Template talk:floatright-top

RFD discussion: October 2016–April 2018
I am baffled why these even exist.

The "top" one is just:

The "bottom" one is just:

Using these instead of the HTML increases server load (albeit only slightly), and especially for the "bottom" one, the wikicode is longer than the HTML. They also make it harder to understand what's going on with the page. This looks like a net negative to me, both technically and in terms of usability.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They exist because the majority here prefers templates over HTML and no better solution was ever found for the problem it solves. Ideally, we should get rid of all the wrapper-style templates (including and ). So, I like to think these templates are temporary.
 * They are better than HTML because
 * templates can have documentations (these do not, mea culpa) explaining why and when it is necessary to use them in an entry.
 * it is easier to remember for non technical people.
 * you can use autocomplete for templates.
 * They are not worse than HTML because of server load. WM servers are OK, you do not need to worry about them. --Dixtosa (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing very little real use for these templates (and some cases, e.g. over at dog in the manger, seem to be obsolete anyway). Do these actually solve some kind of a problem? There is no default use case where arbitrary content needs to be right-floated, and individual templates (e.g. ) that call for this can and do have the feature built into them. --Tropylium (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Without this styling in the entry you mentioned you get the etymology section in a little lower place than it should ideally be leaving an ugly gap above it. see. --Dixtosa (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Renders perfectly well over here (on Firefox 48.0.1 for Mac). --Tropylium (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I use it all the time. Kept --Cien pies 6 (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)