been a principle for a long time that different referencing styles are allowed, and  may be better for some styles, but is better for others. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Needed doing for a long time.  Rcsprinter  (deliver)  15:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed- I changed the wording of the proposal to make it less authoritarian.--yutsi Talk/  Contributions  17:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ok, I don't understand; reading the documentation and a test in my sandbox and produce the same output. Surely we don't need a guideline or policy that encourages pointless changes? Edgepedia (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Colapeninsula. We already have too many standards, and adding yet another one will not be helpful, especially since this one won't have any huge effects and won't be in line with our established practice of permitting latitude in reference styles.  Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I don't feel quite as strongly as Colapeninsula about using reflist with list-defined references, there's nothing wrong with using . Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not important enough to mandate. Agree with sentiments about the MoS becoming too much of something to be "enforced".  The MoS is a guideline in the truest sense, and no one should be "enforcing" it with trivial edits just to fix MoS issues. Gigs (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the three "oppose" comments immediately preceding this one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the needless introduction of a new rule.— S Marshall T/C 20:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Standardization is Bad, not Good. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ling.Nut & others. Standardizing anything to do with referencing is especially evil. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Reflist
Self confessed newbie here. I am plugging along and finding my way. I have created an article with approximately 17 reference links. I watched an instructional video that recommended Reflist so I added it to the article but it does not populate a list, nor can I figure out how to delete it. Please advice. Your help is greatly appreciated PerryfromtheNorth (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)