Template talk:Empty

I know I voted on this when it was created, but it is redundant, unused, unneeded. The issue can be fixed in couple of minutes, it is a waste of time to just add this template. This, however sorta different from trivia, as sometimes the user won't be able to find a good place to place the trivia away from that section.-- 06:31, 14 February 2014 (EST)
 * I've been thinking the exact same, I'm not even sure this has ever actually been used.
 * So should it be deleted?-- 06:46, 14 February 2014 (EST)
 * May as well be.

Add an image to the template
Recently, there has been some talk about adding an image to (see this link for details). To answer Walkazo's request, I have requested an image be in this template, too. This is how I think the template should be once the image is added:  This article contains one or several empty sections. Please add short previews of the separate pages that are linked to by these sections.

Proposer: Deadline: February 9, 2015 at 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per proposal and Walkazo's comments in the given TPP link.

Oppose

 * 1) Per reasons against the adding of image in the construction template, the current image is sticking out. Also, since its creation this template has never been used, in all honesty I see no reason for it to exist.
 * 2) Per Yoshi876.
 * 3) - Per Yoshi876 and myself in both the old and new construction template TPPs, seeing as I am emphatically against arbitrarily pasting ugly images in all our maintenance templates. It's unnecessary, it adds lots of blank space, it's often poorly formatted, no matter what you do it looks worse for some screen resolutions than others (while the plain templates are unoffensive to all), and as this idea shows, the images will often be completely irrelevant to the subject matter, so there's really no good reason for it to be there. If poorly planned and executed embellishments like this is what will result from the floodgates being opened by the construction vote, all the more reason why both TPPs should fail.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per Walkazo. Further comments below.
 * 6) I'm not categorically against adding images to template, but this is how not to do it. That ? block is off-center and random.
 * 7) This would look great if the ?-Box could fit inside the template, though yes, a Used Block would be better. This template isn't even used at all, anyway, so changing it won't do much.
 * 8) Unlike the Construction template, this actually looks good, but unfortunately the text is unnecessarily put on two lines to fit it in.
 * 9) I don't feel that the image fits the theme of the template. The template was one-line, it's unprofessional to break it into two lines just to add an image. However, that does not mean I'm against the whole matter of adding images, they just need to be perfect. Besides, the template is already redundant. It's not currently used, and I don't recall it ever was.
 * 10) Per all. A Used Block image would fit the theme better, if for some reason this proposal did pass (it won't), because a ? Block isn't exactly empty.
 * 11) Per all. A Used Block would be better.
 * 12) This image is too busy for a template.
 * 13) We're jumping too far here, just wait until the Construction template proposal passes (if it does). Then we can bring up a discussion on designs of the templates before we head into the next proposals.
 * 14) I don't know a article that even uses this template. And a used block would be better.
 * 15) Per all.
 * 16) Where do I begin. First what would This template be used for? An epmty article??? Also why would a question box represent an "empty article", wouldent an empty box be better sutied for that. Finaly if your gonna put an image in make it fit. Per all.

Comments
Well, first off, Stonehill, the comments of Walkazo's that you're pering are all against adding images to maintenance templates. I also can't find any hit of her requesting to you to make one about adding images anywhere, in fact (currently) the only mention I can find for that is from your own vote. If I'm missing something, point me to it and seeing as she just voted against, I don't think I'm missing anything. Secondly, why? The construction template discussion seems to be missing a crucial element that's not (currently) in this discussion. Namely, why. Don't tell me "this is a good idea", tell me why it's a good idea. Provide an argument for adding the image and then back up your argument with facts and examples. I can't speak for everyone, but I tend to auto-vote no when there is no argument presented. -- Ghost Jam 19:19, 26 January 2015 (EST)


 * Well, in a way, an example of what we're gonna have to deal with if the construction vote opens the door for further template images is useful for illustrating why it passing would be a bad thing. Not that I asked for an example either way, of course. Also, regarding the template draft here, the way it's formatted (with a fixed width) makes it run off the screen for narrower resolutions: this is what it looks like at 1024 px. For wider screens, it won't stretch all the way across, either, which is almost as unsightly. - 19:26, 26 January 2015 (EST)

This proposal has so much potential, but the ?-Block is off center. Here is a suggestion (you have 3 days to change the proposal):  This article contains one or several empty sections. Please add short previews of the separate pages that are linked to by these sections. For now, I oppose this proposal, but if the size gets changed, I will change my vote. Andymii (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2015 (EST)
 * WHY does it have potential? You can't just say that and hope the point speaks for itself. How will changing up the template benefit? Don't say "looks nice", that's not a reason. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 19:57, 26 January 2015 (EST)
 * What exactly is wrong with making something look nice? Is there anything bad about adding a little aesthetic touch? In my opinion, the colors go well together, and images do tend to make templates more eye-catching. It makes the template instantly recognizable, which is important. As I said, I still oppose the proposal due to the sizing, but I see no issue creating a more comfortable interface. Andymii (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2015 (EST)
 * Did you mean aesthetic instead of anesthetic? Anesthetic refers to drugs that keep people from feeling pain. As to the eye catching part, that's nice, but this image is so busy it holds the eye after catching it. Something simpler would be better.Warioad (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2015 (EST)
 * Crud, I forgot to sign the preceding comment so I am changing it before anyone notices.Warioad (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2015 (EST)

Ha ha, thanks for catching that! Error on my part; I'm changing it now. Andymii (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2015 (EST)


 * I agree with Andymii.  At last, the rock fell. 21:28, 26 January 2015 (EST)
 * Ample reasons have been supplied as to why this is not a good idea, both in this proposal and the ongoing construction template proposal. None of the people voting yes have addressed any of them. This is a problem and our voting system isn't set up to tolerate it. The fact that a majority of our senior editors are saying no should give anyone pause to rethink their position. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:33, 26 January 2015 (EST)
 * I agree, the proposal voting system has no kind of counter to these kinds of votes. This flaw should be especially evident given that the Construction proposal has already been extended due to them...--Vommack (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2015 (EST)

Here's what the drafts look like at 1280 px wide, btw. Anyway, regarding why the template even exists, it's because of this proposal, which was a response to Empty Section Policy stating that sections need more than linking to the (ex-)subpage. The counter-argument is of course to just make a quick little preview instead of adding a template and getting around to it "later" / hoping someone else will do the actual work... - 10:57, 27 January 2015 (EST)