Template talk:Browsebar noblank

This template was previously nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 11. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think why this is "better" is because it has no "br" break HTML tag at the bottom. -- Fplay 10:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary
Just to clarify, my edit summary was intended to mean "health" not "help.--cj | talk 07:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar
Please add to discussion on the usefulness of the browsebar/catbar headers, at Template talk:Browsebar. thanks. --Quiddity 21:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar = Browsebar noblank?
I've had a look at the source for each and yes, they are EXACTLY the same. browsebar doesn't have a blank space at the bottom either. Why the separate template? -- Gurch 15:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * noblank has a different margin-bottom setting. TheJabberwock 02:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And a slightly larger gap between the rows of information. Open both in tabs/windows to compare side-by-side.
 * But the differences are so very minor - (Specifically: a 6 pixel difference in bottom-margin. and a 1(one) pixel difference between rows) - that averaging the figures would make for a simple solution
 * basically a merge proposal. Should i propose a merge with templates, or does that sound simple/acceptable enough to be done without prior discussion? (other than what measurements to use) --Quiddity 08:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A merger is a good idea, as they differ little. Having fewer of these templates will make it easier to figure out what to do with them and how to modify them so that they are appropriate where they are. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Since browsebar has been successfully truncated, there is no longer a merge issue. Instead, we should probably just redirect this to template to browsebar? (I don't what else would need to be done concurrently (page move stuff, dbl-redirects?, etc), else would do myself). --Quiddity 01:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)