Template talk:empty line

RFDO discussion: February 2016–July 2017

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Template:empty line

Doesn't look like it is used, also doesn't look like it works if it is used. @DCDuring @Wyang may have thoughts? - TheDaveRoss 17:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My "contribution" was limited to inserting the template for transcluding the missing documentation. I am unable to determine what it does by inspecting the code. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It does do something. —suzukaze (t・c) 08:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What's it supposed to do, and why? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's transcludedused in other subst'ed templates. It seems to me that the only questions can be about the utility of those other templates, which are designed to be used to create new entries in zh, ko, ne, etc. DCDuring TALK 19:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I still think "What's it supposed to do, and why?" are valid questions. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora, Wyang may have the answers you seek. DCDuring TALK 22:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As User:suzukaze-c said above, it is substituted when some autocreation templates are substituted to generate a new line. Why? Because they were written before Lua and writing modules is time-consuming hard yakka. Wyang (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not just use the enter key? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't work as expected. Wyang (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Now we're getting to the issue. Why not, or, what does it actually do? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it the <includeonly> issue? Just do a null edit if documentation is transcluded in other pages. Also see WT:Grease pit/2016/February if you have no idea what I'm talking about. (I'm not exactly sure why I was pinged; I have no idea how to use this template) —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

By mistake, I think. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged because I'd edited the page to include {{documentation}}, {Aryamanarora was pinged because he'd edited the template once. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

lol people are arguing about an empty line. Equinox ◑ 13:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to withdraw the nomination, I just happened upon this and didn't see any usage. The parser error it was causing has been remedied so there is no reason to delete. - TheDaveRoss 13:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Useless without a documentation.--Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Wyang, is this template still in use? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, some autocreation templates still rely on this template to generate a new line. Wyang (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  @Wyang, in that case, add a basic documentation mentioning the templates that use it, and this can be closed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, done at 22:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC). Wyang (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  Could you try to be more informative? What are {{{p1v}}} and {{{p1n}}}?--Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• RFD kept. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)