Site Notice
  • We have a limited coverage policy. Please check our coverage page to see which articles are allowed.
  • Please no leaked content less than one year old, or videos of leaks.
  • Content copied verbatim from other websites or wikis will be removed.

Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Clear"

From NintendoWiki, your source on Nintendo information. By fans, for fans.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
== Why the {{void}}? ==
 
Missing closing tag.  Oh, and why the ''<nowiki>{{void}}</nowiki>''?  (And why its use everywhere else?  It seems pretty pointless to me.) - [[User:Greenpickle|GP]] <sub>[[User talk:Greenpickle|talk]]</sub> 15:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Missing closing tag.  Oh, and why the ''<nowiki>{{void}}</nowiki>''?  (And why its use everywhere else?  It seems pretty pointless to me.) - [[User:Greenpickle|GP]] <sub>[[User talk:Greenpickle|talk]]</sub> 15:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 
:the ifeq condition is broken up like this:  
 
:the ifeq condition is broken up like this:  
Line 11: Line 12:
  
 
::::No, what I'm saying is, why use template:void, when it has absolutely nothing in it to transclude, and removing it would give exactly the same effect? - [[User:Greenpickle|GP]] <sub>[[User talk:Greenpickle|talk]]</sub>
 
::::No, what I'm saying is, why use template:void, when it has absolutely nothing in it to transclude, and removing it would give exactly the same effect? - [[User:Greenpickle|GP]] <sub>[[User talk:Greenpickle|talk]]</sub>
:::::As i've said... I don't know  
+
:::::As i've said... I don't know. To me, 
  
 
<pre>
 
<pre>
Line 26: Line 27:
 
:::::Anyway, if it's really important... you can remove it. Or request that i remove it, if you can't.  
 
:::::Anyway, if it's really important... you can remove it. Or request that i remove it, if you can't.  
 
:::::{{User:Tacopill/sig}} 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC).
 
:::::{{User:Tacopill/sig}} 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC).
 +
 +
::::::No, I was just wondering if there was a reason.  It's a pretty crazy thing. - [[User:Greenpickle|GP]] <sub>[[User talk:Greenpickle|talk]]</sub> 21:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
:::::::Ah. Ok. Sorry for dragging it out..... And, i would like to know the reason as well.  :). {{User:Tacopill/sig}} 00:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

Latest revision as of 00:25, 9 March 2011

Why the ?

Missing closing tag. Oh, and why the {{void}}? (And why its use everywhere else? It seems pretty pointless to me.) - GP talk 15:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

the ifeq condition is broken up like this:
  1. if {{{1}}} = (i.e. nothing)
then, output "both"
else, output the value of {{{1}}}
As for it's use, it clears out all the neiboring content in the cell or div. To the left, if 1 equal to "left"; to the right; if 1 equal to "right"; and both directions if 1 is undefined, blank or equal to "both".
Tacopill (Talk) 16:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC).
Yes, I know how #if and the HTML clear attribute work, but what do they have to do with the use of template:void here? - GP talk
My guess would be, to capture all the possible null values that could go in {{{1}}}, which maybe an improvement over #if: (without eq). I'm not sure on this, however, since i didn't design it. I brought it over from Lylat Wiki, and the person who brought or created it there isn't currently active, there or here. Tacopill (Talk) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC).
No, what I'm saying is, why use template:void, when it has absolutely nothing in it to transclude, and removing it would give exactly the same effect? - GP talk
As i've said... I don't know. To me,
{{#if:{{{1}}}|{{void}}|....|....}}
seems more complete, than,
{{#if:{{{1}}}||....|....}}
Even if it doesn't do so functionality. Then again, it might just be my currently-undiagnosed OCD....or my perfectionism....or some other bizzare reason.
Anyway, if it's really important... you can remove it. Or request that i remove it, if you can't.
Tacopill (Talk) 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC).
No, I was just wondering if there was a reason. It's a pretty crazy thing. - GP talk 21:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah. Ok. Sorry for dragging it out..... And, i would like to know the reason as well. :). Tacopill (Talk) 00:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC).