Template talk:Category more

Original idea
This was intended as a parameterised version of Template:Catmore, for use on category pages. For example, Category:Sports should not use, because the article name "Sport" and the category name "Sports" are different. The idea was that it could instead use, to get something that looked like the result of using  , except with a link to a slightly different page name.

However, it didn't work, because when parameters passed to a template are used as parts of links, then the links end up being "edit" links instead of regular links. This is due to a software bug.

The new idea
This template is now blank, but it can still be useful via Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Catmore1. On a category page that cannot use the plain   template, you can instead write something that looks similar without using templates, and add. Later, (say if the software bug is fixed) people will be able to use the "What links here" feature to find all pages that do this.

New try
I changed the syntax to the following:

Which produces:

What do you think? It's not possible to link the whole sentence, but I think this works too. &#9999; Sverdrup 12:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks OK, until the software bug is fixed. &mdash;AlanBarrett 13:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think I'm going to change the format to use the unnamed parameter format, so the user can type:, this saves on typing and means that people don't have to look up the syntax. --Lexor|Talk 03:10, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Even shorter would be. If someone wants to update? -- User:Docu


 * Can't be done with the MediaWiki software as it is now, due to technical limitations (see the discussion under "Original idea" above).  is the same as  and neither works. --Lexor|Talk 12:45, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * The other day Rick Block explained me that templates like Template:Birthyr now work again, e.g. at Category:1911 births. I just tried changing it and it worked here as well. -- User:Docu


 * Nice! I'm glad they fixed this bug.  I created a test to check this.
 * generates
 * generates


 * However, there still might be a role for links like this:, if the category name was "American music".  --Lexor|Talk 14:12, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should just add Template:Catmore2. This way, we wont have to change all categories already using catmore1. -- User:Docu


 * Sounds good to me. --Lexor|Talk 10:51, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Is this category actually used?
Used "What links here" will give a list of categories using Template:Catmore OR Template:Catmore1 OR Template:Catmore2 (where "or" is to be interpreted as in probability theory, that is, include the case where more than one applies). So is this template actually used? Brianjd 09:23, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course it is. Every time there isn't a char-for-char mapping between "Category:Topic" and the main article about "Topic", we use to link that. --Joy  &#91;shallot&#93;   14:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "of course"? How do we know?


 * Because I'm telling you &mdash; implying that I've done it myself. Several times. You can ask a developer to do an SQL query to get a list of those instances. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * You can see above a suggestion to use this for Category:Sports. But, no, it uses, and Sports redirects to Sport. Brianjd 08:35, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)


 * Yes, that works, although it requires setting up additional redirects. Use whatever you like... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You can use "What links here", and you'll see that this template and its cousins are widely adopted. It's really great for categorization. &#9999; Sverdrup 00:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Adages
This has a different, and in my opinion, better, way of linking to the main article. Brianjd 08:36, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

It's Read the main article on Adages.... If all categories did this, there would be a lot of duplicated boilerplate text. However, are you referring to the visual things, such as the expansion of the link onto the whole sentence? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed "please"
I removed the word "please" from this template. Usability studies in general find that every extra word in a message like this dramatically reduces the number of people who actually read it. "Please" is a standard example of the kind of word not to include in this kind of message. dbenbenn | talk 23:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Protected
No idea why that's protected: catmore1. Omniplex&#160; 21:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's the all-crucial wikilink?
Hi, I wish to put forth my thoughts about this template.

Would it helpful to include the link to the subject matter that is being recommended? I feel it would certainly help and saves copying and pasting the word/phrase..

thanks 203.214.2.144 13:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Overly wordy?
This template seems overly wordy, with "please see the article about Foo"; what's wrong with just, "please see Foo"? —RuakhTALK 20:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please, add sl:Predloga:Članek ktgr 1. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar my talk 12:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done in a moment. Luna Santin 19:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Article
Not all pages are articles, maybe this should be changed to For more information, see the page about .

Or even (as suggested by someone before) For more information, see .

Simply south 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For more information, see the page about
Sometimes newer users are trying to use/understand this stuff. "page " is not a page I can simply goto; where is it? tooold (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add this image to the A-class
Image:Symbol a class.svg

It would be similar to what GA and FA have allready. Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Usage notes and deprecation
I added a usage example to the documentation page, and a note discouraging usage of this template. catmore and catmore2 should be used in preference to this template in most cases. The only functionality this template has that they don't is the ability to pipe the link, but catmore links on category pages should generally not be piped. Rather, the text needs to refer to the actual title of the linked article. We aren't telling the reader to go read about a topic, we are referring the reader to a specific article, by name.--Srleffler (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dablink
I believe this is a dablink, and should be marked up as one. Code: For more information, see . Please update the template. Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds right. ✅, cheers. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cat?
The /documentation should note the "Cat" aspect. Today it is: why is the word "Cat" in the template name at all? DePiep (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. I am assuming it is the same reason why we have cat main instead of just main.  Otherwise, we could just merge this with more or see.  I don't have a strong opinion either way, but there seems to be some history behind the division between article hatnotes and category hatnotes. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  19:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do understand there are reasons for different hatnotes (and indeed do merge them when possible ;-)). It's just I do not understand the usage from /doc here. I do not search any change, I only ask for better /documentation. -DePiep (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, in that case, go ahead and update the documentation to make it more clear. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I am the one that doesn't understand it. I could only add "this template seems to be needed when... " etc. Also, it has to do with hidden cats. I ask my fellow nerds to document their specials. I might be asked the same elsewhere for sure. -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The documentation should be almost identical to Cat main, with the only difference being the wording of the hatnote ("for more information" vs. "the main article"). Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are kind and gentile to lead me into the clarifying level, but that would help only me. Any clarifying answer you type here, could & should be in the /doc right away. I resist the invitation to improve /doc myself: I am not to WTFM (unless I like doing it). -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I would rather not do it either, since I don't really think this template is necessary to begin with. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  20:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When one doesn't like doing it, one don't have to! Is half the Wikifun. I suggest closing this thread. -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cat more multi
There was a template called Template:Cat more multi until someone converted it into Template:Cat main multi, which was recently merged into Template:Cat main. By copying the source of Template:Cat main, I have recreated Template:Cat more multi. It only has one transclusion which I have added. Can somebody please merge it into this template in the same way as Template:Cat main multi?  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  10:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Will do. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  10:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cat more/sandbox
The sandbox has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)