Template talk:Reference page

Color

Should we change the color of the page numbers^:123 to blue^:123 like links? This might prevent making the prose harder to read for some. The other templates for citations and inline cleanup all generate blue text. Even the future replacement meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing will be blue. By using a dull color, our eyes can more easily skip over the page numbers. 174.94.28.189 (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That should only be done if the page numbers are made part of the link. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I not sure what wikicode can link to the same reflist item because {{rp}} is separate from the clickable ref. What about :[[#References|123]] (articles sectioned differently probably don't use {{rp}}, but no link to go back) or :[[WP:REFPAGE|123]] (never has a broken link, but has the trapdoor problem)?

Though ensuring the page numbers are made part of the link should be possible to implement for {{r}}. 174.94.28.189 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Format as rollover?

I'm big fan of {{rp}}. From the editor-usability point of view, no other system I've seen is close. The page number is right next to the content-to-verify and adding the page number is fast. sfn and other two-level systems are so hard and easy to break I simply go elsewhere.

However some editors go in to a fit over the superscript formatted number.

I wonder if anyone know if there is a technical reason that this feature could not be implemented as a popup? At least in my browser the blue citation-number pops up a nice box with the reference. Could rp be implemented in that popup? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Purpose of at= & page= parameters

The use of page=, at= does not appear to change the result.
[1]{{rp|page=5}}, [2]{{rp|pages=5}}, and [3]{{rp|5}}, as well as [4]{{rp|at=foldout1}}, and [5]{{rp|foldout1}}
produce: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]
1, 2 & 3 appear identical as well as 3 & 4. Are page=, pages=, at= used by the template in some way or are they just for readability of the code? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The tooltips shown when you hover your mouse over the page value are different depending on the parameter you use. Each parameter is also processed slightly differently; for example, |pages= and its alias |pp= are processed to replace hyphens with dashes per MOS:DASH: [1]{{rp|page=5-10}}, [2]{{rp|pages=5-10}}, and [3]{{rp|at=5-10}} produce: [1], [2], [3] (note the dash in [2]). Not converting hyphens to dashes in |at= is useful for unusual page numbering, like "page 5-2" for page 2 of section 5, that can appear in some publications. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Use of template for Cite AV media, and possibly, Cite interview

I presume that {{rp}} can be use with {{Cite AV media}}, and possibly, {{Cite interview}}? Should this be added to the doc for Reference page, Cite AV media and Cite interview? I spent some time looking for an equivalent such as {{Reference time}} or {{rt}} (redirects to Rfd top). Asked at the help desk and was told that rp can be used with time. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

As with the above answer, you might benefit from a careful reading of this template's documentation, which says can also be used for non-paginated sources, e.g., "0:35:12" for a video source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to improve an article by combining several video interviews refs. Given the template's title, its non-page related usability was not apparent. Hence, I did not read it. I searched for other similar time-related templates without success and only returned to rp afterwards. I suspect others have had the same problem, hence the request. It might save numerous hours of frustration by editors. Adakiko (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deprecation of {{Reference page}} and related templates

You are invited to participate in the discussion about the proposed deprecation of the {{Reference page}} template and related templates at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)