The superscript links to the footnotes are already quite bulky, especially in controversial articles where some statements are followed by four or more three digit numbers. Rather than adding to the size of the footnote links, it would be better, IMO, to find a way to add the page numbers into the footnote itself. It also makes more sense from a data layout point of view. The other information about the reference (author, date, etc.) is in the footnote itself, so why should page numbers be in the footnote number instead of the footnote itself? Gronky 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard referencing, which is used by journals all over the world, and is certainly a well-respect and -accepted referencing style in Wikipedia itself, puts the page numbers in the (sometimes superscripted, sometimes not) inline reference citations. I think you have picked a much, much larger fight that you think. :-) The scientific community, who use Harvard referencing massively, do not seem to have any "data layout" problems with it. The underlying issue is not this template at all, which simply enables such citation styles with the presently rather technologically deficient <ref> and <references /> MediaWiki citation code.

This template isn't very frequently used, so the problem you envision isn't likely to arise much if at all. And frankly, how problematic could it really be? Is there any serious difference between

• Blah blah blah,^{[7][8][9][14][17][37][38][42][43][124]} yack yack yack

and

• Blah blah blah,^{[7][8][9][14]:23-25 [17][37][38][42][43][124]} yack yack yack

? I don't see one.

If {{rp}} ever became so broadly used that it was seen all over the place and was genuinely annoying, this would simply spur The Developers to fix <ref> and <references /> to be more useful, and a bot would do the conversion within a few days of the new features going live. The {{rp}} template solves actual problems well-explained in its documentation. A few extra inline characters are far, far preferable to a 400-character reference citation no one can read, or 50 redundant reference citations doubling the length of the page for no good reason; there isn't any problem adding page numbers to references directly inside <ref>, on a limited basis; as the documentation explains, the code simply isn't presently in place to allow one to cite a single reference at multiple specific pages or page ranges, without making either one kind of mess or the other, without using this template. Again, as the template's own dox explain, page numbers normally should be in the body of the reference citation; {{rp}} is for a special case (and my quick review of "What links here" shows that it is not being abused and applied to other than that case). No enmity intended at all, but I find it hard to take your objection as anything but a "what if it were abused" point, which leads me to cite WP:BEANS - we don't need to worry about things that are not demonstrably problematic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem between the two examples you give is that the first can be collapsed if multiple numbers link to the same book (when someone fixes the reference system to allow this), but the latter can't. As for Harvard does X, Harvard journals probably don't try to write articles about Hugo Chavez with 100 authors :-) I agree that this template isn't the problem, but it seems to be developing tools for heading down a wrong path, so I'd like to discuss this with the tool makers in these early stages. Gronky 09:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the problem between" the two examples; do you believe the examples conflict with each other? Getting the developers to fix this problem would be great; I don't know any of them by name, myself, and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) doesn't seem to be particularly effective at getting anything fixed (maybe I didn't try long/hard enough). As this template's dox say explicitly, it is intended that this template be replaced by better <ref></ref>, <ref /> and <references /> functionality. PS: I wasn't talking about what Harvard journals do, but what Harvard referencing does, and that Harvard referencing is one of several accepted citation styles on Wikipedia. I'm not even a huge fan of it, but its inline page numbers in references is the only way presently around the <ref> limitations problem, in the particular circumstance of an article citing the same source many times at different source pages/page ranges (as at Glossary of cue sports terms which cites Shamos 1999 again and again and again. See the talk page at that article for the "origin story" of this template, in fact. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from the viewpoint of reading articles: the recommendations for WP:rp at present suggest that it should only be used if there are a great many references to different pages in the same work. I find it useful even if there are only 2 references, as I can see in the text that the two references are from the same work. And there is one comprehensive entry in the list of references, no need to put "Smith (2004)", then have to find the comprehensive information elsewhere. I can see the problems with a great long list of references interrupting the text and won't argue my case there (though personally I don't think it a serious problem). I find that this template solves a problem that I had been thinking about for a while; until I found it I was going to suggest that multiple page numbers from one work were a problem (for which I didn't have a solution). This template may not be the best thing since sliced bread, but it's certainly the best thing since ref. Pol098 (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Query answered.

Is there any way to have the page numbers appear next to the letter of the note in the references/footnotes section rather than in the body beside the number? LaraLove 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; the display of stuff in the <references /> (or {{Reflist}}) section is entirely determined by the core MediaWiki software. There are alternative means, however. You may be looking for {{Ref harv}} (though I warn you that the {{Ref}}-based citation system is very geeky and a bit complicated.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No consensus against this template; wrong venue.

The better solution to the footnote problem that you correctly identify is to put short form citations in footnotes (at least when a single reference is cited multiple times with different pages), and putting full references in a bibliography. I see this being done in some articles that have a Notes or Footnotes section followed by a References or Bibliography section. This template has nothing to do with Harvard referencing, which uses inline, parenthetical short form references to a source plus page numbers, and leads the reader to a bibliography for full citation of the source. Harvard referencing is another, MoS-approved solution to the problem you identify, which does away with the footnotes.

While innovation and creativity are to be cherished, innovation that is contrary to accepted conventions sows confusion. I am not aware of any accepted citation system that uses a footnote call followed by page numbers. Are you? I have never seen this citation system used in any form of printed publication. Have you? How is the typical Wikipedia reader supposed to know what these numbers trailing the inline footnote calls are (at least p. or pp. would be a clue)? And, it is typographically ugly. And, it is typographically horrid between consecutive footnote calls. In the absence of support in a referencing system that Wikipedia endorses, use of this referencing system (with or without the template) is against the MoS, and should be. Please consider withdrawing this template and fixing the footnotes in the relatively small number pages in article space that use it. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, de facto: This is the only solution for now. When I say "multiple times" I don't mean 5 times. I mean 105 times. Putting "short form" ibid. type citations does not solve the problem; you'll still end up with a refs or notes section screens and screens long. As the template's documentation clearly says, it is not for general, but rather exceptional, usage. It is principally for use in glossaries with one major reference used to source a hundred or more individiual entries (Glossary of cue sports terms will certainly be one of these when Fuhghettaboutit and I get done sourcing it down to every last entry; still a work in progress). It has also been sanely used at article that cite one source a dozen times or whatever but also cite many, many other sources, resulting in a strong desire to not have any redundant refs section entries.

This template has been in use for many months now with virtually no objections, and was quite heavily "advertised", in case anyone would object to it, ergo it is now one of the "accepted conventions" "that Wikipedia endorses", per WP:CONSENSUS. Some day (don't hold your breath) the developers will make the <ref> system more functional, and this can all simply be done away with. Until then, we do what we have to. How is the typical reader to know? The same way they know what it means in "(Johson 1994:14-17)". If you wish to use this template and are concerned that the readers would be confused, you can always just add "p." or "pp."; I wouldn't do that, but I can only speak for myself, and this template was intentionally designed so that the field was flexible (it has to be for other reasons, because some pages do not have numbers and have to be identified by other means, e.g. "frontispiece").

It is not "against" the MoS. I edit the MoS more than probably anything else here (and more than anyone else other than User:Tony1, probably, other than the last few weeks; been busy offline), so I know its intent pretty well. This is a workaround for a technical problem, in addition to, that is, supplementing, what the MoS and WP:CITE have to say about reference citations. I appreciate that it somehow just seems to bug you, but there isn't really anything to be done about that in the short term; the root problem is the MediaWiki software's limitations, which I really, really hope get worked on in this regard soon, but I'm not betting on it. It is better for the encyclopedia for one editor to be annoyed by a workaround, than for a great many readers to be annoyed by articles with reams and reams of redundant citations ("The good of the many..."). It solves the problem it needs to solve for now, and I have to think that you have more important concerns than this. :-) I agree it is not the most ideal thing in the world, but many things on WP aren't, right?

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I also have to note that this cannot logically be argued both ways. Your anti-Rp position is (in part) "it's hardly used on any templates", ergo somehow not worthy; this is a Wikipedia-internal combination of the underlying problems with the WP:AADD#This number is big or not big enough, WP:AADD#I've never heard of it, and WP:AADD#Nobody's working on it deprecated arguments, (with a strong dose of evident WP:AADD#I don't like it as well, from what I can tell). Meanwhile the only other Rp detractor I can recall, Gronky up top, essentially makes the opposite argument, that it is "bad" because it might spread to articles all over the place. The template dox themselves thwart the latter, and with regard to the former argument, this template is intentionally not widely deployed; it is a special tool for special circumstances. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear S: I know you are very intelligent, so please do not misrepresent what I say or raise inapplicable objections, while failing to address the specific criticisms that I did make.

I did not say that your system is bad because it is only used on a handful of pages. I gave several reasons why your system is bad, and said that fortunately it would be easy to clean up the mess because it is only on a handful of pages. I did not say that your system is bad because WP:AADD#I've never heard of it. I said it is bad because it is not used anywhere in the real world, so no one has heard of it or will know what to make of it. I invited you to show me where it is used elsewhere; you didn't. Many people already know Harvard referencing (for the reasons you so eloquently state), and it is documented on Wikipedia (and elsewhere), and it is fairly intuitive. No one will have a clue what your numbers following the footnote calls mean because no one has ever seen anything like them. It is true, obviously, that I don't like it, but I gave specific reasons. Your position is, essentially, "I [you] like it, that is why I invented it," so pity the reader who cannot decipher it.

The only solution you say? Books and journals of all types do just fine without resorting to anything like what you propose. How is your system preferable to the example below my signature, which is a standard format, which the current footnote system can do, and which most everyone would understand? If there is more than one reference by one author, there are many ways to distinguish them (such as by year or abbreviated title). Scat singing uses Harvard references in footnotes followed by a bibliography; that is a perfect solution and requires no invention. By the way, ibid. should never be used on Wikipedia because any editor can insert another footnote between the first citation and the ibid., so the latter will point to the wrong ref. Op. cit. works fine, however.

Have you discussed your idea at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, where citation methods are discussed, and where some very knowledgeable people hang out? Care to try it out there, and see what reactions you get?

By the way, one big problem with the MoS, which should be relatively stable, is that hobbyists are continually hacking away at it. Two or three people agree on some little change and declare themselves a consensus when no one else is paying attention.

Won't you please reconsider your position on this? Thanks. Finell (Talk) 10:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example of another solution:

Footnotes

¹Ball p. 47.

²Devlin pp. 108–12.

³Devlin p. 217 n. 8.

References

Devlin, Keith (1994). Mathematics: The Science of Patterns. New York: Scientific American Library. ISBN 0-7167-5047-3.

Ball, W.W. Rouse (1960). A Short Account of the History of Mathematics (4th ed. [Reprint. Original publication: London: Macmillan & Co., 1908] ed.). New York: Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-20630-0.

Whether someting is used in the real work isn't very germane. See reams of decisions at WT:MOS in that regard; WP:NOT#PAPER and we are not bound by what The Chicago Manual of Style says or any other style guide, though of course MOS editors pay attention to such works and we attempt not to deviate from them unless it is necessary to do so in Wikipedia's unique context. That is the case here. What I meant by WP:AADD#I've never heard of it is that the underlying meaning of that AADD passage, when extrapolated out of the AfD context, can be distilled as "delete because the material in question is unfamiliar or obscure". This usage certainly is obscure, as its own documentation indicates. It is an adaptation of Harvard referencing's ":123–28" inline page-number annotation to the funky referencing system that WP has. By your reasoning WP's entire <ref> system should simply be scrapped, because it is not like any real-world referencing system to begin with. Objecting to this template on the grounds that it is neither Harvard nor MLA nor X published style is a moot point; nothing about Wikipedia's <ref> system is "standard"; it's just something new that Wikipedia is doing (for whatever reason; I was not party to the discussions that led up to its creation.)

Re: "but I gave specific reasons...": And a I responded to them as best I was able at the time. The one you re-raise, that no one will understand that they are page numbers has seemed to prove untrue, since to my knowledge not a single person has asked, here or any talk page of an article using this template, what they mean (I haven't looked in a while though; I did monitor that for a while because of the newness of the template). Anyone who has seen HR will instantly recognize it, and anyone who has not seen HR won't understand it in HR either, so that too seem like a moot point to me. WP does have some rather difficult-to-use HR templates like {{ref harv}} and its footer counterpart, but that template will not address the problem; you'd simply end up with 5 pages of redundant references in that format instead of the other.

Re: "Books and journals of all types do just fine without resorting to anything like what you propose." I honestly think you need to re-read the documentation from scratch and look at the template's source code and look at how it is used on a page like WP:CUEGLOSS, and make a copy of that in your sand box and convert all of the Rp instances in it to some other notes system, either <ref> as usually used or a {{Ref}} variant, and look at the results. You do not appear to me to understand Rp's purpose, or you wouldn't have said something like that. "Books and journals of all types" do not use Wikipedia's half-baked [ref> system. The problem lies in the <ref> system, and it has to be fixed by the developers. Until they do, this is the only (extant, anyway) solution for the problem that this template was created to solve. Using pre-<ref> WP citations systems does not solve the problem. Having a forest of redundant footnotes in a Notes section does not solve the problem. None of that is meant in any way as any sort of slight; I mean it literally, that you seem to be misintuiting why this template exists, and not fully understanding that it is only used for working around an unsual problem that affects very few articles.

WP:CITE was one of the first places this was posted to (and it was in the "See also" section there for a while, but eventually all templates got removed from there in favor of one line to Wikipedia:Citation templates apparenty), along with Template talk:Ref harv (which I think is just a redir to Template talk:Ref, and the Village pump, and..." It was quite broadly announced.

Agree with you about MoS. Tony and I and few others try to keep the churn to a minimum, as far as substantive changes go. It's difficult.

Hope this round was a little clearer!

PS: If you see this show up on 1000 pages then we really do have a problem!

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear S: The issue that I am raising is not fundamentally about the template itself, but the non-standard, invented new citation system that it supports. Please point me to the discussion on WT:CITE and the other discussions; I would like to see what the response was to your idea and if any consensus was reached. Exactly what is the problem in the <ref> system to which you refer? Have you raised it with the developers (if so, please point me to the discussion)? What is wrong with the systems used in William Shakespeare and Scat singing (please do look at them) and other articles, which follow conventions and are easily understood? In my opinion, Wikipedia really is not the place for experimentation in something so fundamental as WP:Citing sources. The prescribed solution for the problem you raise is here: WP:Citing_sources#Short_footnote_citations_with_full_references. Finell (Talk) 06:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but it is not a "non-standard, invented new citation system", but an adaptation of real-world citation systematics to WP's own actually non-standard, invented new citation system, which is quite inadequate and causing real problems. Basically, I have moved it one tiny step closer to Harvard referencing, and perhaps the MediaWiki software developers will take the hint. We can but hope. I do not have time to spend an hour digging around in edit histories to find stuff for you. The response, from all "advertising" combined, including at CITE and at the {{Ref harv}} talk page and so on, was dead silence, and in WP we generally take silence as assent, per WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. I did not expect a roar of "holy crap, you are a genius!" for resolving a simple and rare issue, and (predictably) did not get one. I was certainly open to the possibility of negative outcry, but there was none, and the template started being actually used (by others besides myself) immediately (on, of course, a very limited basis, because this template's applicability is, by the nature of the problem it solves, very narrowly applicable to begin with). No "experimentation" is taking place; this is a normalizing and problem-solving exercise, not a Gedankenexperiment much less a WP:POINT. I'm aware of the solution proposed at WP:Citing sources#Short footnote citations with full references but it is an even clumsier kluge, grossly time-consuming, not particularly useful in all situations even if one has oodles of time to waste, and still produces a redundant mess. This template was created for a reason, with very limited applicablity, with very limited deployment (i.e., only where actually needed) even months after the fact, ergo no evidence of abuse. Therefore, this is (pretty much by definition in the WP context) a non-issue. I think we both have better things to invest our time and energy in. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent:) This is indeed a "non-standard, invented new citation system," thoroughly unintuitive, and extraordinarily ugly to boot. I completely agree that there are other, better ways of addressed the supposed problem. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to suggest that if there were a consensus for your viewpoint, the template would not be widely used, yet it is. If you continue to feel strongly on the matter, take it up at WP:TFD and it will be settled permanently one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

 – Features not documented.

Use of these parameters trips the template into "AMA-like mode", a slight modification of the AMA style of citation that uses parentheses instead of the colon and includes a "p." or "pp." for clarity. The names of the parameters are intended for compatibility with {{citation}} so please don't change them (though you could add additional parameter names as alternatives if desired.) For usage examples see testcases. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 08:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In classic AMA style, there is no p. and space, instead there it looks like this^1(p30) or this.^2(pp30-40) I prefer to leave out the space and punctuation. Could we do that? II | (t - c) 23:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 2 months now, and this code has not been documented at the /doc page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No objections.

Note these examples (there are two examples total^[1]: 126) of citations.^[2]: 129 When the {{rp}} is used within a sentence or after a sentence, everything looks fine. However, if the citiation follows a fact within a parenthetical, there is additional space added by the template. Therefore, perhaps the space generated after the citation by the template can be removed, leaving the spacing to each individual editor? kilbad (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems reasonable to me. (And it may even have been my recent changes that added the space, if so I apologize.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. I love this template when compared with the alternative never-ending list of page references, so keep up the good work. With regard to removing the space, I will defer that to someone else who edits templates frequently, as I am not sure how to do that. Thanks again! kilbad (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So will someone fix this spacing issue for us? kilbad (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I went ahead and removed the blank space. If you have any questions or concerns, please post them here. kilbad (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Need met, and documented.

Hitherto missing page numbers in references have been flagged by following the reference with the Page number template and the month.^{[3][page needed]} What is the recommendation with the Rp template: to use a reference without page number and add the Page number template as is usually done (i.e., not use the Rp template at all), or what? I have been simply entering the page number as "?" in normal or bold text in the Rp template and not bothering with a date, which seems reasonable to me.^[3]: ? It's easy enough to work out my own solution, but it might be useful for a standard procedure to be recommended in the template documentation and avoid everyone working out their favourite technique. If a question mark is too short, maybe ^[3]: p? or ^[3]: page? or even the full Monty, ^{[3]: Page number needed}, though that does seem so long as to interrupt the text. Pol098 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since {{Page number}} adds the article to a category it seems best to me to simply use that. So I'd say go ahead and add a note endorsing such to this template's documentation if you want to. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility (which I won't add to the documentation, unless anyone here recommends it) is to nest templates <ref name=xyz/>{{rp|{{Page number}}}} which generates^{[3]: [page needed]}, may be useful? It might prompt people to enter the page number in the existing Rp template, where they might not know to add it if not already there. Pol098 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of what I said in the previous paragraph, as there's been no comment against using nested templates (nor for), I'll modify the documentation to suggest this technique. Anybody seriously against can revert. Advantage of nesting the Page number template with Rp: the article will be added to the PageNumber category. Disadvantage: rather long second-level superscript note. Pol098 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about templates to say whether this is feasible, or whether the consensus will think it a good idea, but "page number needed" is very long to insert as a superscript. I take the point that articles with references needing page numbers should be added to a category; is it feasible to modify the Rp template so that a standardised form (I suggest that "p?" should be used in place of a page number) could cause the article to be added to the appropriate category? In other words a reference such as this^[3]: p? would be recognised by the template code and add the article to the page number missing category.Pol098 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea, but would change it up just a little. I would suggest that when there is no page number included after the pipe separator in the template (i.e. {{rp|}}) then the category should be added and "page number needed" displayed. kilbad (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I'm suggesting that the short and reasonably clear^[3]: p? should be displayed for readers instead of the long and intrusive^{[3][page needed]} or any other superscript with the long form ^{"page number needed"}. But let others comment and a consensus be reached. Assuming someone is willing to modify the template according to this eventual consensus! Keeping the displayed message short is particularly important for references in narrow infoboxes. Pol098 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. Well, I would still favor {{rp|}} to generate ^[3]: p?, and would also want the "p?" to be its own footnote stating that a page number is needed. kilbad (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, but one footnote may apply to a number of references not all of which lack page numbers, so the footnote should say ^{"some references lack page numbers"}? Or maybe more ideas are needed? Pol098 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nesting an inline template inside of Rp like that is a no-go. Because the small-font CSS is doubled by doing this, tt makes the nested template too small to read on many if not most systems at default font sizes. Even at 1024x768 monitor resolution! I'm removing that recommendation from the /doc file. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}} However, I have figured out, tested and documented a simple solution, and implemented it at Template:Rp/sandbox. Test cases are posted to the bottom of Template:Rp/testcases. Summary: Use {{rp|needed=y|{{subst:DATE}}}}, or if you are really lazy, just {{rp|needed=y}}. The docs have also been updated at Template:Rp/sandbox/doc, which should replace the content in Template:Rp/doc after the code change, and then speedily delete /sandbox/doc.

The benefits of doing it this way:

1. We are not trying to dictate the content of the "page needed" message; that is a matter for consensus at Template talk:Page needed.
2. As a result; the text here would not have to be kept in synch with another template.
3. It keeps the results exactly as legible as they would be without nesting.
4. It preserves the use of {{Rp}} in articles using it, which should help minimize inconsistent citations styles within the article.
5. It does not insert a pointless colon.
6. It uses {{Page needed}} correctly, including passing a date parameter so that the articles get properly categorized by month and year.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. Thanks for your work on this. kilbad (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done; changes implemented to both template and documentation subpage and doc sandbox deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey shins! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this is a better solution than using shortened footnotes, could someone explain why this template is superior given that it lengthens the text in superscripts, and it breaks the link between reference tag and the page number which has potential maintenance issues. --PBS (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessarily superior, any more than Harvard style is "superior" to AMA. It's simply different. If I needed to cite something 5 times at 5 different pages, I would probably use the CITESHORT style, but if I had to cite it 87 times, I would use Rp style, because CITESHORT style would still produce a ridiculously redundant "References" section. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine what the references section would looks like if this was cited using short citations instead of Rp.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, I added mention of Template:Rp to WP:CITE. It was removed by User:SallyScot based on lack of precedent (WP:CITE thread). I objected and argued for reinstating it based on the AMA's precedent (second CITE thread), but never got around to doing so. The only major opponent to representing it on that page seemed to be SallyScot. Anyway, this argument of precedent may be a consistent voice against Template:Rp. The most similar citation practice comes from AMA style, which uses looks like^1(p3) or^1(pp3-30 compared to the current default of.^1:3 Personally I kinda prefer the current default, but switching the default to AMA would overcome any arguments that it's nonstandard and thus inadmissible. II | (t - c) 08:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]