[edit] Tools

Resolved

I like this, as it does simplify the markup, but it is going to render good tools like redToosl and checklinks useless. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gadget850. Most tools that handle references shouldn't be affected by the template, since the references are simply moved into the References section (see example diff). Checklinks shouldn't be affected at all. RefToolbar should still work fine, although it will add <ref> tags instead of {{r}}; I could help add support for it if Mr.Z-man doesn't have time to. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:36:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh— the template is not at issue, it is the list-defined references. I think I may have found an LDR bug. Gotta work on this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Still trying to figure out why Checklinks works with some article, but not others, but it is not this templates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Incorporating the functions of Template:rp

I edited the template to allow parameters rp1 through rp5, to insert {{rp}}'s functionality directly into this template. I also updated the documentation. Let me know if this breaks anything, but so far, I can't see anything wrong. (Incidentally, I think you should be able to pass {{rp}}'s named parameters using a {{!}} (fake pipe).) TheFeds 03:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello TheFeds. Do you have any objections to a more self-evident parameter name, like page1 instead of rp1? (I don't think we should encourage using {{!}} in articles to bypass syntax, since it's rather counterproductive to the aim of simplifying article code.) —{admin} Pathoschild 04:59:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify the intended usage of {{!}}, say you want to do something like {{rp|needed=y|date=September 2009}} within an instance of {{r}}. You'd code that as {{r|Reference1|rp1=needed=y{{!}}date=September 2009}}. Except that I just realized that this doesn't work—the template code feeds everything to {{rp}}'s {{{1}}}, rather than its raw input string.

As for the parameter names, I didn't want to use the obvious (page, pages), because {{rp}} already uses those parameter names to do AMA style (it parenthesizes the value). I figured that a user of {{rp}} would not like the confusion of the "page" parameter working differently in this template. So, I settled upon the name rp# (in lieu of the unnamed first parameter of {{rp}}). I don't think that the name is a problem, all things considered. TheFeds 06:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

rp adds page numbers with a colon, page adds them with parentheses? That's not very intuitive. I think it's preferable to have a meaningful syntax than to be similar to {{rp}}'s syntax, such as page1 and page1_ama. This makes the template more readable for all editors, and is very simple for editors used to {{rp}}.. —{admin} Pathoschild 14:16:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Rp}}'s parameters are a bit weird, but I think that's because the AMA style is used quite rarely on Wikipedia. Most users want the standard behaviour (with a colon), so they never even pass named parameters to {{rp}}. We can't use an unnamed parameter here (as {{rp}} does), so I think calling it rp1 is a decent way of implying that the output will be the same as using {{rp}}'s 1st, unnamed parameter. In other words, I'd rather imply to the user that this template is invoking {{rp}}, rather than make it seem like it's using its own parameter names to do the same thing. TheFeds 17:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the parameter names should depend on editors knowing which templates are used internally— I didn't know about {{rp}} until yesterday, so an rp1 parameter would have been meaningless to me until then. We're not even likely to continue using {{rp}} internally, since it would be more efficient to have similar code in this template without the extra programming for {{rp}}'s extra parameters.

It would be better to reach a consensus, but we can compromise by simply recognizing both. How about recommending page in the documentation, and recognizing rp as an alias for editors used to {{rp}}? —{admin} Pathoschild 17:53:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'd still prefer to remove rp* entirely, if we can agree to do so. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:47:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be alright with dropping the rp# syntax...it's definitely more obvious in general to use page#, as long as you don't care about AMA style. (And most editors probably don't, despite the fact that {{rp}} supports it.) You're probably right that it's better to make this template clear, than to support the {{rp}} feature set directly.

It wouldn't be to hard to code something that said if AMA=yes, do the AMA thing with parentheses, else default to the usual style. Of course, I don't know if there's enough demand for this to support AMA in the first place.

By the way, as long as page# in {{r}} acts differently than page and pages in {{rp}}, there's no point in trying to maintain the same behaviour—because that's already divergent. TheFeds 18:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Documentation

"This should be avoided whenever possible, since it reduces prose readability; page numbers can often be specified in the reference itself."

That reads like a guideline: what is the source? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I copied it from {{rp}}'s documentation, the original source of the functionality. Quote for future reference:

This template should not be used unless necessary. In the vast majority of cases, citing page numbers in the <ref ...>...</ref> code is just fine. This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article, to such an extent that normal citation would produce a useless line in <references /> or too many individual ones. Overuse of this template will make prose harder to read, and is likely to be reverted by other editors. Used judiciously, however, it is much less interruptive to the visual flow than full Harvard referencing and some other reference citation styles.

—{admin} Pathoschild 03:52:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Group

Need a group parameter to include full functionality. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. {{r|foo|bar|group=baz}} will reference foo and bar in the baz group. —{admin} Pathoschild 14:29:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Works nicely. Thanks. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)