Template talk:Politics of Portugal

I do not think the template is too long and the now added content is relevant in this series. However, I will make the image smaller. The link to the lists of presidents remains outside the template. Electionworld 09:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template is too long, it messes with the formatting of almost every page in which it is included. Along with that, if you try to fix the formatting, you know that sooner or later, another link will be added to it, making it even longer. Afonso Silva 11:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just visited all the pages mentioned in the template. There is only one page where it is a minor problem with the formatting. The general advantages of these kinds of boxes remain: better entrance to related subjects. There is no reason to make an exception for Portugal. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this good formatting?

The template is longer than the lead and the TOC together.

I've created the following template - Template:Politics of Portugal small - and I'll include it at the election articles so that we can have a map of the results at the same level of the table. Afonso Silva 11:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: Ecologist Party "The Greens"

Afonso Silva 11:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my solution for Portuguese legislative election, 2005. I wouldn't mind that version used in individual party and election entries if there is a layout problem (see e.g. the parties with an own infobox). I don't see a problem at List of Prime Ministers of Portugal. The table can be formatted in another way, as one can see in most lists of prime ministers etc. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this solution is fine. In articles with tables and maps, I'd prefer the small template. In parties that have their own box, no box is the better solution. I've included the small in almost every election article. Thanks for the help. Regards! Afonso Silva 12:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]