251:(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):
731:
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
712:
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
610:. 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?
177:
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
453:
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
636:: 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:
601:
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
422:
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
830:
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?
713:
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. --
606:? 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
178:
least try to comply with
Knowledge (XXG) Policy, as continuous vandalism may also result in the blocking of several disruptive users, whether anonymous accounts or sockpuppet accounts (refer to recent discussion
450:
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.
389:
60:
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.
443:
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
678:. 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? --
321:
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.
144:
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
760:
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.
594:
558:
543:
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. --
291:
202:
Please, make the table collapsible, because it unnecessarily occupies big parts in pages and limits the visibility of other tables, as in
535:"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."
163:
42:
447:
when we make "pretend lists" without any list functionality, but with superfluous dots being read out to annoy the screen reader user.
364:
328:
130:
843:
393:
106:
I removed it again, Knowledge (XXG) works by building consensus, you shouldn't readd the flag without giving an explanation here.
746:
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 --
696:, so are you saying that you will revert changes to that version? or are you just extrapolating the opinion of others?
440:"list of 14 items: first item link Coptic architecture, Architecture; second item link Coptic art, Art; ... " and so on.
21:
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.
529:(a how-to page, not a guideline), which you refer to, gives specific examples of how you can change link colour in
507:. I made some changes to the sandbox to address the link coloring and navbar link font coloring issues. Thanks!
579:
right, we really shouldn't override the default link colouring unless there is a really good reason to do so.
221:
Five years later, after looking at several pages with this template, I came here to write the same thing. It
46:
167:
385:
360:
324:
126:
38:
816:
569:
511:
368:
332:
134:
840:
671:
211:
503:
if possible, as well as proper list markup. We should also avoid coloring the links where possible per
454:
editors really feel that they must have the gold-on-maroon colour scheme, I've made a demo version of
424:
26:
22:
74:
I reverted the page to my last edit, please do not revert it again without explaining your reasons.
35:
not true, many copts are holding the coptic flag in dimonstartions and place it on their websites.
797:
now updated, feel free to make changes to the sandbox if you would like to propose a new version.
120:
I don't see any good reasons why the coptic design to be removed. It seams that people suport it.
802:
737:
701:
584:
348:
302:
153:
111:
97:
89:
79:
65:
813:
765:
566:
508:
411:
187:
834:
497:
434:
207:
751:
718:
683:
598:
548:
530:
526:
504:
469:
203:
430:"link Coptic architecture, Architecture; dot; link Coptic art, Art; dot; ..." and so on.
667:
278:
261:
230:
798:
733:
697:
580:
484:
455:
403:
379:
344:
298:
254:
149:
107:
93:
75:
61:
761:
675:
488:
407:
183:
852:
821:
806:
769:
755:
741:
722:
705:
687:
588:
574:
552:
516:
473:
415:
397:
372:
352:
336:
306:
282:
234:
215:
191:
171:
157:
138:
115:
101:
83:
69:
50:
30:
521:
I don't agree that there is any guideline that asks us to avoid colouring links,
357:
I vote against the current format and for the old much nicer one. Anybody else?
268:
747:
714:
679:
614:
544:
480:
465:
225:
needs to be made collapsible. I will do that in a few days if no one objects.
444:
274:
226:
179:
145:
57:
297:. going back to last decade by using html table markup is not the answer.
243:
On second thought, there seems to be an ongoing content dispute between
206:, unless we we have a wide screen and the browser is fully maximized. --
613:
And if we're being purist, let me point out another guideline to you:
378:
Agree with keeping the nicer looking one and against the one that
121:
563:
Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers
88:
Pleeeeease explain your reasons for undoing my changes on
827:
728:
693:
664:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
643:
640:
637:
633:
539:
460:
248:
244:
629:
to distinguish links from plain text anyway, right?
595:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color
559:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color
531:
Help:Link color #Styling
Individual links on a page
406:needs to stop changing this template unilaterally.
666:by multiple editors: 67.99.175.226, 74.77.129.30,
8:
692:I don't recall anyone trying a version like
632:Finally, I suggest you take a good look at
674:, 2601:142:103:f79:61bd:b23:a8b:14e1, and
383:
358:
322:
608:because they don't like the way it looks
122:http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Coptic_flag
273:. Hopefully the issue can be resolved!
618:
562:
534:
343:sure, I vote for the current format.
7:
604:when they are in a box-full of links
634:the current template implementation
625:" so we shouldn't be using colour
433:With the updated version based on
390:2601:142:103:F79:61BD:B23:A8B:14E1
198:Please make this table collapsible
14:
493:, we should definitely be using
427:is going to hear something like:
292:sidebar with collapsible lists
204:Coptic alphabet#Alphabet table
1:
832:
287:collapsible is fine, but use
216:02:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
445:our accessibility guidelines
623:to mark differences in text
871:
464:for your consideration. --
373:17:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
353:20:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
158:00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
139:16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
102:23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
84:20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
70:19:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
51:05:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
31:07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
853:19:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
458:' accessible template in
337:19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
192:22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
172:04:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
116:01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
822:23:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
807:14:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
770:03:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
756:21:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
742:21:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
723:21:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
706:20:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
688:17:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
589:12:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
575:21:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
553:17:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
517:17:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
474:17:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
416:15:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
398:20:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
307:13:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
283:06:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
235:22:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
146:Talk:Copt#Coptic flag 2
732:the current version).
461:Template:Copts/sandbox
812:Looks good. Thanks!
540:your sandbox version
425:assistive technology
162:why is still here??
17:Coptic Coat of Arms
593:Yes, I know about
249:this newer version
245:this older version
619:Do not use color
400:
388:comment added by
375:
363:comment added by
339:
327:comment added by
141:
129:comment added by
53:
41:comment added by
862:
851:
672:WikiMasterGhibif
670:, 74.10.108.60,
617:, which states "
542:
502:
496:
492:
463:
437:they would hear:
435:Template:Sidebar
382:keeps putting.
296:
290:
272:
265:
258:
124:
36:
870:
869:
865:
864:
863:
861:
860:
859:
849:
819:
599:Help:Link color
572:
538:
527:Help:Link color
514:
505:Help:Link color
500:
494:
478:
459:
319:
294:
288:
266:
259:
252:
200:
19:
12:
11:
5:
868:
866:
858:
857:
856:
855:
847:
817:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
710:
630:
622:
611:
570:
537:I don't think
512:
451:
448:
441:
438:
431:
428:
420:
401:
376:
355:
318:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
238:
237:
199:
196:
195:
194:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
867:
854:
845:
842:
839:
837:
829:
825:
824:
823:
820:
815:
811:
810:
809:
808:
804:
800:
771:
767:
763:
759:
758:
757:
753:
749:
745:
744:
743:
739:
735:
730:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
711:
709:
708:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
690:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
662:
659:
656:
653:
650:
647:
644:
641:
638:
635:
631:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
609:
605:
600:
597:, as well as
596:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
578:
577:
576:
573:
568:
564:
560:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
541:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
515:
510:
506:
499:
490:
486:
482:
477:
476:
475:
471:
467:
462:
457:
452:
449:
446:
442:
439:
436:
432:
429:
426:
421:
419:
418:
417:
413:
409:
405:
402:
399:
395:
391:
387:
381:
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
338:
334:
330:
326:
316:
308:
304:
300:
293:
286:
285:
284:
280:
276:
270:
263:
256:
250:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
176:
175:
174:
173:
169:
165:
164:99.253.184.27
160:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
118:
117:
113:
109:
104:
103:
99:
95:
91:
86:
85:
81:
77:
72:
71:
67:
63:
59:
54:
52:
48:
44:
43:132.198.88.20
40:
33:
32:
28:
24:
16:
835:
828:that version
814:Plastikspork
796:
729:this version
626:
607:
603:
567:Plastikspork
522:
509:Plastikspork
384:— Preceding
365:74.77.129.30
359:— Preceding
329:74.77.129.30
323:— Preceding
320:
222:
201:
161:
143:
131:75.69.36.124
119:
105:
90:my talk page
87:
73:
56:Please read
55:
34:
20:
836:SMcCandlish
561:which says
208:Mahmudmasri
125:—Preceding
37:—Preceding
615:MOS:COLOUR
525:. In fact
180:found here
23:The Cake 1
668:Meritamun
557:There is
262:Meritamun
92:or here.
799:Frietjes
734:Frietjes
727:I think
698:Frietjes
694:this one
581:Frietjes
485:Frietjes
456:Frietjes
404:Frietjes
386:unsigned
380:Frietjes
361:unsigned
345:Frietjes
325:unsigned
299:Frietjes
255:Frietjes
127:unsigned
39:unsigned
762:Bethy17
676:Bethy17
498:sidebar
489:Bethy17
487:, and
408:Bethy17
826:Agree
523:per se
269:Th4n3r
223:really
184:~ Troy
150:George
108:George
94:George
76:George
62:George
748:RexxS
715:RexxS
680:RexxS
627:alone
621:alone
545:RexxS
481:RexxS
466:RexxS
317:Table
803:talk
766:talk
752:talk
738:talk
719:talk
702:talk
684:talk
585:talk
549:talk
470:talk
412:talk
394:talk
369:talk
349:talk
333:talk
303:talk
279:talk
275:Ohff
247:and
231:talk
227:Ohff
212:talk
188:talk
168:talk
154:talk
135:talk
112:talk
98:talk
80:talk
66:talk
58:this
47:talk
27:talk
850:ⱷ≼
846:≽ⱷ҅
182:).
833:—
818:―Œ
805:)
768:)
754:)
740:)
721:)
704:)
686:)
663:,
660:,
657:,
654:,
651:,
648:,
645:,
642:,
639:,
587:)
571:―Œ
565:.
551:)
533::
513:―Œ
501:}}
495:{{
483:,
472:)
414:)
396:)
371:)
351:)
335:)
305:)
295:}}
289:{{
281:)
233:)
214:)
190:)
170:)
156:)
148:.
137:)
114:)
100:)
82:)
68:)
49:)
29:)
848:ᴥ
844:¢
841:☏
838:☺
801:(
764:(
750:(
736:(
717:(
700:(
682:(
583:(
547:(
491::
479:@
468:(
410:(
392:(
367:(
347:(
331:(
301:(
277:(
271::
267:@
264::
260:@
257::
253:@
229:(
210:(
186:(
166:(
152:(
133:(
110:(
96:(
78:(
64:(
45:(
25:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.