Template talk:Sefirot

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kabbalah, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.KabbalahWikipedia:WikiProject KabbalahTemplate:WikiProject KabbalahKabbalah articles
NA	This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This template was made using the image Ktreewnames.png, which is in turn based on Image:Tree of life bahir hebrew.png, which was drawn from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's translation of the Bahir (see that image's page). --Eliyak T·C 04:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layout problems[edit]

The image of the sefirot is cut apart by thin horizontal lines. Here's a proposal: re-draw the original tree using SVG. Then it will be trivial to create images with various parts highlighted. Since then it won't be necessary to build up the image from component images, there will be no risk of the image appearing cut-apart. Shinobu 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, doing that would not allow each of the individual sefirot to link to their respective pages.

By the way, which browser are you using? I see no problems in Firefox and only minor problems with IE. --Eliyak T·C 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect when you say that "doing that would not allow each of the individual sefirot to link to their respective pages." The ImageMap extension allows a single image to have multiple "hotspots" that link to separate articles. We should use the original un-cut up image to replace all the split images, so we can avoid using the dreadful template {{click}}. Resurgent insurgent 13:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the underlying image[edit]

I changed the image and edited the imagemap links to work right. The new image was on Wikimedia Commons, and is closer to standard cabala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YhnMzw (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't explain why your image is better. Plus, by using that image you broke the "locator" functionality that highlights the page being viewed. Therefore I reverted your 2 edits. If you believe the other image is better, could you please show why exactly? --Eliyak T·C 15:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. My apologies. I will learn more wiki, check both images against other texts, and contribute at a later date. YhnMzw (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]