Template talk:Refwidth

Documentation

Moved from User talk:DreamRimmer bot II § Why is this bot indiscriminately removing the reflist template?

As one example concern, our current documentation doesn't at all accord with this change [from {{reflist}} to <references>]: Help:Footnotes generally tells people throughout to use the {{reflist}} template, the template documentation page explains the use of various parameters such as reference groups, list style, column widths. Nowhere on Wikipedia is there good documentation of how to achieve the same effect (custom column widths, list styles, reference groups) using the bare references tag; mw:Extension:Cite and mw:Help:Cite are not very useful for editors (vs. Mediawiki operators) and are not targeted at Wikipedia editors specifically. Help:List-defined references describes the use of {{reflist}} as a fine option and explains its use.

I would be supportive, if the bare references tag were improved to handle all of the current features of the reflist template, of replacing every use of the template with bare tag, and making the feature consistent site wide. But replacing the reflist templates only in a specific subset of cases, except also preserving the reflist templates for a subset of those, makes for like 3 nested layers of conditional logic to decide which method to use, contra our documentation, and the result seems completely confusing and inconvenient for editors. –jacobolus (t) 12:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Documentation is easy to fix to reflect the results of the RFC. You're welcome to further improve the documentation to reflect that consensus.

As for the features you mention,

• The only difference between {{reflist|group=foo}} and <references group=foo /> is that interface admins at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#<references /> groups have declined to add the necessary CSS for groups such as "lower-alpha" to work right, preferring to wait for MediaWiki devs to add a feature to the Cite extension instead. If there's need, we could work around it with a "{{reflist styles}}" template of some sort, to be used before <references group=lower-alpha />, that would load the necessary styles via TemplateStyles instead.
• If necessary, something similar could be done for {{reflist|liststyle=lower-alpha}}, loading those styles and producing the necessary wrapper <div>.
• I suspect most use of {{reflist|2}} or {{reflist|30em}} predates the automatic column support in <references /> (equivalent to {{reflist}} with no |1= or |colwidth=), and much of the rest is from Vector 2022 users before gerrit:1185300 or mobile users before the recent change to {{reflist}} fixed a sizing inconsistency there. Personally, I'd be fine with {{reflist|3}} or {{reflist|some-non-30em-width}} remaining a niche {{reflist}}-only feature.

As for replacing every use of {{reflist}}, I doubt the community would go for a WP:COSMETICBOT replacement of all 6.5 million uses. Particularly when we tolerate templates like {{strong}} that could be trivially replaced with <strong>...</strong>. Anomie⚔ 13:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The appropriate column width depends on the content of the footnotes. For footnote lists which are mostly "shortened" style, the appropriate width is quite narrow (perhaps 20em or the like). For footnote lists which are mostly full citations, the appropriate width is wider (25–30em). Does <references> support choosing a specific width for the columns? –jacobolus (t) 15:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If you read my reply above, you'll find this already addressed. Anomie⚔ 22:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you be more explicit? I still don't know the answer to my question. That is: Does <references> support choosing a specific width for the columns? The existing help pages mw:Extension:Cite and mw:Help:Cite don't answer this question. The latter links to mw:Contributors (2015-2021)/Projects/Columns for references and implies it will discuss this topic, but that page still doesn't answer my question (or explain any of the details of the "responsive" references feature, beyond the incredibly vague "The number of columns will be determined by the width of each reader's screen."

One thing that would probably be helpful would be a Wikipedia-specific help page describing the full behavior of the <references> tag, and all of its features. The current set of documentation pages are somewhat scattered and incomplete. One advantage of templates is that it's obvious where to go for help, namely the template page with its transcluded documentation, and the associated template talk page; for built-in features, there's no directly attached documentation and discussion page on English Wikipedia. –jacobolus (t) –jacobolus (t) 22:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

It's possible to set the column width using <references />, but it is not done by simply adding a parameter to the tag; it needs to be done using CSS. The CSS can either be applied by a wrapper template like {{reflist}}, or alongside with {{refwidth}}. The latter solution is compatible with Visual Editor. (If you want to see how it's done in detail, you can look at the source code and accompanying CSS styles for these templates.) Note that the column-width CSS property is interpreted by browsers as a minimum width suggestion, and so they may render columns wider depending on available space.

{{refwidth}} is new, and was created as part of the previously linked VPP discussion. I found out about it by reading that discussion. I will update Help:Footnotes to note it as a VisualEditor-compatible alternative.

This is does not affect the current bot run, because the bot is only changing over articles where no column width is specified (so presumably the default width is correct). A future conversion run, either manual or automatic, could make use of {{refwidth}} to convert the remainder.

To Anomie's point that specifying the number of columns (as with {{reflist|3}}) could be something the template could continue to support indefinitely because <references /> does not support it: According to Template:Reflist/doc, this functionality is now deprecated. I assume the reason is because this is considered an unresponsive design - the number of columns should depend on the width of the display, to avoid awkward widths or wasted space. To avoid awkwardness resulting from a large number of very short columns, the default multi-column display does not kick in until there are at least 10 items. -- Beland (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Ooh, nice. I didn't know about {{refwidth}}. Anomie⚔ 00:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, this kind of information would be really helpful to include in the documentation (and would have also been helpful to have mentioned as context in the discussion at the village pump). Is there a reason this refwidth template was set up to only have short, medium, long rather than an arbitrary width? (There's no listed explanation anywhere; at a glance it seems somewhat like it's different just for the sake of being different and confusing.) What specific widths do those names represent? Edit: I see that they refer to separate css files which specify 20em, 24em, or 27em. It seems confusing that "long" means "a bit shorter than the default 30em" and "medium" means "significantly shorter than the default 30em". Who chose the names, on what grounds? Also, I don't understand what the documentation there means by "To not have {{refwidth}} apply to a specific list of references, use a {{reflist}} template such as {{notelist}} for that list."

A second question: Is there currently a way to get the same behavior as {{notelist}} and variants but using the bare <references> tag? What's the preferred syntax for that, and what if any differences are there between the result using the tag vs. templates. Various kinds of text notes are often also much nicer to define at the bottom of the page rather than inline in the text, to keep the markup for body copy legible. –jacobolus (t) 03:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not assuming good faith to suggest that someone would make a template deliberately confusing. The reason for why it is the way it is was already explained at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 58#Discussion of proposal re deprecate. The short answer is that Wikipedia:TemplateStyles uses static CSS files; there is no way to fill in a value from a template parameter, only to pick which file gets used. (I assume changing this would require changing MediaWiki code, though it's possible some inline CSS dark magic could unwisely work around this limitation.) You can see what width each setting corresponds to by looking at the CSS source code for each; it's very short.

Looking at the source code, {{notelist}} is just a wrapper for {{reflist}}, so it comes with all the same features and limitations.

Doing some experimenting, it looks like writing {{notelist}} is the equivalent of writing <references group="lower-alpha" />. The available group names (which must be matched with the right {{efn}} template) are in the main documentation for this feature at WP:EXPLNOTE. It should be possible to use that syntax to make Visual Editor-compatible list-defined explanatory footnotes. -- Beland (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I have updated WP:EXPLNOTE to explain how to use the raw tag to make list-defined explanatory footnotes. -- Beland (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

You are entirely mischaracterizing my comment. I'll quote myself again: "Is there a reason ...? There's no listed explanation anywhere; at a glance it seems somewhat like it's different just for the sake of being different and confusing". I hope you can see how this weak, subjective, and multiple-times-qualified statement is entirely different than an assertion along the lines of "whoever made this template was deliberately confusing everyone". If you like, I can explain my thought further. I think you actually understood what I was trying to say the first time, so the escalatory inapposite link to a policy page doesn't really seem that helpful, but I'm happy to go into as much detail as you like.

In any event, if there is a good reason, it would be reasonable to state that on the documentation page for the template: something like "Unlike reflist, which supports an arbitrary width, refwidth only supports four specific widths: 30em (the default width, with the template left out), 27em ("long", slightly narrower than the default), 24em ("medium"), and 20em ("short"). The {{refwidth}} template is based on Wikipedia:TemplateStyles, which injects static CSS files into the page, and is unable to support an arbitrary choice of width. –jacobolus (t) 04:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I read your comment as an implied insult to the author. I'm glad you didn't intend it that way. If you want to say there is no apparent reason for something being different, and that as a result it probably creates unnecessary confusion, you can just say that.

I actually already updated the documentation for {{refwidth}}, with much more concise verbiage. Feel free to tweak it if you like. I intentionally did not list the measurements in the documentation because it's likely to get out of sync with the CSS if anyone changes it. -- Beland (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It should definitely list the measurement if you want people to convert to this from reflist / understand how it relates to reflist.

Once this has more than a trivial level of adoption, the widths are basically locked in, because changing them would be obnoxious to anyone relying on the behavior. (If you think the widths, parameter or attribute names, etc. should change, the time to change it is right now before there is any adoption.) –jacobolus (t) 04:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I will not be making any further changes to that documentation; like I said, feel free to tweak it if you want. -- Beland (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I would rewrite it if I understood the effects of the template. But because the documentation is confusing and incomplete, I don't. If I tried to rewrite the page the result would likely be wrong.

As I said above: I don't understand what it means by "To not have {{refwidth}} apply to a specific list of references, use a {{reflist}} template such as {{notelist}} for that list." This statement is missing multiple pieces of essential context.

As an example of a basic question not answered by the docs: Does this template apply to all instances of <references> on the page, or only to one which immediately follows it? Is it possible to use multiple instances of the template to apply different widths to different <references> tags? –jacobolus (t) 07:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend using a sandbox to find out. -- Beland (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The CSS for {{refwidth}} may want updating after the recent changes to {{reflist}} anyway. I suspect the choice of 27em was to match the previous behavior of {{reflist}}, which set 30em at a 90% font size resulting in an effective column width of 27em (versus <references />, which set 30em at 100% font size). Since then, Cite's styles for Vector 2022 have been changed to use 27em (not at a 90% font size), while {{reflist}} was also updated to not do the "at 90% font size" to match <references />. And further confusing the issue, {{reflist|30em}} now multiplies the passed width by 0.9 to preserve the previous behavior, from when it applied the width "at 90% font size". Anomie⚔ 13:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The names can definitely seem arbitrary! As I intended it, though, the names aren't arbitrary but the actual number of ems are. When I made the template I was thinking that the community might want to change the numbers later and changing the names instead would be hard, so I made the names vague.

The number choices were inspired by the following comment in the WT:Cite discussion:

I tend to use the default setting when most references are "long" and there is no extra Bibliography section, while setting the colwidth to 20em for articles that use mostly short author–year references ({{sfn}} and friends) resolved in a Bibliography section. I also use 25em in articles that mix both styles more or less evenly.

When testing I thought that 24em and 27em (the latter of which would give you two rows vs one on, say, a typical iPad screen) looked better for said "mixed" and "long" usage cases. I then renamed "mixed" to "medium" because "'short', 'mixed', 'long'" is just plain weird and worse.

Not that my choices are defensible or anything, I'm just making clear what my thought process was, and that the community can change the numbers. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

And per Anomie above, long should probably changed to something else anyways; as they mentions it is currently the same as the default. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Your documentation changes leave the documentation very muddled and confusing for editors. If <references>...</references> is preferred, Help:Footnotes should be substantially rewritten to promote it as the preferred (or at least equivalent) alternative throughout. Instead of leading with "for example, it is becoming more common to use {{reflist}} rather than <references /> as it can style the reference list", this should say something like "the {{reflist}} template is commonly used on Wikipedia, but is deficient compared to the basic <references>...</references> tag feature because the Visual Editor is incompatible with it. Therefore <references>...</references> should be preferred wherever it can be used." And then that page should consistently show how to use both versions throughout. –jacobolus (t) 16:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Though I would support doing so, deprecating {{reflist}} entirely and suggesting or actually replacing it on millions of articles with <references>...</references> goes well beyond the scope of the RFC and beyond what this bot is approved to do. It is also likely controversial; I recommend starting a new community discussion before doing so.

While it is true that doing so would laudably simplify the options available to Wikipedia editors and make it simpler to parse wikitext, that is not a good reason to stop fixing a more limited usability problem (affecting only list-defined references, on <1% of articles) in a way that has already gotten community consensus twice. -- Beland (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I made the edits I felt were supported by the RFC. As the RFC closed only with consensus to replace {{reflist|refs=...}}, I didn't change anything other than discussion of that parameter. If you want to make further edits, feel free. Anomie⚔ 22:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Someone coming to read these documentation pages is either trying to figure out how to properly write/format an article and/or trying to understand why markup is the way it currently is on article pages they have been reading. I don't think the current docs give adequate guidance for either of these.

I would try to work on the docs myself, but I don't feel like I fully understand either (a) the technical details of the references feature, which as far as I can tell are currently nowhere explained (except maybe in the code and/or bug tracker?), or (b) the current community preferences for what articles should do, which seem very complicated and confusing. –jacobolus (t) 22:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I have updated Help:Footnotes. Is there anything else that should be clarified there for the benefit of Wikipedia article editors?

The CSS interface for <references /> could be better documented at mw:Help:Cite, but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that because it's kind of up to the WMF programming team what should be relied upon by sites to be stable. It's also the sort of thing web developers can find out by opening a DOM inspector, which unlike documentation isn't going to get out of date. (I think making new styling templates for reference lists, or making substantial changes to the existing ones, requires the skill of a web developer.) That documentation does have a talk page if you would like to make suggestions, but it seems beyond the scope of what Wikipedia article editors need to know. -- Beland (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be worth trying to add local documentation pages about mediawiki features. There's some chance they could get out of date, but I feel like these would generally be significantly more responsive to Wikipedians' needs than corresponding documentation at mediawiki.org. I don't really feel comfortable making changes or additions at mediawiki.org, which seems like its own separate community with different norms and standards. It would be nice if we could make a wikilink to documentation about the feature along the lines of <references> (this one points at the non-existing page Wikipedia:Mediawiki references, but it could be some other title), which instead of describing the installation of the mediawiki extension and basic use for mediawiki site maintaniners, could instead talk about how it is used in practice on Wikipedia and how it relates to templates or other features here. –jacobolus (t) 03:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

That's what Help:Footnotes does. -- Beland (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I just read through this thread. Which documentation pages still need to be clarified or expanded? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only unanswered question is about the "apply to a specific list of references" sentence on {{refwidth}}. -- Beland (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Aaron Liu, I tried to clarify the documentation there based on this discussion. You may want to double-check me though. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Your changes seem good! I read only @Jacobolus's comment expressing the confusion on that sentence above and I've interpreted it as "explain this sentence"; feel free to ask further if I misinterpreted or there's specific things that still need clarifying.

As you know the template applies to every reflist generated with <references />. I've seen articles with <references /> and <references group="lower-alpha" /> at once, and on such articles the template would apply the same width to both, even if you try to invoke it multiple times (see code block below). The same applies to any other references group. Thus, I added that sentence to give a pointer to confused editors trying to apply a different width to the notelist from that of the reflist. I think your change to To give a {{notelist}}... a different column width... should meet the same purpose, so the documentation shouldn't need changing.

== Notes ==
{{refwidth|short}} <!-- has no effect—see below -->
<references group="lower-alpha" />

== References ==
{{refwidth|long}} <!-- overrides {{refwidth|short}}! both the notelist and reflist now both have the "long" column width. -->
<references />

Tl;DR: Excessive erudite foresight, also termed "anxiety". Aaron Liu (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This seems like an extremely significant and problematic limitation to {{refwidth}} which makes it basically unusable on pages with multiple lists of footnotes, which need different widths almost all of the time. Is there some way to improve that or is this an intractable problem? –jacobolus (t) 04:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Not really:

 == Notes ==
{{notelist|20em}}<!-- or whatever -->
== References ==
{{refwidth|long}} <!-- overrides {{refwidth|short}} but not {{notelist}}  -->
<references />

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a way to fix this currently, other than just telling people to use {{notelist}} and {{reflist}}, which {{refwidth}} does not affect. As mentioned in the template documentation, the following does work:

== Notes ==
{{notelist-ua}} <!--has default colwidth-->
{{notelist|colwidth=20em}} <!--will have 20em-->
{{notelist}} <!--also has default colwidth-->'

== References ==
{{refwidth|long}}
<references /> <!--will have "long" refwidth-->
{{reflist}} <!--has default colwidth-->

Maybe I could ask WMF to implement a "class" attribute for the "references" element and then implement a feature where the CSS would apply to references with a specific class but I'm not even sure if that would be worth it. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist}} should now be affected after these 2 edits. I think {{notelist}} needs to be updated to continue using specified column widths after those updates to reflist. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC) Edit: I was wrong/confused about the part I just struck out. Both {{reflist}} and {{notelist}} will be affected by {{refwidth}} unless they have a specified column width. Their |colwidth= parameters is inline CSS which will override the CSS in the stylesheets that refwidth adds.05:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right. Plus, I misremembered anyways—Refwidth was always designed to affect Reflist as it had the .reflist-columns class in the CSS. I feel like it did not affect Notelist before the changes, though.

Should we add some classes to Reflist and Notelist to match against so Refwidth won't try to apply column styles to them by default? Aaron Liu (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd seek broader input on that. My personal opinion is that having different column widths is not very important. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Help:Footnotes gives an clear and understandable introduction or overview, provides enough basic context (especially for anyone who isn't a deep mediawiki expert), reflects current community consensus, or covers all of the relevant details an article author might need; however, based on the discussion at the Village Pump page I don't feel like I entirely understand what that consensus is – or perhaps the issue is that there is a lot of disagreement and inconsistency – so I don't really feel confident to rewrite it. Despite not being an article, this kind of documentation page should be written generally following the advice found at WP:TECHNICAL.

As pertains to list-defined references in specific, I don't think Help:Footnotes gives a clear idea what they are, why anyone would want them, why they need to use <references>...</references> rather than {{reflist}}, under which set of conditions it might still be okay to use {{reflist}} (even though it causes issues for the Visual Editor), and so on.

More generally, if we're going to recommend that people avoid {{reflist}} in certain circumstances (which are not currently well explained to readers of that documentation page), I think Help:Footnotes should be explicit up front about how to use either <references> or {{reflist}}, and possibly even recommend <references>...</references> as the default method where there isn't a specific reason to prefer {{reflist}} (at least, several editors in the Village Pump discussion advocated that). –jacobolus (t) 04:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

List-defined references are explained in detail on Help:List-defined references. I have just clarified the intro of that page with a rationale and added a link to that page from the first mention on Help:Footnotes.

The only situation where it is not OK to use {{reflist}} is with list-defined references, which is explicitly noted.

It sounds like there's some remaining anxiety that needs to be put at ease by being told explicitly that when not using LDRs, editors are free to pick <references /> or {{reflist}} as they see fit. I don't feel comfortable saying that, because people who prefer one or the other will probably object. I would certainly not feel comfortable boldly recommending one style over the other. We cannot resolve this question here, so I started a discussion at Help talk:Footnotes#Tag or template preference. -- Beland (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the page Help:List-defined references gives a very clear explanation or motivation for the feature. Similar to Help:Footnotes, but even more problematically, it's aimed at too technical and experienced an audience, and misses context required for newcomers to understand what it's talking about. –jacobolus (t) 05:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The motivation is simply subjectivity. Some people like it (saying it reduces clutter), and that is all. I think the assumption made in the second paragraph is reasonable and the first code block clearly illustrates what it's talking about. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The lead sentence, "List-defined references (LDR) are references that are defined in the reference list markup, as opposed to being defined in the body of the article." is confusing and overly technical. Readers aren't necessarily going to know what "the reference list markup" means; what this should say is that list-defined references are written at the bottom of the page, where the reference list will be shown when the article is presented to readers, rather than inline in the middle of paragraphs of prose. –jacobolus (t) 07:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Would changing “ markup” to “‘s wikitext” and appending “such as the middle of paragraphs” help? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

In my personal opinion this is not comprehensible to someone who doesn't already know what it is without a more-or-less real-world example within the lead or first section, showing side-by-side markup examples with footnotes written inline vs. deferred to the bottom. The vague statement "Some editors feel this makes referencing and generally editing articles easier because it makes the main body wikitext less cluttered." doesn't come close to a practical demonstration for motivating the feature. The examples at Help:List-defined references § Examples are contrived and entirely unrepresentative. –jacobolus (t) 07:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I looked through some featured articles, and Andean condor looks like a decent candidate for a real-world example, short enough to not be overwhelming but realistic enough to make the point. Compare:

The Andean condor is found in [[South America]] in the [[Andes]] and the [[Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta|Santa Marta Mountains]]. In the north, its present range begins in [[Venezuela]] and Colombia, where it is extremely rare,{{r|BirdLife}} then continues south along the Andes in Ecuador, Peru, and Chile, through Bolivia and western Argentina to the [[Tierra del Fuego]].{{r|Blake}} However, its historic range was greater; in the early 19th century, the Andean condor bred from western Venezuela to Tierra del Fuego, along the entire chain of the Andes. Its range was significantly reduced due to human activity.{{r|Haemig}}

[...]

<references>
<ref name="BirdLife">{{cite web 
 | title = Species factsheet: Vultur Gryphus
 | year = 2004
 | publisher = BirdLife International
 | url = http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=40258
 | access-date = 2008-01-04
 }}</ref>
<ref name="Blake">{{cite book
 | last = Blake
 | first = Emmet Reid
 | title = Birds of Mexico: A Guide for Field Identification
 | publisher = University of Chicago Press
 | year = 1953
 | pages = 262–263
 | url = https://archive.org/details/birdsofmexicogui00blak
 | url-access = registration
 | isbn = 0-226-05641-4
 }}</ref>
<ref name="Haemig">{{cite web
 | last = Haemig
 | first = Paul D.
 | title = Ecology of Condors
 | publisher = Ecology Online Sweden
 | year = 2007
 | url = http://www.ecology.info/condors.htm
 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071204213025/http://www.ecology.info/condors.htm
 | archive-date = 2007-12-04
 | access-date = 2009-03-30
 }}</ref>
</references>

The Andean condor is found in [[South America]] in the [[Andes]] and the [[Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta|Santa Marta Mountains]]. In the north, its present range begins in [[Venezuela]] and Colombia, where it is extremely rare,<ref>{{cite web |title=Species factsheet: Vultur Gryphus |year=2004 |publisher=BirdLife International |url=http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=40258 |access-date=2008-01-04}}</ref> then continues south along the Andes in Ecuador, Peru, and Chile, through Bolivia and western Argentina to the [[Tierra del Fuego]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Blake |first=Emmet Reid |title=Birds of Mexico: A Guide for Field Identification |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=1953 |pages=262–263 |url=https://archive.org/details/birdsofmexicogui00blak |url-access=registration |isbn=0-226-05641-4 }}</ref> However, its historic range was greater; in the early 19th century, the Andean condor bred from western Venezuela to Tierra del Fuego, along the entire chain of the Andes. Its range was significantly reduced due to human activity.<ref>{{cite web |last=Haemig |first=Paul D. |title=Ecology of Condors |publisher=Ecology Online Sweden |year=2007 |url=http://www.ecology.info/condors.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071204213025/http://www.ecology.info/condors.htm |archive-date=2007-12-04 |access-date=2009-03-30 }}</ref>

[...]

<references></references>

–jacobolus (t) 09:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to make changes directly instead of requesting that other people make them; you have a good vision for improvement made possible by fresh eyes. -- Beland (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

---

(Moved). Aaron Liu (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Widths rationale?

I'm sure this is covered in one of the discussions somewhere, and I am overlooking it: what is the rationale behind the widths? Technically, I think it would be possible (although kind of hacky) to have {{refwidth|30em}} trigger a "TM:Refwidth/30em.css". Whatever the reason for taking the short/long approach, it should probably documented here at the template. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)