Add View Title to View Reference family

[Anonymous]

I want to add a View title parameter to edit the label of a View Reference family. Currently the ability to add or create parameters for View Reference families is greyed out. I basically just want to be able to reference a View's name, rather than its sheet number. Is there another way of achieving the same thing?

[barthbradley]

.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the views I'm trying to reference are placed on sheets.

[Redrunner92]

The View Reference family is pretty locked-down. There are few edits you can make to it, and you can't add parameters to it.

There is an Idea requesting more ability to edit parameters in View Reference families at this link:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/ability-to-edit-view-references-using-sheet-parameters/id... 

[barthbradley]

Yeah, I get what you are saying now -- and I'm trying to imagine how that would work.  A View Name among several hundred sheets? 

[billbGBZ5D]

Make a new Tag for View Ref. then change Family Category to View Titles, Create a Label called Sheet Number copy the sheet Number label, Change your Family Category back to View Ref., Paste the sheet number Label, and Load into your project. Now open the View Tab, select View Ref. 

, Edit Type, select the drop down box Under Graphics you will see View Ref. Tag find your New View ref.- Close out and place a View Ref. Pick the Sheet you want to Reference. DONE.

If this isn't clear pleas drop a note and I will try to elaborate.

[michael.warwick]

Amazing! Works for Sheet Name but not for View Name, so things are a little bit better.

[KirstyChilds]

Worked a treat! Cheers!

[jannaHAYZ2]

I would like to join to request 

Please, enable "View Name" as a Label Parameter in View Reference Tags

Currently, View Reference tags in Revit only allow limited parameters like Detail Number and Sheet Number. However, the View Name — which is available in the Properties of the referenced view — is not available to include in the tag label.

This creates a serious limitation for documentation clarity, especially in large projects where referencing only the view number and sheet is not enough to distinguish views (e.g., multiple enlarged plans).

Requested Feature:
Please expose the View Name as an available parameter in the label editor for View Reference tags. Ideally, allow the tag to include:

• Sheet Number

• Detail Number

• View Name

• Optional custom text prefix/suffix

Enhancing sheet coordination with readable, descriptive labels would streamline documentation, reduce errors, and improve automation and BIM standards compliance without workarounds like manual text, Dynamo scripts, or fake detail components.

Thank you for considering this long-requested improvement. It would significantly increase the flexibility and automation potential of Revit’s documentation tools.

[Mike.FORM]

@jannaHAYZ2 wrote:

This creates a serious limitation for documentation clarity, especially in large projects where referencing only the view number and sheet is not enough to distinguish views (e.g., multiple enlarged plans).

---

How is a a view number and its sheet number not enough to figure out which view you are referencing? You cannot have 2 views on the same sheet with the same number and you should not have two sheets in your printed sets with the same numbers either.

So if your detail references 5 / A3.1 there should only be one view 5 on one sheet A3.1.

I do agree that having more of the referenced views parameters available would be nice like view name and title on sheet.

Revit 2026 has added the ability for adding shared parameters so the prefix and suffix request is implemented.

https://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2026/ENU/?guid=RevitReleaseNotes_2026release_Enhancements_html

[michael.warwick]

@Mike.FORM , view number is not sufficient when the views on the sheet are referenced by name, and where the number, albeit distinct, is not shown. For example I often have sections shown as "Section A-A", "Section B-B", etc. on a sheet. The number is not included in the view title, as having a number as well would be confusing. I do renumber the sections as A, B, etc. to match the name, but the reference "A / A1.53" is still not as clear as "Section A-A (A1.53)" would be, plus there is the un-BIM thing that the reference is not linked to what it is referencing and given Revit's rather annoying propensity to renumber details (e.g. when moved between sheets), certain to fail expensively at least once in a project lifetime.

[RSomppi]

---

@michael.warwick wrote:

view number is not sufficient when the views on the sheet are referenced by name

---

Isn't that a self-inflicted problem? Simple solution is to reference the number since the name cannot be referenced. Plus, if you had long names, it could clutter up the referencing drawing.

---

@michael.warwick wrote:

plus there is the un-BIM thing that the reference is not linked to what it is referencing 

---

Revit does this with the built in functionality.

---

@michael.warwick wrote:

Revit's rather annoying propensity to renumber details (e.g. when moved between sheets), certain to fail expensively at least once in a project lifetime.

---

Of course it gets renumbered, it's a different sheet and the view reference gets changed along with it. It would fail if it didn't do this. You would have duplicate numbers and details out of sequence.

Have a look at how others organize view references for any program and you will see that Revit is in line with long standing drafting practices throughout many industries. In a large set of drawings, I would not like having to find a view by the name when numbers are the standard and will continue to be that way because it makes sense.

[michael.warwick]

I get how out of the box Revit works for smaller standalone projects, however when you are working on hundreds of houses across many sites with a suite of standardised plans (plus inevitably on every site a few bespoke variants) the idea that the brick wall to soffit detail is 5/A1023 on one house and 3/A1021 on the neighbouring house is just confusing for everyone, even if it is the easiest way to do it in Revit. It is much better that that detail is D1405 in every house plan set, while the sheet number changes a few steps, the details are ordered within the set so easy to flick back or forward a page or two. Could we just issue a set of drawings with all the details? No, we only have the details relevant to the house in each plan set, that is a territorial authority requirement. So Revit renumbering details makes it more likely, not less, that we will - in this scenario - get duplicate detail numbers.

My drawing practice, since before Revit was even conceived, is to have section numbers consistent with grids, Section A-A will be parallel with the lettered grids, section 1-1 will be parallel with the numbered grids (again moving sheets and Revit will change "A" to a number that is probably already taken). While I can and do change to suit the capabilities of software, those changes should be for increased value, not dumbing down simply because that feature isn't built in yet. When I worked for a structural firm their practice was to have the section number match the grid line it was along - so not just one opinion expressed here.

[RSomppi]

From a documentation point of view, I don't agree with this approach but I'm sure there are people using it in Revit. Since the view title cannot be used in the view reference, start a new thread asking how to accomplish what you want. That is if you're interested in how others are doing it.

[mhiserZFHXS]

As mentioned already, your issues are self-inflicted. You are stuck using standards from a by-gone era, which at one point was practical, but no longer is. 

Marking sections that way helped eliminate numbers getting mixed up if drawings were moved around on paper or in AutoCAD. With Revit, that is no longer an issue, because the view number and the number on the view mark are linked. If one is changed, the other is also changed. 

I see no real way that having a detail be one number in one set, and a different number in a completely different, unrelated set would be confusing. You've said yourself that each structure has to have its own set in the end. So this just seems like you are trying to rationalize not updating your standards to work with current software. 

I'm not saying I am against adding functionality and customization options to us as users. I'd very much support it, actually. But don't shoot yourself in the foot hoping a feature is added that may well never be added. Just update your workflows.