New template

The formatting for this new template was copied from Locke#Unanswered questions. Feel free to suggest new formatting. I am hoping someone can think of something that includes an image of some kind. For example (imagine with images :)):

 --cross references--> ("Pilot, Part 1") and ("Man of Science, Man of Faith")

--Dagg 09:43, 31 December 2006 (PST)

  • Excellent idea. There are many types of article content where it would be nice to tag the episode reference, but in a small unobtrusive typeface. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  22:25, 16 January 2007 (PST)

Bad Twin

Could someone please make it possible to use this crossref template with Bad Twin?--Blueeagleislander 04:19, 3 February 2007 (PST)

Ep number show up in template?

  • I was wondering if we could have the episode number show up in the template, so that ("Deus Ex Machina"), for example, might show up with a small ",1x19" also. I've found that sometimes it's nice to have the reminder of episode chronology when adding crossrefs to articles, for instance. I wanted to get feedback on this, though, because I don't know if it would look too "busy" with that... maybe if it were small, grayed out font? --PandoraX 03:32, 18 February 2007 (PST)


You can't use commas between parenthetical statements; commas can only join elements within a sentence or within a parenthetical statement, not two separate parentheses. It's the same reason we don't add periods after parentheses unless it's the delayed period for a larger sentence: "I'm sick (and tired).", but not "I'm sick. (And I'm tired).", though "I'm sick. (And I'm tired.)" is fine. For the same reason, the current crossref formatting needs to be changed to either "(X) (Y)" or "(X, Y)". To use a comma, you need to join the two refs within a single group of parentheses. I honestly don't see any need for it, though; it serves no purpose as-is. -Silence 20:40, 3 August 2007 (PDT)

PS: As long as I'm posting here: Why do we have a template that's only used on a single page? Template:Crossref/doc could just as easily be transcluded here. -Silence 20:43, 3 August 2007 (PDT)
It was done for technical reasons. See [1] and [2].-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 21:01, 3 August 2007 (PDT)
You mean having the usage documentation written here on the talk page instead of going through the trouble of having to create a doc template in order to transclude that info on the main page? That would work (although it wouldn't even need to be a template, then). I guess it's probably just to accomodate people who don't read talk pages. -- Cheers (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2007 (PDT)

Broken template! Sysop please fix

The template is returning wikipedia-formatted links for season 4 eps with the text reading the episode number at Jack_Shephard#After_the_Island and below. Above it it's working fine.--  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also wrong in other articles like the Nicknames article. It works fine from Nicknames#By Kelvin Joe Inman and above, but below it doesn't work -  Rasmus Ni  Talk  Contributions  12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That's because there's a limit on how may #ifexists can be used on the one article. The limit is currently 350, it was even less when the above two messages were posted. Template:Crossref link uses 3 #ifexists, so after the first 116 or 117th time that template is used it will ignore the #ifexists and post the default setting, which is the wikipedia link.
However, it should be possible to avoid using the #ifexists: Something like:
{{#switch: {{{1|}}}
|1x01=[[Pilot, Part 1]]
|1x02=[[Pilot, Pat 2]]
|ix01=[[Cast Away]]
|ix02=[[Sawyer, Michael, Sayid, Shannon]]
Or use strings to check if the first part of the crossref is an i or a number:
-- Deltaneos (talk) 02:25, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
However, the strings one would break if you want to link to something on Wikipedia that has an "ix" or a number followed by "x" in the title. -- Deltaneos (talk) 02:27, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Linking to subsections

I added a "regularly spoken phrase" to the Literary Techniques section of some episodes, but the crossref seems to only want to link to actual articles. I was thinking it would be useful to link directly to the sub-section of the phrase in question rather than the whole article, but I can't figure out how to get crossref to link to an anchor. Is there some way to do this? --Jackdavinci 08:22, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Lost Encyclopedia references

Would be good to have a method for citing specific entries or pages in the Lost Encyclopedia (and, for that matter, other tie-in books) if this doesn't already exist. --Cap'n Calhoun 05:11, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps have "(Lost Encyclopedia, pg250)" or something? Or have the article name with some kind of short hand for the book like "(Michael Dawson LE)"? I don't know. It would be a better way of keeping track of where in the book people should look. You could write the Man in Black was a robot and cite the book, but no one would be able to check.--Baker1000 12:11, October 21, 2010 (UTC)


Any idea of the cause? --- Balk Of Fametalk 10:59, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this too. The text is no longer small, right? Well a similar thing happened with the revision change screen last night too. By that I mean when you can check what's been added and removed in an edit, if that helps. The text was large on that too, but it seems to have righted itself. Things do tend to mess up and change back a few days later on here since the New Look. I'd say wait a couple of days and if it's not fixed, call in one of the SysOps who deals with the template codes. Jabrwocky is the man, I believe. I seriously hope it isn't a case of using the HTML tags to produce the same effect on every article...that would take ages to sort through.--Baker1000 17:23, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
I switched it from using the <small> HTML tags to CSS style. Take another look.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 18:49, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
Excellent work. It's fine now, thanks. So the HTML wasn't working? Why would that be? I've just noticed on Jack's article, near the bottom where we used the HTML tags to bypass the parser recall function limit they are also no longer small. So we'd have to change all of those to CSS?--Baker1000 22:50, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

The <small> tags on Jack's article are still broken. What's up with that and why has it stopped working now?--Baker1000 12:34, April 22, 2011 (UTC)