Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Large print Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Snowball Delete. Forking for fonts is just not a good idea on here, version control would be impossible. This deletion is without prejudice for recreating this page (or a similiar page) with instructions or tips on resizing existing articles via js settings, or browser settings. For those interested in accesibilty for the sight imparied a starter page was made at meta:Making Wikipedia more accessible to the blind and could use some work. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Large print Wikipedia

A project to create article forks using the <big> HTML tag. This is fundamentally misguided because most modern browsers (including IE and Firefox) allow the text size to be changed by the user. Windows also has a magnifier function in the Accessibility section for visually-impaired individuals. This was improperly listed as a speedy delete; I've posted it here so it can receive a full discussion. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a bad idea, trying to maintain manually modified version of pages is just impractical given the 1,000,000+ pages and the frequent changes made to them. If the browser doesn't have a font size function or the OS a magnifier then a simple monobook.css should be able to do this, or if really needed a function added to mediawiki to have similar results. --pgk 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I considered this proposal some kind of a joke... and figured it fit in as a speedy deletion the way many random joke articles are speedy deleted under G3. Anyway, per above I don't buy that this is a good solution to making Wikipedia more accessible. However, integrated some usability functions like larger display fonts and high contrast text backgrounds might be something mediawiki developers should look into, if they haven't already. --W.marsh 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If we provide support for this at all, as opposed to passing the buck to browser and operating system features, it should be as a large-print skin, certainly not by forking every article. —Cryptic 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sorry if this was meant to be a serious project, but April 1 was a week ago. Wikipedia:Large Print Wikipedia/How to in particular is BJAODN material. Sandstein 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. With 1,727,811 articles as of this comment, this is too impossible to accomplish. Besides, as has already been noted, increasing text size in the browser is a much easier and far more efficient way to do this without even making a single edit. This could also be seen as a joke, too (I don't know if it is or not, though). Finally, if someone followed that how-to page's directions, then the GFDL would be violated (no contributor history). Simply put, this is a bad idea. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless renamed to Wikipedia:Wikiproject How to Hack Your monobook.css, Heck, Even Your Web Browser User CSS File, to Make Text a Lot Bigger, which would regrettably kind of defeat the purpose... =) Seriously, I don't think it's necessary to make separate "big" versions that lag behind when we have wonderful presentation technology, right in MediaWiki itself and on client side in web browsers too (as pointed out by others) just for this purpose. Perhaps someone could make an essay/help file on helpful tips for people with sight problems. Content forks are not necessary when technology works. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this was previously deleted after being made as an article - I speedy requested it becauser it had been re-made. Hawker Typhoon 21:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this is a good idea, as mentioned above, it should be done by fiddling with the CSS code for a skin, not by making forks of every article. -Amarkov moo! 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete while well-intentioned, it's redundant since both explorers and windows can help visually impaired people to read Wikipedia. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 01:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Impractical to do this manually. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If you want to make the text bigger on the webpage, you can configure your browser. Real96 05:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Configure your browser instead. Resurgent insurgent 09:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. Someone doesn't understand GFDL, css or how browsers work. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - configure your browser, or even your monobook. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the nominator. It's good for Wikipedia to support accessibility, but this is certainly not the way to do it. I'd like to see the front page have a link to a help page for increasing text-font size in several of the most-used browsers (at least IE, Firefox, Opera, and AOL's browser); and a link to a help page for using a text-to-speech reader. I know there's a page somewhere for setting up a user's monobook.css but it would be nice to have a link to it where someone of limited vision would realize it's a potential solution. Forking every WP article is not a potential solution, and I hope this idea was an April Fool's joke. Barno 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.