Template talk:Skins

Change

 * why did someone change it back to the ugly one??? i like the silver one
 * some one commented on my page why do i keep removing the skins template of the skins pages - and i havent removed it off anythin - i have a life- i want it on there - User:Russell29

Reverts of my edit
It's always nice to see your edits get reverted with no reason given. Does anybody want to give a reason? J Di 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, the one you keep changing it to is less aesthetically pleasing than the current one. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I could easily say the same for the revision that keeps getting reverted to. I think the current design looks tacky and unprofessional.  Reasons for why the one that uses the navbox table class looks less aesthetically pleasing?  J Di 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's too long and has one or two lines. I think it looks better compact, instead of stretched amd thin. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "one or two lines", but the width can be changed, though I think the table looks better when the characters aren't on two lines unnecessarily. Is that the only problem with it?  J Di 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's being raised, I'll side with Trampikey. If you want to do a vote to clear it all up, go ahead.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right... Well, if the width is the only problem, I'll fix it later.  J Di 08:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Silver:

 * as i created it - User:Russell29 -(talk)(contribs) 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With the vde thing at the top. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree Mikey Reedy Boy 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Silver, with vde.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

White:
Can anybody give a good, valid reason for why the "silver" navbox is better than the "white" one, which uses the navbox table class and thus is consistent with other navboxes across Wikipedia? J Di 15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Aesthetics, compactness. Not that a reason needs to be given now a consensus has been reached... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sixteen hours is hardly enough time to allow a consensus to be reached, and I don't think a vote should have been used anyway; none of my problems have been addressed (or even brought up) in discussion. I'll be adding this to Requests for comment/Style issues in hope that uninvolved editors will give a less biased opinion.


 * And for what it's worth, I prefer the "white" navbox to the "silver" one because the various font sizes used don't look disproportionate, the links to articles are bigger and not made to fit in as small a space as possible, and the colours used allow for consistency across other navigational boxes. J Di 09:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * no-one likes your one. It is UGLY. Look at desperate housewives navbox. they use one like ours. Look at One Tree Hills ect. also your "VALID" reasons are oppinions - while you may feel like that others dont. Why shouldn't a votE of been used. That allows people to say witch one they prefur. Stop changing it as no-one else likes it. IT IS SELFISH TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT JUST YOU DONT LIKE, WHEN MOST PEOPLE DO.- Russell29 20:32 24 March (UTC)


 * That is unhelpful, and is quite rude. However, I agree that J Di should accept that the silver one is preferred generally, and therefore should be kept, as he is the only one contesting this. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about other people; last time I checked, that wasn't selfishness. Unnecessarily small links with little space between them aren't easy for everybody to click.  Also, only the four other people that are aware of this discussion and have commented prefer this infobox, and they aren't permitted to speak on behalf of everybody else.  J Di 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, so if nobody wants to reply to my last comment, I'll take that as an all clear... J Di 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You've raised it elsewhere and noone else has involved themself - as far as I'm concerned the matter is settled and the template should stay the same until such time that it is contested by someone other than you. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I raised it in a place where it was unlikely to get a response and never said that it was guaranteed to get one. The problems that I raised have not been addressed, so until somebody can comment on why the problems I have brought up are not an issue, the matter is far from settled.  J Di 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If four people to one say delete in an AfD debate, it is a consensus, therefore as far as I think, this should be considered as a consensus... we all prefer it, it looks better aesthetically as it's smaller and not unneccessairly wide like the other one. You are the only person who has had an issue with it so far - I think you should just leave it now, to be honest. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The outcome of an AfD depends on the weight of votes, not the number. As I have pointed out before, I am the only person that has commented that has a problem with the template as it currently is.  J Di 21:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But surely if anyone else had a problem as strong as yours they would comment also? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That all depends on whether or not anybody knows this discussion exists and whether they use Wikipedia enough to feel the need to make a comment. But the fact that anybody is bringing up any problems should be enough to show that there is something wrong with the current template design.  J Di 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But that applies also to your template, which at least three people have a problem with... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but while the problems others have with the table using the navbox class are related to how it looks, mine are with the usability of the customised one, and I feel usability is more important than aesthetics; Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia after all, not a fansite. J Di 17:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the problem with the usability of this template, to be honest I just think you're being slightly pedantic about it now. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't expect everybody to see problems with the template, especially those who favour the less usable one over the more usable one, but I also don't expect people to not see problems for the sake of personal preference. As you conveniently can't see anything wrong with the template at the moment, I'll come back to this discussion at a later date, hopefully when there are more impartial people around.  J Di 08:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Character Articles
Should the 2nd Generation not get their own articles now? 147.197.190.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

Proposal
I know this has not brought up discussion for about 10 years, but would it be a good idea to link to all of the articles, and then redirect if necessary? Solitude6nv5 (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)