Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was keep/merge. While the lack of consensus for deletion is fairly obvious, it's important to address some specific points and background. Hereafter, I'll use the term "template" (referring to the page's function, not its namespace). Note that the move to userspace had no impact on this closure. Such a change doesn't confer immunity to deletion (and given the context in which the template is used, it probably was inappropriate). Likewise, a WikiProject has no special authority to control the site's content, so that's another non-factor. Regarding the assertion of redundancy, it's true that the style difference is relatively minor. Looking beyond this particular debate, there certainly is consensus (which, if anything, has increased over the years) that maintaining consistency within the encyclopedia proper generally is desirable (excepting certain contexts in which it's unfeasible or detrimental, such as that of English variety usage). Conversely, the community has long extended significantly greater latitude to other namespaces (and particularly to pages unlikely to be edited by typical visitors). Additionally, there's longstanding consensus that there are benefits to maintaining visual styles distinct from those used in the encyclopedia (thereby reducing the likelihood of confusion regarding content's nature). This dates back at least to 2005, when we established a standard template color scheme for the talk namespace. (We did the same for other namespaces in 2007 and 2008.) If this template were used in the main namespace, I suspect that the discussion would have gone very differently. The technical argument is valid, but there's little agreement that it justifies outright deletion. The suggested solution of merging the two templates (thereby converting this one to a wrapper) enjoys greater support and is consistent with decisions reached in similar situations, so those with the necessary know-how should feel free to proceed (and irrespective of that, the "semantic quotation markup" issue should be rectified). —David Levy 13:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/Quote


Redundant to other pullquote templates. Also does not use semantic quotation markup; if kept, this should be rectified. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is used for the Signpost and is not meant for articles. I'm shocked that you have not chosen to notify the Signpost; I found out from a gigantic MfD template plastered on a recent article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither "used for the Signpost" nor "not meant for articles" are reasons not to delete a template when other suitable alternatives exist. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Improper canvassing by The ed17, . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree about that note: I think it's important to respond that the diff is NOT clearly showing improper canvassing, to say it was is a judgment that is not clearly true.  In my view it was an appropriate response to a direct question from a Signpost reader that required an answer.  It does not meet definition of wp:CANVASS, which is about selectively messaging persons to influence a decision process.  It seems reasonable to me that the reply include link to the ongoing discussion.  Readers of the reply are no more likely to be opposed vs. supporting of the change.  While there was some subjectivity expressed in the response, that actually helps in the context of explaining to the questioner and other readers that the evident disruption (can't think of a better word) of the SignPost presentation was not intended by the SignPost editors.  And, if the message is evaluated on the Scale/Message/Audience/Transparency scale given at wp:CANVASS for evaluating messages broadcast selectively to Talk pages (which it was not), I would judge it as having Scale: Limited posting (just posted once), Audience: Nonpartisan, and Transparency: Open.  It could have been more impartial in its message, if it were a message that was being used in unsolicited canvassing to Talk pages.  But it was appropriate in context and it was not canvassing IMO. -- do  ncr  am  22:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see any good reason to have an extra quote template for the Signpost. Use what we have, keep simple, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Administrative comment: This discussion was speedily closed as "keep", but is now reopened following discussion at Deletion review/Log/2014 October 23.  Sandstein   07:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it was closed as "Speedy keep", diff. A participant at the DRV asserted that this was a NAC done by an administrator.  The MfD was then quietly reopened by the nominator with the edit summary "nope", diff.  Then it was reclosed by the original closer, again as "Speedy keep", diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You have the chronology and other facts wrong, as can be seen from the edit history and the link which User:Sandstein helpfully provided. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If any "chronology and other facts" are "wrong", why are you unable to identify any errors, and why are you unable to identify the errors in the matching references I provided? Nor has User:Sandstein provided any clarification.  Without evidence to the contrary, my correction of Sandstein's statement stands as correct, factual, documented, and helpful.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete- It is unclear how this differs from the regular pullquote template and, if it does, why there needs to be two slightly different variations on the theme. MfD is the right place for this discussion. Reyk  YO!  08:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As Newyorkbrad [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2014_October_23&diff=631829775&oldid=631781367 eloquently states] (in part), "" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That comment may be eloquent; but it is wrong. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's it? He's "wrong"? Here's a tip: Try to explain why he is wrong, and ohter people are more likely to consider your argument.  07:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I already did; in a discussion to which you were party. That's why your attempt to prematurely close this discussion, which his comment was supporting, was overturned. Others have also done so, there and on this page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, but okay. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason MfD is the right place for discussions like this is that wikiprojects do not own their pages and subpages. It is not necessary to get a wikiproject's permission to nominate a page for deletion. Of course it is politer to run these kinds of things by them first, but it is not strictly necessary. It needs to be possible to delete problematic content even over the objections of the offending wikiproject, as was done with the Rescue template, and the whole of Esperanza. Reyk  YO!  02:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge when a suitable replacement exists. Template has styling associated with the Signpost that no other template can (yet) offer (grey quotes instead of purple). Also, if a page is used as a template, it should be listed at TfD, not here. I still consider this the wrong venue.  08:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A pointer to this discussion was placed at TfD both at the time of the original nomination, and again when it was reopened. Suitable replacements already exist. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That template is not suitable because of the wrong styling. That will have to be fixed first. But not under duress of this MfD.  07:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * MfD is a discussion (one whose your attempts to stifle have already been rebuffed by the community), not "duress". Please ratchet down the hyperbole. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You've had multiple opportunities to withdraw your nomination in favor of a fair discussion at WT:SIGNPOST. Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Notes: I guarded the template against leaking the MfD notice, which is quite disruptive. Also note the template itself has been userfied, and the page is now a redirect.  08:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments: thank you, everyone, for (not) bothering to notify me that there was a deletion review. Really, I think that choosing not notifying the major contributor(s) is best practice. Sarcasm aside, this template has been userfied, so I see little need for further discussion. There was no need for discussion in the first place (as Newyorkbrad put it, ""), but this solution wastes less of everyone's time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Sorry for not notifying you The ed, it would have been the more courteous thing to do. Secondly, I don't think it's the best plan to use userspace templates in the Signpost, nor do I think something being in userspace makes it "immune" to MfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or (if we must) Merge: Signpost articles are not encyclopedia articles, and as such, the Signpost may have completely reasonable and justified requirements for Signpost specific templates (in Project space, not in somebodies personal userspace, but I think we can chalk that one down to a temporary lapse of judgement). The pull quote is not one of them - this template is redundant to pull quote. If we quickly compare them:

this is pull quote: this is some example context. I'm not making it too long to avoid cluttering this MfD this is the signpost pull quote:

I won't pretend they're identical. The color of the quotes is different, as is the text size. I don't think it's preferable to keep the maintenance overhead over such small details. I could understand the doubt about maintenance overhead being real. Looking at both templates however, I see the valign attribute on this template, which is invalid HTML5, which has been replaced by a (valid and functionally identical) style attribute on pull quote, demonstrating technical debt on the template. Another issue is that both templates currently use tables for layout. That should really be re-written as a blockquote, to make use of the semantic elements of HTML, and works better on mobile devices. If we use one template for both, this wouldn't lead to duplicated effort and possibly leaving one of the two behind. That demonstrates that there is a real-life case for combining the two. Now I personally don't think that the difference in style is sufficient to need to differentiate, but I understand that to the Signpost folks this is a significant problem. A solution could be to merge the two templates. Add textsize and quotemarkcolor parameters to pull quote and make this template call pull quote with those parameters - or preferably even subst: the forwarding template, pulling the "bare" pull quote template in with the Signpost default parameters in. I think that is a compromise all parties should be able to live with. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, there's no particular reason why we'd expect this to work like the mainspace quote templates. Most of the arguments against "fancy" quote templates in mainspace are based around the fact that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and therefore that sort of style is inappropriate. On the other hand, the Signpost actually is a newspaper, so we can reasonably expect that the quotes should look different. It also makes sense to keep this template as a name of its own – and non-substed – in case the Signpost ever needs to update its visual style without screwing up the whole of projectspace. On the other hand, writing the Signpost quote template in terms of a projectspace template (i.e. wrapper with default parameters) isn't a bad idea at all, but it's something that can reasonably be done/undone via normal editing and doesn't need TfD to make a firm decision on. (Oh, and this should be in projectspace, not userspace or templatespace. And MfD is the correct place for the discussion, especially as a link to this discussion was left at TfD.) --ais523 11:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This template is not nominated for deletion because "that sort of style is inappropriate", but because it is redundant to the templates(s). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to cover all the arguments that have been made or that I could reasonably anticipate in my comment; !votes often get into unwieldy threaded discussion because people only cover one of the relevant points, rather than all of them. Ideally, we'd expect this template to not be redundant even in its current form; a quote template designed for use on the Signpost should act rather differently from templates used elsewhere, so if it's appropriate for the Signpost, it's probably inappropriate in other places it's used. I already explained why I think outright replacing it with another template would be a bad idea (although I'm sympathetic to using some common coding for the part that actually draws the quotation marks). --ais523 12:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep the templates are diffrent and this obsession with making everything conform to someones pet style is a waste of time -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The nomination makes no reference to conformance to a particular style. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at your own words -> "Also does not use semantic quotation markup; if kept, this should be rectified." -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  19:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of correct markup is a technical, not stylistic, matter Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I see that this piece in the current signpost uses Pull quote (and centered pull quote, which redirects to the former), but not the nominated template, without drama. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's amusing that my lack of available time to finish properly formatting Signpost articles is taken as a win for you, but I suppose I'm not surprised. The person with the most time to argue typically wins the argument. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I am very disappointed that anyone should think it appropriate to intervene in the production processes of Signpost via the MFD forum. Even if this template were identical in parameters and output to one used for main space it would not be redundant. The formatting requirements of the encyclopedia and of its newsletter are different and a change in policy for one would not necessarily impinge on the other. If anyone is dissatisfiled with the formatting or production of Signpost I suggest raising the matter at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost in the first instance. If the template is in itself poorly implemented that matter should be raised on its talk page, not at a deletion forum. Thincat (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On first reading I was inclined to support this view, but on reading again I see that, "I am...disappointed" is a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Is there a policy problem with using a deletion forum to enable the theoretical possibility of deletion in order to provoke discussion?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I see no policy objection against such a nomination (unless there is disruption, etc.). My disappointment is that anyone should think such a nomination is helpful. My reason for keep is not based on disappointment but on the template not being redundant and MFD not being the place for proposing technical improvements. Thincat (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Formatting in the Signpost should be decided by editors of the Signpost.  It is absurd to argue that Signpost editors cannot have use of a template that enables them to implement their preferred formatting most conveniently for themselves.  Even if, as does NOT seem to be the case, another template can implement the exact same formatting.  The disadvantage of the Signpost template existing...per the nominator's argument, as i understand it, is that it exists, and the nominator would prefer for there to be fewer templates in the world.  That is not helpful... just stop disrupting Wikipedia and let this template be. -- do  ncr  am  03:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strawman. This is not about " Formatting in the Signpost", but about what templates are needed to deliver that. It is not disruptive to propose the removal of redundant templates. You also misrepresent me; the nomination is quite clearly stated as being because the template is "Redundant to other pullquote templates. Also does not use semantic quotation markup". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense, User:Pigsonthewing, sorry. You assert that the template is redundant, but admit that the pullquote template does not deliver the formatting that the SignPost has been using (i.e. without the "semantic question markup").  So, the template is not redundant.  And, this is disruptive, causing many persons to comment on one stupid template deletion proposal, at MFD, at the review/appeals for AFD/MFDs, maybe at ANI i am not sure.  Cost: hundreds/thousands bytes of storage, and a lot of time.  All for possible "gain" of saving 100 bytes or some such number, worth zero to the Project. -- do  ncr  am  16:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comment is apparently based on your false belief that this nomination is made for "a possible 'gain' of saving 100 bytes or some such number". I have no idea why you have jumped to such a mistaken conclusion, since I unambiguously repeated the actual reason in the comment to which you reply. The nonsense - and waste of bytes and time - is, therefore, clearly, yours. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, your comment is nonsense. Your so-called actual reason ("Redundant to other pullquote templates. Also does not use semantic quotation markup") doesn't make sense.  The Signpost template is different, as you acknowledge implicitly ("also does not use semantic quotation markup").  It is not the same.  It is not redundant.  And you deign not to explain why you think elimination of a template, even if redundant, is beneficial...I agree it is speculation that you are trying to save bytes.  But what benefit are you trying to achieve?  You leave it to others to speculate what your intentions might be, when you do not respond to questions, here and in other forums (speaking from some past experience).  And your flat repetition of false assertions seems unfriendly.  Go ahead make another reply, and I probably won't respond. -- do  ncr  am  22:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This discussion is a poor use of the community's time, particularly given the ill-will it has generated. We should trust the editors of the Signpost, which has a unique role within the project, to decide what their articles should look like. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strawman. This is not about "what [Signpost] articles should look like", but about what templates are needed to deliver that. And the "ill will" comment amounts to validating ILIKEIT argument s. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to find something more productive to do than pursue this sort of nonsense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Template is considered useful for its application by those who actually use it, It is different to alternatives, and if the requirements for SignPost change it can be changed without side effects to other projects. Technical defects are a separate issue, and if it needs to be fixed it can be fixed. Suggestions for technical improvements can be made on the template's talk page &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:54, 7 November 2014 (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.