Template talk:Major fortresses of Western Russia

Moved from Ghirlandajo's talk
My numerous beefs with the template:
 * Poor coding
 * is preferable to unnecessary line breaks
 * a single  is preferable to repeating needlessly   for every cell
 * A  definition is preferable to , 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)


 * I've put back my version with the pic spanning both rows. I actually think it looks very good that way, even though I'm not a big fan of pictures in footers. Circeus 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks much better this way. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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)