This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Templates, a group dedicated to improving the maintenance of Wikipedia's
templates. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TemplatesWikipedia:WikiProject TemplatesTemplate:WikiProject TemplatesTemplates articles
To help
centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the following pages redirect here:
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Primefac, thanks for the support :-) I'll even point my edit summaries here. —
andrybak (
talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
All changes were reverted. —
andrybak (
talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply