Forum:Semicolon pseudo-headings 2

See the previous discussion here, which was de facto closed with the result that "this is a high-impact change that needs more discussion".

I think it must be mentioned in this rule that you shouldn't use anything other than : after a ; pseudo-heading. Using #, *, or not using anything at all leads to malformed HTML5 code and accessibility problems. Arina (she/her) 11:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nixinova, @StizzurpXDD. Arina (she/her) 11:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

See this discussion for more context. I would also quote Nixinova:

“

While you are correct Arina, the entire wiki uses ; * * * as its formatting markup on all pages.

„

— Nixinova

Both the version have almost no impact on the readers perspective and the semi-colon achieves the same thing with lesser bytes and an advantage of introducing pseudo-heading. I would also quote myself here:

“

Sometimes you need to keep "common sense" over "semantic sense".

„

— StizzurpXDD

I would again quote which was initially quoted by Nixinova:

“

The b element represents a span of text to which attention is being drawn for utilitarian purposes and with no implication of an alternate voice or mood, such as key words in a document abstract, product names in a review, actionable words in interactive text-driven software, or an article lede.

„

— The HTML5 spec initially quoted by Nixinova

Also see this edit as well as this edit.

- 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 12:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I won't comment these claims here as I've answered them before. Arina (she/her) 12:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Additionaly I would also like to say that use of * and ; are being used for many years without significant issues. This suggests that these practices have become established within the community. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 12:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This suggests that these practices have become established within the community. - so? It doesn't matter as these practices are being disputed now. Arina (she/her) 12:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

These practices do matter because they are is dispute. If they wouldn't have mattered, nobody would have cared about the edits you made, but because they matter, your edits were reverted and that is the reason why this discussion exists. Please don't present these absurd points. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 12:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this would be a good time for you to give a more detailed explanation of exactly what problems arise when using '*' after ';' pseudo-headings. I think a problem that you've been running into with your previous arguments is that you are assuming that most wiki users have the same level of knowledge of HTML coding and accessibility issues that you have. I understand that for some reason this creates technically incorrect HTML code that for some reason visually renders completely correctly, but can possibly create some sort of accessibility problem. I'm particularly curious about the accessibility issues. I think you've mentioned in other posts that it has something to do with screen readers, which most of us are not really familiar with by the way. But I've only been able to find vague references that mention that different screen readers interpret the <dl> tag differently, and that Apple iOS in particular might have problems. But what does this malformed HTML code actually do? Can you give an example of how correct vs. incorrect HTML code is read by a screen reader? I think more understanding will significantly help your argument. Rampage455 (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

that for some reason visually renders completely correctly - only because modern browsers' HTML parsers handle it correctly. This won't be compatible with XHTML, for example. And misusing definition lists is a problem for screen readers because the screen reader reads each header out as you progress through the content, notifying you what a heading is, what is a paragraph, etc. (http://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn_web_development/Core/Accessibility/HTML). They need correct markup to work correctly. Arina (she/her) 12:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose | Wiki uses * and ; for all articles (in my knowledge) and it is impractical to change it to : and '. User:Arina is right in saying that this malforms HTML5 code. But, here is the argument, there is no visual difference between the two, so it doesn't effect the reader and for the editors, it gets more hotch-potch as it is now harder to decipher between what is a pseudo heading and what is just bolded text. Also, using * for bullet points and using : for bullet points has no difference whatsoever. The manner they are used in is the same. They are just different characters. This change will affect editors which are not as good in HTML as others may be. Personally, I am in a habit of using * and ; when editing and there is a strong possibility that others might have this habit too. Everything doesn't always have to be the mainstream way. If the wiki is working with * and ; for so long and widely and is comfortable with it without any issues, then there is no point in now changing it.

👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 12:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

But, here is the argument, there is no visual difference between the two - only because modern browsers' HTML parsers handle it correctly. Screen readers won't handle it correctly. Arina (she/her) 12:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is a screen reader reading out the following page. There is no issue in reading semi-colons or *. Here is the link of the screen reader. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 13:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Every screen reader is different so anecdotal evidence is just not it. And even if most screen readers handle it correctly, malformed HTML is still a problem. Arina (she/her) 13:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If you want me to check every single screen reader in existence to pinpoint one that reads it out incorrect, then I'm sorry I've better things to do. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 13:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the video. The link is provided below. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 13:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

And there's still no comparison between how it reads a misused definition list and a properly used bold pseudo-heading. Arina (she/her) 13:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Btw in this version of the page there are no semicolon pseudo-headings. Arina (she/her) 13:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated video:

Click Here. 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 13:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

These are pictures of legacy versions of currently popular browsers. For Safari, I can max go to 15. If you are using anything older than Opera 40 or Firefox 40, the wiki will not load.

• 👁 Image
  
• 👁 Image
  
• 👁 Image
  
• 👁 Image
  

Now, if you want me to load more unknown legacy browsers, let me know. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 13:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Updated the pictures. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 13:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a browser's version released in 2015 "legacy". the wiki will not load. - why? It should. Btw Firefox 40 is the first version to support Windows 10 and your sandbox's using exactly it. Arina (she/her) 13:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is FireFox 36 and Opera 36 which is the last version which could even load Minecraft wiki:

• 👁 Image
  
• 👁 Image
  

- 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 13:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If these are actually the earliest versions which can load this wiki then OK, parsing this isn't a problem for old browsers. Arina (she/her) 13:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Everything doesn't always have to be the mainstream way. - no. Firstly, conservatism isn't an argument, and secondly, this is a mainstream wiki so yes, everything always has to be the mainstream way here. If the wiki is working with * and ; for so long and widely and is comfortable with it without any issues, then there is no point in now changing it. - same; conservatism isn't an argument. Arina (she/her) 13:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

will affect editors which are not as good in HTML as others may be. - how? This is MediaWiki you don't use raw HTML for bold here. Arina (she/her) 13:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

And even if you did, making a definition list is harder in HTML than making a bold paragraph. Arina (she/her) 13:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose. It's no significant problem, it's far easier this way, way better in terms of in-code readability, just fine in terms of or readers, and screen readers aren't particularly important I don't think. I feel like this'd be mentioned before if it was bad, and it hasn't to my knowledge. There is no argument that I an opposing. And I will make this very clear to @Arina. Do not act without consensus. Discussions in progress have no effect whatsoever to what it currently should be. And a consensus doesn't mean two support in one day; it means several replies over at least a week. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  14:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It's no significant problem - it doesn't make it not a problem. screen readers aren't particularly important I don't think. - ableism is not an argument. Arina (she/her) 14:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Not fixing an error just because it's "not important enough" isn't a valid argument and defeats the spirit of a wiki. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Note, I wouldn't say the previous discussion was closed as "needing more discussion", it was kept open to allow for more comments (we like to give at least a week as not everyone checks the wiki daily) - and then was forgotten about. It would have been fine to move into the style guide at this point.

So to reiterate the points of this change:

• Our current use of ; for bold list headers is both semantically wrong and creates (technically) incorrect HTML.
  • ; creates a definition list element with only a definition title but no definition details. The definition list element is expected to always include groups of titles and details.
• The proposed change was to use '''bold''' for the list headers instead.
  • This is technically not the correct way to add a title to list either (that would be <figure> and <figcaption> according to spec), however it's the best we can do using wikitext.
  • It creates a "bring attention to" element which, as Nixinova pointed out, only brings attention to the text but does not grant it special importance.

This is an objectively correct change (no more broken HTML in articles, more correct semantically) with no downsides. As has been pointed out here by multiple users, both render the same to users. This means we can gradually implement this change over time without any disruption for readers and editors alike. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Another thought I had is to replace * after definition lists with :, which would keep the ;, be easier to do and be semantically correct. Do you think there are any downsides to this? Arina (she/her) 14:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

No, they work differently in this wiki. See this:

• Test with star

Test with colon

👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 14:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It wouldn't really fit the semantics of a description list either and would also make the individual points less clear. Sublists would also get quite confusing. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Test
  • Test 3
    • Test 4
      • Test 5

VS

Test

Test 3

Test 4

Test 5

👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 14:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

For semantical reasons it would have to be list this:

Header

description

• sublist
• sublist
  • subsublist

Which as I mentioned above is just not helpful. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This is just wrong. Sublists are more organised.

103.92.43.2 14:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)