Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image descriptions 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image caption 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CSS hack reduces accessibility 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Shall we edit war over it? --Adrian Buehlmann 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed revert