Template talk:slim-wikipedia

RFM
These two templates serve the same purpose, only the appearance differs. It doesn't really make much sense that some entries use one and some use the other, that is really the personal preference of the editors. So I think that there should be only one template, but users should be able to customise the appearance so that it looks like either the full version or the slim version as they prefer. 22:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. - -sche (discuss) 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. adds an unnecessary amount of clutter to the page.  does the same job, without the unnecessary image, without the unnecessarily detailed (and sometimes incorrect) text, and wasting less vertical space. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you completely missed the point... 23:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How so? I support merging the two, but the other way around. Even if it’s customisable, there must be a default. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * More pages currently use, so that is the more obvious default. If that should change, that should be discussed separately. 23:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger. The slim-vs.-fat preference is not merely personal: it depends also on the particular entry. Specifically, an editor who normally uses the fat version may well use the slim one on an entry that has other floating boxes (images, primarily). So it'suseful to have both templates. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not merged. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)