Template talk:-

Archive: [1]

Discussion

While it may seem absurd to template this markup, clearing floats is such a common action that this template has proven hugely popular -- over 400 inlinks are shown at time of this writing. This is all the more compelling as so many users substitute the template rather than transclude it, in which case the use is not shown on What links here. — Xiong熊talk* 21:51, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

I use this template when pictures hang over the next section just slightly. Deckiller 19:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like a version of this that doesn't also insert a line break. Is that implementable? 67.160.10.87 15:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid HTML doesn't allow this. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As per the following discussions maybe {{clear}} does what you want, but certainly not with legacy align="right" or "left" floating. If its dummy <div> isn't allowed where you need it, try to replace it by a dummy <span> - and if that apparently works please report it here, I could check it with my legacy Mozilla 3 monster ;-) Omniplex 04:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed bugs

The old {{subst:-}} expanded into <br style="clear: both" />.

Inline CSS doesn't work with XHTML BASIC and legacy browsers, the old template didn't have the desired effect there. Please replace old expansions <br style="clear: both" />

by <br clear="all" />.

Omniplex 18:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So what? Wikipedia does lots of things that older browsers don't support. And the whole point of CSS is that browsers that don't support it will display adequately and not know what they're missing—in this case having a new section start before the bottom of a picture. Unaesthetic, maybe, but there is no content loss and no structural problem. I think you should change it back. /blahedo (t) 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So now the page Wikipedia:Infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) works with my browser, clear="all" has the required effect. It was completely garbled and unreadable before, dozens of floating infoboxes dragging up the next section. Ignored CSS cannot clear legacy align=right or left. If you're sure to be in a pure CSS context it could be an aesthetical question to use also a pure CSS-clear, but that's not the case for {{-}} as documented, it has to work everywhere. Omniplex 08:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The solution to "this CSS solution doesn't work with old, legacy HTML" should certainly not be "so replace the CSS with more old, legacy HTML", but rather "so let's update the existing old, legacy HTML to CSS". /blahedo (t) 05:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As it is the template works everywhere and generates perfectly valid XHTML transitional. It's almost impossible to replace all {{-}} by <br clear="all"> everywhere manually - just in case, because that's guaranteed to work with all kinds of markup and browsers. In theory a bot could do that. After that global substitution the template and documentation could be updated to say works only for CSS-floating, not legacy floating, with an explanation for normal users what that's supposed to mean for their infoboxes, tables, and other applications of align="right" or "left". Seriously, that can't fly, the template is fine now, and it will take years until all legacy markup requiring a legacy clear vanishes. Omniplex 07:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could be redundant and do it both ways. My reading of http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/dtd_module_defs.htm is that

<br clear="all" style="clear:both" />

is legal XHTML, and I believe it would work in older browsers. —Chris Chittleborough 21:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Valid, working, and redundant - the template is quite popular, also available on Meta, mentioned on some project pages, so why transport redundant info, some folks pay by volume. The educational aspect about strict XHTML is covered here. Mixing CSS with legacy markup would still be only valid transitional XHTML. -- Omniplex 23:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. And I agree that we should aim for strict XHTML. —Chris Chittleborough 20:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I agree with the separation of presentation from content in general, but the wholesale adoption of XHTML Strict site-wide, or even HTML 4.01 Strict site-wide, would cause features to become unavailable. For instance, W3C deprecated the value attribute of the li element (and removed it entirely from Strict), making it impossible to start an ordered list at any value other than one. For example, it would become impossible to start the listing of tracks on the album Follow the Leadeя by Korn at the correct 13. Until the top two web browsers support CSS counters, we are still in the Transition. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 12:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

- versus clear

Why is {{-}} separate from {{clear}}? Doesn't the latter already do what this does? — jdorje (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

They are rather different, see previous section. In (X)HTML br is an inline element allowed within other inline elements like span or small, and within block-level elements like p or div. OTOH Template:clear generates <div style="clear: both"></div>, a block level element. Clumsy where that's allowed, and div isn't allowed in many places where br is okay. I've reverted your change. Omniplex 06:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history of {{clear}}. It was previously a br, and later changed to a div. There are no real situations where you would want to clear in the middle of a paragraph or other inline elements (you usually want to clear just before or just after a block element), and in some obscure situations (which I did encounter) you must use a zero-sized div, because using a br would cause a line break where you don't want it. --cesarb 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite possible that there are situations where {{clear}} is required, otherwise we could redirect it to this template as it happened with {{clr}}. But they are different for different reasons. (X)HTML <div> allows no legacy clear="all", therefore {{clear}} can't replace {{clr}}. Please add an example of this obscure situation to the {{clear}} docu, curious minds (like me) want to know, e.g. why you didn't use <span> instead of <div>. Omniplex 04:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that obscure, just kind of rare: HTML Tidy moves the br to inside the previous p; if you don't have a p (for instance, between two divs), the result is a new blank line. I did not test with span; using a div always worked fine in all situations, and is exactly what I intended (a zero-sized clearing block element). --cesarb 16:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Got it, you need something that works outside of all block-level elements. Tidy won't let you use inline elements there, if that's not allowed in strict XHTML. I can't tell at the moment, I almost always use transitional XHTML. Tricky, the real problem is the X before {{clear}}, and probably <div> X </div> would be a "cleaner" solution without inline CSS. The same line of arguments also works for {{-}}, they are both kludges. And I'm not up to fixing hundreds of Infoboxes only to get rid of {{-}} on one horrible page... ;-) Omniplex 03:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Using subst for this template

Template:Clear usage says to use subst instead of including it. Why is Template:- not supposed to be substituted? Does the code change on a regular basis? --Squilibob 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A code change is unlikely for some years. When all legacy align="right" floating died out - which would be a bad idea at the moment, but this will change - then a legacy clear="all" could be replaced by style="clear: both". And then it could make sense to change the code.

Back to reality, of course you can subst it. It could be also protected, there's nothing that can be improved at the moment. IMHO a wiki source with {{-}} is better readable than <br clear="all" />. Some folks would also try to "improve" the latter, add CSS / replace CSS / remove the space / remove the slash / ..., and any such move would break with different browsers under certain conditions. Therefore propagating {{subst:-}} could backfire. The users depending on {{-}} as is are minorities, the normal Wiki "self-healing" won't work for a subst'ed and mutilated {{-}}. -- Omniplex 17:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've protected this as high risk template. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Free advice

And you know what they say about that. ;-) This is certainly a useful template, which I don't dispute. But I have seen it abused as a means of jam-packing more images into an article than are typically needed. If you have one specific place you need this, that's probably all right. If you're using it two or three times in an article, that is probably a sign that you have too many images and should move some to a gallery. Pick the best panorama, and some of the most interesting details, and then stick the rest into the gallery so people only have to load thumbnails. Be a photo editor, not just a copy editor. --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki for Interlingua

Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki:

[[ia:Patrono:-]]

Thank you in advance, Julian 12:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

More interwiki

Please see the Global Wiki Search engine http://vs.aka-online.de/globalwpsearch/ - the search shows http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/globalwpsearch.pl?search=template%3A-&timeout=120&minor=1 there are also these languages to be linked:

[[bs:template:-]]
[[ca:template:-]]
[[da:template:-]]
[[es:template:-]]
[[et:template:-]]
[[fi:template:-]]
[[fr:Modèle:Clr]]
[[hr:template:-]]
[[hu:template:-]]
[[id:template:-]]
[[io:template:-]]
[[is:template:-]]
[[it:Template:Clear]]
[[lt:template:-]]
[[lv:template:-]]
[[ms:template:-]]
[[nl:template:-]]
[[no:template:-]]
There are cool stuff  {{subst:UnsignedIP|1=99.141.170.220|2=17:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)}} <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[oc:template:-]]
[[pl:template:-]]
[[ro:template:-]]
[[simple:template:-]]
[[sl:template:-]]
[[su:template:-]]
[[sv:template:-]]
[[tr:template:-]]

--CiaPan 11:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's at least one unrelated page (fi:, a "negative vote" checkmark). The list needs to be checked as a whole before these pages get added to the interlanguage links. Femto 13:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the list of link, add most of the ones listed above, commented out those which use style="clear:both;". —Dispenser 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ko:틀:- please? Yeom0609 20:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

doc page pattern

{{editprotect}} See WP:DOC —Dispenser 03:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 08:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Parameter

{{editprotected}}

Could someone change the code on this template to add a clearing parameter, such as <br clear="{{{1|all}}}" /> ? That way, we can choose what to clear, like "right" or "both", with "all" still being the default one. And if you could, could you also do it on the Meta template? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 03:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example where the parameter would be helpful? It seems like an uncommon need to me, so a user could always just put the HTML into their own page source if they need it. CMummert · talk 15:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example:

{{-|right}}, which will produce:

<br clear="right" />

and {{-}} will produce:

<br clear="all" />, which is the default one. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 05:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I got that. Can you give an example of an article where this is useful? CMummert · talk 05:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra blank line introduced May 13

Yesterday, an extra new line was introduced after the <br> tag. This is causing much larger gaps to show up on many pages, since it's effectively acting like <br clear="all"><br>. Could this newline be removed (by moving the <noinclude> back up to the end of the first line)? Thanks, --ΨΦorg 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to make this bad idea right

{{editprotected}}

This is not a great template; issues re being presentational and such. And there's the name. But it has legs…

This implementation,

• <br clear="all" />,

is old-school. I've looked over the old chat above and believe this should have been sorted years ago. But it wasn't.

Please change this template to

• <br style="clear: both;" />

which is, simply, proper. Omit the clear="all"; do not worry about the se7en remaining in-use copies of whatever decrepit useragents don't support this.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not done. If you want to just change the code like that, why not redirect to Template:Clear? And, does changing the code offer any benefits whatsoever? Or do we just risk breaking things for some people? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

{{clear}} is similar in concept, but not the same; it's a div-element, not a br-element. Redirecting this to that *would* risk breaking something. clear="all" is poor-form and the css equivalent has been supported for ten years; is anyone running Mosaic or Navigator 2 anymore? Anyone at all? Widely used templates, even poor-concept ones, should at least use proper code. Jack Merridew 06:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense it all to keep this in the current form. clear="all" has been deprecated since HTML 4.01 and will be gone in HTML 5. style="clear:both;" does exactly the same thing in 99.9% of all browsers people are using and validates. Husky ^{(talk page)} 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason this request was not done doesn't make sense. <br style="clear: both;" /> is no the same as <div style="clear:both;"></div> (which is what Template:Clear does). It's still a br element. It's not like wikicode is the actual html of the page (it goes through Sanitizer.php first) so don't worry about validation, although it's a good habit to use proper (x)html regardless. Browser support isn't a issue here either. Any user with a browser that can't handle the style attribute is used to seeing a (really) broken web. There's nothing wrong with excluding the extra space and semi-colon though (<br style="clear:both" />). They're just an editing preference. Rocket000 (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I made this change. Redirecting to {{clear}} makes no sense, and using style="clear:both" is visually identical to saying clear="all", plus it has the benefit of not being deprecated ;-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Aww, these whitespace templates are my favorite places to argue over the most trivial little changes, but now it's the way I want it. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, now I can finally unwatch it. — Dispenser 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

English as she is spoke

Here in the doc, as the lead:

This causes any previously-established float to clear.

The unusual name of this template is a mnemonic for an imaginary horizontal line, which separates floating elements above from those below. Some editors prefer the mnemonic

("clear"), which simply redirects here.

Well that's handy then. Thanks for linking mnemonic but not float, what clearing means (ok you linked clr), what it means to be previously established, and so on.

The template documentation generally sucks, but this has just got my goat now. I may be unusual, but I write the documentation and test before I write the template (I am new to writing templates but not usednew to software engineering). Then at least one person, myself, knows what it does. And believe me, my test cases fail sometimes. I don't find fault in the test cases but in the template. But here we have fault in the doc. Someone coming to find

and deciding, after all, it is not a typo or magic, comes here and finds that it causes any previously-established float to clear. The only words that are not jargon in that sentence are "This causes any" and "to".

I realise I probably take a minority view here, since Wikipedia is for everyone (as long as they know it all already). But this is the height, so far, of patronising people who are intelligent, willing to learn, but want to find out what it does not what clearing a float is about (my guess without cheating, it makes sure the following paragraph doesn't go over a box above it). I don't care if that is not entirely accurate, it is the lead and I want one sentence to tell me what it does, not the technical details (which I can scroll down for, or view source).

OK, rant over, back to Wikipeding. My sincere best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I also fail to understand how a hyphen is a mnemonic. That is, in Greek, something named. It is precisely the opposite, it is an anonym. It means nothing. SimonTrew (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A mnemonic is an aid to memory (from the Greek "of memory", not "something named"), and though the most common mnemonics are verbal, they need not be. In this case, the template's name is a mnemonic as the horizontal line in the hyphen triggers a connection with the use of the template to "draw an invisible line" across the article. I will agree that the documentation isn't the best written i've seen, though. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Rustyrustyrusty, 6 November 2010

{{edit protected}} His name in top in bold is spelt incorrectly. Please change to -- Andre Amado

Rustyrustyrusty (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article this refers to, but you are requesting this on the wrong page. This is the talk page for Template:-. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for multiple breaks option

Can you please include multiple breaks in this template, similar to {{Break|2}} {{Break|5}} {{Break|10}} etc. It would look something like this: {{-|2}} {{-|5}} {{-|10}}, or alternatively {{-|right|2}} {{-|left|2}}{{-|right|5}} etc. Thanks in advance. — Polish29 (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Valid HTML5

After interesting discussions on the Yobot and HTML5 talk pages I suggest to fix {{-}} by importing the latest and greatest mw:Template:- cum mw:Template:-/doc minus template categories not existing here. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. That is a serious ugly hack, and actually not any less invalid in my opinion. We should just redirect this to {{clear}}, as <br /> adds no value whatsoever. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your editing here and on mediawikiwiki is not constructive, with vs. without line break is a difference, I've enabled my edit request again for somebody who is not involved in this controversy. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Show me the difference. My goal is to redirect, so any intermediate edit is essentially pointless. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

See tests at Special:Permalink/646393033. The vertical spacing differs. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Tidy messes that up totally. It removed the empty divs and kicks the other outside the paragraph. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Better test at Special:Permalink/646400417. Difference is minimal, and only when followed by plain text due to the parser injecting <p> tags. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned on Yobot, I don't have the equipment for testing all popular browsers on all popular platforms for any definition of "popular" I'd trust, but back in 2006 {{-}} did work for my NetScape 2.02 browser, and was valid XHTML 1.0 transitional including its prose "compatibility annex", while {{clear}} did not work for this HTML3 browser. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Let us not concern ourselves with 10-year old broswsers and standards. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see a consensus for this change, sorry. We'll need to find a consensus on what to do before any edit request can be carried out. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You just missed a chance to import a good version last edited by mw:User:Edoktor. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

I've nominated this template for deletion. Alakzi (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 June 2015

Please add the following text to this template, given that its template was nominated for WP:TFD on June 3 2015:

<noinclude>{{Template for discussion/dated|page=-|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 3#Template:-}}</noinclude>

...The "noinclude" tags are intentional there, given that all other notices would break several pages. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What's the point? It would alert anyone whose watchlist contains this template, but so would this talk page post. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I also posted about it directly above, so they've been alerted twice now. Alakzi (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: The point is that the TFD tag places the template in a maintenance category, letting editors who check categories to know that this page is up for nomination; a talk page notification alone does not. (Also, I'm not sure who changed the level of my request's section, given that I don't want it bundled with the section above, so I'm reverting that.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I still can't see the benefit. Editing the template affects the job queue. If you want the categories, you can put it on the /doc page in the includeonly section. Merging with the section above was appropriate because it is about exactly the same topic. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added the banner on the doc page. Alakzi (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 June 2015

Please redirect this template to {{Clear}}, which is conceptually identical and semantically conformant. Alakzi (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Not done: That was not the conclusion of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 3#Template:-, a TfD which you initated. We cannot abuse the TfD process by running around it with an undiscussed one-person request. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Do spare me the accusations of misconduct and your condescending tone. The TfD was closed as "no consensus to delete" - an utterly pointless closure if there ever was one, as deletion was never on the cards. Of the participants, only one objected to a redirect, and a third tacitly agreed to it. The dissenter's argument was that we're gonna strain the servers, which is bogus. Alakzi (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I do favor a redirect, so let's discuss. I already outlined that the currect code is invalid, as the clear: CSS property is invalid inside a <br> tag, because it is not a block element. It is not HTML5 compliant. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Gladly, if there were anything to discuss; until now, nobody's raised a serious objection to the redirect. Alakzi (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was indeed "no consensus to delete", but equally, the result of the discussion was not "redirect". Have you asked the closing admin, i.e. Plastikspork (talk · contribs), to review their decision? If so, and they have refused, it may be a WP:DRV matter - but whether you have or have not, a WP:PER is not the way to overturn a TFD closure. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the outcome excludes a possible redirect in any way. Plastikspork may have left that open intentionally. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing in Plastikspork's closure that precludes the conversion of this template into a redirect. Indeed, I believe there was sufficient consensus for it, or I would not have made this request. Alakzi (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Your original request was non-specific in that it mentioned neither delete, merge or redirect; but judging by your post to Quadell and also at #Deletion nomination above, your intent was clearly for deletion. This nomination drew comments from four people besides yourself: Quadell was neutral; Edokter !voted "redirect to {{clear}}"; 70.51.46.11 and Christian75 both !voted "keep". At this point the tally was 1 for delete, 1 for redirect, 2 keep, 1 neutral. You then modified your nomination at 11:44, 6 June 2015, which drew one further comment from somebody other than yourself and the closer: Adam Cuerden also !voted "keep". If we now count your !vote as "redirect", this tallies 2 in favour of redirect, 3 for keep, 1 neutral. In both tallies, there were more "keep" !votes than "redirect". There was not consensus to redirect. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Redrose - I think you're splitting hairs. If you can redirect to a functionally equal template, then essentially you have kept the template, because you have kept the name and its functionality. I also do not see that the TfD precludes a discussion on this page about redirecting. Let's ping User:Plastikspork — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

My point is that Alakzi, finding that a TfD had not gone the way they wanted, tried to get that decision overturned without using recognised procedures and without mentioning the TfD. This happened just six minutes afterward, using a venue unrelated to TfD, which to me is WP:OTHERPARENT - they may have been hoping that the person who picked up the PER had not seen the TfD.

BTW if you want to notify Plastikspork, this won't work - a new signature needs to be added in the same post as the link. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume good faith on Alakzi's part. He didn't mention the TfD and he/she probably should. But I'm sure that the omission was not meant to deceive or mislead. By the way, I did place a new signature, so it should have worked? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

My message to Quadell was the standard {{Tfdnotice}}. As for my notice above, I misspoke - it happens. I'd subsequently clarified my nomination text because the participants' instinctual reaction was that the template was up for deletion; you - and quite a few others, evidently - have got a parochial understanding of our discussion venues and processes. Christian said, "But anyway before redirect ...", which is why I'd noted that a third tacitly agreed to it; indeed, only one !voter protested the redirect, as I've said earlier. Your "point" about me is pure nonsense - and there's no need to "assume good faith", which would imply a misdeed on my part. There was no misdeed. Enough with your wikilawyering, and enough with your attempting to drag me into a bureaucratic quagmire. Alakzi (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that the mindless posturing appears to be over, can we get this done? Alakzi (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If your intent had been to redirect, not delete, you should have sent a {{subst:tfmnotice}} to Quadell, not a {{subst:tfdnotice}}; should have used a {{subst:tfm2}} on the daily TFD page, not a {{subst:tfd2}}; and should have not used the word "deletion" twice at #Deletion nomination on this page.

If you are going to describe anybody's comments as "mindless posturing" (whether they be mine or somebody else's), there is absolutely no way that I am going to redirect this template. Abuse of process followed by abuse of another editor I simply will not put up with. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please can you forget about the process for a moment and discuss the merits of the proposal? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I already did; see Wikipedia talk:HTML5#What's found. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you disagree with redirecting this template? Alakzi (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that you can hold the community to ransom due to your status. Alakzi (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not holding anybody to ransom. I'm saying thet I am not going to make this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody asked you to; it was a conceited attempt to strong-arm your fellow administrators. Alakzi (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As there seem to be no substantive objections to this proposal, I will likely make the redirect in the next couple of days. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent redirection might have backfired

Hello! Regarding the recent redirection of the {{-}} template, I don't think that was the right thing to do. {{-}} and {{Clear}} templates are used for different purposes, with {{-}}'s primary use being adding some vertical whitespace where appropriate, for example between the external links and navboxes, and that no longer works as before. Thus, {{-}} and {{Clear}} don't do the same thing, and IMHO the redirection should be reverted. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That was not the purpose of {{-}}. Leave two lines empty if you want to increase the spacing. Alakzi (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

BTDT. The problem with two empty lines is that other editors "fix" them very often by reducing to regular spacing, wasting time and clogging up edit histories. From my experience, two empty lines aren't the solution. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a solution looking for a problem. The spacing between the external links and navboxes is part of the standard Wikipedia UI; it is not at the discretion of individual editors. Alakzi (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard UI or not, it looks bad in many cases without the additional whitespace. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"In many cases"? When does it not look bad to you? Alakzi (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the number of external links preceding the navboxes, for example. However, more often it would be better to always have that additional vertical whitespace before the navboxes no matter what precedes them. A "systemic" solution might be to have a "box" template that would serve as an envelope for navboxes and deal with the vertical spacing, while handling properly various skins, UI versions, etc. Until such a template is available, individual editors' discretion seems like the best available solution. Could the base template for navboxes be modified to act that way, without the need for an additional "envelope" template? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, please let me explain why do I find that whitespace necessary. As we know, we have whitespace before section headings, separating the sections visually. Though, with the navboxes there's no whitespace, making them look like being part of whichever section precedes them. Navboxes aren't references or external links, if you agree, so the whitespace would separate them visually in the same way it's done for sections. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

So, you'd like to have the top margin on line 292 of MediaWiki:Common.css increased, basically. 1.5 em would be equal to the spacing between sections. Alakzi (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I've requested for it to be changed here. Alakzi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a very good possible solution, thank you! Of course, such changes require a broader consensus, so we'll see what are the opinions of other editors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This template (as {{clear}} does) served one purpose: to clear floating content. It was not ment to create space. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but people obviously used it for alternative purposes. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: If it isn't documented... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, but we should have some kind of a replacement functionality. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed a year or so back, can't remember where. It might have been in the context of adding one or more <br /> tags or   entities in a similar position. The agreement was that it is better to have one central setting, rather than putting a small piece of code (in this case a template) onto many pages, since not only is the total number of edits far fewer, it also means that a uniform appearance can be provided and maintained. This central setting is essentially to use CSS to set the top margin for the first navbox to some positive non-zero value. It also means that those who prefer a gap that is smaller or larger than the "standard" would need only to amend their user CSS page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that the CSS style putting vertical whitespace before the first navbox is the right way to go. However, I don't see the effects of it, as IMHO the amount of space should be the same as between consecutive sections. That way, navboxes won't look like a continuation of the section above, which is now the case. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I heard there are some technical problems with clear on BR, on browsers and MediaWiki (PHP) software.^[de] So it is generally not recommended to use this anymore. PS: Anyway <BR/> is XHTML and dead, as User: Edokter mentioned this here before, this element get converted to HTML5. → User: Perhelion 13:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Perhelion: <BR/> is not XHTML, since XHTML is case-sensitive and tags must be lowercase. The <br/> tag is valid XHTML, yes; but it is also valid HTML5. See HTML5 spec, section 8.1.2 Elements, where it says 'if the element is one of the void elements ..., then there may be a single "/" (U+002F) character. This character has no effect on void elements'. So, as br is a void element, and the space is also optional in HTML5, there are four valid forms for that tag, ignoring attributes: <br> <br > <br/> <br /> (case-insensitive). As for the clear= attribute on the br tag, it is marked as obsolete in HTML5, but major browser vendors still support it. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: Replace {{redr}} with {{Redirect category shell}}

{{Redr}} is deprecated. Please replace it with:

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from template shortcut}}
}}

Christian75 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Uncited categories

When I apply the Uncited category template and define exactly one category, the template reads "This artlcle contains uncited categories..." With only one category, it should read "This article contains an uncited category..." -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)