Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility

"WT:ACCESS" redirects here. For the related wikiproject talk page, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility.

Discussion notice: Observe MOS:FONTSIZE in infobox templates

You may be interested in the proposal/discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Observe MOS:FONTSIZE in infobox templates. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Fake heading template use in articles?

Does the use of Template:Fake heading comply with MOS:GOODHEAD and WP:PSEUDOHEAD?

In this diff an editor removed the normal headers to use the fake heading template. I don't think this is the intended use of this template, but clearly it is happening regardless. I also don't think this template should be normally used in article space. In addition, I don't think this template supports anchors.

I started a conversation about this template on its talk page here: Template talk:Fake heading#Using this in articles? Does it comply with the MOS in article space? but I also wanted to see if there should be an explicit mention of not using this template in MOS:GOODHEAD and WP:PSEUDOHEAD. I don't think it complies with those guidelines and I think it should be made clear that this template should not be used in articles. Thanks, - Paul^T+/_C 16:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It is really bad practice to make something out to be a heading when it's not actually marked up as a heading. It is markedly inaccessible as a result. There's probably a valid TFD to get consensus on where this template may be used (outside mainspace is probably appropriate/livable). --Izno (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Philadelphia neighborhoods

I noticed that this revision of List of Philadelphia neighborhoods contained some quite extreme accessibility issues because it used tables for layout and also created gaps in the HTML list for each column. I made some grammatical corrections to the article, then I tried to convert the page to use divs, based on the examples below. Per WikiBlame, it looks like the tables were added by Roesluna, a blocked sockpuppet, in July 2013, then Bgwhite (who seems to be inactive now ... what a pity!) fixed some of them in July 2016. Any review of my edits from sighted people would be appreciated. Graham87 16:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that there is a column width problem. Whilst setting |colwidth=15em is fine where the individual list items are short, this is not the case for a number of the list items which are quite lengthy. In some cases (such as those for Washington Square West and Southwark) the entry can wrap to twelve lines. But if I double the column width of the affected lists to |colwidth=30em, the shorter entries (which are in the majority) acquire extra blank space. This may be a content issue - the longer entries could be trimmed to eliminate excessive detail. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Tooltip in RfD

One month late, but people would likely be interested in this discussion on {{Tooltip}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Question on subsections

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Single subsections

I'm in a debate right now over what is classified as a "subsection". To my understanding, in order to classify information as a "Subsection" it requires a "subheading"...a level 3 heading. To them, they believe that based on what this page says, a subsection is any information under a section after another division has taken place. To illustrate:

==Release==
General release information.
===Marketing===
Specific marketing information.

To them, there are 2 subsections in this scenario, where as I would say there is 1 subsection and lead-in information from the main section header. The point of the argument boiling down to Chicago style and most others indicating that you can't have a single subsection. If you have 1 then you have to have 2. Since you all edit this page regularly, I figured I would determine if the people that edit the MOS for sectioning see that differentiation the same way...that one subheading creates 2 subsections by default, or if a subsection is indeed defined by having a subheading?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

From an accessibility point of view, it is the rendered html that is important, not the wiki-markup. Since every page has a title, and that title becomes the level 1 heading (rendered in html as <h1>...</h1>), every heading marked up on an article page is in fact a sub-heading, including the level 2 headings (rendered in html as <h2>...</h2>). If you define a subsection as the text associated with a sub-heading, as soon as you introduce a level two heading, you are creating a subsection. In that case, you can indeed have a single subsection (presumably you would have to call any text before that first level 2 heading the "main section"). I'm not sure that answers your question directly, but it's how I understand the situation. --RexxS (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The opposing argument is that the text ahead of the level 3 heading is still level 3 information, just doesn't have a level 3 heading. Your understanding would imply (if I follow you correctly) that you see the information ahead of the first instance of a level 3 or level 2 heading as part of the main section, not part of a newly, unidentified subsection within that section?

To clarify, I get that technically a level 2 is in fact a subsection under a level one, but we're really talking about level 3 status. We ignore level 1, because that's simply the article title, and focus on what comes after. Yes, you could technically have a single subsection at level 2, but that likely wouldn't continue to be an article because it likely wouldn't meet the GNG if there was only 1 section of information. The argument I'm involved in seems to be two fold: Per writing rules, if you have a subsection identified you should have at least 2 (you can have more, but you shouldn't have just one). This isn't a Wikipedia HTML issue, this is writing structure. The second part is how one defines a "subsection". They want to argue that the information above a 1.1 header is still in fact a subsection of that section, without a 1.1 or 1.2 header attached to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"Chicago style and most others indicating that you can't have a single subsection. If you have 1 then you have to have 2."

Let us all spend a moment considering what CMOS 17 1.56 actually says on this subject:

"...when a section of text is subdivided, there should ideally be at least two subsections (e.g., two or more A-level subheads in a chapter or two or more B-level subheads under an A-level subhead). Occasionally, however, a single subdivision may be called for—for example, to emphasize a unique case or a special consideration. A single subdivision may also be needed for specialized sections like chapter endnotes (see 1.62)."

So if this dispute is based on someone's belief that CMOS says a single subsection is always bad writing, then you can end the dispute now: CMOS does not actually say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That's for unique cases, just like there are unique times when a single sentence paragraph is warranted. Unique cases is not what's being argued. The individual is arguing that no reliable source indicates that you should have at least 2 subsections, and thus single subsections are not for "unique case", but just the way. Just like you cannot indefinitely write single sentence paragraphs, the general rule of thumb for CMOS and other writing styles is that you should have at least 2, as part of your exert indicates.

They are also arguing that subsections are not defined by having as subheading, which is what I was also looking for clarification on. There are two arguments happening. Whether there should generally be at least 2 subsections, and how a subsection is actually defined into existence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not just for unique cases. There are three cases specifically named in CMOS:

1. The single subsection describes a unique case (e.g., the section ==How to sell a screenplay== contains a subsection that describes the 'unique case' of selling a screenplay ===If you're already as famous as Steven Spielberg===).
2. The single subsection emphasizes a special consideration (e.g., ==Using sunscreen== followed by ===But don't put sunscreen on newborn babies===).
3. The single subsection contains specialized sections (e.g., endnotes).

Note that's three possible uses, and the first two could appear multiple times in a single paper/article/document. Also note that these are introduced in CMOS with the words "for example", which phrase means "This is not an exhaustive list of all the situations in which a single subsection might be considered the best possible arrangement of the material you're working on".

As for Wikipedia's terminology: A section is whatever material is after a ==Level 2 header==, until either the end of the page or the next Level 2 header. A subsection is similar anything below a ===Level 3 header===, or Level 4 or Level 5 headers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hunting around, I'm pretty sure that this thread has been started as a consequence of the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#To be or not to be a subsection (from which I perceive that "them", "they", etc. mentioned here refers to Adamstom.97), so by also discussing the topic here, we're now in a WP:MULTI situation. Further, by not mentioning the Manual of Style/Film discussion here, or this discussion at Manual of Style/Film, this could be construed as WP:OTHERPARENT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Redrose64, I was unaware of this branch of the discussion. I personally would prefer if we kept it all at one place, but to respond to the specific points raised here I think from my perspective of this discussion I would like to know if there is any accessibility issues with having only a single subheading. Regardless of whether or not we should have a single subheading per any apparent writing laws, it would help to know whether we are currently causing any accessibility problems at the pages where we do only have a single subheading (for instance, is there a problem with the Writing, Casting, and Visual effects sub-sections at Production of Avengers: Infinity War and the untitled Avengers sequel, which are all currently used to collect together alike information that otherwise would be dispersed chronologically through the rest of the general content). - adamstom97 (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I can say with near-absolute certainty that having a single subheading in an article causes no accessibility problems, as long as it's a level 2 heading. Similarly, having a single level 3 heading is no problem as long as it follows a level 2 heading. And so on for a single level 4 heading following a level 3 heading, etc. The headings used in Production of Avengers: Infinity War and the untitled Avengers sequel cause no problem with accessibility (sadly, I can't say the same for the images). HTH --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks RexxS. In that case, I think we need to keep this discussion over at MOS:FILM from now. But just on your last note, can you elaborate on the problem with the images so we can get that sorted? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: When someone using a screen reader encounters an image in an article, they will hear the alt text for the image if it has been supplied. That is an opportunity for us to give some of the information that a sighted person gets when they look at the image, and that helps make their experience of using Wikipedia better. There is a Manual of Style page at WP:ALT that goes into detail, but in simple terms you add alt= and a brief description to each image. For example, in Production of Avengers: Infinity War and the untitled Avengers sequel, you might add | alt=Dual image showing a man's face and its computer rendered version to the last image on the page File:Masquerade test.jpg. Remember that the next thing they hear will be the caption, so there's no need to repeat what's in that. In some cases the caption already gives all of the descriptive information available for the image, so there's not much point in adding alt text in those cases. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't asking for input on the Deadpool discussion, which is why I didn't mention it. I asked for a definition of subsectioning. I explained how the question came about and it's turned into what specific instances a subsection can be single, but not what my original question was. I asked how a subsection is defined. The argument was whether information under a level 2 header is classified as "level 3" without a level 3 header. That's what Adam was arguing, that Information under level 2 headers and information under section 2.1 headers (aka level 3 headers) are the same level of information. I have said that it isn't, those are two different levels (which is the basis of the other argument, but not what I came here for).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Text in paragraphs does not have "levels". Levels are a property of headings, and there are six ranging from level 1 (the <h1>...</h1> element, which we use for a page title) to level 6 (the <h6>...</h6> element, which we markup with six opening equals signs and six closing). Anything that happens between e.g. a </h2> tag and a subsequent <h3> tag is nothing to do with the heading, so doesn't have a level.

The HTML 5 specification provides the <section>...</section> element to structure page text hierarchically, but the MediaWiki software uses these tags for a different purpose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I get that. That was my argument. That is the only reason I brought up the details of the argument regarding more than 1 subsection (aka level 3 and below), as the counter argument was that the text between a Level 2 heading and a Level 3 heading was in fact the same level of information as was under the Level 3 (just simply without a level 3 heading). As such, they believe that created 2 "subsections" by default, just one without a level 3 heading. My detailing the argument wasn't meant to do anything but provide clarification so as to attain a more concrete definition of "subsections" to point to, as Adam did not believe that was the case (not to circumvent a discussion about whether to have more than 1 subsection, as I wasn't looking for input on that).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

For anyone still interested in this discussion, a new one following on from these issues has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Single subsections. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Accessible design standards

Editors here may be interested in the work being done at w:pt:User:Danilo.mac/Padrão visual. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit Source

I notice this is all about using the classic code editor, without saying so. Should it say so, and say something about the Visual Editor and its impact, if any? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"Timeline" under "Band members"

You may have seen (or not, even if they were there!) the multi-colored timelines on some articles for musical groups. Many, if not all of them, strike me as inaccessible for those with visual challenged, including color blindness. My eyes still work decently, but I'm already have a hard time with some of them in terms of color, contrast, thickness of lines (especially combined lines), etc. For a practical example, see Talk:IV_of_Spades#Timeline, where I'd like to have input from editors who know about these things. Disclaimer: I am opposed in general to these timelines, which IMO add nothing to the article UNLESS there is a good reason to have one, like in the case of bands that have gone through many lineup changes. Plus, I wonder how screen readers handle this. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

At The Rolling Stones (which is a GA) the lineup changes have been complex enough that I can see the use of a timeline, but the colors there are surely in violation of accessibility guidelines. The purple on blue isn't clear even to me. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Accessibility was never raised as a concern when implementing timelines and selecting colour schemes. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 8#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It turns out Graham87 was complaining in 2006 about the output of an extension used to create them: see Talk:IV of Spades#Timeline and archive discussion here. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Table template

{{DemogFR}} seems to produce a table, but it wraps onto multiple lines (see the large table in Saint-Faust#Population). Is this more accessible than it looks? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It makes a table having four rows and one column. Each of those four cells contains one two-row table having nine or ten columns. The whole thing would be better organised as a two-column table having as many rows as necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be great for screen readers, but unfortunately a table with 37 rows, each containing two 3- or 4-digit numbers will create a huge amount of whitespace in normal browsers, so editors will complain about that. As the information is simply a long list of number pairs, I'd have coded it as a list (perhaps unbulleted) with each list element looking something like: 1793 - 764. Then we could use CSS such as {{div col|colwidth=20em}} to mop up the whitespace. --RexxS (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe some of that whitespace could be filled. Could the table be floated, and let the other text wrap around it? Or run a string of photos next to it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition on syntax highlighting (maybe at MOS:COLOR)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Misuse of code syntax highlighting.

WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color seems like the likely place to add material about this.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This could still use further input.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Images as titles in navigation templates

I would appreciate input about the use of images as titles for infobox navigation templates at Template talk:S-rail/lines#Revert. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Indentgap

FYI

Regarding WP:INDENTGAP, see User talk:Redrose64#Blank lines in talk pages. In particular, please observe the comment by Jc3s5h (talk · contribs), who wrote "I am not prepared to accept this guideline at all". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment was here and @Redrose64: you should be asking your questions where the guideline exists, not in an unrelated page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I don't know why you suggest that I have asked questions in an unrelated page: this is a very related page - and I asked no questions. It was Jc3s5h who asked a question, and it was on my talk page, which is why I am directing you there. This thread was not intended to be a discussion; it is a pointer to an ongoing discussion, see WP:TALKFORK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

My error. @Jc3s5h: you should be asking your questions where the guideline exists, not in an unrelated page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: It is relatively normal, when a user makes an edit you don't understand, to ask them about it on their talk page. This page, part of the MOS, is not obviously applicable to talk pages in any case, so it is not clear why one would raise an issue here about edits to a talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)