Template talk:Further

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Horrible Mess

This template may be the best new thing since sliced bread — or maybe not — but some NetBot went around converting See to Further, and it made a horrible mess of things!

The span class notice presumably caused the massive paragraph break in Israel at Zionism and Aliyah, through bad interactions with other templates. Note the differences using "Older edit".

I do hope this is being fixed, everywhere, and folks don't run Bots until they're thoroughly tested!

--William Allen Simpson 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khoikhoi's example (since he fails to assume good faith)

Some articles have placed the template immediately following the text of a paragraph, and Khoikhoi's edit fails to account for this, leaving the "further information" text as follows. :Further information: {{{1}}}

This template is used improperly in some places, like at the very end of a paragraph. The P paragraph tag and CSS classes are to avoid problems and let users configure this themselves. It is intentionally different from other similar templates. -- Netoholic @ 06:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you in goddam edit summaries, Khoikhoi. At present, an example of the above can be found in Tropical cyclone, Ariel Sharon, Asia, Easter - to name only a few. Besides that, you are changing a basic function of the template that you frankly do not seem to understand. -- Netoholic @ 07:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the articles now that you have reverted again. Calm down. Do you also notice that your edits have been reverted on similar templates, such as Template:See also? This is one of the only templates where your "formatting" remains. Quite frankly, the extra padding looks ugly. I'd be willing to fix those articles that you mentioned if you want. --Khoikhoi 07:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I have edited Template:See also precisely once, and it had nothing to do with this formatting style. Get your facts straight. -- Netoholic @ 07:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you having a bad day? Please don't take your anger all out on me. "What goes around, comes around". --Khoikhoi 07:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Since this does use CSS, we can change centrally how much padding there is. YOU can even change how it looks by modifying your personal stylesheet. Unfortunately, if we were to use the other method, we essentially lock out the ability for people to make that choice, and for us to change it across the site. -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, so can we do that then? (change the padding to make it look like Template:main, Template:see also, etc.) --Khoikhoi 07:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Rather than state it like that, tell me what padding (top, sides, bottom,...) you'd like to change, and how. There is no practical reason to look precisely like those other ones, just tell me what you think would make this one look best in articles. -- Netoholic @ 07:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it would look best if you could get it as close as you can to the other similar templates, which means getting the padding on the top and bottom to be less. --Khoikhoi 08:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

Template:Further (edit talk links history): the inline CSS italics have no effect with legacy browsers, I've replaced this experimentally by "normal" Wiki markup (1):

  1. ''stuff within <p>...</p>''
  2. <i>stuff within <p>...</p></i>

As expected the result (2) is <i> and works with any browser. Are there special constellations where that's not okay? Omniplex 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 26. -Splashtalk 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link

This template is the only one of its type that does not automatically link the word inside of it (e.g. template:main, template:distinguish, template:redirect). This definitely should be fixed. A bot would probably be needed to fix all the instances, so I'll propose it here and see if anyone else agrees. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I think I'm having the same issues. Could we request help? It looks like no one is really trying to fix this template.

[edit] Why see -> further information?

What was the rationale for deprecating template:See and making "Further information" the preferred wording? I find "Further information" a wordy, awkward expression. "See X" is well-known and recognised. What's going on? Stevage 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good question. Why?100110100 00:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"Further information" is fine, but why is this template thought to be better than the other? — Omegatron 02:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How Do I Edit This Template???

Danke.100110100 10:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, like any other, with great care, given that it is used on many hundreds of pages. What do you want to achieve? Notinasnaid 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/u/r/Template_talk%7EFurther_3816.html"