Template talk:Resfn

Why does this exist?
Sfn already automatically groups identical sfn templates. What is the advantage of this one? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For . See last discussions at Template talk:Sfn. --Grufo (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have created a test case on the test cases page that shows resfn re-using a short footnote with a ps parameter. Is that the only use case for this template? If so, the documentation should explain that. Right now, the documentation does not explain how this template is different from Sfn, since Sfn already permits short footnote reuse. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The only thing this template does is granting that a named reference is never defined multiple times (which of course requires that a reference has been already defined once). The Sfn template redefines named references in the case of |ps=, but there might be other cases where this happens, or new cases might be created in the future. In any scenario, the Resfn template will never (re)define a named reference, so it will always work as a solution for the error above. As the name suggests, this template is meant for safely re-using the references created by Sfn, whatever the reason might be. --Grufo (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Test cases
Would it be more helpful to provide a  version of the test immediately before it? Sort of: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla vel lorem augue. In non ante sed dolor egestas rhoncus ut in quam. Vivamus quis ante rutrum erat suscipit interdum.