PROFILPELAJAR.COM

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 March 15. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Erm???

Ok this template really needs work you can't even read it. Whispering^(talk/c) 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you open up the image there isn't a problem. Granted it isn't perfect though, but it's far too complicated to represent as an html table with links, which is what I originally tried. I'm going to try doing it as an SVG when I can figure out how. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted now :) Emoscopes ^Talk 15:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it's still kind of bright for a encyclopedia have you taken a look at Template:Modern North American Ford trucks I think the various car templates are very well done. Whisp e ring 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'll look into muting the colours soon, would allow me to get rid of the white-backgrounding anyway. Emoscopes ^Talk 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? :o) Emoscopes ^Talk 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice, but the font is a bit small. I think 80% should be the lowest font-size used, as long as it doesn't stretch the smaller cells too badly. Also, the vertical padding could be condensed so the template isn't more than a screen tall. –Pomte 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently set at 75%, with some tagged <small> to prevent it wrapping the text. My thinking was anyone having problems could always zoom the text on their browser. I investigated reducing the vertical padding but I wasn't really sure how to go about this, if you could fix this yourself, I would encourage you to go ahead and do it, as 2 of us have been unable to find a suitable solution. Emoscopes ^Talk 08:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edits resulted in blank page!

I guess I should leave a hint for the next guy who comes here and wonders about me reverting so many edits. The point is, those edits resulted in a blank page, at least on my notebook (1024 resolution, Win2k, Fire3fox3.5). Imho the template should be viewable for all users. If you want to reapply those edits, pls do it in a way that doesn't ruin the template for users who can only use lower resultions. Gray62 (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in timeline

Yarrow Shipbuilders left Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in 1970. Charles Connell and Company contined after the demise of UCS as Scotstoun Marine Ltd, till 1980 (under British Shipbuilders from 1977). John Brown & Company was sold to Marathon Oil in 1972, which in turn sold it to Bouygues in 1980, who continued building oil rigs at the yard until final closure in 2001 (it was never nationalised). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.124.2 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

repeated from my comment at WikiProject Ships:

Helpful though it indeed is, it has a good number of errors. Most obviously, British Shipbuilders began in mid-1977, not mid-1976 (it may be that the whole time-scale is displaced by one year, but I have not checked). Even a quick glance, also

Harland and Wolff was never part of British Shipbuilders (indeed, competition was sometimes bitter between them)
There is no mention of Sunderland Shipbuilders Ltd (1973), which had already been nationalized in 1976 on the collapse of Court Line. SSL was not just the former Doxford yard, but also the Tees yard of Laing and Thompson. What's more - the continuation of the grey tint to the present implies they are still in shipbuilding, which they are not.
The Sunderland part is made worse by supposing that the A&P-Appledore emerged from the 1987 privatization - probably because the editors of the A&P Group article hopelessly misunderstand that company's origins
BAE Systems do not operate the former John Brown, Denny, Inglis, Simons-Lobnitz or Barclay Curle yards
Omitted altogether are Cochrane Shipbuilders, Richards Shipbuilders (still in operation), and maybe others
not sure why hovercraft companies are included.

This is only a cursory look as I am on holiday (with a far-from consistent internet connection), but can return to this later in the month. I do think that British shipbuilding articles as a whole need considerable collaborative work. Davidships (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template needs tech help!

I just reverted the unexplained removal from the British Shipbuilders page of this really helpful table that SKS spent a lot of time on a decade ago. Apparently there is a problem of its visibility on some mobile platforms. That may indeed be so, and hopefully someone will be able to advise on how to approach that technically. In my view this template, subject to some amendments is, just about the only way to present this complicated story with any clarity. However, a new, and odd, problem is that when I amended the template just now the revised version appears on its own page, but only the previous version will, at least for me, open on the British Shipbuilders page. Help needed!! Davidships (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The updating was a question of template edits taking time (in this case several days) to feed through. All OK now. Davidships (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]