This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rp template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 183 days ![]() |
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 17 December 2021. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep". |
Inline Templates | ||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
With regard to "Overuse of this template is seen by some editors as making prose harder to read." all u de d to in ((rp)). In the SI article we have "... languages[2]: 125 [3]: iii [4] and...". It's a little harder to parse the multiple sequential uses in "[2]: 125 [3]: iii [4]". Would it be possible to introduce separators and perhaps remove the blank spaces, as in "[2]:125;[3]:iii;[4]"? Or something like "[2](125)[3](iii)[4]" fgnievinski (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
|style=ama
to the template.
I'd like to suggest including in this article some guidance on spacing between an ((rp))
page number and a subsequent (adjacent) reference number – whether or not another ((rp))
is involved – for reasons of typographical aesthetics. As you know, in default two successive references look like this:
End of sentence.[1]:14[2]:99 Start of next sentence.
Inserting a thin space (equal to a narrow no-break space; also equal to half of a standard space) produces:
End of sentence.[1]:14 [2]:99 Start of next sentence.
For comparison (I think it's too wide), a single standard space produces:
End of sentence.[1]:14 [2]:99 Start of next sentence.
Over to you for discussion. :-). SCHolar44 (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I suggest getting rid of the apostrophe in the second numbered sub-paragraph under the "Intent" heading. It shouldn't be there – it's a greengrocer's apostrophe – and it confuses the meaning. Currently it reads:
Using a single
<ref ...>...</ref>
and followup<ref .../>
's with the samename=
and simply listing all of the pages cited, would result in ...
It can be eliminated with the following wording (please note also the deleted comma after "cited"):
Using a single
<ref ...>...</ref>
and subsequently<ref .../>
with the samename=
and simply listing all of the pages cited would result in ...
SCHolar44 (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I chanced upon ref extends a moment ago. The docs there state that this feature is only available in the beta cluster. But it might be worth mentioning in the documentation here that this is another possible solution, already in the pipe for special users, and perhaps in the pipe for everyone, someday. — MaxEnt 03:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
|ref=
feature of the CS1/CS2 templates already makes ((Rp))
effectively obsolete (and I say that as the author of the template). It was very much needed when first invented, but has really been surprassed now. For a crash course on effective use of |ref=
, see User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 199#Page-ception. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)SMcCandlish, I am not sure how it is nonsensical: for an individual, overuse either makes it hard to read, or it does not. If enough editors (who are readers, if not a perfect representation) have said it is hard to read, such that the point should be represented here, I don't understand the purpose of adding a layer of vaguery on top of it. Remsense留 23:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)