Template talk:Look from/Archive 1

no redirects?
Is it possible for an option to not have redirects show up? ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 05:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would require changing it to use an ["external-style" link] instead of an "internal-style" wikilink, at least in the case where redirects are supressed. I think this might actually be a good idea. Perhaps the default could be to include redirects when the template is used outside of the main article namespace and to not include them when it's used in the article namespace? - dcljr (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Special:Prefixindex
In this template, can we use Special:Prefixindex instead of Special:Allpageswith? The difference appears to be that Prefixindex lists only those pages that actually begin with the argument e.g. Special:Prefixindex/Jiminy lists just 7 pages from "Jiminy" through "Jiminy Peak", Special:Allpages/Jiminy continues the list on to "Jimitatu", and however many more fit. Ewlyahoocom 02:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like the template is now using Special:Prefixindex
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Requirement
We need to accomadate this usage.174.3.98.236 (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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


 * The form that you changed,, worked. I'm confused by what you are asking for. older ≠ wiser 13:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of having all the brackets show up. We shouldn't have that: we should make this template able to accommodate this special search thing and none of the colons and such should show up.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why? Is there some problem with brackets in hatnotes? I'm not aware that anyone other than you has been complaining. older ≠ wiser 14:50, 21 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   Ron h jones (Talk) 23:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-reference
Isn't this template encouraging the use of self-reference? I don't think this is a good idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One could argue that it's not doing much beyond what a "See also" section already does: link to other articles here at Wikipedia. True, a mirror of our content might not have a working Special:Prefixindex page, but I don't know how much of a concern that should be for us. (There is certainly much more discussion these days about making remote copies of our articles "work right", but I haven't looked into the matter enough to know much about it. According to Mirrors and forks, "The appropriate way to run a mirror is to download a dump of the compressed 'pages-article' file and the images from http://download.wikimedia.org/, and then use a modified instance of MediaWiki to generate the required HTML, along with above mentioned copyrights information", which presumably means the remote site would have a working Special:Prefixindex. OTOH, I don't know how recently the quoted text was written or to what extent it reflects community consensus.) - dcljr (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Pages or articles?
Shouldn't the message say "articles" instead of "pages"? (A little less of a "self-reference" — especially since the main use of this template seems to be in lists of article titles in the "See also" sections of disambig pages.) - dcljr (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Note, though, that if we make this change, we should change the default for as well. Coastside (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, pages is better. The search may not be in the article namespace. For example:  with result:  Coastside (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Lookfrom → Template:Look from – Spacing to improve readability. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've never really got the point of moving templates – why not just create Template:Look from as a redirect? Jenks24 (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is to ease readability in the source code. It's more user-friendly to have spac|es where spaces there should be, because people are used to read like this. When using one word for two or more, it's harder to understand. Anaddressd a redirect doesn't suffice, because users normally use the template title and we should thus change it so they use the spaced form. --User:The Evil IP The Evil IP address (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose just make a redirect per Jenks24. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move. Can't really see a reason to oppose, since a redirect will mean using the old format will work just as well. "Lookfrom" is just fine in eg. programming languages in which parameters can't contain spaces (although even in those cases something like "LookFrom" or "Look_from" is clearer). However, there's really no reason to use such conventions for wiki templates. Nothing wrong with just writing the title in plain English. Jafeluv (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Because such moves are routinely carried out without discussion or controversy, I just proceeded with one before noticing the above discussion (which generated little participation and no clear consensus). My apologies. I've already updated all of the redirects, but if someone wants me to undo everything, I will. —David Levy 18:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Teachable moments
If the main use of this template is in the See also section of disambiguation pages, as stated above, and if disambiguation is an interesting career on Wikipedia (compare WikiProject Outlines), I note two reasons to offer the suggestion that we modify the template to make a parenthetical statement that teaches both basic mediaWiki and entices more disambiguation work. First an example: or at least The link to help:search, in the proposed parenthetical, offers to teach users what power users know.
 * (the search "prefix:Ubuntu")
 * (the search "intitle:Ubuntu")
 * Find the page names beginning with "Ubuntu"
 * Find the page names containing "Ubuntu"

Wikipedia is a good and better tool for authors of works, if they learn these tricks. We like authors. Authors think a lot of words. We like that kind of support. Maybe it's monetary. The proposed exposure of the actual search "code" (as user friendly as it gets) actually teaches, does eventually wear into the subconscious, and makes comfortable the later "purchase" of the link to help:search when they have the time, which many will eventually. Of course there, many will discover other "codes". The Lookfrom and Intitle templates serve the non-power-user. But as I pointed out, we may want more power-users too.

Of course, wikitext editors need templates, and disambiguation aficionados developed the need for Lookfrom and Intitle. Here, I try to add even more value, starting from there. To me, a wikitext editor, (not yet a bold template editor,) templates are experienced as "a name", of which there are many, not "code" of which there are a few. Search "code" is a prod or nudge towards computer science. Learning template names by subconscious memorizing is also unavoidable eventuality; but that route alone is not as ethical as presenting the full-service power-usability search package. For templates are more complex, in more flux, and thus limit full power-usability of the template system.

Compare the idea with the way menus offer keyboard short-cuts right-aligned, and the way shortcuts are displayed with the mouse hovers over "My contributions" telling me it's the same as -Y. &mdash; Cp i r al Cpiral  03:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Noprint
These links report the lists of pages where Look from used. (The counts are rounded to 100's):
 * 1000 articles
 * 700 articles
 * 2 dab pp
 * 200 arcicles
 * 4 dab pp
 * 3100 dab pp
 * 2800 dab pp

Lookfrom shows up in printed versions. So shouldn't it add "noprint" to "selfreference"?

If yes, we'd could wrap the usual itemizing bullet into the template like , requiring a  for the rare occasion it's not a bullet item. A regex added to the search links above will show where Lookfrom is a bullet item. Then we use AWB in bot mode to change all occurrences of  to just

There may be a similar problem with Template talk:In title. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  19:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on the changes proposed at intitle. The noprint fix in the intitle sandbox is the same one needed for this template to be "noprint", which could be required by guidelines. And the method of implementing it on the wiki is the same: together, twenty thousand pages need to be changed. Please comment. Thank you. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  06:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 January 2016
Please incorporate the "print", "bullet" (and div and span) options as seen at in title/sandbox, for the reasons given at template talk:in title. Discuss? &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  06:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

&mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  06:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could make the desired changes to Template:Look from/sandbox and test them? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See /testcases &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  05:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This fix and the same thing at template in title is cooperating with, where it may happen that there is a possibility of making a bullet that only has a noprint item becomes a noprint bullet itself, as it does in all other "bare bullet" contexts. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  17:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:In title
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:In title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: Use italics instead of quotation marks
I propose changing

}}|]]

to

}}|]]

to set the search term in italics rather than in quotation marks.

Rationale

 * 1) The MOS says to use italics for making a use–mention distinction.
 * 2) If a page name that begins with a double quotation mark is used with the template, the result looks messy, if not confusing. Here is the output when used on the disambiguation page for the double quotation mark symbol, along with three other examples:

The similar template In title does italicise the term, so changing to italics here would also unify the look of the two templates. Many disambiguation pages use both templates in the "See also" section; Britain and Alien are two examples. 

—Ringbang (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the proposed changes and the discussion above and in the link in the section below, and agree the change is justified to achieve consistency across this category of templates, and therefore endorse it. --Bsherr (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Well I changed it on the basis 3 supporting (including me) and no opposition, didn't see Michael Bednarek's opposition on the other page. Still looks like a consensus for the change though, if that changes I'll revert the change I made. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)