Template talk:Reflist

src: 4.bp.blogspot.com

Video Template talk:Reflist

Using <references responsive/> to manage number of columns

We have begun getting MediaWiki's new reference column manager in use, with edits replacing {{reflist}} as in this edit. The responsive parameter automatically displays columns depending on the width of the viewer's screen. mw:Contributors/Projects/Columns for references recommends changing local templates such as reflist to take advantage of this feature. Can we do this? StarryGrandma (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We began some time ago. I implemented a version in Template:Reflist/sandbox3 on 17 March 2017, (as well as an earlier version in Template:Reflist/sandbox2 to deal with the deprecated |2 and |3 parameters). Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I'm not trusted to update Template:Reflist, and nobody who has the permissions to do so has shown any interest in implementing any of the sandbox versions I provided. The discussion therefore tailed off (as usual) and it got archived into Template talk:Reflist/Archive 29 where you can see what was discussed and demonstrated. So the answer to your question is "Yes we can do this" ("but we'd rather debate the niceties than actually implement a solution"). --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: We need to be a bit careful with this, because of how widely this template is used. I figure we should start small, and I converted the sandbox version, to use the automatic responsive mode (use columns if using more than 10 references) when no columns have been specified. This also should give this template a defined setting for the responsive option, and then maybe we can later switch the default for when responsive option is unspecified. That would be beneficial, for the cases where no reflist template is being used. I'm willing to take this stuff forward. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 20:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been experimenting with {{Reflist/sandbox2}} and {{Reflist/sandbox3}}. What about creating a "reflistR" template to get some experience with it on a small scale? It could be used instead of <references responsive />. The issue with such a template has two parts: 1) Adding automagically wrapping. 2) Removing features such as specifying number of columns and width of columns. Editors have been doing bulk edits replacing number of columns with column width in recent years, so that seems to be going away. I would be opposed to not letting editors specify column width however. 20em, for example, is very useful for shortened footnotes and would cause quite a stir if it went away. "responsive" seems to have chosen a single column width a bit wider than our standard 30em or 32 em. Has there been any talk on the WikiMedia side about allowing the user to specify column width for "responsive"? StarryGrandma (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: Removing fixed columns seems to be pretty uncontroversial, and can easily be done using the work of RexxS. I think that would be reasonably uncontroversial by now (as having been deprecated for some time now). Adding width specification however is something that is a bit more way out (which is why I implemented my sandbox changes the way that I did). There is some discussion on that topic in phab:T160498, but I don't think we should wait for that, it can still take quite some time. Incremental steps are good, let's not try to solve every problem at once. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 12:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a limited version of RexxS changes (without narrow and wide keywords) to the the primary sandbox. I've removed the narrow and wide keywords, as I felt that we had not seen enough discussion on that front to truly determine if that was going to be useful and uncontroversial. Results can be evaluated on Template:Reflist/testcases. Feedback welcome. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 13:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

ping RexxS. I'd love your feedback. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 14:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, TheDJ, I've intended to look through it and leave you some feedback, but Mike Peel has been keeping me busy with Lua/Wikidata for the last few days. Anyway, it seems to me that your sandbox code does just what we wanted: it picks up all the deprecated |2, |3, etc. and gives them sensible column-widths; it turns on responsive when there are no parameters (and I believe you can still force non-responsive by using |1). Colwidth, the groups and lower-alphas, etc, all seem to work as expected. I agree about the narrow and wide keywords, but I originally wrote the code anyway so that it would be easy enough to re-instate them if consensus were established. If nobody else comments and objects in the next day or so, I'd recommend that you go ahead and update the main template from the sandbox. I'll look out for the change and try to catch any issues after deployment if you don't get there first. Nice work! --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have just deployed this. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 08:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheDJ: I just noticed that it's working and came here to search. Sort of a dream come true for me, haha. Reflist|2 now displays 3 columns and it was sorta weird to me, heh. So what now? Is there going to be a bot to remove all instances of reflist|2, 3 and 4? --Jennica? / ^talk 19:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this doesn't work with <references /> or <references/>. Not sure if anybody is aware.--Jennica? / ^talk 07:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It does if you use <references responsive /> or <references responsive=1 />. That's the point of this thread - the new responsive attribute needs to be present, but not as responsive=0. --Redrose64 ? (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ So is reflist going to be phased out and replaced with this down the road? Why not just change <references /> to reflist since it will display columns that way? Sorry for all the questions. --Jennica? / ^talk 11:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Because {{reflist} is just a complicate wrapper around <references />, with additional features (variable column width, alternate list styles etc). We also want to switch the default for <references /> to have columns, but that required doing this work first, because the two column systems are not compatible, so we need to have it disabled here first. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 13:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Just came across this, well, for lack of a better word, awe - some! upgrade while editing an article (did a double take on a Reflist template with no params and a two-column display). Thank you all beyond words!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thie is excellent, elegant ... but the documentation needs updating! -- Stanning (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Was wondering myself if the new default is 25 or 30em?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Automatic columns uses 30em (and only works if you don't specify an explicit width). I've update the documentation a bit to reflect this. The long term plan is to make it possible to also have automatic column mode be able to handle other column sizes, but for now, we fallback to our previous behaviour, of creating columns regardless of the amount of references. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 15:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

30em is a good default. Probably that automatic arbitrary column sizes are mostly unnecessary, except perhaps for 20em which is very useful when most footnotes are short (i.e. for sfn/harvnb), or no columns at all if the notes are really long (i.e. can occur with efn/non-source notes)... And thanks for working on this. --PaleoNeonate - 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheDJ: phab:T160497 changes it to default to 25em to sync with mobile, presumably to-be-deployed Soon. --Izno (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• +1 on this, regards Widefox; talk 20:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• This is genius.-- TAnthony^Talk 17:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Dito, ditto, ditto. I'm shocked that something this sensible and useful didn't meet with kamikaze-like opposition. EEng 21:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

With a 25em default, hell may break loose! --PaleoNeonate - 21:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully not that much. 25em still displays 3 columns on my screen. 20em does 4. --Jennica? / ^talk 22:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

25em is only for mobile. That ticket still had an older description, which made it kind of confusing. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 22:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• @TheDJ: Hi, I'm noticing some unsightliness on this page. What is recommended in such situations? Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  Avoid using <blockquote> for quotations in references. It really doesn't apply. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Izno: Removing the quote tag hasn't really helped. Besides, is there a rule in the manual of style somewhere that states that footnotes should not use the quote template? It's quite possible that there are a number of other articles that do the same thing. (And it's curious that talk pages have an inline quote template but articles do not.)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Cpt.a.haddock: Blockquotes are for long quotes--which are typically defined using paper media (your standard 8.5 in × 11 in) as 3-4 lines or greater in length after (before?) indenting to indicate a blockquote. Our MOS at WP:Blockquote indicates 40 words or greater. A single sentence is not a blockquote. If you're quoting that much in a citation, you've also probably missed the point of a citation (which is to identify where your information is presented, not the information itself). I can guarantee there are other uses of blockquotes as I've fixed others. I don't know what you mean by "talk pages have an inline quote template but articles do not". --Izno (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do know what he meant by talk pages have an inline quote template but articles do not. EEng 18:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant :) Anyhow, that's a discussion for elsewhere. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Anyway, the display issue in the article is now due to how long the quote is (without the blockquote formatting). There is essentially no way to get around this without removing or lessening the length of the quotation, because of how browsers work. You'll either need to specify a width to the columns you want using a {{reflist}} rather than <references> tag, add more citations (and content) to "balance" the citation content, or accept the display as-is. --Izno (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Thank you. I treat citations on WP the same way as I treat footnotes in books. Footnotes in print can run across many pages. But I see that there's a {{efn}} alternative that might be more suitable for that. While a word count for blockquotes makes sense, I'm not sure that having a requirement of x lines does. In any event, my issue appears to be resolved. Thanks :)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Considering that this is not only a quote, but also a note ("Assuming that the total strength ..."), {{efn}} could be used for this one and a Notes section with a {{notelist}} would allow to isolate that one outside of the shortened footnotes. --PaleoNeonate - 15:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: While I'd been aware of the existence of this option, I'd never actually seen it in action (which is unsurprising as it's only been used 36190 times). This is very neat. Thank you! And from the looks of it, {{notelist}} is not automagically responsive as of yet.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome; {{notelist}} is the equivalent of {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} and it defers to reflist, so I think that it is responsive, but that columns would only be used if there were enough notes to require them (I could be mistaken). --PaleoNeonate - 18:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I can confirm that {{notelist}} is responsive too. It appears that you have to have greater than 10 items to trigger the multi-column feature which I didn't the last time I tried.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to switch default for references element

Now that Reflist sets an explicit responsive setting, I have started a proposal to switch the default behaviour of <references /> to automatic column mode. --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 09:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The village pump discussion about modifying <references /> into columns is still ongoing. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Reflist

More clarification

Ok, I am completely ignorant on these matters (Im a content creater in Israel Palestine matters), but I usually use {{reflist|25em}} on the articles I edit, as that gives an ok appearance of refs for my 13 inch Mac Air.

Today, admin :Number 57 started changing {{reflist|25em}} to {{reflist}} stating that "{{reflist}} has recently been upgraded to automatically switch to the most appropriate width so you no longer need to add the |em part to make columns."

And that this would probably be done by bot, soon.

But {{reflist}} only give one loooooong column for the refs for me. How do we solve this? Huldra (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I said I suspect a bot would be commissioned to do this at some point. I have no idea whether one will or not, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it done. Number 57 21:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: The |em parameter still works. I was doing similar "corrections" but was reminded that we should not be undoing specifically-set column widths arbitrarily (see discussion above, and my talk page). We should only be removing specifically deprecated or unsupported parameters, like |3 or |2. Thanks.-- TAnthony^Talk 22:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I knew it still works but I assumed it was now unnecessary. Number 57 22:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Do the articles you're having trouble with have less than 10 citations? I'm surprised you're seeing such a drastic difference in column generation, since the default is 30em.-- TAnthony^Talk 22:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: No, most have between 10 and 20, but Bayt Jibrin has 85, which is definitely among the largest number of refs Huldra (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the problem here is that the size of the browser window on Huldra's 13 inch Mac Air is small enough that the default 30em width doesn't fit multiple columns, while 25em that Huldra had been using makes columns that are narrow enough to fit. Anomie? 23:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect the same. And, for medical reasons (please don't make me elaborate) I cannot use a full scale screen. (I can email you the reason, if you really need to know.) Huldra (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+What are the chances we could turn this into a user pref? 30em is reasonable for many users, but not all, and is somewhat arbitrary. Any number we pick is guaranteed to be wrong for at least one user. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: I have no need to know. @Kendall-K1: Seems unlikely to me. But it should be easy enough to override in your common.css, probably something like this will do it:

HTH. Anomie? 00:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Those of you who set a specific colwidth (or worse, image size) different from the default because it looks best on your screen remind me of this Dilbert comic: [1] Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Jeez Louise. The column-width parameter, if it's used, should be keyed to the size of the references themselves e.g. if there are many elaborate, long refs (or for textual footnotes) you might use |35em, but if you've got a lot of little refs (such as Smith (2015), p. 5) you might use |20em or 25em. The size of anyone's screen has nothing to do with it (as it obviously can't anyway). EEng 00:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. I had the impression Huldra wanted something different from this, but maybe I misunderstood. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of specifying a column width in ems is that it alters as the text size alters, so screen, viewport size, resolution and zoom have no effect on the average number of characters in a column. The reason why we give editors the ability to choose the minimum column width is precisely the reason EEng#s gives. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"Reflist" is more usually "Citelist". If you're using it to list references, then I stick with 35em, based on the usability studies work for long lines (of any material) becoming hard to read. I expect them to wrap. If it's listing citations, to references that are in another list, then they can go much narrower - even though they probably won't even need to wrap in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Some comments:

1. I really don't understand why people think something like 35em should change to the default. A default is a fallback, not a specification of what something "should be". It certainly shouldn't be done with some forethought and discussion.
2. IF we would ever standardize more on widths that we currently do, it will be with presets like "narrow/normal/large". This has already been discussed and looked at, but it is not happening at this moment (specifically because I wanted to avoid these kinds of discussions that we seem to have right now).
3. Never adapt a size to fit your personal screen size, because doing something for yourself inside article content is selfish (you are more important than all the others reading the article?). Instead adapt your CSS to override something specifically for you, or bring it to the template's talk page and discuss how to make something adapt to different screensizes.
4. Similarly and opposed to that. If you think that 35 em or 15em means you will always get that, then you are equally misguided, as these settings are for Desktop only. Mobile, books, print, Apple dictionary, wikix and the dozens of other formats that render Wikipedia content, might (and often do) use different settings.

greetings --TheDJ (talk o contribs) 18:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• A. Virtually all of the articles I edit have references of the short type: "Morris, 2004, p. xix", "Socin, 1879, p. 151"...just to mention a couple from Al-Dawayima. The full reference is then given in a Bibliography section at the end. Typically, an article has from 10 to 25 references.
• B. {{reflist|25em}} has worked well for this format...at least no-one has complained until now.
• C. I understand that I could change my common.css to the above, and always see it in a |25em format. Alas, that presuppose that I would be logged in, does it not?
• D. is there any fundamentally strong reason why {{reflist|25em}} cannot remain in these article? Huldra (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: If an article has mainly short references in the References section, then you are absolutely right to set {{reflist|25em}} as it will set a minimum column width large enough to prevent most references being wrapped, but narrow enough to avoid large blocks of white space. That is eminently sensible and will have the same effect for all readers (except logged-in users who have custom css), so you're improving the readability of the article for everyone, regardless of screen size, resolution, etc. That is one very good reason why {{reflist|25em}} should remain in the article (not to mention the effort that TheDJ and others have put into making that flexibility available). A similar argument applies to articles that have mainly very long references: setting {{reflist|35em}} (or perhaps more) would help to keep the long references more readable. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit that I completely misunderstood what you were asking for. I thought you were saying you had some kind of medical condition that required narrower than normal columns. The one example I saw, Bayt Jibrin, is a mix of short and long citations, and could go either way. It sounds now like you're just asking why you can't use 25em for an article with short cites. I would say this is exactly why we allow you to change the col width, and you are doing it right. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: LOL, no my medical condition just makes me dependent on a light little computer like Mac Air, I cannot use desk computers, at least not for long.Huldra (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: Absolutely, thanks. I will keep it like this then, at least for now,Huldra (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

src: www.jimmunol.org

Default number of columns

AFAICT This edit (Revision as of 08:03, 8 July 2017) by user:TheDJ made a fundamental change in the default format of this template. Previous to this edit if no width parameter was given then the number of columns was set to one, now it is set to 25em and while that is desirable for some formats (such as short citations that only contain, one author, year and page number it is not a desired format for full citations.

So I am going to remove set the default back to what it has been for years (one column), and if a change to multi columns is to be made it needs to be done through the consensus to change as shown throught a well attended RfC. @user:TheDJ if you initiate such an RfC please let me know by leaving a message on my talk page. -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you didn't understand what you did after all. The changes you made in these edits are only changing the behavior of the template in case of a specified number of columns where that number is greater than 2 (i.e. {{reflist|3}}, {{reflist|4}}, and so on). Your edits have no effect on what you're apparently complaining about here, which are the changes made per #Using .3Creferences responsive/> to manage number of columns and the in-progress Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automatic column mode for references element. Please, PBS, don't fool around with live edits to heavily-used templates. At the very least use a sandbox to check your edits before making them. Anomie? 12:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, DJ's edit had consensus on this talk page. Your edit was completely unwarranted without further discussion. --Izno (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Izno This is a very widely used template, consensus among a few editors who watch this talk page is not a broad consensus. Until there is a broad consensus, there is not consensus for such a large change (defaulting to multicolumn instead of one). Besides if you follow my argument below you will see that the current behaviour is probably a bug/error in the coding.

@Anomie The fix I put in place fixed my problem, but I had not considered the issue of an editor putting in more than two columns (as I have never seen it), and I have edited thousands of different pages. However on looking at the issue further I think that there is a bug in the following code. here is the snippet

• {{#tag:references|{{{refs|}}}|group={{{group|}}}|responsive={{#if:{{{1|}}}{{{colwidth|}}}|0|1}}}}

The issue is {{{1|}}} see mw:Help:Parser functions in templates, so that test needs to be changed to {{{1}}}

• {{#tag:references|{{{refs|}}}|group={{{group|}}}|responsive={{#if:{{{1}}}{{{colwidth|}}}|0|1}}}}

at the moment if {{reflist}} is called like that, it defaults the width to 25em rather than usual default of behaving like {{reflist|1}}.

- PBS (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The effects of this change have now been seen widely. If there had been opposition, we can be sure it would have been voiced. When I noticed it, I agreed, but didn't register my support formally here. For the record, I now do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't see how the "fix" you tried to put in place actually fixed your issue, especially when you claim to have never considered someone specifying more than three columns. The bit of code you were messing with only takes effect in that situation. Your claim that the test needs to change to {{{1}}} is not correct either, the test is working as intended (just not as you'd like it). Also, BTW, the default width is 30em on the desktop site, not 25em.

Again, see #Using .3Creferences responsive/> to manage number of columns above where several people commented in support of the change after it was made a month ago. It might, maybe, have made sense to revert it when the change was made a month ago. At this point, after it has been live for some time and praised by several other editors, it's a bit late to try to do so. Anomie? 19:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with making width 30em or 25em or getting four columns if first parameter is set to 2. This means users wanted 2 columns. Only if number is greater than 5 or 10, then it might be ignored and set to 25em because there are no that much wide normal screens that would properly display 10 columns of references nor article with that much references that needs more than 5 or 10 columns. --Obsuser (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Selecting a fixed number of columns had been deprecated a long time ago. Given the wide range of screen widths, this selection was never a good idea, and overriding it is a good thing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. --PaleoNeonate - 23:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Having no columns has been the default since the project started, and I do not see a broad consensus for change. -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot you don't see, such as how ensconcing criticism of oneself in a big green collapse box merely draws more attention to it. EEng 10:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: did you follow the earlier discussion above which noted the recommendation at mw:Contributors/Projects/Columns for references? I believe we are merely falling in line here, not doing something controversial with this template.-- TAnthony^Talk 14:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

src: farm3.staticflickr.com

Template size limit?

Is there a limit on the number of citations an article may use? The article List of 2017 albums seems to have hit a size limit. It currently has 1,284 citations. There are at least two articles with more citations, List of cult films with 1,610 citations, and List of Australian treaties with 2,136 citations, and both these article show all the references below, but 'List of 2017 albums' is currently showing Template:Reflist and no citations. When I make an edit and look at the preview, a warning is listed that states"Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." The article currently calls out the reflist by stating {{reflist|30em}}. If I change the call-out to {{reflist}}, the size warning is still there, but it will show all but the last three references. For those last three references, instead of the citation, it shows #invoke:citation/CS1.

Note: (To invoke the reflist template, the double '<' would be replaced with a double '{', but I cannot use the double '{' in the talk page without activating the template).

If there is a size limit for reference citations, can it be increased? If there is a size limit, why does 'List of cult films' manage to list 326 more citations without running into a listing error?

I think this is a problem for the programmers rather than administration, but I think this talk page is the appropriate place to raise the issue. I hope someone can help. Thank you. Mburrell (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mburrell: This isn't an issue of this template really, but more of templates generally. See WP:TLIMIT. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mburrell: I agree with Nikkimaria, it's a template limit problem. The article List of cult films contains a significant proportion of references that are bare urls, i.e. those particular references don't use citation templates, so that article falls short of hitting the limit on number of templates. Similarly, List of Australian treaties uses hardly any templates, so doesn't encounter the problem. If someone attempted to update those articles to use citation templates (to ease maintenance and help guard against WP:Linkrot), those articles would hit the same limit that you've encountered. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I suggested to my article users that we split up our article due to the template limitations. This looks like a constant rather than variable limit and I guess we just bounced into the limit ceiling. Thanks for pointing to the right definition page. Mburrell (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mburrell: To name a template in a talk page without activating the template, use the {{tlx}} template. --Redrose64 ? (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia