Template talk:No footnotes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2015[edit]

It seems that typing {{No footnotes|section}} is supposed to produce the text "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but the sources of this section remain unclear because it lacks inline citations." This makes sense, as individual sections by themselves don't contain references or links, only articles do. See also this discussion, where the change was made.

But the template doesn't work properly. Typing {{No footnotes|section}} instead produces a text which begins "This section includes a list of references..." which is incorrect. Looking at the code (disclaimer: I'm not familiar with Wikipedia template coding) I think the template is set to display "This (parameter 1) includes a list ... but the sources of this (parameter 1) remain unclear..." which causes the incorrect behavior. JudgeDeadd (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: JudgeDeadd, (parameter 1) is everything after the first pipe (bar eg. | ) character until then second pipe character or the closing curly brackets ( eg }} ). In your example |section}} says that section is parameter 1. This means the template is working as intended. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. It is clear that the template is not working as intended. See the discussion above, again. The template, in its current version, has been edited by User:EVula, in response to User:Peter coxhead's request that the phrase "This section includes..." be changed. This means that EVula's intentions were, indeed, to make the fix requested by Peter Coxhead--to change the template so that it states "This article includes..." But currently the template does not do so, and still produces the erroneous "This section includes..." text. So it is not working as the most recent editor intended. (True, other editors made some edits to the template after EVula, but their edits did not change anything in the part of the template I'm discussing, and don't seem to affect the functioning of this part.) JudgeDeadd (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

whole page
Using {{No footnotes}}

section only
Using {{No footnotes|section}}


Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As you can see in the example, if you want it to say article, don't use |section for parameter 1. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done The message relating to a section was nonsense; JudgeDeadd was quite right. It said "This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links" but sections never contain "a list of references, related reading or external links". These are part of the article. When used as {{No footnotes|section|BLP=yes}} it correctly said "This biographical article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but the sources of this section ...". So it should say the same without the "biographical" when BLP=yes is absent. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit-undo.svg Undone: This request has been undone. That's incorrect usage. If you want to introduce new functionality, please test it in the sandbox per WP:TESTCASES and develop a consensus before implementing. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Of course sections contain "a list of references, related reading or external links" - it's part of the Manual of Style. See WP:FNNR, WP:FURTHER and WP:ELLAYOUT. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Peter coxhead, for pointing out this omission in the BLP part of this template. I added that as an obvious omission. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
No. What Peter coxhead meant was that individual sections of the article itself don't contain their own, individual source listings etc., only the article as a whole does. JudgeDeadd (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If the section doesn't contain a list of references, related reading or external links then it is empty and should just be deleted. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
(sigh) Sorry, but I'm not sure why do people keep misunderstanding me, and this is getting annoying. I don't mean the References/External Links sections found at the end of articles. I mean that individual sections of the article itself don't contain their own individual reference lists. For example... in the article Hillsgrove Covered Bridge, the sections "Overview", "History", "Bridge dimensions" don't contain their own lists of reference sources tacked on at the end, so if we tried putting the template in one of these sections, the message wouldn't make sense -- it would refer to a reference list supposedly contained by the section, when there is no such list in the section itself. I really hope I expressed myself clearly; I have no idea how could I possibly make it any simpler. JudgeDeadd (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps that is because you are the one not reading what the template actually says and are misunderstanding everyone else. I also mean the individual sections of the article itself. If they do not contain their own individual reference lists, they must have either related reading or external links or they are empty and should be deleted. In your examples, those sections all have related reading which makes the template appropriate. There aren't suppose to be a {{Reflist}} in every section, but there are suppose to be inline citations in every section which will add entries to the {{Reflist}} section at the bottom of the page. Can you show me some actual examples of where you think this template is misused? I'll happily explain why it is or isn't appropriate for each one of your examples. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "I also mean the individual sections of the article itself. If they do not contain their own individual reference lists, they must have either related reading or external links or they are empty and should be deleted. In your examples, those sections all have related reading which makes the template appropriate." Uh... what? Okay, now you got me completely confused. All right, for example: in the Hillsgrove Covered Bridge article, take a look at the Overview section. Where, exactly, is the "related reading" in the section itself, or this section's own "individual reference list"? All I see is the "References" and "External links" sections at the bottom of the article as a whole. The "Overview" section doesn't contain any references/links at the bottom. Huh--I guess it means, per your words, that that section is actually empty (funny, because I'm pretty sure I see quite a lot of text in there) and we should delete it! As for your request for examples of misuse--e.g. take a look at the Colossi of Memnon page, the "Sound" section. The template is there, and it says: "This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links", but there are no references, related reading or external links to be found at the bottom of the "Sound" section, so the message is incorrect. Simple as that. Okay, the issue isn't that important; it's just a cosmetic change to fix a somewhat confusing text. But for the life of me I cannot comprehend why is my point so hard to understand. JudgeDeadd (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The related reading in Hillsgrove Covered Bridge#Overview is in the collapsed section below:
The related reading in Colossi of Memnon#Sounds is in the collapsed section below:
I'm hoping you understand now... Related reading means the text in the section. The text in the section has no inline references, hence the {{No footnotes}} is appropriate for that section. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that {{no footnotes|section}} is a better choice for these cases than, say, {{refimprove|section}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Only if there are no inline references at all in the section. Neither of the examples I'm responding to need {{No footnotes}} at all. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
If a section has no inline refs at all, use {{unreferenced|section}}.
If a section has some inline refs, but they are insufficient, use {{refimprove|section}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, it was me who was wrong from the start. You see, the "Sound" section in Colossi of Memnon was originally inserted with the books by Curzon and Gould added as sources into the article's Colossi of Memnon#References list, but without the inline citations. I wanted to add the template, but never realized that other readers wouldn't be able to tell which of the bibliographic entries refer to the section. That was incredibly dumb of me. JudgeDeadd (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please will someone explain to me when a section ever contains "a list of references, related reading or external links". It never does. The message makes no sense whatsoever. {{No footnotes|section}} should be used when the article has a list of references, related reading or external links, but there are no inline citations in that section. An example would be Pandurang Sadashiv Sane#Early life. The article has a list of references and of external links, but that section has no inline citations. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have seen that in the References section of an article, when it doesn't contain a list of refs. Some editors prefer to do that rather than place the ugly damn maint. template at the TOP of an article. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 03:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
But then the second part of the message is wrong, namely "the sources of this section remain unclear because it lacks inline citations"; when placed in the References section the message should read "This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but the sources of the article remain unclear because it lacks inline citations."
Return to my example: Pandurang Sadashiv Sane#Early life. If I put {{Unreferenced|section}} it should not read "This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but the sources of this section remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. ..." This message is plain wrong. The section does not include a list of anything. So why was my correction reverted? I'm still waiting for an explanation. Unless there's one soon, I'll make the correction again. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If you put {{Unreferenced|section}} it doesn't say that at all: it actually says "This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by ..." It's a clear message, and if inaccurate (e.g. because refs are present), either change it to something else (like {{BLP unreferenced|section}} or {{refimprove|section}}, or remove it. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: sorry, I switched templates above. {{Unreferenced}} is fine. {{No footnotes|section}} generates .
Peter coxhead (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Please will someone explain to me when a section ever contains "a list of references, related reading or external links". It never does."

Actually, I saw a (bare) external link spammed into the bottom of a new section just a few hours ago. "It never happens" is factually wrong. I am willing to agree that it should never happen, but that's a completely different kettle of fish. If you want to see reality, then you can spend a while cleaning up Whistleblower protection in the United States. It looks like there's about 90 external links that need to be cleaned up, many of them in list format, right in the sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"a list of references, related reading or external links"[edit]

I can't tell if this is what past discussions have been getting people annoyed about (I don't mean to start an argument), but the lack of a comma before the "or" in the above phrase implies that related reading and external links are examples of types of references. Is this what was meant? I thought those were three different things. KSFT (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 August 2015 (A minor request.)[edit]

For whatsoever reason, I keep thinking that it must be said "but its sources[...]" instead of "but its sources[...]". It just feels better for me that but be bold instead of being ordinarily un-bold. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, with but bold now, it feels as if it actually had a point of deprecating such an article's style of referencing. Not having it bold just seemed as if it were nearly neutral about the problem, making the template not have an excuse of objecting its reference style and thus seem a little pointless (but that does not take away the template's value of use entirely). Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)