Template talk:Similar

similar template in Author: namespace
The similar template could do with some tinkering to work successfully in the Author: namespace. I was hoping that someone could code some magic, so that the similar works like disambiguation and PD-old in putting in the alternate text for the appropriate namespace. Example of now Author:John Brown (reverend) says  I was thinking that the Author text could say See authors with the same name. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

placement
I'm not sure about this: "For best effect, the template should be placed above the respective Header or Author template.". I think it should be placed in the notes section, with other annotations, the stuff above the header is software generated content like the page hierarchy and redirect links.
 * There are custom headers that don't have a notes field, and there was another compelling reason that I found that I cannot remember that didn't work with similar inside the header. Plus when I had a discussion back when we started to require more disambiguation, it is not specific to the work (the notes) and is about the work with respect to and when put in with the notes it was completely buried. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It works in the notes = and description = sections of the two templates above. Is there another widespread use for this template? I don't remember or I'm not aware of any earlier discussion, but I'm prepared to believe that I may be overlooking something. I want to emphasise that this is annotation specific to the work, it corresponds to the link provided at the dab, and these User defined links are added and displayed in the header. The stuff above the header is a system generated report on heirachy, proofread status and the redirect path; the latter gives some basis for noting the dab there, but it is changed and therefore best displayed in the notes or description. I never look above the header, except to find the placement of this link; whatever the conceptual basis for that is, I just don't think it will be as easily noticed. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

display
I think the current display should be plain text, with a tweak, and give the target name as given. Description then title would help the user navigation; what the target is, the name of the target page. So,

For other editions or works with similar titles, see The Raven (Poe).

... actually, this shows another problem. Similar titles are at The Raven (disambig) and the versions are at the former link. Piped links are not helpful here, Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For, it seems designed to point to the disambiguation page, presumably why they don't specify the name.  It is the disambiguation page that points to each of the articles.  I have no problem with it displaying the link, though to me whether it is explicit or implicit is not particularly a large issue either way, as it would seem evident. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get the gist of your comment. I still would prefer not to have separate version and disambiguation pages, made that comment at the time, however, not prepared to argue about it. This becomes one of the issues. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Separating them is not the only way to do it, but it is likely to make iw:links easier to manage. Language links would benefit the 'similar work', especially as the default is appearing outside of the list, the 'similar title' page doesn't have the same function. To clarify, there are versions, editions, illustrated ed., translations, a media category and an article on Poe's Raven, it has many functions as I use it. A disambig is circumstantial, even if the subject is the similar, so The Raven links different 'works'. Similar subject only, if that, not any of the things I said about stuff included under versions. It is hardly perfect, popular and ancient tales are my current problem, but it generally works as ad hoc indexing. Giving the link back to wikipedia, where there is concordance between titles, is one of the best functions; explanation and ambiguity is easier to deal with there.
 * However, another option is to have two links displayed, " ... see The Raven (Poe) and The Raven" Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So do you see that we could have the vanilla SIMILAR that links to the disambig page, and that we could also look to have parameters of  &   that links to respective pages, and that we have multiple links as we do for indexes.  Something along the line of

We may have issues if we have disambig, versions, and translations to which to link. So let's work out the principle, then get to the detail. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See other works with similar titles of The Raven or other (versions|translations) of this work The Raven (Poe)
 * Ja, my way would only be suitable for disambig and versions, or both, and it wouldn't do that very well. I don't what I would do with links to translations pages, I forgot it existed and had been using versions for that too. I have been typing it out, "Other versions: [link (unpiped)]" an "Similar titles: [link], none of the advantages of a template but the link is established to and fro. The labeled link is all I see us needing, using templates to generate a sentence with the title might get awkward. Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The text side is minor as it is just the filler to the template, and is easy to change, though I agree with keep it simple, noting that this template also is used for disambiguating authors. Sounds like we can put aside translations for this moment, and really translations are a subset of versions. Do you see occasions where we would NOT want to link to the disambiguation, and only link to the versions? Off the top of my head, that is the complicator. — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give it some thought, but I suspect that linking to versions would be the most frequent usage, esp. for popular works; common titles in unrelated works is pretty straightforward. Having 'arrived' at the disambiguated title, a reader probably doesn't need access to the others. Linking other versions may be crucial. Displaying the title is the key point I wanted to emphasise, and labelling the type of page being linked, but as with all things it leads to wider considerations. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What I think that needs resolving here is the philosophical question of how we link internally to works, especially how explicitly. I noting that with ThomasV's thought and some of the implementation of  that there is no opportunity to add miscellaneous text within the header, so all extra bits have to sit outside. If it is a philosophical question, then that doesn't belong here, that belongs in a larger forum. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it a simple textual link?  Something like we have done with plain sister?
 * 2) Is it an expanded informative textual link?
 * 3) The placement of the link? So that it is most useful and able to be seen.