Template talk:No footnotes/Archive 2

Change in wording
, where and when was the change in wording for this template discussed? I prefer the old version. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Would you care to elaborate as to why to prefer the older version? 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.  Carl Fredrik  talk 19:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You say that you took consideration and a great deal of care in performing my edit, yet you disregarded the note on the documentation page which says Please discuss changes on the talk page before implementing them. The older version makes it more likely that a new editor will understand that inline citations are something derived from 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. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 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. 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: I 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"). Carl Fredrik  talk 21:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. · • SUM1 • ·  (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the original version also contained "related reading or 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. · • SUM1 • ·  (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you've edited since added his objections to mine. Will you self-revert until consensus is reached on the change? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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. 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. 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. 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. Carl Fredrik talk 15:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm
"Help Wikipedia improve by adding precise citations!"

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.

Such marks are entirely unnecessary except in reported speech, e.g. "Fuck off!", he yelled. MinorProphet (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 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. —2d37 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Use of "section"
I suggest that some guidance be added on when it is ever appropriate to use, which produces a message , considering that list[s] of references, related reading or external links all should have their own sections, separate from any text to which inline citations reasonably could be attached. —2d37 (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @2d37, I think you're right. The simplest solution I can think of is to remove the   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 this list (warning: very large page), and at least half of them were inappropriate/outdated.   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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose I agree that's the simplest solution. What maintenance template (if any) would you suggest be used instead to tag a section that has no citations but is in an article that does have one or more general references?
 * I would have expected to fit that role, though it currently seems not to make sense. As an alternative solution, unless that role is filled already by some other template I haven't noticed, I propose that the message of  could be changed to fit that role:
 * I suppose Unreferenced section could be used, but it doesn't indicate that the content may be supported by general references and so may result in such content's simply being deleted later even if it was supported by a general reference — but maybe it's good to let the content be discarded if its sourcing is unclear? (I'm not familiar enough with the consensuses on such finer points of WP:V to know.)
 * —2d37 (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there actually is a consensus on this; it usually comes down to the personal preference, I mean, the editorial judgement of whoever happens to be around at the time. The absence of an inline citation is enough to remove it under WP:CHALLENGE rules, even if general references are elsewhere on the page (or applicable inline citations attached to other paragraphs).  Except perhaps when thinking of editors making their first edits, the difference is probably not material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there actually is a consensus on this; it usually comes down to the personal preference, I mean, the editorial judgement of whoever happens to be around at the time. The absence of an inline citation is enough to remove it under WP:CHALLENGE rules, even if general references are elsewhere on the page (or applicable inline citations attached to other paragraphs).  Except perhaps when thinking of editors making their first edits, the difference is probably not material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination
Template:No footnotes has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 22:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Terasail [✉️] 23:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Link "related reading"

 * It would be helpful if the text reading "related reading" linked to Further reading, much as "list of references" and "external links" link to related information respectively. This is a minor change, and shouldn't cause any problems. – Scyrme (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 20:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Scyrme (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)