Others may have noticed and experienced similar frustration, but the {{mod}} template currently atop all Shivering Isles and Knights of the Nine articles looks out of place and plain ugly. The colors of the infoboxes, the ==Appearances== header and the first line of the lead all denote that the topic appears in an official plug-in of a base game, why a bulky header that pushes all the content just a few inches farther on the page? I propose that we omit the template and quite possibly delete it. It's redundant, unnecessary, and visually unappealing. If anything this template, or a similar one, should be added to pages about unofficial mods, granted we already have the Mods: namespace for this purpose. Another matter entirely, I suppose.
Example of an article that would benefit from its exclusion: Amber Weapons.
The only benefit I could see for keeping it would be for small DLC packages, such as Frostcrag Spire or Vile Lair. Even then, the template should be re-designed, recolored, and made slimmer.
Support[]
Support – As nominator. --—Deyvid Petteys (bother \ stalk) 06:27, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
Support – The mod template is pointless. As Deyvid said the color of the infoboxes and Appearances header tell you that it's a plug in. Balagog gro-Nolob (The Gourmet is listening) 06:48, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
Support – I never liked that expansion template. We all know Shivering Isles, Knights of the Nine, Dawnguard etc... are DLCs anyways. —TombRaiser SPEAK! 07:19, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
Support – This is exactly why I removed them all from Dawnguard pages. They looked terrible and detracted from the page. Not needed for now.
--Jimeee (talk) 10:18, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
Support – Visually excessive, this template is unnecessary. Dar'Rajhin (talk) 01:51, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
Support – I never liked it. Most articles have color-coded infoboxes, making this space occupying box redundant. ~ Flightmare (talk) 23:34, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose[]
Neutral[]
Comments[]
Comment – I remade the {{mod}} template. The image is just a placeholder until something better can be added, unless y'all like this one. We should still remove them from articles, but now the template looks more appealing. --—Deyvid Petteys (bother \ stalk) 20:20, August 4, 2012 (UTC)