Template talk:About/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This template doesn't seem to indent like its dablink counterparts. Why? JFW | T@lk 19:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed it. They were doing things differently than all the other ones, so I changed it to match {{otheruses}}. Fitch 06:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This template was gutted without any Tfd discussion

I plan to revert the redirection of this template, and here's why:

  • There was no Tfd discussion. Yes, after I dug around a while I found the discussion on "otherusesabout" from August 2005 where some editors disliked seeing "redundancy" in the hatnotes. Yet the consensus was to "Keep". Now one of the editors who didn't like "redundancy" is using an old discussion surrounding a "Keep" verdict to delete a different template. This is a doubly unjustified action. It would be considerate to leave a message on WP:D if there is to be a Tfd discussion of this template, or any others that are used only for disambiguation.
  • Even if the template is deleted or gutted, it just takes away a tool from disambig-fixers, and there is always {{dablink}}, where "redundancy" can live on, but where it is so free-form that it may allow bad habits to flourish, and the variations can detract from the professional appearance of Wikipedia more than having "This article is about" at the start of a hatnote.
  • The editors who took part in the August 2005 discussion are not known to me as people who do a lot of disambig-fixing, in particular disambiguation of people. They perhaps do not see the value of a template that can clearly differentiate between the English-born Australian cricketer and the Australian-born English cricketer who share a name, when a reader may otherwise have to read two or three paragraphs to really find out who the article is about.
  • I can use {{dablink}}, but I don't want to go back over months worth of my contributions and convert them, and for future contributions, I don't really want to do ALL THAT STINKING TYPING! Chris the speller 01:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I can see the next argument: The information should be in the first line. My reply: I won't get very many disambig pages fixed if I have to rewrite and reorganize the first few paragraphs of a lot of articles. I recently found 5 articles about George Smithers or whatever where you couldn't get from any one to any other, or to find most of them by going to George Smithers. To me it's more important to fix those glaring holes than to sweat the first 4 words of a hatnote. Chris the speller 02:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
So instead we should use a template which tolerates very badly written articles? ed g2stalk 03:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The consensus was not keep, but delete which changed to redirect towards the end. ed g2stalk 03:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't like badly written articles, either, but it's more important to get people to the right article than to have beautiful articles that people can't find, though you may feel otherwise. If the article is skillfully rewritten later, the skillful editor can then change the hatnote as appropriate.
We see the result of the discussion differently. In August, the template was removed from Tfd (that does mean discussion is closed and a decision is made, right?), but the template itself was not destroyed until 4 months later. I have seen others take this to mean that the decision back in August was to keep, and so do I. However, the discussion was not about otheruses4. The otheruses4 template existed at that time, but was never put up for Tfd, was never deleted, as far as I can tell, and so should not be deleted, or gutted, now. I halfway expected an apology when you realized that you had made a disruptive change without thoroughly investigating the situation, and with no regard for the editors who struggle along with crummy tools and sloppy guidelines, but perhaps I was just being a Pollyanna. Chris the speller 04:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
There were 12 delete votes (including 1 redirect vote), 2 keep votes and 2 further keep votes based on the disambiguation of Macedonia, which doesn't use the template. The templates were either deleted, orphaned or changed to remove the "This article is about" immediately after the TFD. The templates, in that form, were most definitely not kept. There should be a new discussion to overturn this decision, not the other way around. ed g2stalk 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you explain that the result of a discussion was "Keep" when the URL includes "Not deleted" Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/August_2005? Even if you feel that the consensus was to delete or change, why did you wait 4 months to change it? Once more I will say that the use of a discussion about one template to suddenly, and with no warning, delete a different template 8 months later seems unjustified and downright sneaky. There is a discussion going on now at WP:D about hatnotes. You may find it enlightening. It has input from people who actually work day in and day out to help readers get to the right article, not people who swooped in, complained about a 4-word phrase and then decamped. Chris the speller 18:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As I explained before the template was not actually technically deleted, hence the (possibly incorrect) filing in "not_deleted". At the time the template only had a few uses, so I orphaned it. Nobody got around to actually deleting it, until a month later when it was marked as "survived TFD", due to the misleading filing. I may remind you that just because you spend a lot of time doing disambigution tasks, this does not make you the owner of these templates, nor does it give you any more say in these matters. I undestand that you are annoyed that you missed the original TFD, but that does not mean that you can just overrule it, otherwise the process would be utterly pointless. ed g2stalk 13:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
As I explained before, THIS template was not Tfd'd, and was not deleted. How could an editor who started using it last Semptember, for example, know that it was condemned, deprecated, hanging by a thread (in your mind), even after adding it to his or her watchlist (and I dispute the notion that an editor should have to put a watch on every tool)? That is where the fast-and-loose process of yours shows itself to be a tissue of wishful thinking, with no consideration of due process. You should have protested the "misleading filing" back in August. I don't claim to own the templates, but Wikipedia is not well served by editors who do not do the work deciding to get rid of tools used by those who do. I will not agree to deleting templates until there is consensus, and I don't mean ancient history. The quality of disambiguation work being done today is not what it was in August 2005, not to personally disparage anyone, but there is a strong team now. I found an interesting comment on a different template in that August log, a little strong, but applicable here: "This goes beyond bad-faith; you want to take the tools away from the workers! Maybe you don't like the way those tools are used? You can't talk to other people, ask them maybe to use the tool another way? All you can do is smash and destroy!" Chris the speller 15:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only template that was went to TfD was Template:Otherusesabout, which is now a redirect. That should have had ZERO effect on any other template. If there are other TfDs for the other templates (which includes virtually every one at the top of this page), they should be presented. I note that they were all recently gutted similarly to this one. Powers 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate convincing consensus against the use of this template, and indeed, consensus here appears to be against you. If you would like this to be redirected to another template, put it up on TFD. My opinion is that it's quite atrocious style to refer to something that hasn't been said yet; using "other uses" to refer to something the reader hasn't yet read is unintuitive and annoying, and completely unnecessary. This is totally independent of the fact that not all articles have good introductions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of TfD process

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place.

  • So, it was improper to list at TfD in the first place!
    --William Allen Simpson 05:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy with template:about?

This template seems to serve the same purpose as "about":

The only difference seems to be that About doesn't link to Param3. Ouch. Should one be marked obsolete? Stevage 09:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:About is used less than 500 times, which is many times less than Template:Otheruses4. Plus Template:About is not listed in Template:Otheruses templates. We should probably make that a redirect to this one. Powers 12:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, since "about" is so much more descriptive, it would surely be more sensible to move and redirect this to that name. At least, if all existing uses of {{about}} get converted to use the conventional wikilink-added format. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think "otheruses" is a better description than "about". =) Powers 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
In that case:


("this article" being the template itself, which is currently edit-protected)
Why have an obtuse "4" on the end anyway? It should all be functional under the same template name. —Down10 TACO 08:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"of the term"

{{otheruses}} has always (to my knowledge) read:

For other uses, see . . .

Originally, all templates with defaults followed that convention, but a while back I changed one (some? most? my memory blurs) of them to read

For other uses of the term, see . . .

This was in response to someone saying something to the effect of, "When I was reading Shotgun, and I saw for other uses, I thought 'What? Other uses for a shotgun?'". Anyway, when I added template defaults to this template, and a bit later made all the other templates that I could dependent on it so that the wording would be synchronized, I also made that say "for other uses of the term".

So, any objections to changing both this and {{otheruses}} to add "of the term" or some similar phrase? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really reluctant to take a side on this one. =) User:Freakofnurture only recently removed that clause from this template, 'though I'm not sure of the reasoning. Powers 00:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably consistency, which is moot if we change {{otheruses}} as well. He probably just decided to go with the more established wording. Anyway, I've pointed him here, so hopefully he'll comment. And I'll leave a note on Template talk:Otheruses too, come to think of it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I see there's a lot of preexisting discussion on this there. I've started a new thread at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#"Other uses" of what?; please continue any discussion there. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Is there any reason to work with the #if parser function instead of just using parameter default values? For instance, why does this template use {{#if: {{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|other uses}} and not {{{2|other uses}}}? --Three Of Twelve 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, sorry, i've just realized it ;-) It's because you needn't use {{Otheruses4|3=foo}} but {{Otheruses4|||foo}} instead, isn't it? --Three Of Twelve 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
No, in the template code when you're using a parameter, you can give it a parameter that becomes its default value. So if you need to use {{{1}}} and if there is no {{{1}}} you want the value "abc", you'd use {{{1|abc}}} --ffroth 20:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

Why does this template no longer indent or is italcized? Hbdragon88 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bypass your cacheOmegatron 03:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to the Vietnamese Wikipedia

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

[[vi:Tiêu bản:Otheruses4]]


 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Luna Santin 00:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please add sl:Predloga:Drugipomeni4. Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 13:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

YesY Done - Harryboyles 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

IW to Norwegian Wiki

no:Mal:Otheruses4 Nsaa 12:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD notice

{{Tfd|About/Archive 1|Otheruses templates}}

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

Bold "see"

{{editprotected}} When many articles are internal linked, its difficult to read. Bold see disambiguation like this:

for other uses, see Philosophy (disambiguation).

This is necessary because linked text look bolder than ordinary text. Lara bran 05:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a prominent style change; I think it would be better to ask for comments on the Village Pump (WP:VPR is the right one) before the templates are changed. There are a lot of templates in this series that ought to use similar formatting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

New version

{{editprotected}} Please replace the page with this. It's a new version of the template which includes many more optional parameters. {{otheruses4|USE1|USE2}} still generates the same result, but {{otheruses4|USE1|USE2|PAGE2|USE3|PAGE3|USE4|PAGE4}} does the same as {{Three other uses|USE1|USE2|PAGE2|USE3|PAGE3|USE4|PAGE4}}. Basically, this is a merger of {{otheruses4}}, {{two other uses}}, {{three other uses}}, and {{four other uses}}. I've tested everything. Melsaran 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is a very widely used but undocumented method of transcluding Template:This with only one parameter, which this change breaks. What had happened before is that if the second parameter was left off, it would default to PAGENAME (disambiguation). It still does that, but with an extra set of square brackets. Obviously, it's preferable to use Template:otheruses1, but since This was working as editors wanted it to, the issue went unnoticed until now. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with your version, Melsaran, is that it does not take into account the default value "other uses" for the parameter {{{4}}} in {{two other uses}} and the parameter {{{6}}} in {{three other uses}}. As a result, the template breaks by not showing the last link for those affected articles.

For example, the Alpha (letter) article currently has {{Two other uses||Latin ɑ|Latin alpha||Alpha}}, omitting parameter {{{4}}} to use the default value. With your modifications, the line "For other uses, see Alpha." does not appear.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable limits of the hatnote

Using all of the parameters of this template as so:


resulting in

This article is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. For USE3, see PAGE3. For USE4, see PAGE4. For USE5, see PAGE5.

seems like an abuse of the idea of a hatnote – can anyone point out an instance where a hatnote should point to four different articles, rather than to a disambiguation page? Even three other pages seems like too many – I would consider a four article disambiguation page far preferable to a wordy three article hatnote. Is there some existing rule of thumb for the threshold where a dab page should exist? If so, would there be support for changing this template to only allow disambiguating one or two (possibly three, but certainly not four) other pages? Does anyone know how to find which pages transclude this template with all the parameters filled? — Swpbtalk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's completely true, but I don't see any harm in keeping them there, even if they won't be used; I think it would be reassuring to have them there just in case. Gracias, Drum guy (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Make this redirect to {{about}}?


Not done for now: Discussion is picking up below. I'd suggest adding a note at the relevant Village Pump to attract more users. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, {{about}} redirects here, to {{otheruses4}}. I propose that we reverse this, and make {{about}} the main template. I think {{about}} is quicker, easier, simpler, more understandable, and more intuitive than {{otheruses4}}, which I see as hard to remember and having a '4' which doesn't make sense unless you've done a lot of work with hatnote templates.

Feedback would be very greatly appreciated.

Thank you all very much, Drum guy (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Do people think this is a good idea? I'm tempted to do it slightly soon.. Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree and nobody has disagreed over the last year that this has been proposed. I've tagged this section with a request for edit by an admin. Cheers, Sligocki (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the lack of discussion constitutes a consensus. I personally like it as it is, as it's more standardised. Since {{about}} redirects here anyway, what's the need for a move? We just need to publicise that you can use "About" instead, for people confused. Greg Tyler (tc) 23:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that more discussion is needed before a move. Plastikspork (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"This article" in non-articles?

{{editprotected}} I sometimes transclude this template in the Wikipedia project space (such as in Wikipedia:Ownership of articles), but it still says "This article". Would it be hard to make it say "This page" outside of the main namespace? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is in User:Damian Yerrick/Otheruses4. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Done Happymelon 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot imposing this template

A bot (see [1]) is imposing this template where it is not necessary. This needs to stop. Badagnani (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unhandled case

I've finally gotten around to trying to use these templates, and i'm sure glad i was able to get along w/o them for so long, bcz i just hit the 2nd one that drove me back to complying with the format, but via hand-build markup. Here's what's needed

:'' This is about film; for German Expressionism in painting, see [[Expressionism#Expressionist groups in painting|Expressionist groups in painting]].''<br>

Here's what i tried:

{{about|film|German Expressionism in painting|Expressionism#Expressionist groups in painting|Expressionist groups in painting}}

and how it rendered:

This article is about film. For German Expressionism in painting, see Expressionism#Expressionist groups in painting. For Expressionist groups in painting, see German Expressionism (disambiguation).

I tried nowiki'g the pipe char on the previous case that i ended up hand coding, but (of course?) the pipe is still syntactically inactive in the rendering -- and IIRC made the whole link effectively plain text. I know enough to suspect some INCLUDE-related magic word might make the nowiki's ineffective once transcluded, but only serious template creators should have to grasp such contexts.
Yes, i understand why it rendered that way -- even tho i'm pretty good at avoiding using the ugly in-line multi-target HatNote Dab where there should be a single lk to that apparently obscure and reviled construct, a Dab page. But i've looked thru the list, and no one seems to have anticipated the (admittedly relatively rare) need to pipe a HatNote Dab's lk. How about this syntax:

{{about|film|German Expressionism in painting|Expressionism#Expressionist groups in painting|Pipe=Expressionist groups in painting}}
--Jerzyt 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

-- (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)hey

Unneeded wiki link

Resolved: meshach (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The link to Otheruses4 does not exist. It should be deleted from the top of the article (unless there is a reason for it being there). meshach (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This template takes a parameter and, if not supplied, uses the current page name. That's why you see the link to Otheruses4 (disambiguation) on the actual template. Look at the top of Alberta for an example of how it's actually used. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
If I have misunderstood you, please explain more! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of my request Martin. I guess I still do not understand though - maybe you can halp me understand. There is no page corresponding to Otheruses4 (disambiguation), why would it be desired for there to be a link to this page? It seems to me that it would be simpler tp remove the link from the top of this page.
If I am misunderstanding please explain. Thanks, meshach (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I see now MSGJ, that message _is_ the actual template. Thanks for your patience. meshach (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about USE1 for USE2 see PAGE2 and PAGE3

{{editprotected}} Would it be possible to set the template so that if no USE3 is specified it puts the word "and" between the two targets? i.e.


would show

This article is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2 and PAGE3.

I want to use this format at Baja California in the following way:

{{otheruses4|the Mexican state|other uses|Baja California (disambiguation)||California (disambiguation)}}

to produce

This article is about the Mexican state. For other uses, see Baja California (disambiguation) and California (disambiguation).

Currently it ignores everything after a blank parameter. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done

Please use the (poorly documented) template:otheruses8,

{{Otheruses8|the Mexican state|Baja California (disambiguation)|California (disambiguation)}}

...which produces;


 Chzz  ►  04:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that template existed. I've added it (and otheruses7) to the documentation. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

|1| = other uses

I find it odd that {{about|USE1|USE2|PAGE2||PAGE3}} ignores the PAGE3:

This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2.

instead of producing

This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. For other uses, see PAGE3.

If fact, {{about|USE1|USE2|PAGE2|1|PAGE3}} produces

This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. For other uses, see PAGE3.

as I wanted above. This seems like a very kludgey method for getting the preferred action.

It's also inconsistent:

  • {{about|USE1||PAGE2}} produces
    This page is about USE1. For other uses, see PAGE2.
  • {{about|USE1|1|PAGE2}} produces
    This page is about USE1. For 1, see PAGE2.
  • {{about|USE1|USE2|PAGE2||PAGE3}} produces
    This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2.
  • {{about|USE1|USE2|PAGE2|1|PAGE3}} produces
    This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. For other uses, see PAGE3.

Is there any reason that you guys don't want to allow the blank parameter to supply this function? or is it simply a technical limitation? Cheers, Sligocki (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see one reason this might have been done:

Still interested to hear what others think. I would still prefer something other then the arbitrary number 1 for this purpose. Cheers, Sligocki (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Request move discussion

Template:Otheruses4Template:about — or {{otheruses}}, because the current name (with an arbitrary 4) is hard to remember and esoteric. Sligocki (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is no longer simply #4 of 8 special purpose templates. In fact, it has been so well generalized, that it is used to define 4 of the 7 other otheruses templates. In the documentation, editors have been referring to it primarily as {{about}} already.

Renaming the template to {{about}} would be technically the simplest (since they are already synonyms). As for {{otheruses}}, it is only documented to be uses without parameters currently and is identical to {{otheruses4}} without parameters, thus moving {{otheruses4}} to {tl|otheruses}} would not break any currently documented uses of {{otheruses}}. What do you all think? Sligocki (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on closer inspection it appears that {{otheruses}} has an undocumented parameter making {{otheruses|FOO}} == {{otheruses4|||FOO}}. Sligocki (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Please move to {{About}}. It's simple, easy to remember, and more newbie-friendly. This is one of the few templates that I purposefully use a redirect to link to just because the current name is so confusing. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Endorse move per Drilnoth & nom. It's a much friendlier name. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I can agree with the fact that "about" is much easier then "otheruses4". My question though is, why is it actually necessary to move? Template:about is already a redirect to Template:Otheruses4, so... what's the problem?
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have not already, orchestrate an epic merge between this template and similar templates just as I did with the merge templates. @harej 10:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:About already redirects here. There is no need for the move; either name can be used, and the results will be correct. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple; it's still clearer for new users if the template itself is at the common name instead of the common name redirecting to an obscure and confusing one. Besides, it will save energy for the servers ever so minusculely slightly (WP:DWAP and all, I know, but still...) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I support moving to {{about}} and preserving {{otheruses4}} as a redirect. Sure it won't change the fact that you can use both, but it will encourage using the more intuitive name. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I just don't see an actual move as acomplishing what the stated goals here, are. Just change the documentation, and run around changing instances of {{Otheruses4}} with {{About}} using a find and replace (AWB could help with that). That would effectively address the whole "clearer for new users" issues, since people's first exposure to it is likely to be the template name in the article source.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope you don't misunderstand me, I don't think that a move will cause this to be better in-and-of-itself. What I meant to discuss was whether we should encourage people to use {{about}} instead. I simply assumed that we shouldn't do that until we decided to move the page (see below). Cheers, -Sligocki (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said in the original discussion above, and has been pointed out here, I don't see the point of a move. {{about}} redirects here, so why concern ourselves? Greg Tyler (tc) 15:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, it seems as though there are really two questions here:

  1. Should we encourage people to use {{about}} instead of {{otheruses4}}? (Aditionally, should we change occurrences ourselves, get a bot to change all occurances, etc?)
  2. If we are promoting the use of {{about}}, should we move {{otheruses4}} to {{about}} as well?

It seems as though nobody has disagreed with the first idea, but a few disagree with the second. Sligocki (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If nobody disagrees with encouraging the use of {{about}}, I'll go ahead and make those changes to the documentation soon. Sligocki (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As for the moving the page, my opinion is: why not? If we are encouraging the use of {{about}}, even changing occurrences or getting a bot to do it uniformly, why not just move the template itself to make it clear. It seems like the only reason not to move is either wanting to preserve the original name for history or laziness. Sligocki (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If the documentation changes, then the template should be moved for consistency. It would take all of about 15 seconds to move it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. If there is no reason not to move it, why shouldn't we just move it for consistency? I still haven't seen a real reason to oppose the move. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a high use and highly visible template,so moving it (even to the current redirect) should be the last step, not the first.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm all for ditching otheruses4, as I can never remember it but always seem to need it. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    I believe it was back in the day when we had otheruses2, otheruses3, ... I agree that it's not the most intuitive anymore. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    Since the documentation changed, I went ahead and boldly moved the template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

New funtionality, "and"

{{edit protected}}

I've added new functionality to {{about/sandbox}}, so that:


This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2 and PAGE3.

Instead of:


This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2 and PAGE3.

I don't see why anyone would actually want it to say "For and, see ...", so this shouldn't conflict with any previously intended uses.

The reason for the change is to allow the functionality of {{otheruses6}} and {{otheruses8}} and the logical extension of those into this main {{about}} template.

I also simplified a few things in the template and reformatted it so that it was easier to work with. I have tested all the documented functionality at Template:about/sandbox/test and it produces the same result. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for making the testcases. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


The are extra spaces that shouldn't be present. See Cold fusion for example. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that seemed to be a problem on that particular page which I have now fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested merger with {{this}}


Can you file a merger with {{this}}, kthanksbye. (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I took off the editprotected tag, {{this}} already uses {{about}}, but it cannot redirect here. What exactly do you mean by a merge. I agree that we should encourage people to use this template instead of {{this}}. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I mean to file a tfd. (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

More Parameters

We need be able to say: "This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2, PAGE3, and PAGE4." (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Need is a strong word, last I checked there were not very many pages that required that, however, this template could be edited to support 3 pages for one use. You could either try to propose the change yourself or convince someone else to do it (it would be helpful to reference some examples where it would be useful). Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

4th Paramters


We need to make additional parameters for a 4th article cf.. (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, why not simply make a disambiguation page? Surely preferable to such a convoluted hatnote. olderwiser 13:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. DAP page already exits, edited the about to reflect it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

On Otheruses4 again

I think it's clear that this name is better than Otheruses4 but I would like some opinions on the other because there is an editor who probably disagrees and renames About to Otheruses4 in many occasions.

Relevant discussions:

-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There was an RFD on the template recently [2] which came to the following conclusions: (1) consensus was to keep, not delete, the redirect; (2) there is not consensus to orphan the redirect via a bot. Despite this, the redirect has nearly been orphaned, going from over 15,000 uses to under 500. The editors whose bots played a role in that should be smacked with a trout (the list here includes Magioladitis, who is otherwise a fine editor). Nevertheless, as long as the redirect exists, people are allowed to use it, and edits that change it are subject to the usual provisions of BRD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No bot should allowed to run solely to orphan this template but as you may see we agreed to add it as part of AWB's general fixes. It only needed a few runs doing other stuff for this template to go down to a few transclusions and the reason is that nobody really uses it anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You see what I'm talking about here: "It only needed a few runs doing other stuff for this template to go down to a few transclusions". Bot runs that have the effect of orphaning the redirect are exactly the problem here. It seems like several bot operators intentionally ignored the outcome of the RFD (which was that the redirect did not need to be orphaned) and orphaned the redirect anyway. That's why a trout is needed.
Now any dablink template is used at most once per page, so the only way for new uses to happen is for new pages to be created. Of course a bot can remove transclusions from existing pages faster than new pages that need dablinks can be written. So that's no measure of whether the template is "still being used". If many editors were individually removing it, that would mean it's no longer being used. But I have seen no data that supports that theory. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is pointless and somewhat counterproductive to go around editing with the only goal to change these to {{about}} from {{otheruses4}}. However, I see no problem with changing these in the course of other edits, and I routinely do. I also think it is equally pointless, if not more so, to go back through and revert the changes without making any other improvements. Changing {{otheruses4}} to {{about}} is in my AWB settings and is also in WP:AutoEd if I recall. However, I do not fire up AWB or AutoEd on a list of transclusions of {{otheruses4}} for the sole purpose of orphaning it, nor should anyone else (in my opinion). Just my 2 cents on the matter. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the template broken or just my usage?

See the template's usage at the top of the page Critical Mass. The first "other uses" link should be to Critical mass, but instead it's to Critical mass (disambiguation). Why? What's going wrong? Robert K S (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be due to this edit. This appears to be an unintended (or intended) feature? I will alert R'n'B. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
One way to fix it would be to change the first link to Critical mass (nuclear)? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I reverted recent change to template's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Still broken, it seems... Robert K S (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The pages in the server needed to be updated. I made a null edit for you. Check now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Automatic removal of extraneous links

I see that the inclusion of extraneous links is classified as improper usage. Therefore, is it possible to amend the template to automatically remove link markup from passed parameters? --trevj (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Is it possible to automatically determine which links are the extraneous ones and which are the intended ones? Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that the linked pages are passed as PAGE parameters, as per Template:About/doc. In these parameters, no [[ / ]] is necessary and the template must add it. Single and double brackets in USE parameters are passed and produce wikilinks. Stripping of the square brackets would also require consideration giving to piping. So... not as simple as I first thought! --trevj (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Of course, if piping is ignored, then editors would just have to manually correct {{About}} tags as necessary - and there might not actually be that many anyway. --trevj (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a task for a bot. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I would be interested to do that. Specially the first parameter of about needs cleanup on that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't use template

Oops, just noticed that I could just create my own otheruses without using a template. Sorry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Transfering templates to other wikis

Why hello there, I would like to create certain templates that I know from Wikipedia (the About one being one of them) in a new wiki. How would I go about doing that? I know how to create template pages, however, I do not know how to code them myself. Is there a page where I can simply copy and paste just the template code? Viewing the source page of Template:About didn’t help at all since it is way too complex for me to swiftly recognize only the actual template code for each one. -- (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Category pages

Could we please make this template detect if it's being used in the Category namespace, and if so then emit "category" in place of "article" or "page"?

It seems to be used on many category pages, with the first parameter variously empty or filled in, and "This category is about" IMJ reads better on category pages than "This page is about". — Smjg (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Done Anomie 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2012

"They may touch the ball as many as three times" should be replaced with "The team may touch the ball up to 3 times but individual players may not touch the ball twice consecutivley" This just makes it very clear to non experienced players that you cannot play all three touches. Smackland (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This is the page for discussing changes to the template {{About}}. Your request appears to have nothing to do with that template; please discuss it on the talk page of the relevant article. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 April 2013 for .../wiki/Elihu_(secret_society)

Hello. The title for this page is incorrect. The content of the page expressly says that Elihu is NOT a secret society, yet the title "Elihu (secret society) says the opposite. I am a board member for the organization and would like to have this corrected in the title and web adress. Since Elihu exists as a separate wiki page, the correct disignation for this senior organization is The Elihu Club Inc. or Elihu Club Inc. or Elihu Club (@Yale University) or Elihu (senior society).

Thank you

ElihuMember (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Elihu Member ElihuMember (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{About}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Assuming that the article in question is Elihu (secret society), its talk page is Talk:Elihu (secret society). Please see also requested moves. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)