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:Reply[reply] 

((User:AzaToth/See also))
((User:AzaToth/See also|1))
((User:AzaToth/See also|1|2|3))
((User:AzaToth/See also|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20))

((User:AzaToth/See also)) ((User:AzaToth/See also|1)) ((User:AzaToth/See also|1|2|3)) ((User:AzaToth/See also|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20))commented out pending maintenance. —Phil | Talk 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simlar for see 

((User:AzaToth/See))
((User:AzaToth/See|1))
((User:AzaToth/See|1|2|3))
((User:AzaToth/See|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20))

((User:AzaToth/See)) ((User:AzaToth/See|1)) ((User:AzaToth/See|1|2|3)) ((User:AzaToth/See|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20))commented out pending maintenance. —Phil | Talk 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And for main 

((User:AzaToth/Main))
((User:AzaToth/Main|1))
((User:AzaToth/Main|1|2|3))
((User:AzaToth/Main|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20))

((User:AzaToth/Main)) ((User:AzaToth/Main|1)) ((User:AzaToth/Main|1|2|3)) ((User:AzaToth/Main|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20))commented out pending maintenance. —Phil | Talk 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

By using ((subst:User:AzaToth/Main|1|2|3)) you get 

:''Main article((if|2|s)): ((User:AzaToth/Links|1|2|3|(({4|))}|(({5|))}|(({6|))}|(({7|))}|(({8|))}|(({9|))}|(({10|))}|(({11|))}|(({12|))}|(({13|))}|(({14|))}|(({15|))}|(({16|))}|(({17|))}|(({18|))}|(({19|))}|(({20|))))}''

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

:''Main article((if|2|s)): ((if
  |test=1
  |then=[[1]]
))((if
  |test=2
  |then=((if|3|, | & ))[[2]]
))((if
  |test=3
  |then=((if|(({4|))}|, | & ))[[3]]
))((if
  |test=(({4|))}
  |then=((if|(({5|))}|, | & ))[[(({4|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({5|))}
  |then=((if|(({6|))}|, | & ))[[(({5|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({6|))}
  |then=((if|(({7|))}|, | & ))[[(({6|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({7|))}
  |then=((if|(({8|))}|, | & ))[[(({7|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({8|))}
  |then=((if|(({9|))}|, | & ))[[(({8|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({9|))}
  |then=((if|(({10|))}|, | & ))[[(({9|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({10|))}
  |then=((if|(({11|))}|, | & ))[[(({10|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({11|))}
  |then=((if|(({12|))}|, | & ))[[(({11|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({12|))}
  |then=((if|(({13|))}|, | & ))[[(({12|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({13|))}
  |then=((if|(({14|))}|, | & ))[[(({13|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({14|))}
  |then=((if|(({15|))}|, | & ))[[(({14|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({15|))}
  |then=((if|(({16|))}|, | & ))[[(({15|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({16|))}
  |then=((if|(({17|))}|, | & ))[[(({16|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({17|))}
  |then=((if|(({18|))}|, | & ))[[(({17|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({18|))}
  |then=((if|(({19|))}|, | & ))[[(({18|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({19|))}
  |then=((if|(({20|))}|, | & ))[[(({19|))}]]
))((if
  |test=(({20|))}
  |then= & [[(({20|))}]]
))''

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 <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)Reply[reply]


See also

Copied successful code from ((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 ;-): 

((seealso|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10))

gives you:

HTH HAND Phil | Talk 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Piped links

What about piped links? In Template:USCongDistState, I've been using:

''See also:'' [[U.S. Congressional Delegations from Massachusetts|Past and current delegations]] | [[U.S. Congressional Delegation from Massachusetts|Current delegation]] | [[List of United States Congressional districts|List of All United States Congressional districts]]

which was just replaced with:

((See also|U.S. Congressional Delegations from Massachusetts|U.S. Congressional Delegation from (({state))}|List of United States Congressional districts))

But that killed my piped links. Any suggestions? —Mark Adler (markles) 03:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't use templates within other templates. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]

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

((See also|[[article1]], [[article2]], and [[article3]]))

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

((See also|[[article1|pipe1]], [[article2|pipe2]], and [[article3|pipe3]]))

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Yes. Sounds like a great idea. --Rambutaan 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


Templates for deletion
This template survived a request for deletion. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Broken indentation with left-floating images

Byzantine_Empire#Science_and_law - 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)Reply[reply]

The template seems fine, as the leading ":" should always work. MediaWiki is generating
    <div class="boilerplate seealso">
    <dl>
    <dd><i>

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Make this Edit

unprotect/reprotect immediate edit change requested
What and why
Remove second link (Error message) to template talk--replace with link back to the template page, where the /doc page is displayed -- the current coding defeats the WP:DPP of minimal change impacts rippling through to the database. (Merely saving this page is going to affect the database in all those pages!!!)
1) In the beginning logic, make the first error message read and link:
  

[[Template:See also|Usage error: Template 'see also' must be given at least one ARTICLE Name(S)!]]

2) Just make this verbatim edit replacement at the 'IF# 16 line' through to the template logics nest if-then-else chain's end:


))((#if:(({16|))}| -- '''[[Template:See also|<br>See also Usage Error#2: Too many links<br>MAXIMUM of 15 ARTICLES ALLOWED in this list<br>]]'''

3) The template call form ((/doc)) does not work on all Sister sites and I'm trying ready this for export (re: Wikipedia:WikiProject template sharing).
  Hence please replace <noinclude>((/doc))</noinclude> also with either string: <noinclude> ((((BASEPAGENAME))/doc))</noinclude> or <noinclude> ((((PAGENAME))/doc))</noinclude>
  Both are Magic words alternatives that will work on all sister projects while making the same edit.
  Thanks... I'm suggesting other changes in the next section below, which need concensus. These two are 'no brainers'. Article space database updates should not link back to changes on talk pages! Best regards and thanks // FrankB 16:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Argh (clearing editprotected requests)! You've gone too technical for me. Either wait for an admin with more knowhow to make the change, or please make it explicit on my talk page (put the exact section(s) of text that you want adding, and the exact section(s) of text that it needs to replace) and I'll do it. Proto::► 19:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ditto, I'm baffeled. Maybe create your suggested replacement with a subpage of this talk and an admin can copy it (noting you in edit summary to comply to GDFL)! --Robdurbar 09:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So Sorry -- I tried to be clear.
  Look at the beginnings of the three numbered lines given as replacements above, and then match those to the template lines currently in place within an edit window.
  Note: All changes involve a link, two of which are to the Template talk page, the other to the call to the '/doc' page. The pipe trick and message changed to a somewhat different one, but the curly braces are still the same... [[ A | B]] just becomes [[ C | D]] in the template proper. The Magic word 'PAGENAME' needs to precede '/doc' inside the WP:DPP fenced off call to the documentation.
Replace said lines with the parts I have in BOLD above. If you can't match them, unprotect it for a few minutes and drop me a note and we can do that instead. (Can't blame you for the confusion--this many curly braces and pipes would give anyone pause). Regards // FrankB 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Error on template page

As of this edit, the template page reads: See also: Error: Template must be given at least one article name. I thought templates were supposed to read something like See also: (({1))}. —Frungi 10:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template pages usually read like that. Subfields (or whatever they're called), like (({1))} here, aren't automatically provided, so the no-subfield error message is triggered. --zenohockey 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can

Can we change this template so it can have infinite arguments? 100110100 07:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"see also" cat

((editprotected))

Category:See also templates ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 09:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

checkY Done. Note that you could have made this change yourself by editing ((see also/doc)). --ais523 09:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template for too big see alsos?

Do we have a template to indicate that a given see also section is too long (per MoS)?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Punctuation

Shouldn't there be a full stop at the end? --RFBailey (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why was a full stop added? I don't think there should be one, because it is not a complete sentence. ((main)) does not have a full stop at the end, and I think that is the correct way to do it. Gary King (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undone. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks! Cheers. Gary King (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added image?

See also: Bananas on Ice

Does anyone else think that adding an arrow like this might be a good idea? I notice that the See also: blends into the text and I think adding a small arrow like this one would be beneficial. Note that I just found that black redirect arrow on Wikimedia Commons, and I would gladly make a better one... perhaps one with a nice muted blue colour, and a little bit thicker. That black arrow is just there to get my idea across. Good idea? Necessary? -- Tkgd2007 (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely not a good idea. Also, if this was added, you'd also have to bring it up for ((main)), ((further)), etc. because in my opinion, they should all be standardized to look the same in the case where you have a combination of them, then they don't stand out too much. Which brings me back to this; we want these links to not stand out that much; the italics works well, and should be enough to bring attention to them when they are needed. These templates already make noise by being placed immediately after section titles, so that should be sufficient. Gary King (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request

((editprotected))
Please apply this patch. 16@r (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y Done – Nihiltres{t.l} 14:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

another 080619

((editprotected))

purpose and need
Simply Make:
    ''See also: ((#if:(({1|))} →
into:
→    ''(({altphrase|See also))}: ((#if:(({1|))}

Drop me a note when completed, and I'll handle the usage fix up. Thanks, FrankB 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to refer to sections

What's the preferred way to refer to a section?

See also: Foo § Bar

See also: Foo: Bar

See also: Foo, section Bar

Or something else entirely? I don't really like the first since it leaks HTML syntax to the reader. The second one is compact, whereas the third one is more explicit. What do you think? Shinobu (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a similar request a few sections below (note, it's been almost a year...) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bump. Couldn’t the template itself parse the referenced section and display it consistently? 16:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:240:DAC:C1EB:7592:3122:D996 (talk)

Edit protected

((editprotected))

On templates that use this, such as Template:Olympics bids, the see also is preceded by an unnecessary colon. This can be corrected if the following is placed into the template 

((Namespace detect
| demospace = (({demospace|))}
| template =
| other = :))

The effect: as it is now the diff the changed version

This should replace the colon between <includeonly> and <span class="boilerplate seealso"> (at the beginning of the template). Thanks, ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 06:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: This will not work: it will correctly remove the colon on the template page itself, but wherever the template is transcluded, the ((namespace detect)) template will detect the local namespace and output the colon. Although this issue does need to be solved, it can't be solved this way. Happy‑melon 13:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section link

Is it possible to direct this template to link a particular section within another article? Something similar to ((See also|[[Article#section|text]]))? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using today's TFA as an example, ((See also|Michael Tritter#storyline|l1=Storyline)) gives

See also: Storyline
which I assume is what you're after. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect! Now if I could only remember what I wanted to use that for... :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please clarify ...

I have been tempted to use this template at the very top of articles (e.g., see Judicial_review_in_the_United_States). Another editor tells me I shouldn't do this, and points me to Wikipedia:Layout for the explanation -- however, no such explanation appears there. The explanation on the project page says:

"See also is used for small sets of see also information at the head of article sections according to Wikipedia:Layout."

Could you please modify this language to indicate whether or not it's permissible to use this template at the tops of articles? Thanks Agradman cries when yelled at/makes occasional mistakes 03:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The links that appear at the top of articles are called hatnotes. Without exception that I know of, they are used only for disambiguating: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. The reason disambiguating links are allowed there is because they need to be immediately available to the reader; anywhere else and they'd be pretty much useless. There are two reasons "See also" (pointing to other potentially connected topics, which is not disambiguation) is not allowed:
  • There is a standard appendix called "See also" which (if it exists) should be reachable from the TOC, it's not necessary to put them at the top.
  • There can be dozens of "See also" links, Cluttering the start of the article is a Bad Thing - we want the reader to be able to find the lead section and get on with reading the article as quickly as possible. Allowing just one or two puts us on a slippery slope (see Zero One Infinity), so we just banish them completely from the top of the article.
For the guidelines about hatnotes, see WP:HAT. Hairy Dude (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of italics

It occurs to me that the formatting of this class of templates is less than ideal. When printed, hyperlinks don't show, and it may read something like

See also: Foo and Bar

where it's not clear whether it's one article name or two. One editor has suggested that article titles really ought to be in quotation marks, while I would prefer the article titles in roman:

See also Foo and Bar

In these cases we aren't using the article title as a normal word or phrase so they may be syntactically incorrect unless the use–mention distinction is observed. Why is there a colon in this particular template anyway? It is not logically required and varies both from what seems to be the standard format of hatnotes, and from inline cross-references (see below), neither of which use a colon.

There are article cross-references ("see also" section or hatnotes), section cross-references (like this template) and inline cross-references (At this time France possessed the largest population in Europe (see Demographics of France). I'm trying to start a discussion about the formatting of the last at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#More italics clarification and inline .22see.22 Please contribute there if you can. --Cedderstk 16:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember that the template produces hyperlinks. Usually hyperlinked text is visually distinct from non-hyperlinked text, so we can tell the difference between "[[Foo]] and [[Bar]]" and "[[Foo and Bar]]" by the fact that "and" either is or isn't hyperlinked. Viz.:
So I don't see that there's a problem. As for putting the titles in roman, that would suggest we would normally italicise them in the midst of roman text, which is not the case. Hairy Dude (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

seealsolist|n

It would be great to add a ((seealsolist|n)) template would agglomerate all see alsos at the foot of the article ala ((reflist|n)).

Please add cy

cy:Nodyn:Gweler hefyd. -- Xxglennxx ★talkcontributions★ 23:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editprotected request involving this template

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

editprotect

((editprotected)) This template shouldproduce a period at the and of the sentence (any sentence). So: 

(({label 15|(({l15))))))))]]

should be like 

(({label 15|(({l15))))))))]].

By the way, parameter 15 does not work out well. Which is quite relevant, since it is protected this tough. (now really, a <500 times used template is admin-only protected?) -DePiep (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template does not produce a compete sentence, so a period would not be appropriate. —Farix (t | c) 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being a hatnote, it should produce a sentence, so end with a period -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added, then removed in 2008. I'd like to see more support.--SPhilbrickT 00:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it's quite heavily used — like you, I clicked WhatLinksHere for the template talk page and found fewer than 500 links. However, this tool shows the template as having 73,436 transclusions. Its code doesn't really produce a sentence, so a period wouldn't be appropriate here. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First: it is a sentence. Second: it should have a period as per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Format. Currently, it is the only hatnote that does not have a period (well, together with its brother ((see also2))). -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editprotect

Request

Replace all ((see also)) code with all ((see also/sandbox)) code this version)

What has changed

See Template:See also/testcases, pre-change

  1. I added the point to make it a complete sentence (in accordance with WP:Hatnote#format, and congruent with almost all other hatnote templates).
  2. Paramter #15, when used, gave wrong output; pipes added
  3. Removed second pipe in #14.

-DePiep (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done -- DQ (t) (e) 13:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where does it say that a period must end the hat note? This hat note is a sentence fragment, not like some others which will make a sentence. Other templates also are sentence fragments and do not use period for this reason. This is just punctuation, which WP:MOS probably agrees. I suggest removing the period, but I will let other editors opine.Curb Chain (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:Hatnote#format. As noted in the edit request. And it is a complete sentence. -DePiep (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove dot

((Main)), ((see)), ((further)) and other similar templates do not have dots. There is no reason for this one (and ((Category see also))) to have one either. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Object. Wikipedia:HATNOTE#Format says: A hatnote, being a sentence, ends with a period. I nullify the editrequest. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:HATNOTE can say the Queen of England is named Willi Wonka, but it doesn't make it so. This hatnote is not a complete sentence, so should not take a dot. And it should especially not be inconstant with the other hatnotes like ((Main)), ((see)), ((further)), etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Controversial, so no change. -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By that logic, the change should never have been made in the first place, so should be reverted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I would also point out that it was you who added the hatnote ends with period thing to WP:HATNOTE. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y Done older ≠ wiser 03:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, how is it not a sentence? -DePiep (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not a complete sentence. If you don't believe me, ask the mavens at WT:MOS. older ≠ wiser 12:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking to subsections.

Linking to subsections looks quite ugly and unprofessional at the moment:

See also: Naked (Louise album) § Track listing

Could anyone fix this? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 10:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am assuming that the solution offered in the main template boilerplate (using a label l1,l2, etc. to hide the ugliness) doesn't work for you. I have created a mock up of a possible solution in another template: ((See also subsection|features|conic section)) which displays as:

Template:See also subsection

As it stands it can only do one link which is probably a common enough case. If we wanted a more robust system that keeps everything in the same format then we might want to make a helper template that creates the 'section in article' phrase we need. For example if we create the helper template called ((sas)) then the following expression ((seealso2|((sas|features|equations|conic section))|[[hyperbola]],((sas|equations|ellipse)) will render as:

See also: features and equations in the article conic section, hyperbola, and equations in the article ellipse
In the end though, I favor the simpler template following the philosophy that I saw on another software project 'Keep simple things simple and make complex things possible.'
TStein (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conversion to Lua

I've created a Lua version of this template at Module:See also. It is mostly the same as this template, but has the benefits that an unlimited number of links are allowed, category and file links are automatically escaped with the colon trick, and links to sections are formatted as page § section, rather than the MediaWiki default of page#section. You can see some test cases at Template:See also/testcases. Would anyone object to me making the change? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also related discussions at Template:Hatnote, Template:Details, Template:Further and Template:Main. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WOW this is really causing some readability problems on virtually every page. Do we need the merger/deletion notice transcribed multiple times on 4,499,655 articles? -- Moxy (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope - I've noincluded it. (And that was Steel1943, not I.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to add a description?

How can I add a description to a (or multiple) see alsos?

Here you can find an example of how it should look like (see the very top of the page): incremental search.

If this isn't possible yet could the necessary parameters / templates please be created?

--Fixuture (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The description you see may not fall in line with WP:MOS. But I think the feature you see is:
  • ((see also|Incremental search|altphrase=See the very top of the page))
which produces:
See also: Incremental search
Perhaps this should be on the doc page. I'll add it. Surely there are no objections. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 07:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oxford Comma?

Why does this template not generate an Oxford comma when there are three or more items in the list? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No kidding! This template is very difficult to read sometimes.
Proposal:
  • Insert comma after next-to-last item when there are three or more.
  • Insert comma after next-to-last item when there are two or more (i.e., after first time) if the first item contains a section link.
  • Use semicolons if any values contain a comma
This would resolve the problem that:
((see also|Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Article age|Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process))
generates hard-to-parse output like:
See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Article age and Wikipedia:Gaming the system § Gaming the consensus-building process
instead of something much easier to read:
See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Article age, and Wikipedia:Gaming the system § Gaming the consensus-building process
Since this is processed by Lua now, it can also detect commas in the input and switch to using semicolons; made-up example:
See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion, xenomorph, or chicken-nugget discussions § Article age; and Wikipedia:Gaming the system § Gaming the consensus-building process
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SMcCandlish and Mikeblas: Strong support. Is anyone watching this page? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this involves a change to mw.text.listToText. (I currently don't have any experience in changing something like that. Anyone have any ideas?) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 06:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Think I just found it. According to this, just supply the second and third args (separator and conjunction). Check out the change in the sandbox:
This probably needs more discussion before it can go live, though. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 07:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The change in sandbox looks good to me. I don't know what concensus you need to take it live -- maybe just be bold? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do. You didn't hear opposition otherwise. Did some tests in my own sandbox with the full proposal listed above implemented. I do like the comma after the first item if the first link has a section link (assumed to be long). — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 17:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In retrospect, I think being bold was being incorrect. We're currently not in sync about the Oxford comma (and sections/semicolons) with Module:Further, Module:Other uses, Module:Redirect hatnote, and Module:Hatnote list, and potentially one I was planning to make for ((For)). I'm refraining from reverting, because that is probably unnecessary server strain. Sorry — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 18:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More