Wikipedia talk:EXPNOTE

Explanatory footnotes

Moved from User talk:Mathglot § Explanatory footnotes

I notice that you created shortcut WP:EXPNOTE in 2019 about grouping of explanatory footnotes. The shortcut looks quite similar to WP:EXPLNOTE, a shortcut created in 2011 to a help page on explanatory footnotes. That one has many incoming links, while the 2019 one only has a couple. I'm wondering if the newer EXPNOTE should be retargeted to the help page and a new, more distinctively named shortcut should be created? Or do we just add hatnotes for those who get confused?—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba:, that sounds fine to me. Can you think of a better name for a new one? Mathglot (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:EXPLNOTESECTION, as it's more about what section to place them in.—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba:, well, maybe; but the point of a shortcut is to be short. Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:EXPLNOTESECT? At any rate, I'll leave it to your judgement what, if any, action is needed here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Copied discussion from User talk:Mathglot#Explanatory footnotes. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)|

Bagumba, not sure what, but having the discussion here, seems like a better place for it than my talk page, so others will be more likely to find it. So far, no complaints at the Wikipedia:Citing sources page, where the newer shortcut points, so I guess wait and see what happens? I don't feel strongly about this shortcut, and if you feel it's better to retarget it, be my guest. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I went ahead and created WP:EXPLNOTESECT, and retargeted WP:EXPNOTE. It looked like exisitng EXPNOTEs were just referring to explanatory notes generically, and not specifically whether it should be separated from citations. So it should be seamless to existing references (and hopefully users). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)