Jump to content

Template talk:Refbegin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Protection request

I feel this template should be protected from edits by non-registered or newly registered users. Does anyone else agree? --Anthony5429 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it has been. Thank you. --Anthony5429 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Indentation when using multiple columns

When single columns are used, the indentation seems to work correctly and match Reflist (see Elephant). However, when multiple columns are used, the indentation seems to fail and no longer match Reflist (see Malaysia). --Anthony5429 14:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to work now assuming refbegin itself is used without multiple columns, which seems logical to me anyway as the general references are typically fewer than the specific. --Anthony5429 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Heading for Refbegin

How about having a heading before the references so that it is clearer that these are just general references. If you have a look at Elephant the general references start but it isn't too clear. How about having before the DIV starts just put in a line 

;General references

producing:

General references

so that it is clear (See Ganges and Indus River Dolphin). Of course the heading could just be put in before the template is used on the page, but this might be easier. Also how about changing the * for # so that it stays in line a bit better with the inline references. Chris_huhtalk 10:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Second column starts badly

When {{Refbegin|2}} is used for two columns, a reference can be split between the two columns. To see an example of this, visit Ambisonics#Source texts on Ambisonics - basic theory. (This doesn't appear to happen with {{Reflist|2}}, but that may just be luck when I have used it.) It would be better, I would suggest, if the split between the columns always occurred between two references. Is this possible? HairyWombat (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

references-small class

{{editprotected}} Please replace this template with the contents of the sandbox. This re-adds the references-small class that's required to allow users to style references the way they want. TIA. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. — RockMFR 13:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

font size reduction

Could someone please add a parameter that will allow an editor to set this to the desired font reduction including 100 for no reduction. -- PBS (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems with WebKit

There have been some problems with WebKit-based browsers, so could please someone remove the parameters -webkit-column-width and -webkit-column-count? --bender235 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Columns and text-indent

There is some odd interaction between -webkit-column-width and -webkit-column-count and text-indent. See Template:Refbegin/testcases#WebKit issues. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It just struck me that you probably should not use columns and indent together anyway. I added another test that shows problems with FireFox. The outdented line in successive columns overlaps the previous column. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the purpose in indent anyway? Are there any working examples? — Edokter • Talk • 15:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like this is the APA style[1][2]. Neither columns nor bullets would be valid for pure APA. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it even in use on Wikipedia? If it isn't used, we could remove that feature, or if it is, disable columns automatically in the template when indent=1 is used. — Edokter • Talk • 16:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think we should note that columns and indent should not be used together, due to both technical and style issues. We could disable columns when indent is enabled. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
In combination with <dd> (:) it seems to work. Applying the text-indent to the list instead of the div, the bugs seems to be gone. (We do get nested defenition items, but that is not a problem.) — Edokter • Talk • 16:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This should no longer be an issue. Indents and columns are happily working tohgether now. — Edokter • Talk • 18:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

font reduction

Doesn't seem to font reduce as described in the documentation anymore (as of 21 Dec 2010)?Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe purging fixed it.. why was it 'un-fixed' in the first place? Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:VPR#styling <references /> like Reflist. The style changes in Common.css need to catch up. Purging dod indeed fix it. — Edokter • Talk — 15:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
ok thanks.
Resolved
.83.100.225.242 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Indentation problems

I encounter some weird indentation behaviour. 1. Instead of using "{{Citation...}}" I need to use ":{{Citation...}}" (additional double colon) in order to have the start of every entry to align with the main content of the page. See what happens when you remove the double colon! Moreover, 2. while I'd like to have no space in between different sources, I need to separate the entries with a blank line in order not to have them as one paragraph. Please see: Right to food. All this behaviour is regardless of using one or two columns, as far as I could see. --Gulpen (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem: what browser/version are you using? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no problem because I 'artificially' added a double colon in front of every reference entry. Please remove some and render a preview on the example page I gave. In that case the entries shift way too much to the left, becoming even partially invisible in Chromium, though still visible in Firefox. --Gulpen (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There are no double colons in the References section. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks OK in Chrome 19. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes there are double colons in the References section. I have removed them from the first five entries now, so please take another look to see what happens then.--Gulpen (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
By double colon, you mean two of these :? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
My sincere apologies, wherever I said "double colon", I meant to say "colon" (just one).--Gulpen (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. The colon should be before each citation; see Template:Refbegin#Option 3: Hanging indentation. I don't see any issues with Firefox 12 or Chrome 19. What browser are you using? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah.. its not a bug, its a feature! :) If it was meant to require the colon in front of every entry, then there is not much of a problem. I'm using Firefox 12 and Chromium 18, please see here for a screenshot (the first five lacking a colon): http://www.webcitation.org/68DsmWkVR . I'd still like to get rid of the white space above/below every entry, though.. --Gulpen (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not seeing the left text being clipped. I removed the newlines between the citations— that should fix the whitespace. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great! So just to be clear, you have now practically solved and answered both my questions. Thanks. My screenshot only showed wrong rendering of the first few characters of an entry (in Chrome) in case the colon was not used, so it's not really important. All the best. --Gulpen (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On sorting

Currently the sorting of the literature should be done by editors.

There is a workaround that involves {{sort list}}: 

{{refbegin}}
{{sort list|asc|2=
* {{cite book|...}}
* {{cite book|...}}
}}
{{refend}}

Perhaps, this should be incorporated into Refbegin/Refend templates? Thoughts? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

Would it be possible to reduce the spacing at the bottom of sections using the ref-templates, for instance here and here? Erdic (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

We could, but for what reason? The spacing looks fine. Izno (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: Thank you for answering. Isn't the spacing larger than usual there?--Erdic (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Erdic I don't see anything unusual there. There is a 0.5em bottom margin, just as on paragraphs. Also, please do not use edit protected requests as 'attention beacons' tor opening discussions. As stated in the template itself: "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately." —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
TBH, we don't really have a good "attention getter" without starting a fullblown standard process. An edit request is about as close as one can get. --Izno (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@TheDJ: I'm very sorrry, I didn't mean to abuse this function. I just wanted to do everything right by following the instruction in the box on the right! There it says that one is supposed to set the parameter to "no" if one wants to reply, which I did. My specific request is: If you look at the spacing underneath the references and the bibliography in the article linked by me, you should realize that the spacing there is much larger than that of a regular paragraph. I hope it may become a bit clearer now what I've been trying to point out the whole time. Best regards--Erdic (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
If you examine the last few sections of Hobo, you see that both the References and the Further Reading sections have a bottom margin of 0.5em because they end with a div whose class has that property set (div.reflist, div.refbegin). Although normal paragraphs also have a bottom margin of 0.5em, most of Hobo is made up of unordered lists, which have a bottom margin of 0 (each list element has 0.1em, but that's not noticeable at the end of a list). The real fix would be to introduce a bottom margin of 0.4em for the <ul>...</ul> element. However, that may have repercussions elsewhere. Optionally, that article could be re-written in prose. --RexxS (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
(update:) Of course, if you replace {{reflist}} with <references responsive />, the bottom margin disappears, because there the two implementations have different bottom margins set. Now that is a problem. --RexxS (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@RexxS: Just to get things clear: By "there the two implementations have different bottom margins set" you're alluding to the differece between {{reflist}} and <references responsive />, right?--Erdic (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@Erdic: Yes, that's what I'm saying. The bottom-margin for <p>...</p>, <div class="reflist">...</div> and <div class="refbegin">...</div> is set to 0.5em, while the bottom-margin for <ul>...</ul> and <references responsive /> is set to 0. But don't ask me why. --RexxS (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@RexxS: Okay, thanks again. Final question, would it be difficult to harmonize that? At least, it would make sense in any case, wouldn't it?--Erdic (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Erdic: My intention is to see <references responsive /> eventually incorporated inside {{reflist}} - see Template:Reflist/sandbox3 – which will harmonise the bottom margin to 0.5em for all references. However, I suspect that it would not be easy to achieve an equivalent bottom margin for <ul>...</ul> – it's used in so many places that it's near impossible to foresee what might break if we change it. --RexxS (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thanks to you once more. Well then, I guess there actually can't be done very much in the end to solve this problem, can there?--Erdic (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 January 2019

Please remove {{/TemplateData}}; it's included in the documentation. Jay D. Easy (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 04:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Harv warning

Many articles and even this template's own documentation have the following warning: "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation." Is there any way to suppress this? Doesn't seem useful considering that this template is mostly used for non-inline references and bibliographies.  Stepho  talk  22:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That warning is generated by a script that you have installed in User:Stepho-wrs/common.js. See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for more information about how to make the messages go away, if you want to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Font size

Is it possible to increase the font size to 100 percent (for all readers of a particular page, not by editing a user's CSS)? A reduced font is good for the Notes section, but not so good when there's a separate References section. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Confused: This template is used for a static bibliography. If you don't want the font styling, don't use the template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's useful because it produces the columns easily, but it would be nice to have the option of making the font size a bit bigger. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I see this has been requested before. Is there an easy way to make it happen? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I made the request before and requested it for the same reason SV is making the request. -- PBS (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Reference sections using this template always had a reduced font size (as do those using <references /> for two years now). I don't think it's a good idea to allow custom sizing, as it will result in a very inconsistent look between articles. — Edokter (talk) — 23:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I put in the request for a change over a year ago (so two years is not very relevant). If not multiple sizes then two sizes ( Current and 100%). that would not result in any more inconsistency then there is now. -- PBS (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ; any deviation from the current size would introduce inconsistencies. There was a big RFC that resulted in the current styling of references, both using {{reflist}} and <references />, to be the same in order to remedy these inconsistencies. — Edokter (talk) — 10:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
How would it introduce inconsistencies that do not already exist? -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Very simple; if editors can choose their own preferred size, notes ans references would start looking different between articles. As it is now, all articles use the same size for notes and references. — Edokter (talk) — 12:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Edokter, this isn't about {{reflist}} or <references />, which produce footnotes in a reduced font. Footnotes outside WP are almost always in a smaller font too.
This is about {{refbegin}}, which can be used in a separate References/Bibliography section, below the footnotes. Lists of references aren't always in smaller fonts outside WP (or if they are, I haven't noticed). Using a reduced font for the bibliography can make it hard to read all the details.
People already have the option of not using {{refbegin}} for the References section, so the font-size inconsistency already exists. I don't use it for References unless I want columns (see, for example Louise Lind-af-Hageby). But if you do want columns for longer lists, fiddling around with a columns template is a bit of a nuisance, whereas {{refbegin}} produces the columns easily. Therefore, allowing us the option of setting {{refbegin}} at 100 percent would be very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for my confusion. Indeed, refbegin is not the same as reflist. An option for 100% is possible, in sandbox now. — Edokter (talk) — 15:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Do we have lift-off? :) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, all done. — Edokter (talk) — 08:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The agreement seems to be for an option, not to force it on everyone at the same time. SV above talks of "the option of setting", not making it mandatory. Personally I agree with Gadget850, but I have no problem with editors who disagree installing an option. Alternatively, a user script to display references at 100% for users so interested. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there any chance we can have some further discussion on this? For those editors that want a 100% option, can't they actually have that as an option? The default should be kept at 90%, otherwise the vast majority of the articles that use the template are going to to need altering to change the font back to 90%. Betty Logan (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The only reason I started using this template was because of the size change. It should default to 90, with an extra parameter allowing editors to choose a size. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, a sloppy mistake on my part caused a default of 100%. Should be fixed now. — Edokter (talk) — 21:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. What do we write to get the 100 percent option? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
|normalfont=yes (may also be true or 1). — Edokter (talk) — 21:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal

Hi Edokter, I've restored this after your removal, but I had forgotten you were the one you added it. It's useful for people who have difficulty reading the smaller font size, but where editors want columns. This template with columns and normal font-size option does the trick. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Note that refbegin should not be used just to have columns; we have {{div col}} for that. Refbegin should only contain references and act like {reflist}/<references/>, which does not have a normalfont option. So I am merely trying to synchronize its behaviour. It still works, but I removed from the documentation so there will be no more new uses. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure what deprecated means in this context. Refbegin with normal font is useful when people want to list citations using columns and 100 percent font size, because otherwise they're forced to use 90 percent, which may be too small for readers and editors with eyesight problems. I can't see a problem with telling people that it exists, i.e. I can't see a reason to limit new uses of it. I had to go hunting for it after coming here and not finding it; then I realized it had recently been removed. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
My ultimate intent is to remove it. The 'too small' argument doesn't hold anymore, especially since the Typography update last year. This is something that should be solved on a user basis, not in the template. There are also only 61 uses of the parameter out of a total of 91463 transclusions. That really doesn't justify keeping this parameter anymore. It also stands in the way of consolidating other column templates in the future. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you say what you mean by deprecated and unofficially deprecated (as in the edit summary)? Also, when you say remove it, do you mean stop it from working or remove it from this page so that people won't see it? Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Like I said above; it continues to work but is removed from the documentation only. Within the year, the option should be removed from the template alltogether, at which point it will stop working. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, could you say what you mean by deprecated? If you are personally planning to remove it from the template, would you mind gaining consensus before going ahead? I think some people do find it useful, so it would be good to discuss it first. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you know what it means. Yes, I do plan to remove it, simply because of under-utilization, ie. it is hardly used anyway. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, this is a very inefficient discussion. :) If I knew what it meant, I wouldn't ask, and I've seen you use it before, which is why I'm asking. "Deprecated" normally means that an organization has decided to stop offering support to people who use a certain piece of software, or a certain version. I don't know what it means when an editor says it on Wikipedia (and I would have preferred that you not add it above my post as though I had written it). So, please, explain what you mean by it, so that I know for this and future occasions. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, sorry. What I mean with deprecated, I mean "no longer of any use" and should no longer be used (hence why I removed it from the doc). In software, it is one step before being obsolete, meaning it is no longer guaranteed to work at all. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If the {{refbegin}} small font size is an accessibility issue, then so is the font size of {{reflist}}, <references /> and many infoboxes. But this is why we have Preferences → Gadgets → Disable smaller font sizes of elements such as Infoboxes, Navboxes and Reference lists.. --  Gadget850 talk 19:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Font size (2)

Edokter, I restored this for now, as it seems quite useful. Is it that the template no longer offers it, or that no one is using it? SarahSV (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You said the exact same thing half a year ago. For one year now, I am trying to get rid of any options that keep my from harmonizing all column templates. So I will remove it again from the documentation, and later from the actual template, so I can finally start working on building a generic columns solution for reference templates. It is only use on 60 pages anyway. Please do not restore. "Seems usefull" is not what I call a a very strong reason for inclusion anyway. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
To add, if you want regular fontsize columns, use {{div col}} instead. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

indent=yes on mobile

Firefox
Chrome

Lists using {{refbegin|indent=yes}} display incorrectly on mobile browsers using the mobile site. The left margin falls off the edge of the screen. See images and their description pages for details. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hairy Dude: Found this by chance today, guess better late than never. This is gonna be hard to fix, mostly because it was never implemented wisely to begin with (our habit of using : for indentation biting us once again). I think we should just let it be for now, hopefully in the future, when it will be possible to have stylesheets for a template, this will be easier to fix. FFR: This should have been 0 left margin, 1.6em left padding, -1.6em text-indentation for these definition description tags. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
And I mess up the ping.. :) @Hairy Dude: —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixing hanging indents

Hi, considering that hanging indents break display on mobile as mentioned a few paragraphs up and because of the usage of : for indentation, which creates a broken definition list, which is problematic for accessibility reasons, I propose to introduce a new site wide class to fix these problems.

In the Template:Refbegin/sandbox I have changed the implementation of indent=yes to add "hanging-indents" to the class list (name might change a bit at some point). The CSS that would be applied would then be: 

.hanging-indents > ul {
 	list-style-type: none;
 	margin-left: 0;
 }
 .hanging-indents ul > li,
 .hanging-indents dl > dd {
 	margin-left: 0;
 	padding-left: 3.2em;
 	text-indent: -3.2em;
 	list-style: none; 
}

We could then start using * (unordered list) instead of : (a broken definition list used for visual indenting), in line with most other reference groups. Eventually, we can consider using a bot, to convert all existing : lists to * lists. I have prepared a demo in the Template:Refbegin/testcases. You can use this link to evaluate the suggested new solutions. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: This likely would also deprecate indentsize btw.. but this option does not seem to be widely used. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The reasons of making life more pleasant of users of assistive technology; fixing the mobile display; and emitting valid html5 are pretty compelling. I can't see any reason not to use css to determine presentation, rather than using defunct tricks that rely on browers' treatment of <dd>...</dd> tags. While you're doing this, is it worth considering removal of support for the fixed number of columns options like {{refbegin|2}}? All of the discussion and work at {{reflist}} must surely apply just the same here. --RexxS (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
now  Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I have also filed a bot request. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@TheDJ: A belated thanks for this. I've just finished updating the documentation for this template accordingly, after finding such a case for the first time at Miriam Makeba. I just found out that you mentioned this problem at the accessibility guideline's talk page, but I was too busy dealing with the boy band vandal to pay attention to much else. Graham87 05:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Using a bot to convert hanging indent uses of this template to proper lists

I recently discovered that there is a practice, where lists of references using {{refbegin}} are required to make use of : instead of * for listing references. This was in an attempt to create a visual indentation (hanging indentation) for references. This poses an accessibility problem and has since been changed to achieve the same result using alternative CSS styling. As such there is no need to use : any longer and the normal * list type can be used. In order to encourage this new style and to prevent further copy paste forwarding of the older style, I propose a bot will be run to convert current lists to this newer format. This concerns 1496 articles and will only affect the wikicode and not the visual representation of the content. Please indicate if you have any reservations about such a conversion (and why). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Wha..? What? What new style? What are "hanging references"? What are you talking about? EEng 14:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Right, lets' give an actual example:

For stuff like this:

  • Dakin, Karen (1994). "El náhuatl en el yutoazteca sureño: algunas isoglosas gramaticales y fonológicas". In Carolyn MacKay; Verónica Vázquez (eds.). Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica. Estudios sobre Lenguas Americanas, no. 1. México D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas. pp. 3–86. ISBN 968-36-4055-9. OCLC 34716589. (in Spanish)
  • Flores Farfán; José Antonio (2002). "The Use of Multimedia and the Arts in Language Revitalization, Maintenance, and Development: The Case of the Balsas Nahuas of Guerrero, Mexico" (PDF). In Barbara Jane Burnaby; John Allan Reyhner (eds.). Indigenous Languages across the Community. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Stabilizing Indigenous Languages (7th, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 11–14, 2000). Flagstaff, AZ: Center for Excellence in Education, Northern Arizona University. pp. 225–236. ISBN 0-9670554-2-3. OCLC 95062129. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)

The bot will change this: 

{{refbegin/sandbox|30em|indent=yes}}
: {{cite book |author= Dakin, Karen|year= 1994|chapter= El náhuatl en el yutoazteca sureño: algunas isoglosas gramaticales y fonológicas|title= Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica |series= Estudios sobre Lenguas Americanas, no. 1|editor1=Carolyn MacKay |editor2=Verónica Vázquez |publisher= Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas|location= México D.F.|pages= 3–86 |isbn= 968-36-4055-9 |oclc= 34716589}} {{language icon|es}}
: {{cite conference |author1=Flores Farfán |author2=José Antonio |year= 2002|title= The Use of Multimedia and the Arts in Language Revitalization, Maintenance, and Development: The Case of the Balsas Nahuas of Guerrero, Mexico |url= http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/ILAC/ILAC_24.pdf |format= [[Portable Document Format|PDF]] |conference= Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Stabilizing Indigenous Languages (7th, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 11–14, 2000) |booktitle= Indigenous Languages across the Community |editor1=Barbara Jane Burnaby |editor2=John Allan Reyhner |location= Flagstaff, AZ |publisher= Center for Excellence in Education, Northern Arizona University |pages= 225–236 |isbn= 0-9670554-2-3 |oclc= 95062129}}
{{refend}}

into: 

{{refbegin/sandbox|30em|indent=yes}}
* {{cite book |author= Dakin, Karen|year= 1994|chapter= El náhuatl en el yutoazteca sureño: algunas isoglosas gramaticales y fonológicas|title= Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica |series= Estudios sobre Lenguas Americanas, no. 1|editor1=Carolyn MacKay |editor2=Verónica Vázquez |publisher= Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas|location= México D.F.|pages= 3–86 |isbn= 968-36-4055-9 |oclc= 34716589}} {{language icon|es}}
* {{cite conference |author1=Flores Farfán |author2=José Antonio |year= 2002|title= The Use of Multimedia and the Arts in Language Revitalization, Maintenance, and Development: The Case of the Balsas Nahuas of Guerrero, Mexico |url= http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/ILAC/ILAC_24.pdf |format= [[Portable Document Format|PDF]] |conference= Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Stabilizing Indigenous Languages (7th, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 11–14, 2000) |booktitle= Indigenous Languages across the Community |editor1=Barbara Jane Burnaby |editor2=John Allan Reyhner |location= Flagstaff, AZ |publisher= Center for Excellence in Education, Northern Arizona University |pages= 225–236 |isbn= 0-9670554-2-3 |oclc= 95062129}}
{{refend}}

And it will render the same as before. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind converting an actual article, like 2013 Bulgarian protests against the first Borisov cabinet, to show the before/after appearance? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I would say that that is a case which we would skip. In addition to use the wrong indentation format, it also uses ; for the purposes of creating pseudo headers. Instead consider something like 1966 New York City smog with these changes to become User:TheDJ/sandboxrefbegin. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. On my browser, the rendering is changed slightly. The new version does not allow column breaks within the references, apparently, which I would characterize as an improvement.
As for the Bulgaria article that you would skip, I picked that one completely at random. If you're going to have a bot traverse the articles, you'll have to provide skip conditions. With only 1,500 pages, it might be better for an AWB user to take on the task. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
"The new version does not allow column breaks within the references" that is correct. That is a styling setting of normal references lists, which seems we never implemented for this 'old' situation. Probably because no one involved with adding that styling setting ever realized this older situation existed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The fixed columns parameter in normal references lists ({{reflist}}) is strongly deprecated anyway, and it is actively being removed from articles because it causes the output to become unreadable on many non-wide monitors or with larger font sizes. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Fixed columns is another issue however, it does not relate to this. Jonesey was referring to the fact that a single reference will not split across two two columns. All the other reference list types do this too, but refbegin was not recognized as a proper reference list before. Another reason to fix this I guess. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I finished the definition lists off and have removed the assorted CSS. --Izno (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I used this search to identify removal candidates. I used AWB with a really stupid regex (^:(.*?)$) to make replacements, which had maybe 1-3% false positives at most. (Mostly missed math articles.) --Izno (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Indent size

No indent

Colon indent
  • Refbegin with indent

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Is there a reason why the default indentation size is so severe? I would think that the width of a single colon indentation would be more appropriate (see example above). czar 05:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A colon indent (<dd>...</dd>) has margin-left:1.6em. The class refbegin-hanging-indents has padding-left:3.2em and text-indent:-3.2em to create the hanging indent:

References

I took the example from the documentation at Template:Refbegin/doc #Option 3: Hanging indentation which describes why the hanging indents are useful, but doesn't give a reason why 3.2em was chosen. You'll have to ask TheDJ who made the edit to MediaWiki:Common.css on 12 May 2017 why he picked 3.2em. The background discussion is at Template talk:Refbegin #Fixing hanging indents et seq. HTH --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • The purpose of the hanging indent is to make it easy to cast your eye down the page looking for particular name. The example above suggests to me that 3.2em is plenty, and 1.6 might be enough. If we're not wedded to multiples of 1.6, I'd suggest 2.0. EEng 18:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I chose it, as it was the same as the previous default. The previous default was a dl > dd > dl > dd (so 2x 1.6em, with a 3.2 negative text-indent). I'm open for whatever. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I think 1.6 would be good, to keep it consistent with single-colon commenting conventions. I'm only discovering the indent function of this template now (after having used it for how long?) but the 3.2em indent is jarring. czar 19:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been googling a bit, and I suspect that this is based of pre-existing conventions outside of Wikipedia. If you google a bit for "style guide hanging indent", you quickly find that ASA-style, MLA, Chicago etc all dictate 0.5 inch indentation, which I think is rather close to that 3.2em. I'v added an example of that below as well. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes I suspected that was just the default previously in use. Here's how the other suggested options would look:

Hanging indent 1.6em:

Hanging indent 2.0em:

Hanging indent 0.5in:

@Czar: Any preferences? I think I quite like the 1.6em, but I wouldn't complain about any of them. --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the mockups. I think 1.6 is just fine. EEng 19:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Same—no complaints, but I think it would be best to match the existing site indent style, if that's 1.6em. (I.e., if 2.0em is a better first indent, I'd rather see it decided in a larger forum on site-wide indents.) This said, I look at my comment in preview and the indentation looks closer to 2.0 than 1.6 even though my browser site inspector says it's 1.6... And for what it's worth, I think the half-inch indent makes relative sense on a normal sheet of paper but doesn't translate well to webpages and small screens. czar 19:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and font size matters too. No matter what we should be talking in terms of ems, not inches, so that it's always relative to the text size. EEng 21:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) An indent of 1.6em is smaller when the text is 90% (as in reflist, etc.) than when it's 100% (as in your "colon" example), because em is a size relative to the current text size (and font metrics). I'd recommend just picking what looks approximately right (a 1.8em indent of text sized 90% would be roughly the same as a 1.6em indent of normal-sized text, but the eye is unlikely to pick up such small differences on usual-sized screens). --RexxS (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

VE edit suggestions

Under VE the cite list should be searchable or the citations should be numbered, finding one specific citation block is irritating and tedious. Example: Analytical_Engine#Bibliography MarMi wiki (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Refbegin/Archive_1&oldid=1239539947"