Revision as of 07:30, 9 August 2020 editKoavf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,174,994 edits →Implementing Template:Sronly: Replying to Alex 21 (using reply-link)← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:33, 9 August 2020 edit undoAlex 21 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors140,877 edits →Implementing Template:SronlyNext edit → | ||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
:::::{{u|Alex 21}}, Well, you know what you need to do: answer a yes or no question and justify a revert that you made. If you elect to not, that's up to you. I won't be answering your questions unless you answer mine first. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 07:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | :::::{{u|Alex 21}}, Well, you know what you need to do: answer a yes or no question and justify a revert that you made. If you elect to not, that's up to you. I won't be answering your questions unless you answer mine first. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 07:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | ||
::::::{{u|Koavf}}, I just continued the discussion on content, and you still refuse to answer. I'm convinved you have no intention to discuss it, regardless of any of my contributions, by copy-pasting the same bludgeoning answer. I deem this discussion with you closed, you admit that you have no issues with the edit or anything further to contribute ''at this venue''. -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/]/]''</span> 07:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | ::::::{{u|Koavf}}, I just continued the discussion on content, and you still refuse to answer. I'm convinved you have no intention to discuss it, regardless of any of my contributions, by copy-pasting the same bludgeoning answer. I deem this discussion with you closed, you admit that you have no issues with the edit or anything further to contribute ''at this venue''. -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/]/]''</span> 07:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | ||
:::::::{{u|Alex 21}}, Stop pinging me on this unless you answer my questions. I've objected to your edit based on policy and I've given you an alternative that you could implement. You've displayed ignorance of the policy and a refusal to engage in a good faith change that would allow the option to display or not display the caption. You've made your choices to not seek consensus and instead revert to your preferred version ''minutes'' later. You've also made the decision to willfully misconstrue others' behavior, policy, the nature of consensus, and whether your actions show common sens and good judgement. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 07:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | :::::::{{u|Alex 21}}, Stop pinging me on this unless you answer my questions. I've objected to your edit based on policy and I've given you an alternative that you could implement. You've displayed ignorance of the policy and a refusal to engage in a good faith change that would allow the option to display or not display the caption. You've made your choices to not seek consensus and instead revert to your preferred version ''minutes'' later. You've also made the decision to willfully misconstrue others' behavior, policy, the nature of consensus, and whether your actions show common sens and good judgement. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 07:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)' | ||
::::::::{{u|Koavf}}, copy-pasting the same answer isn't you discussing. Discuss the content. How many times do you need to be told? Take conduct elsewhere. I will continue to ping you until our discussion on the content concludes satisfactorily. {{tq|I've given you an alternative that you could implement.}} Can you point me to where you did this before I did? I recall my compromise being ''my'' suggestion. Are you taking credit for my suggestion? -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/]/]''</span> 07:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse bottom}} | {{collapse bottom}} |
Revision as of 07:33, 9 August 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Episode table template. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Television Template‑class | |||||||
|
Link Production Code with its page definition
Something like:
--Stdedos (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- We don't link any other info in the headers, and I don't see the need for this to be linked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Implementing Template:Sronly
Koavf, state your opposition to the edit. -- /Alex/21 14:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, As I wrote, there was no discussion about this here (or at WT:TV). Additionally, there is no language at MOS:TABLECAPTION saying that non-displaying captions should be default (and, in fact, the example cases are the opposite). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Discussions are not necessary for every edit. State your opposition to the edit. Read the template's documentation; the template is completely accessible, and is supported by consensus through the discussion that resulted in the template's creation. -- /Alex/21 14:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Alex. The implementation of the Sronly template allows this template to be fully compliant with MOS:ACCESS regarding captions and screen readers, but will hid the captions for non-screen reading devices when 99% of the time the caption's text is redundant and would not be necessary if it were not to comply with accessibility issues. For example, having an article A Great Show (season 1) and the episode table, coming right after an "Episodes" header, with the caption "A Great Show, season 1 episodes" is highly redundant and does not help a reader beyond it's use for a screen reader (which is great). So with this implementation, the screen reader can have the information it needs to help those readers, while not showing for others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Favre1fan93, And in other cases, it wouldn't be highly redundant. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, if you have no further opposition, or no actual policy- or guideline-based reasons to oppose the edit, I'll be restoring it presently. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 00:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, I do have other objections: you should make this optional, not the default. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, I didn't say that discussion was necessary: you started the discussion. I also didn't say that a different template lacks consensus. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, you certainly did; you stated there was "no consensus" or discussion, making discussion necessary when you reverted with no policy- or guideline-based reason. For the hidden caption to be optional rather than default, there would need to be more cases where the caption would need to be visible than cases where the caption would not need to be visible. Can you provide proof that there are more of the former case than the latter? -- /Alex/21 04:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, "For the hidden caption to be optional rather than default, there would need to be more cases where the caption would need to be visible than cases where the caption would not need to be visible." Where are you getting this idea? Also, why is it necessary for one option in particular to be more popular for someone to have options? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, are unable to provide such cases?
- Also, is there a reason why you decided to revert first, without discussing first? Discussing instead of automatically reverting, was that not part of the conditions for the release of your most recent block for edit-warring? -- /Alex/21 04:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, You answered my questions with questions. I reverted per WP:BRD. No, you are not understanding what edit-warring is or why blocks were instituted or evidently how to have a simple discussion with another person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, no, you didn't. Per WP:BRD-NOT,
BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes
, andBRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle
. - I'm trying to have a discussion with you. You made a claim. Can you provide such cases to support your claims, or not? If you cannot, then don't make claims you cannot back up. If you cannot, then there was and is no reason to revert. -- /Alex/21 04:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, Common sense is that this should be optional just like it is with standard tables. Enforcing it that it doesn't display with no obvious documentation or ability to change it seems pretty common sense to me. If you want to have a discussion, how about you answer the questions I asked? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, so you realize that you didn't revert per BRD? Answer, then, why you reverted.
- If anything, the invisible caption should be default with the option to display the caption, but so far, I've seen no examples of where this would be required, because none have been able to be provided. You're saying that "in other cases, it wouldn't be highly redundant", but have provided nothing to back this up. Why not?
- Concerning "no obvious documentation", please don't lie. -- /Alex/21 04:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, Common sense is that this should be optional just like it is with standard tables. Enforcing it that it doesn't display with no obvious documentation or ability to change it seems pretty common sense to me. If you want to have a discussion, how about you answer the questions I asked? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, no, you didn't. Per WP:BRD-NOT,
- Alex 21, You answered my questions with questions. I reverted per WP:BRD. No, you are not understanding what edit-warring is or why blocks were instituted or evidently how to have a simple discussion with another person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alex 21, "For the hidden caption to be optional rather than default, there would need to be more cases where the caption would need to be visible than cases where the caption would not need to be visible." Where are you getting this idea? Also, why is it necessary for one option in particular to be more popular for someone to have options? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, you certainly did; you stated there was "no consensus" or discussion, making discussion necessary when you reverted with no policy- or guideline-based reason. For the hidden caption to be optional rather than default, there would need to be more cases where the caption would need to be visible than cases where the caption would not need to be visible. Can you provide proof that there are more of the former case than the latter? -- /Alex/21 04:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Alex. The implementation of the Sronly template allows this template to be fully compliant with MOS:ACCESS regarding captions and screen readers, but will hid the captions for non-screen reading devices when 99% of the time the caption's text is redundant and would not be necessary if it were not to comply with accessibility issues. For example, having an article A Great Show (season 1) and the episode table, coming right after an "Episodes" header, with the caption "A Great Show, season 1 episodes" is highly redundant and does not help a reader beyond it's use for a screen reader (which is great). So with this implementation, the screen reader can have the information it needs to help those readers, while not showing for others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Discussions are not necessary for every edit. State your opposition to the edit. Read the template's documentation; the template is completely accessible, and is supported by consensus through the discussion that resulted in the template's creation. -- /Alex/21 14:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Discuss content, not conduct. |
---|
Koavf,
Koavf, please discuss content, not conduct. I'll need to ask you again, where I have not answered a question about the captions, the module, the template or the episode tables themselves? You specifically stated
|