Template talk:More footnotes


jesus, this is really picky. you're saying the article has sources, lists references, and so on, but because they're not linked to the exact places in the text that they're cited from that an entire nag template needs to be placed on the article? don't you think that's a little silly? as if people are going to magically understand earth penetrating weapons so much better if the article had footnotes in specific places rather than a list of sources. come on, really. ... aa:talk 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes bring better verifiability.--Kozuch (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Given a 30K article presenting, say, 60 facts needing verification, but citing 3 references, with no information as to what facts are cited by which reference where, there is no reason for any reader to take the article seriously. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Plus, using this template once is often more reader-friendly, and aesthetically appealing, than dozens of individual {{fact}} tags throughout. — Satori Son 12:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:So fix it - why do people just add this tag and expect other people to fix it? This tag spam should be banned. Smallbones (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Citations missing[edit]

Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Style edits[edit]


I've made some tweaks to the layout of the template (and fixed some problems such as improper transclusion of interwikis) in the new sandbox. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} This template is quite noisy and visually assaulting. Both bolded and unbolded text run in and out of bluetext, there's an orange stripe at the left and a colour image. This mess could be alleviated by removing the bold attribute from the text – it is ineffective as used in any case as the rest of the text is so short. Thank you, Skomorokh 15:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this follows one of the standard styles where the bold part indicates the problem with the article (i.e. the important part). I don't believe it is set in stone but a lot of these boxes follow a similar style to this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Should this go at the top or in a references section?[edit]

I've seen this template used both places.

Where does it belong?

For what it's worth, most cleanup templates that aren't "-section" or "|section" belong at the top of an article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the references section for four reasons: This is where footnotes should be, nofootnotes goes there, more footnotes is not an important issue and helps it distiguinsh from unreferenced tag (many editors get confused in that). -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that it should be at the top of the article in most cases. If there are so few citations that this tag is needed then readers need a clear warning that the accuracy of the article contents is in doubt. Also editors are more likely to take action when the banner is placed in a prominent location. However it is probably best to leave it to the consensus of editors on each article; there may be valid reasons to choose one location over the other in some situations. Road Wizard (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
If the acuracz is in doubt then it should be stated clearly with the apropriate template. --Magioladitis (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the appropriate template. Given the ease with which vandals can sneak incorrect statements into well referenced articles every uncited statement is in doubt. Road Wizard (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
No, this is not an accuracy template, it's a quibble template relating to ease of verifiability. It should be in the refs section because it is nothing more than a request for improvement to the formatting and usage of the extant references, not at all a complaint that the are no or are insufficient references. This is really, really clear from the template's own wording, its documentation, everything on this talk page and everything said at its TfD. I.e., well, everything ever said about this template, period. :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I think we will just have to disagree on that point then.
If there is a consensus to put it in the reference section then I would suggest saying so in the usage notes. Otherwise I expect this discussion will recur again in the future. If no consensus has been agreed then my suggestion to treat it on an article by article basis would appear to be a correct assessment of the current situation. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Clarification. For the record I have not at any point called it an accuracy template. Road Wizard (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) Over two years later, I still see no one but Road Wizard suggesting this should be used at the top of articles instead of in the refs section, so I'm updating the documentation. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I for one think it belongs to the top on a case-by-case basis. Some articles have a huge amount of text, a trivial amount of inline citations, and a modest sources section. There is no indication whatsoever that the section match the text - it may well be problematic or obsolete itself. In those cases, it's good to warn the reader just like with {{refimprove}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So why didn't you say so two years ago? I don't know what you mean by "that the section match the text"? What section? What text? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I didn't say so because I didn't see the question. People often don't diligently track template talk pages *shrug*
I was referring to the relation between the sources section, how ever it is called, and the other text. Anyway, Wikipedia:Citing sources which is an accepted guideline pretty strongly suggests inline citations over general references, and it also says its more important for longer articles, so I think that's a logical standard to follow in this case, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
That means its a valid cleanup issue to flag. Doesn't mean it needs to be flagged outside the refs section with a loud top-of-page banner. Given that (below) people have been so opposed to this template they've suggested requiring it only to be on the talk page, I think this should be an RfC. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 21:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

More compact "please" text[edit]


I've just made a change in the Template:More footnotes/sandbox to make the "please" message a bit more compact, similar to the format of {{refimprove}}. If there are no objections, we might as well incorporate the change into the live template. TheFeds 02:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

True, it would be more consistent with {{refimprove}} but it wouldn't match the more common format of these boxes such as {{wikify}}, {{pov}}, {{confusing}}, etc. etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
That's fair enough—no objection to cancelling the editprotected. I actually noticed the discrepancy because the table in {{Citations missing}} recommends using them together in certain cases...but it didn't look quite right. I'd be content if a standard format was used throughout the banner range, but upon further inspection, they actually appear pretty fragmented in terms of style. (And it's not just these ones—WP:TC has several styles.) TheFeds 20:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Convert to a Talk page template[edit]

Stale: No support for proposal after a year and a half.

Given the current wording of this template, it is not really appropriate on article pages. It is a maintenance template, requesting clean-up of format and layout but not directly challenging the authenticity of the content in the way that Template:Unreferenced does. That kind of commentary has always been held on the article Talk pages.

Infoboxes like this one are inherently disruptive to our readers. They distract from the content and reduce the professionalism of the presentation. Infoboxes on the page itself should be reserved for only the most serious maintenance concerns - ones that every reader will care about. Things like this are important but should be posted to the article's Talk page for resolution.

Unfortunately, the format of this box does not currently lend itself to posting on the Talk page. I would appreciate an alternative wording and layout that was better suited for Talk. Any suggestions? Rossami (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Style tweaks to referencing templates[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:template messages/Cleanup#Style tweaks to referencing templates for a discussion relating to the styling of {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{no footnotes}} and {{more footnotes}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

List of References link[edit]

Should it link to {{{}#References}} or {{{}/#reflist}} - not another page. 'This article includes a list of references' - link to them? ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two reasons to avoid such a link - first, the template could already be in the same section, and second, there is no uniformity in the destinations - the list could be in a section called "References", "Sources", "Notes", "External links" or even something else. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should this template be used only in references section, at page top, or on talk page?[edit]

This talk page shows several years of low-level but unresolved disagreement about whether this template should:

  • Be used as a dispute template at the top of the article, or top of the section in which information is only sourced to general references without inline footnotes
  • Only be used, as a cleanup template, in the references section (or equivalent, such as "Notes", "Footnotes", "Bibliography", etc., per the article's structure – the section in which reference citations are listed)
  • Be used only on the talk page as a minor cleanup template

SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 21:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  • References section. My take, as stated in earlier discussions and as I tried to make clear in the documentation, is that this template does not flag a verifiability problem, only an ease of verifiability quibble, and thus should not be placed outside the references (or equivalent) section as if it were a dispute/warning template. We seem to have gotten away from the idea of using talk pages as "hosts" of cleanup templates for the most part, unless they're very close to trivial, like {{reqphoto}}. Lack of footnotes is neither trivial nor an an article emergency like an {{POV}} or {{Unreferenced}} might be. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 21:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment If I use it I place it in the Notes section, but there is no consensus whether to place it at the top or in appropriate WP:FNNR section. However the move in the last few years has been to stop recognising entries in the general references section as adequate and that inline citations are needed for verification. WP:CITE reflects this with "Inline citations" and "General references" being in different sections. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Top of article or section because it says the sources remain unclear. I take this to mean that editors can't figure out which publication to look in to verify a statement. Since a list of general references could contain many large print-only books, it could take a year for a reader to borrow the various books through inter-library loan and try to find the part of the book that supports the claim. That's close enough to unverified for me. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC), added "or section" 23:55 UTC
  • Top of article. It indicates a problem with the whole article, not just the reference section. The message is displayed in the same place as an independent message and when included in {{Multiple issues}}. It is more likely to get noticed and fixed if it is displayed at the top. It indicates a potential verification problem to the reader. For very short articles, where it might be a quibble, it should probably not be used at all. Otherwise, especially when additions have been made since the references were listed, verifiabilty of individual statements can be a serious problem. --Boson (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
That's what {{citation needed}} is for. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
{{Citation needed}} is not very helpful when you have a long article with a lot evaluative material, dates, and figures but only one or two footnotes for minor points - which is where I would expect this template to be used. In my experience, {{More footnotes}} is often worth considering for translations from German Wikipedia, since these often make very little use of footnotes. Another, related, problem with such translated articles, is that the creator of the English article usually does not credit the direct source of the reference and it is not known if the creator actually verified the original reference. --Boson (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I intend that to include "or at the top of the relevant body section when used with the section parameter ({})".--Boson (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No new rules needed. All of the possibilities given in the RFC seem likely to be useful in different situations, and making a rule about when we can or can't use this template seems like WP:CREEP to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
But all of our templates have (unless not properly documented) instructions on how/when/where to use them and not use them. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that any firm rules are needed, but placement in the particular section of the article would be better than any of the three options listed above. A blanket "needs more footnotes" request is essentially useless. Unless the editor who places the template leaves detailed info about what they want a footnote for, nobody else can tell what they were looking at. WP:V only requires footnotes for quotations and particular things challenged or likely to be challenged; other things don't "need" footnotes as long as they are verifiable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No new rules needed - I agree with David here, the template works for all possibilities and there no need for particular regulation here. Indeed there might be WP:CREEP issue here as well, it seems like totally unnecessary micromanagement of authors/editors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: That's a bit uncharitable. For over three and half years there's been criticism that this template even exists. It's not instruction creep at all to restrict this to the refs section or the talk page, if one's view is that the template is flagging a non-critical (see Carl/CBM, above) problem. I.e., to some "it seems like totally unnecessary" templates-in-your-face "tag soup" to have this template used as a page-topper dispute tag. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you that this was a decent topic for an RFC. Nevertheless, I've seen way too many articles with a lot of fishy content not attributed to any particular source, yet with a plausible sources section, to consider this template an abusive tagging by default. It's very much legitimate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I wasn't aware of the history of the template and quarrels of the past. However I have no issue with template as such, but i do have somewhat of an issue of nailing down the possible position in the article to the last epsilon, which I strikes me as WP:CREEP. People consider this template as "tag soup" most likely have no issue with exact placing but with the template as such. Hence the suggestions of this RFC may not address their issue at all, which imho makes it even more look like WP:CREEP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In the article, on top or in the section, as appropriate. As I've written above, that would best match the relevant guideline - Wikipedia:Citing sources. This is a valid article tag that is beneficial to the readers, it should not be moved to talk pages where it'll be largely out of their sight. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    This kind of template is generally not supposed o be used to warn the reader. Besides, if the reader doesn't notice the absence of inline citations (they are tolerably obvious), then I doubt that this template would actually "help" him in any meaningful sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it does help the users in case of articles that have a few inline citations but dozens of paragraphs that aren't inline-referenced and aren't actually coupled with the sources section. The reader might see the sources section and get the mistaken impression that it matches the text, but it could easily be completely out of sync with the text. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It may not tell experienced scholars anything they don't already know. But it is useful for younger readers, who might be moving from a late middle school environment, where a simple bibliography at the end is sufficient, to a high school environment where inline citation is expected. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No new rules needed. If I use it (but I usually use {{refimprove}}), I place this template like {{refimprove}}) in the appropriate WP:FNNR section, others place it at the top of the article. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • At top of article or section seems fine to me. Note, though, that Twinkle places tags at the top, so we can't have any rule which says it mustn't go at the top, without re-writing Twinkle ... Pesky (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Twinkle does need to be rewritten, since a large number of templates are not for top-of-article usage, such as all all -section and |section templates. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 16:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • NNRN- it can be a judgement call or arbitrary. We should fix these articles instead of worrying where the templates go. Rich Farmbrough, 21:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
  • Top of the article - If I was a reader, having the citations inline with the text I was reading would reassure me that the article has good references, the article material is verifiable and contains to original research and that the references themselves are reliable. Simply listing them at the end is unconvincing for the reader and putting the template at the top of the article warns them of this.
  • NNRN - While I have my preferences, ... I don't believe that codifying this will help matters. Roughly per Rich F. --joe deckertalk to me 03:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • NNRN - Its okay.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 04:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • NNRN I think most often the template should go on the top of a page to alert potential readers to the sourcing problem, yet editors should have the flexibility to use it in other ways. Monty845 02:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong link[edit]

The link underneath the words "inline citation" should point to WP:INCITE, not to WP:CITEFOOT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Done see here --Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is just tag spam[edit]

This tag doesn't help anything. It should be removed on sight. If you think that an article needs more footnotes, please just add them, see WP:So fix it. The only thing this does is sit on a page and look ugly. Stop tag spamming now! Smallbones (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes there are others better qualified then the tagger to fix it. Sometimes the tagger doesn't have the time or resources necessary to fix it. Sometimes the tagger just doesn't want to be bothered to fix it, but is willing to at least tag it. In all those cases the tag is better then the editor moving on without alerting anyone else to the problem. Sure, ideally the tagging editor would instead fix the problem, same for any maint tag, but the reality is that it just doesn't work that way. Monty845 03:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, there is another solution other then add more footnotes. Instead of looking for footnotes to add, tagger could just start removing uncited material. I doubt thats the WP:So fix it result your looking for though. Monty845 03:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If the tagger wants to remove uncited material, that's fine with me. Tags that sit on pages for years are not fine with me. I think the theory of tags is that if somebody puts a tag on the page, somebody else will come along and fix the problem, "but the reality is that it just doesn't work that way." Why doesn't it work that way? Often because the tag spammer doesn't explain what the perceived problem is. Often because the tagger is on some type of ego-trip, trying to say what he thinks is ideally acceptable in this encyclopedia, without doing the real work himself. If you don't want to clean up somebody else's mess (not mine!), please don't add to the mess. BTW nasty looking tags and warnings are one reason that editor retention is down. Please don't add to this problem - just fix the problems that you see! Smallbones (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about adding more sources; it's about figuring out which of the WP:General references supports which sentences, and converting them to WP:Inline citations. If you didn't write the material or read all of the sources listed on the page, then you cannot "just fix it". Try it: Austro-Asiatic languages has a long list of sources that were used to write the majority of content for the article. Are you personally able to tell me which sentences in the article are supported by those thirteen general references? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
So if you can't take the time to fix it, and you don't expect me to be able to fix it, just put a tag on it, and then you expect somebody else to come along a be able to fix it? If it is this complicated, the tag won't help - just politely go and ask the original editor to fix it. An ugly nagging tag accomplishes nothing. Smallbones (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If the tag is seen by the original editor, you are "politely ask[ing] the original editor to fix it". In fact, getting an "ugly nagging tag" off a prized creation is highly motivating for some editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
If the tag is seen by the original editor it still doesn't help as no useful information has been provided as to how to fix the problem. This tag tends to stay in articles for years, as no-one knows what to fix, or if they do fix something, don't know if it was what the person who put the tag on meant, so they leave the tag. After a while no-one knows if there is a problem, so no-one tries to fix it and the petrified annoyance just hangs on forever, as the person who put it there never comes back to check, or if they do, can't remember what it referred to. There are much better alternatives. Inline {{citation needed}} informs everyone exactly what is challenged, and gets removed as and when each problem is fixed. I get the impression that {{More footnotes}} is probably used mainly by people who are too lazy to do a proper job, too ignorant to know what needs citation and what does not, and those who think that it is cool to put meaningless notices on articles. In all the time I have edited on WP I don't remember ever seeing one of these tags that was actually useful. So far I have refrained from simply deleting them on sight because I don't feel like getting into a flame war. I do not think that this ugly nagging tag is motivating at all. Frustrating and annoying, yes, and demotivating. I would gladly fix any challenged material that I have contributed If I could find out what was allegedly wrong with it. This template should be deleted with extreme prejudice and the ground over its grave salted. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree with the premise. The point is to tell the readers that the article has a general references section but that it does not necessarily support the content of the article. This is very much a meaningful thing to do; lack of inline citations is a genuine problem on Wikipedia. The complaints above appear to be more general complaints against cleanup templates as such - please move them to a more general venue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say that in the template documentation?
This template does not help improve the number and quality of inline citations precisely because it is too vague to indicate where they are needed. I challenge you to select 3 random cases of use and specify exactly what the perpetrator was referring to. Let us know how long it took you if you manage, and whether you think this is an effective use of time. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It says so right in the template itself. What's unclear about This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.? Yes, the exact paragraphs or sentences that are unsourced are not specified, but again, that's a general complaint against top-of-the-page (or top-of-the-section) templates as opposed to inline templates. These templates should be preferred in those cases where you'd have to litter the article with dozens of inline templates. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Bot-type addition of the tag to a large number of articles[edit]

I’ve noticed that one person has been manually adding the tag in a bot-type manner to thousands of pages. The tag will no doubt remain on the pages indefinitely as no one else will add the requested citations and I would therefore question whether this is desirable. Any thoughts? (Ukgeofan) 21:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You have posted the same question on three template talk pages I suggest that any replies about this issue are made at Template talk:Refimprove#Bot-type addition of the tag to a large number of articles -- PBS (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 January 2016[edit]

In the issue parameter of the template, where it says [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons{{!}}{{}}]], "biographical article" should be changed to "biography of a living person" for clarity. I did check this in my sandbox to make sure it works properly. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 Donexaosflux Talk 11:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 April 2016[edit]

I just realized a problem with the edit request I made above, when you invoke both blp=yes and a suffix. It would make the suffix into the pipe used in the piped link to WP:BLP. So, I've messed with the template, and I now have a fix for it. Please replace

This {{#ifeq: {{}}}}} | yes | [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons{{!}}{{}}]] | {{}} }} 


This {{#ifeq: {{}}}}} | yes | {{#if:{{}}}}}|{{}}}}} [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|'''about a living person''']] | [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|'''biography of a living person''']]}} | {{}} }} 

You can check the results at User:Compassionate727/sandbox3. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 15:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — JJMC89(T·C) 16:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 April 2016[edit]

I have a minor formatting adjustment for when a suffix has been defined and blp=yes. Please change

{{#if:{{}}}}}|{{}}}}} '''[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about a living person]]''' | 


{{#if: {{}}}}} | '''{{}}}}} [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about a living person]]''' | 

This also bolds the suffix, which looks nicer. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 15:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure there is consensus for that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done @Magioladitis: we made a similar edit at Template:No footnotes, so I don't see an issue here. Izno (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The parameter should be documented. SMcCandlish ¢ʌⱷ҅ʌ 01:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the suffix parameter[edit]

Recently at Template talk:BLP sources, I proposed that we remove the {{{suffix}}} parameter. In short, I don't believe that anybody uses it, since when we checked there, we found literally nobody was. It had been there for more than six years, as opposed to a couple months here. Anyway, all of the suffix stuff crowds the template and makes it less readable. There's that, and the fact that |suffix= doesn't work unless |blp=yes, and it would be easier to scrap a useless parameter then to bother to fix it. All said, I'll go ahead and suggest that the template be updated with the tracking category that is seen at the end of the sandbox version. Since it'll take a couple days for the category to fill with any instances, I think that'll be sufficient time for anybody who does have any objections to speak up. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: It makes sense only to do a partial sync to the sandbox. Removal of |suffix= before the tracking category code is added will not serve its purpose. Just need a confirmation before anyone takes action. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant. We're not removing anything now, just adding the cat. We'll remove in a couple of days (assuming no objections). –Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Partial sync done.Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yellow check.svg Partly done: For now. Re-activate the request when the category is full. Izno (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
|suffix= is now deprecated. Category:More footnotes using deprecated parameters remained empty. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 June 2016[edit]

Please add |removalnotice = yes inside the {{ambox}} template. Many of the other maintenance templates contain this and this one should be the same. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131#Implementing_Help:Maintenance_template_removal. Omni Flames (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneAndy W. (talk · ctb) 07:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 November 2016[edit]

I would like to have {{main other}} added to the first line so that only articles are categorized.

Currently the first line reads:

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B={{#ifeq:{{}}|π||[[Category:More footnotes using deprecated parameters]]}} 

Please change that to:

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B={{#ifeq:{{}}|π||{} }} 

Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89(T·C) 19:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2017[edit]

As with {{no footnotes}}, could the {{yesno-no}} template be added to the BLP parameter? Not hugely important, but might make things easier for those unaware of the {{BLP more footnotes}} wrapper template. Adam9007 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89(T·C) 02:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC of potential interest[edit]

An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Replace essay and WikiProject wikilinks[edit]

The links in the sentence Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations point to a WikiProject page that explains how to add tags, and an essay that explains unnecessary abbreviations. Just remove them; they help neither newcomers nor experienced editors to accomplish the requested task. If you need a suitable replacement, perhaps Help:Referencing for beginners would be actually useful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)