Template talk:Cuts of beef
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Frungi in topic use of an image map
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
new template
editi came to wikipedia for answers on where the heck certain cuts of beef actually COME from, and low and behold, there was little orginization/info on such a topic. i've made this template to help more info come together on the matter. please, lets help out the next guy who wants to know. JoeSmack Talk 06:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bravo! I have worked on a number of the beef articles (which are indeed disorganized), adding some information from references (such as the NAMP designation for cuts that make up the primal cuts) and this is just what is needed! Thanks, --MCB 06:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
US-centric
editThe template only links to US cuts. I have added the diagram of British cuts. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
use of an image map
editI reverted the change of this template to use an imagemap as the exclusive method of navigation. my concern is with Wikipedia:ACCESS#Images guidelines. Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- diff in question.
- I'm not sure about accessibility, but I'd object on the grounds of Size. The large Image maps might be helpful in the article Cut of beef, but not in the navbox.
- I'd also suggest potentially merging this navbox with Template:Beef, which has a section devoted to cuts.
- Also I note that Cut of beef doesn't explain the "Upper / Lower" distinction (as used in this navbox).
- Lastly, Cuts of beef currently redirects to Beef#Cuts.
- (I'm busy elsewhere, and not familiar with this topic, so I'll leave all that for someone else to think about / fix. HTH) –Quiddity (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Image maps work fine with screen readers. They're neither better nor worse than straight text from an accessibility standpoint. Graham87 03:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Size is easily fixed by adding the pixels you want (e.g. 250px) after the pipe after the image name in the syntax. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 11:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yah, but then the words aren't legible.
- In addition, it only contains the British and American cut terminology, whereas it ought to (and would have to eventually) contain all the international systems mentioned at cut of beef.
- Hence my suggestions above. (I do try to over-analyze and hypothesise all potential solutions and objections ;) –Quiddity (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think the image maps are nice, but would be better in the article where they can be displayed with a legible size. could we move them to say template:cuts of beef diagram with a #switch for all the various international systems, then transclude those in the main article? Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 20:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think the image maps are nice, but would be better in the article where they can be displayed with a legible size. could we move them to say template:cuts of beef diagram with a #switch for all the various international systems, then transclude those in the main article? Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I just don’t think that this particular use of image maps feels encyclopedic (which trumps any other considerations). It seems more the type of thing that an educational website for kids would have. —Frungi (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)