UESPWiki:Deletion Review/Template:Clear

prodded this with the reason: "Template alias that was never seen to be necessary. "Because other wikis use it" isn't a good reason on its own to keep this template. It's best to stick with single names for templates (abbreviations excepted when necessary)"

Keep: it's probably the name most people will be familiar with, because other wikis call it that, so it will save them the trouble of trying to find  . So yes, that's a good reason to keep it. Also, redirects are not evil. --   / talk 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep:''' It's difficult to find. This is the only wiki I use that calls it "NewLine". Wikipedia calls it "Clear" as well. Deleting this redirect would impair the ability of Wikipedians to find the template. --Michaeldsuarez   22:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep:   :) ‒     23:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
::Comment: Actually, I created the Template:Clear redirect; You created the Template:Clean redirect. I'm surprised that Timenn only tagged one of the two redirects. --Michaeldsuarez   23:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
::Comment: I needed more coffee that day. I'll speedy delete that one. ‒     00:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
::Comment: Well, I can't keep track of everything on the wiki, so I'm confused why you say that Michaeldsuarez. --Timenn-  21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::Comment: Timenn, there is a Special page for finding redirect. Of course, the deletion template has broken the redirect (since it was placed above    ), so it won't appear on there right now. If you had checked , you would've found Joram's "Template:Clean" as well. --Michaeldsuarez   21:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
::Comment: It's quite likely I already know about . Please don't patronize, I think you know damn well what I mean. I don't monitor everything that is happening on the wiki just like any other editor, that's why there is a community that works on this wiki and not one person. --Timenn-  08:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
::Comment: Alright. --Michaeldsuarez   21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral: It's worth pointing out that this is not the same template that appears on WP as "clear". Compare:        (the WP version) to       (the UESP version) [both versions shown without docs]. Obviously, that means the UESP version is compatible with the WP version, and also I don't know of any page that uses the parameter, but it's worth pointing out that a redirect would imply equivalence - which isn't quite true in this case. Personally, I'm so used to NewLine that I'd prefer the reverse - that other wikis create redirects to suit UESP :). If people feel that a redirect is going to help then it should stay, but I'm not bothered either way. –rpeh     00:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete: I agree that redirects are not evil, and linking to them is done quite frequently on this wiki. But you will find that this is almost always done either if the page linked to is a redirect to a broader subject (e.g. ) or the redirect is an abbreviation (e.g. ). I prefer commonly used templates to be known by a single name, so new editors won't be confused as to the difference between Clear and NewLine. I never was a fan of names for nearly duplicate functions (PHP springs to mind), so that might explain my dislike for multiple names for a template. In the years I have been monitoring edits to this wiki I never found an editor who was trying to use the Clear template while there was none. Now this may not always show in the saved version of a page (instead of the numerous invisible Previews people view), but I think it's an indicator on how many people expect this template to be present.  In the end, there is always RoBoT who can replace all template aliases for the original. Quite an invisible friend. --Timenn-  21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
:Keep --Timenn-  20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)