Template talk:NoteTag

No useful documentation
The "documentation" of this template does not, in fact, document the use of this template (it merely mentions it in a table of similar templates). I had to look at the template code to figure out why it even exists (apparently, merely to avoid typing "|group=note"). If this template is going to stick around, it should "justify" its existence by documenting how and why it should be used (vis-a-vis any other footnote-related template). - dcljr (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The template is redundant to, you should be using that instead. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. This is just as redundant (in exactly the same way) as, , etc., a fact that would be more clear if it were named . Perhaps it should just be moved to that name (leaving a redirect). - dcljr (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 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) – robertsky (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

– Consistency with other footnote templates, see H:PREGROUP. – Material  Works  22:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 04:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Template:NoteTag → Template:Efn-note
 * Template:NoteFoot → Template:Notelist-note
 * Comment I think it'd be clearer if it were / , where this pair generates named endlinks "note #" , and not a freeform label where one could enter such a name as a parameter into NoteTag -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: No activity Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 04:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject_Templates has been notified of this discussion. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 04:38, 2 September 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.
 * Oppose. Not clear that any consistency is being gained here, and suggested new titles seem awkward.  SnowFire (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Absent a good argument for why the new names are more useful than the old, I don't think the move should be performed just to complete a set. Also,  seems a bit redundant, no? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)