Template talk:Otherpeople

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This box: view  talk  edit

To discuss these templates as a whole, please see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation If you wish to discuss general wordings, rather than the wording or formatting of this specific template, don't post here, or else what you say will probably go unnoticed.

Contents

[edit] Generic

For example, {{dablink|For other senses of this term, see [[etc...]]}}. This template is adaptable, but fails to standardize hatnotes.

[edit] Otheruses

For other uses, see Otherpeople (disambiguation).
This article is about USE. For other uses, see Otherpeople (disambiguation).
  • {{This|USE|PAGE}}:
This article is about USE. For other uses, see PAGE.
For other uses, see PAGE (disambiguation).
For other uses, see PAGE.
This article is about USE1. For other uses, see Otherpeople (disambiguation).
This article is about USE1. For USE2, see Otherpeople (disambiguation).
This article is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2.
  • {{Two other uses||USE2|PAGE2||}} (all parameters except second and third are optional; however, omitting both the first and fourth values creates ambiguity, so please avoid):

[edit] Other people

For other persons named Otherpeople, see Otherpeople (disambiguation).
For other persons named USE, see USE (disambiguation).
For other persons named USE, see USE (disambiguation).
This article is about USE1. For USE2, see Otherpeople (disambiguation).

[edit] Otherhurricaneuses

For articles on storms.
For other storms of the same name, see Otherpeople (disambiguation).
For other storms of the same name, see DISAMBIG.
This article is about THIS. For other storms of the same name, see DISAMBIG.
This article is about the USE1. For the USE2, see the main article, MAIN. For other storms of the same name, see Otherpeople (disambiguation).

[edit] For (other topic)

  • {{For}} (disambiguous):
For {{{1}}}, see Otherpeople (disambiguation).
  • {{For|OTHER TOPIC}} (disambiguous):
For OTHER TOPIC, see Otherpeople (disambiguation).
  • {{For|OTHER TOPIC|PAGE}}:
For OTHER TOPIC, see PAGE.
  • {{For|OTHER TOPIC|PAGE1|PAGE2}}:
For OTHER TOPIC, see PAGE1 and PAGE2.
  • {{For1|OTHER TOPIC}}:
For OTHER TOPIC, see OTHER TOPIC.
  • {{For2|OTHER TOPIC|LINK TO [[PAGE1]] AND [[PAGE2]]}}:
For OTHER TOPIC, see LINK TO PAGE1 AND PAGE2.

[edit] Otherusesof (topic)

For other uses of "Otherpeople", see Otherpeople (disambiguation).
For other uses of "TOPIC", see TOPIC (disambiguation).
For other uses of "TOPIC", see PAGE.

[edit] Redirect

  • {{Redirect2|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2}} (disambiguous):
"REDIRECT" redirects here. REDIRECT TEXT.
  • {{Redirect4|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2}} (disambiguous):
"REDIRECT" redirects here. For USE, see PAGE.
  • {{Redirect6|REDIRECT|USE1|PAGE1|USE2|PAGE2}}:
  • {{Redirect6|REDIRECT|USE1|PAGE1||}} (See note for {{Two other uses}} above)

[edit] "Not to be confused with"...

Not to be confused with PAGE.
Not to be confused with TEXT.

[edit] Notes

Do not use subst: with these templates, as that will prevent:

  1. propagating changes as the template is modified; and
  2. the What links here (WLH) listing.


There is Template:Otherpersons for more or less the same case. -- User:Docu

Sorry, did not see that one when I created this, I guess because it's not in use much. I used the wording found most often in these situations for this template. --Dryazan 22:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and redirected Template:Otherpersons to this template because they are relatively the same, but this template has an additional parameter. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People or persons

Centrx has changed this three times, and been reverted three times. This is a template used in an enormous number of articles, so could we please cut down on changes without consensus? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so explain why it should use the less accurate "people". —Centrxtalk • 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy the basic arguments from your talk page since there's no point in retyping them.

Where's this consensus that you're referring to for renaming Category:Living people? AP Style Guide prefers people over persons, which generally comes off sounding awkwardly formal. Persons is generally limited to cases of specific numbers, as far as I can tell, and in many of our usages it's such an indefinite quantity that people seems fine. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Persons is the correct word when dealing with multiple independent individuals. People is for collective or indefinite uses; though it is used as a mere multiple of the word person, persons is clearer and better suited. Persons is used for certain kinds of specific numbers, as in "There were 12 persons at the party", but if you were to say "The 12 people at the party were rowdy" that is an indefinite usage despite having a specific number (the rowdiness is a collective property, and perhaps some of the 12 were not even rowdy). On Wikipedia, the articles are distinct and about persons who may have lived hundreds of years apart and have no relation whatsoever. There is nothing collective or indefinite (definite is not the same as having a fixed number); it is not about the people of a country or the people that is a group of friends. —Centrxtalk • 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the people that we're talking about here all have the property of sharing the name or sharing the quality of being alive; we're referring to the group of living people, or people named john smith. Your example of a rowdy group says nothing about other cases. We say "Happy people," not "happy persons," not because the group has the quality of being happy, but because all the people are individually happy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't see that they are individually happy. We say "happy people", for example, because we look around and see a indefinite mass of happiness, but that doesn't include the several persons standing around not happy, but they are lost in the hub-bub. —Centrxtalk • 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If I meet five john smiths, would I say "there are a lot of people named john smith" or "there are a lot of persons named john smith"? If I meet five definitely happy individuals, do I call them "happy people" or "happy persons"? Our knowledge need not be indefinite to say people. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you met five John Smiths, it would be precise to say "I met five persons named John Smith" ("There are a lot of people named John Smith" is a general, indefinite statement). Clearly, "people" is often used as a simple plural, but these examples are still more appropriate for that use than is referring to several distinct articles on Wikipedia. Meeting people is entirely different from articles in an encyclopedia. —Centrxtalk • 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


See also: [[1]] I think it should be "other people" and not "other persons". --Salsa man 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)