Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 31

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 30 September 1 >

August 31 edit

Template:Voidd 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused #if wrapper, of no discernible use. Alakzi (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment why is this template protected? If a template falls out of usage, it is no longer highly visible, so protection seems to be a very weird thing to keep up. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to have fallen entirely out of use. Given that it was formerly high use according to the protection log, this likely means it has been replaced with some other template or article text as a preferred method of presenting this info. ~ RobTalk 06:41, 8 September 2015 (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:Feat. 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. ~ RobTalk 21:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use WP:FONTSIZE-violating macro. Alakzi (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2015 (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:Echo2 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. ~ RobTalk 21:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Alakzi (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Redundant, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redundant, Delete - Redundant, Delete - Redundant, Delete - Redundant, Bazj (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2015 (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:Howrah - Sitarampur 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. ~ RobTalk 21:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unused, and not clear where it would be used. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2015 (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:2012 Summer Olympics NOCs 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 Redirect to Template:2012 Summer Olympics Participating National Olympic Committees. No arguments have been presented against a redirect from a common abbreviation. ~ RobTalk 21:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (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:Argentina Labelled Map 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, awkward capitalization makes a redirect unlikely to be all that useful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2015 (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:Doctor Who episode list 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 Merge. This is a contentious issue, no doubt about that. However, so far the only strong keep has been voiced from AlexTheWhovian (the creator). The strongest arguments for merging come from the Pigsonthewing (it's redundant) and BU Rob13 (WMF/accesability problems). When ILIKEIT comes up against WMF, the WMF wins. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A fork of {{Episode list}}, "with two additional variables" - which, if required, should be included in that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something against forks? I've attempted to discuss adding those two parameters for six weeks (first attempt), but to no avail and no replies. Alex|The|Whovian 14:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edokter. Rowspans and colspans hurt accessibility. You could simply repeat the numbers. Alakzi (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response, I'm not seeing the removal of rowspans when it comes to awards tables, and colspans when it comes to series overviews? Alex|The|Whovian 16:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being. If this template can be merged with another then it can be deleted after the merge but not before. Djonesuk (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no solid reasons for its deletion. Alex|The|Whovian 01:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The primary reason is the redundancy; a secondary reason is the use of harmful rowspans. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Template in question is far from redundant, and rowspans are executed properly, and far from harmful. Alex|The|Whovian 11:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you mean they're far from harmful? We're telling you that they hurt accessibility; you can't just deny a fact. Alakzi (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • How do you claim that "they hurt accessibility"? I've seen nothing to back this. Alex|The|Whovian 12:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • A screen reader would read the story number only once for multiple episodes. For a more thorough explanation, see RexxS' comment here, dated 00:49, 3 July 2015. Alakzi (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Far from harmful. (What happened to not editing posts once someone replied to it?) Alex|The|Whovian 12:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please do not bother me with disputes you've had with other editors. Alakzi (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've had no such issues with other editors. We digress. Alex|The|Whovian 12:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The harm done by rowspans was explained to you on 26 June by User:Edokter: "No rowspans please; they hurt navigation for screenreaders." on the talk page of the template from which you subsequently forked this one. You replied, so saw that post. The redundancy is clear; you forked the template, just to add two parameters, rather than use the solution presented to you in that discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would request that you don't edit my posts, bullet points aren't necessary. And apparently all that hurts it is that the story number would be read once. Alex|The|Whovian 14:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did not "edit your post", which reads exactly as it did previously; I merely fixed the indentation, as I have done here, for respectively, clarity and accessibility. That changes the underlying markup, of which bullet points are just an incidental manifestation, for some users. You may learn more at WP:LISTGAP and WP:TALKOAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Djonesuk. --torri2(talk/contribs) 19:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pigsonthewing: Explain your request for reopening reconsidering the close of this discussion - the result is clearly no consensus. Alex|The|Whovian 10:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • <col>s and <colgroup>s can't be used on Wikipedia, so Djonesuk's argument about accessibility is not any argument at all; and if a table is not linearly navigable by screen readers, it is fair to call it "harmful". There's no question that {{Doctor Who episode list}} impedes accessibility. The question is whether we care; or whether we care more about collapsing a couple of rows to please the eye. Alakzi (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The documentation on Mediawiki shows that colgroup and rowgroup are not supported by any Mediawiki software:
    mw:Help:Tables #Common attributes for columns, column groups and row groups
    The only techniques that WAI can offer to overcome accessibility problems caused by rowspan or colspan are either (1) using IDs to associate columns or rows - which we can't do because user-generated content such as a wiki can't guarantee the uniqueness of an ID, so they are disallowed in wikimarkup; or (2) by setting a spanned header's scope to the value "colgroup" or "rowgroup". As they are not supported either, it follows that we cannot make wiki-tables fully accessible when headers are spanned:
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/irregular/
    The loss of information in a relatively simple table is small and an experienced screen-reader user will doubtless learn to compensate; but nevertheless, there really is no point in treating screen-reader users as second class consumers of our content just for the sake of simply repeating a header where it can avoid a rowspan. This has the added benefit of making tables more functional, by allowing sorting, but that's another issue. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know much about screen readers, but according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial/Internal guidelines#Avoiding rowspan/colspan, "As of September 2010, the most widely used assistive technologies do support these attributes. For example, JAWS has supported them since JAWS 6.0 (March 2005)." nyuszika7h (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, most screen readers have supported rowspan and colspan for years. JAWS can use a spanned header to announce the header before reading a cell contents when in table navigation mode (see HTML Tables with JAWS and MAGic for details). But no amount of "support" will supply missing information for a screen reader - take a look at Madonna videography and explain how a screen-reader user can find out who directed "Material Girl", or even what year "Like a Virgin" was released. In the case of this template, it's not catastrophic, but someone using JAWS who navigates down the "Original air date" column in Template:Doctor Who episode list/doc will hear something like "187, Original air date, 16 June 2007"; "187, Original air date, 23 June 2007"; "187, Original air date, 30 June 2007". That's not exactly informative, is it? --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding the episode number into that? "187, 11, Original air date, 16 June 2007"; "187, 12, Original air date, 23 June 2007"; "187, 13, Original air date, 30 June 2007". Why, yes, it is informative. Alex|The|Whovian 01:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any idea of how screen readers work? Take a look at the link I gave and try to understand what is happening when JAWS is in Table Layer mode. Your suggestion would be useful if only JAWS could "add the episode number into that". Which it can't, because it only reads out the row and column headers before the cell contents, not other random bits of information that you think would be nice. So the example in the documentation is actually not informative for a screen reader, is it? You could fix it by scrapping the rowspan and amalgamating the "Story" and "Episode" fields into an unspanned header cell in each row. Then it would read out as you want it to, but of course that would bring you back to the format of Template:Episode list and render this template redundant, as has been pointed out above. --RexxS (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, why would it randomly skip over the episode number column? nyuszika7h (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When a screen-reader user wants to read a table, we don't force them to read all of the first row, then all of the second row, then all of the third row, and so on (although they can if they want), because that would be tedious if the table had a lot of columns or rows. A screen reader like JAWS, for example, has the ability to navigate in "Table Layer" mode. That allows the user to move up, down, left or right from any cell. So a user might want to read down a column to find the information they want. Perhaps they want the air dates for some episodes; they could navigate to the top of the "Original air date" column and move down it, hearing just the dates. But unless it was a very small table, that might not help them because they can't tell which episode is related to which date. Sighted visitors can of course just glance across the row and we take that for granted, but it's not so easy for a blind person. To alleviate the problem, JAWS can be set to allow the user to hear not just the data in the cell, but the row and column headers as well. So, for example, look at List of Tom Hanks performances #Film: going down the column called "Year", they could arrange to hear "He Knows You're Alone, Year, 1980"; then "Splash, Year, 1984", then "Bachelor Party, Year, 1984", and so on. It's not "randomly skipping" the columns for Actor, Producer, Role, etc., it's simply reading out the contents of a single column (Year), preceded by the row and column headers. It can only do this for the headers, so it's important to mark up correctly the information we want to be used as headers. A sighted person can't see that, but it makes a huge difference to a blind person using a screen reader. As I said before, going down the "Original air date" column in Template:Doctor Who episode list/doc and hearing "187, Original air date, 16 June 2007"; "187, Original air date, 23 June 2007"; "187, Original air date, 30 June 2007" is completely unhelpful to visually impaired visitors. We should not be doing that, despite Alex's ignorant comments that the template doesn't cause accessibility problems, when it clearly does. Now do you understand? --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stunning civility, bud. Alex|The|Whovian 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that makes sense. I read it wrong at first. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of rowspan used in the Madonna article is definitely inappropriate, and I've seen worse ("let's rowspan ALL the repeated cells!"), which doesn't even look good. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an appropriate template. Most editors involved in this discussion so far have been entirely dismissive of accessibility concerns. That's simply not acceptable. WMF's discrimination policy specifically cannot be overridden by consensus of any level. This is not accessible for those using screenreaders, and so it cannot exist as per the WMF's discrimination policy. Additionally, it's redundant. ~ RobTalk 21:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, here is a link to the non-discrimination policy. Note the text at the top that "It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies." This policy, which is what WP:ACCESS is derived from, trumps any consensus or lack of consensus no matter how many editors decide discrimination is acceptable. ~ RobTalk 21:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I understand, this template provides no advantage except for the rowspan, which raises accessibility concerns. {{Episode list}} was already able to handle the non-rowspanned version before. So it can probably be just deleted if it comes to that. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this has been open for ages, the participants deserve a resolution, and I was somewhat involved in the background situation related to this, I posted it at WP:ANRFC... where it will likely continue to molder in a somewhat more visible backlog. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, the rowspan makes it impossible to link to a specific episode within a story, as production codes aren't listed either. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this needed? If you link to the story itself, there's the episode link right there. Alex|The|Whovian 15:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this was opened almost four months ago, and there hasn't been a reply in almost three weeks, the lack of consensus here is clear and the discussion should be closed as such. Alex|The|Whovian 16:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is certainly overdue for closure, but nothing has been done or said to address the serious accessibility issue raised; nor to justify a separate template. You are the only person who wants to keep it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has broken the template, or at least the examples on the documentation, so that User:Rexxs explanation cannot be understood in semantic terms. Please pin me when fixed so I can understand what is going on. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: Fixed. The error was due to the recent edits at {{Episode table}}. Alex|The|Whovian 22:52, 13 October 2015 (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:Identity 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ RobTalk 06:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use experiment which wraps the lede of Psilocybin for no apparent reason and to no apparent effect. Alakzi (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to the original documentation, this is supposed to be substituted, so should not show any uses. And as indicated in the documentation, this is used to protect transclusions with section headers that can result in [edit]-links that may modify a general template. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not substitutable and, no, it does not protect headings, nor is that something that should be done. Alakzi (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, entirely pointless. Frietjes (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as Frietjes said, pointless. Bazj (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hasdot 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. ~ RobTalk 18:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused overcomplication. Alakzi (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2015 (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/2015_August_31&oldid=851988700"