Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Clear"
Jareel_Skaj (talk | contribs) (Response) |
|||
| 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) | ||
Revision as of 20:35, 6 January 2020
Does this offer anything new or necessary compared to the existing Template:Break? -DnaGonite (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 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. Jareel_Skaj (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well it certainly seem to make life easier when working with right aligned images. As an example, this is enough to make me like it. --Flame2512 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
