Template talk:Other people

Template:Other people is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Otherpeople

Please see the discussion here.

Template documentation

{{editprotected}} This template should have documentation consistent with {{Interwiki doc page pattern}} and {{Sample}}. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created doc subpage. CMummert · talk 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of redlinks here

Can they get fixed?
~ender 2008-03-07 01:45:AM MST

People

Any reason fo rthe ugly "persons" construct? Rich Farmbrough, 01:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. This should be "other people." 163.231.6.87 (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the wording to "people". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this deliberate? "Persons" has a subtly different meaning to "people" in that it refers specifically to individuals. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the party, but "persons" sounds a little bit better to me, personally speaking. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox sync

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync to allow for the first attribute to be left blank, which gives "other people with the same name" instead of the broken "other people named ,". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense.

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Other people5 template

Previously there was no way to display multiple names without repeatedly using the other persons templates one after the other with different names. Since I didn't like how that displayed I created a new template under the Other people schema to allow the linking of muliple names concurrently. The coding is not currently protected but I wanted to post something here to let everyone know. {{Other people5}} Currently only allows up to 4 names to be linked ( I did this on purpose so we don't haev someone trying to recreate the dab page on every article) but it can be expanded if need be. When used it will display like

rather than the current practice of stacking templates like this

. Please let me know what you think or feel free to modify it if you know how but the codeing is rather complicated so please be careful and I encourage you to use the sandbox. --Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Code change

I propose code change, so as to add workings of Template:Other people4(edit talk links history) to {{lts|[[Template:other persons}}. See Template:other persons/sandbox and Template:other persons/testcases. Current workings & effect will not change. After the change, we put T:other people4 up for TfM (merge).-DePiep (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm not sure how many people are watching this page, but I'll give it a try. I noticed that this template directs people to disambiguation pages--as in John Smith (disambiguation). However, it seems like we don't have pages titled with (disambiguation) anymore, and they have simply been moved to, say, John Smith. Does that make any sense, and should we make a change to this template to reflect that? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template's documentation seems to contradict WP:NOTAMB

Since this template seems to be utilized in a manner similar to Template:Other uses, it seems that the current instructions of this template seem to contradict WP:NOTAMB. In the document Template:Other people/doc at the present time, it states this:

This can be used when the current page name is already partially disambiguated, e.g. "Mackenzie Garcia (politician)". It can also be used when the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject is a shortened form of the name, e.g. at an article named "Mac Garcia":

{{Other people|Mackenzie Garcia|Mackenzie Garcia}}

For other people named Mackenzie Garcia, see Mackenzie Garcia.

This example seems to directly contradict WP:NOTAMB since if an article title has a disambiguator such as the title "Mackenzie Garcia (politician)" has, it would not have a hatnote referring readers to a disambiguation page since the article title should already be completely disambiguated. So ... I'm suggesting removal of the referenced section since it promotes placing tags in violation of WP:NOTAMB. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change in wording

When used with the first parameter empty, the template gives

For other people with the same name, see Mackenzie Garcia (disambiguation).

But "same" is often inaccurate, since spellings vary. Please change the default phrasing to allow for slight variations. Here are two possible suggestions:

For other people with similar names, see Mackenzie Garcia (disambiguation).

For other people with the same or similar name, see Mackenzie Garcia (disambiguation).

See for instance James Nicholl and James Nicoll. It would be nice to be able to use {{other people}} without having to worry about the fact the destination disamb contains slight variations, rendering "For other people with the same name" (my emphasis) a falsehood.

CapnZapp (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Samuel

The front facing portrait is not Samuel Jones from 1734-1819, that picture is his son Samuel Jones 1769-1853. The side view picture is the 1734 Samuel. So many articles have copied the front view as 1734 Samuel Jones, and they are wrong. The original front view 1769 Samuel oil painting is in the Frick portrait collection. There is no doubt. The clothing of the 1769 Samuel, upright collar, black tie was not worn in 1734 Samuel’s time. How can this get corrected? History101KW (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]