Template talk:Category see also

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Categories
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.


Note: This template is also found on the Commons: commons:Template:Cat see also.

Removed period[edit]

I've removed the period from this template. After reviewing the various hatnote templates listed at Template:Hatnote templates documentation, there appears to be two types. The first kind outputs a complete sentence; all of these appear to end in a period. The second kind, of which this is one, outputs a label followed by a list of links; none of these end in a period. This seems to need more discussion, and should be applied to all or none. Anomie 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I got wikismacked for changing hatnote period this way. Admins Arrogance remembered. So I don't have an opinion in this. Just a recollection. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


Shouldn't the output of this template also be indented, italicized, and have a colon after "also", for consistency with Template:See also? WikkanWitch (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, WikkanWitch. I think it should. It is a bit strange, isn't it?
But please be sure to notify the person who removed the italicization of this discussion.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I've notified the person who changed the template from italics to non-italicized. It was with this edit: here. I think it looks better with italics, because it follows the "See also" template formatting on Wikipedia; however, on Commons, the same template is not italicized, but neither is their "See also"! Funandtrvl (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I also think it needs to have the semi-colon back in, too. Funandtrvl (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I re-added the italicization by setting class=hatnote. (class=rellink is outdated). -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
To explain: the style (italics, indent) was set by that class class=rellink (indeed I added that one, replacing the explicit italicizing by ''. I did this in this edit [1], 2011). Later that class was cancelled because it was a copy of class=hatnote; this template was not checked clearly.
The colon might be added for unity of style. Do as you think best. -DePiep (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing it. I did add a "colon" also. Funandtrvl (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In Articles?[edit]

This template is only intended for use in the Category namespace. Please do not use it within articles

So what does one use in articles? I ask because I've just seen this template used in this revision of Princeton Theological Seminary (faculty and alumni sections) and it seems very useful to the reader. Is there an approved alternative to use in articles, and what's so bad about using this template there anyway? Chuntuk (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Chuntuk for the pointer to this.
I was unaware that the earning had been added[2] in 2014 by User:Kaldari.
I see no sign of a discussion her backing that addition, not does WP:SELF appear to support it. This template is widely used on articles, and I have used it intensively for years to link from lists of school/college/university alumni to the relevant categories.
I have therefore just removed[3] the warning notice from the template documentation --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I have just run some checks, and have a few numbers. AFAICS, this template is used about 20,000 categories, and in 1091 articles. If its use in those thousand articles is genuinely appropriate, then it should be removed. But let's get a broader consensus first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The earlier discussion Kaldari refers to is here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_27#Template:Category_see_also. PamD 16:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A thought: have we got one template being used for two rather different purposes? Would it be better if there was one template for use in "See also" sections of articles (eg the alumni situation which BHG mentions), and a separate template for use in Category space for messages about related categories? PamD 16:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, PamD.
I see that there was an overwhelming (8:1) consensus at 2012 October 2 to keep this template, and that the 2014 TFD discussion naughtily didn't link to it.
I'm not sure that I see any gain from having a separate templates for difft namespaces. The concern that this template should not display on some media can be resolved through CSS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A fix[edit]

To satisfy the WP:SELF concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_27#Template:Category_see_also, I have modified the template (see diff) by adding its output to the CSS class selfreference.

I hope that satisfies the concerns of User:Kaldari, while still allowing the template to be used for purposes such as linking to categories of alumni. Thanks again to User:Chuntuk and User:PamD for their pointers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I still think that this template shouldn't be used in articles, but perhaps I'm in the minority. Kaldari (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kaldari: AFAICS, the concerns which you expressed at TFD Nov 2014 were technical. You were concerned about the links being displayed in media which might not support those namespaces.
This CSS tweak resolves that problem. So why do you still object to the template being used in article space?
Please take a look at some of those uses for alumni, such as at High School of Glasgow#Notable_alumni. What's wrong with using the category link there?
Look too at what I just did to that page. In this edit a minute ago, I replaced {{See also|Category:People educated at the High School of Glasgow}} with a call to this template: {{Category see also|People educated at the High School of Glasgow}}.
The effect of my edit is to ensure that the article now meets your goal of hiding the category link when the article is displayed on other media. However, if you ban the use of {{Category see also}} in articles lie this, then editors will just go back to using {{See also}}, or to harcdcoding the hatnote. In other words, you would defeat the objective you sought at TFD. That seems perverse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 November 2016[edit]

Please removed

{{#if:{{{SISTER|}}}|[[Category:Pages using Template:category see also with deprecated syntax]]}}

The tracking category is empty and there are no instances of the template using |SISTER=. Additionally the param is no longer supported so tracking of it can be removed from the template. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89(T·C) 03:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Gibberish needs fixing[edit]


|project=: Any valid interwiki or interproject prefix from de:, fr:, es: access to other language Wikipedias to cross-sister wiki's using sister projects abbreviations such as B:, Q:, S:, v: etc., and, where applicable, both interlingual and cross-project links can be rendered as follows:

is not a sentence. I can guess at its meaning, but no way can I feel sure. Will somebody who understands the template please turn this into clear and grammatical English? --Thnidu (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)