Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
requirement for passing this though) done You may be interested in looking at WP:REFGROUP and changing your "notes" to that format (the refs and note look similar...
Click to read more »'Notes' - I find that's more informative. #Skinny87 (talk) Hartfelt: see WP:REFGROUP. Also, Joe N (talk · contribs) requested here that this assessment not...
Click to read more »can the essentially identical, but better, thing be achieved using WP:REFGROUP (or, more recently, using {{efn}}/{{notelist}}), but this goes directly...
Click to read more »sources you're looking for. To create such separate footnote groups, see WP:REFGROUP and Template:Reflist#Grouped references. Wikipedia:No original research...
Click to read more »have several attributes: refname – The 'name' attribute of the ref tag refgroup – The 'group' attribute of the ref tag content – The content inside of...
Click to read more »Also, perhaps refs #63 and 64 would be better served as notes (see WP:REFGROUP)? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Tentative Support...
Click to read more »wouldn't work. Anyway I've made the change using another method from WP:REFGROUP. Now the notes can have citations. — Martin tamb (talk) 08:42, 1 September...
Click to read more »{{ref label}}s and {{note label}}s, or <ref group=>s, as described at WP:REFGROUP, or what is done at Jane Austin Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Regarding the footnotes, I am using WP:REFGROUP, and it does not allow letters – only numbers. It is used in some FAs so...
Click to read more »templates to article sections to preserve GFDL. Also I've moved to a WP:REFGROUP system and will look to nest references within some of the second "group"...
Click to read more »for you to separate the 'notes' and the 'citations' as outlined at WP:REFGROUP? It makes it easier to read. Again not a requirement for A, but FAC will...
Click to read more »this sounds reasonable, and it appears to be technically possible (see WP:REFGROUP), but I confess I've never done it before, and I don't think it's currently...
Click to read more »Cirt. I have reviewed WP:FOOTNOTES and it appears it is "Notes" per WP:REFGROUP as the footnotes in question here are clarifications of content. Hwy43...
Click to read more »I'm afraid I have to disagree on the footnotes. Per FN, subsection WP:REFGROUP, this article uses two different groups of footnotes. The notes section...
Click to read more »templates to article sections to preserve GFDL. Also I've moved to a WP:REFGROUP system and will look to nest references within some of the second "group"...
Click to read more »isn't true at all. I think this issue could be sovled by either using WP:REFGROUP or this being one of those few edge cases where ext links are prefered...
Click to read more »syntax. doncram (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Applying tips in wp:REFGROUP and in documentation of "template:reflist", done. Now have informational...
Click to read more »Cirt. I have reviewed WP:FOOTNOTES and it appears it is "Notes" per WP:REFGROUP as the footnotes in question here are clarifications of content. Hwy43...
Click to read more »or can we move the two notes into a separate section as outlined at WP:REFGROUP? That long note in the middle does not look good in 4 columns... This is...
Click to read more »if you want to use numerics as a refgroup in a table. There are many articles that still use {{ref}} because refgroup cite labels were too large. Examples:...
Click to read more »group="arbitrarytext"></ref> syntax, you can only have [arbitrarytext 1] etc. See WP:REFGROUP. Dr pda (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I've changed the "footnotes"...
Click to read more »wouldn't work. Anyway I've made the change using another method from WP:REFGROUP. Now the notes can have citations. — Martin tamb (talk) 08:42, 1 September...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Regarding the footnotes, I am using WP:REFGROUP, and it does not allow letters – only numbers. It is used in some FAs so...
Click to read more »page. (2) The notes with a "*" need to be done differently. Look at WP:REFGROUP. This may be somewhat opaque at first. (3) References 2 and 3 are to an...
Click to read more »template, but nothing appeared. Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC) If WP:REFGROUP makes a footnote link at Bedford then I don't think the footnote needs...
Click to read more »applied it to a later sentence, for both the tag:ref and the refgroup note. That works for refgroup, but for the tag:ref it just generates a second copy of...
Click to read more »syntax. doncram (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Applying tips in wp:REFGROUP and in documentation of "template:reflist", done. Now have informational...
Click to read more »Shouldn't The refs they points also have "a"s? Actually No. Please see WP:REFGROUP REFGROUP has a "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" markup where the refs are a and...
Click to read more »are notes, not references, so they should be listed separately (see WP:REFGROUP and WP:EXPLNOTE for how to do this). See next. Ref. 14 ("I have found no...
Click to read more »whitespace|{{{1|}}}}}_{{{artist|}}}"}}|group={{#if:{{{refgroup|}}}| "{{{refgroup}}}"}}}} {{Single chart/chartnote|{{{note|}}}}} The relevant part...
Click to read more »the same indication to read the note. As an aside, I believe using a WP:REFGROUP for explanitory comments is prefered (but not required) as it is more functional...
Click to read more »'group="foo"' parameter in ref templates to produce separate note groups - see WP:REFGROUP for details. This is probably a better solution than mixing reference styles...
Click to read more »|group=groupname used to control which refs are grouped in which list. See WP:REFGROUP for details. Consider putting each table ref in a group using <ref...
Click to read more »learn anything, it would be as "required" as having to learn about WP:REFGROUP or WP:CITESHORT. Anomie⚔ 20:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Have you even read...
Click to read more »showing in the reference link is inherent to how references work, see WP:REFGROUP. You could use "lower-alpha" as the groupname and have single letters in...
Click to read more »the display method, perhaps with the further-info links (?) for refname/refgroup, as that's what the current reftoolbar uses for a tooltip-indicator. I...
Click to read more »{{ref label}}s and {{note label}}s, or <ref group=>s, as described at WP:REFGROUP, or what is done at Jane Austin Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)...
Click to read more »named group, and it will initially have only one footnote in it. See WP:REFGROUP. -Arch dude (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) I sort of figured that. I couldn't...
Click to read more »at all. I note that the Wikipedia how-to guide on creating notes - WP:REFGROUP - uses the long form that I adopt, while accepting that this is not definitive...
Click to read more »says to include a given reference within <ref name>...</ref> tags. On WP:REFGROUP, it says to include a note (for the "Note" section) within <ref name=note>...
Click to read more »PleaseStand (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC) This is explained at WP:REFGROUP. You can also do that last with {{efn}} and {{notelist}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk...
Click to read more »for setting up notes separately from references available to use, see WP:REFGROUP) Done, however placed in the same section (i.e. didn't list the grouped...
Click to read more »for the citation. I changed the reflist to 2 columns. I just copied the refgroup style from another article. I don't know how to change it - I'm sorry....
Click to read more »--Apoc2400 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I would like to see WP:REFGROUP introduced as standard across all articles. Parenthetical referencing is...
Click to read more »(UTC) You can do something like this using grouped references, see WP:REFGROUP. That's pretty mcuh what is done in Analogue filter with the "note" group...
Click to read more »three explanatory notes, I create a separate "Footnotes" section, a la WP:REFGROUP. I don't know about you, but if an explanatory note doesn't look like the...
Click to read more »articles. As for the second question, I found a possible answer at WP:REFGROUP.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Thank...
Click to read more »Shouldn't The refs they points also have "a"s? Actually No. Please see WP:REFGROUP REFGROUP has a "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" markup where the refs are a and...
Click to read more »wherever the tag should stop including content as a reference; see WP:REFGROUP if you need more detailed help. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:46, 4 February...
Click to read more »are notes, not references, so they should be listed separately (see WP:REFGROUP and WP:EXPLNOTE for how to do this). See next. Ref. 14 ("I have found no...
Click to read more »make any of them go away.User:Sarah.Monk) Hello Sarah.Monk. I do not use refgroups in my articles, so do not claim expertise. My guess, though, is that the...
Click to read more »page, even when included in an infobox. You should probably refer to WP:REFGROUP on how to group footnotes together. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2021...
Click to read more »group="arbitrarytext"></ref> syntax, you can only have [arbitrarytext 1] etc. See WP:REFGROUP. Dr pda (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I've changed the "footnotes"...
Click to read more »the same indication to read the note. As an aside, I believe using a WP:REFGROUP for explanitory comments is prefered (but not required) as it is more functional...
Click to read more »R/X/L) ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/refgroup/annexes/digiti_report.pdf (607, -1, X, X R/X/L) www.webcitation.org/6IhHkPHDe...
Click to read more »for the citation. I changed the reflist to 2 columns. I just copied the refgroup style from another article. I don't know how to change it - I'm sorry....
Click to read more »three explanatory notes, I create a separate "Footnotes" section, a la WP:REFGROUP. I don't know about you, but if an explanatory note doesn't look like the...
Click to read more »this sounds reasonable, and it appears to be technically possible (see WP:REFGROUP), but I confess I've never done it before, and I don't think it's currently...
Click to read more »2013 (UTC) Just confirming this bug. It complains there is no reflist for refgroup 'N', but the page does contain {{Reflist|group=N}}. I've tested with a...
Click to read more »citations, and I was uncertain which to use. It looks like it is using WP:REFGROUPs to separate out the explanatory footnote from the bibliographic citations...
Click to read more »at all. I note that the Wikipedia how-to guide on creating notes - WP:REFGROUP - uses the long form that I adopt, while accepting that this is not definitive...
Click to read more »for setting up notes separately from references available to use, see WP:REFGROUP) Done, however placed in the same section (i.e. didn't list the grouped...
Click to read more »'Notes' - I find that's more informative. #Skinny87 (talk) Hartfelt: see WP:REFGROUP. Also, Joe N (talk · contribs) requested here that this assessment not...
Click to read more »I'm afraid I have to disagree on the footnotes. Per FN, subsection WP:REFGROUP, this article uses two different groups of footnotes. The notes section...
Click to read more »isn't true at all. I think this issue could be sovled by either using WP:REFGROUP or this being one of those few edge cases where ext links are prefered...
Click to read more »WP:ITNR. It'd be needed to convert all existing footnotes under the note refgroup, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Too complex… there...
Click to read more »(talk) 06:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC) Thanks. I read WP:REFNEST rather than WP:REFGROUP. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC) Clarityfiend, WP:REFNEST...
Click to read more »