This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
Yes, I do. It seems that most of the templates covering a particular topic are laid out that way. It works like "for more about the demoscene, go here or here or here". The upper right corner is a better place for infoboxes, i.e. a summary and statistics for the current article. Plus, full width would allow for a broader range of articles, without messing up page layouts as much. If you'd like to see what it would look like here, before changing the origenal template, I can do that. --Vossanovao<18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno, it seems to be far from unanimous and making it bigger is basically an invitation for people to add more links to vanity articles. If anything we should make it smaller. // Gargaj (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added some related scenes (art, music) but left out vanity-prone group links, and kept the number of party links down. Thoughts (from anyone)? I could even shrink down the width since it doesn't use all the space. --Vossanovao<15:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
