The "documentation" of this template does not, in fact, document the use of this template (it merely mentions it in a table of similar templates). I had to look at the template code to figure out why it even exists (apparently, merely to avoid typing "|group=note"). If this template is going to stick around, it should "justify" its existence by documenting how and why it should be used (vis-a-vis any other footnote-related template). - dcljr (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template is redundant to ((efn)), you should be using that instead. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. This is just as redundant (in exactly the same way) as ((efn-ua)), ((efn-lr)), etc., a fact that would be more clear if it were named ((efn-note)). Perhaps it should just be moved to that name (leaving a redirect). - dcljr (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)). Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• Template:NoteTag → Template:Efn-note
• Template:NoteFoot → Template:Notelist-note

– Consistency with other footnote templates, see H:PREGROUP. – MaterialWorks 22:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it'd be clearer if it were ((efn-notenum)) / ((notelist-notenum)) , where this pair generates named endlinks "note #" , and not a freeform label where one could enter such a name as a parameter into NoteTag -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: No activity Sennecaster (Chat) 04:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject_Templates has been notified of this discussion. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not clear that any consistency is being gained here, and suggested new titles seem awkward. SnowFire (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Absent a good argument for why the new names are more useful than the old, I don't think the move should be performed just to complete a set. Also, ((notelist-note)) seems a bit redundant, no? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]