Template talk:Governors of Massachusetts

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Massachusetts / Governors This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts This template is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts. This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors.

Alteration

I think this version looks neater. I like the idea of including pre-Commonwealth governors, but the way it's presented now, it looks disorganized. If anyone wants to make the font larger, have at it - it doesn't bother me. Keep in mind, though, that the font size is the same as Template:Massachusetts; I didn't pick the small size. Sahasrahla 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2007 change

I just made some major changes to the code that should not change the appearance much. The purpose was to add a "show/hide" button at the top. I deleted the flag icon, but feel free to add it back if you see a good place for it. --Fagles 21:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image placement and the use of hardcoded colors

the recent additions of hard coded colors to this template are not helpful, since the coloring of the parent template, navbox, is controlled by MediaWiki:Common.css. what will happen if the style sheet is updated to use a different color scheme, or if the user decides to use his/her own style sheet? we will then either have to change every template, in the first case, or in the second case there is no solution. this is why we have the guidelines in wp:deviations. here, we are told to use css classes and not override these classes with inline style statements. in keeping with these guidelines I have removed these color statements twice, and both times this change was reverted. as a secondary issue, I don't see why the image should be on the left, when the standard placement is on the right. unless there is a substantive reason for placing it on the left, and using inline styles statements to override the default classes, we should go back to the default of having the image on the right and no background color statements. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of the way the templates are designed. It makes them look horrible if the seal is on the right without the background colour changed. See how it looks cut up?. If you want them on the right, it's going to have to be with the background colour kept in. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes is entirely correct here. Images are almost always on the right. Mucking about with the colour by sticking extra code in is unhelpful. You say that this is how the templates are designed, that the usual practice looks "horrible" and that your way is "going to have to be"? No, it's not. These are only your opinions; navboxes should be standard in most ways. Also, your way looks odd because it's also missing the usual 2px white gap between the image ant the groups. Alarbus (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked further, this and the other half dozen that append the Lieutenants should be split and the Lieutenants done-up in their own boxes such as {{HawaiiLtGovernors}}. Alarbus (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

splitting it into two templates is a great idea, that way we wouldn't need the whole collapsed second section. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the articles will have to be tweaked. The "expanded" parameter has made them all dependent on the implementation of these templates. You willing to do half of them? Alarbus (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I split this one and updated the articles by going through the list of Lt Governors and the main Lt Governors page and making sure those were all correct. I didn't check all the transclusions, assuming that if it was being transcluded on a page that was not about a Lt Governor, then the main Governor template probably applies. over half of the Lt Governor pages were not using any navigation templates, so I the new one there. by the way, I found User:Jack Cox/Governor Templates which shows them all which is useful for quickly checking consistency. if I split one, I will make sure to update the articles, but I don't have time today to do any more. Frietjes (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules that it has to be this way or that way, only common practice. And Alarbus, you're completely overreacting to adding a little extra code. It doesn't cause any problems, you just don't like it. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fry1989, there are good reasons to hew to common practice. And you should not revert in the face of so many others editing in ways you don't like. Alarbus (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes, I'll see what you've been up to and probably tackle another. Alarbus (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the ones for Illinois. Most seemed correct and Lt Governors often become Governor and those have both template (and whatever else, such as Senate...). Alarbus (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]