Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24

< June 23	June 25 >

June 24

Template:further

We have waiting many months to know why this template has superseded {{see}}. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GunnarRene#RV_request_of_.7B.7Bfurther.7D.7D & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:See#Why, Gunnarrene has mentioned that the deprecation tagger is not responding, and is absent. I have asked posted on rfc and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Horrible_Mess, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Link, & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Why_see_-.3E_further_information.3F all ask why is this template so much more complicated and harder to use, & why it even exists. Why do two templates exist when they should be performing the same function?199.126.28.20 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the principle of least astonishment. I've never liked this level of freedom in linking in navigational templates, because it seems to always lend itself to quirky constructs like these:

For further information, see the Wikipedia article about [[Jogging]].

Self-reference, creates problems for mirror or fork sites

For further information, see [[Religion in the United States#Belief in God|Belief in God in the United States]].

no such article, though it sounds halfway plausible to some readers

For further information, please [[Adobe Flash|Click Here]].

We aren't giving out free iPods and ring tones. Also useless in a paper copy.

— CharlotteWebb 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is CharlotteWebb's vote, copied from the previous TfD debate. She has informed me that this IP is not her. There appears to be a bit of canvassing happening; I encourage editors to not vote because they were told to come here, but because of their own logic and reasoning. Gracenotes^T § 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not very familiar with the quirks of using this template, but I read through the previous TfD debate, which ended in Keep on 19 May, and I'd like to know what has changed that makes the case stronger for deletion. Also I have not seen a response to all the technical difficulties that were mentioned if occurrences of {{further}} are to be mass-replaced with uses of {{see}}. If 'Further' is really undesirable, why not at least begin by deprecating 'Further', and not insist that it be immediately deleted. A small beginning would be to edit the 'Further' documentation so that it doesn't still say that it supersedes 'See.' Pomte's vote in the last TfD was to 'Keep all and undeprecate {{see}},' and that still appears a logical stopping point. EdJohnston 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no reason to have two templates that output the same thing. The {{see}} template appears to be the superior one, so this should be converted to that. — Omegatron 04:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really dislike both of them. Why can't {see} actually read "See: [foo]"? Why does it read "further information"? It's awkward. And yes, I was canvassed. Stevage 07:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 April 22. The result of the discussion was keep. I want it reconsidered for deletion because I do not think that Jimbo's express intent as expressed in our copyright policy was given enough respect by this template or by the participants in the original discussion. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not going to give my opinion either way but stuff like this should go to WP:DRV because you are questioning the reasons why people voted for delete. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]