Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	17	61	84
TfD	0	0	2	4	6
MfD	0	0	1	4	5
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	10	23	33
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual § Other

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual § Other. Specifically, please see entry on the list entitled Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 13#Category:Harold B. Lee Library-related film articles. (I am leaving this note here because it involves templates and XfD.) Thanks! HouseBlaster (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)

Primefac, 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.

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)

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 {{Archive top}}'s light purple   (3.39:1). —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Andrybak: You may wish to read mw:Design/Archive/Wikimedia Foundation Design/Color usage. --Redrose64 🌹 (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

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)