Template talk:Format footnotes

broken

The link to "correcting them" does not work. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for spotting this. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I was trying to work out what the notice was suggesting should be done, so I clicked on all its links. Still don't know... • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate the template for deletion. I would likely support it. After all, what is "proper formatting" for a footnote? Anything goes. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point, I will look into this. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I could not find a definition of improper formatting. The link to Help:Footnotes describes a number of ways that footnotes can be used and formatted, but not on how they should not be formatted. I would nominate for deletion, but don't know how this is done for a template. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:Tfd for this. Debresser (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of this template

Please add some instruction about when this template should and should not be used. It has been added to a significant number of articles where a small part of a large number of citations are not perfectly formatted, giving a distorted impression of the overall quality of the article and giving very little guidance on how to fix it. This type of usage is annoying and counterproductive, as the perpetrator/s of this tag spam do not explain what they think is wrong with the references, making it more difficult to fix them than it need be. This type of use is lazy and disrespectful to other users and should be discouraged. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Inline version of this tag?

Is there an inline version of this tag that could be used for individual citations like what bare url inline does? -Sanglahi86 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)