Template talk:Pipe

This is probably one of the oldest and most recognized templates across most wikis. For the sake of new editors and those who don't come around much (especially user space), I move to keep this. --JonTheMon 23:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen this template on another wiki before. If editors are new, they probably are aware of neither {{pipe}} nor {{!}}. If an editor is experienced enough to be familiar with {{pipe}} on another wiki, then such an editor is likely savvy enough to find {{!}} and use it instead. I'm not sure what you mean by this template benefiting people who don't come around much. —Proton 00:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Proton, clearly you haven't spent enough time on this wiki (or GWW for that matter). Many templates reference this in some form. I must agree with Jon. Aqua (T|C) 01:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, no templates on this wiki use this template, in any form (save for one in the userspace). They all use {{!}}. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Pipe. —Proton 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Shocking how that happens when you are the one who removed all links to this template. Aqua (T|C) 01:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did, because only three pages actually used it. —Proton 01:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So, cool fact, on wikipedia, the pipe template is about a year older than the ! template. --JonTheMon 02:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Let's see...

1. I believe someone on here mentioned, "We are not Wikipedia."
2. Older does not mean better.
3. Why would {{!}} have been created unless {{pipe}} was not sufficient?

—Proton 02:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there is little harm in having both templates. They were both used until your modifications - some people obviously prefer the long handed version. -- aspectacle  04:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Whatever. These people can't make up their minds about redundancy. First it's OH MY GOD YOU'RE MAKING REDUNDANT TEMPLATES YOU'RE IN BIG TROUBLE and now oh it's all right to have two completely identical templates because it's tradition. —Proton 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but there are many editors here, we have different opinions - we make no promises about being consistent. :) Everything which has been done here was thought to be a good thing at some point. Usually when you want to do something which replaces something which has already been done (and you don't want to get grumpy old timers yelling at you) you talk about it first and compromise with those who care. Plus, lets face it, you've seemingly come out of nowhere and done hundreds of edits over the past few days - while your edits are awesome, we can be wary of newbies making wholesale changes and telling us how it is without apparent consideration for some of our past decisions. -- aspectacle  05:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never used either template. 05:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Aren't these two templates the same as the character | ? Or am I missing the actual use of this. Ge4ce-Talk-Contribs 05:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Aspectacle :).

Ge4ce, the use of either of these templates is within other templates; normally, a vertical bar in a template separates different parameters given to that template. If you wanted to use a vertical bar as part of a parameter itself, you could either use the HTML entity | or one of these templates. If you didn't, the wiki parser would think you were introducing another parameter. —Proton 06:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Making a brand new redundant template and keeping an old redundant template that some users might prefer are two separate things. Eive 07:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think that {{!}} should be remade to display the ! sign. Although I've never used either pipe or this to write any of my codes. - Infinite - talk 08:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the deletion tag, and I would like you to not add it again. While the template is completely redundant, people on MediaWikis expect this template to exist. Therefor, and as such templates do not add any disadvantage, it will be kept. In fact Proton, this discussion was more unneeded than the whole template. poke | talk 09:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)