Template talk:Ellipsis

Use of template:Ellipsis

I do hate these experimental templates that are left in place, then used and used and used. This template was set up for a specific use where there was a clear typographic reason to format an ellipsis as a string with a look. We currently have nearly 3000 uses of the wretched template, where many are not in line with our style guide.

I would like for us to run a bot through and convert the template to utilise a true ellipsis, OR actually replace the content of the template with an ellipsis, though having rescued those works that require the use a typographic ellipsis to a new template. Whichever preferred tasks requires a bot.

@EncycloPetey: I recall that you had a specific work or two that you believed required the typographic ellipsis, are you able to identify such works so that they are not caught in any remedial work if undertaken. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have used this template in several works for the reasons you mention. In prose fiction, especially in dialogue, the template is warranted, I believe, to preserve the pacing of speech. The template aso allows for four or five dots, instead of simply multiples of 3. Therefore, I would suggest we stop calling this template "experimental" and make it a normal part of our functioning. There isn't a suitable alternative that would preserve the original text, in many cases. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with EncycloPetey in each reason. Also, I don't think the style guide is a sufficient reason for a mass substitution or a template edit which will significantly alter the appearance of many works. Reasonable derogations from it are accepted as long as they are consistent in a work. For example, Use typewriter quotation marks (straight, not curly) is a stronger instruction than Ellipses of omission should be entered as the actual character, yet if a user opts consistently for curly quotes in a book they alone are working on, who cares? BethNaught (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I also agree with EncycloPetey. I was just trying to explain my thoughts on the matter on my talk page when I was alerted to the discussion here. Here is a page I proofed before I knew about the template. Looking back on it now I see it would look much nicer, and more like the original to use the template: She dreamed. . . . Suddenly she heard voices and laughter. Not that I'd want to go back and change it now, but I'd prefer to continue using {{...}} for similar cases in the future. Mudbringer (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)