Template talk:Refideas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit request 6 June 2019

Updated I have made some edits in the sandbox which allow for this template to be collapsible. Comparison of the update with the previous version can be seen in the testcases.

If an editor provides the argument |state=expanded/collapsed it now has a header which says "Reference ideas for PAGENAME", the references are now contained within a box that distinguishes it from the rest of the template, and there is a hide button. The template defaults to |state=plain which results in the current appearance and no option to collapse.

It should not have any changes to existing transclusions of the template, though if there is consensus the default behavior can easily be changed from plain to expanded. The update does not change the behavior of |small=yes. This request should be left open for a few days to get feedback. If there is consensus, please move the sandbox into the main template. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 17:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Previous proposal

I have made some edits in the sandbox which allow for this template to be collapsed, as well as collapsed by default. Comparison of the update with the previous version can be seen in the testcases. It should not have any breaking changes to existing transclusions of the template. The only changes to the default behavior is that it now has a header which says "Reference ideas for PAGENAME", the references are now contained within a box that distinguishes it from the rest of the template, and there is a hide button. It does not change the behavior of |small=yes. This change adds opt-in functions that allow for the template to be collapsed by default by adding |collapsed=yes. Given the minimal change to default behavior, I expect the change to be uncontroversial, but I'm also fine leaving this request open for a few days to get feedback. If there is consensus, please move the sandbox into the main template. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I dunno to be honest. Looking at your testcases, the sandboxed template takes up around twice as much space (uncollapsed) as the current version. Consider how this would look at Talk:Esperanto, for example: even in its collapsed state it would not save any space but it would hide the content. I can see how it would be of benefit for longer lists, though. Maybe needs a bit more thought? PC78 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@PC78: Thanks for the feedback! You make a good point, and I've changed the sandbox version so that there is no change to templates which do not specify the new parameter |collapsed=. If you look on the testcase page, you'll see that the "No named parameters" example shows no change in appearance, but if the argument |collapse=no is provided, then it becomes collapsible in the way I described above. So the version in the sandbox now should have no change to existing appearance of transcluded templates. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed some excess white space from the sandbox version. I like the white box, but based on the current test cases, I don't think it needs the second bold header. Perhaps some additional test cases on the testcases page would clarify the reason for the bold header. Some examples that use more parameters would be good. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The whitespace was needed to get the list indenting working, but I managed to fix it so that there isn't that big gap at the top if the |comment= or |f#= fields weren't used. I added more test cases (which is how I discovered the whitespace was important). I think it's important for there to be a header so that when the box is collapsed, people know where to look and what it contains. I tried removing the bold, but it just looked odd, so I added it back. We can discuss that more as well. Because of the switch from {{cot}} to {{hidden begin}}, there's no more white box. I could probably add it back if people like the aesthetics but it comes down to what people like more. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 07:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding so many test cases! It is always useful but rarely enjoyable to do so. I found one stray line break to remove, and I think the test cases look good now. I think that everything about the new version is an improvement except for the collapsibility. I think that the template should always show all of its content. If someone wants to wrap the whole thing in a collapse box because it is way too big or no longer relevant, they can do so easily, as shown in the final test case on the testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "except for the collapsibility"? The default behavior is that the template is unable to be collapsed. Since |collapse= does not yet exist, no existing transclusion contains it, and so their appearance should be entirely unchanged (see the non-collapsible testcases). The option for a user to show or hide the contents is not offered unless an editor specifies a value for |collapse=. If a value is provided, the default behavior is to show all contents with the option to hide, unless they specify |collapse=yes which causes the contents to be default hidden. Do you mean that there should be no opt-in collapsibility? (Also, I added the interior box back, but a bit more beige so that it matches {{to do}}). Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 07:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean, so I guess at this point I'm just expressing my own opinion. I suppose it's fine. One thing about the |collapse= parameter, with accepted values of "yes" and "no": is this a normal implementation of collapsing that is used in many other templates of this type, or is this a scheme of your own devising? It is much better to use parameters and values that editors are familiar with, and changing to a standardized system is always easier during development than later on. The collapse settings that I know best are used by Template:navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The most obvious examples are {{WikiProject banner shell}} which uses |collapsed=yes/no and {{navbox}} which uses |state= and has several options. Beyond that I'm not sure if there's a standard, though I think it might perhaps be unexpected to have a yes/no parameter where both options differ from the default. PC78 (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

{{todo}} also uses the |collapse= parameter, as do the archive templates {{cot}} and {{hidden begin}} though those aren't banners. It would be non-standard to have a collapse parameter where both options differ from the default. I've changed the scheme to be more in line with {{navbox}}. Rather than |collapse= it now has |state=plain/expanded/collapsed. It defaults to |state=plain which removes the ability to collapse the template similar to behavior on {{navbox}}, so existing transclusions shouldn't have an appearance change. If an editor passes |state=collapsed then the template begins in a collapsed state. If any argument besides plain or collapsed is passed, it defaults to expanded by default. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 17:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the proposal and will put notices on {{todo}} and {{navbox}} to get more feedback. Feel free to notify other templates interested editors might be watching, the extra eyes have been very helpful! Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 17:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to listen to feedback, and to tolerate my monkeying with the sandbox. I think you're on the right track. I am going on a long wikibreak soon, so I won't be around to implement the changes, but I support the changes proposed as of this time stamp. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done revert if anything broke. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Refideas not displaying if URL included

This displays correctly:

{{Refideas | M. M. Loubser, Towards a Theory of Extinctive Prescription, 105 S. AFRICAN L.J. 34, 53 (1988). }}

But when I add a URL at the end it does not:

{{Refideas | M. M. Loubser, Towards a Theory of Extinctive Prescription, 105 S. AFRICAN L.J. 34, 53 (1988). https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tulr85&i=3 }}

This only happens with certain URLs. It appears to stem from the equals-sign in the URL; the lone URL also fails:

{{Refideas | https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tulr85&i=3 }}

But this (nonfuctional) one with the two equals signs removed displays (but it's no longer a correct URL):

{{Refideas | https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?hhein.journals/tulr85&i3 }}

TJRC (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

TJRC: When an equals sign appears in an unnamed parameter, the template treats everything before the equals sign as a parameter name. This is one of many reasons that unnamed parameters are not as good as named parameters. This version of your second example, with |1= added before the parameter value, should work fine:

{{Refideas | 1=M. M. Loubser, Towards a Theory of Extinctive Prescription, 105 S. AFRICAN L.J. 34, 53 (1988). https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tulr85&i=3 }}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonesey95! TJRC (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

22 refideas limit

Is there a 22 refideas limit? Please see usage at Talk:Zack Snyder's Justice League where I think this is happening. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

No, the limit is 21. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I meant that. Miscounted didn't I. Anyway we could bump it up? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed and denied, I can't find it though. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you recall the reason(s) why? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No, but I doubt that the opposers would be willing to add a further 51. Other than removing most of them outright, It's easiest to simply use additional {{refideas}}, like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought that might be the only solution. Thanks for doing that. Your help is honestly appreciated. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Not working

Can someone help identify why the listed refidea is not showing at Talk:Broken (2006 film)? BOVINEBOY2008 14:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: [1] --Renat 14:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: RenatUK fixed it; but to answer the "why": the issue is the '=' in the target URL. I had the same problem a couple years back, see the explanation two sections up. TJRC (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 September 2021

Please add |plainlinks=no to the call to {{tmbox}} (added in 2016) so that the plainlinks CSS class isn't present. It makes sense to indicate external links in suggested references (especially if CS1 templates are used, as then there may be both internal and external links). --Pokechu22 (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done seems reasonable to me, feel free to revert / ask me to if you disagree and we can discuss. firefly ( t · c ) 06:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources namespace discussion

There is a discussion, currently in its infancy, around the idea of providing a separate namespace or area for sources to be collected for articles. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#"Sources"_namespace. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 05:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

Please search for the following expressions and correct theme as mentioned:

• {{#if:{{{f7|}}}|*{{{7|}}}|}} → {{#if:{{{f7|}}}|*{{{f7|}}}|}}
• {{#if:{{{f21|}}}|*{{{f20|}}}|}} → {{#if:{{{f20|}}}|*{{{f20|}}}|}}

Thanks. Jeeputer ^Talk 08:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 26 July 2023

Description of suggested change: The current icon is outdated (it's from 2005). New icon would be desirable. Eurohunter (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is the current icon unsuitable? Do you have a proposed new icon? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Martin - the current icon is fine. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Terrible examples

The /doc should not be using WP-internal articles as example referencing suggestions. We already have enough noob editors who don't understand WP:CIRCULAR yet; we need not have template documentation teaching them to do this on purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Good idea.  Done. If I missed any, let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

References to free culture

The article has references to [[free culture]]. This has two problems.

1. free culture is a DAB page
2. The brackets are being rendered.

I suggest that [[free culture]] be replaced with something that renders as free content or at least as free culture. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The documentation is not protected, so you are welcome to fix it yourself. With respect to the brackets, one of the many joys of the Visual Editor is that its TemplateData sections do not accept wikitext. See the TemplateData tutorial for more information; the relevant text is Note that any wikitext typed anywhere in the template data table such as [[Croatian football]] will not retain any of its functions and will appear as plain unlinked text, character for character. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

So the best I can do is to change, e.g.,

		"f1": {
			"label": "Free reference 1",
			"description": "A [[free culture]] reference that is not currently used in the article, but could be",
			"type": "line"
		},

to

		"f1": {
			"label": "Free reference 1",
			"description": "A [[free content]] reference that is not currently used in the article, but could be",
			"type": "line"
		},

, but I can't make it dispaly as a wikilink? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Correct. You can't make it display as a wikilink. If you want to link to free content, you need to do it somewhere other than the TemplateData section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Can a category be created for talk pages with the Refideas template?

Based on a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Implementation of Template:Refideas editnotice with @Redrose64, I would like to see if we could create a category on any talk page where the Refideas template is present (maybe it would be called Category:Articles using Refideas or something like that).

The goal is to have my Template:Refideas editnotice show up whenever a user clicks "edit" on any article using Refideas on its talk page, so that MediaWiki:Common.js will use the category to display the editnotice, similarly to how we get an editnotice when editing BLP articles. Ideas, thoughts, suggestions? For the record, I am pretty slow when it comes to technical stuff so please keep it simple for me. ;)

(If you want to see an example of how it would function, click "edit" anywhere on Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game).) BOZ (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It should be easy to add a category like that. Also, I recommend adding an anchor at the top of the template so that the link in the edit notice can link directly to the top of the refideas template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, awesome. :) So add an anchor at the top of Template:Refideas editnotice or on the individual talk pages? BOZ (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Try the "talk page" link now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, that's got it. :) BOZ (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added the category to the sandbox version of this template and used the sandbox temporarily in Talk:Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game). You should be able to use that page to experiment with your .js ideas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for all your help! :) BOZ (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like this is working, at least at this edit page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

spacing

This template appears to be adding more spacing above it than other talk-page templates do, normally (e.g. Talk:Esperanto). Is that intentional and by design? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Fourthords: True, so fixed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, hey, that was fast! Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)