User talk:Isaidnoway/Archive 6

References

Why would you reduce the ease of changing references by cramming all parameters? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I just supposed to guess what you're belly-aching about? Isaidnoway (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you'd remember what just did . In that edit, I like removal of a dubious sentence, but don't like all ref parameters in a row, which makes it harder for a future editor to find a particular one. I have now idea why you think of ache, while I just tried to understand your reasoning. Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More informative edit summary

Not knowing quite what to make of this edit summary, can I suggest reverting to summaries along these lines as more informative to the recipient? All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by that edit summary as a reasonable assessment of the tool, since the citations created by the tool are often not accurate. I strongly recommend that you use show preview and check your work, which would have prevented this error. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I make no comment on the assessment of the tool, only that the latter edit summary helpfully points the recipient in the direction of the flaw in the edit and the required action; the former is of no assistance in that regard. I did preview the edit, as I always do, but I confess to not knowing everything, in that case that that field was deprecated. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insead contents source

Hi, I noticed that you reversed a lot of my contents on INSEAD article on the ground of incorrect references template. I admit that the syntaxes i used was not the best, but wonder if you can help with improving on them instead of just reverting the contents. That would be much more constructive. Thanks in advance.

Heyyo1890 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see referencing for beginners. And also note that individuals without a Wikipedia article should not be included in the notable people section, see WP:ALUMNI - alumni to be included should meet Wikipedia notability criteria, and must be verifiable. Remember, the subject of the article is the university, not the people who attended it. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Movie poster for The Ancient Mariner, 1925 silent film.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Movie poster for The Ancient Mariner, 1925 silent film.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaidnoway

You are the ringleader of the criminal Wikipedia regime.

List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1960s–2000s

I appreciate the effort you're putting into the list of dramatic television series with LGBT characters, but what was a straightforward table formatting is becoming tangled in wikitable overkill. When a series has more than one character and rowspan is used for the names, it creates separate rows for each name within the character and actor columns, and also creates separate rows within the notes section for each character description -- which results in the visual cramming and cluttering of the page.
There is no reason for changing the use of to separate each character and actor name, as well as the description for each character in the Notes section, to the use of |rowspan="2" or "3" or "4", etc.
These types of lists depend on contributions from editors who also have little experience with editing tables. Making the table formatting more complicated than it needs to be will result in many editors being discouraged from adding series, and many editing mistakes needing to be corrected by more experienced editors. When the addition of new series and information updates in these lists depends on a pool of editors with different levels of editing experience, sometimes less is more. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 18:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to make our LGBT related articles with tables easier to navigate and read for our target audience, which is our readers. However, I do realize that those of us with accessibility issues (readers and editors), that use screen readers and other text-to-speech apps, are in the minority here on Wikipedia. WP:ACCESSIBILITY says in relation to table formatting, to "avoid using   tags in adjacent cells to emulate a visual row that isn't reflected in the HTML table structure. This is a problem for users of screen readers which read tables cell by cell, HTML row by HTML row, not visual row by visual row". That is the reason why I adjusted the table's formatting, to make it easier for not only our LGBT readers, but all our readers with disabilities and visual impairments to be able to enjoy these LGBT related articles, my screen reader was having issues deciphering the text to speech with   tags (sometimes multiple   tags for one TV show), so I kinda figured others with accessibility issues might be having problems too. What you describe as visual cramming and cluttering of the page, I describe as being accessibility compliant. You seem to imply that my editing should be more focused on making our articles easier to edit for our editors, I disagree with that approach, as I am more focused on making our articles easier to read for our readers with accessibility issues. If you disagree with my approach, that's fine, I will regretfully stop editing these LGBT related articles, and move along to editing elsewhere. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stop editing them... there has to be another way. I've been discouraged too, at times, when editing articles on here, but I've kept on moving forward, despite the challenges. Historyday01 (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any other way to make those tables more accessible. Let me try to explain what I mean. Look at the section 1999 Bad Girls as an example. There are 18 characters listed and 18 actors listed, so when the screen reader gets to the column "Characters" (which uses the   formatting), it reads all the character names at once, with no discernible pause between the names, just a very fast straight run-on reading of all the names, and when it gets to the "Actor" column, it's the same thing, all 18 actor names are read at once, with no discernible pause between the names, so you really have no clue what character is played by what actor, and by the time it gets to the "Notes" column and the descriptions, well good luck remembering all those 18 character names that have already whizzed by. But when you separate them (character, actor, notes) into separate cells, your screen reader will separate them as well and read it as character → actor → description, and then goes to the next line and repeats character → actor → description, so you know what character is played by what actor, and the description for that specific character. And it's just not Bad Girls, if you scroll down, The L Word has 19 characters/actors, Greys Anatomy has 16 characters/actors, and Glee has a whopping 25 characters/actors, and oh boy, look at that notes section. That's why WP:ACCESSIBILITY recommends you don't use the   tags in tables, and the reason I was removing them to make these List articles that rely on tables more accessible.

I usually increase the font size in my browser, and use Windows nifty magnifier app, but on my bad days when I have to use the screen reader, I understand what our readers/editors who solely rely on the screen reader go through, and feel ashamed that Wikipedia treats those readers/editors with accessibility issues so poorly, in regards to List articles that mainly rely on tables, and use the quick fix   formatting, like these LGBT lists. I'm not looking for pity and didn't mean to cry on your shoulder, but just wanted to give you another perspective from someone with degenerating vision, who at times, has to rely on a screen reader. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'd used br tags to separate characters in tables so I could, for instance, have a combined entry for Marceline and Bubblegum in Adventure Time, but I'd be willing to change the formatting on the pages I've looked at using that new format. I haven't read WP:ACCESSIBILITY before (admittedly, there are a number of pages I haven't read), but I'll definitely read it and replace the formatting where I can. I'll cite MOS:DTAB when making some changes. This page is also relevant, although it's a bit dated. Historyday01 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If you disagree with my approach, that's fine, I will regretfully stop editing these LGBT related articles, and move along to editing elsewhere." There's no need to go from zero to sixty in one second about this.
I have been editing these lists for six years. The "1960-2000" list derived from the original list titled "List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters" created in 2007 -- which eventually contained all the series from 1970s–2010s and became an unorganized mess. In September 2019, the list was split into the methodized 1970s-2000s and 2010s lists, resulting in a tremendous reduction in errors needing clean-up. I can say without hesitation, because I witnessed the before and after, that the contribution of series improved, as well as the editing of the table. Because of this I can predict that although the goal (and don't get me wrong: it's a good goal) is to make the tables easier for the use of screen readers, there will be problems with the addition of new rows and editing of cells from editors inexperienced with complicated table templates, and you will need to stay on top of it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May life forgive Isaidnoway for what he did to me

DYK nomination of Halston (film)

Hello! Your submission of Halston (film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kingsif (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Night at Switch n' Play

I am the director of A Night at Switch n' Play and am asking for corrections to errors on the page. I am following the guidelines based in this wikipedia contact page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_subjects)

I am asking for the identities and pronouns of the performers to be corrected. There's a lack of neutral and straightforward language that misrepresents living people based on a poorly sourced material (as outlined in this Wikpedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced).

The Queer Guru source that is cited for the cast descriptions contains a number of original interpretations or descriptions of the performers that can be considered offensive, and these descriptions are also reproduced word-for-word. This source's descriptions are not accurate and misinterpret the characterizations offered in the film. The language in this article regarding the cast's description is transphobic, defamatory and contentious.

As stated in Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources Section": contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.186 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this all in one place User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#A_Night_at_Switch_n'_Play. -- Valjean (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean and ScottishFinnishRadish: - agreed, the appropriate venue would be Talk:A Night at Switch n' Play. I'll look into the issues raised and leave my comments/suggestion on the talk page. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a BLPN thread for more input as well, as I don't think the article talk page is highly watched. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite parameters

Please don't do that. You lost specificity in the citation parameters. The correct solution in such a case is to replace |last= |first= with |editor-last= |editor-first=. The |editor= parameter should almost never be used; it's for an organization (e.g. an editorial board) or someone with a mononym (like Madonna or Prince). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: - No, I will continue to use it. It is an acceptable use. It is not forbidden. Thanks.— Isaidnoway (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are abusing the template parameters. Read the template documentation. If you continue to break citations, I will have little choice but to ask ANI to topic-ban you for a long spell from doing citation "cleanup", because you are clearly not WP:COMPETENT at it yet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this one introduced an outright error, by replacing |work= with |type=; the correct parameter in that case was |title=. Maybe review the citation template documentation before doing any more citation "fixes"?

And changing {{cite web}} to {{citation}} was wrong here. That's a change from CS1 to CS2 templates, which is against WP:CITEVAR if there's already a clearly established dominant citation style in the article (and this one was clearly CS1, like about 99% of our articles at this point; CS2 is obsolete). The correct substition there was {{cite AV media}} (and those two cites needed other cleanup [1]).

You made an even bigger mess here, doing a clumsy search & replace of "document" → "web" which broke several other citations, which I had to revert (and then do the legit cleanup separately). Please be more careful. This all is just from going through a handful of your cleanup attempts over the last few days, so there's no telling how many other errors of this sort you have been introducing. PS: There is no point at all in replacing |work= with |journal=, |magazine=, |website=, |newspaper= in {{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}, respectively; they're all aliases of the same parameter, so you're just making the code longer for no gain. And doing {{cite book|...|website=...}} is just wrong. The correct replacement for |work= (which {{Cite book}} does not support) is |title=. When this error is encountered, there is often already a |title= that needs to be changed to |chapter= or |contribution=; this usually happens when someone started with {{cite web}} and someone else later changed it to {{cite book}} without adjusting the params.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: - I don't care for your condescending tone and threats. Don't do it again. Thanks.— Isaidnoway (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "tone" here to care for or not care for. You are breaking things, I'm tell you, and even informing you how to do it correctly. Noticeboards exist for a reason, and editors who literally refuse to stop breaking things end up at them. It's not a threat, it's standard operating procedure. Calm down, have a snack, and try to get past your "any criticism of me is some kind of insult" reaction, and do citation cleanup correctly, or action simply has to be taken to stop you from breaking more pages. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: — You pointed out one page where I fucked up. Yes, I absolutely did that, and if anyone had pointed that out to me before you fixed it, I would have gladly gone back and cleaned it up. For the other instances you cited:

Before my edit — CS1 errors; after my edit - no CS1 errors. After your edit; (fix cite error someone recently introduced), another editor came along and fixed your ref errors)
Before my edit — CS1 errors; after my edit — no CS1 errors

You started this discussion by claiming the "correct solution" for the editor parameter was your way, but that is simply not the case. The use of the editor param is permitted, as is the author param. I use them both all the time, and will continue to do so. Lord knows I'm not perfect and make mistakes from time to time, but I will gladly clean up my messes when they are pointed out to me. Just because I don't fix cite errors like you would, doesn't automatically mean I am doing it the wrong way. I will also continue to change cite book to cite magazine when it is a magazine being referenced. I have fixed thousands and thousands of citation errors over the last decade with minimal complaints, usually bumping heads over WP:LDRs, and I've learned to just leave certain editors alone when I see they have made citation errors. I have also received hundreds and hundreds of thanks for fixing citation errors, so I am generally satisfied with my citation clean up record. And yeah, I don't care for your tone or attitude.— Isaidnoway (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in having a protracted debate with you. Please just read all of the citation template documentation, in detail, and learn how to use the templates properly, or stop changing them in articles. There really isn't anything more complicated about this. You don't "gladly clean up your messes when pointed out", you turn defensive, stubborn, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and hostile, and that is, in and of itself, a serious WP:COMPETENCE behavioral issue. I'm not going to respond here again, so pining me is not necessary. Just please learn how to use the templates properly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not interested in any more lectures from you. You do you, I'll do me. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to be made in Anne Edwards

See LA Times obituary January 28, 2024 for citations re date of death, place of death and children/relatives Decoink (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done - if you need anything else, please feel free to let me know. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Decoink (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your offer. Actually there is.

Under Further Reading - there is a single citation to an Opinion piece by Jonathan Yardley. Not sure why this was added here, while not a single other review is listed vs elsewhere, but I have been told that there was negative bias at play. It is quite scathing. And its lone placement has been interpreted by many as a purposeful negative act.

I would recommend adding some other Reviews/Opinion pieces to create a more balanced picture.

Here are some -

https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780688088354

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1976/06/17/75621586.html?pageNumber=33

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/24/nyregion/from-mr-blandings-s-nightmare-a-couple-s-dream-house-stirs.html Decoink (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

additionally please see the following citations:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780688088354

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1976/06/17/75621586.html?pageNumber=33

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/24/nyregion/from-mr-blandings-s-nightmare-a-couple-s-dream-house-stirs.html

https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780810911444

https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780688076627

https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780688088378

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1986/02/16/new-in-paperback/24665f7a-7ba9-47c0-9589-268267c7986d/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1977/07/17/the-two-faces-of-vivien/effbd9a6-3e1e-4666-a05e-f1358d77a510/

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/07/22/archives/new-jersey-weekly-books-of-the-times.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/26/books/brass-bancroft-goes-to-war.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/03/books/katherine-the-greatest.html Decoink (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll be glad to take a look at those. The reason I added that WaPo review was because it was a prominent Google search hit, and Jonathan Yardley is a notable book critic, and it was a notable book review, so the inclusion of that piece by Yardley should not be interpreted as a "purposeful negative act", so let's please refrain from using that kind of description as to my motive for inclusion of that material. It's also important to remember that Wikipedia articles include both criticism and praise, so any inclusion of criticism should not be taken personally. I do understand that it can be difficult, and sometimes frustrating, to navigate the intricate details of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for someone that is closely associated with the subject of an article. Thanks again for reaching our with your concerns. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had no idea that you placed it there. And in no way implying that your motives are anything but to provide a balanced view of the subject and in fact, appreciate your commitment to ensuring everything is cited and above board. This was simply how it was interpreted by others, given its lone reference, when she has been favorably reviewed over the years. Hence my request to include other references as well that are also notable (Publishers Weekly, Wapo, NYT.) in order to mitigate that impression. FYI there is an obit in today's NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/31/books/anne-edwards-dead.html

which quotes many favorable reviews including this from Richard Lingeman (also a notable book critic and historian): https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1977/07/22/75096285.html?pageNumber=75

(in addition to the Yardley reference). Thank you for your consideration. Decoink (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and the NYT link, I will update the article later. My eyes are getting blurry and worn out from too much screen time today. Thanks again. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to include any book reviews, because the topic of the article is not about one specific book per se, but rather the topic is a biography. If someone decides to write an article about any of her books, that would be the appropriate place for that content. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very much agree and appreciate your thoughtful consideration. Was also going update the photograph to one at a higher resolution but that seems challenging. Decoink (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decoink - Yes, updating and uploading photographs can sometimes be challenging for newcomers. If it is a photograph that you own, with no copyright limitations, I suggest you use Wikimedia Commons. You will have to create an account there, but that is easy using your Wikipedia account. It's also important to remember that we cannot accept copyrighted material, that is, photographs that are owned by someone else, for instance, the photographer who took the picture and/or a publication like a newspaper, magazine, book publisher etc. Here are some links to help guide you with the process of uploading and releasing images.

Isaidnoway (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get some fresh air?

What a dismissive thing to say. Particularly to me in this thread, where I am in effect the third opinion. They've been dealing with him for four years. I personally have already moved on but went to the trouble of a detailed answer because the day I spent on this demonstrated to me that he will not stop until he is stopped. In some senses you are also a third opinion here, and it is important in such cases to actually take the facts on board before opining. He cannot be ignored because he literally answers every single post. It isn't the case that I need fresh air because I am merely amplifying the valid concerns of other people. SMH. Hot takes like that are damaging to the collegiality we are all trying to promote.

You are, I assume, trying to be collegial? Elinruby (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your detailed answer was unnecessary and it certainly didn't change my view that the sanction asked for is excessive. And yes he can be ignored, I am ignoring him, you don't see me engaging with him. I've been aware of that page for quite some time, and some editors have an unhealthy obsession with trying to emphasize the irresponsible journalism magnified by social media frenzy, surrounding that incident.

And yeah, a little bit of fresh air is good for everyone. Have a glorious day my friend.

Thank you for visiting my talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not, since he's still at it today, but you keep telling yourself that. I'm off either way, since I see that facts won't change your mind. Elinruby (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good-bye. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best-selling Dreamcast games

Regarding the page, every other list on Template:Best-selling video games is limited to games that old or shipped at least one million copies. The amount of success that the console overall had or whether their manufacturer is still in business doesn't appear to be a factor in determining what should be included. For example, the Switch has sold about 100 million more units than the Wii U, but they have the same cutoff. Personally, I think trying to equate a lower cutoff for how many units sold in relation to the success of the console is a bit too subjective. This might be a discussion for the talk page. I self reverted my revert, but this might be something that would merit more consensus.98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion on the talk page, thanks for the self-revert. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree

I saw your recent edit. The List of black animated characters page IS getting long (likely due to all the "new" characters I keep adding and I still have MORE to add, which I've loosely listed here). But, HOW should it be split? By year? According to the "section sizes" template I added to Talk:List of black animated characters, the following are the biggest sections:

In the 1990s (50,000+ bytes)

In the 2000s (68,000+ bytes)

In the 2010s (97,000+ bytes)

In the 2020s (60,000+ bytes)

Perhaps each of those could be split into their own articles?

Also, this discussion, which I recently began, may be of interest, in which I was told that list splits "likely come down to editorial judgement, what best helps a reader" and I asked a follow-up question about list merging. That's pretty broad! Either there can be a bold split of the aforementioned four sections into their own articles, or... there could be further discussion on Talk:List of black animated characters. Whichever you think would be better. Historyday01 (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever y'all think is the best solution for splitting to relieve the article size is fine with me. Thanks for reaching out. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That makes sense. The latest reply in the discussion, that I mentioned in my last comment, said that list mergers *also* comes down to editorial judgment, while saying to keep in mind WP:NLIST. Historyday01 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KIDS Magazine!

Hi there! Every so often I recheck the WP entry for KIDS Magazine from 1970 to see if anyone updated it. I was so glad to see your edits! I own issues 1-21 and 23. I have always wondered which issue was the last one as I’m trying to collect 22 and any beyond 23. Do you happen to know what the final issue was? Keithgreenfan (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previously asked and previously answered. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry. I looked on your talk page and didn’t see it, so I thought I must have asked someone else. Keithgreenfan (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 30

I am bringing this discussion from the noticeboard. From MOS:COLOR: Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information... do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. It was my understanding that the notations would meet this criteria. Am I mistaken? Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken , they're abysmal and do not meet MOS:ACCESS, the previous tables that were on Wikipedia prior to your mass vandalism last year were never questioned by anyone but yourself 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D5C5:4CDD:B466:9865 (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, tl;dr, but hope it helps.

Screen readers read tables row by row, cell by cell. So when a screen reader (SR) gets to row 2 in this table (JoJo & Jenna), and the SR gets to the "Week 7" column, the SR reads that colored cell as "39 left bracket c right bracket", which is the footnote label, and then repeats the same thing ("left bracket 'a b c etc.' right bracket") for each footnote label that is present in a colored cell in a row. Visually impaired readers (VIR) who are familiar with Wikipedia and their wiki markup, know that ("left bracket c right bracket") is a footnote label that will be attached to a "Notelist" somewhere in the article. Here's the thing though, look at the "Notes" under that table, footnote c applies to eight couples, and footnote g applies to eleven couples, with only a generic description of "This couple". There are fifteen couples total in that table. So what we are asking of our VIR, is by the time the SR gets to the "Notes" under the table, they must have the ability to remember all fifteen couples names, all the week numbers attached to those couples, their scores, and all the corresponding footnote labels, in order for them to receive that information, with only a generic description of "This couple".

So yeah, technically that table is ACCESS compliant, but apparently our VIR are required to have a photographic memory in order to receive that important information. For our readers who are not visually impaired, they receive that information immediately when they get to that colored cell in a row, so why isn't that same courtesy extended to our visually impaired readers???, when it can be easily remedied by using accessible symbols in the Color key and using that accessible symbol in the corresponding colored cell, so they too can receive that information immediately, instead of being subjected to an inaccessible and crappy designed table and Notelist. All I can tell you is, been there done that, in previous accessibility discussions; if the table is technically compliant, and the consensus amongst the fanbase, who usually are the regular editors at all those franchise articles, and just love those tables, is to use it that way, then our visually impaired readers are just beat, unless of course they have a photographic memory.

If you're still reading this, I have also seem some unique accessibility solutions implemented where the "Notes" are actually above the table. For example, let's hypothesize if the "Notes" were above the table in Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 30, then lets look again at row 2 with JoJo & Jenna, when the SR gets to that colored cell with the footnote label c, our visually impaired readers would have already been informed with the Notes above the table, that footnote label c corresponds with - This couple was in the bottom two or three, but was not eliminated - so they are receiving that information immediately, as opposed to when the "Notes" are under the table. The wiki markup was different as well in the Notes above the table that I saw, it was just plain text, for example, if we use the footnote c above from DWTS:

c. This couple was in the bottom two or three, but was not eliminated. (just plain text)

And then in the colored cell in the table, it would render as 39^[c] and if you hover over the "c", you don't get the information in a dialogue box like in a normal wiki footnote. This would have been the actual wiki markup → 39[c] that displays as 39^[c]. It was weird I know, but the screenreader doesn't know the difference, because it would still read it as "39 left bracket c right bracket", and again, our VIR would already know what "c" stood for, with the Notes above the table.

Of course MOS is kinda picky to where the Notes section should be placed, so it was a rare exception when I saw that accessibility solution implemented like that. I guess it was more or less a legend, but it said "Notes". But of course, that would never be allowed in any of those franchise articles, where consistency is desired with those tables the fanbase loves so much. When I do run across an article that is not associated with a franchise, and it uses that Colored key/colored cell combo, I have put the accessible symbols in and never received a complaint about it. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your sample chart on your user page, it is my understanding that the red font does not meet these requirements. That is why we went with a darker shade of red. Additionally, the standard green did not work against the blue background; hence, the darker shade of green. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My test for red showed 4.00:1, and I am using a secondary method as well; italics or bold. Guess it depends on the person, I can barely make out the dark green or dark red, but I can see the colors I chose to use. But none of that has anything to do with my underlying point of the way visually impaired readers are receiving the information in the table. And visually impaired readers using a screen reader are receiving that information anyway, regardless of what color the text is, because accessible symbols - double-dagger and dagger are being used. So yeah, for readers that are not visually impaired, any color that is recommended could be used. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that readers that are not visually impaired are receiving that information as well, regardless of what color the text is, because they can see the double-dagger and dagger. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Evangelische Omroep.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Evangelische Omroep.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bill Mason.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bill Mason.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]