Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 12

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

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Long-article-committee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Rude, officious language, created by WP:ELAC. Redundant with {{Verylong}} --Dr Zak 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC) }}

• Delete Redundant and threatening. TimVickers 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Misguided, redundant, and threatening. Sandy (Talk) 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or failing that, redirect to {{Verylong}}) and MFD the committee. The talk page, along with this page makes an interesting case for deletion. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, I could definitely see how this could be threatening. After reading the committee's conduct page, I have absolutely no problem with MFDing the committee. --Coredesat 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary hostile duplicate of {{Long}} Koweja 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question Why are {{long}}, {{Verylong}} and {{Long-article-committee}} placed in articles? Shouldn't they go on the talk page as metadata (or note to the editors)? They appear to be addressed to readers when they are in the article itself. ·maclean 03:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment good point. It was brought up at Long, but there aren't really that many people who monitor that talk page so there is no real discussion. Perhaps bring it up at Wikipedia:Community Portal Wikipedia:Village Pump. Koweja 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen! Dr Zak 04:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Village Pump would be more appropriate. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it would. My mistake. Koweja 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I didn't really see a way the wording could be changed and still produce a different message from {{Verylong}}. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I did try to tone it down a little, but that version is almost the same as {{Long}} and {{Verylong}}. Incidentally, do we need both of them? Surely we only need one template saying "this article is rather long, perhaps it should be split up"? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Quite threatening, saying in essence, "Give up your long articles or we'll invade you!" SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Move "Zig", for great justice. Sorry, had to do that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - agree that the tone is threatening and authoritarian. I can't see that it would create anything but ill feeling from editors who see it slapped on an article that they have worked on. Also saying a page is "too long to read" is POV. Too long for some readers, not too long for others. Situation is much better addressed by {{long}} and {{Verylong}}Rossrs 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia's version of the Gestapo sound real threatening - perhaps they should discuss such issues with the individual article's main contributors? LuciferMorgan 04:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In its formation stage, \the coordinator decided to make a post on WP:ANI asking for admins to help prevent the main contributors from reverting the committee's actions. Make of that what you will. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The comment about "readers have pointed out" is not sourced to anything but the project page. So, it should say, "the members of this committee are pointing out that this article is too long." KP Botany 16:42, 18 December 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

In light of the below, The template has been userfied, and the redirect tagged db-author.

I've asked HereToHelp to close this section out if it's not cleared up by the admin dealing with the {{db-author}}... Apologies to all for my using something in it's infancy. I would welcome help coming up with something succinct and polite enough to serve the purpose. It's now here: User:Fabartus/Wet noodle award pending time to ruminate, evolve and lick my wounds. Best regards // FrankB 01:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wet noodle award (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Just look at it. — Omegatron 20:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. In fact, take off and nuke the entire template from orbit. Sockatume 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  It's the only way to be sure. — Omegatron 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and userfy. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh dear oh dear. Grutness...wha? 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ... wow, just wow. I would offer up a deletion reason, but I think the template in question speaks for itself. And to think, I used to think userboxes were the worst use of template space. --Cyde Weys 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I'm evolving this and soliciting opinion on same. It still has a bug in the link for some reason I haven't fathomed. FYI-Omegatron was first recipient, as I noted to him or her with a freindly note here.
  • Comment this is a bit premature... I've not even asked for reactions from a host of others as planned save a couple of others, the nom. included.
       IMHO, We need something like this to get an inoffensive adherence to those notations which suggest someone make a documentation trail. So pitch in an help improve, not shoot it down sans thinking it through. The alternative is one on one confrontations, which is hardly conducive to good relationship building. This would be far less offensive like any 'wet diaper' award... and it makes the point. This is a tradtitional award type in many societies. The stage after that as planned was to promolgate it on the WP:Village Pump. This is non-disruptive, aimed soley at at user talk page, and says what needs said with some tips. Help making it say it shorter, is the next step, as I'm not happy with the length either. // FrankB 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A small friendly and civil note to editors forgetting references might be a good idea, but this is not the way. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if you want to use something like this, keep it on a userpage, but it needs serious rephrasing to be properly WP:CIVIL. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Umm, how are you going to make editors pay attention to the message you're trying to give them by using phrases like these?
  • "I have found an action by you careless, discourteous, and/or disrespectful of other editors..."
  • "...and speaking for the rest of us, I resent it."
  • "I had to dig to figure out what the heck happened, by whom, or when due to your lack of diligence..."
  • "Consequently that failure becomes a blatant discourtesy to your fellow editors and disrespects our time."
  • "Yes, you should be checking such since you're the one who applied the template which reflects badly on the project at large."
  • "Since in placing such a deliterious tag you are making a broad judgment which reflects on the whole project, perhaps badly, the onus is on you to make plain to the rest of us why you made such a controversial judgement, and most importantly when and who applied the tag so blatantly disrupting a page's presentation."
• Then, after you chewed up the poor folk, you ram it in with
  • "I'm sure you didn't mean to be discourteous, or I strongly hope, so please think of your impact on other's when making important changes such as this incident."
• I can't see this template creating anything but flame wars. Delete. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, rude and the whole attitude is just wrong. Longwinded whining about people who are trying to improve the project is not good. --W.marsh 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oh dear. Delete per Valentinian & everyone else who feels this is really (a) too long, (b) too uncivil, and (c) too un-in-keeping with the "patience with the volunteers" attitude that WP is usually pretty good at. We have the Gentle Reminders to Use Edit Summaries, Gentle Reminders that Wikipedia is Not [fill in the blank], etc., and assiduous use of these, while not as satisfying as chewing someone out, is preferable. Although the wet noodle reference is mildly funny. Sorry, Frank! Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Her Pegship. It's just a rant, template-ified. I'm not against a template that conveys the same message, but keeps within Wikipedia guidelines and conventions.--HereToHelp 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (2)--Sometimes, things need said bluntly. This kind of thing is a failure, and make no mistake, it is a big failure by editors for tagging and summaries is the easy part of the job. This says so in no uncertain terms when I'm much tempted to use stronger language than this. Frankly, this is the only thing here I get emotional about, I don't let myself get excited about article content since the early days. It really riles me when I see someone tag without considering the consequent impact on the time the rest of us might have to spend in due diligence trying to figure out whether the article is better enough or not. When I have to then research to find out who and why, that's acid poured on an open wound. I guess that comes across pretty clearly. Which is why I was asking for input and put it on hold pending a link fix.
    
       Since our nom decided to act on this without interjecting improvement suggestions, so be it. From my point of view, having spent 30 years in the navy, this is a mild enough rebuke, but that was precisely why I was intending to spam for input and help evolving same. I just did that since writing the above, comment, and just added fat to the fire on the The village pump. I am at least on certain ground when I say that these behaviours are a detriment to all our efforts, especially our productivity, and we need to have some means of making the lesson take hold.
    
       Putting the tag on the article is the easiest 10% at most. More like three percent. Making the banner notice understandable to the rest of us is the job, if an editor doesn't have the time or knowledge to tackle editing whichever article he's trashing. None of these tags make us look good to the reader/user/customer. If you haven't thought about that aspect, please do so. I try to judge that every time I see one, which eats up a lot of time. Trying to figure out who to ask to look back and clear it, or why it was put on god knows when is more trouble on top of all that. This seemed to be an approach which might have merits. If the language is too strong (I can see some of what you mean Titoxd, but this isn't attacking edits, only lack of documentation. In fact, like most such 'wet diapers' I was hoping to come up with something that was more in the way of humourous, than offensive, but this is what came out Friday or Saturday. I've only wanted to apply it five or six times since, and gave into temptation. Sorry.)
    
       If saying I resent the time I spent because you F***ked up is too strong, then suggest an alternative. (I'll cede I F***ed up here, as this was solely a draft, I haven't had time to really chew back through the text, and I certainly should have waited.) Because if you've been tagging sans talk comments, you have F***ked up and been f***ing over the rest of us taking the easy way out. Anyone can place a tag on an article. It's the justifying the reasoning that gets challanging, and that is the information that those of us who come along afterwards need. Not the tagging. // FrankB 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Dude, how much explanation could possibly be needed when I add {{wikify}} to an article with no formatting or {{linkless}} to an article with no incoming links? It would be the same explanation every time. Templates explain what they mean on the template. If the application of that meaning to an article is unclear and unexplained, remove the template. But in my experience usually when a template is added in good faith it's pretty obvious why it was added. --W.marsh 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Can anyone suggest how we take this dialog to another place, if I cede deleting the template from template space is a good idea at this time. We need a copy of the template and it's talk preserved, and a substitute link for the VP. Ideas? Like I said, premature. // FrankB 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline T1. I could definitely see this creating CIV-related problems in the future. --Coredesat 01:47, 13 December 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep; closing early as consensus is clear, and this is being used in - and the TFD notice is uglifying - at least one Featured Article. In my opinion this should not even have been nominated. If it's broke, fix it. The "cartoonish" assertion is news to me and nobody complained at FAC. Nominating a widely used in good faith template for deletion is rarely helpful. --kingboyk 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cquote (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1. The template is poorly written and breaks web standards and accessibility. (See this comment from a screen reader user: "I didn't realise this template was the source of the images with the misleading descriptions; I'd learnt to mentally filter them out while reading. No-one should have to do that.") It uses HTML tables and CSS hacks (the kludgy {{click}} template) to create a visual blockquote effect, instead of using the semantically-correct blockquote tag. Even if the code were cleaned up...
2. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic): It enforces a widely-disliked cartoonish visual presentation style on the entire encyclopedia, sidestepping the normal consensus process for visual style decisions.
3. The template is redundant to another better-designed template: {{quotation}} provides the same blockquote and attribution functionality with the semantically correct blockquote tag, but without the kludges or ugliness.

Whether quotation's visual style is good or bad is irrelevant. The style for blockquotes, including these quotation templates, should be decided for the entire site at one place, by consensus, and the templates should follow that style. Style templates should not be forked to use one style in some articles and another style in others. Delete and replace all instances with {{quotation}} or <blockquote>

Should also delete Template:Cquotetxt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — Omegatron 15:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that I agree with Omegatron's argument. It may be that different layouts call for different quotation templates. And it may not be possible to legislate layout style through policy. However, I do hate the way this template looks, and it looks like it has browser-compatibility issues. Delete. — goethean ॐ 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What "different layouts", though? You think each article should have a different layout? — Omegatron 19:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I dont agree with deleting until a better solution is in place, and template:quotation's isnt any better. Throwing around these subjective opinions as if they meant something doesnt convince me. The only problems I have with the template seem solvable. Looking at how many people use cquote, its obviously popular - maybe its listing here isnt as helpful as would be correcting any problems. -Ste|vertigo 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  template:quotation's isnt any better A third option is using the HTML blockquote tag. — goethean ॐ 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Redirect it to template:Bquote. I just built this to provide a compatible, accessible, standards-friendly, semantic alternative. —Michael Z. 2006-12-12 20:06 Z

  Don't create yet another quotation template. {{quotation}} provides the same functionality in a simple, semantically-correct way. If you don't like the visual styling of quotation, that's no reason not to use it. What should be done, instead of creating more templates, is to decide on a visual styling that is encyclopedic and meets consensus, and change the quotation template to fit it. We should only have one template for each function. — Omegatron 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I already created it. Bquote is the only template which formats a long quotation as recommended by the MOS, without any extra formatting or decoration. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 16:50 Z

  There are other plain templates. See Category:Quotation templates. We don't need even more. The manual of style just says to use a blockquote and attribution. — Omegatron 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete—in addition:
  1. It breaks accessibility for disadvantaged readers: in non-graphical browsers and screen readers it adds unexplicable, mislabelled links to irrelevant image pages before and after the quote. So much for the "open" encyclopedia.
  2. It is unsemantic, replacing a meaningful blockquote element with a meaningless three-cell data table.
  3. It adds 890 bytes of images to the page, and about 1,500 bytes of source code for each occurrence.
  4. It is poorly designed: in professional typography, quotation marks are never added to block quotations.
  5. It is chronically misused: the MOS calls for HTML <blockquote> elements. Proponents say this template is only for special call-out quotes, but that is just BS: everyone knows it has been placed for thousands of in-line long quotations. Novelty typographical treatments like this make the encyclopedia look like a bad joke.

Replace it with template:Bquote, which is 100% compatible, and provides semantic, accessible output. —Michael Z. 2006-12-12 20:04 Z

• Comment I've never really cared for this one, quotes in this style seemed more appropriate for a magazine than an encyclopedia. The style seems to imply a pull quote rather than an inline quote, and just isn't very formal at all. We don't have to be stodgy, but we're really not trying to be playful either. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Good point. When's the last time a paper encyclopedia had pull quotes? Reader's Digest, sure but not Brittanica. — Omegatron 00:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Pull quotes are actually used in a few articles. But in dozens of articles, I've only ever seen this template used for block quotations in the text. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 17:15 Z

• Redirect to another quote template. Bquotecould work. The sheer number of links to it is a case against straight deletion. --*Spark* 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{bquote}}, which seems to have been invented for the purpose of redirecting cquote to (which is why it has two redundany parameters). Bquote may need protection (because cquote is protected but bquote isn't). Also note that there isn't a TfD notice on Cquote, due to the protection. --ais523 09:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  If it is redirected, then it would make perfect sense for Bquote to be protected for the same reason cquote was. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 17:15 Z

• Comment - I've added the TfD notice to the cquote template itself, as requested. — Omegatron 14:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• While I understand the concerns, I find it immensely visually appealing... I'm torn on this decision, but would vote keep for now. —Nightstallion (?) 14:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - I understand everyone's reasoning for not wanting it, but simply deleting it would leave countless articles with broken templates. Redirecting it to Template:Quote or Template:Bquote is a good idea. --Crashintome4196 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - but depreciate. I agree it shouldn't be used in articles, but it has uses outside of that. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  What other uses would it have? — Omegatron 15:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Is there a single example anywhere where cquote has been used for something else? —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 17:15 Z

  The following Featured portals use this template: Education, Latin America, Literature, London, Photography. Rfrisbie^talk 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - if it's poorly written, rewrite it better. It's useful, and visually appealing, so it's used. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Not just poorly written, but demonstrably reduces accessibility. Of the dozens of commentators, none has suggested that he will rewrite it. Let's get rid of it, and consider restoring it if the unlikely scenario that it is rewritten ever comes to pass. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 17:15 Z

• Keep. It is a poor idea to delete a widely used template. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  If deleted, it will be replaced by a template that looks good and doesn't prevent access by the blind. — Omegatron 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A widely-used template that can be fixed. If screen-readers struggle to read it, how come the alt text (if that's how screen readers describe images) of the quote marks isn't "begin quote/quotation"? I don't see the template as "silly", I find it a useful to distinguish quotes from the rest of the text, and it's visually appealing compared to other quote templates. <blockquote> has the annoying property of making the font-size of the quote smaller, which disadvantages those with poorer eyesight.

Anyway, just because Britannica et al doesn't have these type of quote templates, doesn't mean we shouldn't. It makes it an easier encyclopedia to read. However, I can accept Template:Cquotetxt as an alternative. CloudNine 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the quotation marks are to have alt text specified, it ought to be actual quotation marks, [“] and [”], not phrases describing them. But it's impossible anyway, because the technique used to display them is a complicated wikitext/HTML/CSS hack aimed at making wiki images non-clickable in graphical web browsers.

A broken template ought to be removed until it is fixed—although no one is offering to fix it.

Template cquotetxt solves the image problem, but it is still a poor use of an HTML table in place of a block quotation.

The formatting for the blockquote element can be changed—it is specified in the project's monobook.css style sheet. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 17:15 Z

• Comment: Instead of redirecting it to Template:Bquote couldn't we just copy and paste Bquote code into this template? If not, I too would like to see it redirected to Template:Bquote, I find Michael Z. concerns, along with the nominator's, valid especially about compatibility and usefulness of the quotation images. - Tutmosis 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  That's what would happen if it were deleted. — Omegatron 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. For the following reasons:

1. Technical coding problems which can be fixed are not a reason to delete a template.
2. Stylistic preference should be decided on an article basis or through the MoS - thousands of users have voiced support for this template by using it. Stylistic concerns can and should be addressed by creating a style guideline, such has been done with bold text and other stylistic elements.
3. The template does not duplicate other templates, no other template does what this template does.-- Stbalbach 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Can you fix the coding problems? I don't think it's even possible.
2. Stylistic preference should be decided through the MoS, not on an article-to-article basis. Cquote was an attempt to circumvent consensus by forking a quotation template so that people who liked this style can enforce it on everyone who doesn't like it. — Omegatron 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Accessibility problems which no one is fixing is a reason to delete it.
2. The stylistic preference is has been decided, and the style guideline you ask for is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations. The consensus of tens of thousands of editors is to use plain blockquote tags. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 17:15 Z
3. Unfortunately, that's not true. See template:Rquote. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 17:15 Z

• Keep - I find it visually appealing.--Aldux 16:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Most people don't. Shouldn't the visual style of our articles be decided by consensus like everything else? — Omegatron 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Disagree with the "most people don't" comment. We're deciding it by consensus right here. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is presumably not beyond the wit of man to fix the code problems. Why does it use {{click}} anyway? And can't some ALT text be added to help text reading software? We don't have to limit ourselves to using only existing html tags, like <blockquote>. As for consensus, how many people who use this template are even aware that this deletion debate is under way? (I happened to be passing because of the ELAC business above.) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Methinks you presume too much: no one is offering to fix the code problems. It uses click as a hack to make the quotation mark images unclickable in most graphical browsers, while reducing accessibility even further. Alt text can't be added in wikitext. In fact we should limit ourselves to semantic HTML elements like <blockquote> for block quotations—visual formatting can and should be implemented properly using CSS. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 17:15 Z

• Keep per User:CloudNineRaveenS
• Keep. I like and use it. --Striver 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Or sort this out quickly. Because by offering this for deletion, it has messed up a load of pages that use it including featured articles. --Zleitzen 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I strongly agree with Zlietzen's desire for a quick resolution; the pages that currently this template now look terrible. Venicemenace 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I happen to love the way this template makes quotes look. It makes them stand out and be noticed. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, I love it and use it. The quotation template is ugly. Cuñado - Talk 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Far too much collateral to delete. Fix for sure, but don't delete. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Andrew Dalby 17:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The template has great visual appeal. If it has technical issues that need to be addressed, then let's address them. The proposed replacement template {{bquote}} unfortunately doesn't send me the way this design does. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until an equally attractive template can be created. Yes, attractive. The suggested alternative is the ugly one. I like the curly quotes and would miss them. This template helps bring a tiny spark of joy into an otherwise fairly dull encyclopedia. However, I would strongly encourage fixing any usability and inter-browser breaks and kludges. In fact, if it is determined that the template absolutely cannot be made 100% accessible, then I'd change my vote to a delete. I firmly believe in sacrificing visual appeal to ensure usability by those who cannot see (and likewise for other challenges). --Willscrlt 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment regarding "fixing" template:cquote—There is no fixing this template. No one is offering to fix it. The problem is basic to its design: it incorporates a complex, broken hack involving wikitext, HTML and CSS to make unclickable images in Wikipedia, but it only works in graphical browsers. The accessibility of this template for users of alternative browsers and screen readers for the handicapped is permanently broken. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 17:42 Z

Why can it not be fixed? It displays two images, yes? So surely those images can have an ALT tag, yes? Or no? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Alt tags cannot be specified in wikitext. Images without links cannot be placed in wikitext. Hacks to work around these limitations, like template:click, are broken. I have proposed a general method for rebuilding this template from scratch at template talk:cquote, twice, but no one has shown interest in the undertaking. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 18:05 Z

I am not sure I understand the technicalities. Would it be possible to replace the images with actual quotation marks, [“] and [”], of a ridiculously large font size? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That would solve part of the problem. We're discussing this very idea at template talk:cquote. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 20:37 Z

• Keep and fix. It's visually appealing. There's no such thing as impossible to fix. --Qyd 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Jingoism is not going to fix this. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 18:06 Z

  It's not jingoism, it's optimism. --Qyd 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  So you're going to fix it? — Omegatron 18:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, temporarily Redirect to a more effective template, or strip down and rebuild ASAP. Nice as it is, and widespread as it is, the accessibility guidelines are a high priority. Sockatume 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to one of the other quotation templates. There are way too many of them, and this is the worst one. -- Renesis (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This template is an accepted element in a number of Featured portals, e.g., Education, Latin America, Literature, London, Photography. If it has technical problems, then fix them. Rfrisbie^talk 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP. Cricket02 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep until a better solution is in place, possibly redirect. It wouldn't serve Wikipedia to delete this wholesale. ekantiK ^talk 18:52, 13 December 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Falsely implies that an article should not be edited while related arbitration is ongoing. Arbitration does not make content decisions; arbitration evidence uses history links and diffs, rather than links to the current version of a page. If arbiters really want a page not to be modified, they can protect it or make an "emergency injunction" against it, but this is extremely rare. Simply put, arbitration does not mean all related issues should be frozen. (Radiant) 12:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It doesn't say that a page should not be edited, it says that you should read relevant discussions before making major edits. I think the template should be changed to say what those issues are and link to the discussions, but it is an acceptable template. Koweja 22:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant with such templates as {{Controversial}} or {{Calm talk}} Dr Zak 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment neither of those template are the same as this one. Those just remind everyone to behave themselves, but in no way involve Arbcom. This one is for when Arbcom is already involved. Koweja 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeat after me: "Arbcom deals with editor behavior. Arbcom does not deal with content issues." Seriously, there is any number of tags out there to say that an article is controversial, disputed, a source of conflict, a POV magnet, and whatnot. Arbcom on the other hand, gets called in when someone becomes sufficiently disruptive to make editing impossible. We don't need a tag saying effectively "Don't try to edit here fruitfully, please wait until we are done". Dr Zak 04:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I could see a mediation tag; but if ArbCom wishes a page frozen, they can protect it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What does this template have to do with locking a page? All it does is alert the readers that there is a dispute in progress, something that is relevant to them. Koweja 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The only articles which this tag would ever be relevant to always have a dispute in progress, or will the instant someone makes a major edit. Besides, if the arbitration is about, say, the "History of X" section, why should I be discouraged from editing some other section? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  22:35, 16 December 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:StarStruck Final 14 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

For starters, this would include a lot more entries (season five begins in earnest in a few weeks' time, and this could be better divided into finalists per season, although not all of the finalists currently pass the notability criteria. ----Howard the Duck 08:50, 12 December 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:USSR Squad 1988 European Football Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Similar to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_21#Template:Turkey Squad Euro 2000. Chanheigeorge 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per reasoning in the cited TfD and several others. Oldelpaso 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, only World Cup and club as said many times before. Punkmorten 21:31, 18 December 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Computer Magazines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template purpose unclear, no obvious benefit. It's an incomplete list of computer magazines. If we included every computer magazine article that exists on WP, it would be massive, its size outweighing its benefit. Since there seem to be no criteria for inclusion/exclusion, leaving it as it is at present would result in an arbitrary list, and what's the point of that?

I appreciate that this is supposed to be a template version of Computer magazines, but I just don't see the benefit. I raised the issue at Template_talk:Computer_Magazines previously, but no-one replied. --Fourohfour 13:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(Nominator): I vote Delete unless someone can provide a good case in favour of keeping it. Fourohfour 13:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote keep. It can help in linking computer magazines. Not everyone may know about a computer magazine other than the a limited no. of. Note: Preceding comment was unsigned, and it's unclear who made it. Fourohfour sorry for not signing --seXie^♭♭_c 18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a benefit/bloat tradeoff. As I said, making this complete would result in it being far too large; keeping it as is would make it arbitrary and pointless. Fourohfour 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Due to the sheer number of articles this list is more easily handed by a category. Sockatume 20:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, better for categories. I'm gonna fix the {{tfd}} tag, it's breaking layout on pages with it transcluded. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Huge template, would be better served by a category. --*Spark* 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Of little use if incomplete, and if complete, would be far too large. A catagory would be a much more sensible option. Hyperspacey 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Put as a category.--HereToHelp 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Replace with {{otherarticles}}; or a small template based on it, which provides a link to a list page. There's nothing wrong with a navtemplate; but this one is excessive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  22:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It might be better to split it into several more specific templates, each with fewer links to more closely-related articles. For example, "Future Publishing computer and video games magazines". --Nick R^Talk 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's unweildy, unfocussed, and contains several titles which are videogame magazines, not computing. Tim 16:08, 18 December 2006 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.