Template talk:See also

Template-protected edit request on 4 February 2024

When two articles are provided, the template produces a comma in front of the "and" as though there were more than two articles. See Proto-Semitic language#Phonology, for example. The comma should be omitted in that case. Largoplazo (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

From Paine Ellsworth's edit to the above template, I was led to the discussion where I learned that this is at a higher level and the current state of affairs, when the first item is a section link, is intentional. I can't say I agree with it but it is evidently not a bug, so never mind. Marking this answered. Largoplazo (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 January 2025

replace |See also with |See also|ifexists=true per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_13#Template:See_also_if_exists NotAG on AWB (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have modified this to |See also|ifexists={{{ifexists|true}}} so that the old behavior can be toggled on if needed (such as when linking to an anchor). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Invoke "Compare" rather than "See also"

I would like a feature where it says "Compare: X" rather than "See also: X". This seems more fitting in certain situations. Blockhaj (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Link just disappeared in Examples section

I suggest cancelling the merge of 'template:see also' and 'template:see also if exists', or at least deleting 'ifexists=true' in this article's first line added during the recent change.

Merger with 'template:see also if exists' harmed this article's Examples section. In the second recent revision, template normally functioned like any other template in the way the article that doesn't exist is exhibited in red link. However, adding ifexists=true just made the link disappear.

There are two points of view that both can see this as a problem. First, if you put the link that doesn't exist, particularly Article1, intentionally in order to show how the template works if being put redirects like them, just disappearing doesn't make any sense. If template are linked to article that doesn't exist, editors should create the page or change its domain to another existing relevant page. I think that implication is not enough with just tiny error message. I bearly found the blank where the code and actual writing didn't consist, and even diagnosing why it disappeared was very difficult, because, who could imagine, the article linked in the official page doesn't exist! I think others visited in this page also may have felt that, and it's not good for your intentional purpose.

Second, if you mistakingly put the article that doesn't exist, the first to do is reconstructing this Examples section, but my suggestion still makes sense in this situation. Even if the 'if exists' doesn't match with your intention not to randomly pick dignified names and clutter the template with them, but to cite just an accurate page, original template and it must be divided. Most of editors can't be perfect in wiki grammar, and they can be helped editing by using if exists template. It can seem to be meaningless, but I think that's why wikipedia can be not only professional, but 'the free encyclopedia.' Also, other template version of 'if exists' might remain in such purpose, so why not for see also?

And lastly, this is distinguished reason from above. I'm not sure using 'template:see also if exists' remain, or citing page unexisting under 'template:see also,' I suspect that every page in such case is not functioning well. I visited the page that collects template error, but I couldn't find this page even if I could see distinct error message at the above. Separating again might work for fixing such pages if exist.

I also respect why administrators merged 'template:see also if exists' but I couldn't bear how that measure affected many pages. I suggest again, separating this 'template:see also' page and 'template:see also if exists' page for above reasons. Watsondoe (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

On a similar note, I am receiving the error "Script warning: Template:See also — no output: none of the target pages exist." for the "Palermo" article. This despite all of the links in the article's "See also" templates actually linking to existing articles or redirects. Also the warning contains a spaced em dash, which violates MOS:EMDASH.

Watsondoe: Please pardon my editing of your comment above. I deleted the </br> tags and changed the single spaced paragraphs to double spaced. That's all you need to do to space paragraphs properly. (I was having difficulty reading your comment. ^_^; ) I made no other changes. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Error with category

at Wikipedia:Essays#Historical_essays, there's a see also template but it doesn't render and just leaves a blank line. does anyone know why? the other ones on the page look just fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaviFake (talk • contribs) 16:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts. That template needed to be fixed to use the undocumented parameter |ifexists=no. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

link to wikidata table

hi :) following Talk:List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey#link to external wikidata tables. What is your opinion here to use this template to redirect to wikidata tables ? Could be useful to have a link to wikidata tables in list articles to quickly compare the manually generated list with the one from wikidata. Would help improve the article and create more links between the two projects Haymillefolium (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If the main reason is to compare the two, then it would be better placed on the talk page as an editing aid. "Creating more links between the two projects" is not a good reason to put anything in an article, we are not a tool to get more people to Wikidata. Fram (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

there is other reasons : verify the data displayed on the article for example. Or access more items.

the question was not to use wikipedia has a tools to make people go to wikidata. It just seems nice to have more link between the project in a way that can help people visualize information (wikidata can also be used to build graphs for example) Haymillefolium (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Verifying data should be done by adding reliable sources, not by linking to another wiki (just like we don't verify data by linking to a Wikipedia article). Fram (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

plz open your mind a little bit : in the case of lists you don't rely on a single source, having a wikidata list help to see what is missing from the list. In the case of statistics you can check using a wikidata query if you find the same results on wikidata, which either inform on a lack of information in wikidata or on a bad source in the wikipedia article. Haymillefolium (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to do such checks on the talk page of articles. Fram (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

the talk page is for contributors, a reader might want to have access to more information Haymillefolium (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Which is not what you were talking about in the post I replied to. Sending readers to a long page of computer code on an unreliable site, which then after execution returns a list of meaningless Q-numbers with one equally obscure number per year, is not something we should subject our readers to. Fram (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I was always speaking about displaying the link in the articles, not the talk page...you suggested to use the talk page, but this is already possible so there is not debate around it.

Wikidata is as much reliable than wikipedia. So if we use the template to return to wikipedia articles we could also use it to return to wikidata lists

What the wikidata query return depend on the wikidata query, you took an example but you could take another one : https://w.wiki/GZHi

I agree the user interface is not user friendly. Maybe that why allowing the usage of Template:Wikidata list on wikipedia articles could be a solution but this is another subject. If there is another way to format wikidata information I would be interested to see it. Haymillefolium (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you really give as example a Wikidata list of banks responible for financing the Gaza genocide? That´s the type of subject we should be extremely careful in what links we use, not just casually throw in a link to some Wikidata query. The longer this discussion lasts, the clezrer it becomes that this is a bad idea for way too many reasons. Fram (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

the example doesn't matter. you have a lot of lists that could be used, one that are not controversial. Haymillefolium (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

apart the user interface from wikidata that might not be the best one, you don't have any argument that show that this is a bad idea... Haymillefolium (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that for readers, these are useless lists, and it would be much better to link directly to the sources used to populate the qnumbers that populate these lists... Fram (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain why they would be useless ?

Ys it would be better to use the soruces directly on wikipedia, but this requires time and work, wikidata allows to build list using algorithm which allows to find thing you might not have found without it. It not a replacement, it a "see also", it's another place to look for information. Haymillefolium (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to post examples which are not useless. So far, it´s 2 out of 2 which should not be used in articles. Fram (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

how the list of banca armada is useless ? could be use here for example List of companies involved in the Gaza war Haymillefolium (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

For such a contentious topic we really don't want to link to a Wikidata query to provide whatever info. It is based on this Wikidata entry, which is completely unsourced. You are advocating to include a link on a highly, highly contentious topic to a page which gives a "top 100" (not 100 long by far) of banks funding a genocide, based on... absolutely nothing. Please stay as far away from Wikidata lists and from contentious topics as possible until you have a much, much better grasp of the minimal requirements for responsible editing on enwiki. But thank you for demonstrating why Wikidata is such a terrible place.

Then again, you knew all of this already, as you created that Wikidata page in the first place. Fram (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

or this one show the electricity production between 2019 and 2022, could be use to compare with other source Haymillefolium (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template not displaying when using an interlanguage link code

Greetings and felicitations. In the "Codes and numbering system" section of the article "Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques" (INSEE), the "See also" template does not display "{{See also|:fr:Code Insee}}". What should I be doing differently? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

..Template:Further#Interwiki links or Template:Further interlanguage link ..Moxy🍁 06:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Added a section here make it essay to find perhaps....Template:See also#Interwiki links Moxy🍁 07:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)