Template talk:Ellipsis

Rendering error caused by Template:Main other
I've narrowed the bug down to being caused by including tags with attributes in the first parameter of main other. As a fix, I've replaced  with, but it's still puzzling that this error occurs; it probably indicates an underlying issue with. eπi ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a template, so it's treating it as a parameters &lt;strong... my idiocy. It would also have been solved by adding an explicit 1 call. --Izno (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, good catch. I've gathered there are two errors one should always consider when templates don't work: you have an incidental = or you have an incidental . eπi  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Or a slew of other things. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I haven't used enough templates, but the vast majority of my errors when transcluding templates have come from lint errors like the above. Of course, one can have all sorts of errors when developing a template itself.
 * I did have a really recent weird issue with how  to represent an empty parameter within Search link is interpreted within a table context if preceded by . But I just fixed it by using   instead.  Retro  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Use in mainspace
Currently, this template cannot be used in mainspace. Not even 'ed then, and not the non-basic variants. I wonder, why so? See also MOS:ELLIPSIS; obviously the single-character is not to be used, so this template helps preventing that mistake. .

I propose to allow usage in mainspace, no restictions. DePiep (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See Deletion review/Log/2019 April 30. Izno (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:G4 is not a discussion; cannot find the previous deletion(-discssion) where G4 by definition must refer to. Also, "G4" mentioning is not about the de-restriction I am proposing. IOW, if this template can exist, it can exits unrestricted. DePiep (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The original discussion was Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 25 which is linked in the DRV boilerplate, the deletion for which was endorsed. The discussion at deletion review mostly focused on this template's usability, and there was agreement there that it is inappropriate, per already-linked MOS:ELLIPSIS, to have this template be used in mainspace. (See my comments there.) But its utility may extend outside mainspace for users of interest, which is why it was kept at DRV.
 * Now, given its general disuse (26 transclusions) it may be worthwhile deleting it even so. Izno (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Argh, unfold the DRV; thankx for the reply. Well, since usage is limited/forbidden, not strange that it is used sporadically. But I'll have to study the deletion hist to see if I can revive it. DePiep (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)