Template talk:For

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:For is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

1 Notices
- 1.1 TfD May 2005
2 Discussion

[edit] Notices

[edit] TfD May 2005

There is an archived discussion about this template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/May_2005#Template:For. There was no consensus for deletion. Joe D (t) 10:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Which is the better aligment?

Please explain why "to the right" is where disambiguation "belongs". I've never, ever seen disambiguation text right-justified, until now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the point? We already have an otheruses template. --Yath 04:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "otheruses" template and its relatives are horribly obnoxious. I replace them with others at every opportunity. This template, on the other hand, seems unobjectionable (so far). Michael Hardy 19:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what is obstructive, as mentioned by Stevertigo in the edit summary of this template. About the aligmnent, I wonder what other people think. Oleg Alexandrov 12:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand why Stevertigo wants this aligned right. You're all thinking this is a template for disambiguation notices, but when I went around removing it from pages which do not need disambiguation (i.e. their pages are already sufficiently disambiguated) I realised it wasn't for disambiguation, it was simply for linking to other pages with slightly similar names. In other words, a trivia template that gives far too much priminance to its trivia. It has been coopted for disambiguation purposes which is fine, as long as people don't go on using for trivia purposes. Joe D (t) 13:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Horizontal rule

On a number of articles, the template is followed by a horizontal rule, which serves to distinguish it from the (often completely unrelated) article. I like that arrangement, and have taken to using it whenever I add (or come across) a dab template. Would anyone have any objection to adding it to the template itself? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

For {{{1}}}, see [[{{{2}}}]].

No way, we should put this template into a giant colored box! </sarcasm> -- Netoholic @ 21:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I prefer the plain link, without the horizontal rule. Also, this could possibly be used for noting multiple links. Adding an HR would separate them more than necessary. Example: {{for|Foo|Bar}} {{For|Lah|Dee Dah}}:

For Foo, see Bar.

For Lah, see Dee Dah.

If you want to see a divider, add this code to your style sheet (probably at User:Mel Etitis/monobook.css):

.dablink { border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; }

Hope this helps. -- Netoholic @ 22:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I object. The indenting and italics are sufficient to set off the dab line. A horizontal rule would be unnecessary visual clutter. --Yath 22:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I object as well, see Talk:Simple Plan. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think the horizontal rule looks good, but given Netoholic's argument about multiple uses in a single article, it should probably stay out of the template. Of course, a giant pastel colored box would be optimal. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 23:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still bemused by the vehemence with which some editors view a simple horizontal line, but I can certainly see Netoholic's point, and withdraw the suggestion. I'll continue adding the line where I add a link, though, as I think (though not quite as passionately as its detractors) that it looks better, and makes articles clearer for readers. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edit

Revert to the edition with right-aligned italic text and indent. The current formatting doesn't stand out from the rest of the text in the article and is simply ugly. It just looks like it's the beginning of the article, when in fact it's a disambiguation note. Todor →Bozhinov 11:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please bypass your cache. —Mets501 (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does it support lables?

In other templates (e.g. template_talk:main - note that you can only learn about it in the discussion page), one can use l1=label (or in general "lX=label" for linkX). "l" is a small "L". X is a number.

This isn't detailed here and both l or lX don't work. Is this possible via another parameter? If not, it really should be possible.

[edit] Interwiki

Please, add sl:Predloga:Zapomen. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red links in template

Is it ok to have a {{for}} tag in an article directing to an article with a red link (assuming the article won't be written any time soon)? I don't believe it is acceptable, but I just want to double check. –Crashintome4196 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's a legitimate article, can't you just create a stub? — Eric Herboso 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to add (the existing) instructions to this template

{{editprotected}} I would like to request the general instructions be added to this template, using the following 3 lines at the bottom (insert the following as it is displayed/rendered, not as the internal code appears):

</noinclude>

Either that, or state that the instructions are on this talk page. Without one of these, it becomes difficult to figure out how to use this template and others similar to it. The template itself is silent on this, and it should not be.

I can never remember which version of For, For1 and all the others that are available so that I can determine easily what I want to use in any specific instance; including the existing instructions for using it will help. I'm sure I'm not the only one who isn't sure exactly how to use these, and I had to spend considerable time finding the template containing the instructions, and that's given the fact I knew that the instruction template was there. I don't think it makes sense to exclude the instructions from the template (which is where it should be) or, at least, that the template should state the instructions are here, as at least "a minimum standard of decency." Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 20:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I switched to the /doc subpage pattern, so the documentation can be changed by anyone now. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think something still wrong. I cannot access the documentation that I used to be able to from this page. I'm referring to the long list as seen at Template:Otheruses.-Andrew c 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD notice

‹ The template below (For) is being considered for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus. ›

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

[edit] Improvement

Could the template be changed so that if the first parameter is blank, "other uses" is displayed as default?

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)