Template talk:Br separated entries

LI markup

I've made a sandbox version of this template: {{Br separated entries/sandbox}}, which uses the correct list mark-up (<ul>, <li>). Test cases are at Template:Br separated entries/testcases. It just needs someone to fix the CSS so that the bullets don't display, and agreement to apply it. Can anyone help with the former, please? If we wanted to, we could make the bullets switchable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this template is to create a very simple "br list". I created this template to simplify the complicated br logic in {{Infobox person}} and other templates. It is very limited, in that it doesn't support more than three items. I would suggest starting a new template if you want something that is more general, since it would likely be more complicated. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm trying to reduce the tendency to output lists using anything other than proper HTML list mark-up. The output is now identical to the original. My "optional visible bullets" comment was only an afterthought. Please see the testcases, following the latest style change to the sandbox. Of course, the template might also need to be renamed ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this could work. I made a few changes since this template must return absolutely nothing if the three fields are empty. Rather than modifying this template, perhaps we should just create a new one, which would have the list style as a parameter, and optional classes? Something that could be called like the following:

{{list with classes
| style = list-style:none; padding:0px; margin:0px
| item1 = His Excellency The Right Honourable 
| class1 = honorific-prefix
| item2 =  The Lord Tweedsmuir 
| class2 = fn 
| item3 = GCMG, GCVO, CH, PC, DCL(hc) MA Oxon, DD(hc) LLD(hc) Tor, LLD(hc) Harv, LLD(hc) Yale, LLD(hc) McGill, LLD(hc) Mont, LLD(hc) Glas, LLD(hc) StAnd 
| class3 = honorific-suffix 
}}

The logic would be basically the same, but, with more flexibility, and optional classes. My only reservation is that if a browser does not support CSS, the bullets will appear. Would it be better to use <dl>...</dl> and <dt>...</dt>, or <dl>...</dl> and <dd>...</dd>? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not sure where your new suggestion would be used; a name and honorifics are not a list. It shouldn't matter if bullets appear when CSS is disabled - lots of other things would look different then, too. My aim with these changes is to give non-techie editors the tool to make a proper HTML list with the appearance of the original template and no need to understand CSS. For a simple list of items, <li>...</li> is fine; the others you suggest are for more complex cases. Would you like to apply the changes now, and rename the template, perhaps to "Plain list"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)`[reply]

The entire purpose of this template is to simplify the logic in {{Infobox person}}, so I would suggest just making a new template if this template isn't going to be used there. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox version uses exactly the same input and produces exactly the same visual output, but in the correct HTML form, as the original. Why wouldn't it be used in {{Infobox person}}? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the output is not the same in my browser (elinks). Since you are concerned with generating correct output for "lists", I have changed the name to reflect the fact that this is not for lists, but for generating br separated entries. Again, the entire purpose was for simplifying code where  ... tags are used in infoboxes. Examples include the honorific titles, the entries in the "born" and "died" fields, etc. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this is for lists! The documentation as you initially wrote it made that very clear. I'm really perplexed by your stance over this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perplexed why you are trying to make this template use list markup when the purpose was to simplify the  ... logic in {{infobox person}}. If you would like me to rename the template again, I can. If you want to create a template for more general purposes, go right ahead. However, the changes you are suggesting will change the behavior of this template, and make it no longer suitable for its purpose. I'm not sure why there is a problem. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote (in the original documentation) "This template is used to create a delimited list". You then made a point of adding other list templates under "See also". However, it seems from this edit that you had something else in mind. I'll move the sandbox version to a new name. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one definition of a list is a "grouping of related items". I change the documentation, and name of the template, to reduce the confusion of this type of list with "itemized lists". I agree the new name is a bit cumbersome, but it appears that is necessary to not have it turn into an itemized list template. Thanks for starting a new unbulleted list template. Just be aware that the appearance will be browser dependent, with bullets still appearing in some browsers, so the "unbulleted" part is browser dependent. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 58.68.24.70, 3 January 2011

Name Sashi Kumar In the encyclopedia the name in the heading column is spelt wrongly as "K. Sasi Kumar" Please change it to "SASHI KUMAR" rest of the details are correct. 58.68.24.70 (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place to request this, but done. /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Grammar: the templates are for entries that are "br-separated" (separated by s) or comma-separated, not for separated entries that are "br" or "comma". Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose, seems unnecessary. if anything, it should be 'entries separated br' to match the 'infobox person' convention, or something simple like 'list br'. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I imagine people might find "Entries separated [br/comma]" and "List [br/comma]" less intuitive. The proposal is just to correct a grammatical ambiguity that might otherwise encourage similar ambiguities elsewhere – which, I hope, makes it sufficiently worthwhile/necessary..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Jenks24: If this were re-RMed again, it would succeed, since we're regularly cleaning up incorrect hyphenation in template names these days. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Moving templates is a massive waste of time. Regardless, it wasn't me who closed this discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to ping the nom. I disagree it's a waste of time. It's a brief hassle (if the template has redirects to un-double-redir after the move), but having templates with predictable, plain-English, common-sense names has been a consensus-accepted goal for years now. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 15 November 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am Ann Robinson's son Jaime Bravo. She requested that I add her grandchildren to her bio in the template. Thank you! | grandchildren = Victoria A. Bravo (b. 2001)
Samuel A. Bravo (b. 2001) HobokenRox (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HobokenRox: This request concerns the Ann Robinson article, not this template. The code you added to that article won't work because {{Infobox person}} does not have a "grandchildren" parameter. Since you are a relative of the article's subject I would advise discussing these additions at Talk:Ann Robinson instead of editing the article yourself, per the Conflict of interest guideline. SiBr₄ (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 27 December 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Education We know from many biographies that as a youngster Mary Baker Eddy was tutored often by her brilliant brother, Albert Baker, who later was a lawyer who clerked for Franklin Pierce and later became a Congressman before his untimely death. Joseph S. Robinson in his book "Waymarks in the Life of Mary Baker Eddy", a book which is now in the public domain as it was published in 1942 by The Pond-Ekberg Company Springfield, Mass., writes of Mary Baker Eddy's education, "Mary Baker Eddy completed her education at the Holmes Academy in Plymouth and Sanbornton Academy at the Bridge, between the years 1838 and 1842, when the present Tilton School served as a female college. In Professor Dyer Hook Sanborn she had an instructor of more than average talents. He was the author of a treatise on normal school teaching, and his "Analytical Grammar" went through eight editions. He was also the town's "superintending school committee" and in 1845 he became Representative. His was a "celebrated school," Lucy Cross, historian of Northfield, tells us or he was a "model educator," turning out "many finely educated lady teachers." Mary Baker Eddy served as a substitute instructor at the same institution after its name had changed to the "New Hampshire Conference Seminary and Female College." Paulacaracristi (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulacaracristi:

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Br separated entries}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, and semantically poor

This appears to be pointless, and should simply be a redirect to {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}}; they do the same thing, but with the correct markup. Separating a list of things with   is not making a list, its a sloppy kluge, an approximation of a list. It's permissible for editors to do this by hand in articles as a quick-and-dirty way get on with their work, and leave the semantically correct markup to gnomes to fix later. But it's nuts that we'd provide an actual template to intentionally insert poor markup, when we have one that inserts the correct markup! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's used quite a bit within {{Infobox person}} and the things that it joins together with br tags such as birthname, birthdate & birthplace probably don't belong together in a list, so br tags are fine here. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. How often it's used wouldn't matter if it were just replaced with a different template that visually looked the same, but was semantically richer. How are closely-related vital stats not a list? That sounds exactly like a list. Is there some other use case? If there is, and it's for purely-presentational reasons, it should be documented as being for such, and clearly distinguished from unbulleted lists, directing people to the right template (which should do vice-versa, and discourage use of list formatting for pure layout, the way use of tables for such a purpose is also deprecated). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In a previous thread, the creator of template says '"The purpose of this template is to create a very simple "br list"', and it appears the documentation was reworded to play a semantic (in a difference sense) game, replacing 'list' with 'grouping of related items', which still means 'list'. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in addresses to separate the street from the borough from the country, e.g. in {{Infobox station}}. I can't think of any other legitimate uses of it in infoboxes right now. Alakzi (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think I'd be mollified (as would, more to the point, everyone else who's a stickler for semantic HTML – I"m not the first to raise the issue and wouldn't be the last) if it were documented to discourage use for lists, and if present use in infoboxes for data that really is a list were changed to one of the aforementioned list templates, and this one limited to cases where's it's clearly not a list of any kind, but "poem"-like formatting of a single block of data, or of things vertically stacked that are totally unrelated. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody would object to that if you'd like to make the necessary changes to the documentation. Alakzi (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]