Template talk:Hatnote templates documentation

Obnoxious
Most of these otheruses templates are obnoxious and sometimes their use is horribly irresponsible. Someone slaps one of these onto an article without thinking closely and it says, in effect "For other uses of women, see..." or "For other things to use arsenic trioxides for, see..." (poisoning people, maybe), etc. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dictionary, defining the uses of a word. Rather, an article is supposed to be about the thing it's about, not about the word that names the thing. Conseequently, to say "For other senses of this word, see...", making it clear that you're referring to the word, would seem appropriate. The dablink template is adaptable and can be used intelligently or stupidly; the "otheruses" template are one-size-fits-all straightjackets and can seldom be used intelligently. Michael Hardy 21:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree entirely. Very often, a word can mean multiple things, and we have separate articles on each of those things.  It's only logical, in such cases, to have a standardized template with which to refer the reader to the appropriate other articles.  dablink does nothing whatsoever to standardize Wikipedian conventions and make us look professional, since everyone uses their own words. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Look professional"??? Does it look professional when it says "For other uses of personal lubricants, see..." and "For other uses of slaves, see..."? I wouldn't mind a standardized template if it were not idiotic and allowed reasonable adaptations. Michael Hardy 20:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be much more helpful if you'd not make straw man arguments. Your examples above (personal lubricants, slaves) are not actual usage. -- Netoholic @ 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that? I read "For other uses of Honey, see..." (with a capital initial "H"). It resulted from the use of one of these templates. I've seen lots of pages where the phrase could reasonably be construed as a link to an article about other uses of the thing the article was about, rather than other uses of the term. People who edit this template seem seldom to notice which pages use them, and people slap them on to pages pretty indiscriminately. These pages are inflexible and cannot be judiciously adapted to the pages on whcih they appear. Michael Hardy 03:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The confusion about what the link refers to will only be exacerbated by lack of standardization. If we standardize otheruses templates, then we can clarify the formatting of all articles with a single edit.  For instance, I've just clarified all otheruses1 templates in response to your issue with their wording.  With just dablink, the misuses would have had to be hunted down and eliminated one by one. (I've also just standardized Honey, by the way, using that very template.  Do you find it ambiguous or otherwise undesirable?) &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletions
Templates which start "This article is about..." have been repeatedly deleted on TFD. The information is redundant as it should be in the first line of the article. Please do not create a template that starts with this phrase. ed g2s • talk 16:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * TFDs do not set policy, and your interpretation of the motives behind months-old TFDs are not binding. If you would like to establish a policy to deprecate such templates, please see Village pump (policy), Hatnotes, and/or Disambiguation, the latter two of which explicitly endorse templates such as Otheruses4 (albeit the former rather confusedly).  As of now, I have seen you present no evidence that there is or was any kind of wide consensus against the use of these templates, and indeed consensus at Template talk:Otheruses4 appears to be against you. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

intelligence

 * (moved from template)

I noticed that redirect5, unlike some of these templates, at least ALLOWS the editor not be a stupid illiterate. But is there some style manual to which users of template can be directed on which we can put suggestions on how to use those among these templates that are adaptable? In particular, that template allows the reader to choose between a capital and a lower-case initial. Lots of Wikipedians seem to think, incorrectly, the capitalization is required in these things. Michael Hardy 23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Otheruses vs. Foruse?
Is there ever is reason to use Otheruses and a different reason to use Foruse? or is it just a matter of whatever the editor wants to use on any article?

Are there articles that Otheruses should be used for that don't make it clear in the first sentence what this article is about? I'm just wondering if there is a legitimate reason to have a template that has the 'this article is about' and a template that doesn't. Or is it just that different people have different tastes? Because I assume most people feel that all uses should either be otheruses or foruse... TheHYPO 15:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no Template:Foruse. In any case, the differences between the various templates are mainly due to stylistic preferences: some people (such as me) find "for other uses" jarring when not preceded by something for other to modify (they require the reader to read past the sentence to make sense), while others find the description redundant and annoying.  As for when to use each, if it doesn't say "for other uses" nobody would particularly care if the summary went away, presumably; a simple  (" :For x, see y. ") would make everyone happy there.  Other than that, it's up to you. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Two other uses
Hehehe, I was just going to use the "wrong" two other uses version. It solved my problem at NHK :-( These templates do nothing at all, not even add articles to a category... -- ReyBrujo 03:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Otheruses4
Why would EdC want to reference  in the "For" section? See this diff for details. I'm tempted to revert EdC's change, but perhaps someone can convince me not to. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 05:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverted, due to overwhelming apathy. :)  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Table of example usages
In an effort to get a better understanding of which templates to use and how, I have put together this table. Comments would be appreciated.... TimR 09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They use it in the other way
they use :''This article is about ______. For the _____ see ____'' instead of the templates listed in the box. This is not subst. And this method should not be used. Jer10 95 Talk 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Old way:

For the _____ see ____''

New ways:

Template:Redirect5 updated with correct usage
I had noticed that  was being shown on this documentation page, but it's usage appeared incorrect. I realized after going to the template page that it was a redirect to. I then went to update it so that it works the way it should.

So I'm just posting this here to let everyone know how it should be used and that it should not be confused with.

Current intended use of the template:

Current non-intended use, but works in the same way as  as you can see in the following examples:



--Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 16:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't PAGE1 and PAGE2 be protected from creation?
Shouldn't PAGE (disambiguation) and other pages like it be protected from creation considering the amount of template links to it from templates? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 06:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started a RfD discussion regarding this at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_28. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect6
What's the correct way of documenting optional variables? I found the two optional variables in this template through trial and error, but I think it would be useful to have them explicitly stated -- Bobyllib (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure I understand your question.. all the parameters, including the ones for redirect6, are documented on the template page. Which two 'optional parameters' are you referring to? -- &oelig; &trade; 01:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no documentation of the parameters on the template page. All that we have are examples, and the user is supposed to figure out what is happening from the examples.
 * For example, the "Other uses of the same title" section. As the first example, the we give an example with "USE1", but never say what "USE1" is. We should explain that "USE1" is a plain text description of the article where the hatnote appears. Like on the Knuckleball page, USE1 is "the baseball pitch", not "Knuckleball" or Knuckleball . And we doesn't explain that the default behavior is insert a link to a disambiguation page for the title of the article where the hatnote appears. We just give an example that links to the non-existing disambiguation page of the template documentation page itself (not USE1). That's confusing.
 * Then after "USE1", there are optional parameters, which the examples seem to suggest should be used in pairs, where "USE2" is a plain text description of another page, and "PAGE2" is the plain text title of another page. It doesn't explain that the template expects additional paramters to come in pairs, and doesn't explain the rule for how these pairs are handled.
 * Without an explanation of the rule, how is the user supposed to understand what the template is going to do with an empty second parameter followed by a different page name?
 * There is also one magic word. We mention, without explaining that this is a syntax for including a pipe statement in a template. (You can get this information by searching for "Template:!", which sends you to a soft redirect to a page on MediaWiki. We should explain it here.) The template also suggests "and" and "other uses" as default plain text page descriptions in description/page pairs. If that's what they are, we should say so.
 * And other problems. Apparently all of this explanation is a transclusion from the doc page for About. I guess I'll have to take these suggestions there. But the explanations of other hatnotes have the same problems. No wonder editors have to experiment before learning how to use them. --Margin1522 (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of these templates are hopelessly confusing until you've played around with them. I use them a lot and still get very confused by them. Most of the time I have to preview the hatnote several times to make sure I'm getting the parameters right (or to try a different template to see if it is somewhat less counterintuitive) older ≠ wiser 19:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So it's not just me. I guess after a rant like that I have to try to do better. Maybe I'll try to make a test page with some explanation and concrete examples in it, and see what people say. --Margin1522 (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

New Template:Otherpersons3
"George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" recently had an otherpersons hatnote added: "For other persons named Lord Byron, see Baron Byron." And that was well done, I thought, except for the pedantic, niggling, itching little thought that technically "Lord Byron" wasn't his name but the honorific associated with his title (and now with the 13th Baron's), so really the hatnote should say "titled" rather than "named".

I've created a modified version of the template, otherpersons3, to allow that. It works exactly like otherpersons in all other respects, and if you use only the first one or two variables you'll never notice the difference. Add a third variable, like "titled" or "nicknamed" or "known as", and that will replace the "named" in the note. This is documented. I've replaced the hatnote in the Byron article, and it works.

If it also passes your own fiercest scrutiny, you may want to consider moving it into otherpersons, since the change should be transparent. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks nice, and as a solid proponent of less numbered variants of templates I'd support merging it with otherpersons. However, otheruses templates in general have a pattern for using positional parameters that this is very different from and I'd rather make these templates function more similarly rather than more differently. What do you think about naming this parameter? For example, what about, in fact, this would also allow you to use this feature without using the first two, such as which ought to look like  I'm open to other names for the parameter as well, just my first thought. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeable; or in other words, I'd take that as a friendly amendment. Done. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Shortcut?
This template page contains good information about the usage of the templates. Should it be nice to have some type of Shortcut? --Kslotte (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What about "T:OU"? T = for template (guidelines), O = Other, U = Uses. --Kslotte (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been WP:BOLD and implemented this. Hopefully you like it. --Kslotte (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A perplexing problem about "about" - Advanced Editor Needed
When one visits Template:Otheruses_templates, everything seems fine; that is, until you encounter the line with USE5 and no |PAGE5 immediately following it. So, the activist editor goes to correct the problem, but finds that the following at that location:

*   (When there are up to five other uses — You should generally create a disambiguation page at this point)

Are there any ideas as to how this can be? Adavis444 (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The About template had two documentation parts: one specific text on 'About', and then the standard 'Other uses templates documentation' transcluded. Exactly the "|PAGE5" was missing in the About-text (and is present in the templated doc). This was the only difference. I deleted the specific text from Template:About/doc. The remaining text (the tempolated doc) has the |PAGE5 mentioned. -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not named Template talk:Other uses templates - documentation/doc
When trying to improve the documentation and categorisation in these (Hatnote) templates, this is my worst discovery so far. Either it shout be called Template talk:Other uses templates/doc, or ... well what else? Even worse: there is even a /docfor this page - hay that's great! So see Template talk:Other uses templates - documentation/doc, which might be OK as an idea, but does not work. We, guards & creatos of the Kingdom of Templates, should prevent such a lower kingdom of individual ideas. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Template:Section template list
After this TfD, this template ("Htd") will be merged with Template:Section template list ("Section"). The latter "Section" one is to be redirected. I suggest this process: ✅ -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Section template list
 * Hatnote templates documentation
 * 1) Crosscheck: Whatever examples are in Section, are they present in "Hatnotes T doc"? ✅
 * 2) Precheck visual effects when template "Section" will change (smart eye) ✅ Other spaces like Talk still look nice when Redirect. -DePiep (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Change "Section" from content to redirect. Done Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Housekeeping: delete Section/doc, check other hatnote documentation,  Category:Hatnote templates &tc.
 * 5) Write: Done here. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a suitable template for this
See this edit. But is there a suitable template?

If not IMO one should be written or modified to suit; If so perhaps the documentation needs tweaking to make it easier to find. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For these situations, there is the basic cover all &rarr; . Most other hatnote templates use this one behind the screens, and add a specialisation. -DePiep (talk)


 * Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well we don't have one already, but I think a should be written, or possibly even add a "technical=yes" parameter to each of the existing "redirect" suite of templates. If set, this would just change "foo redirects here. For bar..." to "foo redirects here for technical reasons. For bar...". Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, "technical reasons" in the hatnote to me is enlarging the question. At least there should be an explanation (-link). Where would it link without these reasons? Anyway, are there any good examples for this? -DePiep (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I is another page that would get this if that's what you mean. Thryduulf (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope it is what you mean ;-). So, the example shows my point: what would it redirect to if there was no technical reason? And: what is that technical reason (needs some link to WP:... I suggest)? (of course, no need to explain for this example). -DePiep (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding: the example I could use uses a "See dotted I for ..." part in such a this hatnote, which is part of the solution. By the way, before someone starts searching: there is no regular Redirect page for  ı . The pagename is changed into I before opening. -DePiep (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See also vs. Further
The documentation gives no direction for when to use Template:Further and when to use Template:See also. Intuitively they mean the same thing to me, or else Further is the same thing as Main. --JFH (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Discussed Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 4. Others did see a difference worth keeping. More talks and discussions on this exist. Note: templates may have been renumbered after an XfD, the XfD may not relect the correct (discussed) text any more. -DePiep (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC about main/details/further
See Template talk:Main. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Centralized talk page
Since Template:For/doc is little more than a transclusion of this doc template, it seems like it would be reasonable to centralize it here. Thoughts? &mdash;SamB (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So, all hatnote/doc talks to be on one single talkpage. Sounds good to me. Does TALKCENT have a solution for talkpages that already have talks? (if no, still go ahead I'd say). -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The usual practice for the /doc page of templates is that the /doc's talk page redirects to the talk page of the template, not to the talk page of another /doc. So Template talk:For/doc should redirect to Template talk:For. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Trailing periods
With custom text fields, could the templates only add an extra period if the custom text does not itself end in one? So, e.g. would produce "Foo."; would produce "Foo."; and  would produce "Foo.."? I.e. you would only get more than one trailing period if you typed them in yourself. Thanks.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  17:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Other popes named Stephen
Would it be possible to delete this section from the documentation? The template was created for the articles Pope Stephen III through Pope Stephen IX. It is already used in all of those articles, and will probably be never be used again. --Margin1522 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it cleans the place. Maybe a 'see also' mentioning? -DePiep (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I would like to delete it, but I don't know how. Information is being transcluded to so many places. I'm afraid that if I delete this section I will be erasing the only documentation that exists for this template. What I would like to do is delete it from this page and then add the information that I'm proposing below to the documentation page of the template, in such a way that it would exist only there and not be transcluded anywhere else. --Margin1522 (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hatnote templates have their own /doc subpage, as usual. In there you can add specific note.
 * Further/doc
 * Pope Stephen ToP Dab/doc
 * Also, in a /doc page you can see transcluded the generic universal documentation Hatnote templates documentation
 * You can edit this one separately
 * So you might want to remove that Pope hatnote from that universal documentation, and add some not to the specific /doc. Did this help? -DePiep (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I've edited. See next section. -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Template description form
As an editor, what I would like is for every template to have a form like the following on its documentation page.

Name
 * Pope Stephen ToP Dab

Purpose
 * This template displays a hatnote to explain differences in the ordinal numbering of Catholic popes who took the name Stephen.

Syntax
 * Pope Stephen ToP Dab|

Default parameters (! required) 
 * !1: A roman numeral that is 1 less than the ordinal in the title of the article where this hatnote appears.

Named parameters (! required) 
 * None.

Example

Output
 * Note: In some sources, this pope is called Stephen IV and Pope Stephen II is called Stephen III. See Pope-elect Stephen for detailed explanations.

Notes
 * This template should be used in the articles Pope Stephen III through Pope Stephen IX.

This seems like kind of the minimum of what you would see on a Man page or the description of a function in an programming API. If every template had a form like this, then editors could go there for a complete description of what it does, and help authors could refer to it for guidance about how to explain it. Also it would help if anyone had to approve it. Sorry, I'm just an editor and know nothing about templates. Is there an approval process or can anybody write one? --Margin1522 (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I have edited to describe what you wrote. I tried to make it understandable for those who do not know about this numbering topic (like me, but I still don't get the "minus 1" text).
 * I also changed . The Stephan hatnote is no more a main section.
 * Is this OK for you? -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. That is perfect, exactly what I wanted to do.
 * The problem is that some sources didn't recognize one pope, and some did, so there were two numbering schemes. The person who coded the template apparently found it easier to work with a parameter that is 1 less than the number that appears in the article title. Which is fine, it works and displays the proper message.
 * And sorry for the interruption. I was breaking a netiquette rule here by asking a question without investigating the history of how things came to be like they are. Next time I will find out more more about template documentation before asking. --Margin1522 (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thx. I did not see any problem wrt etiquette. And I still don't get the VII=numbering issue this template addresses (of course, I could click a link or two - but hey, the doc must be OK by itself). -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * btw, the hatnote at Pope-elect Stephen (pointed to from this one) is illegibele. I do not understand (and I can count, really). Why not write something like: "the numbering was fucked up, there is a +1/-1 difference with these popes". Now please focus on thise numbering issue. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean it's incomprehensible? I agree it could be clearer. The problem is that this Stephen (called by some Stephen II) was elected but died before he could be consecrated. Therefore some sources say that this Stephen was not a pope and the real Stephen II was the next one. Instead of calling the next one III, we should call him II. Hence the double numbering schemes. Anyway I really like the way you added the Usage section. That seems like an excellent way to handle special parameters like this one. --Margin1522 (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

re BD2412: what does this say?
re I still do not understand what your edit says. (really, I know about hatnotes, disambiguation, and linking). I propose to remove the text, or make is crystal clear. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have tried to clear it up a bit more. bd2412  T 22:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)