If there are no objections in 24 hours I will delete :) --Zoey 18:54, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
- Objection? Why the hell would you want to force people to write <br clear="all"> if they don't even know wth they're doing or what either <br> or clear does?
- It's a convenience template, and it probably doesn't even eat a KB of space...so why delete it?
- If it's not used, that's probably only due to lack of propaganda...people just don't know it exists. (Which returns us back to the point I made months ago...LGPedia is lacking a central templates catalogue. Seeing 100 pages starting with Template: in a category listing doesn't tell me what they all do.)
- And if they do know it exists, they'll be confused when they need it, 'cause it'll be gone.
- Deleting this template serves no purpose at all.
- Renegade, there's really no reason for that tone. Zoey said, "if no objections," but you objected so, no big deal, we'll keep it. Zoey meant no harm and absolutely no offense. When you first made your point about no template catalogue I directed you to category:Templates — months later it continues to function as our template catalogue. The categories are, in fact, sorted by function and their names should make their purpose fairly obvious. If you'd like to further document the templates, you're more than welcome to. --JayHenry 22:23, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
- What "tone"? Those were very valid question. There is no reason to delete this template, deleting it would serve no purpose at all, and yet she's pushing through with an objection time of a mere 24 hours.
- What if I had been away over the weekend, hm? Then the template would've been gone by tonight and I wouldn't even know about the deletion, and would have had no way to object. wtf kind of tactic is that?
The delete tag has been up on this page for 6 days. There were no objections, so I put a 24 hour notice on it. 6 days is not really an unreasonable amount of time to wait before giving a 24 hour deadline. --Zoey 10:11, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
- If nobody knows there even is a tag, yes it is. Read here for more. [Resolved editing conflict]
- Not to mention that the category of deleted pages is linked from every page that's deleted, as is an explanation of our deletion policy (the one week waiting period to which Zoey adhered to) and it's also linked to from our community portal. Renegade, would you prefer a one month waiting period? If so, let's discuss but please be civil. My concerns with your tone are that you're accusing Zoey of using "wtf kind of tactics" on some sneaky underhanded "campaign" to ("why the hell") force people to write <br clear="all"> templates, when in fact all she's done is follow our policies in trying to clean out the unused templates page. --JayHenry 12:20, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
My points about everything get reinforced once more. While cataloging all templates for LGPedia:Templates, I found Template:Brclear - which does essentially the same, only through CSS rather than HTML, and with more useless styles attached. Guess how often it's used?
115 times. It's part of Template:Banned and several other templates.
Apparently, there is a high demand for a template doing a clearing break. But thanks to the wonderful way templates are currently organized, no one ever knew it existed even before no one knew again it existed, evident by the fact that even our own administrators tried to delete this one for not being used, rather than being a duplicate. Thank me I'm writing a catalogue now. -_-
I hereby propose to compare both templates and keep the one deemed better, to be used in Template:Banned and wherever else necessary, perhaps keeping a previous name and using the code from the other.
Obviously, I prefer for my own template, as it actually explains what it does, and only does that - the action of clearing both sides from floating elements. The other one is lacking documentation and minimizes padding, margin, line-height, and more.