Template talk:About

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

Comma as well as "and"[edit]

This needs to support || or |,| as input to generate a comma, as well as presently-supported |and| to generate the word "and", so that this:

{{About|humans as a species|other uses|Human (disambiguation)||Humanity (virtue)||Human nature|and|Human condition}}

works.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼ 

Readability fix[edit]

For readability, it would be nice if |and| would output:

", and "

not just:

" and "

[Quotation marks added for clarity.] This would more clearly separate two articles linked in series. Many of our article titles contain the word "and", while already visited links have a color close to that of unlinked text; together this can make something like "Earth, Wind and Fire and War and Peace" difficult to visually parse (visit both, the come back and reload this page and you'll see). Even unvisited, it's not that easy to distinguish, without a comma, for anyone with blue color-blindness.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that finer control of the comma placement would be ideal - but it might also make the template too complex. However, you can use the generic template {{hatnote|text}} to fully control exactly what is placed in the hatnote. It also has wiki markup support to format the text however you wish. As an example: {{hatnote|For more juice, see [[Earth, Wind and Fire]], and [[War and Peace]].}}
For more juice, see Earth, Wind and Fire, and War and Peace.
-- ADTC Talk Ctrb 09:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternate syntax isn't documented?[edit]

I notice that the page Stingray has the hatnote:

This article is about the fish. For the phone tracker, see Stingray phone tracker. For other uses, see Stingray (disambiguation).

The source reveals: {{about|the fish|the phone tracker|Stingray phone tracker|other uses|Stingray (disambiguation)}}.

I don't see the documentation for this format, which appears to be:

  • {{About|USE1|USE2|PAGE2|USE3|PAGE3}}
    This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. For USE3, see PAGE3.

Should this be included in this documentation? I do see examples of this (with uses up to USE5) in Template:About/testcases.

Should that page have instead used the following?

The above format is also shown in Template:About/testcases, although only with both USE2 and USE3. But it, too, is not included on this documentation page. Should it be documented?

I also note that this documentation page promises, "For more options, find "{{About}}" in the text below." However, you won't find "{{About}}" anywhere in the text below.

Page description (parameter 1) appears to be optional[edit]

The documentation states that the current page's description is a required parameter. But when I leave it blank, the template works (I would think correctly) as follows:

  • {{About||USE2|PAGE2}}
    For USE2, see PAGE2.
  • {{About||USE2|PAGE2|section=yes}}
    For USE2, see PAGE2.

If it was really required, it should have shown something erroneous like "This page/section is about . For USE2, see PAGE2." (Notice the missing description after 'about'.)

So is the page description actually optional? Can we leave it out to simply link to another page (most likely a disambiguation page) without describing the current page? It would be redundant to describe the page through the template when the article in the page itself start with a proper description. -- ADTC Talk Ctrb 09:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Standardizing for-see lists[edit]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Standardizing for-see lists about standardizing and centralizing the code that generates lists of "For X, see Y" items in hatnotes. The discussion may affect this page, but is located there as it's relevant to others as well. Please comment there if interested. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Selfref[edit]

Hi, this hatnote variant does not seem to support the |selfref= parameter that the base {{hatnote}} template does. Testing other hatnote templates like {{for}}, {{redirect}}, {{further}}, they do support it. Lack of this parameter forced me to do a workaround on the article Government censorship of Wikipedia. There are also other parameters that the base template accepts that this one doesn't. While not a major issue for my use case, it might be good to look at the how each individual hatnote template is implemented and to see if they properly inherit from the base one (since it has classes and parameters that affects print output and reuse). Also this isn't the only template affected by this, like {{Distinguish}}, but I decided to just bring it up here becasue it's one of the most commonly used. Opencooper (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Not sure how much traffic this talk page gets, but here goes … Is there some sort of a guideline regarding the application of this template and the correct wording to use? I've seen what, to my mind, is quite a strange usage of the temp at the song article Tomorrow Never Knows. Rather than referring readers to that term's disambiguation page, we list all of the alternative "TNK"s at the top of the article. I'm used to seeing wording along the lines of: "This article is about the Beatles song. For other uses, see Tomorrow Never Knows (disambiguation)." Perhaps not – any thoughts? JG66 (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what led to that particular formulation. In cases where there are only one or two other ambiguous titles, these are often linked directly in the hatnote rather than forcing users to go through the disambiguation page. But once there are three or more, it simpler to just link to the disambiguation page. I've updated that hatnote. olderwiser 12:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Yes, I'd got used to seeing things as you've described them – if just one or two, then links in the hatnote; for three or more, a link to the disambiguation page. Thanks also for correcting Tomorrow Never Knows. JG66 (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess sometimes editors come across an additional use and rather than create a new dab page, just add to the hatnote. And then someone else might create the dab page and forget to update the hatnote. olderwiser 13:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)