Wikipedia talk:Use reflist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should {{reflist}} be standardized?--Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 21:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm neutral. I change out the old form tag for the template form tag whenever I bump into it. However, I strongly disagree with the statement "In an attempt to further unify Wikipedia's look and feel across all of its pages, a standard must be set." There are too many "standards set" about appearance already, and the obnoxious Manual of Style is part of the reason it is hard to get new content writers up to speed. It is contrary to the spirit of the policy of Ignore All Rules. So while I am for deprecation of the old form, I think that is a natural process already and am against mandating the change in the interest of eliminating a "discrepancy of appearance" of the code. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Do it Get a bot to do a find/replace and have done with it. Lugnuts (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, but make the standard two-column reference layout the default in <references />. It's easier to use the MediaWiki code itself than another transcluded template. --MuZemike 19:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Two-column or 30 em? {{reflist|30em}} looks far better on my very wide screen. 71.212.246.55 (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't prefer one over the other. I'm just vouching for a standard to be set, and I chose the reflist template with the thought that it would be less controversial. There's nothing preventing this proposal switching reflist and references/, but I'd like to see if I get a consensus in the first place before I waste any effort.--Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 21:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that something was done a while ago to make the references tag look the same as {{reflist}}, precisely to avoid the "should we replace it" issue. Is that not the case? What is the difference that's supposed to be worth the bother? Rd232 ^talk 19:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't deal with references as much as I might like to, as I deal primarily with maintenance on Wikipedia, but I've read several comments on talk pages that reference the discrepancy in the different reference implementations. I believe it has something to do with columns.--Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 21:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the proposed policy is overly strong, while I support moving to {{reflist}}, I would instead amend WP:CITEVAR to encourage the replacement, subject to normal WP:BRD practices. We shouldn't tell people they are wrong for doing it the old way, just allow editors who are so inclined to suggest the new way, and switch existing uses to the new. I would also amend WP:CITEVAR to encourage the use of citation templates, but that is another matter. Monty₈₄₅ 22:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• I do not think this a matter where standardization is particularly important. What we need at this point is to to regularize how to add references, but to get people to add them--in whatever format. format can be easily fixed, the lack of references is much harder to deal with sufficient. Personally, I strongly prefer one column format when there are fewer than 10 or 20 references, for I find small type too difficult to read. I don't use mobile devices much, but I'd think they interfered here also. But one think I do not do, is to go around changing them if there is an established pattern, let alone propose to change them all to the way I prefer. (And this is a matter which the interface can deal within a better way yet--reference popups diminish the problem and make the exact formatting less important. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm rather neutral on the issue, although I don't think it would hurt to encourage the use of {{reflist}} more. Kaldari (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Encourage, do not mandate - Carrite makes some good points. And further, I tend to shy away from anything which mandates anything related to MoS. We should always try to lean towards prioritising substance over style. - jc37 12:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with this sentiment. Originally, I thought a black-and-white rule was needed, but after hearing everyone's arguments, I believe in the use of less strong lanuguage. Should I edit the proposal, or would that disrupt this RFC? --yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change the RfC I would archive this section and start a new section on top of it. From early feedback it looks like it's clear that this isn't going to fly. Some people might grumble about changing the RfC in this way, but let them. RfC was and is still supposed to be a lightweight way to get feedback, not some formalized 30 day process. I would change the listing on WP:CENT to make it clear that the RfC question has been revised so that people who have commented will know to revisit it. Make sure your new proposal is different enough from the old one to avoid accusations that you are just asking the same question over hoping for a different answer. 14:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose mandatory or "encouragement". For me, the clearest system of referencing is WP:List-defined references, putting all the references in the <references></references> block, and from an editing point of view this is horrible with {{reflist}} (you have to mix template-style and XML-style tags and you end up with a template with one parameter value that's many times bigger than the entire rest of the template). It's been a principle for a long time that different referencing styles are allowed, and {{reflist}} may be better for some styles, but <references> is better for others. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Needed doing for a long time. Rcsprinter (deliver) 15:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Changed- I changed the wording of the proposal to make it less authoritarian.--yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 17:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Ok, I don't understand; reading the documentation and a test in my sandbox <references /> and {{reflist}} produce the same output. Surely we don't need a guideline or policy that encourages pointless changes? Edgepedia (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Colapeninsula. We already have too many standards, and adding yet another one will not be helpful, especially since this one won't have any huge effects and won't be in line with our established practice of permitting latitude in reference styles. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I don't feel quite as strongly as Colapeninsula about using {{reflist}} with list-defined references, there's nothing wrong with using <references />. Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not important enough to mandate. Agree with sentiments about the MoS becoming too much of something to be "enforced". The MoS is a guideline in the truest sense, and no one should be "enforcing" it with trivial edits just to fix MoS issues. Gigs (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the three "oppose" comments immediately preceding this one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the needless introduction of a new rule.—S Marshall T/C 20:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Standardization is Bad, not Good. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ling.Nut & others. Standardizing anything to do with referencing is especially evil. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reflist

Self confessed newbie here. I am plugging along and finding my way. I have created an article with approximately 17 reference links. I watched an instructional video that recommended Reflist so I added it to the article but it does not populate a list, nor can I figure out how to delete it. Please advice. Your help is greatly appreciated PerryfromtheNorth (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)