Template talk:Copts sidebar

Coptic Coat of Arms

Most copts do not know about this "coat of arms". It is only used by a few actvists and shouldnt be in the info box. The Cake 1 (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not true, many copts are holding the coptic flag in dimonstartions and place it on their websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.88.20 (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this and add your comments there or on my talk page. If I don't get any response in a week, I'll assume you agree and remove the "Coat of Arms" and the link to the flag page, Thanks. George (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the page to my last edit, please do not revert it again without explaining your reasons. George (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleeeeease explain your reasons for undoing my changes on my talk page or here. George (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again, Wikipedia works by building consensus, you shouldn't readd the flag without giving an explanation here. George (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any good reasons why the coptic design to be removed. It seams that people suport it. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Coptic_flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.36.124 (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't represent copts in general, only a group of activists that most egyptians have never heard about. I'm only saying it shouldn't be in the infobox, see Talk:Copt#Coptic flag 2. George (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why is still here?? 99.253.184.27 (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several anon. edits that were disruptive and were ones that I considered to be vandalism (ie: continuously unexplained removal of an image on this template). For that reason, I have requested for the protection of this template from more vandalism. Also, you anon. guys need to at least try to comply with Wikipedia Policy, as continuous vandalism may also result in the blocking of several disruptive users, whether anonymous accounts or sockpuppet accounts (refer to recent discussion found here). ~ Troy (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please make this table collapsible

Please, make the table collapsible, because it unnecessarily occupies big parts in pages and limits the visibility of other tables, as in Coptic alphabet#Alphabet table, unless we we have a wide screen and the browser is fully maximized. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Five years later, after looking at several pages with this template, I came here to write the same thing. It really needs to be made collapsible. I will do that in a few days if no one objects. Ohff (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, there seems to be an ongoing content dispute between this older version and this newer version (with the newer version being the one that can easily be given collapsible lists). Obviously I can't work to make the template collapsible while the dispute is ongoing. I have no desire to take any side, but I would like to invite the people involved in the dispute to discuss it here. So, I will ping the people who seem to be involved (and I apologize in advance if I pinged you by mistake): @Frietjes: @Meritamun: @Th4n3r:. Hopefully the issue can be resolved! Ohff (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

collapsible is fine, but use {{sidebar with collapsible lists}}. going back to last decade by using html table markup is not the answer. Frietjes (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table

Can we please vote on the way the tab;e looks like? I don't see why we have to use a standard format that looks ugly if we can use a much nicer looking format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.129.30 (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sure, I vote for the current format. Frietjes (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against the current format and for the old much nicer one. Anybody else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.129.30 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with keeping the nicer looking one and against the one that Frietjes keeps putting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:103:F79:61BD:B23:A8B:14E1 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes needs to stop changing this template unilaterally. Bethy17 (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring isn't going to solve the issue, but neither is simply attacking another editor without giving good reason for your preference. It is clear that the old version of the template is very poor from an accessibility standpoint. Anyone using assistive technology is going to hear something like:

"link Coptic architecture, Architecture; dot; link Coptic art, Art; dot; ..." and so on.

With the updated version based on Template:Sidebar they would hear:

"list of 14 items: first item link Coptic architecture, Architecture; second item link Coptic art, Art; ... " and so on.

Many screen readers will have the ability to move back-and-forth within a list, and some will be able to jump to, or skip lists. Whenever we have a list of items, we breach our accessibility guidelines when we make "pretend lists" without any list functionality, but with superfluous dots being read out to annoy the screen reader user.

In addition, the colour combination (#FDD017 text on #870409 background) falls short of WCAG 2 AAA standard for no good reason that I can ascertain. In any case the newer version is much clearer to read.

So the question over which of the two versions is best becomes "Should editors' preference for what they feel is nice or ugly take precedence over making life easier for visually impaired visitors?" In my mind, this is no competition. The template should be changed to an accessible version. If editors really feel that they must have the gold-on-maroon colour scheme, I've made a demo version of Frietjes' accessible template in Template:Copts/sandbox for your consideration. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS, Frietjes, and Bethy17:, we should definitely be using {{sidebar}} if possible, as well as proper list markup. We should also avoid coloring the links where possible per Help:Link color. I made some changes to the sandbox to address the link coloring and navbar link font coloring issues. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that there is any guideline that asks us to avoid colouring links, per se. In fact Help:Link color (a how-to page, not a guideline), which you refer to, gives specific examples of how you can change link colour in Help:Link color #Styling Individual links on a page: "You can set the color of an individual link or set of links on page (rather than a global change to the style of all links) as follows." I don't think your sandbox version resembles the old version, which I was trying to simulate, thus it seems to me to defeat the purpose of meeting the aesthetics of the old template. --RexxS (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color which says Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

right, we really shouldn't override the default link colouring unless there is a really good reason to do so. Frietjes (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color, as well as Help:Link color which has a little box saying "Refrain from implementing colored links that may impede user ability to distinguish links from regular text", but my dissent from your version is two-fold: (1) Who, exactly, is going to be confused about the yellow links being links when they are in a box-full of links? Nobody is going to mistake them for plain text in the context where they appear; (2) We are going to have to sell an accessible version to the other editors who have been consistently reverting Frietjes' version because they don't like the way it looks. If there is going to be any chance of a compromise gaining consensus, we are going to have to acknowledge that other editors will prioritise aesthetics over accessibility, so why would we reject something that they might find acceptable, just because we want to be purist over the colour of links?

And if we're being purist, let me point out another guideline to you: MOS:COLOUR, which states "Do not use color alone to mark differences in text" so we shouldn't be using colour alone to distinguish links from plain text anyway, right?

Finally, I suggest you take a good look at the current template implementation: custom table markup; class is 'infobox' (which it isn't); none of the lists are marked up as lists; actual middots scattered throughout the template; coloured links, etc. And that version has been reverted back to, over the last three years, no less than 10 times: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] by multiple editors: 67.99.175.226, 74.77.129.30, Meritamun, 74.10.108.60, WikiMasterGhibif, 2601:142:103:f79:61bd:b23:a8b:14e1, and Bethy17. So what's your plan to convince them to agree to an accessible template? Keep edit-warring until they give in? Because that's not proven very effective so far, has it? --RexxS (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall anyone trying a version like this one, so are you saying that you will revert changes to that version? or are you just extrapolating the opinion of others? Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of joining in the edit-war, which is why I created the sandbox in an effort to find common ground between the different views. In an ideal world, I'd much prefer either your version or Plastikspork's. But given the stance of the editors who have reverted your version 10 times, I was just taking a wild guess that they might do the same again if you re-instated something that didn't strongly resemble the version that they insist "looks nicer". Just my opinion, of course, feel free to ignore it. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this version is a suitable compromise which (1) colour matches the image with the body of the sidebar (as it is in the current version), (2) colour matches the content sections with the image, (3) crops the duplicate 'Copts' in the image, and (4) retains the white font for the title and navbar links (as it is in the current version). Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I like it very much. But it's not me you're going to need to convince. I hope you're successful. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the new version proposed in the sandbox, although I think we can do better with the colors. I will be working on it over the next couple of days. Bethy17 (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

now updated, feel free to make changes to the sandbox if you would like to propose a new version. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that version is a vast improvement generally speaking. Only question I would raise is whether the blue link color on the rich yellow is sufficient luminosity difference for color-blind users. Has this been checked with the appropriate tools? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]