Template talk:See also

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Full width breaks some category intro formats[edit]

Most "see also" templates do not go across the full width of the page. This breaks the format of some category pages. It blocks right-aligned templates and tables. Or more accurately, those right-aligned templates and tables can not be placed well. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been months and no one has replied. So I fixed the width problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is 100% since the beginning (at least since 2006). Please leave it 100%. Make a new template if you need it shorter, I would say. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does the year have to do with anything? Duplication of templates is stupid if the problem is easily fixable. Why is it important to have a gray box extend all the way to the right? Especially when it is not a flexible width? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was years 100% and now you come and change it and revert every revert of your change by saying the person did not participate on talk. First discuss, then change if someone opposes. Not the other way round.
The only person who has a problem with 100% seems to be you. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still waiting on actual discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're waiting for us to change our mind. Don't you get it??? This template is in use since 12/2005 and nobody except you claimed anything about a problem with the 100% width, and now you're expecting that we accept you're changes, despite the fact that obviously you're the only one who has a problem with the rendering of this template. So in contrary to your statement in the comment line there's nothing wrong with this template, something is wrong with you and the way you expect things to be done. MainFrame (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although there were no initial replies to the proposal, I would suggest that it is now clear that there is no consensus at this time for the proposed change. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cluelessness reigns again. No one has addressed the issue. Being an admin does not make your comment any less clueless since you also did not address the issue. Do you even understand the issue? But I will refrain from fixing the width problem again since just another kneejerk reversion clique has moved in. Note the redlinks for many of the user pages. You are the second admin over months to revert my fixing of the problem but without even addressing the problem. This passes for being an admin? I am an admin on some wiki farms, and helping people is what I try to do. Unlike more and more admins on Wikipedia and the Commons who like wielding bureaucratic power instead of addressing issues. I see that you are a new admin, and this is how you are starting off? /Rant off. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After how-many replies, you are still unable to point to one specific manifestation of your perceived problem, claiming only “some category pages”, or “Look at some of the WhatLinksHere pages”. I did look at the first ten items at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:See also and did not notice anything wrong with 100% width (except possibly a tiny possible (and debatable) improvement at Category:Food). Maybe you could be so kind and finally show us, clueless bureaucratic admins, the issue you are ranting about? --Mormegil (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I explained the problem. I even linked to WhatLinksHere. You are the first person over months to ask for more details instead of just reverting, or enforcing the reversion in a clueless bureaucratic way. And exactly why are people so enamored of this broken version? I think that is a better question. Please give me a specific example of why you care so much either way. Ball is in your court.

I think that common sense says that this idiotic rule that any clueless clique can play reversion games without addressing the issues should stop. The rule should be that unless someone substantively participates in discussion of the issues then they have no right to do reversions concerning that issue. That would mean that no one but you so far would have any right to revert my improvement. Keep looking at WhatLinksHere and you will see various examples of this problem. I don't remember the specific page that started me looking at the problem, and fixing it. I fix lots of problems without hassles.

Normally I would just move on when I come up against a clueless reversion group. But I tried to get a discussion going, and no one replied for months until now. I thought I would address the larger issue, and that is why I discuss things now because this is the type of stuff that causes many editors to quit Wikipedia and the Commons. This problem of little reversion groups causing havoc without any admins actually addressing the issues instead of playing "consensus" games. As in the first version reigns even though it no longer has consensus either. It is idiotic. So my suggestion is that admins actually start addressing issues and not just the rules. And no right to reversion without substantive discussion.

I will get back to here when I get time, and find some more specific examples. If you look you will see. Most problems get fixed in a roundabout way, but getting rid of the inflexible width:100% style fixes the problem much better. I believe there is a way to make it a flexible 100% width that falls back to less than 100% when the bar comes up against right-aligned items. "Max-width" or something. I am not a CSS style expert. That way people who like having an empty bar go across the page are happy, and everyone else is happy in that the layout is not obstructed when right-aligned stuff is involved.

The example of the problem that you found, Category:Food, is good enough for now. It illustrates the problem. It is worse when there are even more right-aligned items. Also, when there is other stuff that needs to be put on the left. It all gets pushed down. People do weird things to fix the problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

int:Seealso[edit]

{{int:Seealso}} doesn't seem to work anymore. --  Docu  at 11:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not work for english language interface: "<Seealso>"
But it does work for all others I have tested: French, Italian, German. Where is this int:seealso? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{int:seealso}} refers to MediaWiki UI message, which reside inside the MediaWiki: namespace. It seems MediaWiki has currently some hiccups with those messages (see also Commons:Village pump#Information template date display problems), I purged the respective page and it seems to work fine, now. --Mormegil 13:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed: works now also for en. --Saibo (Δ) 13:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thanks for fixing it. BTW, the layout of this template is a bit intrusive. --  Docu  at 19:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the width problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny, Timeshifter fixed "the width problem". I didn't even notice that there was a problem. Maybe this has to do with the fact, that Timeshifte is the only one who was able to perceive this "problem"........MainFrame (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help it if you are clueless. Look at some of the WhatLinksHere pages if you want to "perceive the problem." Next time try to open your eyes first, and making an effort to participate, before commenting. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Width[edit]

I know that this is a purely aesthetic matter but... why doesn't this template end "after" the title/section line?

See also: Template:See also.

Is it a matter with the "div style=width:100%"?--DoppioM 14:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been superceded (for people in the know) by Template:See also cat since it allows multiple entries. It is the same as Template:Cat see also (via redirect). For example;
{{see also cat|Jail|Parole|Probation|Chained people|Correctional population statistics|Incarceration rates‎|Criminal justice statistics}}
which produces:
 See also categories: Jail, Parole, Probation, Chained people, Correctional population statistics, Incarceration rates‎ and Criminal justice statistics.
If you use less entries:
{{see also cat|Jail|Parole|Probation|Chained people}}
It produces this:
 See also categories: Jail, Parole, Probation and Chained people.
The width is no longer a problem because the box wraps around anything floated on the right side of a page. See: Template talk:See also cat. Also, it has an option to turn off the box (banner=no), and only show text:
{{see also cat|banner=no|Jail|Parole|Probation|Chained people}}
It produces this:
See also categories: Jail, Parole, Probation and Chained people.
Template:See also should probably be redirected to Template:Cat see also eventually. For more info see: Template talk:Cat see also. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This problem has been fixed. I think it was because of this March 26, 2015 diff. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO it is none clear what User:DoppioM had meant. Because this template has always ‘end "after" the title/section line’. "a purely aesthetic matter" (for sure, if not in putted extra in a float wrapper). It sounds like he want the same "Width" as the title/section line (which makes indeed also no sense). -- User: Perhelion 10:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was only concerned about right-floating stuff wrapping correctly around {{see also}}. It is working correctly now. Including after your changes. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Perhelion maybe the 6 years that have passed plus the fact that now it works correctly do not help in making what I wrote clear :D I meant that the box was slightly wider than the section line, making it "end" a little more right than expected. If you just look at this old revision (the one active when I first wrote here), you will see the grey box wider than both the title line and the green box. If you look at the present situation, I think the difference is clearly visible (and does make sense). Thanks to who fixed that!--DoppioM 16:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colon problem[edit]

{{Edit request}} On English Wikipedia it works both with and without a colon: {{See also|:Category:Abc}} and {{See also|Category:Abc}}. On Commons it only works without a colon. Can someone change the template so that it also works with a colon? Many pages must otherwise be changed. This worked before, but it stopped working a time ago because of technical changes. Svensson1 (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask at Commons:Village pump, etc.. People may not be checking their watchlist often enough to notice this. I, for example, don't check my watchlist as often as in the past. I would think if it works on Wikipedia it should be possible to fix it here. I am not skilled enough though with this kind of template code to do it. Let me try an edit request and see what happens. I added it in front of this section.
{{edit request}} --Timeshifter (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{done}} I imported the EnWiki module.
See also: Category:Abc, Commons, Category:GIF, and Category:Commons
(s.a. {{See also/sandbox}}) Although the code looks much more effort it is more efficient than the old (in same time much more functionality) -- User: Perhelion 07:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question is now, should we keep the inconsistent parameter behavior of the Commons variant or should we fix the existing inclusions with more than one parameter. -- User: Perhelion 07:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what would need to be fixed. I guess you mean keeping the current Commons version, and going back and getting rid of all the colons.
Is there any reason we can not substitute the English Wikipedia version used in {{See also/sandbox}}? --Timeshifter (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the parameter system is other. The English version uses named parameter (l1 , l2 , label 1, label 2) for link naming. There is another trick we could use (but a bit parser extenive, I guess): [{{fullurl::Category:Abc}} {{FULLPAGENAME::Category:Abc}}] Category:Abc. Maybe there is another trick, otherwise we have to modify Module:Hatnote list. -- User: Perhelion 14:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The code of the template could improved too, as is always checks 15 times the parameters exists instead of break after the last (simply put each #IF in the previous). -- User: Perhelion 14:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that this is way beyond my level of skill. I am not a developer. Plus we have a language problem. No offense. I think you are saying that Wikipedia:Template:See also is too different to just put here. I don't use this template here on the Commons, and so I don't know how the parameters are used. And the documents page for it does not give any specific examples: Template:See also/doc. So I am going to leave this discussion for others to figure out. I use Template:See also cat on the Commons since I only link to categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{See also/sandbox|:Category:Abc|Commons|:Category:GIF|Category:Commons}}

See also: Category:Abc, Commons, Category:GIF, and Category:Commons

All of these work on both the Commons and Wikipedia:

This category does not exist on either the Commons or Wikipedia:

Some tests. With and without a colon in front of category. The colon in front of any category really messes things up.

{{See also|:Category:Abc|:Category:Data|Category:Test|Commons}}

See also: [[::Category:Abc|
Category:Data]] and Commons.

{{See also|:Category:Abc|Category:Test|Commons}}

See also: [[::Category:Abc|Category:Test]] and Commons.

Removing the colon in front does not solve the problem:

{{See also|Category:Abc|Category:Data|Category:Test|Commons}}

See also: Category:Data and Commons.

So this template on the Commons is really broken.

I did some tests in a sandbox on Wikipedia:

The template there works fine for all of the above tests. Maybe we could copy its code here, and use a different template name. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned above, this thematic should go on a wider public. I favor in removing the few double colons here and let the template functionality as it is. -- User: Perhelion 08:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying. We have a language problem.
I guess we can be more clear in the instructions for the existing template here, and tell people not to use colons in front of categories in this template.
Others will have to discuss whether to bring the Wikipedia template here to the Commons under a different template name. I don't have the time or energy to help with that.
But this problem with the template here needs to be fixed:
Removing the colon in front does not solve the problem:
{{See also|Category:Abc|Category:Data|Category:Test|Commons}}
See also: Category:Data and Commons.
I put in a request for help at Commons talk:WikiProject Templates. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe it is also an understanding problem in the template functionality. What you telling as "bug (really broken)" is as intended here on Commons. The second unnamed parameter is the link text (so we can't use the existing finished Module version here on Commons, as I mentioned before).
So the question is: should we move the functionality (exact) like the EnWiki template (what is intended by you and the thread starter)!? @Timeshifter, Svensson1, and Nihiltres: -- User: Perhelion 04:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we should use the exact functionality of the English Wikipedia template: Wikipedia:Template:See also.
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:See also shows that it would be fairly easy to correct all current uses of the template. Since there aren't that many uses of it so far on the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I would do this if there is a consensus on a wider forum (VP or Proposal) as this is one of the heavier used templates on this project. -- User: Perhelion 07:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I was looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:See also the wrong way. I saw only 20 transclusions, but I forgot that was the default number to show at first. I struck out what I previously wrote.
I looked at a few of them, and nearly all of them only have only one link. So I think it is still OK to use the Wikipedia template here. But I don't have the energy to go to VP or Proposal. Maybe someone else can do that. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are 534 inclusions with more than one parameter (as the template itself has currently 26931 inclusions). -- User: Perhelion 11:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get those stats? I was looking for them myself.
I think the new template (from Wikipedia) would be able to show nearly all of those with multiple parameters. Only the labels would be changed for some of the parameters. The new template results would see the long link names correctly, and would have some red links for the labels. No big deal. There are lots of red links in Template:See also cats results too over time. As categories are deleted, or renamed without redirects. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A bot replace would be needed indeed. PS: hastemplate:"see also" insource:/\{\{[Ss]ee ?also\|[^\n}|]+\| ?[^\n}]+\}\}/ -- User: Perhelion 07:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It seems like the cleanest approach would be to add {{{l1}}} as an alternative for parameter 2, and similarly with {{{l2}}} for parameter 4. Then those parameters can be updated in uses of the template to use the named parameters instead. From there it'd be straightforward to replace this template with the functionality from enwiki in place. The catch is that you'll need to make sure that other necessary modules are in place (speaking as the primary author of several of those) and tweak the appearance to match Commons' CSS and whatnot (enwiki's version relies on its Common.css). Please ping me again if I can offer anything further. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent). @Nihiltres: You guys sound like you know what you are talking about. Unlike me for the most part. Please feel free to do whatever you feel is necessary. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Perhelion: Is this on the backburner for now? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Stale. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I18n for links[edit]

Could we feed the links through {{Localized link}}? Thanks in advance for any help with this. --Marsupium (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for changing icon[edit]

{{edit request}} Due to design guidelines Wikimedia Foundation, please change to OOUI icon. Thank you. Leonel Sohns 13:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonel Sohns, maybe your request could be handled more easily if you specified what to change exactly including giving the name of the file that should be used for the icon instead. Best, --Marsupium (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, this is means pair File:OOjs UI icon search-rtl.svg / File:OOjs UI icon search-ltr.svg (depends from text direction) instead File:System-search.svg. --Kaganer (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, what design guidelines are you referring to? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Stale request, requester did not specify what guideline required the change. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:See_also&oldid=773586919"