CZ Talk:List-defined references

Query by David Finn

When I tried this system in my sandbox I got the message

"Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found"

When I look at the explanation here, it reads in part

"<ref name=id/ >"

with a space after the /, but when I add the space it makes things worse.

What am I doing wrong?

Also I have a question - is it possible to mix this system and the reflist system? David Finn 16:15, 9 May 2011 (CDT)

David, you didn't read the coding in my example well enough. The list in the References section is part of a template that starts with {{reflist|refs= and ends with }}. Go to your sandbox at User talk:David Finn/countries ... its working now because I added those two things as you can see on the edit page of your sandbox.

I don't know if you can mix this variant of the reflist system with conventional reflist system. However, there are other things that you can do with the new system which I did not include in this article because I felt they were simply much too complicated. If you are interested, you can read WP:List-defined reference how-to guide. That's where I learned how to use this system which was just added here with the recent Mediawiki software upgrade by Dan Nessett.

Hope this answers your questions. -Milton Beychok 00:16, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

Cartainly does, thanks very much for that.

I see that the additional text you added is mentioned in the example of this article, but not in the main text. That's to say, I read the section called "Overview of how LDR works" and followed those instructions, but the extra part that I missed was in the example, further down. Maybe a note about it could be placed in the "Some rules" section?

I also tried adding the space that appears in your example after the refname=id/ to my own article and it messes up the format - is the space just a typo? I have left my sandbox that way in case you don't get what I mean. If you look at its history you will see I added just one space to make it the same as your instructions.

Ps I am sure I am explaining this badly - I have just changed the text of List-defined references page for you, and then reverted myself, so you will know which part of the text I mean. If I was incorrect please let me know! David Finn 01:26, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

David, one thing at a time. Do not add a space after the forward slash. In my example, I used a thin space just for aesthetics on the display page. On the edit page, for the part where I wanted the method to work, I did not use any space. If that confused you, it may confuse others .... so I will remove the misleading thin spaces from this article. Milton Beychok 10:41, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

As you suggested, I added a rule about the reference list must be within a template as shown in the example coding. Thanks for your review of this article. - Milton Beychok 11:19, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

Is this a simpler method

The claims that this method is simpler than the <ref></ref> method are debatable. The two are very, very much alike. The difference so far as I can see is only in the edit window, where the <ref></ref> method puts the bibliographic info within the article text, while this list-defined method sticks the same info in the same format at the ed of the editing window.

Here is the list-defined method as seen in the edit window:

Here is the reference in the text to Kline<ref name=Kline/>, with some following text. No bibliographic info inside the text is seen in the edit window. References {{reflist|refs= <ref name=Kline>{{cite book |title=Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times, Volume 3 |chapter=Chapter 51: §2: The paradoxes of set theory |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=8YaBuGcmLb0C&pg=PA1183 |author=Morris Kline|edition=Paperback reprint of 1972 ed |isbn=0195061373 |year=1990 |pages=pp. 1183 ''ff'' |publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>}}

and here is the <ref></ref> method as seen in the edit window:

Here is the reference in the text to Kline<ref name=Kline> {{cite book |title=Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times, Volume 3 |chapter=Chapter 51: §2: The paradoxes of set theory |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=8YaBuGcmLb0C&pg=PA1183 |author=Morris Kline|edition=Paperback reprint of 1972 ed |isbn=0195061373 |year=1990 |pages=pp. 1183 ''ff'' |publisher=Oxford University Press}} </ref> with some following text. Bibliographic info inside the text is seen in the edit window, and is separated from the text with blank lines to avoid distraction. These blank lines don't show up in the actual article text. References {{Reflist}}

Both produce exactly the same article text, so the reader can't tell them apart. The reduction of clutter in the edit window is a plus for the list-defined method, but on the other hand, there are some extra steps in setting up the list (putting in brackets, remembering spaces between entries). I'm inclined to suggest that no real distinction between the methods exists with regard to simplicity. If I have missed the simplicities, maybe the article could point them out more emphatically? John R. Brews 08:58, 13 May 2011 (CDT)