Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	23	0	23
TfD	0	0	5	0	5
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	42	0	42
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. Primefac (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Scope

Can this page be used to discuss matters relating to a template, other than deletion or merging? For example, the use of the parameters of a template, if agreement cannot be reached on the template talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Despite the name of the page, not really; it's only "for discussion" because template mergers were not deletions (according to this RM). Every once in a while someone tries to go the route of "it says discussion so let's discuss this template" but often ends up getting more backlash purely for the action than any useful feedback. If agreement can't be reached on a talk page, then I would traverse the various levels of WikiProject before maybe hitting up VPT (cross-posting to the original discussion to avoid decentralised debate, of course...). Primefac (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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)