- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Lord ViD 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Portal:Box-header-round
Uses browser-specific coding (which should be discouraged everywhere outside of userspace) and anything it does is done better by Portal:Box-header. cj | talk 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This one is in use by at least six portals, including one that I maintain. Cyberjunkie seems to want everyone to conform to one design modality. Well, round corners are useful, especially to highlight fictional, fun, or technically sophisticated topics. And for those browsers that don't support rounded edges, the portals which use this template look exactly like the ones that use the regular box-header. So no harm done. The reason I made this was so that portal builders would have a choice in design, and not be stuck with just one. And since there are millions of mozilla users out there, and mozilla happens to have features that leave the other browsers behind, there's no reason why we shouldn't support the mozilla platform. Please save it from deletion. Thankyou. --
Go for it! 02:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Again, nonsense. I have already responded to your accusations against me here, so I won't do so again here. Firstly, the reason why browser-specific coding should specifically be excluded is because it creates an inconsistency for our users and results in confusion to those unaware of the differences between browsers. Wikipedia should not prejudice against browsers (or if it does, the approach should at least be utilitarian). Secondly, the reason why the rounded-corner aesthetic should not be used is because it was already opposed on the original box-header and on other pages where it was implemented. That makes this template a PoV fork. -- cj | talk 05:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems good to me. I don't understand whats wrong here. A lot of portals use this. No problem that I see. K1Bond007 04:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing wrong with it, various portals use it ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 09:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see why we should delete this. ~ Kumar 12:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC) T/ C/ send
- Comment I agree that browser-specific code is sub-optimal, but I also think the decorative choices for Portals are too limited. From a technical standpoint, box-header-round should be discouraged, but it would also be a shame if the number of box design choices was cut in half (right now there are only two). Gronky 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep unless nom can come up with a better reason to delete. Browser-specific encoding is discouraged, but not grounds for deletion. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 00:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Lord ViD 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Portal:Box-header-round
Uses browser-specific coding (which should be discouraged everywhere outside of userspace) and anything it does is done better by Portal:Box-header. cj | talk 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This one is in use by at least six portals, including one that I maintain. Cyberjunkie seems to want everyone to conform to one design modality. Well, round corners are useful, especially to highlight fictional, fun, or technically sophisticated topics. And for those browsers that don't support rounded edges, the portals which use this template look exactly like the ones that use the regular box-header. So no harm done. The reason I made this was so that portal builders would have a choice in design, and not be stuck with just one. And since there are millions of mozilla users out there, and mozilla happens to have features that leave the other browsers behind, there's no reason why we shouldn't support the mozilla platform. Please save it from deletion. Thankyou. --
Go for it! 02:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Again, nonsense. I have already responded to your accusations against me here, so I won't do so again here. Firstly, the reason why browser-specific coding should specifically be excluded is because it creates an inconsistency for our users and results in confusion to those unaware of the differences between browsers. Wikipedia should not prejudice against browsers (or if it does, the approach should at least be utilitarian). Secondly, the reason why the rounded-corner aesthetic should not be used is because it was already opposed on the original box-header and on other pages where it was implemented. That makes this template a PoV fork. -- cj | talk 05:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems good to me. I don't understand whats wrong here. A lot of portals use this. No problem that I see. K1Bond007 04:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing wrong with it, various portals use it ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 09:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see why we should delete this. ~ Kumar 12:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC) T/ C/ send
- Comment I agree that browser-specific code is sub-optimal, but I also think the decorative choices for Portals are too limited. From a technical standpoint, box-header-round should be discouraged, but it would also be a shame if the number of box design choices was cut in half (right now there are only two). Gronky 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep unless nom can come up with a better reason to delete. Browser-specific encoding is discouraged, but not grounds for deletion. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 00:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.