Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 17 September 19 >

September 18

[edit]

Template:Largest shopping centres in the United Kingdom

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete, but no prejudice against recreation using a more well defined criterion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest shopping centres in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-encyclopaedic open-ended classification with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion, and no references for those included. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes do not normally contain statements likely to be challenged; this one does. Anyway, if it is useful and to be kept, I suggest it should be renamed, and the criteria for inclusion made clear. Wikipedia does not have articles on Greatest ice-cream flavours of all time or Some rather large trees I saw in the woods one day, nor templates with comparable names. A title such as "UK shopping centres over x0000 square metres" would, I believe, be preferable; or perhaps call it "UK shopping centres" and put the inclusion criteria as above-text? Would that work? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like '25 (or another number to be agreed)' largest shopping centres in the United Kingdom'?Rangoon11 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Trophy boxes' is a wholly subjective comment and there are large numbers of templates which address the 'largest' of a topic where to be definitive would be impractical, unnecessary or both. A navbox on the, say, 25 largest shopping centres in the UK, or on those above, say, 1 million sq ft, is completely within policy and also of use to readers (there are no doubt thousands of shopping centres in the UK, but the very large ones, such as Bluewater or the Metro Centre, are clearly of far wider interest than the average or the smallest, almost all of which wont even have WP articles). This navbox can very easily be fixed in such a way.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I actually commented on the selection criteria, though I certainly agree they're arbitrary, and that that's not a good sign. Since you asked, WP:CLN suggests that good navboxes have the following properties: "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article" and "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." Neither is the case here. Powers T 13:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The articles will (or should) state something like 'is one of the largest shopping centres in the UK', 'is the... largest shopping centre in the UK', so will (or should) mention this topic. Many of the articles do refer to other centres in the template in their article text. Of course they wont all refer to every other one in their text, but virtually no WP templates which I know of meet this criteria - which is of course why templates are needed and useful.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you have it backwards. The fact that the articles largely don't refer to each other (and they don't; go ahead and sample a few) is an indication that the topics are not strongly connected, and thus don't need a navbox. People interested in "other large malls in the UK" can easily go to that article to view related articles. And please don't try to bring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS into the conversation; this discussion is about this navbox. Powers T 13:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have an article on the topic (List of the largest shopping centres in the United Kingdom by size) which very much suggests that it is a related series of articles and a notable 'topic' for a navbox, but I fear we are going round in circles here so I will drop out of the debate.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes, but we don't create navboxes for every topic for which we maintain a list. I shudder to think of the number of navboxes that would be on the London article if we did. Powers T 17:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Template:Cquote

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. As stated by User:GentlemanGhost: "Incorrect usage of the template is not a valid reason for deletion". This issue should be resolved on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and possibly using an RFC, not through a highly disruptive deletion procedure. --Eloquence* 05:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC) (not in any WMF function, of course)[reply]

Template:Cquote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rquote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Cquote is used in 17,932 articles, Rquote in 1,084. Formats a quotation as a pull quote, where content in the body is replicated in large typographical quote marks. In practice, both are used as decorative quotes for a standard quotation and does not pull content from the body. This violates both the template documentation and WP:MOSQUOTE:

especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes)

Cquote should be migrated to {{quote}} and Rquote to {{quote box}}. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I yanked the typographic quotes from {{Cquote/sandbox}} for a quick fix, but I still feel that uses should be migrated to {{quote}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — I reverted this guy's quote quibbling at at the Chaco page, and he comes and pulls this. I am *sick* of these conformity cranks *wasting* the time of *productive editors*—you know, the ones who *BUILD* this encyclopedia and make it occasionally *fun to read*--like Giano or Bishonen or YellowMonkey--and make it the only reason anybody comes to WP, including time-wasters like this poor fellow ... Sorry, I am getting sick of this "death by a thousand cuts" which probably explains why editor counts are declining and star talents are being hazed off the site. People like this, with their Gestapo interference in principal FA authors' harmless little preferences, are replacing them ... Saravask 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Much as the sentiment above! Templates should only be deleted because they are somehow inherently broken, not because they're being mis-used. If the nominator has such a strong dislike of deliberate decoration applied to non-pull quotes, then they'd be more effective in evangelising correct use of these templates, not seeking to delete the tools themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is normally my position, but I just don't see any use for pull quotes in the encyclopedia. The misuse is rampant and is a self-propgating problem, where someone sees it used and assumes it is the proper way to do things. I considered a technical fix such as namespace detection to give an error message when Cquote is used in an article, but I could not see that would be any better. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support renaming this to {{pull quote}} and creating a new template, with appropriate formatting, for centred quotes, as they are appropriately used in an encyclopedic context.
      What I wouldn't do is to delete a template because it's being mis-used from ignorance. There are better fixes to that than deleting the tool. Nor would I assume that because I haven't yet thought of a use for something, then no-one else can. A little-discussed use for WP is not just for encyclopedic content itself, but as a repository of best-practice MediaWiki experience, suitable for re-use by other wikis. That alone is reason to take a broad perspective on the future potential of the tools. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry about your preferences Saravask, but one person's preferences are not the same as another's. Best to keep neutral.Curb Chain (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Although it is misused, blockquotes and pull quotes are different and they should be kept as such. InverseHypercube 22:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm hard-pressed to find an instance when these templates can ever be used, and I am constantly changing cquote to the normal quote template because it violates WP:MOSQUOTE. And Saravask should remove the insulting rhetoric.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The existing templates can not be migrated to the proposed ones, because 1) they have different size of the text. 2) Template {{quote}} violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Font size. 3) There is clearly written in the MOS, that: {{cquote}} template is reserved for pull quotes. At least as I understand it, that the template is reserved for some purpose. --Snek01 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not the appropriate forum for battling issues in the Style Manual, which shouldn't even be considered gospel truth in terms of how articles are to be put together and certainly isn't strong enough policy to justify deletion. While perhaps these templates might be misused in the eyes of some participants on Wikipedia, that is irrelevant to this discussion. By the admission of the proposer here, this template is being used on a very large number of articles and locations around the wiki, which to me shows substantial consensus that it should be kept simply by its use alone. Edit wars over the choice of templates should not be resolved in this capacity. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep- both quotes provide visual interest, which makes the article in which they are used more interesing and thus the content more memorable. They also serve to emphasize a salient point of the content. Also the "this template is being considered for deletion" tag is messing up the formatting of the pages it was placed on: plus everything User:Saravask and User:Robert Horning said 7mike5000 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. 17,932 articles would have to be changed from the cquote format to another format. That's too much work and this issue is too trivial. English Wikipedia has bigger problems to address rather than how quotations are used and formatted. Yoganate79 (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, some appropriate sanction to nominator this is WP:POINT. I am serious, raising at ANI.--Cerejota (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I wrote something different before but couldn't post it because of an edit conflict. Now I see you've stricken the ANI part of your !vote, I suggest you also strike the sanctions part, too. I'm having trouble believing you're accusing the nominator of bad faith. I can't get in his head, of course, but I've run across him in other forums where he is truly helpful when technical questions are asked. I just don't get your reaction.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not accusing the editor of bad faith, I am saying that jumping into a deletion because the template is misused is WP:POINT. Even good faith actions can be sanctioned. This editor should be topic banned from TfD until we know that he will not misuse it. --Cerejota (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as it's used correctly and sparingly, I have no problem with it. I have seen Cquotes used inappropriately, but that's an issue with particular articles & editors, not a reason to penalise everyoneTigerboy1966 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep these templates help format quotes on Wikipedia. It is also sometimes asked for at WP:FAC and WP:GAN during the nominations. AJona1992 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (puzzled) - i've seen these quotes in historical articles like Sobibor and Erich_Bauer and have found the quoted matter helpful --would the quoted material disappear or just be somehow changed to a different format?Cramyourspam (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - If Wikipedia was the world, this would be an example of very bad politics. As for the hazing rant, I agree with that; people can be real dicks around here. ResMar 01:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fully respect the motives of the nominator. I am curious, is there a way to satisfy your main concern about usage in article space short of deletion? I support keeping the template mainly for it's aesthetic quality and use outside of article space.--My76Strat (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How, exactly, would the encyclopædia be improved by deleting a template used for tens of thousands of quotes? If it's a stylistic concern, perhaps the template could be modified to make it more appropriate visually (though I'm not convinced that the current appearance is wrong, and pull quotes are useful), to save the hassle of updating vast numbers of articles; that's what templates are for, after all. If something really needs to be fixed, then fix the template once, rather than forcing many thousands of articles to be fixed. bobrayner (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Bobrayner - If the problem is that the big blue quotes are just too big then just modify the template. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note, after migrating Gay to {{quote}} from {{cquote}}, that the parameters differ significantly enough to make this a tall order. Powers T 01:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Yoganate. Eliminating cquote would create huge makework. Futzing with quote forms is a trivial issue and detracts from more important tasks such as building the encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Paying attention to the more major things in Wikipedia instead of squabbling over a silly quote template is essential here. Anyway, the person who proposed the deletion made a massive hole in his argument - deleting this template will fritz over 17,000 articles. Rory Come for talkies 01:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{cquote}} and delete and redirect {{rquote}} to {{cquote}}. This does have usefulness with respect to verbatim highlighting of an important piece of law or quotes of a person. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting and redirecting rquote in that way would break every single article it's in. That sort of pull quote isn't meant to appear in the article's flow, it's meant to provide additional information. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; Most uses of {{rquote}} should be replaced by {{quote box}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Keep: This is ridiculous. I also vote to Delete the idiot that tagged this template XFD. --Hutcher (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor/Migrate as proposed. Nominator is correct, and backed by the manual of style. These templates should be changed to mimic the appropriate ones and some bot put on the task of migrating the articles that use them to directly invoke the more appropriate templates. The ornamental quotes are lurid in the instances I've seen.  —Portuguese Man o' War 03:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe there is a misinterpretation of the guideline stated on WP:MOS#Block quotations. The gist of it only says to not use quotation marks when just formatting block quotations. There is yet no consensus yet I am aware of that completely prohibits them from pull quotes too. Therefore, consensus should be made to change WP:MOS first before deleting these pull quote templates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our conceptions of what a pull quote is differ greatly since I have yet to see this template actually used as a pull quote. Most uses of this template are blockquotes. Please provide an example where text in the content is copied into a pull quote that sets it off. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your request for examples are irrelevant. As others have pointed out, a template should not be deleted solely because a number of users have misused it. The original point I was trying to make was that WP:MOS only prohibits encasing blockquotes in quotation marks; the Manual of Style does not prohibit quotation marks with pull quotes. I should also point out that WP:MOS also does not really prohibit the use of pull quotes altogether in articles. Furthermore, these two pull quote templates are also used in the Wikipedia namespace and on user pages, where the Manual of Style usually does not apply. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles generally specify where the quote comes from via direct attribution and inline citations, so I don't think many readers confuse these with pull quotes. -- James26 (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, all quotes are attributed and sourced... But these templates are /intended/ to denote a pull quote, when in fact none of the extant usage /are/ pull quotes (I see it's being asked and none are being offered) —they're just /ordinary quotes/. The problem is twofold: editors chose this template because they *like* the overwrought look, not because they've pulled a quote out of the article; they are misrepresenting the form of the quote by inappropriate template selection. Secondly, articles should not use pull quotes because they are duplicative. A pull quote is an attention-seeking technique to seize reader attention amidst a riot of competing pieces, such as a newspaper page; wiki-articles are on single topics. Pull quotes have little or no place in this project. /begone/.  —Portuguese Man o' War 04:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, one possible solution might be to change the purpose of {{Cquote}}. Instead of defining them as "a template meant for pull quotes", we could change things so that they're meant to be used the way that most people seemingly prefer to use them. I'm only here part time so I'm not particularly passionate about the outcome, just throwing out some ideas. In any case, I agree that pull quotes have no place in Wikipedia articles, as they seem redundant here. -- James26 (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The template isn't meant for pull quotes because the documentation /says/ that is what it is for, more than a century's /typography/ says that. The way that most people seemingly prefer is uncompelling; most people are full of false ardours and exaltations, and an undue self-value. They are finite and small, specks and motes, moving with weak cunning and little wisdom. Use of this form of quotation presentation is inappropriate and this discussion has served to bring that to the attention of many. These templates may not be deleted, but they can be orphaned. There is a comment elsewhere on this page about the immaturity of this project, and the shallow outrage by many-of-opinion here proves it true.  —Portuguese Man o' War 04:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as everybody above. Agree with Cerejota (WP:POINT). Lebanese 876 (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep : my keep arguments are reflected in many of the logical keep votes given above, so wouldn't elaborate on that.Jethwarp (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Can we actually get round to deleting that annoying "This template is being considered for deletion" warning now...." Thanks Mike Young (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what alerts people to this discussion, so don't delete that until the discussion is closed. Lebanese 876 (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: It's really a matter of nitpicking and changing the template isn't necessary. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 06:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: As per Saravask. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 07:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: at nearly 18,000 instance I would suggest this denotes editors preferences for the aesthetic quality of these quotes within an article. I would suggest updating MOSQuote to reflect this and that Wikipedia guides aren't set in concrete and can evolve. I would also suggest editors remember that all of these MOS are applied with first and foremost common sense, and this TFD should be treated accordingly. Khukri 08:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — For all those reasons mentioned above. Endrick Shellycoat 09:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is useful to be able to distinguish longer quotes from article text. There is certainly a risk of misuse in including too long a quote, but that is a matter best dealt with in the context of the articles concerned, not by deleting the template. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep retaining typographic quote marks, is the sole purpose of this template, this add emphais to important sections of an article & I see no advantage of moving away from this formting. Steve Bowen (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are used in project-space. Even if they are not wanted in article-space, they are wanted elsewhere, so that is not reason to delete them. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. The deletion rationale is cogent, but that's obviously irrelevant. If ever one needs a demonstration of just how close Wikipedia is to Lord of the Flies then all one needs to do is add a visible {{tfd}} tag to one of the pretty coloured baubles that adorn our articles. Anyway, the project as a whole isn't mature enough to fix this yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Get real, man. There's nothing wrong with the template as far as Wikipedia guidelines, policies and traditions go. Why would it be deleted? Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly a misused template - but premature to delete ... Needs looking at - It really seems like there are too many quote templates eg see Category:Quotation templates. Also it looks like people are ignoring the current guidelines and/or the current guidelines contradict themselves. Some better guidance, more clarity on the MOS etc should be worked out. Those articles using the wrong format should be fixed.Imgaril (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per This, this and the other. They are frequently used in project space, even if not in articles. See no reason to delete. JonCTalk 13:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per This, this and the other. They are used in project space, even if not in articles. feydey (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per any of the number of people who have already said that there are more important issues to be dealing with than this, this is too trivial... Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep ~ very useful (and nice looking) templates used in up to 20,000 articles.
    ‹The public notice for this discussion is appearing (and boring) in countless of pages!› 
    Please, close this discussion as quickly as possible.
    P.S.: What about changing the MOS about quotation marks? These templates look very fine in the mainspace too. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I come here from Wujing Zongyao, and I think it's pretty classy. I'd rather see the grey box one deleted, {{quotation}} it's called, I think. And by the way, cquote is used in some WP:GAs like Huolongjing. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After trawling through this discussion I think it clear that there are appropriate usages of this template on wikipedia and thus its deletion would remove functionality from wikipedia. Misuse of a template is no more grounds for deletion than repeated vandalism is grounds for deletion of an article. There are other better remedies! Species Problem shows a good example of correct usage. basalisk (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Not sure I like "pull quotes" personally but the MoS quoted clearly implies that the "decorative quotation marks" are fine in pull quotes. Get a MoS change with RFC to deprecate pull quotes, then get this template deprecated for content pages. It would still be useful on back-room pages such as essays, instructions etc. Rich Farmbrough, 16:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep Use of a "pull quote" makes an article more readable and helps less experienced writers to appreciate the importance of properly-references quotations. If this is "against the spirit of Wikipedia" then the spirit of Wikipedia needs changing! Contributors should not be permitted to quibble (here, with ((cquote)), or by marking articles for delete or merge) until they have established themselves as authors of wiki articles in their own right. Neuralwarp (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Busy-body XfDs are annoying. Seriously though, this template has uses other than articles. I happen to use it on my talk page... Am I the only one who finds the more recent shrill cries of "But!!! We must follow rule X of MOS page Y because [someone] wrote it there!" annoying because it gets in the way of actually improving Wikipedia and making material more accessible to readers? Have people completely run out of things to write about and can only stay busy by worrying about the format of some small section of text or the usage of certain templates? --Tothwolf (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the upcoming signpost demonstrates, Cquote has uses outside the article space. I make no judgement about its use in the mainspace though. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is unnecessary and a waste of valuable time on Wikipedia to remove this template. It is useful for the reasons discussed by the other editors. Therefore, if there is a policy against it in the Manual of Style, it is to be ignored in accordance with WP:IAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar Choi (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - new discussion it seems clear that vanilla deletion of these templates is not going to happen. However there are unresolved issues. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Quotations regarding this. Please feel free to move it to the correct place for such a discussion if I have place in on the wrong page. Thamks.Imgaril (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Sven Manguard amongst others. If there is a problem with the use of cquote in articles then that can be made explicitly clear in the documentation, but it is often and appropriately used in other namespaces. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, my reasoning has already been covered by many others. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 17:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep put down the stick and back away from the horse.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 17:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saravask was a bit ranty, but still, this does seem like kind of a ridiculous discussion. Especially when it spams thousands of articles with the "this template is up for deletion" notice. Those are appearing all the time now. There's gotta be a better way. Oh, and the templates seem useful. Stop the myopic obsession with obscure policies.--Qwerty0 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it snowing? Keep per Andy Dingley. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find this tool very useful in many articles. --Interframe (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't see how this violates WP:MOSQUOTE. It reads: "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes)." Translation: Pull quotes, which is what these templates are used for, are fine, but if you're doing a blockquote as part of the article text, then use blockquote tag. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for several reasons already articulated. Instead of distracting editors with this proposal, the editing community would be better off if Gadget850 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) spent time improving the short and reference-free article on pull quotes, so that editors and readers alike could be enlightened by his proscriptive understanding of the topic. 67.101.5.104 (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeez, I understand you may be annoyed but please read the article pull quote properly: (quote, first sentence) "A pull quote (also known as a lift-out quote) is a quotation or excerpt from an article that is typically placed in a larger or distinctive typeface on the same page" It's not rocket science - the definition is quite clear in the first line.
    (Clarify) Here's an example International railway journal sept 2011, page 2 - the "pull quote" is the bit in big text that says "Zhujun, the previous railway minister ... " etc - the reason it's a "pull quote" is because the exact same text is in the body of the article on the same page (second column, first new paragraph) - it has been "pulled" from the text, and presented as a quote in big (emphasised) text - it's duplicated. Generally this is used to draw your attention and make you read the article - generally pull quotes are not suitable for adult encyclopedias. As far as I can tell the vast majority of articles are not using this template for pull quotes. Species problem (listed above) is an exception. - you can see the text in the quote, and in the body of the article.Imgaril (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite what you say, the fact remains that the article Pull quote is very confusing and hard to understand. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno - improve it then - though if you really find those two paragraphs of text that difficult to understand you must be fucked in real life ;) Imgaril (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Imgaril's addition of a reference to the pull quote article means at least something useful came of this WP:TFD. Can't say that applied to the "fu<!---->cked in real life" comment. 67.101.5.104 (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the <!----> because of this problem. I would have otherwise ended up replacing it with "@#!*%". Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 22:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have my genuine sympathies - getting told off for ***ing out a swear word just shows how disfunctional wikipedia can be sometimes. Are we censoring self censorship now? the mind boggles.Imgaril (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my count is roughly 48. I'm not counting comments, but I did count one refactor. According to the World Book of Wikipedia Records, the all-time high of !votes for templates was 3,452 set back in 1822 and involving an infobox for clams, or was it oysters? I hate to say it, being in a significant minority of people who want to get rid of the template, but the overwhelming consensus is keep. We just need an admin to close the discussion - and I believe it says at the top that there's a backlog. Another idea is people could stop !voting. It's getting kind of repetitive anyway, but that wouldn't help those who claim this discussion is "breaking" pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Template:Higher Education by country

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Higher Education by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Keep! (I was told that I would have to list this here in order to discuss it, since speedy deletions are no longer contestable)
The reason is that the single template is easier to negotiate than the regional ones. There were dozens of "See alsos" in the article Higher Education. This seemed unproductive. I created a world navigational template in order to a) clear the article of lengthy repetitive-type lists and b) to encourage readers/editors to create articles on higher education. (Part of this was to redirect "Higher education in x" to "list of universities in x." These articles were inadequate and this seemed like a good way to bring this to the attention of readers/editors. "Regions" seem like an inadequate way to collect all countries. Cannot easily tell whether all nations have been inventoried or not and, for some island and regional border countries, which "region" they fall under. This was hardly "orphaned." It referenced (maybe) 30 countries when it was deleted. Student7 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This template no longer has any backlinks, so it is an orphan at this time. The template that replaced it, Template:Higher education by region is more comprehensive, and it lists not only the countries, but the dependencies, territories and disputed states, whereas the "by country" template does not. Also, because the template uses the "Africa topic", "Asia topic", "Europe topic", etc., there shouldn't be any missing countries or territories, since those topical templates, I assume, are being kept up to date, since they're very widely used for a number of different topical templates. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I created the by region template because I believe that the regional templates are more comprehensive and more consistent with the Countering systemic bias project. I have asked for expert help on that project's talk page.
Also, I agree with "encourag[ing] readers/editors to create articles on higher education." I believe that the regional approach will be more effective because it focuses attention on smaller, more homogeneous and therefore more manageable groups. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, Talk to me! 13:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Higher Education by country|state=uncollapsed}}
{{Break|2}}
{{Higher education by region}}
Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I might add that the possibility of a decent article at Higher education in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is pretty remote in our lifetimes. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
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 section.

Template:Olddraft

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olddraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Users should be encouraged to db-userreq old drafts, not keep them. N.B. If successful, Template:Draft should have link changed to indicate that users should delete/move drafts when finished. --Surturz (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, this could break the attribution chain. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at the wording of the template, this is meant to be used in the Talk: namespace for community drafts (for lack of a better term), not in userspace as the nominator seems to think. As the IP pointed out, deleting those community drafts would break attribution if those drafts were ultimately copied into the main article, so they need be kept. This template serves as a useful way to identify such pages as well as to let people know what it is when they come across it. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Template:Logitech

[edit]
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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep, but remove red links and rename to "logitech products". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Logitech (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I should add that in my view the temlate would be better renamed as something like 'Logitech products', with the corporate info in the below bar removed, as it doesn't have any 'corporate' links.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_18&oldid=1142546389"