Talk:List of state leaders in the 10th century

Avoid such edits

Please keep ":*" and not "**". This keeps the format consistent with the related lists. Furthermore "**" displays wrong on older browsers. tahc ^chat 04:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Try reading my edit summary before saying the same thing over and over again. I'm changing the list to conform to accessibility guidelines. Accessibility trumps any consistency. Want it consistant, then the related lists need to be changed too. Oldest browser Wikipedia supports fully is IE9. That will be dropped early next year. No need to worry about older browsers that aren't supported. Bgwhite (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No matter how wonderful you think you way of doing things is, you still need to stop edit-warring and gain WP:CON via discussion on the talk page. While I have read your summaries they cannot replace a discussion in many cases. If you think that Wikipedia policies requires your system of formatting please cite such a policies. tahc ^chat 04:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Except for threats, removing what I have to say and now the put down above, you have never responded to my edit summaries. You were reverting without saying a damned thing different. It's hard to have a conversation when one refuses to have one and do put downs. You still have not replied to anything I've said or put up your policies... old browsers

WP:LINKSTYLE for no links to user space. MOS:LISTGAP for accessibility and mw:Compatibility for browser support. Wikipedia only supports those browsers getting 1% share and above (that was a year ago, might have changed). Bgwhite (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

MOS:LISTGAP doesn't have any policy about avoiding ":*" (as you can see by reading it) since it does not cause list gaps.

I do not know which particular old browsers still have problems with "**" but since there is no policy against ":*" it doesn't matter which browsers do have the problems. Even if Wikipedia only "supports" certain browsers there is no reason to purposely insert an edit that causes list gaps on some browser... at least unless there is an alternative reason to make changes. Do you have a significant alternative reason? tahc ^chat 06:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

My gosh, MOS:LISTGAP is just a redirect. The section is titled, "Lists". The entire section is about lists and accessibility. Per MOS:LISTGAP

For example, in a discussion, do Y this best practice:

* Support.  I like this idea.  [[User:Example]] 
** Question:  What do you like about it?  [[User:Example 2]]

This is best practice. Best practice and your version produce different HTML. For the screen reader I use, under North Africa: Central, section Rustamid dynasty

You version says: List of one item. Item one, Rustamid dynasty

Best practice says: List of four items. Item one, Rustamid dynasty

You say I must show policy before you will believe me. Where is your policy about old browsers? You don't even know what browsers have problems. Even if there are old browsers with the problem, they will have alot more problems because Mediawiki doesn't support them. I've showed policy on two items and Wikipedia's own page on what browsers Mediawiki supports. Bgwhite (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists advocates using either "**" or "*:" over against using either "::" or an empty line plus "**" because empty lines are bad. While ":*" is listed as neither a "do" nor "don't", we do see that ":*" gives the corect format: no empty lines. In the end we have...

1. No Wikipedia policy against a ":*" format.

2. Zero reasons why there would ever be a Wikipedia policy against a ":*" format.

3. Two reasons to keep them the same that may that may or may not be "minor" reasons.

4. Most of all, no consensus here to change a ":*" format. tahc ^chat 16:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It does not say either or. It says "**" is best policy to do. "*:" is ok. I've shown you what the best policy is for lists. I've shown you how the best policy is superior to your version for accessibility. The main reason to change is to support accessibility. You are favouring a colon over accessibility. You have proven zero reasons via policy to keep your way. You have shown no proof about old browsers having problems and if you did, MediaWiki doesn't support those browsers. Proven better accessibility trumps no reason based on policy, no proof and I don't like it. It's not no consensus, it means deadlocked. This means bringing in a third party, not reverting to your version... remember that BRD. You are also forgetting, no links to your user page and I've shown policy on that. Interesting on how you want me to follow policy, but you don't have to. Bgwhite (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No. I am not "forgetting, no links to your user page" there is a red link now instead in the correct version.

By the way your comments "List of four items. Item one, Rustamid dynasty" are opaque to me. tahc ^chat 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No.

You claim that "**" is superior to support accessibility, but you have shown nothing and you certainly proven nothing.

Furthermore "deadlocked" is the same a "no new consensus". When something fails to gain new consensus the old consensus stands, per WP:BRD.

Since I have shown you this clearly you should stop edit-warring and self-revert the page to the past correct version, while we discuss. tahc ^chat 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A Third Opinion has been requested. I don't fully understand the question. I see that there is a question about accessibility and about compatibility with older browsers. I will comment that compatibility with older browsers isn't accessibility, and am not sure from the above whether there is one issue or two. (Accessibility should have to do with the ability of the disabled to access Wikipedia, which in particular would be the visually impaired.) I think that accessibility for the visually impaired is more important than consistency. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon

1) I've changed the article to meet the accessibility guidelines for best practices located at MOS:LISTGAP. I've mentioned above saying:

This is best practice. Best practice and your version produce different HTML. For the screen reader I use, under Africa: North Central, section Rustamid dynasty

You version says: List of one item. Item one, Rustamid dynasty

Best practice says: List of four items. Item one, Rustamid dynasty

2) Tarc says best practices of the accessibility guidelines will not work with old browsers and the view of the page will be wrong for "normal" users. Thus with the older browser problem, the lists should not be changed for accessibility. Tarc has not provided any proof of this. mw:Compatibility states which versions are supported by Mediawiki.

3) Tarc also states that other articles of "List of state leaders in the xth century" have the same format for lists, thus no other article, including all of them, should be changed.

4) The code for accessibility best practice is:

* Item one
** Sub item one
** Sub item two

from Tarc's version:

* Item one
:* Sub item one
:* Sub item two

As we both disagree, Tarc says no consensus to change, tie goes with what is before. Bgwhite (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:-- the main isssue (for Bgwhite) is a "best practice" recommendation that is mentioned on this page when it gives examples of a policy on that page-- the policy to not put gaps in lists.

As you have noticed, Bgwhite claims that the recommendation supports "accessibility". The policy itself (not to put gaps in lists) may certainly support accessibility is some way, but as you seem to have also noticed, Bgwhite is unable or unwilling to say how the accessibility is involved, for which sort of disabled-person it is an issue, and so forth.

Most of all, Bgwhite does not show how his prefered style better (or even related) to the standing (my) style on this issue of "accessibility". As you can see, both make lists correctly (without gaps). He does however claim to have "shown you how {it}... is superior".

Now, this tiny format-change may not seem to matter, but that I have two reasons to keep it the same. (1) All the other lists are like this and many times the same item needs to be on seaveral different pages. (2) I find the the "**" creates gaps in certain old browsers. I am not sure which browsers, but failing a reason to do otherwise I think that Wikipedia should be open both to disabled-persons and to people who cannot afford the newer browsers.

If Bgwhite wants "**" style to be a real Wikipedia then he should take this to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility or at the Wikipedia:Village pump and covince them, but if he had a real reason against ":*" that he could explain to us, I would listen to it even if it was not currently in any Wikipedia poicly.

Another bigger isssue (for me-- that Bgwhite causes and ignores) is that even thou WP:BRD and many other Wikipedia poiclies say to keep the article the same unless or until there is a new consensus to change it-- and yet Bgwhite keeps reverting it to his prefered format-- and removes content merely because he wants it that way. tahc ^chat 22:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been looking at the article to see if I could find any difference in presentation between both versions. I failed in that. In that case, the preferences lies with the original choice for how to indent. The Banner talk 23:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Banner There is no difference in presentation to sighted people. That is not the point. There is a difference in "presentation" to those that use screen readers. Bgwhite (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Evidence? The Banner talk 23:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Banner Do I have to keep repeating myself over and over and over? Read my 1st talk message in this section... Where I mention MOS:LISTGAP (MOS:ACCESSIBILITY#Lists), it produces different HTML source and what my screen says. Bgwhite (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I am asking for evidence, not for the MOS. The Banner talk 19:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The Banner Again, view the source HTML for both pages. If you know HTML, it becomes clear what I'm talking about. For example, the Africa: North Central section. From looking at it, it appears to be a list of four items (Rustamid dynasty, Aghlabid dynasty, Fatimid Caliphate, Zirid dynasty), each with a sublist.

Here is the code of the first two items (Rustamid dynasty and Aghlabid dynasty) of the ":*" version that Tarc used.

<ul>
<li><a href="/wiki/Rustamid_dynasty" title="Rustamid dynasty">Rustamid dynasty</a> (<a href="/wiki/Rustamid_dynasty#Rustamid_Imams" title="Rustamid dynasty">complete list</a>) –</li>
</ul>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>Yusuf Abu Hatim ibn Muhammad Abi l-Yaqzan, Imam (894-895, 899-906)</li>
<li>Yaqzan ibn Muhammad Abi l-Yaqzan, Imam (906-909)</li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
<ul>
<li><a href="/wiki/Aghlabids" title="Aghlabids">Aghlabid dynasty</a><sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup> (<a href="/wiki/Aghlabids#Aghlabid_rulers" title="Aghlabids">complete list</a>) –</li>
</ul>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li><a href="/wiki/Ibrahim_II_of_Ifriqiya" title="Ibrahim II of Ifriqiya">Abu Ishaq Ibrahim II ibn Ahmad</a>, Emir (875–902)</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Abdallah_II_of_Ifriqiya" title="Abdallah II of Ifriqiya">Abu 'l-Abbas Abdallah II ibn Ibrahim</a>, Emir (902–903)</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Ziyadat_Allah_III_of_Ifriqiya" title="Ziyadat Allah III of Ifriqiya">Abu Mudhar Ziyadat Allah III ibn Abdallah</a>, Emir (903–909)</li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>

Here is the code of the first two items (Rustamid dynasty and Aghlabid dynasty) of the "**" version that MOS accessibility uses.

<ul>
<li><a href="/wiki/Rustamid_dynasty" title="Rustamid dynasty">Rustamid dynasty</a> (<a href="/wiki/Rustamid_dynasty#Rustamid_Imams" title="Rustamid dynasty">complete list</a>) –
<ul>
<li>Yusuf Abu Hatim ibn Muhammad Abi l-Yaqzan, Imam (894-895, 899-906)</li>
<li>Yaqzan ibn Muhammad Abi l-Yaqzan, Imam (906-909)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Aghlabids" title="Aghlabids">Aghlabid dynasty</a><sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup> (<a href="/wiki/Aghlabids#Aghlabid_rulers" title="Aghlabids">complete list</a>) –
<ul>
<li><a href="/wiki/Ibrahim_II_of_Ifriqiya" title="Ibrahim II of Ifriqiya">Abu Ishaq Ibrahim II ibn Ahmad</a>, Emir (875–902)</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Abdallah_II_of_Ifriqiya" title="Abdallah II of Ifriqiya">Abu 'l-Abbas Abdallah II ibn Ibrahim</a>, Emir (902–903)</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Ziyadat_Allah_III_of_Ifriqiya" title="Ziyadat Allah III of Ifriqiya">Abu Mudhar Ziyadat Allah III ibn Abdallah</a>, Emir (903–909)</li>
</ul>
</li>

There is the obvious difference of the <dd> and <dl> tags in the ":*" version, but that doesn't effect what's read or heard from the two versions.

The main point between the two is the ":*" version is made up of four lists (four <ul>) and the "**" version is made up of three lists (three <ul>)

The ":" version has:

a list of one item, "Rustamid dynasty" that contains a sublist of two items.

a list of one item, "Aghlabid dynasty" that contains a sublist of three items.

The "**" version has:

a list of two items, "Rustamid dynasty" and "Aghlabid dynasty" that each contain a sublist.

Therefore, when a screen reader reads these two,

":* says: List of one item. Item one, Rustamid dynasty <scroll down> List of one item. Item one, Aghlabid dynasty

"**" says List of two items. Item one, Rustamid dynasty. Item two, Aghlabid dynasty

If there were a list gap (ie blank line) between the "Rustamid dynasty" and "Aghlabid dynasty", the screen reader would voice the exact same as the ":*" version would say. Having a list gap and using the ":*" produce the same results on this page. See talk message about what list gap produces, what a screen reader says and the bot I run to remove it. I also detect and fix other accessibility issues, such as a bot fixing Accessibility#Headings and manually fixing Table of Content issues (No content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD). I've been told I'm lying, who cares, blind don't need computers, me editing the page is more important than the blind reading it, MOS is a guideline and MOS doesn't matter. I've been taken to ANI multiple times that accessibility isn't important. Bgwhite (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice wall of text, but not the evidence I am looking for. Is there any outside research done in the matter? The Banner talk 07:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The Banner This is a way Wikipedia can be coded up to have a problem, not an outside expert problem. I've shown MOS. I've shown the code and explained the code. I've shown how the code is the same as a list gap in this instance. I've shown what the screen readers says. I've shown how list gap is in MOS, is a problem and bots are fixing it. Main parts of MOS are written up by accessibility experts. The WCAG 2.0 page for nested lists is here. It gives examples of code that show a two item list with nested lists. The code structure is identical to my version above. There's also this, that shows examples. It's obvious you didn't read my last message. If you don't want to read the code or if you want even more... It's obvious no one will never give you or Tarc the evidence that the gods deem this a problem. Bgwhite (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice that you are now reverting to ad hominem attacks, here and elsewhere. And yes, I know that good HTML has a positive effect for those using a braille-reader. But when you start attacking people for asking outside evidence, I am done. Another case of pushing the MOS in a very scary manner. The Banner talk 07:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The Banner I have not made any "ad hominem attacks" elsewhere. Tell me where I made an attack towards you. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility certainly isn't it. If you are upset that I asked experts on the subject, including other users of screen readers other than me, I don't know what to say. You are the one who "asked for proof" but never said what that proof was until your "wall of text" remark. Yea... that's an ad hominem attack you made. "Another case of pushing the MOS in a very scary manner." Yet another attack and MOS helping out disabled people isn't a "scary manner". Bgwhite (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

but they refuse to read it The Banner talk 09:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

So far my willingness to assist. I quit this discussion. The Banner talk 10:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• This is not about list gaps. STOP!! How many times have I said this is not about lists gaps. Just because the redirect says LISTGAP, doesn't mean the section is all about list gaps. List gap is to put a blank line between list items. The title of the section that the redirect goes to is clearly stated as Lists (MOS:ACCESSIBILITY#Lists) and not listgap. The section is on how best to code up a list. What I'm doing is clearly stated as "For example, in a discussion, do Y this best practice:" in MOS:ACCESSIBILITY#Lists.
• Most of all, Bgwhite does not show how his prefered style better (or even related) to the standing (my) style on this issue of "accessibility" Twice, including my message just above this, I showed how accessibility is involved, including an example copied directly from MOS:ACCESSIBILITY#Lists. I also stated how a screen reader behaves between the two versions.
• Bgwhite is unable or unwilling to say how the accessibility is involved, for which sort of disabled-person it is an issue, and so forth. Twice, including my message just above this, I showed how accessibility is involved, including an example copied directly from MOS:ACCESSIBILITY#Lists. I also stated how a screen reader behaves between the two versions.
• If Bgwhite wants "**" style to be a real Wikipedia then he should take this to the [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility]] or at the [[Wikipedia:Village pump]] I don't have to. It's already listed at MOS:ACCESSIBILITY#Lists as the best style. Why take this to the talk page where it has already been discussed and added into MOS?
• Another bigger isssue Really want to go down that road... Mr. don't change edit summaries and doesn't say BRD till your third edit, don't listen what the other person has to say. Third party is about the dispute.

Tarc has shown no proof that this causes any problems with old browsers, old browsers that the MediaWiki software doesn't support. Tarc has refused to read or saying anything other than "list gap". I have shown proof how it causes problems with screen readers. I've shown MOS:ACCESSIBILITY#Lists, the MOS page on the subject.

FWIW. The version of the article before Tarc started massively improving had the same list format that MOS:ACCESSIBILITY#Lists states to use. Help:List only states the best practice format. Bgwhite (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I said "Bgwhite is unable or unwilling to say how the accessibility is involved, for which sort of disabled-person it is an issue, and so forth." Bgwhite says "Twice, including my message just above this, I showed how accessibility is involved..."

I didn't ask you to cite a MOS page that might indicate that accessibility is involved, I asked you to "how the accessibility is involved" and gave details for what "how it is involved" means. What sort of disabled-person is the screen reader for? for the blind? for the paralyzed? What is are the problems with screen readers it causes? Does the screen reader not show the list at all?-- or does it just take longer to read it?-- or does it just put in extra tabs? An example of how one may code a list is not an example of how those different codes may limit accessibility for people with a particlar screen reader.

You are still totaly unable or unwilling to say how the accessibility is involved. You merely want the example recomendation to become the Wikipedia policy and your evidence for the needed change is that it is already the example recomendation. tahc ^chat 18:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

tahc Per MOS: Web accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read. It's not only bout disabled-persons. It's about mobiles too etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis, the question being asked here is, in what manner is the leading colon perceived as different by a mobile user, disabled user or whatever, so as to make it undesirable. Examples of HTML code or references to "a list of one item that contains a sublist of two items" etc. don't answer that question. What's needed is something in the nature of "it introduces ugly white space on a phone screen" or "screen readers start repeating information." Otherwise there's no obvious reason to change it.

Tahc, why don't you just post a question at WT:ACCESS? Don't tell them the backstory; just ask "does colon+asterisk in a bulleted list cause accessibility issues that asterisk+asterisk does not? If so, what are those issues?"

Bgwhite, it seems to me that MOS:LISTGAP says asterisk followed by asterisk+asterisk is best practice, asterisk followed by asterisk+colon is acceptable, but asterisk followed by colon+colon is wrong. How do you deduce from that that there is a consensus at MOS:ACCESS that asterisk followed by colon+asterisk is wrong? Scolaire (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Scratch all of that. I now see that a discussion was opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#List gap help and that somebody kindly explained what the undesirable effect of colon+asterisk is. Could somebody not have pointed to that discussion two days ago and saved all the drama? I will revert to asterisk+asterisk now that I know why it's more desirable. Scolaire (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

different states are different

• @Scolaire: Yes, while I did ask a number of times for here, I do see someone did finally post what an undesirable effect of colon+asterisk is elsewhere. I do not see than effect as any problem worse that the undesirable effect of asterisk+asterisk, but I do not want to drag this out more that needed, so I am willing to accept an "asterisk+asterisk" format for such lists with sub-lists.
• None the less-- Bgwhite (or someone) is now arguing/assuming that all the different lists of different states should be formated to read as one longer list. (1) There is no reason to do it this way for any browser (2) There is no consensus to do it this way (3) Since such an issue is a content-issue (different states are different) and not an accessibility issue, there is no reason to even discus it or seek consensus for it on a page for accessibility issues.
• Per WP:BRD and other policies, please do not support efforts to combine different lists into longer list until and unless there is consensus to do so here. tahc ^chat 15:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that doesn't make sense to me. "Bgwhite or someone" is "arguing or assuming"? Are you talking about RexxS's answer here? I take that to mean that with colon+asterisk a screen reader will treat each new continent as "number 1", instead of treating America as "number 2", Asia as "number 3" etc. the same as they appear in the table of contents. "Different lists of different states should be formatted to read as one longer list"? Well, the whole article is one list: a list of state leaders in the 10th century. The format – visually – is the same by either method; what accessibility tries to do is to make things like screen readers make the list sound the same as it looks. "Different states are different"? I can't even guess what that means. This is a list with states on it. Whether they're all the same or all different doesn't affect how they're listed. "Efforts to combine different lists into longer list"? Again, I can't guess what that means. There's only one list here, and it's not composed differently by one method than by another. I'm not trying to be unsympathetic, I'm just struggling to understand what it is you're telling me. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• I suppose it would be best to say that Bgwhite had always been trying to convert separate list of leaders for each state into a combined list for state leaders for each section/geographic area. I just disn't notice (it would seem) since the first couple sections/geographic area had one state each. (There had also been no reason given for this change.)
• While one can think of the page as one long list it is not formated that way. If we were to assume people mostly know the leaders' names and want to find the state they ruled, then we would have all leaders list alphabetical in one list and then indicate the state they ruled and years-- but we don't. We assume people mostly know the states' names and want to find the people's names who ruled. Thus we list rulers by state and within state but the ordered that they ruled. We mostly know the order people ruled in but not always. Sometimes the order people ruled in is unknown or somewhat arbitrary-- and for that reason (and others) we put rulers in a format "un-ordered lists".
• The order of the states is very arbitrary. We group the list for each state by geographic area-- and that has some problems sometimes-- but it is the best we can do. Within each geographic area we have to make it as easy as possible to scan the names of the states to find the state a reader (or editor) is looking for.
• You said "The format – visually – is the same by either method", but this is not so. When gaps are encoded between each state the brower will show a gap between state visually that is a bit bigger that if the there were no gaps are encoded between each state. The difference is kind of small but every bit helps. I am sure it is small for good reasons-- adding an entire new list is not needed in a brower-- but there is no need to eliminate it all together either. This gap is also very important in editting window, would seem to be equally useful to screen readers. tahc ^chat 17:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Can you show me a diff for Bgwhite doing this? With the big edit that is being reverted back and forth all I can see is the colon being changed to an asterisk and vice-versa. I can't see any states being moved around. For the same reason, I still can't understand what you're saying. If states aren't being moved around then it's not changing from a collection of lists to a single list. Scolaire (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• And why do we have to have these funny bullets on the talk page? Just because you can? Just to annoy Bgwhite? Scolaire (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• And why are you edit-warring again after saying you "do not want to drag this out more that needed, so you are willing to accept an "asterisk+asterisk" format"? Scolaire (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I cannot show you a diff where Bgwhite made just this edit because Bgwhite would make other edits at the same time. This is the diff of my last edit. In this last edit of mine, I kept the change to "asterisk+asterisk" but I made two changes to the way it was before. (1) I restored the full empty lines between each state-list and the next state-list-- this is the important difference to show the code to consider it a new list. (2) I also changed "asterisk+asterisk+space" to "asterisk+asterisk". (Bgwhite did not orginally even put in a "asterisk+asterisk+space"; it was done later.)

I did use use bullets on the talk page for clarity. I had no reason to think they would annoy anyone.

I am not edit-warring. I am reverting a bold edit that Bgwhite made without discussion-- exacly as WP:BRD recomends I do. I just happen to now except a different edit (made at the same time) that (after too much time) did get discussed. Different states need to be different lists. "Asterisk+asterisk" is a different issue. tahc ^chat 18:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

So you're telling me that you're not fighting on the colon issue, but you are deliberately introducing list gaps? You know that there's a convention at LISTGAP but you've decided you think it looks better broken? I don't know. This whole thing gives me a sore head. I think I'll just leave the two of you to edit-war, and much pleasure may it give you both. And you are edit-warring. You are not doing " exacly as WP:BRD recommends you do". BRD recommends that you not revert, and if you are reverted, that you not re-revert. Once the discussion starts, reversion stops, and if the other party doesn't stop, you still do. Scolaire (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Third party Scolaire says to use "**", non third part Magioladitis says to use "**", the people at WikiProject Accessibility says to use "**" and MOS says to use "**". Only Tahc wants ":*" and The Banner (who says he wants off wiki evidence of an on wiki only problem). There are five people, policy and proof shown why this is an accessibility issue. Tahc, no longer has consensus. Tahc has no proof of policy or anything else. Tahc, you have not participated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility, where you said a discussion should start. You have not participated at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

"there is no reason to even discus it or seek consensus for it on a page for accessibility issues" (so a China issue should be on a page for socks?), "There is no reason to do it this way for any browser" (proof shown it's bad HTML, it's a problem on every Browser and proof shown that screen readers have problems with this bad HTML), and "now arguing/assuming that all the different lists of different states should be formated to read as one longer list." (no I'm not. I'm saying items of a list should be formatted to be part of the same list). All this says Tahc will never understand or be moved off their position.

There is no consensus for ":*". Unless you have actual proof to disregard MOS, why the HTML isn't bad, shown why screen readers don't have a problem and/or shown why accessibility experts are wrong (RexxS was an accessibility software engineer and Graham87 is an accessibility expert for WikiMedia), "**" stays. If you still want to continue to fight for a colon instead of an asterisks, with ":*" and "**" versions identical for sighted people, but does cause changes for the visually impaired... oi vey. Bgwhite (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait. You started a dispute resolution? Did you notify Tahc on his talk page? Did you notify Bgwhite? Even when you're opening discussions or processes to (presumably) resolve the issues, you make it as difficult as you can for them to find out about it! Did you read this bit on DRN?

• Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.

So now how about you do it properly, and maybe you'll find that people will engage with you. I don't envy the moderator! Scolaire (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Scolaire Thank you for pointing out the notice. I made a bad assumption thinking the automatic ping was enough. Pings and notices have been both completed. Robert McClenon started a third opinion up above, but didn't understand and left. He's the main person at DRN, so condolences should be sent to him. First time I tried DRN instead of going straight to ANI. All the times I've gone or been sent to ANI for accessibility, accessibility has always trumped. Tahc hasn't been in the same galaxy as this, so I'm not accusing them... Some outright nice bigotry dooms alot of ANI threads at the beginning such as the blind don't matter. 2.3% of the U.S. population (European percentage is higher) are blind or severely visually impaired to where a screen reader is needed. The third world is way higher due to lack of medical care for example. Other people use screen readers. My office mate couldn't read black text on a white background without much difficulty, so he used a screen reader for documents and the web. 8% of all males of European, Asian or African decent are colour blind. Colour blindness is part of accessibility MOS. Bgwhite (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, good luck to you both. Can I just draw notice to the fact that going by his most recent post and this edit, asterisks and colons are no longer the issue. The reverts are only to add blank lines to the list. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Scolaire Could you point out where Tahc has said he agrees about "**" because the edit summary you pointed out doesn't say it and the edit creates a list gap issue, which is also against MOS. Therefore, nothing has changed. Bot's currently fix this problem.

The space has never been an issue or brought up until mentioned to you. I've done no space and a space version. I don't care which is used as it effects neither the printer or screen reader version. Space version is more common as it's easier to read the code. Bgwhite (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Welcome back to the discussion. At the very top of the #different states are different section, I said in this edit, "...I am willing to accept an "asterisk+asterisk" format...".

I assume you think that this is "...against MOS" because Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists says "Do not separate list items by leaving empty lines... between them", but such MOS policies are moot. Amirs of the Tulunids and caliphs of the Fatimids are not different list items-- they are entirely different and unrelated lists. They should not be disguised or formated as if they were one long list. tahc ^chat 20:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

People do sleep. I was sleeping. I never left the discussion. Writing 6 minutes after Scolaire's message to boot.

Please use "**" style notation in writing here.

You are doing the exact same thing. You are creating a listgap issue that produces the exact same HTML as your ":"

Amirs of the Tulunids and caliphs of the Fatimids... Wrong, wrong and wrong. A sighted user sees "Tulunids" and "Fatimids" as two list items under "Egypt". Both are "dynasties" in Egypt. Both are entirely related. A screen reader "sees" it different. You are still being biased against the visually impaired. What a reader sees should be the same as what a visually impaired person "sees".

I fail to understand why a ":" vs "*" is so important to you. A very minor edit that doesn't layout, image use, wording or content.

Accusing me of forum shopping while following WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and taking it to an accessibility talk page, like you asked. Accusing me of Bgwhite's comments above seems to indicate he did not even see that discussion. when I started DRN before the discussion. Accusing me of If you are just tring to score points by making as many accusations as possible, then I recomend you find a new hobby. Banner accuses me of an attack by repeating his words and now this. I will no longer answer to you. I will answer the DRN person or Scolaire. Bgwhite (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You are both still focusing on getting angry with each other instead of on the issues. Let's forget what the other person said at another time or in another place; let's stop the accusations of failing to discuss and being prejudiced against the blind and talk about format – just about format, nothing but format. Now,

1. Tahc has accepted asterisk+asterisk. That is no longer an issue. There is no need to say anything more about it. That is and will remain the format.
2. Bgwhite has accepted with or without a following space. That is no longer an issue. There is no need to say anything more about it.
3. Tahc is putting a line break between Tulunids and Fatamids; Bgwhite is removing it. That is the only remaining issue.

As it happens, I agree with Bgwhite on this one, for two reasons. One, adding line breaks is explicitly ruled out at MOS:ACCESS. It says, "don't do this". We don't get to say "well, it doesn't apply to my page"; it applies to all pages. Two, List of state leaders in the 10th century is a single list. That's why the title has "list" in the singular. If amirs of the Tulunids and caliphs of the Fatimids are different lists they should be on different pages. List of amirs of the Tulunids should say "see also List of caliphs of the Fatimids" at the bottom, and vice versa. But of course having every "nation" on a different page would defeat the purpose of this article, which is to have all the rulers in a single list. As I said earlier, the table of contents breaks the list down into "1, 2, 3"; "3.1, 3.2, 3.3"; "4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3" etc. A screen reader should do the same. And for the screen reader to do the same, there can't be a line break between entries. Scolaire (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to just add: Tahc, the list is awesome! Thank you for the months of hard work you put into it. Scolaire (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

re-focus

Adding line breaks is not explicitly ruled out at MOS:ACCESS. For that to happen there would have to be a Wikipedia policy that any two different list are requiered to be combined and formated as one list when-ever they are next to each other. Not only is that not the case, it could not even make sense. It would be like saying that any two paragraphs of text are requiered to be combined and formated as one paragraph when-ever they are next to each other. Having separate paragraphs are crucial to readablity and to allow scanning for what you are looking for. Having separate lists (for separate topics) is also crucial to readablity and to allow scanning for what you are looking for. It only reads as "don't do this" to you because you assume already they they are meant to be one list.

I can see why the page of state leaders in the 10th century seems like a single list if you only looked at the name, but it is not so for two reasons. (1) The name is based on Wikipedia policies for naming articles, and the policy is explicily against giving a page the most accurate name, when a simpler name will work. (2) The page name reflects the purpose of the page, which could (in theory) be just one long list, but as I explained above in this edit, the actual arrangment of the state leaders reflects how to make the page as useful as possible.

The amirs of the Tulunids and caliphs of the Fatimids are on different pages... the pages there-in link to. They are also on this one page. To claim everything on one-page is always one-list is like claiming everything in one article is always one-paragraph. Another reason the Tulunids should not be linked to the Fatimids is that a reader could then easily think Tulunids were vassals of the Fatimid caliphate. The Tulunids were instead vassals of the Abbasid caliphate. If we wanted to show Abbasids and Tulunids are part of one large state-- the Abbasid caliphate-- that could be one list, but not Fatimids and Tulunids-- that would be misleading.

The web-browser should separate the different lists in read mode, and the web-browser should separate the different lists in edit mode, and the screen-reader to do the same, so there needs be a line-break between entries. tahc ^chat 14:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a long paragraph about Tulunids not being vassals of the Fatamids etc. I don't see that a slightly bigger gap between them in the list expresses all that. I'm looking at the two side by side, and both of them indent for the Tulunid rulers and then de-indent to say "Fatamid Caliphate". Neither of them say anything to me beyond that there were two different sets of rulers and that what follows each is the individual rulers in each set. But they're all on one list. It doesn't "seem" that way to me, it is that way regardless of which format it is presented in. And adding line breaks is explicitly ruled out at MOS:ACCESS. It says, in so many words, "don't do this". It's not conditional on the list being a singular list and it doesn't make an exception for conceptualising a list as a list of lists. At least, that's how it seems to me. If you want to go back to DRN and try to re-open the case without personalising it, or re-open the discussion at WT:WCAG, that would be an option (actually two options). But I don't think there's anything to be gained by both of us endlessly re-stating our positions, so I'm going to opt out now. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I admit the gap this adds is only slight for the Wikipedia reader-- it would better if it were more-- but having a small gap is not a reason to remove what little there is. (If this is the objection, for example, then I am sure there is a way to just create an even larger gap between lists.) This is more important to me in the edit mode, because it is already so much harder to find what you are looking for in the edit mode to begain with, that every bit makes a significate difference. tahc ^chat 17:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

One answer, of course, would be to create more sub-sections – have Egypt and Sudan as sub-sections of northeast Africa, and Tulunids and Fatamids as sub-sections of Egypt. I'm fairly sure there's a way to limit how many levels show in the table of contents. Scolaire (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. While more sub-sections would be overkill, it would meet my needs. I just don't why you would prefer creating more sub-sections to just creating blank lines. tahc ^chat 19:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't prefer anything, because I don't see any problem. If they were to be treated as completely separate things, then putting them in separate sections would be the logical way to deal with them, but since I see them as related (by geography), I don't see the need for subsections or for a gap of any size. If editing is your main concern, you could always copy the version with line breaks back into your user space, edit it, and remove the line breaks before copying it back here. But you need to be clear in your head what is personal preference, or what you see as your needs, as opposed to what the article needs. As a reader, I find that the article in its current state meets all my needs. Scolaire (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I will ignore your semantics for the moment, since I think I understand you intention, even you avoid my question. Since you propose adding more subsections, I assume you will also accept a less drastic measure. I have found this, template:dashed rule, which will create a separation like the section headings will, but not create the need for creating, naming, and editing an subsections for every state. Please let me know what you think. In the meantime I will put it in as another thankless least-poor compromise. tahc ^chat 23:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That is not a compromise. That was not what Scolaire was talking about... I don't see the need for subsections or for a gap of any size.. This is not how any lists are done. The only solution is to replace ":*" to "**". It's how you originally wanted it for sighted people, it's the same for visually impaired as visual readers and it's is by far the most common format for lists. This is twice you have declared a compromise without anybody else saying anything. Don't use articles space for your testing, that is what your userspace is for. It appears you are trying anything except saying "**" is fine. Bgwhite (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: please stop talking about ":*". Nobody is adding ":*"; nobody is proposing to add ":*"; and nobody has for several days. You're only confusing the issue by continuing to drone on about it. Please also try to address the content issue without launching personal attacks. Consensus is far harder to obtain in a battleground situation. Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I never said adding or proposing ":*" I said the solution is to change ":*" to "**", which is also what you like best and which the current page is at. I'm just stating facts. Bgwhite (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The solution is not to change ":*" to "**", because there is no ":*" in the list. I changed some ":**" which had got missed in the edit-war, but otherwise there hasn't been any for several days. You have been told this umpteen times but you are refusing to listen. You are fighting a battle that ended (in your favour) a long time ago. The only issue now is line breaks. Scolaire (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tahc: I'm sorry, but this looks really awful. The dashed line is unsightly, and it's pointless. It's just drawing lines between things that are already separated by the de-indented bullet. Plus, there's an added line break before the dashed line, so it's the opposite of a compromise: it's adding the line breaks and adding another layer of noise. And I didn't "propose" sub-sections. I was at pains to point out that it wasn't a proposal. It was a tentative suggestion as to how you might achieve the kind of separation you seemed to want, without messing up screen readers. I like it the way it is. That is not semantics; it's an unambiguous statement of fact. Please don't try to "compromise" between what I like and what I didn't propose. Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Scolaire: Maybe you should state what you are proposing and then say why. Do you think someone else proposed sub-sections? Did you "suggest" sub-sections but not "propose" them-- if so what does that mean? If you did suggest sub-sections, then maybe you can say why you did. tahc ^chat 19:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

[Redacted content unrelated to this discussion]

Scolaire has already proposed twice. You brushed them off I will ignore your semantics for the moment and Scolaire just said in their section above, I like it the way it is. That is not semantics; it's an unambiguous statement of fact. Bgwhite (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tahc: I overlooked your incivility the last time because I didn't think it was intentional, but this is unacceptable. I am not going to respond to harassment now or ever. You know what my position is. Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Scolaire: If I seemed uncivil then I apologize.

Unfortunately, I don't know really know you position. I know you like the list all displayed a one list since they are on the same page, and then you suggested more sub-sections. You now seem to have changed your mind about sub-sections and don't want to say so. You also don't seem to want to discuss pros and cons of any other ideas.

Unfortunately, I have been harassed and bullied with the claim that I should not create these lists at all if I do not format them the he likes. Why should I put up with such treats from him? tahc ^chat 13:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

My position is that I like the list the way it is. I don't know how many times I have to say that before you will accept that it is my position, and not an opening gambit or something. Yes, I suggested sub-sections to you as a possible workaround of your issue, but you didn't take it up, so there's no need to talk about it further. If you don't want sub-sections, I certainly don't. You say I "don't seem to want to discuss pros and cons of any other ideas", but the only "other idea" I remember seeing was the dashed line idea, and I discussed that at some length. I'm sorry that you feel bullied by another editor, but I'm not about to change my position just out of sympathy. Perhaps it's time for you to accept that there is a consensus (Bgwhite, Magioladitis, Graham87, RexxS and myself) in favour of not having line breaks, and just let it go. The list has been without line breaks for a couple of days now and the world hasn't ended. Scolaire (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(1) The main idea I propsed was to (somehow) increase the gap between the different lists, since you pointed out the line-break created was so small.

(2) Don't really think that we discussed the dashed line at some length. If you think it is ugly-- I would like to know why so that I can propose something that is not like it in that way-- in other words, not ugly to Scolaire. As for "pointless" I think you already know what the point is. I can discuss your 3rd point, but I am not sure it matters if you just want to claim it is ugly .

(3) I would be really glad if Magioladitis, Graham87, or RexxS wanted to add to this discussion, but they have never said if they would object to line-breaks, or why they would object to line-break or other separation for the state lists. They only commented on "**".

(4) So I should just accept "no line-breaks"? Since you think more stuttle line-breaks are bad but won't say why the more extreme sub-sections are different? I should just leave it the way you want it, and stop editting or creating all Wikipedia lists? Did you only suggest idea of sub-sections to seem reasonible? --even thought they would be time-consumming a repeative with the current list headings? tahc ^chat 17:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You're being confrontational again. First off, I didn't "point out the line-break created was so small", I said that the small difference between the gap without the line break and the gap with the line break did not/could not convey all the information you posted here ("Another reason the Tulunids should not be linked to the Fatimids is one can easily think Tulunids were vassals of the Fatimid caliphate. The Tulunids were instead vassals of the Abbasid caliphate"). As regards the dashed line, I said why I don't like it: it's ugly and it's pointless (it doesn't convey all that stuff about vassals any better than the line break does). I don't want to "discuss" it in the sense of you saying why you disagree with me and me saying again why I disagree with you, and so on ad infinitum. That is also pointless. As regards Magioladitis, Graham87 and RexxS, they all commented on WP:LISTGAP, which says there shouldn't be a line break. It is disingenuous to suggest that they were only opposed to the colon, and would not have a problem with line breaks, which are known to have accessibility issues. And I'm not going to comment on your speculation as to my motivation, since you are clearly trying to provoke me with that. It's verging on trolling at this stage, and makes your previous apology look very insincere. Scolaire (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Any comments that Magioladitis, Graham87 and RexxS may or may not have made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#MOS:LISTGAP question would or should have been on the topic of Wikipedia Style, Accessibility-- but I do not object to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility on list gaps. I have said from the start that this is not an accessibility issue, but a content issue that neither is nor ought to be covered under a such a MOS. If they, or anyone else, happens to think otherwise (as you do) they can still discuss that view here. It would have be disingenuous for me to argue for my position on that talk page for which I consider it off-topic. It also would have been bad practise for me to keep a discussion going at two different locations in hopes that one of them would go my way. Did some of Magioladitis, Graham87, and RexxS say on that other talk page that they object to line breaks in this situation without hearing my reasons on this talk page? It could be. I just haven't read that other talk page for the reasons stated here.

You are still avoiding my proposal (1) above-- "to (somehow) increase the gap between the different lists".

I never asked to discuss anything "ad infinitum" where you repeat something, anything you said before. I have asked you questions that you have not yet answered. tahc ^chat 21:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Tahc's edit summary, I think Scolaire has agree to this a couple times. No, Scolaire did not agree to have blank lines between list items causing a List Gap. This is just as bad as ":*", which are both accessibility issues. Third time Tahc has assumed what Scolaire "agreed to" and edited the page. As Tahc continued to edit the page afterwards, I only fixed the list gap issue and not reverted. Stop editing the page Tahc and stop assuming. Bgwhite (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)