Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advanced footnote formatting

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Advanced footnote formatting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not only can the essentially identical, but better, thing be achieved using WP:REFGROUP (or, more recently, using {{efn}}/{{notelist}}), but this goes directly against several widely agreed guidelines such as MOS:FNNR and WP:PRON. Delete or userfy per WP:DEL13/WP:POLICIES. Nardog (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm looking for a reason to delete this, rather than arguing over the details of the content. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very thesis of the essay is a violation of WP:MOS. That's not "details". Nardog (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it belongs on the talk: page, not at MfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:DEL13: "Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace"; WP:POLICIES: "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Nardog (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you considered Arbcom? Or WikiVoyage? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve: The essay has described simple techniques which are easy to use, and fit the exceptions allowed by guidelines wp:PRON, and have worked well for over 10 years, even for newer mobile phones. However more could be added about note templates such as {{efn}} and provide warnings where such templates have been discontinued (or prohibited) on various other-language Wikipedias. More needs to be written in the essay about problems users have had with various cite templates, and similar ways to avoid problems for years. Wikid77 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't see any discussion on the project talk page about any issues that are contrary to the MOS or contrary to Wikipedia policies. In the absence of discussion, Alternatives to Deletion have not been pursued, so:
• Keep Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator has not considered redirection or archiving. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia should not be encouraging footnotes that don't use ref tags. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Contrary to the assertion in the nomination, MOSREF says Editors may use any citation method they choose. And, as with most MOS issues. nobody is required to use any particular option (such as ref tags) unless they are the consistent form of formatting already used in the article. There are people who do change otherwise acceptable articles to use ref tags, and an argument could be made for permitting this to facilitate work with Wikidata, but that has never even been proposed. People should be encouraged to reference in any way they find natural. The important thing is that they do add references. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG, pending some kind of broad discussion about globally formalizing our citation style. Good luck with that, btw. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.