Template talk:Further-text/Archive 1

Horrible Mess
This template may be the best new thing since sliced bread &mdash; or maybe not &mdash; 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)

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: "

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)

Italics
Further: the inline CSS italics have no effect with legacy browsers, I've replaced this experimentally by "normal" Wiki markup (1):
 * 1)  stuff within &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt;
 * 2) &lt;i&gt; stuff within &lt;p&gt;...&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/i&gt;

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

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

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)

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)

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 template has been deprecated in favor of, but their behaviors differ.   does not require the parameters to be explicitly wikilinked, but  does.  Either  should be undeprecated or  should match the behavior of . 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 is intentional.  While I'm still not certain as to the reasons for 's deprecation, users who replace  tags with  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. Viridae Talk 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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. Viridae Talk 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)

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). Viridae Talk 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 [] 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)

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 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 TFD, 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)


 * I think it should be deleted too, or details. We also need to get these standardized, such that you don't have to use internal link code for this template, as with others. Richard001 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Another 080619

 * 1) this edit restores capability, see the usage, :(may just be able to revert) but also proposing same "altlanguage" change as just put in see also:
 * 2) Remove Mergeto compliant with: this decision and outcome. Was not applied appropriately anyways, as does not link to common talk section per the instructions!

Make:
 * Further information: 

Into this: (Shamelessly stolen logic from see also)
 * NOTE Morphing  into

is a desireable upgrade all on it's own merits. The change <-- incorporates parameter 'altphrasing' to broaden applications of same per parallel change requested template talk:see also minutes ago.


 * Logic such a this gives capability of manually pipetricking a stream of things such as

Geologic Age unit, Geologic Epoch unit ... Geological Eon unit which has the virtue of being my immediate, but is also a desirable ten plus articles need!
 * With both template accepting altphrase changes, one can manually specify links and prefix language in the most sensible manner for the given need.

: 
 * Key change... restore to multilink capability.
 * Tested at template talk: Tt0 (archived here) and so you can just cut and paste: tt0... or the code from the pre block above. (identicle)


 * Please let me know when complete... as you can see from the test, I've places to use it, and am willing to massage the doc page for the label parameter and end arg counts.
 * Do consider extending the logic to 10 or so. The trick is to modify the last "#if" parameters, then the line above it. Then fill in the pattern above those two. (I've done a few of these... e.g. Template:template list, Template:catlist, Template:cat also, Template:catlst and so forth.
 * If you have a moment, putting the same uniform 'altphrase' parameter in those as I just did in template list, would beat me too it. Such won't break things in place and are no brainers, given people's memories. (I just had trouble remembering my own code!)

Thanks, I really oughta consider an RFA I suppose! This is an awkward way to do such // Fra nkB 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up 080620
The last edit removed the : indent before the text, bringing it out of line with similar templates such as main and seealso. As this wasn't discussed, I can only assume it was a mistake. -- Jao (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Happy‑melon 14:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

link piping
I wanted to add the pipe linking capabilities of main to this template, so I basically wedged the code from that template into a sandbox version of this one. It seems to work, but since I don't know a single thing about templates I figured I should probably run it pass some people first. The code as taken from my sandbox:

>: 

Like I said, this seems to work but I don't know anything about template code. Thoughts? —[ DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs ] 23:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Disregard that, the issue just seems to be that the template doesn't render properly when there's just two links. —[ DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs ] 00:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or one. Or three. Or four. Or five. You know what? It doesn't work at all. I see now that the links have to be added manually. I don't see the point of having multiple parameters, though. 199.125.109.33 (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking
Could this template be updated to automatically link articles (ie, rather than just  )? Right now it's inconsistent with seealso and main. Politizer talk / contribs 01:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. While it would be cumbersome to fix all the current uses, it does not make sense to have to manually link (double-square brackets) all desired links. Most other templates (such as Redirect, etc) already do this. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Copied to RuWiki, interwiki needed
Copied the template to Russian Wikipedia: ru:Шаблон:Further -- C opper K ettle  18:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ However categories and interwikis are placed in the documentation, which is left unprotected for this purpose. Thanks, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 20:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tnahk you! But strangely I do not see russian interwiki on the left panel when the code is placed in the includeonly .. when I move it outside of the includeonly  and have a preview, interwiki does appear on the left.-- C opper K ettle   20:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Categories categorize the template itself and interwikis note that the template is available on Wikipedia of another language. So when a /doc page is used, the categories and interwiki are moved to the /doc page inside the  tags. When the template's documentation (at Template:Further/doc) is included using the   template, the categories and interwiki show up on the template itself. If you still don't see the recently added categories and/or interwiki on the template page, try and  first. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 08:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I understand, thanx! -- C opper K ettle  15:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from DePiep, 14 January 2011
Hi. Three requests, none affecting the core code.
 * 1. remove the comment.
 * This comment is not true (there will be no error), just a bit of nonsense, but no harm done at all but possible strange texts (really?) out of article-space.

✅
 * 2. Replace old thing template doc with documentation. Which is a good, workable doc.

✅
 * 3. Remove the  tags. We know what a template page looks like. I feel better when reading there "This template does [nonsense]" instead of seeing a blank.

DePiep (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done the first two, could you explain the third? Will this have any affect on the output? If so, what, if not, what's the point? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Enclosing text (and code) in  has the effect: do NOT show in the Template-page, DO show where template is transcluded. So it is the beef of the template here, and it is hidden on the homepage of the template. When you remove the tags, the template-text will show in the template-page too. So the reader sees the template-text there: as a primary documentation I'd say. Since parameters are not available, there might be some error or incomplete text too. By definition, the transclusions are not affected. Maybe better explained here Noinclude. -DePiep (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: on hold pending fix. Aervanath (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be no objection to the revised proposal, which would move Further to Further2 and then move See to Further. The problem is that this would potentially break any articles currently using Further, since see and further are implemented differently. For an example, see User:Aervanath/seefurther. There may be an easy way around this, but that needs to be taken care of before the move takes place. This could potentially break 9932 implementations of further, so this needs to be approached carefully; this is not a normal template renaming.--Aervanath (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Further → Template:See2 – Relisting for further comment on the revised proposal. Jenks24 (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC) In line with the convention of see also-see also2, distinguish-distinguish2, and redirect-redirect3, observing that further is a version of see that takes freeform text. Cyber cobra (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, these numbered names are easier to remember. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the inverse: create and  according to these lines. There is no reason to call a template "see" when it produces "further". -DePiep (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would actually prefer that, but, to maintain the consistent pattern, that would involve reversing the current meaning of further (i.e. it wouldn't accept free-form text), which I thought would be unlikely to gain support. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that simply a botable solution? I have been organising & categorising & deleting Hatnotes since a year ago, and I am pushed back ever since by all these technicalities and accidental situations (why don't we have a well organised group like the uw-... set?). If we take time & plan, it's easy. First: move to . Second: move  to . The hatnote-naming has no easy improvements left. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Revised Proposal: Template:Further → Template:Further2, per User:DePiep and my original rationale. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which I support. -DePiep (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - if this is renamed further2, what would further be? D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  01:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the subsequent planned move were to go through, see would be moved to further, which is to say that further would now auto-link its parameter. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support moving "Further" to "Further 2" and "See" to "Further". — Bility (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Auto-linking (or lack thereof)
Why doesn't this template automatically create a link? Example:

I have to put in the two square brackets to actually make it a link.

Why would anyone ever want the first one, without the link? I don't get it Is this a bug? D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  01:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You (currently) want see. And no, it's a behavioral difference; see the templates in the above requested move with 2s in their name, and compare with the non-numeric variants. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Move process
After the Template talk:Further Up to 5 parameters are accepted, they pass through. Has option for alternate text.
 * Prior situation:
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;


 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;

Up to 9 parameters. Each one is turned into wikilink. No text altering.

Move (Rename) &rarr;  (easy, new name is free to use)
 * Step 1:
 * With into ->

This can be done without ado. But now the further is occupied by the redirect (which is transcluded ~9000 times).

Free the further Redirect (edit al further into further2; by bot) or make further2 recognise see input (?). This is the fix to do. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Step 2:
 * ✅

Move see to further. Regular Move, no issues, will create the Redirect in see. (Added, -DePiep (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Step 3:


 * A bot is the way to got for step 2. Have requested execution of Step 1. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Step 1 has been executed as requested.--Aervanath (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot request filed for Step 2. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read this thoroughly but I hope the last step is to have Further is final name and not Further 2. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You may refer to Step 2 (I just added Step 3 to finish it all). Well, finally there will be two names with content code (not Redirects): further (content is now in see), and further2 (done, content was in further). -DePiep (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the easiest fix is just changing all current "further" references into "further2" references. A simple find-and-replace.--Aervanath (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with 8750 transclusions, Cybercobra has asked a bot operator to do that. -DePiep (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Bot_requests and then WP:NOTBROKEN. Does this really need to be done? I am guessing it does so that you can move see to further.  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:black;">T alk T o M e ! 14:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, imo. Current usage of further is standing in the way, it must change (so it is not literally broken -- yet). A NOTBROKEN example will be the ultimate see Redirect to further. That Redirect in See we will not change, for NOTBROKEN. -DePiep (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we make it for better readability? Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC).


 * I prefer not to add that space. Same-pattern is the center of this Move proposal. The big improvement you have in mind is next level (and it shouldn't be a "2" then). -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ moving further to further2. Now further is orphan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Should I move see to further? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes (step 3 that is). Just a Redirect. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Now see redirects to further. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All done. Consider Move done. -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Further redirects to Template talk:Further2
I'm not sure what exactly went on here, but right now Template talk:Further redirects to Template talk:Further2, but Template:Further doesn't redirect to Template:Further2. --JFH (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Related RfC
There has been a dispute whether to use details or main and additionally for what purpose to use main. Since this template appears to be highly similar in purpose to details, and someone suggested making a RfC, here's Template talk:main.

Please add some kind of inline notice for the RfC/TfD linked above. This template and its counterpart(s) are used very widely, but most editors who might have an opinion probably don't watch this page, or TfD, or VPP. Alas, since this is fully protected I don't know what wikicode would have been generated for the inline notice by Twinkle for a TfD, but it shouldn't be too hard to change the link in that type of code to point to the RfC link above. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Declining this for now per David Levy's comment at Template talk:Main. Please reactivate the edit protected template if there is a consensus to roll out the notice. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Conversion of Template:Further to Lua
I've created a Lua version of Template:Further at Module:Further. It is mostly the same as the template, but has the benefits that an unlimited number of links are allowed, category and file links are automatically escaped with the colon trick, and links to sections are formatted as page § section, rather than the MediaWiki default of page#section. You can see some test cases at Template:Further/testcases. Would anyone object to me making the change? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See also related discussions at Template:Hatnote, Template:Details, Template:See also and Template:Main. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 17:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What would further/sandbox be? -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry? I don't understand the question. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my reproduction failed on my side, by my side, so I asked. My question not needed (btw, we are talking at template:further2). -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)