Help talk:List-defined references

	This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

request to "Take a look"

Very helpful article explaining an important WP process. In RealLife, I'm great with tools. At WP not so good. I need all the help I can get so articles like this are invaluable in explaining the step by step process. Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 12:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the helpful guide. I really prefer list-defined references, and in an effort to promote them, I've created a userbox we proud practitioners can use. It links to this guide among other helpful pages. Ntsimp (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

This should be in the Help namespace; "how-to guide" is redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Done ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for reference names

One of the rules is:

Names may not be a numeric integer

Um, what is a non-numeric integer? I think this should say

Names may not be purely numeric

... but for a reason I don't understand I can't find this bit to edit in the page source.

Imaginatorium (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pulled in from a template {{Refname rules}} - I've amended as above. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded's reversions

I introduced a new section called Pros and cons to explain a bit the advantages and disadvantages of list-defined references. In a continuing series of interferences with my edits across WP, in this edit Snowded has removed the paragraphing of my contribution and introduced sentence fragments that obscure its meaning. In support of his behavior Snowded profers the conciliatory in-line comment: Brews you either accept some compromise here it goes back to the original stable version pending resolution. There is no reason for this behavior and the changes made are inadvisable.

I find Snowded's behavior reprehensible, and suggest other editors review this matter. For my part, I am done here. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy for other editors to get involved, However snide remarks about other editors who only revert and a clear attempt to bias the results to one solution when a discussion is going on elsewhere is not on. You simply refused any attempt to change your wording so there was little choice but (after several attempts) to offer the only other alternative which was to go back to a stable state ----Snowded ^TALK 15:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: All traces of 'snide' comment are removed. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is always going to be based on opinions. It is difficult to tell which are pros and which are cons. -- Gadget850^talk 09:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget850: While I could agree that it is not apparent how an editor will weigh the pros and cons, I don't see much likelihood of differences over what the pros and cons actually are. Do you have a 'pro' in mind that also can be seen as a 'con'? Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what you have in mind is that some editors feel that the confusion introduced by having the footnotes inside the article content is outweighed by the convenience of being able to edit footnotes while inputting the accompanying text. I'd regard that as a difference in weighing the two aspects, rather saying in-line footnotes can be a 'pro' or a 'con'. Brews ohare (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in-line footnotes

It should be noted that the use of {{reflist|refs= }} is compatible with the use of in-line footnotes in the older form <ref>content</ref>, but if a name for the footnote is attached, an error message is generated unless the name is added to the reference listing.

The first part is correct, although I would not use "older", but it is already documented under Rules and guidelines. The second part is not correct- you can use in-text defined and named references mixed with LDR. -- Gadget850^talk 09:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this; the line is now changed to agree with your comment:

It should be noted that the use of {{reflist|refs= }} is entirely compatible with the use of in-line footnotes in the form <ref>content</ref> or <ref name=name>content</ref>.

Brews ohare (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely redundant; neither a pro or a con. Unwatching help page. -- Gadget850^talk 15:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition to 'Pros and cons' section

The section Pros and cons points out some advantages and disadvantages of list-defined references. After adding this section, a discussion at WP:CITEVAR drew my attention to two points that I had been unaware of. They are not pros or cons, but actually matters that are common to both list-defined and in-line modes of footnoting. I think it would be worthwhile to include a note to the effect that both systems have these commonalities.

The first point is that the use of group designations is not peculiar to list-defined footnotes, but also can be used in the in-line reference system.

The second point is that the introduction of list-defined references has absolutely no effect upon those that wish to use the in-line system instead.

Misunderstanding of these points in the first case might lead an editor to use list-defined references only because they wanted to introduce the group feature. In fact, that is not necessary.

Misunderstanding of the second point could lead to unnecessary contention by those under the false impression that the choice between list-defined referencing and in-line referencing is an 'either-or' proposition.

It can be argued that a careful reader of documentation would not need these facts pointed out. However, not all of us read documentation carefully, and it would increase the likelihood of awareness of these points if they were made here. A possible form for such an alert in the 'Pros and cons' section could be the following:

It may be of interest to note that the introduction of separate lists for different kinds of footnotes at the end of an article using a 'group' name to differentiate various kinds of footnotes, is available regardless of whether list-defined or in-line footnotes are used. For example, one can designate notes as a group called 'Note', and separate them from simple citations by using the in-line label <ref group=Note name=name /> (The complete explanation of the use of group names is illustrated in the second example in the section immediately above.)

It also could be noted that the use of {{reflist|refs= }} is entirely compatible with the use of in-line footnotes in the form <ref>content</ref> or <ref name=name>content</ref>. Although use of both systems in the same article might appear confusing or undesirable, it is a fact that the two systems can be mixed indiscriminately within the context of {{reflist|refs= }}.

Brews ohare (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need. It's not a pro or con, nor is it something particular about LDRs. This is not the general footnote documentation, which is at Help:Footnotes which is linked at the top of the page as well as in the navigation footer. This exists only to describe the particular features of LDRs for those unfamiliar with them. Keep it focussed on that.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already agreed that this addition is not a real pro or con, but it is a sometimes erroneously perceived pro or con. This explanation will help to avoid incorrect ideas about the comparison of methods. Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List-defined refs in subpage

Idea for managing LDR in a subpage: Template_talk:Reflist#List-defined_refs_in_subpage czar ♔ 06:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LDR

I have moved this shortcut directly to here, instead of redundantly dropping to its section of WP:FOOT. This is because that page only shows an example, whilst this page is now quite developed and has additional information. There does not appear to be any reason to not redirect to this specialist page over a section in a general page. Please feel free to revert this if that is necessary. Techhead7890 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realised this was actually a bad idea, as shortcuts intentionally redir to Wikipedia:Footnotes for a simple overview of the procedure. I'll be expanding that section instead. Techhead7890 (talk)

Formatting question

Is there some reason that sometimes the named reference is shown as <ref name=foo/> and other times as <ref name=foo />? Both work; the extra space seems unnecessary and the documentation is inconsistent. When I was first learning to use named references, I was given to understand that the space was required; that is obviously incorrect.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 23:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @D'Ranged 1:. The doc shouldn't show that space since it's not required. If it's a coding-style thing, that's outside the scope of technical documentation. Mandruss (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another long-unanswered question. Very frustrating. Gadget850 or Hydroxonium, any thoughts?—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 12:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:, what do you think? czar 12:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of answered at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 February 23#List-defined reference markup. I'm still confused. According to that answer, the space is required for HTML 4.1 but not for XHTML 1.0. I don't know which standard Wikipedia employs; however, my browser (Google Chrome) doesn't seem bothered by the omission of the space. Might that not be true for other browsers? Should the space be included to ensure more widespread compatibility, or is this now a non-issue? (Note this is the same issue with <br/> versus <br />.)—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but <ref /> isn't either HTML or XHTML (any version) - it's part of a MediaWiki extension, and as such is processed before a HTML parser gets anywhere near it: your browser never sees it except when you are typing in the edit box. The space is optional.

In case you're interested though, after processing by the MediaWiki parser, the code that your browser sees is something like this:

<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup>

and although this is valid HTML 4.01 and also valid XHTML 1.0, the MediaWiki software has served HTML5 since about September/October 2012. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Redrose64! That being the case, I'll remove the space from the documentation.

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 00:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R

Two users, Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) and Vzeebjtf (talk · contribs), are pushing to include mention of Template:R. But this page is about list-defined references, which is one ref style, whereas Template:R is a different style. They should not be mixed, since that would create inconsistency in reference styles (see WP:CITEVAR), so I don't think that it is a good idea to add wording that encourages the two to be used together. Relevant edits are these six. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept full responsibility for the confusion in the initial edit. It could easily be misunderstood as an inclusive "or" and not an exclusionary one, however Vzeebjtf made it clear with their edit that the "or" is exclusive. In my addition I cited the policy reason for this WP:CITEVAR. However on reading the documentation for Template:R it actually says "References using {{r}} and references using <ref> can coexist on the same page.", perhaps this is what needs to be changed if anything?. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement this page is about list-defined references, which is one ref style, whereas Template:R is a different style. They should not be mixed is confused. {r} and < ref> are alternatives for each other (though {r} has the additional |page= and |quote= features, which < ref> lacks); whether you use one or the other (or, likely inadvertently, a mixture) has absolutely nothing to do with whether the definitions of the references are list-defined or in-body-defined. They are completely orthogonal questions. E Eng 00:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading references to CITEVAR

This howto currently makes two references to CITEVAR. In my opinion those references are extremely misleading and are based on a deep and fundamental misinterpretation of what CITEVAR is talking about.

CITEVAR warns about mixing "citation styles". The citation styles that preceded the currently predominant footnote reference style, that uses <ref></ref> pair. I remember using the WP:Footnote3 citation style, one of the inferior citation styles it was preceded by. That ealier style was incompatible with the currently predominant style. So, caution about mixing them is very good advice.

Unfortunately, lots of people who started contributing to the wikipedia after mid 2006 are not aware that the wikipedia once made wide use of totally incompatible alternate styles, do not realize that this is what CITEVAR is warning against, and use CITEVAR to justify forcing other contributors to stick to older methods of using the footnote reference style.

In my opinion these misleading references to CITEVAR should be removed from this howto. Geo Swan (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see CITEVAR as clearly having nothing to do with technical incompatibilities. It is most of the "Citation style" section and is entirely on the subject of style. The third "To be avoided" bullet point specifically says not to move the reference definitions between prose and reflist. CITEVAR says more than you give it credit for. Ntsimp (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can also move efn notes

I don't know where, but it might be useful to mention that we can also move an inline {{efn|name=somename|...}} note into a {{reflist|refs=}} list and refer to it inline with a <ref name=somename /> reference. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it causes complications. Please don't do it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of complications. I already done it in one article and thus far it's fine. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too would like to know what complications. E Eng 21:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a note contains a reference. If a page having such a note attempts to use LDR for both notes and refs, one of them won't display but instead throws an error. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I see now that we cannot have both references and notes with references in a reflist. I changed the article. Now I use an harv inside a ref inside a reflist. Is this better or it will also create complications? Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I remember this now. We should probably mention that somewhere. Too lazy to do it now. E Eng 08:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently contradictory instructions

At first sight, these two statements seem contradictory, and confused me when reading about how to use List-defined references:

You may optionally provide reference names even when the reference name is not required.
All list-defined references must be named.

Presumably what this means is that if the styles are mixed, the ones which are defined inline needn't be named but it's helpful if they are. But it occurs before the reader knows that mixing is OK. If that's the correct interpretation, I think something like If the article also contains references defined inline, you may optionally name these too might help. It would also alert someone early to the fact that mixing the methods is allowed. (Apart from anything else, the naming is an obvious first step before converting references to list-defined ones, and an article where that's partially done will contain a mixture.) Musiconeologist (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Help talk:Footnotes § List-defined references in the Visual Editor

You are invited to join the discussion at Help talk:Footnotes § List-defined references in the Visual Editor. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 00:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to figure out how to edit ref name tags in-article against a single reference, to specify page numbers and quotes if possible.

Hi, I had tried to do this in the past but gave up and wanted to give it another shot. I had searched all over, and now I'm not sure if this is even possible or what is the best way to do it. I'll use my current User:Very Polite Person/sandbox as an example. Take a look here:

User:Very_Polite_Person/sandbox#Background

That placeholder text and the first sentence in the next section both share the same source, which is the Choueiri, Edgar Y. one. What is the best/correct way to cite against a single reference if I want to specify particular page numbers (if such a document) and specific quotes out of the same, so as to match my in-line citation to a specific passage of text that would be then listed in the References section? Can I do that with the same single source in the References section, or do I need a unique Reference section entity for each time I want to actually quote out of the source and link a page number?

Please feel free to edit my sandbox for this if that is easier to show me a working example there! Or let me know if this doesn't make sense and I'll try to explain better. The end goal I had in my mind (if it's a thing) is to put something like 'ref name=foo|page=2-3|quote=some text' as an in-line citation and link off of a single common Reference object/resource; I would quote various passages of the source in-line and not have to create multiple Reference section items for the same base source then? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]