Template talk:See also

Simplifications
As simlar to main, I have made a multi-purpouse template for see also, located at User:AzaToth/See also, Do you think this and sibling templates should be replaced? AzaToth talk 21:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Example:

commented out pending maintenance. —Phil | Talk 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Simlar for see

commented out pending maintenance. —Phil | Talk 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And for main

commented out pending maintenance. —Phil | Talk 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

All this templates are using the generic template User:AzaToth/Links, so if subst, the code is not too strange.

By using you get
 * Main article: 

if the Links code is included, you would get more code if it's substed:
 * Main article: 

Oops, just had an edit conflict on the template, then immediately on this talk page. We could demonstrate the usage and results of each template in the &lt;noinclude> section as below. —Michael Z. 2005-11-24 21:59 Z 
 * remember that main and main2 are for the moment the same, consensus are waiting for final verdic. AzaToth talk 22:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Copied successful code from &#x7B;&#x7B;Main}}
I have copied the conditional code from main which will allow for up to 9 parameters; I have also added a test on the end which will alert a keen-eyed user who attempts to use more than that : &#x7B;&#x7B;seealso|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10}} gives you: HTH HAND Phil | Talk 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Piped links
What about piped links? In Template:USCongDistState, I've been using:
 * See also: Past and current delegations | Current delegation | List of All United States Congressional districts

which was just replaced with:

But that killed my piped links. Any suggestions? &mdash;Mark Adler (markles)  03:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't use templates within other templates. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So what? How would you suggest curing the piped links? &mdash;Mark Adler (markles)  04:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, in this template, you can't use piped links. This is because it accepts one or more parameters, and parameters are separated by pipes.  Template:Further solves this by accepting only one parameter, which can include multiple piped or normal wikilinks. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Something to consider… &mdash;Mark Adler (markles)  05:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The semantics of this template should be changed. It should be

I.e., the user provides the links and the commas. There are three benefits to this change. 1) It avoids the current limit of 15 articles. 2) It doesn't require qif. 3) You can do piped links however you want. Note that MediaWiki is smart enough to interpret

as you would hope.

There are around 1000 to 1500 articles that use Template:See_also. Presumably these could be updated with a bot. Do others think the change is a good idea? dbenbenn | talk 21:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is utterly brilliant of what is said in characteristic; I seriously endorse for this amelioration of functionality without any stint whatsoever. — ignis scripta 22:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, since it is completely non-intuitive to have wikilinks in a template which don't use the standard wiki markup used in articles - the bracketed notation should be included. QmunkE 06:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the point?
So far as I can see, the main purpose of this is to make things difficult for new or infrequent editors. It does nothing that the simple addition of a "See also" section doesn't. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. Also, this template is often used in sections where Template:Main article or Template:Further would be better. -- Netoholic @ 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I disagree with both points; this template is intended for cross-reference from sections, where a separate See also section would be too distant. It is not equivalent to either of Netoholic's suggested alternatives, since the wording differs, which will matter to some editors. Septentrionalis 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Broken indentation with left-floating images
Byzantine_Empire - The "see also" template here, which has a left-floating image to the left of it, does not get indented like it does everywhere else. Is this a bug in this template, in MediaWiki, or in my browsers (Windows Firefox 1.5.0.1 and MSIE 6)? Hairy Dude 21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The template seems fine, as the leading ":" should always work. MediaWiki is generating

  just as it does everywhere else. So, I'd guess our browsers, as it works just fine with images off. However, that image has nothing to do with the section it's in, and could easily be moved up or elsewhere. And the page is much too long. Summary style should summarize!
 * --William Allen Simpson 12:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For future reference, the problem was that only line boxes get compressed to avoid floats, not other types of boxes. This is a rather obnoxious aspect of CSS 2.1 with no workaround that I know of except to give up and go back to tables.  The current working draft of the CSS3 box-model module defines a property to correct this omission. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Documentation update
I updated the template with the optional link-piping feature from main, but I can't figure out how to properly display an example in the documentation. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation issues with this template

 * See also omphalology.

The final period above is necessary.


 * See also: omphalology

Is it needed here? I added it in an article. It caused the link to fail! Just a red link, where formerly a blue link appeared.

This template forbidding final punctuation annoys me because many people who edit Wikipedia think no final period is needed in thing like my first example above, and this may encourage that idea. And I prefer the first format, in the interest of keeping things no more complicated than they really are. Michael Hardy 01:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's cosmetic, but I think I'd prefer the template without the colon and with the period – or at least with the possibility of adding a period – especially when multiple parameters are used ("See also Article X, Article Y[,] and Article Z.", etc). Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)