Template talk:See also

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, 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)

It has been months and no one has replied. So I fixed the width problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I am still waiting on actual discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

(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)


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

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)
{{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)
Confirmed: works now also for en. --Saibo (Δ) 13:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks for fixing it. BTW, the layout of this template is a bit intrusive. --  Docu  at 19:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the width problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)


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

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

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:
If you use less entries:
{{see also cat|Jail|Parole|Probation|Chained people}}
It produces this:
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)