Small tag is not allowed to modify normal-sized infobox text
Re our reverts at WWNR: the <small>...</small>
tag is not allowed to modify normal-sized infobox text. See MOS:FONTSIZE. Take your objections to WT:MOSTEXT. The most recent RFC on the question is here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: My objections are being addressed to you, since you are wrong. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Font_size shows nothing about the
<small>...</small>
tag. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:23 on February 25, 2019 (UTC)Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections.
– Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)- @Jonesey95:Yes, it says "avoid", it doesn't say "they are not allowed". That is two VERY different statements there. Avoid is "only use when absolutely necessary", not allowed is "don't use under any circumstance". See the difference. In this case, this case, it was necessary to differentiate between the callsign meaning and the reason behind that callsign meaning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:05 on February 25, 2019 (UTC)
- I figured that maybe you would be able to read the subsequent sentence, which is clear and proscriptive:
In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page's default font size
. The small tags that you desire are contrary to that statement. Please remove them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)- The font size of the infobox is about a 10, with the small tags they are a 9. So, 85%, I think not. That would be 8 1/2 or lower. It still doesn't say "not allowed" which was your original argument. You are changing your argument to fit however you can keep the small tags off the page. You're wrong, you know it, stop now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:08 on February 25, 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that you are incorrect, which is why the text I quoted exists on the MOS page, and why the RFC outcome is phrased the way it is. I have no interest in going back and forth with you removing disallowed tags from a single page, but you should not be surprised when small tags continue to be removed from infoboxes by other editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, Neutralhomer, you're wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Would you like to expand on that or is this just a "drive by 'you're wrong'"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:20 on February 27, 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Cute! So, you both change MOS:SMALLFONT so it reads how you want it to, so you can revert without consequence. Yeah, don't think so. I'll give you a chance to change it back, before I take you both to ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:25 on February 27, 2019 (UTC)
- The SMALLFONT changes were mere clarification and there was nothing improper about that. The previous language was clear enough for all but you, as far as I know. I don't know how much you know about accessibility, but you're effectively saying that it shouldn't matter whether the visually impaired can easily read everything in media article infoboxes. That argument is never going to fly because Wikipedia takes accessibility seriously, but feel free to waste your time at ANI. I credit you for at least having the sense not to edit-war this, and I appreciate that. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: I have Aspergers, so don't lecture me on "accessibility". A 10 point to 9 point font size difference is not going to make any difference for someone who is visually impaired. A 10 point font, which is want is used in infoboxes, will be hard for those with visual challenges to see. A 9 point font size, which is what a small tagged text is, will be just as hard for someone with visual challenges to see. So, accessibility is not really the question here unless we make all infoboxes at least 24 point. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:47 on February 27, 2019 (UTC)
- The guideline is what it is, it has been in place for years, and it has very wide support. I have removed smalls from hundreds of infoboxes in the past year or two. If you have an issue with the guideline, ANI is hardly the place to raise it. Go ahead and dispute it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting; if you are successful in getting the guideline changed, I will go directly to that article and revert myself. Until then, please observe the guideline as written. I think that's fair. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: I have Aspergers, so don't lecture me on "accessibility". A 10 point to 9 point font size difference is not going to make any difference for someone who is visually impaired. A 10 point font, which is want is used in infoboxes, will be hard for those with visual challenges to see. A 9 point font size, which is what a small tagged text is, will be just as hard for someone with visual challenges to see. So, accessibility is not really the question here unless we make all infoboxes at least 24 point. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:47 on February 27, 2019 (UTC)
- The SMALLFONT changes were mere clarification and there was nothing improper about that. The previous language was clear enough for all but you, as far as I know. I don't know how much you know about accessibility, but you're effectively saying that it shouldn't matter whether the visually impaired can easily read everything in media article infoboxes. That argument is never going to fly because Wikipedia takes accessibility seriously, but feel free to waste your time at ANI. I credit you for at least having the sense not to edit-war this, and I appreciate that. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- The font size of the infobox is about a 10, with the small tags they are a 9. So, 85%, I think not. That would be 8 1/2 or lower. It still doesn't say "not allowed" which was your original argument. You are changing your argument to fit however you can keep the small tags off the page. You're wrong, you know it, stop now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:08 on February 25, 2019 (UTC)
- I figured that maybe you would be able to read the subsequent sentence, which is clear and proscriptive:
- @Jonesey95:Yes, it says "avoid", it doesn't say "they are not allowed". That is two VERY different statements there. Avoid is "only use when absolutely necessary", not allowed is "don't use under any circumstance". See the difference. In this case, this case, it was necessary to differentiate between the callsign meaning and the reason behind that callsign meaning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:05 on February 25, 2019 (UTC)
The previous MOS text about the font size never dropping below 85% of the page's default size was clear to me, but since you were apparently having trouble interpreting it (or possibly having trouble using your web browser's Inspector feature to see the rendered font size, which is understandable), I thought it might not be clear enough for other editors as well. I chose to make it say the same thing, but in a more explicit and prescriptive way that more editors would be able to understand. Thank you for bringing this lack of clarity to light.
In your ANI report, please also note that I clarified the text at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Font size as well, since at the root of the problem with nested small font formatting is the issue of accessibility. Text that is too small contravenes the WMF's policy on non-discrimination against people with disabilities.
As for your estimates of font sizes above, here is how infoboxes and small tags interact in the English Wikipedia. Normal text in infoboxes is rendered at 88% of the browser's default size. Small tags reduce text to 85% of what it otherwise would be, so a small tag used on normal infobox text ends up at 1.0*0.88*0.85 = 0.748. That's too small, per our accessibility guideline. You are welcome to include these calculations in your ANI report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
FWIW: For another editor (an admin who has been editing heavily since 2009) who feels these changes are both correct and worth their time, see Special:Contributions/Muboshgu. So there are at least three experienced editors who don't know what we're doing, according to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
WXTZ 87.9 Norwich
I nominated the above for deletion, & I noticed you had commented on an earlier proposal for deletion, so I wanted to make you aware of this.Stereorock (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stereorock: No worries. :) Thanks for letting me know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:04 on March 15, 2019 (UTC)
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago, again!
Ten years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Seven years! |
---|
Great performance ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)