Template talk:Resfn

Why does this exist?

{{Sfn}} already automatically groups identical sfn templates. What is the advantage of this one? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

For cases like this. See last discussions at Template talk:Sfn. --Grufo (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have created a test case on the test cases page that shows resfn re-using a short footnote with a |ps= parameter. Is that the only use case for this template? If so, the documentation should explain that. Right now, the documentation does not explain how this template is different from {{Sfn}}, since Sfn already permits short footnote reuse. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The only thing this template does is granting that a named reference is never defined multiple times (which of course requires that a reference has been already defined once). The {{Sfn}} template redefines named references in the case of |ps=, but there might be other cases where this happens, or new cases might be created in the future. In any scenario, the {{Resfn}} template will never (re)define a named reference, so it will always work as a solution for the error above. As the name suggests, this template is meant for safely re-using the references created by {{Sfn}}, whatever the reason might be. --Grufo (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Test cases

Would it be more helpful to provide a <nowiki> version of the test immediately before it? Sort of: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.{{sfn|Einstein|1907|p=411|ps=: "Hi there!"}} Nulla vel lorem augue. In non ante sed dolor egestas rhoncus ut in quam. Vivamus quis ante rutrum erat suscipit interdum.{{resfn|Einstein|1907|p=411}}

Notes

(please ignore link error for this demo)