This template is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
i 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. JoeSmackTalk 06:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I 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)[reply]
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).
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
