Template talk:No footnotes: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:19, 1 October 2024

Template:No footnotes is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This is the talk page for discussing No footnotes and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 91 days

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 4 April 2022, see discussion.
No consensus, 7 March 2007, see discussion.

Edit request 7 March 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Serial comma seems required (more than merely preferable).

Diff:

A876 (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 5 February 2024

This edit request to Template:No footnotes/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

Currently the section How to use has two identical examples on date usage:

This template has a |date= parameter. One way to use this parameter is {{No footnotes|date=February 2024}} but it can be done more explicitly as {{No footnotes|date=February 2024}} (both result in the same output).

I assume one of them is supposed to use `subst` like in Template:More_citations_needed.

I can't see the source so I don't know what's being wrapped in `nowiki` or anything, so it might be more complex than this:

Diff:

Ligaturama (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. For the future, you can edit the documentation page by clicking the edit link in the top-right section of the green documentation, which is usually unprotected. Good catch! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For consistency, remove "to" as described in this diff. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 17:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Permanently protected}}
+{{Talk header|search=yes|arpol=no|wp=no|disclaimer=no|bottom=no}}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
 | algo                = old(91d)
 | archive             = Template talk:No footnotes/Archive %(counter)d
-| counter             = 1
+| counter             = 2
 | maxarchivesize      = 150K
 | archiveheader       = {{Aan}}
@@ Line 8: / Line 10: @@
 | minthreadsleft      = 3
 }}
+{{Old AfD multi |date1=7 March 2007 |result1='''No consensus''' |page1=Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 7#Template:No_footnotes |date2=4 April 2022 |result2='''No consensus''' |page2=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Template:BLP no footnotes}}
-{{Talk header|search=yes|arpol=no|wp=no|disclaimer=no|bottom=no|force=true}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|
-{{Auto archiving notice|age=3|units=months|small=no|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
-{{Tfdend|date=2007 March 7|result=no consensus}}
 {{WikiProject Reference works}}
+}}
-== Replace essay and WikiProject wikilinks ==
+== Edit request 7 March 2023 ==
+{{edit template-protected|answered=yes}}
-Please see [[Template_talk:More_footnotes#Replace_essay_and_WikiProject_wikilinks]]. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 02:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
+'''Description of suggested change:''' Serial comma seems required (more than merely preferable).
+'''Diff:'''
-==Change in wording==
+{{TextDiff|1=This [article] includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear|2=This [article] includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear}} [[User:A876|A876]] ([[User talk:A876|talk]]) 18:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
-{{u|CFCF}}, where and when was the change in wording for this template discussed? I prefer the old version. [[User:BlackcurrantTea|BlackcurrantTea]] ([[User talk:BlackcurrantTea|talk]]) 19:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
+:{{done}}<!-- Template:ETp --> &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 13:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
+== Edit request 5 February 2024 ==
-:Would you care to elaborate as to why to prefer the older version? [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|Mere preference]] is not a valid argument. I took consideration and a great deal of care in performing my edit; not to remove or change any of the information in the template. The template is no less precise and if possible only reduces the degree to which it is excessively polite. We have considerable issues of these templates being ignored, and politeness is not helpful there, because it is even more likely to be ignored. I removed a few uses of this template placed in 2007–2009, where editors had added footnotes, but the template was simply ignored. There is both independent research and reports from the WMF that show how the longer a message is, the less likely it is to be read.  [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;background:#D0F0C0">'''Carl Fredrik'''</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 19:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
-::You say that you {{tq|took consideration and a great deal of care in performing my edit}}, yet you disregarded the note on the documentation page which says {{tq|Please discuss changes on the talk page before implementing them.}}<p>The older version makes it more likely that a new editor will understand that inline citations are something derived from {{tq|a list of references, related reading or external links}}. With the changed wording, a new editor might well simply move references into the text, adding to the articles with bare URLs or external links in square brackets in the text that I see every day. As for editors leaving a maintenance template on an article despite having resolved the issue, that's hardly a problem restricted to this template. [[User:BlackcurrantTea|BlackcurrantTea]] ([[User talk:BlackcurrantTea|talk]]) 20:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
+{{Edit template-protected|Template:No footnotes/doc|answered=yes}}
-:::This template was one of the longest maintenance templates, so that is why I edited it, despite the problem being prevalent elsewhere, per [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. I made the reasoned assumption that because my edit would not change the meaning of the message that it would not require discussion as per [[Wikipedia:Template_editor#When_to_seek_discussion_for_template_changes|When to seek discussion for template changes]].
-:::I do not believe that in this day and age, any editor will have a problem understanding what an inline citation is. (It is very unlikely that would've had that problem 10 years ago either.) We can't specify every single possible way new editors could potentially mess up their edits — or we would not have anything but warning messages. It doesn't make sense to say that in this template, seeing as we don't plaster every other Wikipedia page with that information. There isn't really any reason to believe that other pages would be less likely to see that issue. </br>[[Information overload]] is a very real and very high priority issue on Wikipedia, and the shorter we can keep ourselves without losing the '''point of the message''', the better.
-:::P.S. — I'll add another point, about the "please discuss" on the talk page: <u>I</u> put that there yesterday, which seem like it was a pretty big mistake. I'm changing it back to "consider discussing" (it was "please consider discussing"). [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;background:#D0F0C0">'''Carl Fredrik'''</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 21:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
-::::{{re|CFCF}} The new version is wrong. The references aren't unclear: they are right there. What is unclear is the source of the information in the article.
-::::The original version declares that references are what the article has but that its sources (which can be interpreted more generally) remain unclear.
-::::Try not to make changes like this in the future without discussing them. <span style="background-color:#c4c4c4;border-radius:8px;padding:0px 2px;">[[User:SUM1|<span style="color:#000;font-weight:bold;">·&nbsp;•&nbsp;SUM1&nbsp;•&nbsp;·</span>]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="color:#000;font-weight:bold;font-size:.8em;">([[User_talk:SUM1|talk]])</span> 02:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
-::::Actually, the original version also contained "related reading or [[wikipedia:External links|external links]]", which your version lacks. So, articles like [[Action on Rights for Children]] are no longer accurately described.
-::::I suggest you change it back until you get consensus, as you've had more than one person object to your edit. <span style="background-color:#c4c4c4;border-radius:8px;padding:0px 2px;">[[User:SUM1|<span style="color:#000;font-weight:bold;">·&nbsp;•&nbsp;SUM1&nbsp;•&nbsp;·</span>]]</span>&nbsp;<span style="color:#000;font-weight:bold;font-size:.8em;">([[User_talk:SUM1|talk]])</span> 02:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
-:::::{{u|CFCF}}, you've edited since {{u|SUM1}} added his objections to mine. Will you self-revert until consensus is reached on the change? [[User:BlackcurrantTea|BlackcurrantTea]] ([[User talk:BlackcurrantTea|talk]]) 04:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
+'''Description of suggested change:'''
-{{od}}Sorry, I lost track of the ping in all the coronavirus stuff. I can't agree that the template is in any way "wrong", if maybe less specific.</br>My entire point has been that we can't list all the ways in which the tagged article could be wrong — and the old version lists 3 different ways in which the references are unclear due to lack of inline citations.</br>What benefit is served by listing these points? Why draw the line arbitrarily at three examples? What about when articles tack all their citations at the ends of paragraphs? Is that that not unclear due to lack of inline citations? If it's simply about where the template should be used we can update the /documentation here instead.</br>The onus of getting the template on the right articles is on the placer — whereas what I'm concerned with is if the one who sees the template will read and understand what needs to be done (in as few words as possible). I don't see how the change made the message about helping less clear. Rather I feel it is clearer because it is more direct. If consider these issues, and the fact that it was excessively long and most templates are ignored when they feature too much text — yet still consider it a problem I may be willing to restore the template to what it was. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;background:#D0F0C0">'''Carl Fredrik'''</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 15:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
+Currently the section [[Template:No_footnotes#How_to_use|How to use]] has two identical examples on date usage:
-== Hmmm ==
+{{blockquote|
+<nowiki>
+This template has a |date= parameter. One way to use this parameter is {{No footnotes|date=February 2024}} but it can be done more explicitly as {{No footnotes|date=February 2024}} (both result in the same output).
+</nowiki>
+}}
+I assume one of them is supposed to use `subst` like in [[Template:More_citations_needed]].
-"Help Wikipedia improve by adding precise citations!"
+I can't see the source so I don't know what's being wrapped in `nowiki` or anything, so it might be more complex than this:
-The hell with your exclamation marks. This not the only template to use them. We don't need to be shouted at. THIS IS NOT AN EMERGENCY.
+'''Diff:'''
-Such marks are entirely unnecessary except in reported speech, e.g. "Fuck off!", he yelled. [[User:MinorProphet|MinorProphet]] ([[User talk:MinorProphet|talk]]) 15:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
+{{TextDiff|1=This template has a <nowiki>|date=</nowiki> parameter. One way to use this parameter is <nowiki>{{No footnotes|date=February 2024}}</nowiki>|2=This template has a <nowiki>|date=</nowiki> parameter. One way to use this parameter is <nowiki><nowiki>{{No footnotes|{{subst:DATE}}}}</nowiki></nowiki>}} [[User:Ligaturama|Ligaturama]] ([[User talk:Ligaturama|talk]]) 18:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
+:{{complete2}}. For the future, you can edit the documentation page by clicking the edit link in the top-right section of the green documentation, which is usually unprotected. Good catch''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>20:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
-:[[MOS:EXCLAMATION]] seems to share your disapproval of exclamation marks, although I don't know whether it applies to amboxes. Anyway, the exclamation mark is no longer in this template's message, as far as I see. —[[User:2d37|2d37]] ([[User talk:2d37|talk]]) 02:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
+== Template-protected edit request on 3 April 2024 ==
-== Use of "section" ==
+{{edit template-protected|Template:No footnotes|answered=yes}}
-I suggest that some guidance be added on when it is ever appropriate to use {{tlx|No footnotes|section}}, which produces a message {{tqq|This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations}}, considering that {{tq|list[s] of references, related reading or external links}} all should have their own sections, separate from any text to which {{tq|inline citations}} reasonably could be attached. —[[User:2d37|2d37]] ([[User talk:2d37|talk]]) 02:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
+For consistency, remove "to" as described in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:No_footnotes/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1217072775 this diff]. [[User:ToadetteEdit|<span style="color:#fc65b8;">'''Toadette'''</span>]] <sup>''([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|<span style="color:blue;">Let's talk together!</span>]])''</sup> 17:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
+:{{complete2}}. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>13:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)</small>
-:@[[User:2d37|2d37]], I think you're right.  The simplest solution I can think of is to remove the <code>|section</code> from the documentation, while leaving the function in place.  That should discourage (or at least not-encourage) its use.
-:Also:  There are 53,000 uses.  I wonder what percentage is accurately tagging the article.  I looked at about a dozen whose titles start with the letter 'A' in [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Medicine2.html#Has%20general%20references%20but%20lacks%20inline%20footnotes this list] (warning: ''very'' large page), and at least half of them were inappropriate/outdated.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
-::In particular, I wonder how often the redirect "More footnotes" was used, when what was actually wanted was [[Template:Unreferenced section]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)