Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Templates for discussion page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the following pages redirect here: |
V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 41 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 70 | 75 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Readability of Template:Tfd top
[edit]Template:Tfd top uses background color #e3f9df (as of Special:Permalink/1172064855). Part of the template's text is the red "Please do not modify it.", which looks like this:
This combination of colors – background #e3f9df and foreground #ff0000 – is not very readable. It fails WCAG for normal text in a contrast checker.
In the interest of accessibility, I suggest changing the colors. For example, the foreground color can be changed to maroon (aka #800000 ):
which passes the contrast check. You can see how maroon looks with the whole text in the sandbox. —andrybak (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Other templates in Category:Deletion archival templates are also affected, but they are out of scope for WT:TFD. —andrybak (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I know you say it's not relevant, but we might as well change all of the affected templates, such as {{atop green}}, at the same time. Also, why is this thread small? Primefac (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
we might as well change all of the affected templates
– sure, I'll go be BOLD.why is this thread small?
– because it's out of scope. Important enough to be mentioned, but not important enough to have normal text size. —andrybak (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I know you say it's not relevant, but we might as well change all of the affected templates, such as {{atop green}}, at the same time. Also, why is this thread small? Primefac (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- For reference, the brightest color for foreground which passes the contrast check with the same background is #A90000 (see also in the sandbox). —andrybak (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'll be honest, no one is likely to care because you're improving readability, I say just go for it (for all affected templates). If people complain, point 'em here. Primefac (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Primefac, thanks for the support :-) I'll even point my edit summaries here. —andrybak (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'll be honest, no one is likely to care because you're improving readability, I say just go for it (for all affected templates). If people complain, point 'em here. Primefac (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bold text has an exception that your average color contrast checker will not catch that allows 3:1 (web-aware ones will note that this use is allowed). This particular line is accessible. "Accessibility" isn't a very good argument on the point.
- One reason not to change it is that this is our standard red for errors and other eye-catching text of a warning nature. The closed color is not and should perhaps be reconsidered. Izno (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- The contrast checker above, webaim.org has a "Large Text" section, which is 14pt (18.6667px) and bold (font-weight: 700). For this font-size and font-weight, the red foreground color passes "WCAG AA", but doesn't pass "WCAG AAA".
- In the templates, the font-size is 14px, which is 25% smaller. For me personally, the boldness only makes the readability worse for smaller text. Best way I can describe it is that because elements are thicker, the gaps between them are smaller, which makes distinguishing letters harder. I only came here, because I had been reading some TfD archives, and I have noticed that my eyes completely glossed over the the "Please do not modify it." part, because I couldn't read it.
- Izno, could you please clarify what you mean by
standard red for errors and other eye-catching text of a warning nature. The closed color is not
? Do you mean that the chosen maroon color is not eye-catching? —andrybak (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)- I'm saying that red (#f00) is our standard red for such things. The background color OTOH has no standardization. Izno (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. The bold red is readable enough, and - for {{afd top}} in particular - there are more than half a million substed uses of the old color. Changing it isn't worth the inconsistency. It's certainly not worth changing them all. —Cryptic 20:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- All changes were reverted. —andrybak (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Considering background colors of other templates, the contrast with red of Tfd's very light green is bad (contrast ratio 3.59:1, with needed 7:1). The worst offenders are Rfd's pale orange (3.52:1) and {{Archive top}}'s light purple (3.39:1). —andrybak (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Andrybak: You may wish to read mw:Design/Archive/Wikimedia Foundation Design/Color usage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. The bold red is readable enough, and - for {{afd top}} in particular - there are more than half a million substed uses of the old color. Changing it isn't worth the inconsistency. It's certainly not worth changing them all. —Cryptic 20:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm saying that red (#f00) is our standard red for such things. The background color OTOH has no standardization. Izno (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
D MENA topic
[edit]{{d MENA topic}} The template was deemed delete-able mostly for not being in use, and is now on a list of things to remove from pages, this is a bit contradictory. MWQs (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- And for being an unnecessary fork. I asked for an example of where the original template wasn't working and you didn't give one. If there isn't a problem was the current one, we don't need a duplicate template. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Inline styles?
[edit]Right now it's
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #F3F9FF); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);">
This seems to be some kind of dark mode thing? I don't really understand though -- shouldn't we be trying to use stylesheets for stuff and not inline styles? Moreover, we already have styles (e.g. afd
, vfd
, xfd-closed
), I assume these are styled somewhere already -- why do we have inline styles in the afd-top template at all? It seems like a gigantic headache. jp×g🗯️ 05:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Sohom Datta: who was the one who made this edit. jp×g🗯️ 05:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- My thought process here for adding inline styles was twofold:
- I was unsure if adding templatestyles could cause the WP:PEIS limit to be breached on bigger pages
- If the {{afd top}} template was substituted, it could cause issues due to the fact that the styles might not being carried over
- To my knowledge
afd
vfd
xfd-closed
don't apply any specific styles and while the inline styles do take precedence over other user-generated styles, the behaviour of the inline CSS will be analogous to it's previous behaviour if the CSS variables defined for vector-2022 are absent. Sohom (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- My thought process here for adding inline styles was twofold: