Template talk:Cref

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wouldn't do it with named params. This complicates the use of that template considerably. --Ligulem 07:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] derivate works

I created {{hcref}} that shows a hovering comment. The idea is to shorten the in text reference to sth. like one character similar to the note style. Example:

test1[›]

^ test1: test3

a[›]

^ a: test3

Wandalstouring 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the text below

I am not quite sure why this text is there, "& #91;& rsaquo;& #93;" it produces "[›]", whats the purpose of this? ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗPeace Talks 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

it creates the symbol that clearly shows that cref is a reference/note. Wandalstouring 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see, I didn't know that. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗPeace Talks 13:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [›]

Can someone explain what the "[›]" is for? I'm going to remove it unless someone can explain the logic behind it. – Zntrip 04:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is the in the above comment. You can see it's relevance here [1].--Ѕandahl 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get it. It seems pretty useless. I looked at the Che Guevara article and I see no reason for it. – Zntrip 23:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I contacted another who may be able to explain the purpose of "& #91;& rsaquo;& #93;" better but with the cable breaks [2] it may take awhile to answer.--Ѕandahl 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Some reasons why the small arrow enclosed in brackets is necessary:
1. As explained above, it is needed in order to avoid ambiguity. Without it, the word that links to the footnote created by Template:Cnote looks like an ordinary wikilink that an editor has placed in superscript for some unknown reason. The small arrow enclosed in brackets is an indication to the reader that the "anchor word" that precedes it is a link to a footnote that will provide him with additional information related to that word as it is used within the specific article he is reading, not generalized information unrelated to the context of the particular article such as would be provided by a wikilink.
2. All Wikipedia footnotes use brackets (or, in some deprecated cases, parentheses). Please refer to Wikipedia: Footnotes and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. The notes created by Templates Cref and Cnote are Wikipedia footnotes. Therefore, the footnotes created by Templates Cref and Cnote need to use brackets.
3. Because the superscript font utilized by Template:Cref for the "anchor word" is so small, enclosing the "anchor word" itself in brackets very adversely affects the legibility of said superscripted "anchor word". Consequently, when I was creating the Cref/Cnote system, after experimenting vith various options I decided to use the method of putting a small arrow enclosed in brackets immediately after the "anchor word" in order to make it clear to the reader that it was a link to a footnote, but without detracting from the legibility of the "anchor word". I discussed this design with various other Wikipedia editors before making Templates Cref and Cnote available for general use, and they approved of it. Since then numerous other editors have chosen to use the Content Notes created by Templates Cref and Cnote that incorporate this design, i.e. with the small arrow enclosed in brackets at the end of the "anchor word", in hundreds of articles and I have never received any complaint about this design from any of them.
In view of the fact that User:Zntrip is so unhappy with the use of the small arrow enclosed in brackets -- which he described in the History page of Template:Cref as "stupid sideways carrot thing" (02:41, 31 January 2008) -- I would suggest that he develop his own system of footnotes and submit it to the Wikipedia community for their approval. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I’ll have to admit that the last paragraph did actually make me laugh out load. Thank you very much for your explanation. I believe I understand it all now. – Zntrip 01:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just come here to ask the same question - why? I don't buy into the arguments above that it's required to sow that it's a foot note. See the featured list List of West Midlands railway stations for an alternative that works perfectly well. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If you take a close look, you will realize that the text is within brackets. The text of cref and hcref is not. The brackets do indicate that it is a footnote, however, here it isn't the case, that's why a symbol in brackets is needed. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
So why not just put the text within brackets? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)