mic_none

Template talk:Reference page Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Reference_page

Multiple sequential use

[edit]

With regard to "Overuse of this template is seen by some editors as making prose harder to read." all u de d to in {{rp}}. In the SI article we have "... languages[2]: 125 [3]: iii [4] and...". It's a little harder to parse the multiple sequential uses in "[2]: 125 [3]: iii [4]". Would it be possible to introduce separators and perhaps remove the blank spaces, as in "[2]:125;[3]:iii;[4]"? Or something like "[2](125)[3](iii)[4]" fgnievinski (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The hair spaces exist just to make it better parsable (and more in line with normal grammar rules). Semicolons would look syntactically odd for this purpose (that is, for anything but a list of pages or other in-source-locations) unless you would move them out of the superscript - but that would significantly increase the occupied space (and still look odd IMO), and some people would object to it. (In theory, this could be added as another style, but I would not support it, because I think it would look worse.)
However, changing to your proposed () style is easy. If you have support for that on the article talk, you will just have to add |style=ama to the template.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would change the text to something more accurate like "many readers despise this horrendously ugly and illegible template. However a few of us obstinate editors insist on using it and nobody can stop us muahahaha." –jacobolus (t) 21:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

meaning of "Seen to be" distinction

[edit]

SMcCandlish, I am not sure how it is nonsensical: for an individual, overuse either makes it hard to read, or it does not. If enough editors (who are readers, if not a perfect representation) have said it is hard to read, such that the point should be represented here, I don't understand the purpose of adding a layer of vaguery on top of it. Remsense留 23:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't about "seen to do" versus "can do" something (and I just switched to the latter wording; I never cared about that). It was nonsensical because "Overuse of this template can make prose harder to read for some users. Used judiciously, however, other editors say that ..." starts with a statement of alleged fact (which is really just an opinion), and follows it with a statement of opinion not masquerading as fact, and then pits the "fact" (opinion) of some readers ("to read for some users" = "users who are reading" = "readers") versus the opinion of some editors, but they are not the same category. Anyway, I fixed it [1] just now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add (beta) sub-referencing to see also

[edit]

Could a link to mw:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing be added? It, once added to visual editor, will have essentially the same function as this. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant: Template talk:Reference page/Archive 1#Potential replacement for {{Rp}}. Also, pinging SMcCandlish. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dilettante: That WMDE link doesn't go to a real page. Provided the correct page, and I'll add it as a see-also. I assume it's some updated version of the meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing/Call for feedback (May 2018) page I linked in /Archive_1?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Yeah, the intended link was meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done However, you could have done this yourself, since Template:Reference page/doc is not protected.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my bad. I forgot template documentation is transcluded. Thanks! Sincerely, Dilettante 19:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Color

[edit]

Should we change the color of the page numbers[1]:123 to blue[1]:123 like links? This might prevent making the prose harder to read for some. The other templates for citations and inline cleanup all generate blue text. Even the future replacement meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing will be blue. By using a dull color, our eyes can more easily skip over the page numbers. 174.94.28.189 (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should only be done if the page numbers are made part of the link. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I not sure what wikicode can link to the same reflist item because {{rp}} is separate from the clickable ref. What about :[[#References|123]] (articles sectioned differently probably don't use {{rp}}, but no link to go back) or :[[WP:REFPAGE|123]] (never has a broken link, but has the trapdoor problem)?
Though ensuring the page numbers are made part of the link should be possible to implement for {{r}}. 174.94.28.189 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format as rollover?

[edit]

I'm big fan of {{rp}}. From the editor-usability point of view, no other system I've seen is close. The page number is right next to the content-to-verify and adding the page number is fast. sfn and other two-level systems are so hard and easy to break I simply go elsewhere.

However some editors go in to a fit over the superscript formatted number.

I wonder if anyone know if there is a technical reason that this feature could not be implemented as a popup? At least in my browser the blue citation-number pops up a nice box with the reference. Could rp be implemented in that popup? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]