Module talk:Footnotes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Footnotes module.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 4 months

Module:Footnotes is permanently protected from editing as it is a heavily used or highly visible module. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit.

The first template is sort of whitelisted, but it isn't working correctly. There are 4 lines dedicated to it in the whitelist variable, but this template handles citations to a number of floras published on efloras.org. The most-cited are Flora of North America and Flora of China, published in many volumes with different authors and dates for each. It seems like it needs an entry in wrapper_templates to get it working properly. The second template is simpler; it should always produce 'CITEREFKartesz2014'. (In theory the year could change in the future but it should be stable in practice.) Choess (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as long as I'm requesting whitelisting of botany wrapper templates, Template:Jepson eFlora can also take many different authors and will probably need to be handled in wrapper_templates. Choess (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Choess: I fixed {{BONAP}}, but when I search for harv errors caused either by {{Efloras}} or {{Jepson eFlora}}, I find no errors caused by either template (the one error returned by PetScan is caused by other templates). Is there a particular article you are concerned about? — hike395 (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I keep getting false positive errors for a source in Pair skating. It's for just one source, even though the code looks exactly like other sources that use the snfp template.

Looks like this: Kestnbaum (2003), p. 218. sfnp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKestnbaum2003 (help) Harv error: CITEREFKestnbaum2003 has multiple targets (2×).

Hopefully, someone will assist. I've tried to resolve the problem myself, but so far have been unsuccessful. It's very frustrating! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to replace ref 86 (permalink) with an appropriate {{sfnp}} template because Kestnbaum 2003 is also listed under §Works cited (permalink).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk, that did it! It was a simple solution all along, I guess I just needed a second pair of eyes to see it. Thanks so much, especially for your quick response. You're a gem! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

['CITEREFTolkien2024'] = template_names['ME-ref']

Thanks, Andy02124 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — hike395 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395, are the changes in Module:Footnotes/anchor id list/sandbox ready to be merged into Module:Footnotes/anchor id list? I'd like to get the incompatibility with Module:Cite resolved so we can clean up articles that are exceeding the WP:PEIS limit. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their comment on the last edit Template:Sfnp/test 2 is failing -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to anchor_id_list/sandbox do not appear to have broken test_2, although the test is indeed broken. I can investigate further, although not until next week. If it is urgent, we can temporarily revert the sandbox. — hike395 (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The harv no-target error list has recently been inundated with pages that invoke the National Heritage List for England template. It is proudly non-standard (as admitted in the documentation) but hasn't been flagged until now. I don't know how the error list is generated but it does seem to be picking up errors that were ignored before.

I discovered a slightly suspect way to suppress the false positive errors. If there is more than one invocation of NHLE, the parameter "fewer-links" can be set to yes to suppress redundant links to National Heritage. If you set the second instance of this parameter to "x", no errors are raised. If all the instances are already set to "x", set one to "yes". I've worked through the "A" section of the error list but this "fix" is not intuitive and I wonder if I should continue or stop until a better solution is found.

It's been very disheartening to see the list swell with these new errors. Andy02124 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those error messages were purportedly caused by a security 'fix' at MediaWiki which has since, apparently been refixed. A null edit will probably be sufficient to undo the effects of the security fix.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The problem seems to have resolved itself without any intervention on my part. Good to see the percent resolved back over 80.

Andy02124 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just now expanded Mgwirizano Coalition and, in the process, redid the citations a little bit for the original citation style was a thrown-in reference. I looked at my edit history after by chance and saw that it was tagged with "harv or sfn errors." I only used sfn, and there are only 4 such citations present, and they all seem to work to my knowledge? Anyone willing to take a glance to see if it is a false positive or if I made a mistake with them? Banana61904 (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're not working. There are misspellings of Lembeni / Lembani, and Kadima & Lembani (2006) is mistakenly referred to as Kadima & Denis (2006). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kept re-looking at it and just did not realize it a single time. Thank you and apologies for that one!

(Is there any way then to delete this topic perhaps or is it stuck here?) Banana61904 (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, and there's no need to apologise. // It's not stuck. As is custom, this page has an automatic archiving mechanism (which I just shortened to 120 days), so this section will eventually be archived. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please fix this one? I see Baxter1984 is listed on the "Module:Footnotes/whitelist" but I have no idea why the Baster1984 ref is still throwing a false positive in this article. Thanks. - Shearonink (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Change the template in 0-2-4 to {{Baxter-BritishLocoCat4}} or add {{Baxter: British Locomotive Catalogue 1825–1923}} to the ['CITEREFBaxter1984'] entry at Module:Footnotes/whitelist line 491.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Trappist the monk I *would* gladly do the adding to line 491 but I can't edit that Module because I'm not a Template editor or an administrator. I would rather have it "corrected" at the whitelist because that would fix any other possible issues rambing around WP (rather than just fixing the problem at the individual article 0-2-4). If you could do that?...Thanks! Shearonink (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit done by Editor Redrose64.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64 I see you've done the others, could you add 'Baxter: British Locomotive Catalogue 1825–1923' to CITEREFBaxter1984 and CITEREFBaxter1988 as well? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you all. Thanks so much. - Shearonink (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]