Template talk:Aircontent

message: This template currently adds a number of pseudo sub-headings by using both bolded text and the  font markup. To me eye, that creates an aesthetic problem that I'd like to resolve. Technically, the use of the  font markup is slightly problematic as well, for HTML standards reasons (we should be using CSS), although that's a fairly minor issue in my mind.
So, currently the template provides:
Example sub-heading
* Item 1
* Item 2
* Item 3
My thinking is that, since the template is adding a bulleted list, we should be using the normal list heading/list item formatting, which means using the semi-colon/colon list format, which provides:
;Example sub-heading
: Item 1
: Item 2
: Item 3
Alternatively, we could retain the bulleted items, which would look like:
;Example sub-heading
* Item 1
* Item 2
* Item 3
There are other formatting options available of course, but the somewhat standardized formatting that the semi-colon gives seems fine to me. Thoughts? Suggestions? Alternatives?— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see a mock-up in an article, but basically the last one looks okay to me. I have a minimum font size set on my browsers, so making it smaller isn't an issue for me. The template is locked for editing - only admins can edit it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, just gotta use , but we need to show some sort of consensus to move ahead for an uninvolved admin to come along and fulfill the request. I'll start a template sandbox (if there isn't one already) and create a proposed changed template. That makes it easier on the admin who comes to fulfill the edit request, regardless. ps.: The font sizes actually depend on the skin that you use. or, at least, they should. Using the semi-colon applies a CSS class to the text, which can be different for different skins. The  tag, on the other hand, is a constant (which is defined in CSS these days, but it's not easily changeable since it's not part of the skins CSS).— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the semicolon-plus-colon type of list actually creates a CSS definition list. You will find we have a couple of admins on the aircraft project who will probably help out when the time comes, but let's see te mock up in action first and get a consensus on that basis. - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First stab at a change is visible at :Template:Aircontent/testcases. I'm running off to take care of some stuff right at the moment, but I'll be back later.— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks fine to me, let's see if anyone else has any objections. - 20:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

text: The template coding did produce Level 4 headers before the change above I believe, they were not intended to show in the table of contents though if that is what you mean. An apparent problem now is that the 'headers' are using a much smaller font size, rarely used in aircraft articles, and it looks very odd next to the other standard headers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, Thanks.  Well it seems like this change (above) went with out much discussion.  If you feel that the font (size) is not standard/harmonized-with-the-other articles, I think we should change it.  I also propose that the headlines be (re)introduced, at level 3 because ==See also== is a level 2 right?  (And, of course, this would/should show up at the table of contents.)Curb Chain (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The change came about after another suggestion on saving whitespace was rejected, I believe I disagreed with both suggested changes. I think the general feeling would be not to have 'see also' section sub-headers appear in the TOC if the change was reverted. OTOH some editors are 'de-headering' the 'notes' and 'bibliography' sub-sections of 'references' which makes it less easy to recycle sources for articles using the same books/weblinks. I don't think many people are watching this page, it may well be why the change went through so easily. If you feel strongly about it then a post at WT:AIR might attract more attention. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's analyze why sectioning should not be used in ==See also==.  In comparison to ==References==, sectioning out ===Footnotes==- and ===Notations=== is not ideal because ideally, all sources should be inline, but I see no reason not to section ==See also==.  I'll post it on the wikiproject's talk page to see if they have any reason not to section ==See also==.Curb Chain (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, could you point to the suggestion on saving whitespace?Curb Chain (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Hmm, i've noticed at this template's deletion discussion, the nom mentioned that "this template does not allow free editing of the "see also" section, which is needed to comply with the MOS. FA will not accept this.".  I am proposing exactly and only the change to the template to allow free editing, or what I said previously, headlines.  I've also noticed above in a section (Template_talk:Aircontent#Whitespace) that screenshots were taken of the alleged whitespace.  I have no problem with the layout, or how the links should appear, but I reckon that being able to divide these links into sectionheadlines and then edit them would be very helpful.Curb Chain (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of the template is not compulsory although it does transclude to thousands of aircraft and aero engine articles. Anyone can make their own 'see also' section headers by entering them manually and not using the template. Ideally they should be the same as those suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#See also (which is what this template produces). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

text: To answer the first question - level 3 headers are superflous for the few entries you would expect in a see also. Subsectioning makes sense for navigating in a large (long) article (MoS says "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose" and "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points") but See also should be short and to the point. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-headings 

message: Is there any reason this does not use headlines?Curb Chain (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The template coding did produce Level 4 headers before the change above I believe, they were not intended to show in the table of contents though if that is what you mean. An apparent problem now is that the 'headers' are using a much smaller font size, rarely used in aircraft articles, and it looks very odd next to the other standard headers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, Thanks.  Well it seems like this change (above) went with out much discussion.  If you feel that the font (size) is not standard/harmonized-with-the-other articles, I think we should change it.  I also propose that the headlines be (re)introduced, at level 3 because ==See also== is a level 2 right?  (And, of course, this would/should show up at the table of contents.)Curb Chain (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The change came about after another suggestion on saving whitespace was rejected, I believe I disagreed with both suggested changes. I think the general feeling would be not to have 'see also' section sub-headers appear in the TOC if the change was reverted. OTOH some editors are 'de-headering' the 'notes' and 'bibliography' sub-sections of 'references' which makes it less easy to recycle sources for articles using the same books/weblinks. I don't think many people are watching this page, it may well be why the change went through so easily. If you feel strongly about it then a post at WT:AIR might attract more attention. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's analyze why sectioning should not be used in ==See also==.  In comparison to ==References==, sectioning out ===Footnotes==- and ===Notations=== is not ideal because ideally, all sources should be inline, but I see no reason not to section ==See also==.  I'll post it on the wikiproject's talk page to see if they have any reason not to section ==See also==.Curb Chain (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, could you point to the suggestion on saving whitespace?Curb Chain (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Hmm, i've noticed at this template's deletion discussion, the nom mentioned that "this template does not allow free editing of the "see also" section, which is needed to comply with the MOS. FA will not accept this.".  I am proposing exactly and only the change to the template to allow free editing, or what I said previously, headlines.  I've also noticed above in a section (Template_talk:Aircontent#Whitespace) that screenshots were taken of the alleged whitespace.  I have no problem with the layout, or how the links should appear, but I reckon that being able to divide these links into sectionheadlines and then edit them would be very helpful.Curb Chain (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of the template is not compulsory although it does transclude to thousands of aircraft and aero engine articles. Anyone can make their own 'see also' section headers by entering them manually and not using the template. Ideally they should be the same as those suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#See also (which is what this template produces). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

text: To answer the first question - level 3 headers are superflous for the few entries you would expect in a see also. Subsectioning makes sense for navigating in a large (long) article (MoS says "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose" and "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points") but See also should be short and to the point. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Headlines

message: Currently this template creates pseudoheadings by using semicolon markup (e.g. ;Related development). There is nothing wrong with using a pseudoheading here, but the semicolon method violates MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. The reason is that it messes up screen readers and suchlike by calling description lists. The appropriate solution offered by the accessibility guideline is to use wikitext bold markup (Related development). Both work identically with the table of contents (i.e. these headings are not displayed in the TOC). Visually they are all but indiscernible:
;Related development
*This uses semicolon markup
Related development
*This uses bold markup
I hope we can get consensus for this minute change so that I can ping the template editors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the screen reader issue that makes sense. - Ahunt (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change semicolon markup to wikitext bolding 

message: Consensus at WikiProject Aircraft is that the markup removed in this edit was not Pseudo-heading (semicolon), but simple bolding.  Furthermore, the lack of any sort of heading in the current revision gives the template an awkward feel, and it was better off how it was.
I request that this edit be reverted.  If the bolding markup causes accessibility issues for a minority of devices, then surely there is a better solution than emulating those accessibility issues on all devices. - ZLEA T\C 15:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the change. I have put third-level headers in the sandbox. Take a look at Template:Aircontent/testcases to see the difference. If the template is always preceded by a second-level "See also" header, then third-level headers make sense inside the template. They will render a bit larger, and they will appear in the article's TOC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what to say about using true headers.  Part of me wants to say that it makes sense, but another part says that  chose not to use headers for some reason, and that the larger headers dominate the lists and are a bit distracting to me (but that's just my opinion).  Since Ericg has not edited in almost a year, I will ask , , , and  (the users involved in the discussion) what they think. - ZLEA T\C 22:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need true headings, as they will make the TOC too long in many aircraft articles. But if the other users are OK with it, I honor that consensus. BilCat (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we don't need true headings in the template, because we don't need these in the TOC, bolding is a superior solution. - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I have no opinion on this matter. I'm just a template editor who was summoned here by the edit request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert to the last stable version please. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Has this not already been done? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2021