Template talk:Cref

This template was considered for deletion on 2018 March 31. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Inline Templates, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Wikipedia's inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Some discussion of this template may take place at the project's talk page, rather than here.Inline TemplatesWikipedia:WikiProject Inline TemplatesTemplate:WikiProject Inline TemplatesInline Templates articles

Named parameters[edit]

I wouldn't do it with named params. This complicates the use of that template considerably. --Ligulem 07:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

derivate works[edit]

I created {{hcref}} that shows a hovering comment. The idea is to shorten the in text reference to sth. like one character similar to the note style. Example:

{{hcref|test1|test2}}

^ test1: test3

{{hcref|a|test2}}

^ a: test3

Wandalstouring 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the text below[edit]

I am not quite sure why this text is there, "& #91;& rsaquo;& #93;" it produces "[›]", whats the purpose of this? ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it creates the symbol that clearly shows that cref is a reference/note. Wandalstouring 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I didn't know that. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 13:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[›][edit]

Can someone explain what the "[›]" is for? I'm going to remove it unless someone can explain the logic behind it. – Zntrip 04:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is the in the above comment. You can see it's relevance here [1].--Ѕandahl 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it. It seems pretty useless. I looked at the Che Guevara article and I see no reason for it. – Zntrip 23:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted another who may be able to explain the purpose of "& #91;& rsaquo;& #93;" better but with the cable breaks [2] it may take awhile to answer.--Ѕandahl 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some reasons why the small arrow enclosed in brackets is necessary:

1. As explained above, it is needed in order to avoid ambiguity. Without it, the word that links to the footnote created by Template:Cnote looks like an ordinary wikilink that an editor has placed in superscript for some unknown reason. The small arrow enclosed in brackets is an indication to the reader that the "anchor word" that precedes it is a link to a footnote that will provide him with additional information related to that word as it is used within the specific article he is reading, not generalized information unrelated to the context of the particular article such as would be provided by a wikilink.

2. All Wikipedia footnotes use brackets (or, in some deprecated cases, parentheses). Please refer to Wikipedia: Footnotes and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. The notes created by Templates Cref and Cnote are Wikipedia footnotes. Therefore, the footnotes created by Templates Cref and Cnote need to use brackets.

3. Because the superscript font utilized by Template:Cref for the "anchor word" is so small, enclosing the "anchor word" itself in brackets very adversely affects the legibility of said superscripted "anchor word". Consequently, when I was creating the Cref/Cnote system, after experimenting vith various options I decided to use the method of putting a small arrow enclosed in brackets immediately after the "anchor word" in order to make it clear to the reader that it was a link to a footnote, but without detracting from the legibility of the "anchor word". I discussed this design with various other Wikipedia editors before making Templates Cref and Cnote available for general use, and they approved of it. Since then numerous other editors have chosen to use the Content Notes created by Templates Cref and Cnote that incorporate this design, i.e. with the small arrow enclosed in brackets at the end of the "anchor word", in hundreds of articles and I have never received any complaint about this design from any of them.

In view of the fact that User:Zntrip is so unhappy with the use of the small arrow enclosed in brackets -- which he described in the History page of Template:Cref as "stupid sideways carrot thing" (02:41, 31 January 2008) -- I would suggest that he develop his own system of footnotes and submit it to the Wikipedia community for their approval. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll have to admit that the last paragraph did actually make me laugh out load. Thank you very much for your explanation. I believe I understand it all now. – Zntrip 01:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come here to ask the same question - why? I don't buy into the arguments above that it's required to sow that it's a foot note. See the featured list List of West Midlands railway stations for an alternative that works perfectly well. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 13:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a close look, you will realize that the text is within brackets. The text of cref and hcref is not. The brackets do indicate that it is a footnote, however, here it isn't the case, that's why a symbol in brackets is needed. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why not just put the text within brackets? — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 14:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this template added to an article I've been watching. Yup, the letter and separate brackets make it look like two things. Its function is not self-evident, and I had to click a couple of times and then hover to watch the link underline to show up before I figured out what was going on. —Michael Z. 2008-09-30 00:16 z

Another derivative[edit]

I created a derivative of this template that should satisfy the questions regarding the "[›]" above. It omits the › symbol and places the full text in brackets. The template is {{scref}}. Cheers, Shereth 18:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - this seems a lot more logical and consistent method of doing it. I've just switched Talyllyn Railway to using the new format. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cnote2[edit]

Created a new derivative {{Cnote2}}. Wrote the documentation in probably too exact of a language. Nevertheless, it fits the needs I'm working on. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scnote[edit]

{{Scnote}} is a complete rework of {{cnote}}. It is used with {{scref}} to manually create references that can coexist with and have a similar look and feel as the Cite.php <ref>...</ref> system. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it. Such long intrusions into a text likely make correcting it extremely hard. Wandalstouring (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Can someone explain to me why we need {{ref}}, {{cref}} and {{scref}}? Surely these can all be merged. The added complexity of so many choices makes it difficult for new users to understand what is going on. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{scref}} was split from {{cref}} to give editors an option for the note that didn't include the [>] symbol; see the above discussion from some time ago. Shereth 04:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but isn't {{cref | x }} basically equal to {{ref | x | x[>] }}? And isn't {{scref | x }} basically equal to {{ref | x | x }}? (Except, of course that {{cref}} links only to {{cnote}} and {{ref}} links only to {{note}}) I'm not sure the added complexity to Wikipedia as a whole is worth it to save a typing a few letters. -- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{ref}} and {{note}} were originally designed to add content notes separately from the cite.php <ref>...</ref> tags. Now that cite.php supports groups, many of the uses of {{ref}} can be replaced. For example: Meson#Flavourless mesons has a table that uses {{ref}} for a legend— this can easily be converted to cite.php groups.

{{cref}} was designed as a simpler alternative. It is mainly used (or should be) where a named cite.php reference is used a large number of times, making the backlinks ridiculously ugly.

{{scref}} and {{scnote}} are a fork of cref and note designed to give the look and feel of cite.php.

To sum up: {{ref}} and {{note}} can be updated to cite.php groups; I can't think of any need for it after that. {{cref}} and {{scref}} could be merged. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that {{cref}} is also being used for separate notes; see Talyllyn Railway for example. The can can be updated to cite.php groups. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HTML validation[edit]

Cref creates an HTML id for the link using sup id="ref_{{{1}}}". When using Cref multiple times as intended, the id is the same. Per the HTML spec, ids must be unique, thus Cref causes validation errors. See this example. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have nominated this for TfD. Adding <noinclude>{{subst:tfm|efn|heading=cnote templates}}</noinclude> would be appreciated.

Done E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 06:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]