Wikipedia talk:Extended image syntax

Copiable text vs mouse-over text

Sometimes we need to substitute Unicode characters with images due to lack of widespread font support. Because a user manually copying the WP text should still get the correct character, the Unicode character is often added to the file syntax after a pipe. But that causes it to display as the mouse-over as well, which isn't useful (the mouse-over is either equivalent to the image, or displays as an empty box or question mark). I was thinking of adding the following text to our instructions to resolve the issue. But would this cause different problems with screen readers? Will a screen-reader recognize what a Unicode character is even if the user doesn't have the fonts to display it?

Suggested text:

The alt text is what gets copied when a reader manually copies a section of Wikipedia text that includes images. This may be useful when an image is used to substitute for a Unicode character that may not yet have widespread font support. The mouse-over, however, should be something more descriptive, as it would be unhelpful for it to look just like the image or, worse, to display as a blank box. The alt parameter provides for this distinction:

[[file:....svg|16px|(mouseover text)|alt=(copiable text)]]

For example,

Information: [[file:Infobox info icon.svg|16px|alt=🛈|The 'information' icon (circled 'i')]].

will display as:

Information: .

Note that the mouse-over display is a description of the symbol, while if you copy the text and paste it in another document, you'll faithfully reproduce the intended text "Information: 🛈." (You may need to install a supporting font for the Unicode character '🛈' to display.)

Hopefully, a screen-reader would handle the Unicode character better than we would with our verbal description. But if that won't work, would it be possible to add a 'character' param to the file syntax that would enable faithful copying of the intended WP text without interfering with screen-readers or mouse-over texts? Please ping me if you respond — kwami (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

em sizes

I think em sizes should be perfectly possible to support by now. Just have a bit JavaScript fix up the src-attributes if it turns out the initial guess was incorrect. 92.67.227.181 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to change the default format of galleries

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Galleries. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Undocumented: muted and loop options for videos; others?

A loop video

A muted video

A couple of years ago, the loop and muted keywords were added to codebase. Examples to the right.

These are not documented. Which makes me wonder, if there are other important undocumented options...

Should I go ahead and add these to the page? --Nanite (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Quote marks around code examples

Is there any reason why long sections of this have quote marks around the code examples? This seems strange and potentially confusing formatting, with the risk that people will think they have to type the quote marks, besides being redundant and distracting.

Surely part of the point of using code style is that the text can be shown exactly as entered, without needing punctuation?

Edit: OK, I see that one user unilaterally put them in. Unfortunately, it looks as though there are also now places where bold italic code was taken out of code style altogether, so the typography doesn't match the opening explanation of how it's used. Musiconeologist (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)