Template talk:Ref/Archive 1

message: I've redirected this template to Template:Anb.  It is virtually the same, and this one came later.  I don't see any reason to update all the existing references to this format because...
#Wikipedia:Footnotes seems to indicate that it is correct style to say "Note:" before the footnote rather than the little arrow.  I don't see a problem with putting the little arrow in Template:Anb in addition to the word Note.
#This causes incompatibility with existing footnotes, meaning that note/ref cannot be used alongside with an/anb.  There's no reason to switch all the existing citations when we can just redirect and change one
#An and anb were here first, and they seem to follow the style guidelines.  Why create a whole new layer when you can just use what already exists?
#Note/ref are longer to type.  It's easier to type an or anb.  Redirecting means that you can use whatever you want- you're not bound by what's being used by the article.
Feel free to revert me if you think I'm wrong, but please explain why. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted.  See Wikipedia_talk:Footnote3#Ref_and_Note_templates. (SEWilco 18:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting 

message: When we print documents using this template, it shows the full URL of the note in the printed text. How do we suppress this? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  There are few abilities for template coding.  Ask in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Template (SEWilco 03:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Printing problem. 

message: The same template, only using asterisks, is at Template:bref. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet point references 

message: Some recent change caused blue graphic arrows to appear next to every footnote reference. This clearly is very misleading, since those arrows were reserved for external links. What's going on? Conf 12:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the "plainlinks" class was changed to "plainlinksneverexpand"... since that class does not exist it didn't do anything; and the links returned to normal external links. - RoyBoy 800 17:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to solve TBSDY's printing problem. I just forgot about that stupid link arrow... Since this is fixed now in MediaWiki:Monobook.css, I re-instantiated the class "plainlinksneverexpand" again. I hope it really works this time for everybody, not just for me. If it does, do we have to port the change to the other skins (Cologne, Classic)? Lupo 18:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I confirm it works (no arrows). Conf 19:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, the whole idea grew out of this discussion at the Village pump. Lupo 20:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! That works EXACTLY how I needed it to :-) Great work, Lupo! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  blue arrow pictures like for external links? 

message: Is it possible that recent edits to monobook.css,  or  broke the working of footnotes? This was pointed out by Raul654 at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Extremely important problem!. I've crossposted this at the two relevant talk pages (Mediawiki talk:Monobook.css]] and here) as I don't know where to search for the problem. — mark ✎ 17:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not the cause. Consult User:Cesarb for better ideas (see User talk:Raul654#Reference templates). — mark ✎ 17:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia_talk:Footnote3#template:note_now_broken: Apparently an HTML-handling change broke the  incantation which was used by . (SEWilco 03:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's still broken. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Working now! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain what is working.  And did someone notice any announcement of a change?  (SEWilco 05:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Clicking on the link was not jumping to the correct note in the notes section (and vice versa). This is now working. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  There are statements of "fix" in bugzilla:2309.  Somewhat lacking in details. (SEWilco 05:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes broken?

message: It does weird things. Example:  as opposed to . - Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New issue - don't use <1> <2> etc as parameter 

message: This template uses the plainlinksneverexpand class, where is it defined? I didn't find it in MediaWiki:Monobook.css —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in MediaWiki:Common.css. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It's included in MediaWiki:Monobook.css (and the other skin stylesheets too). View the source of Monobook.css; it's included on the 5th line. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The plainlinksneverexpand class 

message: I have encased the contents in a span tag, using a class called reference. For all those who don't want references, all that you need to do is add the following to your stylesheet:
.reference {
  display: none ! important;
}
Ta bu shi da yu 07:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional option 

message: Too many articles use this template now. After seeing Template:Note replaced with an image of a penis, it's time to protect the template. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Look at User:Skagedal/Sandbox (current version), which is my attempt at convert the schizophrenia article from using / to using /. The first  is under the heading History ("However, a recent study...").  However, this ref does not turn into [1], but [2]! [1] instead appears further down, in an image caption under "Early neurodevelopment".  Any ideas why this happens?  /Skagedal 16:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently Image numbers are assigned before text numbers.  That's based on behavior as I have not looked at the code.  The links still work despite this quirk.  We have to see how it behaves with new code that's been created but not installed yet.  (SEWilco 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Skagedal, I edited your sandbox with a work around.  I added a  at the end of the first paragraph in the section Early neurodevelopment, that fixes the numbering.  Of course, you will have to place that reference somewhere in the text that is relevant.  And, I added  to footnote number 25 at the end of the article.  Good luck, SteveMc 01:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|ref}} in image caption messes up numbering 

message: This template breaks redirects. Also, it has little brackets around each note. It's pretty annoying. Ashibaka tock 18:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it break redirects? Do you have an example? The little brackets around each note aren't something that can be removed, I don't think. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to Che guevara and click one of the references, it will reload the page. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not really a break in redirects, it's due to the fact that MediaWiki doesn't redirect to the correct article title, it just pretends it's at the correct article title. Do you have a solution to this problem, aside from having MediaWiki do a actual redirect to the real article title rather than pretending? Talrias (t | e | c) 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's apparently "fixed in CVS head" according to this bug so hopefully people will use that when it becomes the next version. But the current way is pretty annoying, just sayin'. Ashibaka tock 23:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "AUTOINCREMENT" feature allows changing "ref" to point within the current article.  But I don't think it has been moved to these servers.  See Wikipedia talk:Footnotes.  (SEWilco 04:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects

message: For category problem. Dropping the citation templates cat here instead, so people can find this template in the citation templates category. Hope that's okay. 01:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry

message: [see also #^, above]
Something else, please!  For the sake of its meaningless semantics, and therefore poor accessibility, as well as sheer graphical ugliness.  The ^ (U+005E CIRCUMFLEX ACCENT) is not an arrow, and doesn't really look like an arrow.  It's a circumflex, a diacritic used in some languages, and on its own indicates mathematical exponentiation in primitive ASCII-only displays.
Please let's replace it with an arrow, something that means "back", or "return", or "up".  We're past typewriters now, folks; we have Unicode.  Please don't tell me Microsoft still doesn't support any of these (or explain in slowly and patiently; I'm a Mac user):
* ↩ (U+21A9 LEFTWARDS ARROW WITH HOOK)
* ↑ (U+2191 UPWARDS ARROW)
* ⇡ (U+21E1 UPWARDS DASHED ARROW)
* ⇧ (U+21E7 UPWARDS WHITE ARROW
* ← (U+2190 LEFTWARDS ARROW)
* ⇠ (U+21E0 LEFTWARDS DASHED ARROW)
* ⇦ (U+21E6 LEFTWARDS WHITE ARROW)
See also:
* Daring Fireball: About the Footnotes
* Daring Fireball: Notes on Notes
* Joe Clark: There’s no such thing as a footnote
—Michael Z. 2006-01-2 06:03 Z
: Okay, did a quick test on Windows Explorer (XP); yeesh.  At least, two of the arrows work: (↑←).  For users of obsolete systems, who are undoubtedly used to seeing lots of broken characters, is there a way to add a meaningful title="backlink" attribute to the link?  
: Is there any reason not to change the circumflex accent (^) to an up-arrow (↑)?  —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 06:15 Z
Good news, everybody!  Further testing shows that Windows XP actually has a font that supports all these arrows installed, but is merely a little too dim to use it without being subjected to a sharp poke in the eye.  Watch, as I invoke the magic of style sheets!  —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 06:26 Z
: ↩ ↑ ⇡ ⇧ ← ⇠  ⇦
I like the upward arrow without the use of style.  SteveMc 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ^ revisited 

message: Just in case anyone didn't get the heads-up, m:Cite/Cite.php has been installed, allowing native citation. This means, yes, we can now use footnotes in section editing and previewing! See this diff for an example of how this works. Johnleemk | Talk 17:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native solution to referencing available 

message: Looking at the polylogarithm page (reference section) which makes use of this template, the recent edit was displaying some text which shouldn't be there, so I reverted. PAR 21:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somethings not working 

message: In my interpretation it's better if citations link directly to their source using the standard bracket URL method. What were the people that implemented this on many pages thinking and/or what are their requirements? For starters the superscripted citation links mess up paragraph text formatting in my browser. Secondly, requiring a Notes section only will increase the size of articles. Thirdly, the citations links are too small now, the standard larger size is better because readers would be more likely to click on it and read the source. But most importantly this system creates an unnecessary citation middle layer, what was wrong with directly linking to sources? zen master T 22:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Cite sources explains why proper citation is necessary. For one, not all sources are online. Another thing is that webpages are dynamic. We need to indicate clearly when the source was accessed so we'll all be on the same page, so to speak. Johnleemk | Talk 05:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not and have not disputed the need for citing sources, I am disputing the reduced readability, needless sytax, anti-free-form (and hence anti-wiki) data presentation restriction and increased article size that has resulted from use of the {ref} template and Notes subsection. The formerly preferred inline [URL] citation method is not perfect but the cure as implemented by the {ref} template is worse than the disease. Everything you are trying to do can be accomplished without using the {ref} template. zen master T 05:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean with m:Cite? Hell, yes, I agree. Johnleemk | Talk 06:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I do not mean m:Cite, was unaware of that. What are the requirements for having citations be formatted any differently than they are now/were previously and what exactly is deficient with the formerly preferred [URL] citation method? What features does m:Cite or {ref} provide that Wikipedia actually needs? Superscript text messes up paragraph formatting in my opera browser but even if that is fixed superscripting and the smaller font Notes section deemphasizes citations and sources (which is not good). All citations and sources will still have to be managed manually so both {ref} and m:Cite seem completely unnecessary even if not detrimental (as outlined above). What are the benefits? Page number and synopsis info can be put after the [URL] citation or that wikisyntax feature can be enhanced to accomodate any actual beneficial requirements (leaving current [URL/source] behavior unchanged). zen master T 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (indent break) Neither m:Cite nor  use a different font for notes/references; that's an editorial decision some editors make (many articles with footnotes like ketuanan Melayu or Windows 2000 don't have a footnotes section in small font). m:Cite greatly simplifies footnote management, making it little less troublesome than just dumping all the references in a References section. (Trust me, I speak from experience.  was a pain in the ass.) Putting synopses and other relevant information directly after the URL citation (which, as I said, still excludes non-internet references) makes the article even more convoluted, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 06:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A big part of the problem can be fixed if superscripting is turned off. In my interpretation use of the {ref} template (and perhaps m:Cite too) is more convoluted than the previous status quo. How does m:Cite benefit organization? Everything still has to be managed manually so all you have suceeded in doing is putting a wrapper around and hence increasing (both in complexity and size) what you have to manage manually. And each subject/article may have different requirements for citations (URL vs book vs legal vs academic, etc etc etc). Free form text, an essence of wiki, as the need may individually arise on a case by case basis should be the guiding principle here. zen master T 07:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The superscripting problem can be brought up with the devs for m:Cite, I think. I presumed its benefits would be obvious, but if they aren't, I think Wikipedia:Footnotes covers the explanation well enough. m:Cite is very very different from  -- as I said, it's almost like chucking everything into the References section like we used to do. (Peek at the wikicode for ketuanan Melayu and you'll see what I mean.) I don't see the problem WRT "free form text". You're free not to use m:Cite or , and if you choose to do so, they don't inhibit you at all when it comes to writing out the description of the source. Johnleemk | Talk 07:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on the 1 or 2 discussion pages where I've questioned conversion to the {ref} template I've gotten mostly silence, so it's not a matter of not using it, it's a matter of reverting someone else's changes given the decreased readability and other reasons outlined above. It looks like m:Cite uses html-esque tags to do whatever? Free form text is not a "problem" it is an essence of wiki and should be prefered over excessive templatization. Perhaps a data entry widget can be created for use on the edit page to (somehow) help with citation organization/formatting at the editing stage rather than force a larger wiki syntax footprint/templatization into each article at the saved wikitext level? zen master T 08:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (indent break) If you can think of a better solution, feel free to propose it. Right now m:Cite seems to be the best to me, given pretty much all of the problems associated with  are absent from it. Johnleemk | Talk 08:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have to learn more about m:Cite, hopefully it's significantly better than {ref}. zen master T 18:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template creates an unnecessary citation middle layer 

message: This template uses "" to link to its reference. The result of that is that if the page is loaded from a redirect (e.g. PAGE → The Page) the REF links will still show up as "The Page#link", and thus clicking on one causes the entire page to reload (this time from its true name rather than the shortcut), rather than just causing the browser to skip down a few screens. Is there a reason for this "fullpagename" trick, and would there be any objections if I changed this? (cc: village pump) >Radiant< 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One solution would be to migrate to m:Cite, which has none of these problems -- even previewing is fixed. Johnleemk | Talk 05:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Url problem 

message: A number of people prefer using the harvard style references, but dislike the formatting of the references as normal text.  This template is identical to the , but formats the links as superscript. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added [[Template:ref_harv]] 

message: I found in some articles a very nifty way for citing references that avoided having to keep track of which number went where.  In the text, at the location for the reference, one inserted something of the form: 

and then, in the references section, one cuold pull all of those in with t he inclusion of a single template reference, which I *thought* was , but no, that's a note that there aren't any references, or maybe , but no, that doesn't seem to do anything.  And now I can't find either where I've used it before successfully or any help on how to use it.  Anyone?  Elf | Talk 17:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it does indeed seem to be , but it doesn't show up in Preview mode.  (I'm using it for one thing in dog at the moment.) Elf | Talk 18:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Embedded reference style--can't find

message: In case anyone stumbles across this, the  templates should no longer be used. They have been replaced with a new referencing system. Information and instructions are at Cite.php.
: On what basis is it claimed this template is deprecated? I have not been able to find such a discussion. Could someone point me to such a community-wide discussion? - Amgine 14:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all the discussion leading to the creation of Cite.php is one.  (I think such things can be found on the talk pages for Wikipedia:Footnotes (maybe Footnotes2, or 3 also), and probably on the mailing list(though I don't have a specific citation).  If you wish to start further discussion on this, feel free to make a section on Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes and link it from the VP, WP:A and whereever else you feel like.  But it has already been discussed. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that  is not deprecated but there is  community movement toward Cite.php instead of . FloNight talk 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, please, please remove the vandalism by Cyde at once.  This rogue admin has been pushing against consensus on reference styles for quite a while, including converting pages explicitly contrary to article consensus (using the tool he wrote).  Vandalizing this template is apparently the latest wrinkle in his admin abuse. LotLE×talk 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the discussion on The admins' noticeboard Will (E@) T 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New reference system

message: I'd like to remove the deprecation notice. If no-one objects I'll do it in a day or too. - FrancisTyers 11:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please, please remove the vandalism by Cyde at once.  This rogue admin has been pushing against consensus on reference styles for quite a while, including converting pages explicitly contrary to article consensus (using the tool he wrote).  Vandalizing this template is apparently the latest wrinkle in his admin abuse. LotLE×talk 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the discussion on The admins' noticeboard Will (E@) T 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deprecated

message: See the featured article Rabindranath Tagore for an instance where the ref templates are used in addition to cite.php to produce a joint system of notes and references. In line with that, I would recommend using cite.php for the references (citations) and the ref templates for notes. TheGrappler 09:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Circumstances where this may be used in addition to cite.php