From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
 |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|
}} |
}} |
||
|
{{old move|date=29 June 2025|from=List of banks in the United Kingdom|destination=Banking in the United Kingdom|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1299264464#Requested move 29 June 2025}} |
{{old move|date=29 June 2025|from=List of banks in the United Kingdom|destination=Banking in the United Kingdom|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1299264464#Requested move 29 June 2025}} |
||
|
== Discussion on table header background colors and visual hierarchy == |
|||
|
I’ve noticed a series of recent edits removing background colors from table headers across several list articles. I would like to start a discussion regarding the visual structure of these lists before further mass changes are made. |
|||
|
The lists in question, are not simple single-category tables. They utilize a multi-level structure that distinguishes between different sectors, such as ”’Banking groups containing RFBs”’, ”’Banks”’, and ”’Direct banks”’. |
|||
|
My Rationale for Retaining Colors: |
|||
|
+Visual Hierarchy: The background colors serve as a critical visual anchor, helping readers quickly distinguish between different categories in a long, data-heavy list. |
|||
|
+Compliance with [[WP:COLOR]]: The guideline states that “Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information.” In these tables, the categories are clearly labeled with text headers. The color is a supplementary tool to enhance readability, not the only way to distinguish the data. |
|||
|
+User Experience: Removing these colors significantly flattens the table, making it much harder for readers to navigate between different banking sectors at a glance. |
|||
|
While I respect the effort to align with Wikipedia’s styling standards, I believe a complete removal of these visual aids negatively impacts the utility of these specific lists. Until we reach a consensus on a better alternative, ”I have reverted the recent changes to maintain the established readability of the lists.” I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can balance accessibility with clear data presentation. Thanks. [[User:Samjai|Samjai]] ([[User talk:Samjai|talk]]) 08:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 08:18, 26 January 2026
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
I’ve noticed a series of recent edits removing background colors from table headers across several list articles. I would like to start a discussion regarding the visual structure of these lists before further mass changes are made.
The lists in question, are not simple single-category tables. They utilize a multi-level structure that distinguishes between different sectors, such as Banking groups containing RFBs, Banks, and Direct banks.
My Rationale for Retaining Colors:
+Visual Hierarchy: The background colors serve as a critical visual anchor, helping readers quickly distinguish between different categories in a long, data-heavy list.
+Compliance with WP:COLOR: The guideline states that “Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information.” In these tables, the categories are clearly labeled with text headers. The color is a supplementary tool to enhance readability, not the only way to distinguish the data.
+User Experience: Removing these colors significantly flattens the table, making it much harder for readers to navigate between different banking sectors at a glance.
While I respect the effort to align with Wikipedia’s styling standards, I believe a complete removal of these visual aids negatively impacts the utility of these specific lists. Until we reach a consensus on a better alternative, I have reverted the recent changes to maintain the established readability of the lists. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can balance accessibility with clear data presentation. Thanks. Samjai (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
