Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual § Other
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual § Other. &#x0020;Specifically, please see entry on the list entitled Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 13. (I am leaving this note here because it involves templates and XfD.) Thanks! House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 18:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Readability of Template:Tfd top
Template:Tfd top uses background color #e3f9df (as of Special:Permalink/1172064855). Part of the template's text is the red "Please do not modify it.", which looks like this:

''... Please do not modify it. ...''

This combination of colors – background #e3f9df and foreground #ff0000  – is not very readable. It fails WCAG for normal text in a contrast checker.

In the interest of accessibility, I suggest changing the colors. For example, the foreground color can be changed to maroon (aka #800000 ):

''... Please do not modify it. ...''

which passes the contrast check. You can see how maroon looks with the whole text in the sandbox. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Other templates in Category:Deletion archival templates are also affected, but they are out of scope for WT:TFD. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * For reference, the brightest color for foreground which passes the contrast check with the same background is #A90000 (see also in the sandbox). —⁠andrybak (talk) 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. Primefac (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the support :-) I'll even point my edit summaries here. —⁠andrybak (talk) 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. Izno (talk) 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.
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * All changes were reverted. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering background colors of other templates, the contrast with red of Tfd's very light green is bad (contrast ratio 3.59:1, with needed 7:1). The worst offenders are Rfd's pale orange  (3.52:1) and 's light purple  (3.39:1). —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read Design/Archive/Wikimedia Foundation Design/Color usage. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

D MENA topic
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. MWQs (talk) 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. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)