| Revision as of 12:27, 7 October 2024 editGonnym (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors224,817 edits →Langx← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:48, 18 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 27) (bot |
| (14 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
{{XFD backlog|right}} |
|
{{XFD backlog|right}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
== Readability of ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
] uses background color #e3f9df (as of ]). Part of the template's text is the red "Please do not modify it.", which looks like this: |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="padding: 0 10px 0 10px; background-color: #e3f9df;">''... <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> ...''</div> |
|
|
|
|
|
This combination of colors – background #e3f9df {{Color box|#e3f9df}} and foreground #ff0000 {{color box|#ff0000}} – is not very readable. It fails ] for normal text in . |
|
|
|
|
|
In the interest of ], I suggest changing the colors. For example, the foreground color can be changed to ] (aka #800000 {{color box|maroon}}): |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="padding: 0 10px 0 10px; background-color: #e3f9df;">''... <span style="color:maroon">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> ...''</div> |
|
|
|
|
|
which passes the . You can see how maroon looks with the whole text in ]. —] (]) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: <small>Other templates in ] are also affected, but they are out of scope for ]. —] (]) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:: {{small|I know you say it's not relevant, but we might as well change ''all'' of the affected templates, such as {{t|atop green}}, at the same time. Also, why is this thread small? ] (]) 07:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
::: <small>{{tq|we might as well change ''all'' of the affected templates}} – sure, I'll go be ]. {{tq|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. —] (]) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:For reference, the brightest color for foreground which is #A90000 {{color box|A90000}} (see also in ]). —] (]) 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. ] (]) 07:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::: {{u|Primefac}}, thanks for the support :-) I'll even point my edit summaries here. —] (]) 19:36, 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. ] (]) 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. |
|
|
:: {{u|Izno}}, could you please clarify what you mean by {{tq|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? —] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I agree. The bold red is readable enough, and - for {{tl|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. —] 20:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: All changes were reverted. —] (]) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Considering background colors of other templates, the contrast with red of Tfd's very light green {{color box|#e3f9df}} is bad (, with needed 7:1). The worst offenders are ] {{color box|#FFEEDD}} () and ] {{color box|#EDEAFF}} (). —] (]) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{replyto|Andrybak}} You may wish to read ]. --] 🌹 (]) 21:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
==Discussion at ]== |
|
|
] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== D MENA topic == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{t|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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Inline styles? == |
|
== Inline styles? == |
|
|
{{mdt|Template_talk:Afd_top#Inline_styles?|2=] (]) 07:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{cot}} |
|
Right now it's <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"><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);"></syntaxhighlight> |
|
Right now it's <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"><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);"></syntaxhighlight> |
|
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. <code>afd</code>, <code>vfd</code>, <code>xfd-closed</code>), 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. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 05:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. <code>afd</code>, <code>vfd</code>, <code>xfd-closed</code>), 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. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 05:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
| Line 62: |
Line 26: |
|
::* If the {{tl|afd top}} template was substituted, it could cause issues due to the fact that the styles might not being carried over |
|
::* If the {{tl|afd top}} template was substituted, it could cause issues due to the fact that the styles might not being carried over |
|
::To my knowledge <code>afd</code> <code>vfd</code> <code>xfd-closed</code> 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. ] (]) 08:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::To my knowledge <code>afd</code> <code>vfd</code> <code>xfd-closed</code> 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. ] (]) 08:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Discussion at ]== |
|
|
] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tfd top dark mode == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{re|JPxG|Sohom_Datta}} Related to ] ({{slink|Template_talk:Afd_top#Inline_styles?}}), can we have a similar dark mode implementation for the ] template {{t|tfd top}}? ] (]) 08:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Langx == |
|
== TFD linking discussion == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is ] about changing how we notify users about TFDs. Please join in the conversation. ] (]) 18:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I know this isn't a discussion that many would want to jump into probably and close it, but editors are starting to bring out the pitchforks about the TfD tag, not only here () but also at other pages (). So either it gets closed or we disable the notice, because at this point, whoever wanted to see this discussion already saw it. ] (]) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Moved to Template talk:Afd top § Inline styles? – 172.97.141.219 (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: Enacting T5 (unused template subpages). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)