Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 16 May 18 >

May 17

[edit]

Template:African-American Civil Rights Movement

[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Be it split or trim, or split and trim, you can work it all out on the template talk page. Izkala (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox has become so large as to defeat its purpose. Nobody is going to find anything in this huge pile of links. It is essentially a list, and in that regard redundant to the better-structured Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). If kept, it should be reduced to the timeline and renamed accordingly.  Sandstein  21:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size of the template is to be expected. The Civil Rights Movement was the largest social movement in the United States during the 20th century. The template is divided into six groupings and each group is not difficult to navigate. The timeline is an article list, not a navbox that is posted on numerous articles and serves as a link with other articles. The template also goes beyond events. It includes other aspects of the movement like notable participants and organizations, authoritative scholars, concepts and ideas, and other related topics. The proposed timeline template would dispose of those pertinent aspects of the movement. Consequently, no modification is necessary. Mitchumch (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuge Keep Per Mitchumch. So maybe it needs to be put into an expanding template, with three or so sections. But delete? I've been told that some good articles sometimes get deleted here. Randy Kryn 00:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the 'Related' section from the second slot to the fifth. This makes three natural break-points if we want to do one open box and two hidden boxes. Seems better this way too, so thanks to the nominator. Randy Kryn 00:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and split to component navboxes to reduce the size. You could have one for the events, and another for the activists, for example. The inclusion of some of the "Influences" group seem a little tangential for my taste (Jesus, Leo Tolstoy, etc...) so maybe this section does not need to remain in the result. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A folding template with one open section would accommodate your concerns without losing any data. As for influences, the movement activities and way of acting were organized around the principles of nonviolence as laid out in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which were then defined by Tolstoy in The Kingdom of God is Within You, both of which were then used by Mohandas Gandhi and later specifically taken up by the major organizers and strategists of the movement. It's a direct lineage to the events and provides an important step-by-step look at how the movement was created, organized, and became successful. Randy Kryn 11:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I find "folding" templates frustrating and unhelpful, best to split into separate navboxes when they get too large. Something like {{American Civil War}} is close to useless in its current state. And thanks, you've demonstrated exactly how these "influences" entries are most definitely way too tangential for inclusion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The historians section should probably go too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Folding templates seems a very good way to present a large templates' quality information in a concise format. Historians and influences seem fine on this template. Since this is about the drastic suggestion to delete the template, let's try the folding to see what it looks like, with the "Events" section made visible on the fold. Randy Kryn 11:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The influences are definitely way too tangential for inclusion, as you demonstrate. They should go, to avoid making this enormous template any larger than it need be. And as a rule of thumb, I think "influences" or "influenced" sections are usually going to be too tangential for inclusion. They should be approached with caution. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by tangential, and is that a thing in Wikipedia guidelines? If you take the term literally then every person on any template can be considered tangential. The influences section on this template and the items included (such as nonviolence) have been approached with caution and thought in order to provide the background and foundation of the movement, the major organizing participants' reasoning. It can be considered the backbone of the template, is actually a small section, and was included to provide key and arguably essential data to students of the movement. Randy Kryn 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tangential, as in only indirectly related. Navboxes should only group together things which are directly related. See WP:NAVBOX #1-3. Leo Tolstoy is not directly related to this topic, nor are many of the other entries. The larger a navbox is, the less helpful it is to our readers, which is why we need to be careful about what to include. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tolstoy's book The Kingdom of God is Within You is directly related, but yes, maybe Tolstoy himself isn't needed. Good point. I don't see other entries not related, well, maybe Jesus, but his Sermon on the Mount was a guiding document of the leaders of the movement. Randy Kryn 12:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They still fail WP:NAVBOX #2, which would imply that even these are too tangential. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Deep-sixed Jesus and Tolstoy. Will add data (later, going off-site) to the two works pages. Randy Kryn 12:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the Gandhi related ones on the same basis. Too tangential. Gandhi has no direct relationship with the topic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gandhi and his works have no direct relationship to influencing the Civil Rights Movement? The main organizers and strategist all studied Gandhi and said that he was a major influence. Please refrain from deleting edit after edit on the template, each edit you are making deserves a full discussion with many editors involved. Randy Kryn 14:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is why the "influences" section is too tangential for inclusion in this manner. There are too many degrees of separation between the topic of the navbox and the articles in question. Navboxes need to contain a concise set of articles, not everything that may have had an influence on something once upon a time. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robsinden: Scholarship and academic sources determine what is pertinent and redundant to include or not include in the navbox. Are you asserting that there is no scholarship/academic research to support inclusion of a particular article in the navbox? Mitchumch (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and trim per Rob. When you start adding people to navboxes, this... happens. It's not a bad thing to be linking people, but it most certainly makes the template unwieldy. --Izno (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The organizations section and people section can be folded in as one fold. Makes no sense to split the template because even if it splits then both new templates would go on every article anyway. There are many folded templates which include people. Can I ping editors to come to this discussion if you guys are seriously going after this one? I'm still not conversant on ping rules. Randy Kryn 13:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not assume a battleground mentality (re if you guys are seriously going after this one). Your comment that "both new templates would go on every article anyway is clearly incorrect per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, unless you included every article in both templates (which would subsequently be deleted as a duplicate, naturally), so your comment is a non sequitur. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question regarding can I ping editors, reference WP:Canvassing. Would the editors you select be a partial group, as seems your intent? Then yes, that's verboten. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking to delete this template may have set up a battleground. So pinging is not allowed to editors who work on Civil Rights Movement pages? It would allow them to read or join in on this major decision about the movements roadmap, the input of knowledgeable people who could explain why the invaluable addition of activists (and yes, the Civil Rights Movement is very likely mentioned on each and every page of the people included) has always been included on the template. And now you are actually asking to remove Dr. King and others from Wikipedia's Civil Rights Movement template? Sorry if I'm edging near battleground mode but there seems to be some wiki-artillery aimed at a very good roadmap to Wikipedia pages concerning this subject. There is no CRM project to alert so it seems that pinging editors who work on those pages would serve that purpose. Randy Kryn 13:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: I've folded the template. A mock-up is in my sandbox. Your thoughts? Mitchumch (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trim Maybe a clean up, it is pretty large, but it can easily be repaired. I see no reason to delete the whole thing. Mangokeylime (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangokeylime, check out Mitchumch's template fold-fix listed right above your comment, seems to solve the problems of size. Randy Kryn 14:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't make it any smaller, it just adds a load of collapsible groups. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trim - remove the ones not directly related or only have a remote connection. Kierzek (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from some of the activists the other entries are directly related, and the folding template seems to solve all the problems (it does make it smaller, by definition). The activist section could be sub-sectioned to show leaders, etc., and any trimming discussion maybe should go to the template talk page itself. Randy Kryn 20:14, 25 May 2016 (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).

Template:Hrethling

[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 23:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced since 2015. Magioladitis (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an easily verifiable family tree. In those early and innocent days of Wikipedia when I made it, you weren't expected to add a bibliography for that kind of template.--Berig (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 20:54, 17 May 2016 (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).

Template:Paragraph break

[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 15:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unhelpful template that inserts a styled HTML div rather than a paragraph break. I last saw it used in talk-page list items; not, as claimed, in footnotes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

← is a newline: observe how it breaks the list structure. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The W3C defines <br /> as "a line break". I take that to be synonymous with "newline". On the other hand, the HTML markup emitted by your comment is not a newline, but </dd></dl></li></ul><p>. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The W3C states (n.b. not "defines") "The br element represents a line break.", that is, a line break in the page as rendered by the browser. But the direction at Template:Paragraph break#Purpose is not talking about <br /> tags, but newline characters, U+000A; and moreover those that are in the Wikicode, not those in the rendered page. To demonstrate that, I put a newline U+000A into the Wikicode of my previous post, between the two arrows, in order to deliberately break the list structure. Your analysis of the emitted HTML shows that such breakage did occur: the whole list was closed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I use this a lot, after being told to stop using <p> for paragraph breaks in bundled references. By the way, on the Village Pump this discussion has caused my use of the template (in this post) to show up as "see TfD". Can someone fix that, please? SarahSV (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed it myself. [2] SarahSV (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you unable to use <br /> in such cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't produce the same effect. I always used <p> tags in bundled refs to produce a new line that respected the structure of the reference, but I kept being told off by a small number of technical editors who persuaded me to use {{pb}} instead. The best solution would be to fix whatever problem the <p> tag apparently causes for screenreaders. SarahSV (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not something that we can address: we have no control over how screen reader software interprets HTML tags, nor any other aspect of how they are written. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's something those who write the screenreaders can address, and they should address it. I'm sick and tired of being told we have to twist this and that backwards and upside down because some broken screenreader never gets fixed. I've been hearing such nonsense for literally years. Fix it or live with it. EEng 20:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Accessibility is not something that we can opt out of. This includes ensuring that the semantics of lists are appropriate. Nor can we direct screenreader aoftware vendors to "fix it". Please see MOS:ACCESS; WCAG; and these: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0; Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0; WAI-ARIA 1.0 User Agent Implementation Guide; Role Attribute 1.0; Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0; User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0; Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0; Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's suggesting opting out of accessibility, nor "directing" anyone to do anything. I'm suggesting that if those who use screenreaders want to be able, well, use them, then they need to "direct" those who produce the software they're paying for to make it do whatever it needs to deal with the world the way it is. I don't care what esoteric coding goes inside the template, or its effect on lists and stuff -- if that needs to be fixed to achieve what you think accessibility demands, then you fix it -- just so long as I can code {{paragraph break}} and get a paragraph break. Or are you arguing that paragraph breaks are somehow impossible to create accessibly? EEng 00:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing of the sort: my post of 12:13, 19 May 2016 was a reply to the request "fix whatever problem the <p> tag apparently causes for screenreaders". --Redrose64 (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. We can't do anything to change the way screen readers are implemented. As they're what people with visual impairments rely upon, we're obliged to build things that work with them. EEng, if you have a problem with their implementations, you need to take it up with the people that make them. It's out of our hands. And frankly, we're in a position of huge privilege here compared to those with visual impairments. So we have to fiddle with our markup a bit? Big deal. Imagine being blind and trying to read Wikipedia. That's what we're working to enable.  — Scott • talk 09:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "we're obliged to build things that work with them" -- Let's see. Suppose screenreaders were only able to read words in Basic English. Would you insist that articles restrict themselves to Basic English? If we are committed to meeting certain standards, then we should meet them, and (working from the other end) screenreaders should do the same. I'm hearing that this or that about the internals of this template cause some problem; fine, change the internals of the template to do whatever's needed. Deleting the template on accessibility grounds would make sense only if there's no way to implement a paragraph break accessibly, which is a ridiculous proposition.
    Redrose64, if you don't know by now that you can't reference a post by pasting in the timestamp you happen to see on your screen (everyone else sees different timestamps, because their timezones are different) then I'm skeptical of your competence to comment on highly technical matters. EEng 11:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Suppose screenreaders were only able to..." They're not. "...screenreaders should do the same..." They should. Like I said, if you want that to happen, go talk to them. Until then, we work with what we've got.  — Scott • talk 11:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What the heck are you talking about? Timestamps in signatures are plain text; moreover, they have timezones, and that timezone is always UTC, because that is the server time for this project. Consider, that my most recent post here ends with "08:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)"; the one before that "21:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)", and so on back to "19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)". Here comes another timestamp, and don't tell me it's not in UTC when it plainly is: --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64, see WP:Comments_in_Local_Time. Timestamps in signatures may be in some sense "plain text", but then so are template invocations and everything else in wikitext -- but software understands them and fiddles with them. So the post displayed to you as 12:13, 19 May 2016 is displayed to me as 8:13 am, 19 May 2016. (If you copy and paste a timestamp just right, in fact the software will convert both the original timestamp, and your reference to it, so that they match in both places it appears, but there are many ways for that to go wrong -- as it did in your attempt to refer to a timestamp -- and it's a bad idea -- the only safe way to refer to an earlier post is either via a diff or just a few keywords.) You may be unaware of this because your preferences are set for UTC, but nonetheless this shows you're willing to hold forth at length about things you really know nothing about; I'm thus skeptical of your pronouncements about standards adherence and screenreaders and so on. EEng 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're blathering at length about something completely irrelevant to this discussion and insulting Redrose64 because he didn't psychically know that you're using a nonstandard gadget. You should stop talking now.  — Scott • talk 08:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Knowing how basic technical stuff (whether everyone uses it or not) works isn't paranormal, and is relevant to a discussion in which technical claims are being made on a "because I just keep saying it over and over" basis. EEng 08:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That gadget does not touch the wikitext, so when editing a page (whether you have the gadget enabled or not), the timestamp is in UTC. Knowing anything at all about what I know, other than what I have already stated, is paranormal. Don't question my intelligence, otherwise it's WP:NPA time. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Template expansion doesn't touch the wikitext either, so that has nothing to do with it. People wouldn't open the page for editing when reading and attempting to interpret your post, thus we're talking about what the reader sees on the rendered page. What you know is on display in this very discussion; I'm not questioning your intelligence, but you technical knowledge, which is patchy. You go ahead and have the last word now, and anyone who understands these things already sees what's going on. EEng 13:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Time for somebody uninvolved to hat this digression.  — Scott • talk 11:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As indeed someone should close this whole wrongheaded nomination. EEng 13:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a good idea if the Foundation or some of the volunteer developers could contact the people who write the screenreader software and let them know about this problem. It does cause trouble on Wikipedia, yet the number of people reading references with screenreaders is likely to be very small, so it makes sense for the screenreader developers to fix the issue, rather than us trying to find ways around it. SarahSV (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. EEng 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed close: Kept. Per consensus. No plan offered for what to do with the 2271 transclusions. All deletion arguments have been addressed (though perhaps some are disputed), so it seems that it's not deprecated because it shouldn't be. Unnecessarily disruptive. --Elvey(t•c) 17:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no harm in letting this run, especially given the useful discussion on accessibility. If a few editors learn something about accessibility on the project from this discussion, then it will have been very productive. ~ RobTalk 20:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very useful in addressing accessibility problems. Moreover, will all these html changes lately changing the code in a template is easier than changing html tags. I am in favour of keeping any similar template around. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Graham87: I wonder if you could help us out here. Do actual paragraph breaks (HTML 'p' elements) inside list items pose an issue for screen readers, and does replacing paragraph breaks with HTML 'div' elements help in that respect? Izkala (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87:, when you are using your screen reader, what difference do you experience between these two lines of text (the first with pb the second with p)?
  1. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.{{pb}}Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
  2. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.<p>Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.

SarahSV (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: I would expect not much, because you're not including the markup under discussion. Graham87, try these:
  1. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.
    Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
  2. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.

    Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.

--Redrose64 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing that, Redrose, but I wrote it that way deliberately so that everyone is very clear about what difference is being discussed. SarahSV (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin and Redrose64: In the first set, there is indeed no real difference between the two examples; in the second one, there's an appropriate separation between the items in the first example while there is not in the second. Graham87 02:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: sorry to keep asking for clarification, but could you say what you mean by "appropriate separation between the items"? That is, what is the difference that you hear? SarahSV (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: No problem. In the first example in the second set, I hear the first line, then I can arrow down to hear the second one (as is expected with two regular paragraphs). In the second example, all the text in both lines runs together. Graham87 07:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Sorry to keep badgering you Graham, but can you confirm there's no difference between the following two?
  1. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.

    Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.

  2. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.

    Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.

Izkala (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izkala: With the first one, the text is run together; with the second one, it isn't. However the p tags should probably be closed. Graham87 09:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Thanks, that clears it up for me. The template is probably easier for non-technical people to use, so I remain ambivalent about deletion. Izkala (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: One more from me, and in this case focus both on whether the third item is noted as being numbered and whether the paragraphs are explicit:

  1. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.

    Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.

  2. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.

    Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.

  3. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.

--Izno (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Yes, the third item is numbered, and the paragraphs in the second item are explicit. Graham87 13:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the p tag works as expected? SarahSV (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: do you hear any difference between the following three?

  1. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.

    Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.

  2. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1. Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
  3. John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1; Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.

SarahSV (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Nope, the text is run together in all three of your examples. Graham87 03:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Graham87. That suggests that it works as intended. I use it to replace the semi-colon that I add between shorter references, such as "Smith 2015; Jones 2016." I add <p> between longer references only to provide a visual break so that the footnote doesn't look cluttered. SarahSV (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: A p tag only works if there is a p tag starting the list item, as in my item 2 above and Izkala's "badgering" item 2. In other words, a source of the form <li><p>Content<p>More content vice <li>Content<p>More content. This is why Izkala stated "probably easier for non-technical people"--her presumable belief is that requiring editors to insert not one but two "breaks" of some sort is in some way less intuitive. I'm not sure I agree with the rationale, but I obviously haven't !voted either. --Izno (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Izno, I'm confused about what is meant by "works". I use p tags within bundled references to create a visual break only. Note: visual. It does not signal that one paragraph has ended and another begun, because these are not paragraphs. It does not signal that one reference has ended and another begun; that is done by the full stop. The intention is only to make the references easier to see, because with long references adding them all to the same line looks crowded.
If a screen reader is not affected by the p tag – if a screen reader reads out the two references on one line – that is okay, unless it is confusing for some other reason. SarahSV (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the issue with that is that you're abusing ('abusing' in the technical sense of the word) an error in the logic of one (popular) screen reader. You wanna have a visual break and have it be semantically void, but neither the 'p' nor the 'div' element fulfil both of those criteria. The 'br' element is the closest you'll get without having to fool the MediaWiki parser (e.g. by inserting a non-breaking space inside a 'span' element), methinks. Izkala (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it is semantically void in these examples, is it not? SarahSV (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That does appear to be the case in JAWS, the screen reader Graham is using. Izkala (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about your point, in that case. You wrote: "You wanna have a visual break and have it be semantically void, but neither the 'p' nor the 'div' element fulfil both of those criteria." But the p tag does fulfill both these criteria. SarahSV (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Standards-wise, it doesn't. The software Graham is using does not recognise the 'p' element in that particular context, most likely due to a bug. In fact, per the HTML standard, <li>John Smith, ''Book Title'', Publisher, 2015, p. 1.<p>Susan Jones, ''Book Title'', Publisher, 2016, p. 2.</p></li> contains not one, but two paragraphs. Izkala (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Standards-wise aside, the meaning is clear, namely "Reference one. Reference two." At some point common sense has to kick in. A lot of volunteer time has been spent on this issue in various places for a couple of years. It affects a very small number of readers who both use screen readers and who read through the references. Now we find that it makes no actual difference to those readers.
Imagine if we were to spend as much time correcting people's grammar. Every time I see the simple past tense used when the present perfect or past perfect is needed, I cringe. But we would grind to a halt if we were to go around systematically correcting things like that. SarahSV (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, imagine if we spent so much time correcting people's grammar while we had no knowledge of language... Because I remain unconvinced most people here and in past threads have any real appreciation of the accessibility implications - and that includes me. Izkala (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Izkala, we had a similar situation with alt text. A small number of people insisted that detailed alt text be added to featured-article candidates, so for about a year several of us struggled to do that. It was horrible to have to write it after you were already exhausted from preparing the article for the other FAC criteria. Then we heard back from Wikimania that people using screen readers were complaining about the alt text being too long. What they wanted was an alt attribute (which can be "alt = "), not detailed text, so all that time, and all the arguing about it, had been wasted. SarahSV (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's still no plan offered for what to do with the ~2271 transclusions. SV, it seems you have a point. Are you saying/thinking we should replace them with <p> and and say any problem is with JAWS?--Elvey(t•c) 17:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep this template but let editors choose whether to use it or the p tag. SarahSV (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for as long as the problem persists. gidonb (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Not to say the template is perfect. Marking up the previous paragraph implicitly, whether it's a <br>, <div>, or <p> tag after it, but no <p> start tag before, may validate, but good luck writing a CSS or jQuery selector for it. Today's screen readers also don't recognize implicit paragraphs, per Graham87's tests (thanks!). Still, an incomplete solution is better than no solution at all. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt Fitzpatrick: The first isn't actually an issue that's solved by this template. And, evidently, JAWS does recognise implicit paragraphs separated by an empty 'div'. Nobody's suggesting there be no solution, the obvious alternative being to also wrap the first paragraph inside a 'p' element. If we're dead-set on not using 'bare' HTML elements, this could equally be achieved by a set of three templates:

Izkala (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2016 (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).

Template:Primeiro de Agosto men's handball roster

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 23:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2016 (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).

Template:3-sphere symmetry groups

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies if any editors decide they'd like to merge this with another template or create a list article based on it. None have popped up here, so it doesn't make sense to list this for a merge at WP:TFD/H. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 23:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not used in any articles. perhaps it should be turned into a list article, and have the extreme width fixed? or, merged with Template:3-sphere symmetry groups2? Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2016 (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).
I moved it to a user page. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CF/Content review/Latest

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 23:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (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).

Template:Biophilia (album) track listing

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure). ~ RobTalk 16:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous consensus on these album track list templates. —IB [ Poke ] 11:53, 17 May 2016 (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).

Template:Hits

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a canned help desk response. No longer relevant or accurate (see toollabs:pageviews, introduced I think in Aug 15), so this template is basically useless without a complete rewrite, and there is no call for a rewritten version. —  crh 23  (Talk) 10:52, 17 May 2016 (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).

Template:Forbidden Poetry

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

navbox with nothing to navigate between; even the topic is redlinked. NSH002 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2016 (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).

Template:Hector John Barros, Jr.

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless unused non-template-like template. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_17&oldid=1086982340"