Template talk:Otherpeople

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This box: view  talk  edit

Contents

[edit] Otheruses templates

To discuss these templates as a whole, please see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation If you wish to discuss general wordings, rather than the wording or formatting of this specific template, don't post here, or else what you say will probably go unnoticed.

For a summary page on how to use these templates, see Wikipedia:Otheruses templates (example usage).

[edit] Generic

For example, {{dablink|For other senses of this term, see [[etc...]]}}. This template is adaptable, but fails to standardize hatnotes.
TEXT
(Similar to Dablink, but used for messages that wouldn't make sense on mirrors of Wikipedia, such as a link in the main article namespace that links to one in the Wikipedia namespace. See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references for more details.)

[edit] Otheruses

{{About}} is the main template for giving other uses; it redirects to {{otheruses4}}.

  • {{otheruses4|USE1}} (disambiguous):
  • {{otheruses4|USE1|USE2}}:
  • {{otheruses4|USE1|USE2|PAGE2}}:
  • {{About||USE2|PAGE2|USE3|PAGE3|USE4|PAGE4|USE5|PAGE5}} (alias and empty first param):
  • {{otheruses4|USE1|USE2|PAGE2|USE3|PAGE3|USE4|PAGE4|USE5|PAGE5}} (fully specified):

[edit] Variations

There are also variations of {{about}}. These serve the same purpose, and are marginally easier to use for each individual purpose, but overall, it is complicated to have so many different templates; it could be argued that the time saved using them is lost as other editors have to familiarise themselves with them.

All of these templates are special cases of {{about}}.

  • {{otheruses}}:

Note: {{about}} will produce the same result.

  • {{otheruses1|USE}}:

Note: {{about|USE}} will produce the same result.

  • {{otheruses2|PAGE}}:

Note: this simply adds "(disambiguation)" to what you input as PAGE.

Note: {{about|||PAGE}} will produce the same result - note the two empty parameters.

  • {{otheruses5}}:

Note: this is for when there is both a singular and plural disambiguation page; it only works when the plural is formed simply by adding "s" at the end.

  • {{otheruses6|PAGE1|PAGE2}}:

Note: this is for when there are two disambiguation pages, such as noun and adjective, or singular and irregular plural. There are only two parameters and at least one is required.
Note: this cannot be recreated with {{about}} - only with {{dablink}} or {{for}}.

  • {{This|USE|PAGE}}:

Note: {{about|USE||PAGE}} will produce the same result - note the empty parameter.

[edit] For (other topic)

{{for}} (and {{for2}}) can be used instead of {{about}} to not include the first part - "This article is about USE". However, this can also simply be achieved with an empty first parameter in {{about}}.
For example, {{For|OTHER TOPIC|PAGE}} becomes {{About||OTHER TOPIC|PAGE}}.

  • {{For}} (disambiguous):
  • {{For|OTHER TOPIC}} (disambiguous):
  • {{For|OTHER TOPIC|PAGE}}:
  • {{For|OTHER TOPIC|PAGE1|PAGE2}}:
  • {{For2|OTHER TOPIC|CUSTOM TEXT}}:

[edit] Other people

  • {{otherpersons}} (disambiguous):
  • {{otherpersons|USE}} (disambiguous):
  • {{otherpersons|USE|PAGE}}:
  • {{otherpeople2|PAGE}}:
  • {{otherpeople3|USE1|USE2}}:
  • {{otherpeople4|USE1|USE2|PAGE}}:

[edit] Other places

[edit] Otherhurricaneuses

For articles on storms.
  • {{otherhurricaneuses}} (disambiguous):
  • {{otherhurricaneuses|DISAMBIG}}:
  • {{otherhurricaneuses|DISAMBIG|THIS}}:
  • {{otherhurricaneuses3|USE1|USE2|MAIN}}:

[edit] Otherusesof (topic)

  • {{otherusesof}} (disambiguous):
  • {{otherusesof|TOPIC}}:
  • {{otherusesof|TOPIC|PAGE}}:

[edit] Redirect

  • {{Redirectstohere|REDIRECT notice}} (To Document dependent link[s], Template also has a hidden mode, (Set "|hide=true") which enables it to document a section title is a redirect page target section, and so should not be changed.); Some examples:
    REDIRECT redirects here.,
    REDIRECT, Another name and A Foreign name all redirect to here.
    — with a little care, bolding the titled redirects can substitute for awkward phrases involving multiple name forms of the main article title; particularly those of the "also known as varieties"...
    Gustavus II AdolfGustav Adolphus II and Gustavus Vasa II of Sweden all redirect to here.

  • {{Redirect|REDIRECT}} (disambiguous):
  • {{Redirect|REDIRECT||PAGE}}:
  • {{Redirect|REDIRECT|USE|PAGE}}:
  • {{Redirect2|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2}} (disambiguous):
  • {{Redirect3|REDIRECT|TEXT}}:
  • {{Redirect4|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2}} (disambiguous):
  • {{Redirect6|REDIRECT|USE1|PAGE1|USE2|PAGE2}}:
  • {{Redirect6|REDIRECT|USE1|PAGE1||}}

[edit] "Not to be confused with"...

[edit] Notes

Do not use subst: with these templates, as that will prevent:

  1. propagating changes as the template is modified; and
  2. the What links here (WLH) listing.


Please do not edit these templates unless you know what you are doing

These templates may be used in thousands of articles, and changing the syntax could therefore break thousands of articles. If you wish to edit a disambiguation template first ask yourself:

  1. Is there already another template that will do this job? We have lots of disambiguation templates already, see Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates.
  2. Do I really need a template for this? Will it ever get used on any other articles, or should I just use {{dablink}} instead?
  3. Do I know what will happen if I change the parameters around? Will it break existing uses of the template, and if so, can I fix them all?
(This box appears in several articles in Template talk and Wikipedia namespaces.)


There is Template:Otherpersons for more or less the same case. -- User:Docu

Sorry, did not see that one when I created this, I guess because it's not in use much. I used the wording found most often in these situations for this template. --Dryazan 22:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and redirected Template:Otherpersons to this template because they are relatively the same, but this template has an additional parameter. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People or persons

Centrx has changed this three times, and been reverted three times. This is a template used in an enormous number of articles, so could we please cut down on changes without consensus? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so explain why it should use the less accurate "people". —Centrxtalk • 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy the basic arguments from your talk page since there's no point in retyping them.

Where's this consensus that you're referring to for renaming Category:Living people? AP Style Guide prefers people over persons, which generally comes off sounding awkwardly formal. Persons is generally limited to cases of specific numbers, as far as I can tell, and in many of our usages it's such an indefinite quantity that people seems fine. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Persons is the correct word when dealing with multiple independent individuals. People is for collective or indefinite uses; though it is used as a mere multiple of the word person, persons is clearer and better suited. Persons is used for certain kinds of specific numbers, as in "There were 12 persons at the party", but if you were to say "The 12 people at the party were rowdy" that is an indefinite usage despite having a specific number (the rowdiness is a collective property, and perhaps some of the 12 were not even rowdy). On Wikipedia, the articles are distinct and about persons who may have lived hundreds of years apart and have no relation whatsoever. There is nothing collective or indefinite (definite is not the same as having a fixed number); it is not about the people of a country or the people that is a group of friends. —Centrxtalk • 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the people that we're talking about here all have the property of sharing the name or sharing the quality of being alive; we're referring to the group of living people, or people named john smith. Your example of a rowdy group says nothing about other cases. We say "Happy people," not "happy persons," not because the group has the quality of being happy, but because all the people are individually happy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't see that they are individually happy. We say "happy people", for example, because we look around and see a indefinite mass of happiness, but that doesn't include the several persons standing around not happy, but they are lost in the hub-bub. —Centrxtalk • 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If I meet five john smiths, would I say "there are a lot of people named john smith" or "there are a lot of persons named john smith"? If I meet five definitely happy individuals, do I call them "happy people" or "happy persons"? Our knowledge need not be indefinite to say people. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you met five John Smiths, it would be precise to say "I met five persons named John Smith" ("There are a lot of people named John Smith" is a general, indefinite statement). Clearly, "people" is often used as a simple plural, but these examples are still more appropriate for that use than is referring to several distinct articles on Wikipedia. Meeting people is entirely different from articles in an encyclopedia. —Centrxtalk • 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


See also: [[1]] I think it should be "other people" and not "other persons". --Salsa man 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD notice

I've nominated the Otheruses templates for discussion on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. --JB Adder | Talk 14:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)