Template talk:No footnotes

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

Serial Comma needed in template[edit]

I came across this template (or a version of it: "{{No inline citations|date=May 2013}}") on the Hermann and Dorothea page and noticed that it doesn't have a serial comma. I do a bit of editing on WP and tend to always include the serial comma (unless it causes more confusion, which seems to be rare). I'm curious to see whether others agree, and if so, should we edit the template to include it?

Thanks! WesT (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. What exact change are you proposing? --Izno (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I always omit it, unless it would cause confusion. That's just my preference. However, regardless of one's opinion on the matter, there isn't a reason to update the template just to make this change. Also Izno, the change would be to add a serial comma. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Compassionate727: Yes, I see that's the change he's proposing. But where in the template does he perceive a serial comma to be needed? --Izno (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
"...a list of references, related reading or external links..." —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Then why not say so instead of making us guess? I was under the impression that what was wanted was a comma to be placed before the opening square bracket. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: The what? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thinking of {{citation needed}} which is typically placed after a punctuation mark, and begins with a square bracket. But my point about not making us guess still stands. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Slightly confusing phrasing with "section" parameter[edit]

Using this template with section results in:

  • "This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations."

Obviously a single "section" does not include a list of references, FRs or ELs (usually). The standard handling of the section parameter does not work here. I suggest to rephrase the wording to something like this, when the section parameter is set:

  • "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but this section's sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations."

A similar tweak is also needed for Template:more footnotes with the same problem, consider it suggested for both templates at once please :). GermanJoe (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 June 2016[edit]

Move the {{#ifeq:{{{suffix|π}}}|π||[[Category:No footnotes using deprecated parameters]]}} to be inside the |$B= parameter of Module:unsubst. A similar problem exists with {{more footnotes}}

Reason for this change: make substing this template not produces an unnecessary #ifeq after the produced transclusion.

Pppery (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: The template doesn't clearly state that substitution is not allowed or anything, but what is the scenario that requires substitution? There isn't :) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 14:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 15:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I did act on this after testing anyway. Thanks. Ping if there are issues. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 15:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: In your fulfilling of this edit request, you added a stray }} to Template:More footnotes, which makes substituting the template produce a transclusion in addition to rather than instead of the substituted wikitext. I am reactivating this request to request removal of those stray brackets. Pppery (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe you intended to do that. In any case, I wanted |$B= param to contain the tracking category and the rest of the template code, not only one of those. Pppery (talk)
@Pppery: Yes check.svg Done with Special:Diff/730717443. Tested at {{X7}}. Thanks for the catch, that's on me. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 20:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Andy M. Wang: It looks like this can now be removed... I'm not certain I'm understanding the code 100% though so I want to check with you. It appears that the param {{{ suffix}}} is deprecated, yes? Since Category:No footnotes using deprecated parameters is now empty and there are thus no more instances of the template using the deprecated param, should we remove support for the param and delete the tracking category? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)