This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Reflist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I don't know that this is always noticeable, but I've found that multi-column reference lists have a bug wrt the numbering of references. In Firefox, I can change the display font size, and the number at the bottom of the left column and the next reference at the top of the right column can be the same -- and the whole right column continues from there so that the last reference number is one fewer than it should be. This applies to long lists (100+ references) and short (5 references). --Dhartung | Talk04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen this in Firefox too. I think it's clearly a Firefox bug, but if there's more information about it somewhere (eg. in their bugzilla, for instance), maybe there's some sort of work-around we could implement. --Interiot16:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
YDone. Note that this template uses the doc-page pattern, so non-admins can add interwikis by editing {{reflist/doc}}. --ais523 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I propose that {{FootnotesSmall}} be redirected to this template. It's largely the same, except for two things:
There is an issue that it uses {{{1}}}, while this uses {{{1}}}. This has been hashed over at some length on Template talk:FootnotesSmall and a TfD. However, it seems clear to me that {{{1}}} is preferred because it allows readers with vision problems to adjust the size of reference text using their personalized monobook.css. Hard-coding the size without even a class or ID to trigger off of prevents customizing the references size on an individual basis.
Also, {{FootnotesSmall}} allows the first parameter to use a size other than 92%, but it's not clear that m/any pages use this, especially since the shorter {{Footnotes}} can be used for the same thing (and someone could use AWB to convert over the uses of {{FootnotesSmall}} to {{Footnotes}} that don't use the default size). --Interiot19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue, as I understand it, is that reference-small does font-size 90%, and FootnotesSmall does 92%. Earlier attempts to change FootnotesSmall to 90% have been reverted, and a proposal to make references-small 92% did not gain much support. It would be nice for consistency if all resized footnotes were resized the same, but it is possible that changing FootnotesSmall will cause the hard-coding to move to the articles. Quite a few articles use FootnotesSmall and 100%, so a simple redirect would have complications. Gimmetrow20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, either way, the minimal-impact course of action would be to use AWB to change all uses of non-default-size FootnotesSmall's to Footnote, before redirecting. And regardless of what the size is, we really should be discouraging hard-coding of the size in articles, or at the very least providing some sort of standard class or ID so people can override it in monobook.css with !important. --Interiot20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, right now {{FootnotesSmall}} allows only 92% or 100%. 100% when 100% is specified, and 92% whenever someone tries to change it to anything else. I am baffled as to why anyone who use a template to set 100% instead of just using <references />. Anyway, I agree that the style should at least be named with a css style name/selector, preferably standardized to one number other than 100%. I don't know what the fuss is about 90% vs. 92%, but would 91% be a fair compromise at all? The template {{Footnotes}} is dubious at best, as all it does is provide an HTML comment before transcluding {{FootnotesSmall}}. Changing all single-uses of {{FootnotesSmall}} to {{subst:Footnotes}} doesn't improve anything except provide a helpful comment. So I support redirecting all these unnecessary templates to {{reflist}} so reference sections don't look different from article to article. AWB should be used to find all hard-coded sizes. –Pomte02:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer consistency on the resizing too, but will this actually do it? Is a little inconsistency on this point really harming the encyclopedia? Is it worse than editors hard-coding 92% in text because they refuse to use the default 90% css? (And no, 91% won't work for the 92%ers and it wasn't found satisfactory to the rest, either.) Gimmetrow04:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't resize by default
On a related note, I do not think reflist should resize references by default. Resizing does not, to my knowledge, have consensus for short lists of references. {{Reflist}} should just produce <references /> and that's it. {{reflist|1}} could produce single-column small, and {{reflist|2}} double-column small. Gimmetrow20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
But I think most of the current uses of {{reflist}} accept that it makes the font small. Otherwise, <references /> works just fine - what's the point of having a template do the tag? –Pomte02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a consensus for small notes. Reflist has been used because it was a template and that allegedly makes tracking and future uniformity easier. Gimmetrow04:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Consistency is already provided by the fact that<references/> is rendered as <ol class="references">. And {{reflist}} is used on more than 20,000 articles.... if the main reason for reflist were to provide tracking, I don't think very many people would use it at all.
Pomte is correct... the main difference from the average-editor's standpoint is that <references/> provides full-size text, and {{reflist}} provides smaller text. That's what reflist's reason for existence has been since the very beginning, and changing it now would be going against decisions that thousands of editors have explicitly made. --Interiot03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The smaller font reduces the number of cases where non-wrapping, extra-long URLs spoil the appearance of the right-hand column when printing to pdf or paper (see section below). Jayen46617:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
But then nobody would have used it, since it would have been redundant with <references/>. Really, if you want large references, just use that, there's no benefit to using this. I've clarified the documentation to note that <references/> can and should still be used. [3] --Interiot21:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Coming in on this late: However, there has been extensive discussion at User talk:Java7837 about this template, and one topic that's come up is that apparently some users wish for reference lists that could be full size-text, but in columns. Would it be possible to add a second parameter making that possible, while retaining "small" as the default? The other alternative for such users would be to create a second template called, oh who knows, "Reflist-full" or somesuch, which copies the code of this template but changes the font size. I personally prefer the font size small for articles I use this template in, but it would seem wasteful to create a whole new template just to take care of this one matter of preference. --Yksin21:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
If you really want full size two-column notes, this can be handled with classes in div tags. This seems like a fairly rare choice, and I don't necessarily see this should be encouraged. There are already too many options for notes with full size, small and small/2column.
Although {{reflist}} incorporates the <references /> tag, it also makes the font smaller. Reflist was created to make font resizing easier, not to replace the direct use of <references /> in text. For long lists of notes (typical of featured articles) a smaller font is fairly standard, but there is no mandate for all notes to be resized or to use reflist, and editors should not be arbitrarily changing <references /> to {{reflist}} in articles. Multiple columns has other issues, since it doesn't even work on some browsers. Three or more columns is even worse. Gimmetrow01:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
We are currently discussing implementing reflist, or something like it, in the German Wikipedia, since the two-column format for references often makes eminent sense. However, a number of users have pointed out that multi-column displays of references don't always print correctly (this happens both on paper and in pdf). The reason is that the URLs (which are hidden on screen) are shown in full in the pdf and on hardcopy printouts. Now, long URLs present in the left-hand column don't wrap, but continue into the right-hand column, superimposed on any text that is present there, with the unfortunate result that often neither is legible. Has this ever been raised as a problem in English Wikipedia? Any views on this issue? Jayen46617:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
For the first issue, that could be resolved by putting the multi-column CSS bits in the global stylesheet, and prefacing them with @media.
For the second issue, as far as I know, when bare URLs are used on en.wikipedia.org, usually they're wrapped in [...], so they're rather short.--Interiot21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, don't know my way around html well enough here. But to see the URL problem in pdfs and printouts, simply try printing the English George W Bush article (e.g.) from Mozilla, either to pdf or to paper, and see how the references come out. In my pdf, it's a mess, with lots illegible. It is correct that URLs in square brackets do not have the web address showing on screen, just some brief words linking to that address. But when printing, the URLs are expanded again and shown in full length, in normal () brackets behind the link wording the user sees on screen. And it seems that because they include no spaces, these URLs are considered as -- very long -- single words, and thus they don't wrap. Jayen46600:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The css may be able to take care of that. However, it's my impression that it can be complicated to make a print version of Wikipedia, possibly requiring a lot of manual or automated work. Is there a group within German Wikipedia that's responsible for generating the print version? Could you ask them what the right way to handle this is? As far as I know, we haven't figured out how to properly deal with this on enwiki (eg. {{hidden}} is widespread here in large navigation boxes like {{Infobox Ship Characteristics}} and {{scouting}}). --Interiot00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've only started contributing to German WP quite recently, so don't know very much about who's doing what. At present, reflist is not implemented in German WP, and the use of any other browser-specific column format (such as div style moz column count) is discouraged on the corresponding Help page. Also, they still have far fewer sources in their articles than English WP, so right now there are fewer pages where multi-column references are an issue. That will probably change ... but for the moment, the print problem is avoided, since their standard is to use single-column format only. Cheers, Jayen46610:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Interiot, I think he is just talking about the printable version available through MediaWiki, see e.g. [4]. The references section of the print version is indeed a mess. Christopher Parham(talk)15:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that page illustrates the problem nicely, and parallels what I got on my hardcopy printout, just by pressing Ctrl-P in Firefox. Now, if there were any way to get the long URLs to wrap so they don't wander out of their appropriate columns ... Jayen46622:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
which hides the gigantic load of refs. I thought, "hey, this is a good idea", so I started copying and pasting to articles with the most revisions. And then I realized, "what the heck am I doing?". Wounldn't it be better if we create a wrapper template for that, say "scrollref" with the number of column as the first parameter, and height as another (default = 200px). How does this sound? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Why in the world would we want to (a) complicate navigation for users and (b) hide references? This is a BAD practice. --ElKevbo15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ElKevbo. Citations are not shameful things to be swept under a rug. They should be proudly displayed and easily accessed. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The template has been deleted. Note that there are still pages that include the equivelant of a substituted scrollref template that should be removed. I still believe that the layout of an article with 100+ references is benefited by the use of a scroll box, but no workaround was ever found to make it possible to print obscured content within a scrollbox. Similar issues may exist for disabled readers using screenreaders and similar translation techniques. As such, the use of template:scroll box, template:scrollbox, and equivalent substituted code should be avoided in Main namespace at this time. MrZaiustalk16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
If the problem is printing, the style for the reference list container DIV could be set differently in the print media CSS (or local STYLE block). I don't know how Wikipedia handles the whole style thing, but it should be possible. ¤ ehudshapira22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not just an issue of printing, but also accessibility. The formatting creates a problem viewing references, and in my browser (mozilla firefox) forces me to scroll two bars to view the references. See the image I've uploaded to the right to see what I'm talking about. - auburnpilottalk23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There's only a single scrollbar for me on IE6, Firefox 2 and Opera 9 (looking at the same article as you: Israel). Although, with 2 columns (on FF) there's an horizontal scrollbar. (But... it's not there initially as the browser formats the page. It only appears after a few tens of references were added. I think it may be formatting issues with the long URL references which aren't broken to fit the columns.)
What version/platform are you using? It might just be a minor problem to iron out. Another option would be only enabling it on browsers that behave well with it (like the Mozilla-specific columns). ¤ ehudshapira23:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No such problem for me on the same version and OS (nor on an older version 2). Maybe it's some extension or user style on your FF, or your Wikipedia settings?
Assuming we stage a testing area and other people confirm it's okay, and assuming different CSS styles could be applied for display and print media, are there other objections? ¤ ehudshapira00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The image to the right {kudos to whoever uploaded it!) illustrates the problem and it's not dependent on a particular browser. When the article is long enough to already have a vertical scrollbar, adding a second one is a legitimate and confusing problem. --ElKevbo00:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
AuburnPilot is having two scrollbars for the references themselves, unrelated to the page scrollbar. I don't think having a scrollable area inside a page is a problem (do you have a problem with page editing, for e.g.?) ¤ ehudshapira00:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I technically have three scrollbars when the scrollref formatting is applied. I simply cropped out the browser's page scrollbar so that the image would only contain GFDL text and meet the Wikipedia screenshot license tag. - auburnpilottalk00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Well, that does sound like a bug. If it helps (and it doesn't), I'm using the same version of FireFox and also on XP. --ElKevbo00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
When looking at an article in print preview, i noticed that long urls used in references are not wrapped to the next line when using this {{reflist}} template. For example, just try to view this page in print preview (click here) and you will see that the url just goes on and on within the same line in the Reference section. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] (:O) -Nima Baghaeitalk · cont · email21:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
any ideas as to how this can be fixed? i would fix it myself, but I have no idea how coding works here so I hope someone else can help with it -Nima Baghaeitalk · cont · email14:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the same problem as the one described above under "Printing multi-column reference lists". Jayen46619:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do specifically with this template, just the Cite extension. You might want to bring it up on the Cite extension's page on Meta. The last two examples don't use {{reflist}}; you can clearly see this by viewing the source. Tuxide05:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that pages using {{reflist|2}} are only displaying one column whereas this page still states that it will display two. Is the template broken? Has it been changed and the explanation not updated? (I see there have been some issues) I've specifically noticed this at Matt Groening and Al Gore though there are probably others. Stardust821217:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you changed browsers? Some browsers do not recognize the code used to make two columns, and display in one. Gimmetrow17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm having an issue with pages that use {{reflist|2}} as well. I'm using Firefox, but any page that uses {{reflist|2}} only displays the reflist half way across the page. Look at the image to the right to see what I'm talking about. - auburnpilottalk01:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Webkit support
{{editprotected}}
If this template included -webkit-column-width and -webkit-column-count properties, it would support columns in Safari on Mac OS, Windows, and the iPhone. —MichaelZ. 2007-07-04 15:06 Z
The difference is that the latter was disrupted a day or two ago, with all footnotes being displaced to the right and the layout of thousands pages altered beyond recognition. Here's a good example. --Ghirla-трёп-16:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Anything affecting <references /> would affect {{reflist}} too, no? (I don't see anything odd in the link you provide.) Reflist is a template which includes the references/ tag but has additional code to put the notes in a smaller font. For short lists of notes, there is no need to use a smaller font, though. Gimmetrow16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Font sizes can be overridden by the browser just the same if the inline sizes don't use absolute units.
Hypothesis: Things initially start with inline styles and after some trial time might get the seal of approval and get promoted to the CSS file includes. That's if they are common enough. Less common styles are either added to secondary, smaller scope CSS files, or stay inline for really limited scope. ¤ ehudshapira00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Multi column functions is down
Can somebody who knows what is going fix the possibility for multicolumn reflists, as it is not working at the moment. Thanks Arnoutf09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It'd be useful if you stated which web browser you were using. Multi columns only works in Gecko-based browsers such as Mozilla Firefox, as far as I know. Tuxide09:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the following used to create a scrollable reference list with a limited height. It seems useful, any idea why it isn't part of the parameters for the reflist template? And what's that reflist4 class for if style does all the formatting? ¤ ehudshapira04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Scroll up a bit to the section labeled "Contained in a box" for some of the recent, relevant discussion. There was a template that did this but it was deleted for the reasons discussed above. --ElKevbo04:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
