Template talk:Further

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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)
I agree; this template is a horrible mess, shouldn't this template behave like it's sister templates {{seealso}}, {{main}} & {{details}}? Why must we specfically, explicitly wikilink INSIDE A TEMPLATE? {{seealso}}, {{main}} & {{details}} do not require that. template talk:see does not say anything regarding the reasons why.100110100 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. What's the word on the issue? Why require explicit wikilinks? gurulegend 20:23, 11 March 2007 (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.
Is there a reason to not have it automatically link? Tom Harrison Talk 03:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you guys have brought up all the points I have been pondering and asking. I will ask for unprotection, cut and paste the code on {{see}}, then renominate {{see}} for deletion.100110100 14:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[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)
The problem is that the {{see}} template has been deprecated in favor of {{further}}, but their behaviors differ. {{see}} does not require the parameters to be explicitly wikilinked, but {{further}} does. Either {{see}} should be undeprecated or {{further}} should match the behavior of {{see}}. Robert K S 03:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind(?): After reading Template_talk:See, I note it seems the 1-parameter, explicit-wikilink behavior of {{further}} is intentional. While I'm still not certain as to the reasons for {{see}}'s deprecation, users who replace {{see}} tags with {{further}} tags should note that the replacement tag differs in behavior and requires links to be made explicitly. Robert K S 22:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Either way, I have added a note to the usage section stating that it must be wikilinked by the user. ViridaeTalk 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can

Can we change this template so it can have infinite arguments?100110100 07:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason for this to have more than one argument. Trebor 17:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No, we do; I have seen many instances when I needed to include more that just ONE page to blue link; many editors have encountered the same problem. Also, why is this template so clumsy? All it's sister templates ({{seealso}}, {{main}}, and {{details}}), as I've mentioned before above, do not need the [[]], [just for starters]; other editors right on this page have said the same thing.100110100 07:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Provide the working code and I will change it for you (just notify me on the talk page when it is ready. ViridaeTalk 11:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this template is the "blank slate" one. Just insert whatever text you want, no need for separate arguments (see the example given on the template page). It's perfectly possible to insert as many wiki-links as you want. Axem Titanium 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Per Axem Titanium's comment, I'm removing {{editprotected}} for now. If this is a mistake, or if the template wasn't referring to this discussion section, please feel free to replace the template (it'll be easier to find the request if the template is placed with the request, rather than up top, but that's a small issue). Cheers. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Please revert this or semiprotect the template instead of protecting it. --GunnarRene 11:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. The requested edit is above it (hence my edit). ViridaeTalk 11:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Why have you rolled back the edit? GunnarRene did not even explain the reason for the rv.100110100 08:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I DID read this talk page. It was decided a while ago to make it a single-parameter template filled by text. If you want a change, then the least you can do is test the new version, update the documentation and update those hundreds and hundreds of articles that use it. --GunnarRene 08:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This change would have turned this into Template:See, which was deprecated. --GunnarRene 08:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
And yet, you still have not explained the reason for NOT turning this template into {{see}}; yes, I know it si deprecated, but noone on this page knows why.100110100 07:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely it is reason enough that this change [[1]] broke over a thousand pages - an astonishing thing to do! Are you prepared to go through all of these pages changing them, and dealing with any exceptions which wouldn't work with "see"? Surely it is the increased flexibility of this template which would justify its use (though why the other one has to be given up, I don't know; change for its own sake, perhaps, in all cases). Notinasnaid 09:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Argue for un-deprecating {{see}} then. But don't mess with {{further}} in order to do so.--GunnarRene 10:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well said, I would argue for undeprecation, but then it begs the question, Why was this template made?100110100 03:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
How do I request undeprecation?100110100 03:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
See Template talk:See (See also Begging the question).--GunnarRene 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected edit request

{{editprotected}}

I'm proposing this template for deletion; please let me know when it's unprotected; thanks.100110100 15:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with any incompatible change to an existing, widely used template, and any deletion of a widely used template (except when it expresses obsolete concepts). Even if the design is illogical or out of step with others, no matter how dumb. My reasons for saying this is that there will be editors who are using the template because they have seen {{something ... }} in an article, and picked it up. If you make a change, of course you would be responsible for fixing the countless articles, but that only fixes in the past. Editors who have learned the technique before will continue to use it and, worse, may have no idea how to fix it or what alternative to use; you will also be inflicting at least some extra work on them, entirely without good reason. It takes a lot more wiki-knowledge to get as far as saying "I'll look at Template:Something and see if the talk page has changed." Therefore any incompatible change would be an unnecessary upset to good faith editors. If a template is disliked, or needs incompatible change to reach a new function, then create a new template for the job, there are still plenty of unused names! Tidiness is a good motivation, but the cost is not worth it. Notinasnaid 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you still want to nominate for deletion, please see Wikipedia:TFD#How to use this page, especially If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead. Also, try to minimise page disruption by using the Preview button to check the revised template, as its new look will be visible on all pages that use it.. It would be absolutely wrong to add a TFD notice to the template itself, because it would appear on every one of the 1000+ articles which use the template, often multiple times! I trust your dislike of the template doesn't extend far enough to want that. Notinasnaid 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Removing request template: I belive you have your answer. Cbrown1023 talk 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/u/r/Template_talk%7EFurther_3816.html"