This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Any particular reason to change the layout from vertical to horicantal? I felt to see all the WH sites on the side would be more benefical then to go to the bottom of the page?
alren (talk·contribs)15:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning was that it made article layout a lot more difficult. For example, no images could go on the right where the template was, and with some stub articles the template was bigger than the body text. This looks a lot cleaner, and functions equally well I think, and so I was bold. Do you think it should go back? Wouldn't stand in your way, but I think it would be a mistake. -shuri15:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
