Template talk:Award

The February 14th change

What on earth made you decide to replace one template with another? The previous template, before your edits, was small and not particularly intrusive - now it's a monster. I really think you should have made a new template, or started a discussion before screwing up something that is used on people's user pages. Janizary 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The new format is overbearing. I will boldly revert it. --Ezeu 04:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this reversion much better myself. Perhaps the other version can be made in to a new template? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 08:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I did make this change because the old format was unneeded, it was just an image tag, so if it where kept like that, it had to go to TfD. _→AzaToth 10:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It was not just an image tag, it made it easy for lots of people to send out this award, - [[Image:{{{image}}}|left|frame|{{{text}}} <small>[[Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign|(KC)]]</small>]] is a moutful of text for some people to type in, had this just been [[Image:{{{image}}}]] I would agree with you, but it also contains links and formating. This is not worth starting an edit war over, but I know what brought me to this page is that I noticed the display of awards people gave to me was no longer neatly arraged on my userpage, so this seems to be at least somewhat disruptive, (guess the award presenters should have subst:'d them, but again thats more syntax to hand out a gift). xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 16:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to be honest: I do prefer old original format as well. Sometimes, simpler really is better. – ClockworkSoul 17:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this format is that it usually don't fit so well on a talk-page, for example

blablabla

have a habit to float to much; _→AzaToth 18:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A new section

Bla bla bla....

etc...

Image size

why was this option removed? It's still in the description, but it doesn't work - the images come out full size. It'd be nice to have back.. -Goldom (t) (Review) 17:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just had an edit conflict with myself while writing that. -Goldom (t) (Review) 17:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)