Wikipedia talk:Nesting footnotes

sentence is not displaying 'correctly'
Original: Current wiki-markup: Current visible-rendering: The problem is that the  stuff isn't made visible when using tlx, which means the boldfaced bit looks nonsensically-repetitive. Not sure what the best fix for that is, so I'm complaining on the talkpage rather than being WP:BOLD myself. p.s. Original markup had the same problem, so switching back to tl won't make the |group= portion visibly-rendered, either. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The footnotes are displayed in an ordered list wherever the reference list markup (e.g. reflist, reflist or notelist) is placed.
 * The footnotes are displayed in an ordered list wherever the reference list markup (e.g., or ) is placed.
 * The footnotes are displayed in an ordered list wherever the reference list markup (e.g., or ) is placed.  ((emphasis added))
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I've fixed this by changing from to, although the   has had to go. No doubt there are many other possible ways out Noyster  (talk),  12:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All you needed to do was add a  before the   -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

is broken
The Reference within note section describes this use of :

Nesting footnotes

That appears to currently not work correctly, because most of the links are not correctly generated, and appear thus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nesting_footnotes#cite_note-

Note the #cite_note- anchor at the end. It should be #cite_note-1, -2, -3, etc., but it's not. It's a deceptive bug, because it looks right at first glance. The error only becomes apparent upon hovering over or clicking the links.

Since even the example at Nesting footnotes exhibits the bug, I suspect this worked at some stage, but probably someone changed something, and thus subtly broke. Or maybe this never really worked, and even the person who posted the example didn't notice that bug, I don't know.

If this should be reported somewhere else, please don't just tell me and wait for me to undefined respond, but do it. Thank you. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , true enough, and this is the right place to report it; good catch., this appears to have been your edit of 14:16, 13 September 2021; can you have a look? Mathglot (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks – you don't know how crazy that drove me over at Backspace, and in my sandbox. –ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)