Template talk:Botany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Plant pathology[edit]

Don't forget about Plant pathology. It is just as important to Botany as is physiology. Chris 00:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Phytopathology is a subarticle from Plant physiology. --EncycloPetey 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Change of colours[edit]

The new colors (light blue background instead of green background) makes this template usable by people with visual impairments such as user:Frietjes. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(accessibility)#Task_force. Dodoïste (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting. This choice is at odds with the group that created/uses the template, and did not request their input or reach a consensus before making the change.
WP:deviations specifically allows deviations on a color-theme as WP:PLANTS has done with its (few) templates to match the dominant color for every taxobox on every article about a plant group. The consistent use of color is more professional than the inconsistent use proposed by the change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I do not want to engage in a wheel-war. However, you can't just revert, as I'm enforcing the MoS. We'll have to agree on a change eventually.
"WP:deviations" does not allow such thing, as it is absolutely not accessible to people with disabilities. It allows site-wide CSS, which is not used here.
As for the "professionnal look", can you quote a usability expert on that? Or another professionnal? Because every web expert I've been working with told me exactly the opposite. Using such a large variety of colors, with poor contrast, and little consideration of site-wide design (style guided) is most unprofessional. Dodoïste (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I do not support the dark green because of the low contrast. If we want a green, it should be a lighter shade such as the rgb(144,238,144) we are using in plant taxoboxes. (I see that a change to palegreen2, which I think is rgb(144,238,144) or intended to be the same, was reverted, but there seem to be two issues, technical issues over syntax and whether that is a good color). I do think we should discuss this before resuming the edit war. Kingdon (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Rgb(144,238,144) is #90EE90. The contrast between the blue links and #90EE90 meets accessibility requirements, we can go for it. I made a test case here, I suppose we should raise the issue at the corresponding project. Dodoïste (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
You really ought to have started by raising the issue at the project instead of making a unilateral move that was controversial. The correct steps would be to raise the issue and then seek a consensus solution. Not to say "This color doesn't work, so I'm eliminating it." The lighter green currently in place looks fine to me, and should be fine as long as the community affected agrees. As Kingdon has pointed out, previous attempts to use a lighter shade did not end up green across most browsers.
'm also curious about the edit comment "switching to #90EE90 per discussion" that you left before you mentioned it in this discussion. How can you do something "per discussion" when the discussion hasn't happened yet? The normal order of things is to have the discussion, then seek consensus, then implement the change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not interested to reply to personal criticism. As for the light green color, previous attempts were not succesful because "palegreen2" is not a standardized color. I solved this issue. Dodoïste — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)