Template talk:Efn

Broken backlink, lost text and no error message if syntax error in efn
The footnote (should be ) with callout  produces a line with only the footnote letter and "^" (see below); clicking on the "^" does not jump to the callout. No error message is displayed. This makes it very difficult to correct the error, because there is no indication of which footnote is malformed.

Requested move 31 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

– Per WP:TG, "[t]emplate function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates." "efn" is a clear violation of this guideline, therefore, the names should be expanded. Apologies for the longer nomination. HouseBlastertalk 01:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Template:Efn → Template:Explanatory footnote
 * Template:Efn/doc → Template:Explanatory footnote/doc
 * Template:Efn/sandbox → Template:Explanatory footnote/sandbox
 * Template:Efn/testcases → Template:Explanatory footnote/testcases
 * Template:Efn-ua → Template:Upper-alpha explanatory footnote
 * Template:Efn-ua/doc → Template:Upper-alpha explanatory footnote/doc
 * Template:Efn-lr → Template:Lower-roman explanatory footnote
 * Template:Efn-lr/doc → Template:Lower-roman explanatory footnote/doc
 * Template:Efn-ur → Template:Upper-roman explanatory footnote
 * Template:Efn-ur/doc → Template:Upper-roman explanatory footnote/doc
 * Template:Efn-lg → Template:Lower-greek explanatory footnote
 * Template:Efn-lg/doc → Template:Lower-greek explanatory footnote/doc
 * One advantage of the current naming scheme is that they all start with the same string. The proposed set of strings breaks this helpful pattern. If we must do this, I would rather see a pattern like Template:Explanatory footnote/Upper-Roman and Template:Explanatory footnote/Lower-Greek. Also note the capitalization; Roman and Greek are proper nouns. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Using a slash would make them subpages, but we could do something like Template:Explanatory footnote (upper-alpha). They are pseudo-dabs, after all (if lowercase Greek was our only option, we would probably call it Template:Efn / Template:Explanatory footnote).Regarding capitalization, I went with lowercase because the technical ref names follow that pattern (e.g.,  instead of ). HouseBlastertalk 03:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * If the move is to take place, Greek and Roman should be uppercase as they are proper nouns, even if they're not capitalized in tags in wikicode. Graham (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's short and neat. The name was chosen as a parallel to . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the redirects would remain for common use. We talk about/link to WP:NPOV, but the page is really at Neutral point of view. Similarly, tl is used way more often than the target page, template link. I would support expanding sfn to shortened footnote, and if this RM is successful I will propose that move. HouseBlastertalk 16:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: If these are renamed, there is a danger that more people might understand them and use them. I suspect a lot of people don't know what "Efn" stands for. On the other hand, I suppose the redirect already exists. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of these new names like "lower-greek explanatory footnote" are a bit long. Is there a reason for having separate templates for efn-ua, efn-lr, efn-ur, and efn-lg that essentially does the same thing minus displaying different alphabets? Could it be feasible to, without disruption, merge four templates into efn (or explanatory footnote) in order to minimize the length of these names? AlphaBeta135  talk 21:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need to use any of the six-character templates names, all of them are merely wrappers for with one parameter (group) forced and some aliases made invalid. For example, using  is exactly the same as using ; the name parameter may also be used with exactly the same meaning and behaviour. However, these short forms do not recognise the group parameter (because it's forced), and the content of the footnote must be in the form of an unnamed (positional) parameter - the aliases reference, content and text are all ignored. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The quote from WP:TG reflects one of several factors that are relevant in template naming. Another is the principle that a template's title should be the name that's recommended for use when transcluding. In most cases, these two principles pull in the same direction (if you a see a template used somewhere, you should be able to figure out what it means without looking it up, so an explicit and verbose title is best). However, these diverge for the case of the small number of frequently used inline templates. Such templates should be used under their brief names, because these are easier to remember and to type, and because they don't clutter the wikitext. That's the same reason you have sfn and not shortened footnote, or  instead of . The current naming is not a violation of WP:TG, as the template names are still intuitive and clear (it's just that potentially clearer longer names are avoided because of the need for brevity). Also, as pointed out above, with the current naming scheme, the relation between the templates in this family is a bit clearer. – Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Are external links acceptable in efn templates?
I'm currently editing the Pokémon article, which uses external links in one of the efn notes. I would like to know whether or not external links in explanatory footnotes are acceptable before I make any edits to that footnote. TheVHSArtist (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You might get a better answer to your question at Wikipedia talk:External links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you TheVHSArtist (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Usage in Arrayprint
Is it possible to use it inside arrayprint? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There's only one way to find out: try. Or ask about it at meta:Extension talk:Arrays. - Manifestation (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll ask there. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no Extension talk: namespace at meta - the page meta:Extension:Arrays doesn't exist, and your post has gone into mainspace. I think that you mean mw:Extension talk:Arrays. Also, you should link efn, otherwise they might not know what you mean. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Woops!! My apologies! What I meant of course was mw:Extension talk:Arrays, *not* meta:Extension talk:Arrays. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Why doesn’t this template work on talk page posts?
It would be handy if it did. Of course you can still add it into the source but… :( RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @RadioactiveBoulevardier: Why wouldn't it work on talk page posts? It works on this talk page:
 * Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)