Template talk:Further/Archive 1

Documentation
&#123;&#123;See&#125;&#125; &#160; Reference to further information.

Caveats
Contributors should use args for the desired effect if they don't want to be affected by future modifications of this template.

Discussion
Add issues as you see fit, but note that the template was already deprecated

Comment by Lvr
I'm not an expert in template-making. After a quick attempt, I'm turning to specialists: is it possible to add an optional label in this template, in order to produce "See: label ". It could be interssing if, in the real page is a section of article like  real page . It'd be nicer. Lvr 14:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

One parameter is all that's needed
This template should be in this format:

Further information: SomePage & SomeOtherPage

Further information: 

It should take one single parameter, and so either one page, a section link, or a string of pages can be given. -- Netoholic @ 16:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We have a template, ({&#123;further}}) that does it that way. I'd suggest either humanly or robotically changing articles to use further instead, that way no article using the template gets broken for any period of time. In the meantime, I'm just trying to reduce dependency on qif, while keeping similar semantics. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  23:49, Jan. 8, 2006

please add Further as a See Also via noinclude tag. -- Zondor 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect
If obsoleted by further, all instances should be updated and this should be redirected there. — Omegatron 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Deprecation of tdeprecated
The format currently used for is out of date. Can I please get a sysop to change this:

To this:

Thanks in advance. ^ demon [omg plz] 23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Change made per your request. -- Renesis (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This page has been nominated for deletion by. It needs a TFD tag. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This template may be deprecated, but it is still transcluded into over 1,000 pages. I closed the deletion discussion. —Doug Bell talk 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why
Why has this template deprecated?100110100 07:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why has this template deprecated in favor of further?100110100 07:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the person who added a "deprecated" note did not reference the relevant discussion, but I was able to find somebody who knows why: It offers no benefit beyond further and adds the complication that users need to use multiple parameters, plus processing of the existence checks. That is why it was deprecated.

If you still want to un-deprecate this, add an editprotected here and ask for it to be undeprecated until the relevant discussion has been properly linked to. --GunnarRene 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can
Can we change this template so it can have infinite arguments?100110100 07:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * further can link to an infinite number of articles. Just write "Article 1, Article 2, .... and Article N". --GunnarRene 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Spacing
I know this template is deprecated, but there is a problem for the many pages that still use it: there is a space between the first link and the first comma if more than 3 parameters are used. –Pomte 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ fixed. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 12:20Z 

Undeprecate
editprotected

Please remove Tdeprecated. The reason for deprecation has been requested here and recently at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 11, but it has not been adequately provided and there seems to be no opposition to having see in addition to further. Also consider adding template doc so the documentation can be edited by non-admins to demonstrate its usefulness. –Pomte 16:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. The /doc page will need fixing; could you do that? --ais523 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. –Pomte 16:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Per the successor to that discussion Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 24, this template is broken, in that there are two spaces, rather than the proper one, after each and every comma. Please fix this template using the following code (same as working model User:Jeff_G./seetest):


 * Further information: 


 * Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 08:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. (There's a possible problem with this due to the possibility of seeing many other articles each of which has a one-word name, which would cause this template to go off the edge of the page, but this seems sufficiently unlikely that I've done the change anyway.) --ais523 09:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I am pleased to announce the birth of a brand new baby sister for see and all of the other templates discussed in that section Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 24. Her name is go. Please try her out. Thanks!  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 08:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove whitespace
editprotected

Please remove the newline between  and. This is introducing a rather large amount of whitespace in some situations.

Thank you. ←BenB4 10:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, although I could not find any such case. - Nabla 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

noprint
Please add &lt;div class="noprint"> and &lt;/div> to this. If someone is printing the article, then they've probably found the right one.--69.177.187.90 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to hold off until some sort of consensus is reached; I can think of cases where a further info link is valuable even on a printed copy. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to discuss this and gain consensus at, say, Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes or the Village Pump first (or another appropriate venue). Until then, I am disabling the editprotected. Nihiltres { t .l } 17:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this different from further
I can't see any significant difference between these two (or these and details). Is there any reason I shouldn't add this to the merge proposal as well? Richard001 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit needed by administrator
Hi, I'd like to request that an administrator add a SPAN tag to this template, similar to the tags in See also, Details, and related templates. The tag could be as simple as adding " " and " " to the beginning and end, which is what's done for See also and Details. This minor change would help scripts for analyzing Wikipedia's prose and with maintaining a consistent style. At present, nothing distinguishes the text of this template from any other discursive list. Thanks for your help, Proteins (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross reference template
Today, I saw someone edit the Futurama article with creating an "Episodes" section and taking the "see also" out of the Production section, and adding it to the Episodes section as a "main article". I felt that "main article" did certainly not fit, as that indicates to me "This section has some information, but you really want to be looking here."

So I thought, I'd change it to the "see" template, which I assumed would say "see", but to my surprise, it said "further information", which is not the same as "see". "See" is a cross-reference, "further information" is a similar indication that "main article" gives me.

As I see it, I consider the following four "notices":
 * Main article
 * This section contains information on this subject, but there is a main article about it, with further information, unrelated to the topic at hand.


 * Further information
 * This section contains information related to the topic, but there are other articles of interest, but are unrelated.
 * To clarify: A main article has some relation to the topic at hand, a 'further information' does not necessarily have any.  I admit, it is a very fine line.


 * See also
 * Unrelated, but of interest.


 * See
 * Nothing here, go there instead.

I'd like to see a cross-reference template like that. But I see none so far (unless, I'm a terrible searcher). --Svippong 23:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove
editprotected

On the first line, change {{rellink|Further information: [[Example}}}]] to {{rellink|Further information: Example}}} to remove the extra  that show up.  M C  10  &#124;  Sign here!  21:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Amalthea  22:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:details more
Is it me, or is details more basically a duplicate of this template? --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: change text into: "See also: ..."
I will suggest to change the text into "See also: ...". Semantically it is the same as "Further information: ...'. The change will reduce the useless variants in hatnote texts. "See also: ..." is simple, and very widely used (see also does 80.000 uses). Related discussion here at TfD/TfM: Merge Further into see also2. -DePiep (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion regarding this template
There is currently a move discussion that affects this template. Please do not comment here. Instead, comment at Template talk:Further. Thank you, D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  04:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)