Template talk:Wikipediaref

Question

Why should this template always be subst:ed? Over at en.Wikipedia, we use templates like these all the time, but we wouldn't subst the template. EVula 06:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Originally it was just intended to simplify formatting. Now that this format is standard, though, I often find myself ignoring the recommendation to substitute. I think we could remove that recommendation now. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Extra Space

Please delete the <br />. (cf.: Please look at the blue box in The Society of the Spectacle) Or remove the protection.24.65.69.8 00:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont see a blue box. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The br tag is inside the noinclude tag; it does nothing but break out the template documentation from the template itself.
However, the full line-break between the end of the template and the noinclude tag is, indeed, causing an excess of whitespace when the template is used prior to a full line break. I've removed the template's excess space, as a regular transclusion will still insert a normal linebreak (instead of two, which is what's happening). I also watched several pages where the template is transcluded; it didn't have any adverse effects. EVula // talk // 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Replaced by Template:Plain sister?

Why does it say that this template is replaced by {{plain sister}}? the two templates are completely unrelated and don't serve the same purpose at all.

For example, Jack a Nory contains text copied from w:Jackanory, which {{Wikipediaref}} is ideal for citing. But linking the two articles with {{plain sister}} would be inappropriate since the articles are about two completely different things. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

See, this is why we should have deleted this template (and its three siblings that do the same thing slightly differently) rather than merely deprecating them (and not even removing existing usages). The text in the notes field shouldn't be cited or attributed; if it needs citation or attribution it is either too long, or too speculative, or… has other problems of that kind. So what that text is trying to say is that the legitimate use cases for this template have been replaced by {{plain sister}}. Incidentally, we should also look closer at {{plain sister}} itself because I suspect the advent of Wikidata and skin changes may have made all or parts of it obsolete too. Xover (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't really agree with your statement about citations in the text in the notes field ... it kind of goes against the attribution requirements of the CC license used by Wikipedia. Also, I find that often the notes field benefits significantly from a citation from a PD or CC source, e.g. Adeste Fideles. Also, there are other places where Wikipedia is quoted without being in the notes field, e.g. Author:Dionysius the Areopagite#Attributed works. Perhaps this would be something to discuss at WS:S, but I personally think that it's kind of tangential to the issue at hand, which is the deprecation of {{wikipediaref}}.

If I might make a suggestion: perhaps we should replace the attribution function of {{Wikipediaref}} with a new template (I am thinking {{WP link}} to match the other encyclopedia article link templates we have). Then, once the attribution function is properly split from the interwiki function, we can go through all the extant usages and update them accordingly. Finally, we can delete and be done with it :D —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)