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)

John, the primary advantage of this method lies in the fact that when someone (either the original author or others) wants to edit or revise an article, they are not obstructed by all of the references cluttering up the edit window. That is, in my opinion, made very clear in the article. Evidently, when Mediawiki made this method available in their latest software version, they felt that it was quite useful.

As for putting in the brackets and the spaces between entries, that will become second nature in no time at all, don't you think?

In any event, you are free to use the old method is you so wish. As for the usefulness or simplicity being debatable, we all know that anything is debatable.- Milton Beychok 10:15, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

Added summary section

I added a summary section after the outline of how to do things. I felt I needed a pattern clearly displayed. John R. Brews 11:36, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

John, your summary section is helpful. I added some green coloring simply to keep it consistent with the rest of the article. I also changed the word "editor" to "writer" so that readers won't interpret "editor" as meaning a CZ "Editor". - Milton Beychok 12:33, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

Having added a few things, I now share your pride in this article. ☀ John R. Brews 12:51, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

Example references

I couldn't find the cited sources in the examples, so I replaced them with other sources and provided web links so the reader can check them out easily. John R. Brews 13:14, 15 May 2011 (CDT)

Background color of examples

John, I agree with almost all of your many edits. However, I replaced the original color for the "Example" section because I believe that having the example coding and example results in colored boxes (with a visible border) makes them stand out from all of the other explanation, style and rules.

If you think there is another light colored background that will blend well with the green parameters, then that would be satisfactory. But I do strongly prefer that the boxes and a light colored background should be used to catch the attention of readers and make the examples stand out from the rest of the article. Regards, Milton Beychok 13:38, 16 May 2011 (CDT)

Hi Milt: How's this? John R. Brews 19:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The color that is there as of this moment is not bad. But take a look with the color being #EEEEEE ... I think that would be somewhat better. Milton Beychok 19:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Milt: The color may depend on whose computer you use. On mine #EEEEEE is the same as the CZ page color on my machine. John R. Brews 20:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then let's leave it at #fffaf5. I think the color of any active window on a computer using the Windows operating system depends on the theme (skin) selected by the user and/or by the user's chosen color (under the Appearance setting) for the active windows. In other words, you and I might have identical computers with identical operating systems and identical browsers ... and still have different colors for the active windows if one of us chose differently than the other one of us. Milton Beychok 20:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

An excellent article and contribution to the project. Keeps getting better, too. Thanks to all who contributed. Anthony.Sebastian 13:38, 16 May 2011 (CDT)