Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility

I wasn't sure if I should post here or at the Linking MOS talk page, but here we go.

This post presents a perceived problem and two possible solutions.

There have been many disagreements and interpretations of the current WP:MOS policy on WP:OVERLINKING. While some argue that overlinking results in an unreadable sea of blue links (which can be worse if you’re using certain assisted reading devices), the counter to that is that _not_ linking things forces a user who to scroll/search back through the article for the first time that link appeared - assuming it’s still there and is not hidden behind a MOS:PIPE - which can be difficult for people on certain systems, or with certain disabilities. It could be said that either of these situations is asking a lot of the reader, unreasonably.

Solution 1 (more work): Rather than have to do a one-or-the-other linking policy, I’d like to suggest something like this : linking is permitted wherever the editor likes it, and is never discouraged. There’s no reason that the problem of overlinking can’t be addressed client-side, filtering out redundant links via a user preference (even allowing users who want to to see several of the same link in the same sentence, if it occurs - though obviously this won’t be the default). This could be toyed with in many ways but I think the basic ideas is sound. I think we’re long past the time where we’re concerned about the extra bytes a blue link takes up, so it really comes down to readability and accessibility. All users will have a default setting which reflects what the consensus on linking should be.

Solution 2 (easier techwise, harder consensus wise): As wikipedia evolved, I don’t think anyone has given thought to the linking policy, what its harms and benefits are to the underlying technology (and how that has changed), and whose experience the current balance put in place favors and how.

Any thoughts on this? Tduk (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Please take this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Paradoctor (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking § Link frequency

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrose64 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Could someone double-check my use of ARIA at {{n/a}}? In Orca I get "em dash" which is meaningless from the live template and "not applicable" with the sandbox version: Template:N/a/testcases. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd use template:screen reader-only becase it's not spec-compliant to use aria-label on a <span>. sapphaline (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Like so. This code will create usability issues with use cases like Template:N/a/testcases#Basic_use_with_following_text, though. sapphaline (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, right. In practice though, I think that use will be fine because the text following the dash is uncommon and never seems to be "Not applicable": Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks; it works well in both the main Windows screen readers, JAWS and NVDA. BTW Orca is an interesting test case because the general state of Linux accessibility is rather perilous; I'm impressed that the template works there actually. I've gone and made this edit to the sandbox. Graham87 (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion about whether motorsport articles should be exempt from the guidance on this page that says "No text should be reduced below 85% of the page's default font size." Please comment there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

For anyone here who's interested, at Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style#c-Largoplazo-20260121135000-Language marking in section headings I've launched a discussion about MOS:HEAD and the lack of technical support for language tagging in section headings . Largoplazo (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion at Template talk:Alphabet didn't began only incidentally as an accessibility discussion but that's become its focus, if anyone cares to participate. Largoplazo (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

In many cases where we have multiple lists on a page, each with multiple unordered candidates and one winner, is it enough to put the winner at the top of the list (and tell readers that we have done so)? For example:

Winners are listed first.

Category 1

• Winning candidate
  • Non-winning candidate 1
  • Non-winning candidate 2
  • Non-winning candidate 3
  • Non-winning candidate 4

Or should we be writing the word “winner” (or equivalent) to denote the winner inline?:

Category 1

• Winner: Winning candidate (winner)
  • Non-winning candidate 1
  • Non-winning candidate 2
  • Non-winning candidate 3
  • Non-winning candidate 4

(Two different options there; obviously we wouldn’t write winner twice.)

I am also aware many screen readers (I think the vast majority by market share?) will also read out the nested list. — HTGS (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the first option is enough, but both work. Graham87 (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Does MOS:LANG imply that the names of people born in non-English-speaking countries be rendered in {{langr}} tags, e.g. {{langr|it|Enrico Fermi}}? Common sense tells me "no", since presumably there are literal millions of non-English names that are not currently wrapped in {{langr}}, and featured articles like Enrico Fermi don't seem to do this. But a plain reading of MOS:LANG seems to imply that we should. Any help is appreciated! Suriname0 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:WIP. Some aspects of Wikipedia lag more than others, MOS:LANG among them. Paradoctor (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah we probably shouldn't be doing that across the board. Whn reading aloud, a name like that wouldn't be spoken in a differen accent; Albert Einstein and Ludwig van Beethoven would be even more ridiculous examples. Graham87 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

We should hear people's names pronounced in English, so I would say no. That would be like your pretentious friend who says "Darling, I spent a week in pah-ʁEE and another in mah-DɾEEDH." In the case where we're presenting the name as spoken in that other language, of course, it should be tagged. Largoplazo (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

In what cases are we "presenting the name as spoken in that other language"? I guess in non-English quotations that include the name? Regardless, this question was motivated by a dispute at Augusto Genina. It sounds like there's genuine lack of clarity here around the intended style – I'll leave it to other editors to sort out where and when {{langr}} should be applied. I have no idea if this is a wide-spread confusion or if it merits inserting a footnote in the MOS about lang templates for proper nouns. Suriname0 (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like MOS:DIACRITICS contains the closest thing to explicit guidance on this: "When non-English text should not be italicized, it can still be properly tagged by using the {{lang}} template with the |italic=unset parameter: {{lang|de|Nürnberg|italic=unset}}." But can is not should, which leaves it vague both when non-English proper nouns should not be italicized and whether {{langr}} should be used. Suriname0 (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

When we're writing about someone by name in English, we're writing in English, and it should be tagged as in English. If the name were written in another script than Roman then it would need tagging but we shouldn't do that outside the lead sentence anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

MOS:LANG is about accessibility. An existing tag can be ignored, but a missing tag cannot be inferred by the user agent. Also, IETF language tags serve purposes other than screen readers. Automated translation comes to mind, for one.

Albert Einstein is not a valid counterexample, because he was an American. Same goes for Enrico Fermi. More generally, some foreign language terms have been swallowed whole by the English language, and are therefore English language terms. Loanwords are discussed in the guideline. Check the paragraph before last.

hear people's names pronounced in English That's handled by WP:PRONOUNCE.

should be tagged as in English Nope. English is the default. We tag non-English text, as it is stated right at the top: By default, English Wikipedia articles state explicitly to the browser that they are written wholly in English. Non-English text should be tagged as such Paradoctor (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Einstein (1879–1955) didn't become American until 1940, which is to say, for only the last 20% of his life. He was Swiss for far longer than that. Similarly, Fermi (1901–1954), initially Italian, didn't become American until 1944. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Missing the point. I mean, if you wish to make a case their names weren't borrowed in English, fine, just do that. But on the evidence available right now, their names are loanwords. That they had other citizenships is not in conflict with that.

And as I said, the guideline already covers this, regardless of which determination is made in the individual case. Paradoctor (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)