Template talk:Russian Fortifications
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Moved from Ghirlandajo's talk
My numerous beefs with the template:
- Poor coding
Clear:right;is preferable to unnecessary line breaks- a single
text-align:center;"is preferable to repeating needlesslyalign=centerfor every cell - A
widthdefinition is preferable tomargins, and more commona cross wikipedia. - there is absolutely no need to have the comment be inserted in every page as it is specifically intended only for the template page.
- There is no apparent reason to have a category in the template. the category would be just as well put independantly.
- The link in the header was misleading as implying an article limited to western Russia. Unless Kremlin actually is, but I doubt that, and can't really tell anyway.
- No background color in the header, unlike 90% of wikipedia footers
- Picture enlarging header unnecesssarily, at the very least it should be reduced and move in the content section of the footer.
- 80% is unnecearily small for a simple footer like this. Most wikipedia footers do very well with 90%
Now I'd like to know why you reverted the entire thing (including a totally legit categorization uunder category:Russian navigational boxes) instead of just adjusting what you weren't happy with (which appears to me to be only the comment's location and the image). Circeus 15:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your rationale seems good to me, except the removal of the picture. And of course the template is limited to Western fortresses: neither Derbent nor Kazan Kremlin nor Tobolsk have nothing to do with it. Including oriental border fortresses in one template with the European ones makes no sense whatsoever. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image change
I've replaced the image with another one that looks more appealing to me, at least at high resolution. Feel free to revert if you disagree, however. Conscious 13:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
