Template talk:Strikethrough

Rfd
A discussion has been opened regarding a pseudo-namespace shortcut to this page – T:S. All are welcome to come and join in the discussion that is being held at Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 18 –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 09:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Deprecated tag
there are several html sites that tell us that the tag is deprecated in HTML5, such as here and at https://www.tutorialspoint.com/html/html_deprecated_tags.htm (blacklisted). It appears to be an accessibility issue. Still usable, probably because of its wide usage; however, it does no harm to update these things now before they start producing errors and eventually stop working at all. If agreeable, I can go ahead and update the documentation.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 23:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your first link says "Defines a text, which is not relevant anymore." - what does that mean? I've found incomprehensible text in w3docs pages before, I don't regard them as reliable. The second I've not tried - it's probably blacklisted for a good reason. The third (Mozilla) one says nothing at all about deprecation. There are two standards organisations that have the right to say whether something is deprecated or not - w3c and whatwg. These days the two generally share common definitions, descriptions etc. but whereas the w3c goes through revision numbers and release dates (rather like a wiki), the whatwg don't - presenting what they call a "living standard" which may change at any time and it's not easy to track changes. Anyway, various W3C revisions include:
 * HTML5 (28 October 2014)
 * HTML 5.1 (3 October 2017)
 * HTML 5.2 (14 December 2017)
 * In each of these, the description reads The  element represents contents that are no longer accurate or no longer relevant. and there is no mention of deprecation.
 * Similarly, the whatwg page (Last Updated 10 March 2022) says nothing about deprecation of this or indeed any other element.
 * As regards accessibility, the various pages merely warn not to use  to indicate deletion of content, for which the  tag ahould be used. This is not at all the same as deprecation, since the implication is that in circumstances other than the indication of deleted content,  may still be permissible.
 * Going back in time, the  element was indeed deprecated in HTML 4, and whereas a lot of elements deprecated in HTML 4 (such as ) were marked as obsolete in HTML5,  is not among them. Indeed, the recommendation is to use  instead of  in certain circumstances - they wouldn't do that with a deprecated tag. Wikipedia serves HTML5. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, the "Defines a text, which is not relevant anymore," is just a description of the tag, and the "not relevant anymore" refers to the text that's struck. Since there is still wide usage of the &#60;s> tag, and since there appears to be no consistency among sources, there is no reason to jump on the CSS bandwagon yet. As for accessibility, when you scroll down in that third link to "Accessibility concerns" it reads "The presence of the s element is not announced by most screen reading technology in its default configuration. It can be made to be announced by using the CSS property, along with the  and  pseudo-elements." If that's not a concern here then let's continue to use the &#60;s> tag!  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 02:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
A question actually: should the opening line of the lead; " draws a line through the text that is its parameter." actually read as; "  draws a line through the text that is within its parameter."...? Thanks - w o lf  15:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have copy-edited the whole lead of the documentation, which needed a thorough cleaning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)