Template talk:Nofootnotes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 March 7. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Harvard referencing is referencing :-(

I've seen vastly under-informed "editors" placing this tag on articles that are very well referenced using Harvard notation. Please, please take the time to learn more about referencing before using this template!!! Ling.Nut 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the template. The claim is not that the article is uncited, but that it could be improved by using Wikipedia's <ref> tag to associate references with their respective sections of text. While, for uniformity, it is conventional to use the citation templates to format references, there's nothing stopping you from entering such references in your favorite reference format (just don't be upset when, predictably, someone comes along and converts them to citation templates). -Harmil 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with this template Sept 15, 2007

This edit: [1] seems to have caused this template to mis-render. Can someone please address it? Thanks. -Harmil 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's back, but now it's an orange bar next to the text. Can whoever is messing around with this or whatever underlying template please do so in a sandbox? -Harmil 19:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Check out the Wikipedia:Template standardization page, it seems all the templates are getting this treatment. The bar stands for "content", even though it seems to be a "style" issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs) 04:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add this to see also section

Please add {{Citations missing}} to the see also section. I've done the inverse, but for some seemingly arbitrary reason this template is considered high-risk and {{Citations missing}} is not. 68.167.253.27 03:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Done. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small changes

{{editprotected}}

A couple small suggested modifications:

  1. Get rid of "a list of" between "references or" and "external links" -- minor redundancy
  2. Link "external links" to Wikipedia:External links

— xDanielx T/C\R 02:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! — xDanielx T/C\R 19:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of this template

Hi. I have a question. This template should be placed at the bottom of articles, is that right? I see it placed at the top a lot though, wonder why. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Officially it's meant to go in the References section, but I don't think putting it at the top is really problematic. Stylistically, I think it looks better at the top anyway. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Stylistically I think it looks better at the bottom, I would argue. {{footnotes}} is not as crucial as {{citations missing}}, and it would be too distracting on top I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It is equally crucial because the lack of footnotes means that any references provided are useless as explanations of where the article's information is from. Cop 663 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This template refers to a stylistic problem not a fundamental problem with the article as per NPOV, etc. Therefore to put it at the top of the article, in my mind is to overstate its importance. SHoudl this be relegated instead to the talk page? AndrewRT(Talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Same opinion as Cop 663 expressed above. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup /doc

{{editprotected}}

Please replace the category in the template with:

<!--Categories and interwikis go in the /doc page.-->

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done --ais523 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

This template is ridiculous. Even the linked to page, Wikipedia:Citing sources only has this to say about inline citations:

Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations.

The only theoretically valid use of an amended form of this template would be in places where there are statements needing specifically backed up with inline citations. Even so, in such a situation, the inline "citation needed" content vandalism can be used.

Nevermind that it's a very poor way to manage thigns to plaster templates across articles to provide notes to editors (and as regards our readers, they can't take anything on Wikipedia at face value due to the means of operation, it's not very sensible to single out some articles for special treatment in providing "this may not be true" warnings).

zoney ♣ talk 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Our readers may not be able to take Wikipedia at face value. Unfortunately, many of them do. Most of my students seem convinced that everything on Wikipedia is unbiased gospel truth. The more tags the better if they remind readers to be cautious around unfinished pages. Cop 663 (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point, well taken, wrong template. Having said that, I still agree that the template isn't ridiculous, as it serves to decrease the distance between the listed sources and the specific content dependent on them. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There is no requirement for inline citations, and slapping this tag on articles that don't have them is only one half step above vandalism. Dhaluza (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think inline citations are very important, otherwise it cannot be said on which source every sentence or paragraph is based on. If one is not publishing original research, why sholdn't one be able to make inline citations throughout the text? In my view the template is good (and I use it a lot) because it does promote using inline citations (many of the times I used this template the main article author added inline citation as a result). Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] High risk template

I'm sure it is exactly that, but can somebody please edit it to select a much smaller font. The template looks quite overdone when rendered at the top of lots of articles. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Example:

 This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but it lacks in-text citations. You can improve it by introducing more precise citations.

instead of:

 This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations.
You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations.


I think as it is currently the template is fine. If made smaller it would almost pass unadverted. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title bolding

{{editprotected}} Can anyone bold the title as is standard across Wikipedia? ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

N Not done please be more specific. Happy‑melon 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iw-link

Please include a link to Swedish Wikipedia using [[sv:Mall:Ingafotnoter]] . Ulner (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish interwiki

Admins, could you please add the interwiki

[[es:Plantilla:Citasenlínea]]

Thanks a lot. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] +Adequate

I should like to suggest that "because it lacks in-text citations." be amplified to "because it lacks adequate in-text citations." This will enable the template to be used where there are some inline citations but they are insufficient. TerriersFan (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For that purpose there is another template: Template:Morefootnotes. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{subst:DATE}}

Can an admin please add support for {{subst:DATE}} to this template? Thanks. --the Wild Falcon (talk | log) 13:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)