Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
4 Page:Amoris laetitia.djvu/2 and 4 others..
6 Pages in Ruffhead volume 8.
Page:Amoris laetitia.djvu/2 and 4 others..
Index file seems to have been removed, and the file at Commons was deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amoris laetitia.djvu) over copyright concerns, Would have been nice if they'd told us beforehand, so we didn't end up with orphan pages to remove.
Pages in Ruffhead volume 8.
Proposing for deletion on the grounds that the layout is too complex to be reliably represented until certain templates are repaired or overhauled, something which looks unlikely to happen in the medium-term.
Applying the logic of WP:SNOWBALL here..
I appreciate that these templates are widely used, but following a discussion with some CSS coders whilst trying to make them more robust, the conclusion was that these were the 'wrong' approach. Exact (print) page layouts cannot be represented in Mediawiki anyway.
Once works using these have been migrated to templates that have consistent, single repeatable behaviours, they should be deleted. Having a templete that behaves differently based on phase of the moon interactions is unreasonable.
The following discussion is closed: kept, withdrawn - Needs an experienced contributor to review, validate completed portions.
Simply this is being proposed for deletion, because due to limitations in mediawiki the underlying templates are now incompatible.
As no-one seems to be interested in actually fixing the real problems that have created the issues that make coding templates for this far harder than they should be, it would be easier to start again with a nice clean version that someone else can build the table manually for, such that Mediawiki and extensions aren't continually screwing up attempts to get a clean consistent and repeatable layout due to pednatic and obscure interaction issues.
PDF is apparently "incompatible", with numerous "blank" pages where the appropriate scan image from the file fails to appear.
This should be removed, and replaced with a version that is KNOWN to be compatible with the current back-end, either as PDF, or a DJVu generated from the original JP2 or TIFF scans, with an "appropriately" high encoding resoloution.
Er, I don't really have any opinion about uploading works that aren't valid with screen readers. Any PDF without a valid text layer isn't going to play nice with a screen reader unless it comes with OCR software -- and I'm no expert in how that works. Commons can do whatever they want with their image descriptions and policies and whatnot.
The text is compatible with screen readers? Really? There's a screen reader that can handle Wið Ymbe Nim Eorþan?
It's trivial to dismiss something as unimportant, but if it's truly unimportant, than why bother having it? I could dismiss all the text of "At the Earth's Core" as unimportant; go see w:At the Earth's Core, that will tell you everything truly important. A blind person could well want to know what the cover looks like, more than just what you think is important. Images should have alt-text, but a picture is worth a thousand words, and the alt-text rarely tries to convey that.
It's not that I don't care about users with screen readers; I simply think we shouldn't throw away something just because it can't be used by them.