Template talk:Other uses of

Formatting

Per WP:DAB guidelines, article titles should not be placed in italics in top links. Please keep this template in-line with existing guidelines and otheruses templates, or explain why we should switch to a new style of formatting. --Muchness 07:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The word "italic" or "italics" appears nowhere on that page. In fact, the examples there are italicised. Other templates of this kind are fairly inconsistent. -- Netoholic @ 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In the top link examples given on WP:DAB, the header sentences are italicized, but the article titles are not individually formatted. It was the article title formatting that I had issue with, since there's no precedent for this style of formatting in other widely used dab templates or in WP formatting guidelines. --Muchness 07:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

irresponsible

It seems really irresponsible to me to use this template and others like it. I just edited a page atop which a notice said

"For other uses of colour separation, see ..."

What it actually meant, as far as I could tell, was "For other uses of the TERM "colour separation", see...".

How about "For other uses of slave labor, see ..."?

Michael Hardy 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed now with the addition of double quotation marks. Hairy Dude 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone should add the s

''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 01:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation

For example on Pugs, {{otherusesof|pug}} yields:

For other uses of "pug", see pug (disambiguation).

However, titles of articles in hatnotes should have an initial capital, since that's the normalised form of article names (e.g. from {{PAGENAME}}). So this template should capitalise its second argument when it reuses it and adds " (disambiguation)" as the link. Unfortunately, since m:StringFunctions isn't installed on WP, this doesn't seem to be possible. Hairy Dude 02:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha, looks like there is something that does that actually. {{ucfirst:wibble}} yields "Wibble". Possibly this is undesirable given the existence of articles like eBay, but such cases are the exception. Hairy Dude 02:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD notice

{{Tfd|Other uses of|Otheruses templates}}

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

Is this template needed?

Sure, it's got over 2,000 transclusions, but looking at some of its uses, I'm beginning to think that in almost every case, replacing it with another template will be a clear improvement. Common uses are:

1. When the term disambiguated is the same as the article's title. For example, the article Anomie has the hatnote:
   For other uses of "Anomie", see Anomie (disambiguation).
   Here the template can be replaced with the simple {{Other uses}} making the hatnote shorter without any loss of function:
   For other uses, see Anomie (disambiguation).
2. When the term disambiguated is different from the article title; there are two cases:
   • The term is a redirect to the article; for example Cat's Cradle has a hatnote to Ice-nine (disambiguation) (that's because Ice-nine redirects to Cat's Cradle). The use of this template here is somewhat confusing, because it's unclear to readers why the hatnote is there. It should be explicit that this is because of the incoming redirect, so the template should be replaced with the standard {{Redirect}}.
   • The term is not a redirect to the article; for example Cash register has a hatnote for Till (disambiguation), but Till doesn't redirect to Cash register so the hatnote should simply be removed per WP:NAMB. In some cases, the hatnote may still be useful – for instance if the two terms are likely to be confused, but in this case it will be better to use {{Distinguish}} instead.

What do people think? If there are no objections, I might go on to ask for a bot to deal with #1 above: replacing {{other uses of|X}} with {{other uses|X}} when X is the same as the article's title or empty. – Uanfala (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This template is insane. Its purpose is to display a message that begins "For other uses of X" when, at that point, the reader has no idea other than what. Basically, reading an article's title and then the hatnote, "This is an article about Pizza. For other uses of "rhinoceros", see Rhinoceros (disambiguation)."

OK, look at Cash register, with the hatnote "For other uses of "till", see Till (disambiguation)". After the hatnote, it's revealed, "A cash register, sometimes called a till' ...". Fine, "till" is another term for it. But the user got there looking for information on cash registers; if they were looking specifically for the word "till", they would have wound up at Till or Till (disambiguation). How likely is it that somebody researching cash registers would happen to, therefore, be interested in other topics completely unrelated to cash registers just because they're a disambiguation for the word "till"?

Finally, besides being mystifying and confusing at the point where the user is reading it and then unhelpful after that, this template is a violation of WP:NOTAMB. Largoplazo (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Suppression of Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters on template's page

I've wrapped code of {{Other uses of/sandbox}} in <includeonly></includeonly> to suppress its categorization in Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters. Should the categorization be also suppressed on the live template {{Other uses of}}? —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 October 2020

Please apply Special:Diff/953627233/986361870 to suppress categorization of talk pages and user pages into Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters. This is similar to what Module:Hatnote does since Special:Diff/967664662. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It's early in the morning, so maybe I'm just talking rubbish, but doesn't that code actually exclude all pages that aren't user pages? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, indeed. Thanks for catching this. Fixed: Special:Diff/953627233/986365782. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. And you may want to request template-editor privileges at some point, as you seem to do a lot of template work :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I've found a bug in my previous diff. I didn't realize that the variable currentTitle was used for the string field .prefixedTitle, rather than the title object itself. Fix is ready in the sandbox: Special:Diff/986376893/986687262. I've tested this change in preview mode on a user page from Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Special:Diff/986768317. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 November 2020

While we're here, I would also suggest to wrap the invocation of the module in <includeonly>...</includeonly>, as described in the section above, so that the template page is excluded from the tracking category. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Special:Diff/986783682. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extra set of quotation marks with multiple uses

Currently, when there are two or more uses, the template produces an extra set of quotation marks around them: ""USE1" or "USE2"". It should just look like "USE1" or "USE2". Same thing with three uses. Could someone please implement a fix to this? Rowing007 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Possibly a result of edits on Module:Other uses of by Nihiltres last year. Could you please give some examples? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

To editor Martin: this is noticed on the /doc page at Template:Other uses of/doc#"For other uses of …, see …". The examples for more than one use do show the unwanted quotation marks. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted Nihiltres most recent change which seems to have fixed the issue — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, excellent! Does appear to have done it. A little concerned about editor Nihiltres, who hasn't edited since before Christmas! Editor Rowing007, if you still see something squirrelly, please respond here or reopen this request by changing the {{Edit template-protected}} template from |answered=yes to |answered=no. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)