Template talk:Clear - Revision history

U13682523 at 19:11, 7 January 2020

2020-01-07T19:11:26Z

U64962917 at 18:23, 7 January 2020

2020-01-07T18:23:45Z

U12017485: Re

2020-01-07T16:35:06Z

U64962917 at 00:57, 7 January 2020

2020-01-07T00:57:19Z

U13682523 at 20:35, 6 January 2020

2020-01-06T20:35:35Z

U12017485: Response

2020-01-06T19:46:09Z

Response

U38088265: Question

2020-01-06T18:57:43Z

Question

New page

Does this offer anything new or necessary compared to the existing [[:Template:Break]]? -[[User:U38088265|U38088265]] ([[User talk:U38088265|talk]]) 18:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:11, 7 January 2020
Line 5:		Line 5:
	**** I'd like to make a minor point, that the issue you raised is just as applicable to the [[:Template:Break]]. [[User:U12017485\|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485\|talk]]) 16:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)		**** I'd like to make a minor point, that the issue you raised is just as applicable to the [[:Template:Break]]. [[User:U12017485\|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485\|talk]]) 16:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
	*****Yes, that is why I stated this...''But I think like with any code, parsers and templates, the right approach will help the articles stand out in a good way, while improperly using it will cause the opposite effect.'' I wasn't dogging Clear vs Break, I am all for templates, parsers and other code which will help simplify and make the pages flow better. --[[User:U64962917\|U64962917]] ([[User talk:U64962917\|talk]]) 18:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)		*****Yes, that is why I stated this...''But I think like with any code, parsers and templates, the right approach will help the articles stand out in a good way, while improperly using it will cause the opposite effect.'' I wasn't dogging Clear vs Break, I am all for templates, parsers and other code which will help simplify and make the pages flow better. --[[User:U64962917\|U64962917]] ([[User talk:U64962917\|talk]]) 18:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
		+	**** That was just a quick example I threw together to demonstrate functionality which this template offers but the break template doesn't. Obviously the person writing the article has to make sensible formatting choices to avoid big areas of white-space, but giving people more formatting tools is never a bad thing in my opinion. --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 19:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 7 January 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:
	*** I see the potential for this template, it might not have much use on the aircraft or vehicle pages, however on other pages where there are more text articles sprinkled with images, it could help with the formatting of the page and ease the flow of the article. One thing I worry about (even in the example Flame2512 listed) is the larger white-spaces this could create. In articles with sparse text, it might make the format look chunky with lots of white-space which will make the page less appealing to read through. It might not be so bad on the PC, but looking at it on a tablet or mobile phone may be more problematic. But I think like with any code, parsers and templates, the right approach will help the articles stand out in a good way, while improperly using it will cause the opposite effect. (and while some of the templates here may be a bit unconventional, they have gotten us to where we are, people use what they know even if it is cobbling together code that makes some people scratch their heads. I am amazed at some of the code being used and have a devil of a time trying to reverse engineer it to figure out how it works!)--[[User:U64962917\|U64962917]] ([[User talk:U64962917\|talk]]) 00:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)		*** I see the potential for this template, it might not have much use on the aircraft or vehicle pages, however on other pages where there are more text articles sprinkled with images, it could help with the formatting of the page and ease the flow of the article. One thing I worry about (even in the example Flame2512 listed) is the larger white-spaces this could create. In articles with sparse text, it might make the format look chunky with lots of white-space which will make the page less appealing to read through. It might not be so bad on the PC, but looking at it on a tablet or mobile phone may be more problematic. But I think like with any code, parsers and templates, the right approach will help the articles stand out in a good way, while improperly using it will cause the opposite effect. (and while some of the templates here may be a bit unconventional, they have gotten us to where we are, people use what they know even if it is cobbling together code that makes some people scratch their heads. I am amazed at some of the code being used and have a devil of a time trying to reverse engineer it to figure out how it works!)--[[User:U64962917\|U64962917]] ([[User talk:U64962917\|talk]]) 00:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
	**** I'd like to make a minor point, that the issue you raised is just as applicable to the [[:Template:Break]]. [[User:U12017485\|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485\|talk]]) 16:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)		**** I'd like to make a minor point, that the issue you raised is just as applicable to the [[:Template:Break]]. [[User:U12017485\|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485\|talk]]) 16:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
		+	*****Yes, that is why I stated this...''But I think like with any code, parsers and templates, the right approach will help the articles stand out in a good way, while improperly using it will cause the opposite effect.'' I wasn't dogging Clear vs Break, I am all for templates, parsers and other code which will help simplify and make the pages flow better. --[[User:U64962917\|U64962917]] ([[User talk:U64962917\|talk]]) 18:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 7 January 2020
Line 3:		Line 3:
	** Well it certainly seem to make life easier when working with right aligned images. [https://imgur.com/a/miAUblE As an example], this is enough to make me like it. --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)		** Well it certainly seem to make life easier when working with right aligned images. [https://imgur.com/a/miAUblE As an example], this is enough to make me like it. --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
	*** I see the potential for this template, it might not have much use on the aircraft or vehicle pages, however on other pages where there are more text articles sprinkled with images, it could help with the formatting of the page and ease the flow of the article. One thing I worry about (even in the example Flame2512 listed) is the larger white-spaces this could create. In articles with sparse text, it might make the format look chunky with lots of white-space which will make the page less appealing to read through. It might not be so bad on the PC, but looking at it on a tablet or mobile phone may be more problematic. But I think like with any code, parsers and templates, the right approach will help the articles stand out in a good way, while improperly using it will cause the opposite effect. (and while some of the templates here may be a bit unconventional, they have gotten us to where we are, people use what they know even if it is cobbling together code that makes some people scratch their heads. I am amazed at some of the code being used and have a devil of a time trying to reverse engineer it to figure out how it works!)--[[User:U64962917\|U64962917]] ([[User talk:U64962917\|talk]]) 00:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)		*** I see the potential for this template, it might not have much use on the aircraft or vehicle pages, however on other pages where there are more text articles sprinkled with images, it could help with the formatting of the page and ease the flow of the article. One thing I worry about (even in the example Flame2512 listed) is the larger white-spaces this could create. In articles with sparse text, it might make the format look chunky with lots of white-space which will make the page less appealing to read through. It might not be so bad on the PC, but looking at it on a tablet or mobile phone may be more problematic. But I think like with any code, parsers and templates, the right approach will help the articles stand out in a good way, while improperly using it will cause the opposite effect. (and while some of the templates here may be a bit unconventional, they have gotten us to where we are, people use what they know even if it is cobbling together code that makes some people scratch their heads. I am amazed at some of the code being used and have a devil of a time trying to reverse engineer it to figure out how it works!)--[[User:U64962917\|U64962917]] ([[User talk:U64962917\|talk]]) 00:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
		+	**** I'd like to make a minor point, that the issue you raised is just as applicable to the [[:Template:Break]]. [[User:U12017485\|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485\|talk]]) 16:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:57, 7 January 2020
Line 2:		Line 2:
	* Well, it's standard HTML (as opposite to a rather unconventional styling of br) and on top of that it supports clears of both or just one of the sides (defaulting to both), as opposite to just left, and finally: It's consistent with Wikipedia, as opposite to this break template that's completely different to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Break Wikipedia's break]. Whether it's necessary - in practice it's not absolutely necessary at the moment, no, but, in theory: it's superior in pretty much every way. [[User:U12017485\|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485\|talk]]) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)		* Well, it's standard HTML (as opposite to a rather unconventional styling of br) and on top of that it supports clears of both or just one of the sides (defaulting to both), as opposite to just left, and finally: It's consistent with Wikipedia, as opposite to this break template that's completely different to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Break Wikipedia's break]. Whether it's necessary - in practice it's not absolutely necessary at the moment, no, but, in theory: it's superior in pretty much every way. [[User:U12017485\|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485\|talk]]) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
	** Well it certainly seem to make life easier when working with right aligned images. [https://imgur.com/a/miAUblE As an example], this is enough to make me like it. --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)		** Well it certainly seem to make life easier when working with right aligned images. [https://imgur.com/a/miAUblE As an example], this is enough to make me like it. --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
		+	*** I see the potential for this template, it might not have much use on the aircraft or vehicle pages, however on other pages where there are more text articles sprinkled with images, it could help with the formatting of the page and ease the flow of the article. One thing I worry about (even in the example Flame2512 listed) is the larger white-spaces this could create. In articles with sparse text, it might make the format look chunky with lots of white-space which will make the page less appealing to read through. It might not be so bad on the PC, but looking at it on a tablet or mobile phone may be more problematic. But I think like with any code, parsers and templates, the right approach will help the articles stand out in a good way, while improperly using it will cause the opposite effect. (and while some of the templates here may be a bit unconventional, they have gotten us to where we are, people use what they know even if it is cobbling together code that makes some people scratch their heads. I am amazed at some of the code being used and have a devil of a time trying to reverse engineer it to figure out how it works!)--[[User:U64962917\|U64962917]] ([[User talk:U64962917\|talk]]) 00:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:35, 6 January 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Does this offer anything new or necessary compared to the existing [[:Template:Break]]? -[[User:U38088265\|U38088265]] ([[User talk:U38088265\|talk]]) 18:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)		Does this offer anything new or necessary compared to the existing [[:Template:Break]]? -[[User:U38088265\|U38088265]] ([[User talk:U38088265\|talk]]) 18:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
	* Well, it's standard HTML (as opposite to a rather unconventional styling of br) and on top of that it supports clears of both or just one of the sides (defaulting to both), as opposite to just left, and finally: It's consistent with Wikipedia, as opposite to this break template that's completely different to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Break Wikipedia's break]. Whether it's necessary - in practice it's not absolutely necessary at the moment, no, but, in theory: it's superior in pretty much every way. [[User:U12017485\|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485\|talk]]) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)		* Well, it's standard HTML (as opposite to a rather unconventional styling of br) and on top of that it supports clears of both or just one of the sides (defaulting to both), as opposite to just left, and finally: It's consistent with Wikipedia, as opposite to this break template that's completely different to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Break Wikipedia's break]. Whether it's necessary - in practice it's not absolutely necessary at the moment, no, but, in theory: it's superior in pretty much every way. [[User:U12017485\|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485\|talk]]) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
		+	** Well it certainly seem to make life easier when working with right aligned images. [https://imgur.com/a/miAUblE As an example], this is enough to make me like it. --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:46, 6 January 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Does this offer anything new or necessary compared to the existing [[:Template:Break]]? -[[User:U38088265\|U38088265]] ([[User talk:U38088265\|talk]]) 18:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)		Does this offer anything new or necessary compared to the existing [[:Template:Break]]? -[[User:U38088265\|U38088265]] ([[User talk:U38088265\|talk]]) 18:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
		+	* Well, it's standard HTML (as opposite to a rather unconventional styling of br) and on top of that it supports clears of both or just one of the sides (defaulting to both), as opposite to just left, and finally: It's consistent with Wikipedia, as opposite to this break template that's completely different to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Break Wikipedia's break]. Whether it's necessary - in practice it's not absolutely necessary at the moment, no, but, in theory: it's superior in pretty much every way. [[User:U12017485\|U12017485]] ([[User talk:U12017485\|talk]]) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)