Template talk:R

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion#Suspend replacing of ref by Template:r in citations

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)

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)

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)

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)

Village pump

This template is generating some discussion at the village pump. It's probably of interest to anyone who is watching this page. GyroMagician (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

TfD

This template is under discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:R. Per the guidance at Template:Tfd-inline: "where the insertion of either template is deemed too detrimental to a large number of articles, it might be advisable to place the notice on the template's talk page instead." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the top of this page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. The wording on the TfD template could use some work. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the TfD warning is very intrusive (I was one of the first to complain!) but the alternative seems equally unhelpful. A message placed at the top of this page is unlikely to be seen by many (any?) of the editors using this template. The first they are likely to know is when the template is deleted. What we really need is abanner at the top of each affected page, but I have no idea how to achieve that. Any ideas? GyroMagician (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue should be discussed at Template talk:Tfd-inline. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

TfD again

See why at Talk:Chelicerata#I_no_longer_maintain_this_article --Philcha (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:TFD for information on opening a TfD. I removed the TfD notice, feel free to add it back once a case has been opened. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain "add it back once a case has been opened" - as far as I can seen, WP:TFD does not use the word "case". --Philcha (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Listing, case, ticket, file, docket... whatever. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Listing a template. You did step I, but not II or III. Please add a complete rationale and don't just link to that talk page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

{{r}} has caused a lots of trouble. An RfC was proposed on 1 February 2010, I can't find the conclusion but it overwhelming suported the RfC, e.g. rejected {{r}}. I'm not wasting any more time on this. --Philcha (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed the TfD for Template:R. Here are my two replies to the biggest issues raised, as well as some additional examples of why and how I use it:

1. As previously discussed, it does save a bit of space and eye-strain in large articles. In Lemur, for instance, it saves 4 Kb (157 Kb vs. 161 Kb the last time someone switched it). There's a big difference between reading: <ref name="Ref1"/><ref name="Ref2"/><ref name="Ref3"/><ref name="Ref4"/><ref name="Ref5"/> and {{r|Ref1|Ref2|Ref3|Ref4|Ref5}}. I should also note that I do not use the page numbers feature—I do not have any interest in it, nor would I support keeping that feature... unless I saw a good argument in favor of keeping it.
2. If you want to claim that {{R}} is harmful because it makes adding references harder, then you can also make the same claim with LDR (list-defined references). To be honest with you, when I first started on Wiki, none of the articles I wanted to edit had a common referencing theme, and to my novice eyes, the documentation pages I found were far from helpful or informative (in 2008). I was self-taught by learning from examples on articles I liked. I noticed some articles have references hand-typed between ref tags, other used {{Cite}}, and other did the bad thing by not using in-line references. To address this, as I slowly work to re-write and standardize the lemur articles, I have added detailed notes and links to a large comment in the reference section of each article I take up and through FAC. Admittedly, a new editor will be confused by the use of LDR and {{R}}, but at least there is a brief explanation, consistency within and between articles I've written, and provided links to work off of. I've also added {{Maintained|{{user|Visionholder}} to the talk page to encourage people to contact me about the references and any other issue with the articles.

Yes, my use of LDR may differ slightly from what was intended since I name each and every one of my refs. But there is a reason for that. Lately, I have been working with large articles (e.g. Lemur, Subfossil lemur, Lemur evolutionary history, etc.) and keeping references organized is very important. I can't even begin to count the number of articles I've encountered, large or small, where references were duplicated two, three, or even four times, and obviously by different editors because different reference styles and format were used. As I organize my articles, I use LDR to keep all references together and I use the names to help keep them organized. That's why I typically name my refs in the format "YEAR AUTHOR" (e.g. "1997Godfrey"). I also tend to organize refs by journal, book, and web/other. Admittedly, if you look at the editing view of Lemur, I don't explain the organization in the References section, but I will when I've had enough time to work out all the kinks and managed to standardize most of the lemur articles. Like the rest of Wiki, the lemur articles are still very much a work in progress... even the FAs among them.

Could I live without {{R}}? Yes. It's not essential. But at this point, I don't see the point to this debate. I read the TfD for deleting the template, and didn't see any good reason for deleting this specific template. All the arguments against could be used against most of the reference templates and standards (confusing, unnecessary, redundant, etc.). I realize that people have strong preferences for how they do their references, sometimes based on literary standards, other times based on personal preferences. So far, that seems to be what this debate is about. Until someone can provide a better reason for deleting {{R}}, I would oppose it. I'm sorry, Philcha. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just read another another discussion listing your concerns. Again, the argument is a bit old, but since some comments received no reply, I figured I would try to address your concerns. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Citation formatters such as refTool would create a mix of <ref> and {{r}} citations.

I have not used refTool. However, I personally prefer to use {{r}} with LDR, which I doubt refTool supports either. If it does, then <ref> tags are still used, but in the References section, not in the body. It would be a moot point in this case. Also, I feel that has Wiki evolves, tools can be updated as needed. I realize that may not be a satisfactory answer, but for me, neither is the argument that "things can't change because it would break what we have in place." – VisionHolder « talk » 20:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

2) Edit box tools such as User:Cacycle/wikEd don't display it properly.

Again, why can't the tool be fixed? These tools manage to differentiate {{citation}} from {{cite journal}} from {{cite book}}, etc. I realize that macros can proliferate, and bots and other tools shouldn't have to grow to accommodate them all, but I still feel that until Wikimedia comes up with a better, built-in referencing system, {{r}} is generally useful, especially for people using LDR and should be simple enough to accommodate. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

3) {{r}} should be suspended until the bots that maintain citations have been tested with it.

I'm fine with that.... BUT... is there such a testing method in place and will someone actually do it, or is this just another way to table a template indefinitely? As for bots working correctly, they already muck up citations (using <ref>, not {{r}}) in the References section of the lemur articles I write. Did all the citation templates pass the same criteria? If so, suggest a new round of testing. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I realize that you have grown frustrated with editors slapping references with {{r}} into articles using <ref>. I completely agree with you there! For example, User:Ucucha and I review and collaborate with each other quite often, and he prefers to manually type his citations within <ref> tags and doesn't touch most templates, including {{cite}}. I now tend to LDR with {{Harvnb}} and {{r}} (with <ref> in the References section). I would not edit one of Ucucha's articles and start slapping in {{cite}} tags for a new reference. Instead, I follow his citation style. Likewise, he respects my citation style as well. I feel this is good etiquette. Is it confusing? Yes... but so is the difference between using <ref> and {{citation}} vs. <ref> and {{cite journal}} vs. <ref> and manual citations vs. LDR/{{Harvnb}}/{{r}}, etc., etc. We can't argue about standards when there are none. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

another format of indicating pages

Is there any other way of showing which page(s) I refer to (than this with^[1]:153-156)? I mean, that's not so pretty (although it's very good!). Can it be done like^[1] and the page number situated down at references?:

^ ^{a(153-156) b c} A Book of something.

This would be a lot clearer in the article. I'm asking mostly because of Polish Wikipedia, where I'm trying to do this. Vinne2 (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No— that would have to be added to the Cite software extension. See Template:Bug - Page number attribute for ref tags. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You can either type out the ref manually, or use {{harv}}, which supports page numbers, etc. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Now I see... So we have to wait, yes...? P.S. Well, the {{harv}} takes too much space and it's text is big. I think smaller is better. I mean the <sup>. Vinne2 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wrap it in <ref></ref> tags to get the same thing as {{r}}. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

He wants to include the page number in the backlink label— that cannot be done in the current version of cite.php. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I asked for q:D Vinne2 (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you create a Bugzilla account, you can comment on Template:Bug. You might want to do this, as I haven't seen a concrete example of how the page number should appear. I am not enthused about your proposal, but you can give it a shot. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Maximum of 5 consecutive references

Is there any specific reason why this template can only handle 5 consecutive references? I try to use this template for references as much as possible (and even built a "bot" to automatically convert an article to using LDR and R). But the problem is mostly on music articles that contain tons of genre references (sometimes up to 7 or 8 for one genre). Is there any reason why the max can't be any higher than 5? I'll even go in myself and add its ability if there isn't something more serious that will happen if the template allows for more reference calls. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 11:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Cancel that. The very error message that led me here invites the user to "edit it!". And so I did.  Done Template now allows 9 references (just for retaining a nice one-digit number. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 04:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

pages, pages1, pages2, etc.?

Is there any reason I shouldn't make pages, pages1, pages2,... be synonyms for page, page1, page2,...? Many times I thoughtlessly typed e.g. pages and since the result is that the parameter is just ignored (so the page number information is silently omitted e.g. you get ^[5] instead of ^[5]:220), with no error message to alert you, it would be easy to never realize there's something wrong without careful checking of the output. EEng (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. EEng 03:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Improved; added remaining numerical parameters to template code (you missed a few). Also updated documentation to make it more informative and prettier. I highly recommend utilizing the template sandbox and thoroughly testing changes before committing them to the live template, by the way.

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 07:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Good work. I don't dare make more than the tiniest change to a template at once. I fear, however, that R remains an acquired taste of the select few. Too bad, because it's so clean and so handy. The only thing I still really wish for is if list-defined refs could be rendered in the order in which they are defined, instead of according to first ref in the article. EEng 13:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

That's why the sandboxes are so handy—if you break the template, it doesn't affect anyone. As for rendering LDRs in whatever order is chosen for the list, I think there are folks working on that, but it's complicated. Surely that would only be helpful while editing, not for someone reading the article? It's critical that the notes appear in numerical order when viewing the article rather than editing it.

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 15:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No! If LDRs would come out in the order they appear in the list of definitions, then we could have refs alphabetized by author name, which would be a magnificent improvement to complex articles. Take a look at Phineas Gage. Another editor (Mirokado -- best technical guy you'll ever know -- worked very hard (see the Talk archives for that article) to fashion what I think is a pretty darn good way of doing something like that (and of course, as with most good ideas around here, some asshole will show up someday to say that all articles have to be the same so you can't do that). But I'd rather we could have just put the refs in a refs= section (or several of them actually -- one For General Readers, one for Researchers and Specialists, etc.) in author-alpha order, and have them come out in the article in the same way. EEng 15:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You're trying to reinvent a very old wheel. Footnotes have long been listed at the ends of pages or works in numerical order. The methodology used in Phineas is cluttering up the article's readability for the sake of organizing the footnotes, which is not the primary purpose of the existence of the article. Think of the reader, not the editor.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 15:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow you. This is for the reader. How is it cluttering the article? If you mean in the article text proper, I can't see what you mean, since what you get is exactly the same as what you get with {r}, except with alpha,^[M] or alpha-numeral,^[M1] callouts instead of just numbers.¹ (And, in fact, the alpha/alpha-numeral callouts are narrower, horizontally, than they'd be if the usual machinery was used, because all the most commonly-cited sources are a single character, instead of being two- and three-digit callouts, which they would be with the usual machinery.)

If you mean in the Refs section down at the bottom, again it's what you get with the usual machinery, except things are organized in a way to allow the reader to understand which refs might be appropriate for further reading or research, depending on what he's interested in. Or am I misunderstanding you? EEng 17:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have decided this is not my circus nor my monkeys. I'm opting out of this discussion.
—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 17:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Simplify?

Is there a reason that the parameter page= has to be spelled out? Wouldn't it be easier to eliminate the label and just pipe the page number, as:

{{r|foo|15}} to render as ^[1]:15

Additionally, the page= could then be utilized as it is in {{rp}}, to put the page number(s) in parentheses, rather than after a colon:

{{r|foo|page=15}} to render as ^[1](p15) and

{{r|foo|pages=15, 30}} to render as ^{[1](pp15, 30)}

It might also be nice to reduce page= to p= and pages= to pp=

{{r|foo|p=15}} to render as ^[1](p15) and

{{r|foo|pp=15, 30}} to render as ^{[1](pp15, 30)}

Just thinking about further reducing the clutter/size of articles. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 11:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Just realized that eliminating page= would break the functionality of stringing multiple ref names together. I've never used that feature, there's enough of a fight getting people to accept individual citations without it being more confusing. Just my 2¢.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 11:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only one using {r}: I think it's great! Not only is it cleaner in the source text than is < ref>< /ref>, but the superscript -type page #s are much better than having zillions of Harvard type footnotes saying, "Smith (1995), p. 5".

But I think it would be a huge mistake to do anything increasing the width of the rendered superscript, such as changing ^[1]:15 and ^[1]:15-6 to ^[1](p15) and ^[1](pp15-6). (If it were up to me even the colon would have been omitted in the first place i.e. ^[1]15.) If I'm reading you right you're proposing that |page do this but |p continue giving the old function, but that would change existing function.

I never knew {rp} had a {{rp|page=5}} flavor, which renders as -- I rarely use {rp}, but when I do I only use the {{rp|5}} form, which renders as . Even if there's some application for the form, it was absolutely stupid to trigger that with |page instead of some special syntax. EEng 21:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC) P.S. While we're here, what do you think about #pages, pages1, pages2, etc.??

I'm generally not in favor of a plethora of aliases, but understand how helpful they are in preventing errors.

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 01:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm with you on that in general, but thanks for understanding. Done. EEng 03:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

More shortened coding

I was bold and added the aliases |grp= and |g= for |group= to further shorten the coding seen by the editor and updated the documentation accordingly.

Please note that both EEng and I have labored mightily to make improvements and particularly update the documentation to be more robust, concise, clearer, and educational. Comments and/or criticisms from others would be welcome, however.

Thanks!

—D'Ranged 1 | VTalk :  13:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Good ideas! EEng 16:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

loc and redundant page/loc info? Feedback sought.

loc

Super-widely used so I'm hesitant to edit directly. Should we add support for 'loc=', to match the support in normal citations? I guess this would do it:

<includeonly>{{r/ref|{{{1}}}|{{{group|{{{grp|{{{g|}}}}}}}}}|{{{p|{{{p1|{{{page|{{{page1|{{{pp|{{{pp1|{{{pages|{{{pages1|{{{loc|{{{loc1|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}<!--

-->{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{r/ref|{{{2}}}|{{{group|{{{grp|{{{g|}}}}}}}}}|{{{p2|{{{page2|{{{pp2|{{{pages2|{{{loc2|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}<!--

I'm wanting to use loc= at Copyright_status_of_work_by_U.S._subnational_governments but it doesn't work. I'll use p= for now.

--Elvey^(t•c) 18:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Or not. Having counted and skimmed the !votes at the deletion discussion, I've decided I think the more standard, but less terse <ref> is better - and along the same lines, perhaps p= is better than loc=! --Elvey^(t•c) 18:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Bug? Or am I doing something wrong?

I love this template. But…

In North Presbyterian Church (Manhattan), I'm having a problem.

In the first subsection titled "Permanent home", at the end of the 3rd paragraph, there is a double footnote, using the R template. If I add the parameter "1=" to either value, I get the Cite error message: "Warning: North Presbyterian Church (Manhattan) is calling Template:R with more than one value for the "1" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used." If I add "2=" to either, there is no problem. And there is no problem adding both. This happens even if there is a "p1=" value. And it happens everywhere, not just in this example.

At the end of the subsection titled "Temporary quarters", there is a triple footnote. I can't add any number-parameter(s) without an error.

Thanks for any help you can give me. Vzeebjtf (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Since I haven't had my coffee, can you make an edit demonstrating the problem, then give the diff here? EEng 13:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure.

• (cur | prev) 00:54, 1 July 2016‎ Vzeebjtf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (58,286 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (undo)
• (cur | prev) 03:06, 28 June 2016‎ Vzeebjtf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (58,284 bytes) (-42)‎ . . (undo) Vzeebjtf (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

What's going on is that unnamed parameters are assumed to be 1=, 2=, etc. in the order they're found. Thus in

{{r|1=1885-03-14|1885-03-16}}

the 1885-03-16 is interpreted as 1=1885-03-16, and therefore you might as well have coded

{{r|1=1885-03-14|1=1885-03-16}}

Then, the second occurrence of 1= overrides the first, so the 1=1885-03-14 might as well not be there.

After long experience I've found it's best to have a separate {{r}} for each ref, especially when there's p= as well. I just had too many times where I mixed things up when adding or removing one of a several refs withing the same {{r}}, and separate {{r}}s are easier to absorb by eye when looking things over.

Welcome to the club of people who love {{r}}. There seem to be three of us now. EEng 15:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Might it be possible to fix the problem with the numerical parameters? Vzeebjtf (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess my explanation isn't that clear. When you mix numbered and unnamed parameters the way you're doing, you're going to run into trouble sooner or later -- this has to do with the way all templates work, nothing specific to {{r}}. If you insist, you could code

{{r|1=1885-03-14|2=1885-03-16}}

but why not code simply

{{r|1885-03-14|1885-03-16}}

or, as I'm recommending

{{r|1885-03-14}}{{r|1885-03-16}}

– ? EEng 13:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I get it. Thanks very much. Vzeebjtf (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You'll get my bill. EEng 18:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"Bundling" is a bad idea?

As mentioned in the thread just above this one, I stopped using the "bundled" forms long ago. The {{r|foo|bam|bar}} form is tolerable but of marginal value; but by introducing it we're forced to also explain forms like

• {{r|RefName|Bam|Bar|Bas|p1=100|p2=10–14|p4=§C}}
• {{r|1=RefName|2=Bam|3=Bar|4=Bas|p1=100|p2=10–14|p4=§C}}
• {{r|1=RefName|p1=100|2=Bam|p2=10–14|3=Bar|4=Bas|p4=§C}}

 – which I think are hopelessly overcomplicated to understand, a nightmare to maintain. I suggest we remove these from the main examples table and move them to the end as deprecated forms. EEng 16:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As one of the apparently three users of this template, I've never had a problem understanding the bundling with locations, but I can't say for certain how often I've used the feature/option. The problem with just moving them to a separate place in the documentation and calling them "deprecated" is that there is a specific meaning here attached to "deprecated" parameters. I added an "Equivalent to" statement in the complicated bundled example that should make it clearer as to how it works and provide the alternative to use multiple {{r|}} calls rather than bundling them. Hope that helps!

—D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  21:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(I like the changes you've made since I posted.) I don't have any real problem with bundling (though I've had a slipup or two) and I'm sure you don't either, because we know and love {r}. My concern is the effect of these quite confusing additional features on a potential adopter: "Look how complicated this gets!". Instead of deprecated, how about if we call those two rows Advanced? I still feel strongly that the first three rows show how simple and clean {r} is, and then #4 and #5 come along and make the reader's eyes go crossed, so I'd really like to move them to a separate "Advanced" table (or maybe just call it the "Bundling" table).

I guess under that philosophy we'd have to change the Comparison to < ref> examples as well. I don't know, maybe you and I are just shouting in the wind anyway. EEng 23:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

New quote feature

Kudos to Ahecht for adding the new |quote= feature. It's a shame only the elite few who use {r} in the first place will be able to enjoy it – paging D'Ranged 1, Mirokado(?), David Eppstein. And, of course, I wonder how long it will take readers to notice the little underlines. (Just to be clear, I'm not being sarcastic. It's really a shame more editors don't understand and use {r}. I love it – when I'm not using {{ran}} and {{rma}}, of course.) EEng 02:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I like {{r}} as a way of making the source code for the article text clean enough that I can read it and find the text I want to edit, and move the reference details to the reference section where they belong. But I don't particularly care for annotations on the in-text footnote markers, so I only use it in its basic form where the arguments are all refnames. Ran and rma are useful, too, but for more specialized purposes; I am currently using r much more frequently. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I use the |p= all the time, and while I don't see |q= seeing too much use, I can see how in a controversial article it's a good way to be transparent up front with the basis for a given passage. EEng 04:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I use specific page numbers within a source with a larger range of pages all the time, and quotes from sources less often but still regularly. I just prefer to put those with the rest of the reference in the references section rather than in the article text. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As you say, it is hard to notice hovering the mouse cursor to the dotted underlines will show the quoted text. And our guideline for accessibility is against the use of tooltips. It is a nice feature to have "quote" parameter, but how to display the information should be changed to be user-friendly. --Kusunose 09:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)