Template talk:-

message: While it may seem absurd to template this markup, clearing floats is such a common action that this template has proven hugely popular -- over 400 inlinks are shown at time of this writing. This is all the more compelling as so many users substitute the template rather than transclude it, in which case the use is not shown on What links here. — Xiong熊talk* 21:51, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
:I use this template when pictures hang over the next section just slightly. Deckiller 19:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like a version of this that doesn't also insert a line break.  Is that implementable? 67.160.10.87 15:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid HTML doesn't allow this. Sorry. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  As per the following discussions maybe  does what you want, but certainly not with legacy align="right" or "left" floating. If its dummy  isn't allowed where you need it, try to replace it by a dummy  - and if that apparently works please report it here, I could check it with my legacy Mozilla 3 monster ;-) Omniplex 04:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Why is  separate from ?  Doesn't the latter already do what this does? — jdorje (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are rather different, see previous section. In (X)HTML br is an inline element allowed within other inline elements like span or small, and within block-level elements like p or div. OTOH Template:clear generates , a block level element. Clumsy where that's allowed, and div isn't allowed in many places where br is okay. I've reverted your change. Omniplex 06:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the history of . It was previously a br, and later changed to a div. There are no real situations where you would want to clear in the middle of a paragraph or other inline elements (you usually want to clear just before or just after a block element), and in some obscure situations (which I did encounter) you must use a zero-sized div, because using a br would cause a line break where you don't want it. --cesarb 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite possible that there are situations where  is required, otherwise we could redirect it to this template as it happened with . But they are different for different reasons. (X)HTML  allows no legacy clear="all", therefore  can't replace . Please add an example of this obscure situation to the  docu, curious minds (like me) want to know, e.g. why you didn't use  instead of . Omniplex 04:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not that obscure, just kind of rare: HTML Tidy moves the br to inside the previous p; if you don't have a p (for instance, between two divs), the result is a new blank line. I did not test with span; using a div always worked fine in all situations, and is exactly what I intended (a zero-sized clearing block element). --cesarb 16:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got it, you need something that works outside of all block-level elements. Tidy won't let you use inline elements there, if that's not allowed in strict XHTML. I can't tell at the moment, I almost always use transitional XHTML. Tricky, the real problem is the X before , and probably  X  would be a "cleaner" solution without inline CSS. The same line of arguments also works for , they are both kludges. And I'm not up to fixing hundreds of Infoboxes only to get rid of  on one horrible page... ;-) Omniplex 03:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: - versus clear

message: And you know what they say about that. ;-) This is certainly a useful template, which I don't dispute. But I have seen it abused as a means of jam-packing more images into an article than are typically needed. If you have one specific place you need this, that's probably all right. If you're using it two or three times in an article, that is probably a sign that you have too many images and should move some to a gallery. Pick the best panorama, and some of the most interesting details, and then stick the rest into the gallery so people only have to load thumbnails. Be a photo editor, not just a copy editor. --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free advice 

message: Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki:
 ia:Patrono:-
Thank you in advance, Julian 12:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki for Interlingua 

message: Please see the Global Wiki Search engine http://vs.aka-online.de/globalwpsearch/ - the search shows http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/globalwpsearch.pl?search=template%3A-&timeout=120&minor=1 there are also these languages to be linked:
bs:template:-
ca:template:-
da:template:-
es:template:-
et:template:-
fi:template:-
fr:Modèle:Clr
hr:template:-
hu:template:-
id:template:-
io:template:-
is:template:-
it:Template:Clear
lt:template:-
lv:template:-
ms:template:-
nl:template:-
no:template:-
There are cool stuff  {{subst:UnsignedIP|1=99.141.170.220|2=17:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's at least one unrelated page (fi:, a "negative vote" checkmark). The list needs to be checked as a whole before these pages get added to the interlanguage links. Femto 13:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the list of link, add most of the ones listed above, commented out those which use style="clear:both;". —Dispenser 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ko:틀:- please? Yeom0609 20:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More interwiki 

message: See WP:DOC —Dispenser 03:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Harryboyles 08:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  doc page pattern 

message: Yesterday, an extra new line was introduced after the  tag.  This is causing much larger gaps to show up on many pages, since it's effectively acting like .  Could this newline be removed (by moving the <noinclude> back up to the end of the first line)?  Thanks, --ΨΦorg 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra blank line introduced May 13 

message: This is not a great template; issues re being presentational and such. And there's the name. But it has legs…
This implementation,
* ,
is old-school. I've looked over the old chat above and believe this should have been sorted years ago. But it wasn't.
Please change this template to
* 
which is, simply, proper. Omit the clear="all"; do not worry about the se7en remaining in-use copies of whatever decrepit useragents don't support this.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done. If you want to just change the code like that, why not redirect to Template:Clear? And, does changing the code offer any benefits whatsoever? Or do we just risk breaking things for some people? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   is similar in concept, but not the same; it's a div-element, not a br-element. Redirecting this to that *would* risk breaking something. clear="all" is poor-form and the css equivalent has been supported for ten years; is anyone running Mosaic or Navigator 2 anymore? Anyone at all? Widely used templates, even poor-concept ones, should at least use proper code. Jack Merridew 06:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It makes no sense it all to keep this in the current form. clear="all" has been deprecated since HTML 4.01 and will be gone in HTML 5. style="clear:both;" does exactly the same thing in 99.9% of all browsers people are using and validates.  Husky (talk page) 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason this request was not done doesn't make sense.  is no the same as  (which is what Template:Clear does). It's still a br element. It's not like wikicode is the actual html of the page (it goes through Sanitizer.php first) so don't worry about validation, although it's a good habit to use proper (x)html regardless. Browser support isn't a issue here either. Any user with a browser that can't handle the style attribute is used to seeing a (really) broken web. There's nothing wrong with excluding the extra space and semi-colon though (). They're just an editing preference. Rocket000 (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Aww, these whitespace templates are my favorite places to argue over the most trivial little changes, but now it's the way I want it. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, now I can finally unwatch it.  — Dispenser 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to make this bad idea right 

message: Here in the doc, as the lead:
 This causes any previously-established float to clear.
 The unusual name of this template is a mnemonic for an imaginary horizontal line, which separates floating elements  above from those below. Some editors prefer the mnemonic  ("clear"), which simply redirects here.
Well that's handy then. Thanks for linking mnemonic but not float, what clearing means (ok you linked clr), what it means to be previously established, and so on.
The template documentation generally sucks, but this has just got my goat now. I may be unusual, but I write the documentation and test before I write the template (I am new to writing templates but not usednew to software engineering). Then at least one person, myself, knows what it does. And believe me, my test cases fail sometimes. I don't find fault in the test cases but in the template. But here we have fault in the doc. Someone coming to find  and deciding, after all, it is not a typo or magic, comes here and finds that it causes any previously-established float to clear. The only words that are not jargon in that sentence are "This causes any" and "to".
I realise I probably take a minority view here, since Wikipedia is for everyone (as long as they know it all already). But this is the height, so far, of patronising people who are intelligent, willing to learn, but want to find out what it does not what clearing a float is about (my guess without cheating, it makes sure the following paragraph doesn't go over a box above it). I don't care if that is not entirely accurate, it is the lead and I want one sentence to tell me what it does, not the technical details (which I can scroll down for, or view source).
OK, rant over, back to Wikipeding. My sincere best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also fail to understand how a hyphen is a mnemonic. That is, in Greek, something named. It is precisely the opposite, it is an anonym. It means nothing. SimonTrew (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A mnemonic is an aid to memory (from the Greek "of memory", not "something named"), and though the most common mnemonics are verbal, they need not be. In this case, the template's name is a mnemonic as the horizontal line in the hyphen triggers a connection with the use of the template to "draw an invisible line" across the article. I will agree that the documentation isn't the best written i've seen, though. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  English as she is spoke 

message: His name in top in bold is spelt incorrectly. Please change to -- Andre Amado
Rustyrustyrusty (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which article this refers to, but you are requesting this on the wrong page. This is the talk page for Template:-. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Rustyrustyrusty, 6 November 2010 

message: Can you please include multiple breaks in this template, similar to    etc. It would look something like this:   , or alternatively   etc. Thanks in advance. — Polish29 (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for multiple breaks option

message: After interesting discussions on the Yobot and HTML5 talk pages I suggest to fix  by importing the latest and greatest mw:Template:- cum mw:Template:-/doc minus template categories not existing here. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: . That is a serious ugly hack, and actually not any less invalid in my opinion. We should just redirect this to , as  adds no value whatsoever. -- User:Edokter  15:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your editing here and on mediawikiwiki is not constructive, with vs. without line break is a difference, I've enabled my edit request again for somebody who is not involved in this controversy. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me the difference. My goal is to redirect, so any intermediate edit is essentially pointless. -- User:Edokter  17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See tests at Special:Permalink/646393033. The vertical spacing differs. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tidy messes that up totally. It removed the empty divs and kicks the other outside the paragraph. -- User:Edokter  20:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Better test at Special:Permalink/646400417. Difference is minimal, and only when followed by plain text due to the parser injecting  tags. -- User:Edokter  21:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned on Yobot, I don't have the equipment for testing all popular browsers on all popular platforms for any definition of "popular" I'd trust, but back in 2006  did work for my NetScape 2.02 browser, and was valid XHTML 1.0 transitional including its prose "compatibility annex", while  did not work for this HTML3 browser. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us not concern ourselves with 10-year old broswsers and standards. -- User:Edokter  22:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Not done: I don't see a consensus for this change, sorry. We'll need to find a consensus on what to do before any edit request can be carried out. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You just missed a chance to import a good version last edited by mw:User:Edoktor. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valid HTML5 

message: I've nominated this template for deletion. Alakzi (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion nomination 

message: Please add the following text to this template, given that its template was nominated for WP:TFD on June 3 2015:...The "noinclude" tags are intentional there, given that all other notices would break several pages. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point? It would alert anyone whose watchlist contains this template, but so would this talk page post. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also posted about it directly above, so they've been alerted twice now. Alakzi (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that the TFD tag places the template in a maintenance category, letting editors who check categories to know that this page is up for nomination; a talk page notification alone does not. (Also, I'm not sure who changed the level of my request's section, given that I don't want it bundled with the section above, so I'm reverting that.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I still can't see the benefit. Editing the template affects the job queue. If you want the categories, you can put it on the /doc page in the includeonly section. Merging with the section above was appropriate because it is about exactly the same topic. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added the banner on the doc page. Alakzi (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 18 June 2015 

message: Hello!  Regarding the  of the  template, I don't think that was the right thing to do.   and  templates are used for different purposes, with 's primary use being adding some vertical whitespace where appropriate, for example between the external links and navboxes, and that no longer works as before.  Thus,  and  don't do the same thing, and IMHO the redirection should be reverted.  Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not the purpose of . Leave two lines empty if you want to increase the spacing. Alakzi (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTDT.  The problem with two empty lines is that other editors "fix" them very often by reducing to regular spacing, wasting time and clogging up edit histories.  From my experience, two empty lines aren't the solution. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a solution looking for a problem. The spacing between the external links and navboxes is part of the standard Wikipedia UI; it is not at the discretion of individual editors. Alakzi (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Standard UI or not, it looks bad in many cases without the additional whitespace. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  "In many cases"? When does it not look bad to you? Alakzi (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends on the number of external links preceding the navboxes, for example.  However, more often it would be better to always have that additional vertical whitespace before the navboxes no matter what precedes them.  A "systemic" solution might be to have a "box" template that would serve as an envelope for navboxes and deal with the vertical spacing, while handling properly various skins, UI versions, etc.  Until such a template is available, individual editors' discretion seems like the best available solution.  Could the base template for navboxes be modified to act that way, without the need for an additional "envelope" template? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moreover, please let me explain why do I find that whitespace necessary.  As we know, we have whitespace before section headings, separating the sections visually.  Though, with the navboxes there's no whitespace, making them look like being part of whichever section precedes them.  Navboxes aren't references or external links, if you agree, so the whitespace would separate them visually in the same way it's done for sections. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, you'd like to have the top margin on line 292 of MediaWiki:Common.css increased, basically. 1.5 em would be equal to the spacing between sections. Alakzi (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've requested for it to be changed here. Alakzi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems like a very good possible solution, thank you!  Of course, such changes require a broader consensus, so we'll see what are the opinions of other editors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

text: This template (as  does) served one purpose: to clear floating content. It was not ment to create space. -- User:Edokter  20:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but people obviously used it for alternative purposes. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rule of thumb: If it isn't documented... -- User:Edokter  15:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, but we should have some kind of a replacement functionality. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was discussed a year or so back, can't remember where. It might have been in the context of adding one or more  tags or   entities in a similar position. The agreement was that it is better to have one central setting, rather than putting a small piece of code (in this case a template) onto many pages, since not only is the total number of edits far fewer, it also means that a uniform appearance can be provided and maintained. This central setting is essentially to use CSS to set the top margin for the first navbox to some positive non-zero value. It also means that those who prefer a gap that is smaller or larger than the "standard" would need only to amend their user CSS page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't agree more that the CSS style putting vertical whitespace before the first navbox is the right way to go.  However, I don't see the effects of it, as IMHO the amount of space should be the same as between consecutive sections.  That way, navboxes won't look like a continuation of the section above, which is now the case. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I heard there are some technical problems with clear on BR, on browsers and MediaWiki (PHP) software.[de] So it is generally not recommended to use this anymore. PS: Anyway <BR/> is XHTML and dead, as User: Edokter mentioned this here before, this element get converted to HTML5. → User: Perhelion  13:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   is not XHTML, since XHTML is case-sensitive and tags must be lowercase. The  tag is valid XHTML, yes; but it is also valid HTML5. See HTML5 spec, section 8.1.2 Elements, where it says 'if the element is one of the void elements ..., then there may be a single "/" (U+002F) character. This character has no effect on void elements'. So, as br is a void element, and the space is also optional in HTML5, there are four valid forms for that tag, ignoring attributes:     (case-insensitive). As for the clear= attribute on the br tag, it is marked as obsolete in HTML5, but major browser vendors still support it. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent redirection might have backfired 

message:  is deprecated. Please replace it with:

Christian75 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request: Replace <nowiki>{{redr}} with {{Redirect category shell}}</nowiki>

message: When I apply the Uncited category template and define exactly one category, the template reads "This artlcle contains uncited categories..."
With only one category, it should read "This article contains an uncited category..."  --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited categories