Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 3

Image descriptions[edit]

Khoikhoi pointed out that this template was not showing captions below the images the way the multi-line one did. There was an 'image_caption' parameter being passed, but the template was using it as the 'pop up' text which displays when you hover the mouse over the image. Since the captions often contain markup and hyperlinks, which can't be displayed in pop-ups, this didn't work very well. I switched it back to using the 'image_caption' as caption text below the image. I also added an 'image_description' parameter for the pop-up text. An example showing both caption and pop-up can be seen at Sperm Whale. Unfortunately, the pop-up text in all of the old multi-line taxobox calls were lost (and most of them seem to have had it set) somewhere in the conversion to the single taxobox template. I don't know how important people find this pop-up text (it defaults to the image file name), but it can now be set through the 'image_description' parameter. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New bolding & authority entries incorrect with expectations[edit]

Well, my expectations at least. "Kingdom:" etc. should not be bolded, but the current version causes such a bolding on Internet Explorer (damn company won't let me use Firefox anymore. (grumble, grumble.) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be removed to look more like Template:Taxobox begin. --Khoikhoi 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, taxa entries with an authority end up being centered vertically with respect to the taxa's rank; the rank and the taxa name should be on the same level, while the authority should be below. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed both. Are we happy enough with this new version, then, to encourage people to use it, or are there still outstanding issues? Josh

Please leave the row headers (! translates to HTML code <TH>, see meta:Help:Tables). This is very important for screenreaders. -- Netoholic @ 01:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't display properly on some (uncommon) browsers and the CSS won't be easily portable outside Wikipedia. There is a solution to those issues (see User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox3 for the template and User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox for several calls to it), but it would require adding |if= to each existing and future call to this template. Up to you folks whether the tradeoff is worth it... these issues have no impact on most people. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about a completely different subject. My comment above is about the wikitable markup, not CSS. -- Netoholic @ 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unbold the row headers. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone Netholic's changes for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netholic has redone his changes. I've removed the style change and left the row headers as he wants them. Is there a way to unbold them while keeping the "!" syntax? Unbolded is the standard for taxoboxes. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the unbolded row headers just a "standard" because that's how they've unknowingly looked for a long time, or are the standard because this was specifically discussed in the past and decided upon. -- Netoholic @ 18:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way back when, the taxa ranks were links. When we decided to do away with those links (since most linked to just one article) it was decided that they would be regular text. Not bolded, not italics, not any different in size, just plain text. Regardless, whether the status quo was a decision or not, changing from one format of table to another should not change the way a table is presented. If you want to make a change in the status quo, please discuss it first, don't foist it upon us without some discussion and consent. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What an aggressive response! I've already explained the main two reasons for using proper row headers ("!") - it fits with the wikitable pipe syntax and makes the tables easier on people who may use screenreaders. Do you want to explain what good reason we have to set aside the accessibility benefits? Something better than "I personally feel..." or "that's how it's been for x months" would be nice. Take a look at this explanation for information on why table headers are a Good Thing. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more aggressive than your change. Whether "!" or "|" is used is keeping with the wikitable pipe syntax, so your point is moot. I've asked if there is a way to keep the "!" but lose the bolding, you were silent. I have no problem with accomodating screenreaders, but I'd like to have dialogue first, then agreement, then change (if agreed). To have the change foisted upon us without discussion, when there has been plenty of discussion about not changing the taxobox without discussion is quite aggressive. So again I ask, is there a way to accomodate screenreaders and not have the row headers bold? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, I know you want to bust out the word "unilateral". Anyway, yes, there are was to de-bold the headers. Are you concerned only for how it looks for you or for everyone? Personally, I doubt most readers would notice or care. -- Netoholic @ 21:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, "unilateral" hadn't come to mind. Why do you think this is about me, when I'm talking about quite literally years of discussions and changes with the taxobox? And perhaps most readers won't care or notice, but I know you care about screenreaders, and I care about taxobox format maintenance. The new taxobox template style (with your changes) is not consistent with the existing taxobox multi-template style. Yes, I don't like this, and yes, I can only speak for myself. However, I can cite the many dialogues on the subject of changing the taxobox. And yet again: is there a way to accomodate screenreaders and not have the row headers bold? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few options. First, if you don't like that this template is different than the multi-template taxobox style, we can change those as well. Second, if you prefer them unbolded, I can show you how to change your personal settings in a way that addresses that. Third, I can de-bold them, but that change limits others by essentially forcing a style onto then that they won't be able to customize themselves (see my second point earlier). Fourth, we can just accept, for the time being, that this template have bolded headers (this will be a handy visual clue for anyone doing conversion work). -- Netoholic @ 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that people are objecting to them being in bold, which CSS can fix. It's that people should be objecting to them because they are semantically incorrect as well. The ! wiki table markup produces the HTML tag not for a table row, but that which means table header in HTML semantics. Many of the places that you are putting the ! markup are not table headers, they are ordinary data cells. For example, for the taxobox "Scientific classification" and "Binomial name" are headers, but not "Kingdom" and the like. David Newton 18:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question. Has anyone tried looking at this page with a screenreader? Because Ævar has suggested that the new version may not work with them anyways, and based on the sample of what goes wrong without headers, it doesn't look like it would make this table any harder to understand. And, Netoholic, unilateral action is fine until opposed; it would be nice if you would work with the people who actually use this, of which Uther is notable. Josh

Headers always make every table easier to navigate. Ævar's concern had nothing to do with screenreaders, but there is a method I am working on that will make these work even better for screenreaders (basically setting a parameter that prevents the screenreader from vocalizing hidden content). Please date your posts. -- Netoholic @ 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with the border around the image. This is contrary to the old, accepted taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox request[edit]

Is there anywhere where people not familiar with the taxobox system or taxonomy in general can request a taxobox be added to an article? I consider myself fairly confident with both systems, so I'd like to help out people who are less confident. Perhaps there could be a link on Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox, as this is linked from every existing taxobox and so is a natural place for people to look for help? Just a thought. Soo 14:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption[edit]

I have a query on the image captions. Is it neccessary to put the photographer name on the Image caption of taxoboxes a part of the requirement for creative commons by attribution 2.5 licenses ? Shyamal 10:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSS hack reduces accessibility[edit]

I just learned about the CSS hack being added to a number of templates, to compensate for a changed policy on template transclusion. I understand that there is an alternative, but this is being implemented because its easier.

This hack injects junk code into the body of the page, then hides it from most visual browsers using CSS. This makes Wikipedia less accessible for users of assistive technologies, like web page readers for the handicapped, and text readers. This is sloppy programming and bad practice from the point of view of usability and accessibility. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia; please lets not start treating the minority who has the most difficult time reading like second-class citizens. —Michael Z. 2006-01-16 17:50 Z

EVERYONE - in order to quash this ForestFire, please follow-up discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS hack reduces accessibility. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revert[edit]

Given the recent revelations at WP:AUM, I'm proposing reverting this back to this version of the template. Is there any reason this would be bad? I would very much like to avoid the CSS hacks used in the current version of this template. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder of what this looks like in Lynx (and other non-CSS capable browsers). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot looks pretty good. The other alternative is inefficient on the back-end, involving dozens of database calls that can be avoided. The current template source is quite readable, and the template itself is easy to place into articles. There is more cleanup we can do for non-CSS browsers, but that is an EXCEEDINGLY LOW percentage of page views (and the geeks that use it know what they're getting into). -- Netoholic @ 13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you realize a lot of those lines wouldn't even be displaying if we were using the meta-template version of this template, right? (Basically any line without info on it wouldn't display). It's a huge confusing mess right now in Lynx... —Locke Cole • t • c 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not confusing, it seems well laid out. The flaw of meta-templates is in the fact that the template source using meta-templates is unreadable except by template geeks. Biologists may want to change this template sometime in the future, and they shouldn't need to deal with odd syntax. It also does cause many, many more database calls (though the practical impact of that hasn't been proven). Avoid complexity. Don't use the presentation on lynx as the only factor. Lynx is an outdated thought experiment with very low realusage. I am fine with this template looking the way it does on Lynx, so long as it looks good to the future editors of lynx. -- Netoholic @ 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is absolutely confusing. Many of those fields shouldn't even be displayed, and yet they are. Your solution for this problem, please? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and reverted it back to the meta-template version. Please report any problems here, and let's see if we can't reduce the reliance on meta-templates (without sacrificing the accessibility of articles that use the template for disabled viewers). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some thoughts on reducing the number of internal template calls here. It may be possible to simplify the logic somewhat while keeping the functionality (and avoiding CSS compatibility problems). --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, anything we can do to minimize the use of meta-templates while not sacrificing accessibility would be most welcome. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "Being bold", when it's clear there is opposition to the change. Your trolling on this subject is becoming tiresome. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the accessibility of articles to the disabled trumps your campaign against meta-templates. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Netoholic had claimed that all screen-readers were CSS enabled, but it turns out that one of the most common ones is not. That's a much bigger deal than the Lynx/Links browser problems. Further, Brion says that when/if meta-templates become a significant server load issue it will be addressed on the developer side. That eliminates the entire rationale behind converting to the CSS hack... even if it hadn't recently been found to be defective. There is just no reason to continue using that method now. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we edit war over it? --Adrian Buehlmann 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]