Template talk:Otheruses-number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similar to Template:Otheruses, I'd use "For other uses, see ...".

It would be nice if we could include this later into a template for the year page header. -- User:Docu

Contents 1 Why not have actual article name there? 2 May revision 3 not just numbers! 4 This template is completely useless!

[edit] Why not have actual article name there?

The template currently contains:

:''For other uses, see [[{{PAGENAME}} (number)|number {{PAGENAME}}]][[Template:otheruses-number|.]]''

This expands to something like:

For other uses, see number 1000.

Why not change it to:

:''For other uses, see [[{{PAGENAME}} (number)]].''

This expands to something like:

For other uses, see 1000 (number).

There is no silly link with the label a full stop and we have shown the actual name of the article linked to. I cannot see any reason not to implement both of these changes. Brianjd

When I created it, I made it mirror what was hard-coded at the top of the year pages this is now used on. I guess there's no reason for it to be that way. So go ahead and do it - Be bold! The final period is linked back to the template for ease of editing - it's less of a hassle than tracking down the template name in the code; you can see it on other templates too. I'd say leave it; it doesn't harm anything. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] May revision

The current version expands to the following, e.g. on 1000:

This article is about the year 1000. For other uses of 1000, see 1000 (number).

Depending on the placement, this wraps to two lines. Personally, I'd favor a shorter version, e.g.

This article is about the year. For other uses, see Number 1000.

If the first line of the year page would state that it's about the year (like 2004: "2004 is a leap year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar. It was designated the:.. "), we could even do away with "This article is about the year", but currently most articles don't do this. -- User:Docu

[edit] not just numbers!

I was thinking, isn't this template a bit restricted? I mean, the fact is that the numbers pages contain minimal information about the number, and none at all about other uses. For example 308 (number) is a very small section of 300 (number), which tells me that "308 = 2^2·7·11, nontotient, totient sum of the first 31 integers, Harshad number." I get no information at all about the other uses, if any.

There are actually several articles about other uses of 308, which are of great interest to a range of people. I've corrected a few such problems on some year pages, and made new disambiguation pages, but i think it'd be really helpful if people didn't insert this template for the sake of consistency when it is to the detriment of access to information. Could it be changed to say: ":This article is about the year XXXX. For other uses of XXXX, see XXXX (disambiguation)." ? Spute 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This template is completely useless!

Sorry, but can anyone give one example where a XXXX (number) page actually gives any "other uses"?! It should be XXXX (disambiguation). The only problem there is that most of the disambigutaiotn pages don't exist yet, so it wouldn't look so nice. It would be of some use though. Spute 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope now it's clearer. Tigermighty (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one example, and I have no idea if it's anomalous: 66 (number). I was genuinely confused today when I went to 66 in search of the highway in the DC area by that name, and the only hatnote was for information about "the number." I wasn't looking for info about the number itself, I was looking up the highway referred to by that number.

For lack of a better option, I clicked on 66 (number) and found the article I was looking for buried there, but the phrasing of the hatnote wasn't helpful at all. Since I doubt I'm the only person who would be confused by it, I'm reverting it to the former phrasing. What would really make sense to me is to have separate pages, one about the number itself as a mathematical concept and one disambiguating the various things the number might refer to, which I will probably bring up at Talk:Disambiguation. Propaniac (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure i got it, why shouldn't "other uses" be in a disambiguation page (66 (disambiguation))? therefor there's Template:Otheruses. Tigermighty (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely that "other uses" should be on an actual disambiguation page, although I never got around to fully investigating the issue. However, for the moment, there are two good reasons for ignoring that opinion and keeping this template as it currently is: 1. Since I'm pretty sure "other uses" DO tend to be lumped in on the (number) pages currently, the template should reflect that. 2. WP:Disambiguation currently calls for this template to be used when linking to a number page, and quotes the text of the template, which is another reason why the number issue should be discussed on the Talk page there before making key changes here. Propaniac (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)