Template talk:⅋

RFDO discussion: July 2013–April 2014
Unused template that's more problematic than the problem it's supposedly trying to solve (inserting an ampersand character). - dcljr (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC) return va.replace (/([\\~])/g,"\\$1").replace(/&/g,'{'+'{subst:⅋}}').replace(/#/,'{'+'{subst:♯}}'); //Yucky HACK }
 * Much easier to use . — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'll be damned if I know what the purpose of this is, or was, ever! Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * is probably clearer still. Delete. 17:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, so long as it's still being used by WT:ACCEL. --Yair rand (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody's going to delete it as long as it's still in use. I don't understand why that is a reason to want to keep it, though. You think this template is good and useful merely because it's used in WT:ACCEL? 19:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I coulda sworn I'd searched for "⅋" in User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js and not found it (oh, nevermind: I had searched on the talk page), but there it is:
 * function clean_variable (va) {
 * So the question is... why? (That is, why is it there?)
 * In light of this, I guess the same objection can be raised about Template:♯, which is also only used there, AFAIK. (The names of both templates seem to have been deliberately chosen to make them difficult to "accidentally use" outside of that context.) See Grease_pit/2012/January for some related discussion.
 * My recommendation for both templates: userfy and delete from template namespace. - dcljr


 * Ha! Reminds me of my former workplace where we had an internal form of regular expression that was extended to accept the upside-down ("Spanish") question mark as some specialised form of what the standard question mark meant. This then broke a lot of scripts that weren't designed to read/write that character reliably. Probably delete or rename to something that isn't such a pain to type. Equinox ◑ 17:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Except this was created strictly to be used in scripts, etc., to solve a specific technical problem. No one should be typing this unless they have a very good reason to do so. It may be odd, and rarely-used, but it does no harm, since virtually no one is likely to even know it exists, and it doesn't take up much room on the servers. I say keep. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Meh, userfy... or keep... like Chuck, I don't see the harm in it, and if the script ain't broke, - -sche (discuss) 02:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes if it ain't broke... Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If these templates were "created strictly to be used in scripts, etc., to solve a specific technical problem" then they shouldn't have been placed in the Template: namespace to begin with. But, hey, let's not try to fix that now, right? BTW, could the purpose of User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js now be fulfilled with a Module:? If so, - dcljr (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it seems likely (to me) that no admin will actually userfy and delete this template and Template:♯, I've gone ahead and added Template:⅋/documentation and Template:♯/documentation to explain that the templates "should not be used", and removed the category [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Template:%E2%85%8B&diff=21811090&oldid=21461398 from] [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Template:%E2%99%AF&diff=21811089&oldid=16847086 each] template page to "hide" them further from the view of regular users. - dcljr (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js no longer uses this template. Can we delete it now? Keφr 20:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:♯
Adding for the sake of completeness. Keφr 20:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since both templates are no longer used even in the script for which they were created, I went ahead and deleted them. Let me know if anything breaks. — Keφr 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the documentation subpages (Template:♯/documentation, Template:⅋/documentation) should be deleted, too. I don't know if Template talk:♯ should stick around for future reference or be deleted. Thanks to User:CodeCat and User:Kephir for following up on this. - dcljr (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)