Template talk:Efn

Broken backlink, lost text and no error message if syntax error in {{efn}}

The footnote {{efn|name=foo|bar=baz more text}} (should be {{efn|name=foo|bar{{=}}baz more text}}) with callout {{efn|name=foo}} produces a line with only the footnote letter and "^" (see below); clicking on the "^" does not jump to the callout. No error message is displayed. This makes it very difficult to correct the error, because there is no indication of which footnote is malformed.

lower-alpha is not among the propositions of the Reference group

Could someone please add in the Reference group drop-down list the lower-alpha type of notes? Veverve (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

The documentation is not protected. You should be able to do it yourself. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

The group= function not working

Template:Efn says this should work, but when I try this, it doesn't work. I put Footnote 1 1/2 in footnote2 group, but it shows up in footnote1 group. Am I making a syntax error or is this not working for some reason? Kart2401real (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC) First note Note Note1

Second note Note 2

@Kart2401real: The only valid group names for both {{efn}} and {{notelist}} are the ones explicitly listed at Template:Efn#Template use by reference group type, i.e. lower-alpha, upper-alpha, lower-roman, upper-roman and lower-greek. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

multiple backlink labels for multiple references

"Multiple backlink labels (see WP:REFNAME) are always styled as lower-alpha. This can be confusing when {{efn}} is used. See the note in the introduction of this section, above."

This is entirely inadequate as a) an explanation b) a solution. What is the problem and how do you fix it?

First off there needs to be an example that explicitly points out that the first reference (reference a) is cited twice, and that these instances are labeled a and b. Then there is the second reference (reference b). The confusion stems from there being two backlinks named b - one is the second (thus b) instance of the first reference, the other is the second (thus b) reference.

How do you fix that? Well, what would you like to see displayed? The instinctive first suggestion to use Arabic numeral reference counts would make a reflist and a notelist use the same series (1, 2, 3...), so that's not ideal. Ideally you'd want two instances of reference b to display as b:1 and b:2 or similar, instantly making clear what's what.

Just referencing the introductory note does very little to lay all of this out in a user-friendly manner. It basically becomes a blur and an overload of examples with no clear directions or suggestions: try writing this to solve this problem in a reasonably acceptable manner.

What you get are two example ("With named references" and "Named references can also be defined in the notelist") that exhibit the problem but crucially no examples of how to solve this.

At minimum there needs to be a) an example of how to solve this (in any reasonable manner) and b) a much clearer instruction (ideally reusing the example on both help pages).

CapnZapp (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I wonder to what extent it actually is confusing to people, versus to what extent this is people finding hypothetical things that they think might possibly affect unspecified "others". Anomie⚔ 12:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are unsure what I think needs improving, Anomie, feel free to ask. Alternatively, you could provide a constructive suggestion on how we best phrase our guidance on how to avoid the issue in practice. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you think needs improving, but I do see you've missed my point. I'm questioning whether "the issue in practice" really needs avoiding in the first place. Anomie⚔ 23:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure you have good intentions, Anomie, but you come across as a too experienced Wikipedian who seems to have lost the ability to understand why and how a newcomer might struggle. This is the second time in just a few days where you actively oppose my suggestions to help out new editors, and frankly, do so in a vaguely insulting manner. Please don't assume I'm here to chase hypotheticals or that beginners are better off just getting good. (And people wonder why Wikipedia have trouble attracting new editors...) Tell me you genuinely believe a relatively new editor understand what confusion "Multiple backlink labels (see WP:REFNAME) are always styled as lower-alpha. This can be confusing when {{efn}} is used." refers to, and/or easily gets the point that introduction transcluded from Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: predefined groups is trying to make, because I sure don't, and I've been here 18 years. Furthermore, tell me why you think our documentation wouldn't be straight up better if all this was explained in layman's terms with a clear go-to example. CapnZapp (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

You're still missing my point. I think it's possible our documentation might be better if we remove that statement entirely. This is because I think it's probable that most readers seeing a lower-alpha footnote wouldn't actually be confused by lower-alpha also being used for the backlinks in the first place, so there's no reason for our documentation to complain about the "issue".

Since we seem to be giving each other direct critical feedback: When I see you making significant edits to a projectspace page or starting a discussion on a projectspace talk page, I find it's often well-intentioned but marred by an over-enthusiastic wordiness and often a shallow understanding of what you're changing. Still, iteration with others has produced some good and needed results, such as some of the changes from "IP" to "temp account" related to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 16#Editing from temporary accounts that were needed. I normally try to limit when I get involved and try to focus on the specific facts when I do; I made an exception here since you seemed to want to exchange personal feedback. Anomie⚔ 11:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Needs example for note+cite

Per the lede, Efn "are footnotes that provide something other than, or more than, a reference to a source that supports the accompanying text."; however, none of the examples seem to cover how to use one to provide both a note and a reference. I think WP:Nesting footnotes would be the needed syntax, but that article is quite overcomplex, and I still couldn't figure out how to (re-)use a Named Reference in an Efn without a syntax error. Walkersam (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

You do it in basically the same way you reuse a named reference outside of a footnote, e.g. like this. Anomie⚔ 22:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC)