Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 8



Template:Lists category

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete. The template states the obvious and there is no reason to have an intrusive banner with a link to the Manual of Style. We need to think about the readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Isn't this one of those template only populated by categories?Curb Chain (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:User WP South Sudan

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Invalid. As of tomorrow, South Sudan is a sovereign nation.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No such thing —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:3/4, 2/3, 1/3, 1/2, 1/4

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 11:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

redundant to Frac —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: From the template documentation: "It is intended as a concise, easily-interpreted alternative to $3/4$. " I see that as a benefit. Mojoworker (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is not redundant; it is a shortcut to frac.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It isn't redundant, like Edokter said. -- The Σ talkcontribs 03:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is a link to the prior discussion that spurred the creation of some of these template: Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 8. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn This was sloppy on my part. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ndash

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Previous discussion: Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 16
 * Previous discussion: Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 16

Routinely used to create WP:DASH errors (e.g. here, where there is a space before the ndash in a range.) This should be replaced with &amp;nbsp;– and – where appropriate.
 * Please edit this template to add the TfD notice, as it is protected. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Place the tfd template on the talk page when the template is protected.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The errors generated by using ndash incorrectly are corrected by erasing a space. The errors generated by using a naked "–" incorrectly are corrected by adding . The latter case is much more effort than the former, and so there's another reason why removing the template (which is one of a whole family) will cause more trouble than leaving it. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 18:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Use in over a 1000 articles. Not all uses of ndash are in "error". Fix the erronious ones instead.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Using ndash is much fewer characters than using . So long as the template is used correctly, there will be no problem. It is unfortunate that the template masks the fact that it includes a leading NBSP. Perhaps the name should be deprecated in favor of something like nbndash to remind people of the leading space, but the old ndash should remain as it is used all over Wikipedia. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 22:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – pointless. It's not that difficult to type  and it is, in fact, two less characters. It would be better if the software could automatically render breaking spaces before en-dashes as non-breaking spaces.  McLerristarr  &#124;  Mclay1  05:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems unfair to call it two less characters when it also required you to click on the en dash in the insert menu. A mouse click is more work than a key press. And there is no way to make the web browsers automatically render pre-dash spaces as nonbreaking. That's why there is an entire family of similar templates, like middot. The alternative is to use things like nowrap everywhere, which is even more characters. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 17:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it would be possible for MediaWiki to do it. I don't see any reason why it couldn't.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  03:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But then you run into a similar problem when you want to permit breaks. Although that is a rare situation, it's better to keep MediaWiki as close to understood conventions on the rest of the web. Otherwise, a new editor joins Wikipedia and learns that dashes are breaking everywhere, except on Wikipedia when they are non-breaking. Having said that, I think it's usually agreed that XHTML has it backwards when comparing to professional typesetting tools. However, those typesetting tools also have sophisticated ways to indicate when and when not to break... So it's a mess either way... and so it's better to stick with the mess that everyone is already familiar with in XHTML. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Widely used see no reason to delete if used correctly. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm the one who created this template, and I'd like to explain why. Whoever proposed deleting this template probably never even bothered to look at the source of even the original template when I wrote it more than three years ago in order to even understand its purpose.  Had they done that, they would have discovered that it's not merely an , it also included style code to tell browsers not to break the two items.  It was for the exact reason that in certain cases - like in bottom of page info boxes - I wanted to create a long list of items separated by ndashes, but have the list  break after a dash.  This made the short dash hang on the end of a line instead of being carried over to the beginning of the next line, and looks more professional that way.
 * What is also interesting is that I was arguing over keeping this back in 2008 during the previous proposal to exterminate and had completely forgotten about it.
 * Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Why can't we just redirect the template? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, nevermind. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Misuse of the template isn't a valid rationale for deletion and template isn't redundant to any other. Sir Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.