Template talk:no-image
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Bad Bad Guy (Talk | contribs) (→Category for people looking to add images?) |
It's dot com (Talk | contribs) (uh...) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:I think such a category would be more useful than the template, actually. It makes articles look quite ugly.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 21:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | :I think such a category would be more useful than the template, actually. It makes articles look quite ugly.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 21:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
::After seeing it in use, I agree wholeheartedly. I've removed the visible portion of the template (although I did think it was clever) and just left the category. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | ::After seeing it in use, I agree wholeheartedly. I've removed the visible portion of the template (although I did think it was clever) and just left the category. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| - | ::Why don't we just do this? <code><nowiki>[[Image:Nophoto.PNG|thumb|100px|This article needs an image to summarize its content.]]</nowiki></code> --[[Special:Contributions/70.253.165.204|70.253.165.204]] 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | + | :::Why don't we just do this? <code><nowiki>[[Image:Nophoto.PNG|thumb|100px|This article needs an image to summarize its content.]]</nowiki></code> --[[Special:Contributions/70.253.165.204|70.253.165.204]] 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) |
| - | :::That's not much help for a rarely-read article. Putting it in a category at least gives people some place to look for it. {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | + | ::::That's not much help for a rarely-read article. Putting it in a category at least gives people some place to look for it. {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
| + | :::::In addition, that line with Nophoto.PNG is exactly what I just ''removed'' from the template. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 17:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:52, 3 December 2008
Category for people looking to add images?
should this add a category to the pages it's used on similar to the way stub works? I think it would be useful for people who want to find appropriate images to be able to see a list of pages which don't have them yet. — Defender1031*Talk 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think such a category would be more useful than the template, actually. It makes articles look quite ugly. Loafing
21:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- After seeing it in use, I agree wholeheartedly. I've removed the visible portion of the template (although I did think it was clever) and just left the category. — It's dot com 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't we just do this?
[[Image:Nophoto.PNG|thumb|100px|This article needs an image to summarize its content.]]--70.253.165.204 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)- That's not much help for a rarely-read article. Putting it in a category at least gives people some place to look for it.
BBG 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- In addition, that line with Nophoto.PNG is exactly what I just removed from the template. — It's dot com 17:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's not much help for a rarely-read article. Putting it in a category at least gives people some place to look for it.
- Why don't we just do this?
- After seeing it in use, I agree wholeheartedly. I've removed the visible portion of the template (although I did think it was clever) and just left the category. — It's dot com 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
