Template talk:Otheruses
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
| Contents |
See also
Template:This article is about (talk)
Summary of discussions
The purpose of this section is to summarize some points per Biocrawler:Refactoring talk pages. This is a Biocrawler:disambiguation template. This template used to have other formats and wording. Some contentious issues haver been:
- "This article is about..." Should that be in the disambiguation header, or just left up to the first line of the article?
- Note the 'See also section above.
- The Biocrawler:Avoid self-references guideline has been brought up in arguments, but on closer examination it does not seem applicable to this issue.
- use of italics/not for article name.
- "For other uses..." isn't always complete or accurate.
Some issues where consensus appears to have been reached:
- do not use colors, fancy frames, boldface or other visual detractors here.
- do not use this template indiscriminately. Disambiguation pages do not always contain the word disambiguation in the title.
If this summary is out of date or just plain wrong, please fix it. I am intentionally leaving it unsigned to encourage its use as a living document.
Destruction of helpful words
I really don't like using this page. I wrote a bespoke "This article is about the person named X famous for Y. For other famouses Xs see X (disambiguation). This was replaced by Other uses, see X (disambiguation). Why the pointless destruction of helpful words? Pcb21| Pete 10:52, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- This type of da is very common now. I find having too many words on top to be hideous. For what the article is about, one can just look into the first sentence of the article. Furthermore, the person's name is inherent in the title of the page and it's already implied that the other Xs are famous if they have articles here. Perhaps Biocrawler talk:disambiguation will be a better place to discuss this, since this format seems to be officially prescribed? --Jiang 11:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Now that I know the template exists, I will use it where appropriate, but I do think that over-writing previously existing notices is a bit of a waste of time... each to the their own of course! I would like to see the template be a little longer. At the moment it is not a complete sentence. Pcb21| Pete 11:59, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I mainly see this as a shorthand for one of the two ways to link to the disambiguation page. Personally I prefer this one, as the longer version generally repeats the first sentence of the article. BTW is it a complete sentence or would it need an exclamation mark? -- User:Docu
- Maybe adding a "For" at the start would make it a complete sentence. I don't like this version because it is too generic. If it is a word used in alternate ways, it is ok, but "Alternate uses, see Joe Bloggs (disambiguation)" does not sound right. It is not an alternate use of Joe Bloggs, it is a different person called Joe Bloggs. I can't help but see it as another attempt to use templates because they're there rather than considering that the "one size fits all" approach is not always appropriate, and besides templates make things confusing for new editors. Pcb21| Pete 12:43, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Please do not use this template indiscriminately!
This template should not be used indiscriminately. Obviously, disambiguation pages do not always, and should not always, contain the word disambiguation in the title. See, for example field. I'll list others here as I think of them.
OK, another is partition. Michael Hardy 00:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Alternate vs. Alternative
One common meaning of alternate is "Serving or used in place of another; substitute: an alternate plan." And alternative has an unfortunate connotation of "a. Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems: an alternative lifestyle. b. Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative newspaper; alternative greeting cards". I think alternate is preferable to alternative in this context. older≠wiser 04:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
New format
I don't think much of the new format. It is too bold and makes it look like a header rather than an aside. - SimonP 18:45, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree: it was a quite intrusive. I have unboldened and italicised instead to see if that works a bit better. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have a problem with including an initial colon (:) in the template. This prevents its use after a clarifying sentence on the same line, like this:
- This article is about the novel. For other uses, see...
- ''This article is about the novel.'' {{alternateuses}}
- dcljr 07:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I thought the idea was that it would be obvious what the article was about, because the first sentence of the first paragraph will tell you, so an extra clarificatory sentence should not be needed, no? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The initial paragraph probably needs to be re-written where such a clarification would be needed. BTW, maybe we should move the text to Template:Otheruses now that the wording was changed. {{otheruses}} does already work thanks to the redirect. - User:Docu
Move please
Some admin please move this page to Template talk:Otheruses. Thanks. --Cantus 03:03, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Spasibo bol′šoe. --Cantus 03:46, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Alternate template
For an alternate, verbose template that uses the most common wording (which violates Biocrawler:Avoid self-references, alas) is available at Template:This article is about. See also: Biocrawler:Village pump (news)#Disambiguation template. • Benc • 17:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mass changes
I'd like to change all the disambiguating phrases to use one template or another. This would standardize and centralize all these messages. Obviously, I'm seeking consensus to go ahead, as is common sense before doing anything even remotely like this.
For now, I propose using both Template:This article is about and Template:Otheruses, though I personally like the latter much better as it avoids the self-reference. If it's possible to get a consensus as to which one to use, that would be even better. If no consensus is possible, I'd at least like to change everything to use templates, without actually changing the wordings of the existing messages. This will make it much easier to do a second mass change if a consensus is reached in the future.
This is probably is going to end up being a huge project requiring a helper bot, but I know my Python and am willing to do grunt work. • Benc • 17:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think may be a use for both templates. There are at least a few cases in which there are redirects to an article with a significantly different name, although there is a disambiguation page for the redirect. So some explanation is helpful in such cases. For example, FBI redirects to Federal Bureau of Investigation, although there is a FBI (disambiguation). Chippewa redirects to Ojibwa, though there is Chippewa (disambiguation). I seem to recall that there were some others as well, but those are the only ones I can remember. For some reason, it does not seem to be possible to use {{Otheruses}} to add any explanation at the beginning. Or at least not without having it show up on a separate line. [[User:Bkonrad|]] 17:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- "This article is about" is not a "self-reference to be avoided" in this context: such self-references are thos to "Biocrawler", and they are to be avoided to ensure portability. If the use of the/these templates means that seamless, human-edited disambiguation ("for the programming language, see Python") is going to be converted to parenthetical or awkward disambiguation, ("for the programming language, see Python programming language" or "for the programming language, see Python (programming language)" ) I'd avoid it.- Nunh-huh 22:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think both are useful. You'd use the first one for articles only having one other article (thus not really requiring a disambiguation page), and the second for anything that has a list using a disambiguation page. Also I think it should be something like:
This article is about {{{about=}}}. See also {{{see_also=}}}
--[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 13:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Please don't do mass changes. The size of the collection of old versions is already growing fast enough. If you want to change them, just do them when you happen to want to make some other change to the article. But... how do you expect this text to change? There's not a lot of point in using a template for unchanging text. That just adds extra load to the servers for no net benefit. Jamesday 05:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I see your points about added server strain, and the fact that the text is (ideally) unchanging. I just assumed that since Template:stub, Template:disambig, and so forth have unchanging text and are used widely, the servers could handle another.
Could you clarify one thing you said, though: our edit histories are indeed getting long, but how is that a good reason to not do a useful bot-assisted mass change? (Note that you've already convinced me that this may not be such a useful mass change.) Do you mean that the lengthy histories mean that we need to make extra sure that all mass changes are very useful, or that no mass changes should ever be done?Nevermind, you've done so at Template talk:This article is about. That makes sense; gradual change is good. • Benc • 05:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is it possible to edit this template to cause it to begin the page name with a lower-case letter? Michael Hardy 23:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
New colors?
I don't like the new colors so much. For one, it's distracting, which I don't think is necessary. It's already the first thing one sees upon entering the article, so I don't see why it needs to be more noticeable. Also, I initially thought that I had received comments on my talk page, and can foresee this happening again. Of course, the colors are not the same as those of the new messages one, but it's close enough that upon a glance, one might mistake the message. - Vague | Rant 08:28, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
"For other articles sharing this title, see...", etc.
It's very common for disambiguated pages not to share the same title. Considering the number of articles where this template is used, please attempt to keep it as general as possible. Also, please don't use colors, fancy frames and other visual distractors here. Simplicity is the way to go. -- Naive cynic 11:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There is a desire to make this message more visible, both by formatting and by increasing its length. -- Netoholic @ 17:06, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
- "There is a desire" sounds a bit mystic. This message is quite visible enough as it is, being the first thing you read on the page. What's more the text isn't even centered in the double lines. Some pages don't use this template and just use the standard :''Text''. There is nothing wrong with this standard, and now this is going to just be out of sync with all the non-template disambigs. ed g2s • talk 18:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, it was discussed on IRC. But I'm happy to have no colour. Though a very light pastel colour would be nice IMO. But I'll go with consensus here. - Ta bu shi da yu 19:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Compromise wording
I think what is called for here is at least an attempt at compromise. It is clear that some people feel a change is in order, and some are reverting back to a specific old form. I think though, that simple reverting back to the old short form is not an appropriate action when it is clear some people wish a change. At least on my part, every edit has been different in order to find some sort of middle ground, which may not be everyone's ideal. It's frustrating that few are trying to work towards a compromise though. Now then, let's try to figure out what that compromise version should be. Please add your suggested wordings to the list below, and sign each you agree with in principle. -- Netoholic @ 22:07, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
Suggested wordings
For other uses of the term "Otheruses" or pages which include it in their title, see Otheruses (disambiguation).
- Netoholic @ 22:07, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC) -- simply saying "other uses" isn't always accurate, and the message should be a little more verbose to be noticeable when someone reaches it by accident. I would be happy to leave the message as text only (no colors or border) if it were longer.
- I agree. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Disagree. Faulty wording. Disambig pages are not for listing all possible pages that contain a certain word in its titles, only for articles that describe things that may be referred to by exactly the same word, possibly as an abbreviation. For example MCI may sometimes refer to MCI Communications, but gas or chamber never refer to gas chamber. Mikkalai 20:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Comments
(Netoholic) Can you give an example of when "other uses" would not be accurate? I *might* be able to accept a more verbose phrasing if needed, but I haven't seen any necessity. It would be nice if you provided a rationale and an explanation for high-impact changes rather than just assuming everything is OK just because some (unspecified and indeterminate) people might feel a change is in order. It is frustrating that people just start making major changes without any attempt to explain what they are doing. older≠wiser 03:06, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- The phrase "other uses" only fully applies if a word or phrase has multiple definitions. In reality, most disambig pages actually contain alternate definitions of the word plus instances where the word is a part of another title.
As for your other comments - it's frustrating when people say "discuss changes first!" when the community is told to be bold. It's MORE frustrating to have decent suggestions dismissed out-of-hand and reverted back to a months-old version with edit summaries calling them "odd" and "unnecessary". -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)- What do you mean that The phrase "other uses" only fully applies if a word or phrase has multiple definitions. I don't understand. Can you give some specific examples to illustrate? I do not see how a word or phrase being used as part of another title makes "other uses" inapplicable. In the abstract, it seems perfectly applicable to me.
As for your other comments, there are places to be bold and places where discretion is the better part of valor. While you can LOUDLY trumpet your greater frustration, I can also complain that it is EVEN MORE FRUSTRATING when people make changes that impact thousands of pages without making even the least attempt to explain their actions or gauge consensus for such highly visible changes. But shouting gets us nowhere. You seem to imply that there is something inherently bad about reverting to a "months-old version", when in fact that version has served very well. My apologies if the "odd" characterization offended--I could have found a better expression. However, "unnecessary" is quite apt, IMO. older≠wiser 04:24, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)- Beaver (disambiguation) (randomly picked) is an example of what I mean. Only a few of the article links can be described as "other uses" for the word "beaver". The rest include the word "beaver", but are not strictly "other uses" for that word in common speech. Additionally, for people who are not strong English speakers, "For other uses, see Beaver (disambiguation)" implies other uses for the animal, not the word. -- Netoholic @ 08:52, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
- What do you mean that The phrase "other uses" only fully applies if a word or phrase has multiple definitions. I don't understand. Can you give some specific examples to illustrate? I do not see how a word or phrase being used as part of another title makes "other uses" inapplicable. In the abstract, it seems perfectly applicable to me.
Full stop
I don't want to dive into the revert war, but this template needs a full stop at the end. --Yath 05:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Please leave the full stop in. -- User:Docu
Shall Biocrawler allow other encylopedias' stylings to dictate our own?
I'm really not sure what User:Cantus was referring to in these edits [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Otheruses&diff=13158352&oldid=13158307) and [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Otheruses&diff=13154847&oldid=13150246), but even if other encyclopedias use such styling, I most emphatically do not see that as a good reason for us to blindly adopt the same styling, and certainly not without some discussion. User:Bkonrad/sig 02:05, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- It's all about style: the whole sentence is in italics, but the article name should be distiguished from the rest of the sentence and be placed in italics, but because all the text is in italics, italics over italics becomes normal text. It's really quite simple. There is no reason not to learn from older, wiser encyclopedias. You could always argue that Biocrawler has already copied Encarta's style enough, but that is not the point. —Cantus…☎ 08:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason distinguish the article name. It looks fine in the same style as the rest of the sentence. --Yath 13:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- You don't need italics to make a "meta-reference": the abovementioned "academic circles" have long been used quotation marks for this purpose. Mikkalai 20:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Whatever ugly the style might be, PLEASE don't edit change such visible things as connomly used and long-established templates without seeking consent first. And yes, I know that you have right to be bold. Mikkalai 20:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Do I need to make a comment about the duplicity of your statement, considering you yourself edited it (reverted) without prior discussion? My edit was discussed on this talk page, as far back as December. I incorported Cantus' suggested formatting also, which I think is reasonable and innocuous. -- Netoholic @ 20:59, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
- Your edit was not accepted by several persons, not only by me. Also, the text is wrong, as explained above. As for my duplicity, sorry for careless choice of words (replaced). (Do I need also to explicitely indicate that I didn't mean edits that fix typos, put/remove commas, etc.?) I was specifically referring to an established version that lived for a long time. As far as I understand, rules for editing technical things, such as policies, templates, infoboxes, etc., require a higher level of consensus than ordinary articles. Mikkalai 21:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- In addition to what I've said above, your phrase that dab pages contain alternate definitions of the word plus instances where the word is a part of another title means that these pages must be cleaned from these latter "instances", in accordance with disambiguation policy, which clearly states:
- "Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title."
- "Disambiguation pages are not search indices -- do not add links that merely contain part of the page title where there is no significant risk of confusion".
- The fact that a word may be a part of some title is merely coincidental to the primary issue of confusion avoidance. Some disambig pages have links to pages that do not contain the disambigged terms whatsoever: they are given as alternate names in the body of the article, rather than in the title. Mikkalai 21:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible to edit this template to cause it to begin the page name with a lower-case letter?
Is it possible to edit this template to cause it to begin the page name with a lower-case letter? Michael Hardy 21:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Arthur said the situation was "deplorable".
According to the sample, I suppose we should update the template from:
- ''For other uses of the term "{{PAGENAME}}," see [[{{PAGENAME}} (disambiguation)]].''
to:
- ''For other uses of the term "{{PAGENAME}}", see [[{{PAGENAME}} (disambiguation)]].''
or is there another way we should try to apply Manual of Style#Quotation marks? -- User:Docu
