Template talk:Footnote

Should the example be replaced with something thats related to Mario? Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Oh... maybe. The example text here could work. - 2257^(Talk) 15:14, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Grouped ref tags

The page says that the use of the Foonote template "can sometimes be preferable to actual ref tags since it allows multiple lists of footnotes in a single article, while the ref tags do not." That statement is wrong. You can have multiple lists of ref tags, thanks to the group attribute. Typically, group-less ref tags are used for the actual references of the article, whereas ref tags with a named group (e.g., <ref group="n">…</ref>) are used for footnotes and are grouped together according to their group name:

===Notes===
<references group="n"/>

Grouped ref tags are already in use on the Wiki (see Mario Kart (series)#Notes) and are IMO neater than the Footnote template because they simply re-use the ubiquitous mechanism of ref tags, whereas the Footnote template relies on a completely different mechanism not used anywhere else. Moveover, mutliple grouped ref tags can refer to the same footnote using the name attribute (just like any ref tag), which does not seem possible with the Footnote template (see List of Super Mario Bros. Wonder staff where a footnote is duplicated because the Footnote template does not allow two refs pointing to the same footnote, which could instead be achieved using ref tags with <ref group="n" name="1.0.1"/>).

In conclusion, I think we should change the text on the template page so that it states that grouped ref tags are preferable to the Footnote template when we need multiple lists of footnotes on the same page. Jdtendo^(T|C) 13:06, February 18, 2024 (EST)

Delete?

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

I think this template should be marked deprecated and deleted, since the footnotes at the bottom of an article are more noticeable and not this small text that is hardly readable. It shouldn't be controversial to mark this as a deprecated template and start removing instances of it. Super Mario RPG (talk) 22:26, February 3, 2025 (EST)

Hm. I'm definitely not happy with this template as it currently exists — it's... a subpar recreation of footnote functionality that doesn't even achieve all of it. Jdtendo has the right of it above, in my opinion. But something doesn't seem quite right about just using the same thing we use for citations for this. And the labeling system we have to use bugs me — [a 11] doesn't quite look good and [note 11] is unsuitable for tables. I think my ideal solution would be having something like [Inkipedia's note template], which actively uses the citation function within it but manages to have a unique letter-based labeling scheme. Though I'm not sure if it's possible to have multiple lists with that, as it exists... Ahemtoday (talk) 02:18, February 6, 2025 (EST)