Template talk:For/Archive 1

TfD May 2005
There is an archived discussion about this template at Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/May_2005. There was no consensus for deletion. Joe D (t) 10:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Which is the better aligment?
Please explain why "to the right" is where disambiguation "belongs". I've never, ever seen disambiguation text right-justified, until now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the point? We already have an otheruses template. --Yath 04:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The "otheruses" template and its relatives are horribly obnoxious. I replace them with others at every opportunity.  This template, on the other hand, seems unobjectionable (so far). Michael Hardy 19:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand what is obstructive, as mentioned by Stevertigo in the edit summary of this template. About the aligmnent, I wonder what other people think. Oleg Alexandrov 12:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand why Stevertigo wants this aligned right. You're all thinking this is a template for disambiguation notices, but when I went around removing it from pages which do not need disambiguation (i.e. their pages are already sufficiently disambiguated) I realised it wasn't for disambiguation, it was simply for linking to other pages with slightly similar names.  In other words, a trivia template that gives far too much priminance to its trivia.  It has been coopted for disambiguation purposes which is fine, as long as people don't go on using for trivia purposes.  Joe D (t) 13:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Horizontal rule
On a number of articles, the template is followed by a horizontal rule, which serves to distinguish it from the (often completely unrelated) article. I like that arrangement, and have taken to using it whenever I add (or come across) a dab template. Would anyone have any objection to adding it to the template itself? --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

For, see .


 * No way, we should put this template into a giant colored box! -- Netoholic @ 21:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In all seriousness, I prefer the plain link, without the horizontal rule. Also, this could possibly be used for noting multiple links.  Adding an HR would separate them more than necessary. Example:    :


 * If you want to see a divider, add this code to your style sheet (probably at User:Mel Etitis/monobook.css):
 *  .dablink { border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; } 
 * Hope this helps. -- Netoholic @ 22:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I object. The indenting and italics are sufficient to set off the dab line. A horizontal rule would be unnecessary visual clutter. --Yath 22:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously I object as well, see Talk:Simple Plan. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the horizontal rule looks good, but given Netoholic's argument about multiple uses in a single article, it should probably stay out of the template. Of course, a giant pastel colored box would be optimal. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  23:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm still bemused by the vehemence with which some editors view a simple horizontal line, but I can certainly see Netoholic's point, and withdraw the suggestion. I'll continue adding the line where I add a link, though, as I think (though not quite as passionately as its detractors) that it looks better, and makes articles clearer for readers. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed edit
Revert to the edition with right-aligned italic text and indent. The current formatting doesn't stand out from the rest of the text in the article and is simply ugly. It just looks like it's the beginning of the article, when in fact it's a disambiguation note. Todor→Bozhinov 11:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please bypass your cache. — Mets501 (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it support labels?
In other templates (e.g. template_talk:main - note that you can only learn about it in the discussion page), one can use l1=label (or in general "lX=label" for linkX). "l" is a small "L". X is a number. This isn't detailed here and both l or lX don't work. Is this possible via another parameter? If not, it really should be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.179.197 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please, add sl:Predloga:Zapomen. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar my talk 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Red links in template
Is it ok to have a for tag in an article directing to an article with a red link (assuming the article won't be written any time soon)? I don't believe it is acceptable, but I just want to double check. –Crashintome4196 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's a legitimate article, can't you just create a stub? &mdash; Eric Herboso 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to add (the existing) instructions to this template
editprotected I would like to request the general instructions be added to this template, using the following 3 lines at the bottom (insert the following as it is displayed/rendered, not as the internal code appears):


 * &lt;noinclude>
 * &lt;/noinclude>
 * &lt;/noinclude>

Either that, or state that the instructions are on this talk page. Without one of these, it becomes difficult to figure out how to use this template and others similar to it. The template itself is silent on this, and it should not be.

I can never remember which version of For, For1 and all the others that are available so that I can determine easily what I want to use in any specific instance; including the existing instructions for using it will help. I'm sure I'm not the only one who isn't sure exactly how to use these, and I had to spend considerable time finding the template containing the instructions, and that's given the fact I knew that the instruction template was there. I don't think it makes sense to exclude the instructions from the template (which is where it should be) or, at least, that the template should state the instructions are here, as at least "a minimum standard of decency." Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 20:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. I switched to the /doc subpage pattern, so the documentation can be changed by anyone now. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think something still wrong. I cannot access the documentation that I used to be able to from this page. I'm referring to the long list as seen at Template:Otheruses.-Andrew c 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD notice
I've nominated the Otheruses templates for discussion on Templates for deletion. --JB Adder | Talk 14:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Improvement
Could the template be changed so that if the first parameter is blank, "other uses" is displayed as default?

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Italics
Titles of books, movies, video games, etc. are supposed to be italicized. The line that this template uses is in italics itself. In such cases, normally italicized words are made non-italics, as to still differentiate it from the text. Could it be possible, to have the target-wikilink optionally non-italicized? For example, I want to be able to do this:

For the similarly titled James Bond novel, see Nobody Lives For Ever.

Thanks for your comments. --Szajd (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Empty first parameter
This template is a lot like about, however, it does not have a feature that about has. Specifically,
 * produces

while,
 * produces

I don't think that this is really desirable (just seems to be convenient), I think that someone who leaves the first parameter blank would almost certainly mean it to be the same as example with about. Sligocki (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have created a simple fix for this:
 * produces
 * produces

What do you guys think? Sligocki (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Seems reasonable, let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Need help with use
I can't seem to get a compound ptr to bluelink properly for some reason:

and

works as well.

But I can't get

which is

to bluelink. I've seen it used by others, and ever tried inserting my stuff in their template. But why doesn't it work here? Am I not holding my mouth right? Student7 (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Try . Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  05:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Student7 (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But this doesn't seem to allow
 * The example doesn't seem to show a "Page 3" example. (I have more than three, BTW!). Thanks again! Student7 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have more than two, you should consider creating a disambiguation page. Otherwise, you could use about, with something like  or  . Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  14:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The example doesn't seem to show a "Page 3" example. (I have more than three, BTW!). Thanks again! Student7 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have more than two, you should consider creating a disambiguation page. Otherwise, you could use about, with something like  or  . Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  14:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have more than two, you should consider creating a disambiguation page. Otherwise, you could use about, with something like  or  . Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  14:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * This one seems to work with four, but I don't know why. Any attempt on my part to insert a fifth, has failed:
 * . Student7 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a specific example of what is failing? What you have above is correctly linked? Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  03:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a specific example of what is failing? What you have above is correctly linked? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  03:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be so inefficient!
 * Note that 1) none of them were ever separated by pipes, despite the example showing clear separation in the description. 2) There are four parameters, which is more than the two in the example. Nevertheless it works, despite the fact that the example shows only "page1" and "page2". Student7 (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * These templates are not designed to take an unlimited number of parameters. It does not parse commas, so each individual parameter must be separated by pipes.  In the working example, Myth, legend, fairy tale, and fable is a redirect, so it works.  In the second example, Myth, legend, fairy tale, analogy, and fable is not a redirect (or an article), so it doesn't work.  The reason for limiting the number of parameters is to keep the hatnote from being too long.  If there are many items needed in a hatnote, it's best to create a disambiguation page, or to incorporate the links in the text itself.  In exceptional cases, where this family of templates does not work, there is always dablink, which allows free text hatnotes. However, in most all cases this is not necessary. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  15:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * These templates are not designed to take an unlimited number of parameters. It does not parse commas, so each individual parameter must be separated by pipes.  In the working example, Myth, legend, fairy tale, and fable is a redirect, so it works.  In the second example, Myth, legend, fairy tale, analogy, and fable is not a redirect (or an article), so it doesn't work.  The reason for limiting the number of parameters is to keep the hatnote from being too long.  If there are many items needed in a hatnote, it's best to create a disambiguation page, or to incorporate the links in the text itself.  In exceptional cases, where this family of templates does not work, there is always dablink, which allows free text hatnotes. However, in most all cases this is not necessary. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  15:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

redlink disambiguation
Can you remove the redlink to For (disambiguation) at the top of the page please? Smartse (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not done: It is standard practice here to have templates that look wrong when they are just viewed by themselves, but look fine when transcluded (included in another page) correctly. This is one of those cases. When this template is transcluded in another page, the "For" is replaced by whatever the name of the other page is, unless this is overridden by parameters. Brian Jason Drake 06:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've created a redirect so that For (disambiguation) is no longer a redlink. Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Extending To More Parameters
We need to extend this to 4 other articles.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌ See below  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Requirement
We need to accomadate this usage.174.3.98.236 (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

cross posted174.3.98.236 (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, we need to be able to say "For OTHER TOPIC, see PAGE1, PAGE2, and PAGE3.".174.3.98.236 (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, we need to be able to say "For TOPIC1, see PAGE1, PAGE2, and PAGE3. For TOPIC2, see PAGE4. For TOPIC3, see PAGE5.".174.3.98.236 (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. The form that you changed,, worked and appears to do what you wanted. When there are several other uses, it is usually preferable to link to a disambiguation page rather than make an unnecessarily convoluted hatnote. older ≠ wiser 13:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, an editor reverted me.174.3.98.236 (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I reverted your edit back to the form that actually does work. I'm still confused by what it is you want to happen. older ≠ wiser 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When I used the template For other places called Nowa Wieś, see All pages beginning with "Nowa Wieś"., this came out. None of this wikitext should come out.174.3.98.236 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And I'm still puzzled by what you want. Your edit produced a broken hatnote. However, the previous hatnote that your edit replaced, using for2 does exactly what you want. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌ - see my answer on Template talk:Lookfrom  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Accommodation
We need to accommodate ?174.3.98.236 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌ Unless you are going to suggest some working code, it is unlikely to be done. To get a similar result you can use something like

5 Different Pages To One Topic
We need to say "For OTHER TOPIC, see PAGE1, PAGE2, PAGE3, PAGE4, and PAGE5.".174.3.98.236 (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is this needed? In such cases it would be better to link to a disambiguation page than an unnecessarily convoluted hatnote. older ≠ wiser 16:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌. See note on Template talk:About  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Change
We need to change the template so that it is possible to have this usage:

"This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. For USE3, see PAGE3, PAGE4, PAGE5, PAGE6, and PAGE7."

174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Before using the editprotected template, please could you:

Thank you &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Discuss the issue on the talk page.
 * 2) Place your proposed code on the templates's /sandbox.
 * 3) Fully test the code (perhaps by using /testcases).
 * 4) Obtain consensus for the change.

Asking For Permission
We need to change the template so that it is possible to have this usage:

"For USE1, see PAGE1, PAGE2, and PAGE3."

174.3.98.236 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, we need to be able to say "For OTHER TOPIC, see PAGE1, PAGE2, and PAGE3." and "For TOPIC1, see PAGE1, PAGE2, and PAGE3. For TOPIC2, see PAGE4. For TOPIC3, see PAGE5."174.3.98.236 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why exactly is this needed? Couldn't the more or less equivalent usage be accomplished with about? older ≠ wiser 15:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I believe not. Well you've edited the articles that I have problems with.  You know the problems.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually I do not see any need for the changes you are suggesting. older ≠ wiser 16:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Arabic interwiki
editprotected

Please add the Arabic interwiki [[ar:قالب:من أجل]]

أحمد مصطفى السيد (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. For future reference, interwikis are housed in the "documentation" part of the template, which is (under most circumstances) unprotected. Best, Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 08:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Malformatting
(crossposted to template talk:Otheruses) Is there a good reason why otheruses and for tags need to be malformatted with carriage returns after each line? For example History of citizenship in the United States:
 * For US citizenship, see Citizenship in the United States.
 * For laws regarding US citizenship, see United States nationality law.
 * For US birthright citizenship, see Birthright citizenship in the United States of America.
 * For citizenship in particular U.S. states, see State citizenship.

Should be condensed to a paragraph:
 * For US citizenship, see Citizenship in the United States. For laws regarding US citizenship, see United States nationality law. For US birthright citizenship, see Birthright citizenship in the United States of America. For citizenship in particular U.S. states, see State citizenship.

Understanding that there appear to be no trailing whitespace, carriage returns, or div close tags after these templates, what's the technical reason for why these tags always appear newlined? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Third reference?
Is it possible to add a third citation, so we can have something like “For blah, see one, two, and three.”? – Kaihsu (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable suggestion, and consistent with the current usage. If you want to say "for blah one, see one, for blah two, see two, for blah three, see three", you can use about with an empty first parameter, but this is not what you are after. As a counter argument, we don't want a hatnote that is too sprawling, so I would probably cap it at around three. Otherwise there is always dablink. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I coded something up in the sandbox. If there are no objections, I will deploy it (or you can :)). Testcases are show below. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  17:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, I hope this doesn't spark a debate of the serial comma. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 17:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. Please deploy it. This is useful for Southern Finland Province and Western Finland Province, for two examples. Let’s refrain from the debate on the Oxford comma. – Kaihsu (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! You would call it the Oxford comma. I am going to start calling it the Cambridge comma :)  But I digress. I will deploy it in a moment. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  15:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now done. Cheers. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 15:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Any interest in an alternative title function?
Any interest in adding a  (alternative title) function to   or  ? Is it even possible? This already exists in  and   and can be used to "pipe" hatnote links. It is good when linking to sections to cleanup the look of the hatnotes. Information on it is at Template:See also. — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack  21:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

knot
I have a situation where has be used for this article, so I am proposing to a have a template so that I don't have to write out Knot (disambiguation) or other uses}}.Curb Chain (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be linking "other uses". Instead you should use  which generates .  Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  06:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we cover this functionality?

 * For the associated behavior see biting. For other uses see bite (disambiguation)

I added this dab hatnote at bite manually because I was unable to find a template variation that produced this text. Did I miss it? __meco (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For __, see ___. For other uses, see ___
Is there a version of  that allows the user to place the template as per this heading? Specifically, I want to add such wordage to the Cold case (criminal investigations) article to help redirect people who were looking for Cold Case (TV show). Currently, the article's  template sends users to Cold Case (disambiguation), forcing users who may have legitimately landed on the investigations page when looking for the TV show to find their intended target by hunting and with an extra click. Ideally, it would read: "For the television show, see Cold Case. For other uses, see Cold case (disambiguation)." Obviously, I can just add the raw mark up, but was wondering if there was a template method for this. If not, should one be created? I apologize if there is already an obvious template that I missed. DKqwerty (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These templates are mighty confusing. I don't see that For can be tortured to do what you want, but About seems to have an options that would work. How about
 * Which produces:
 * Regards. older ≠ wiser 01:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regards. older ≠ wiser 01:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regards. older ≠ wiser 01:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice! I didn't realize About allowed a blank first parameter. Thanks for the help. Also, thanks for introducing me to tl!! DKqwerty (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there is a syntax error in the page section Template:For#"For other uses, see …" under Variations. Shouldn't  actually read  (notice the extra "|") ?  Can someone fix? --HuggaBounce (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)