This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Can these templates be categorized so I can correct the algae ones? Again, I found automatic taxoboxes with taxonomies that differ from existing wikipedia taxonomies. But there are hundreds of uncategorized pages altogether, [1] and the algae are getting random taxonomies.
I don't think there are many algae editors on wikipedia. If someone is trying to sort out the algae, but other editors are adding mayhem, it makes attempting the task worthless.
I would like to spend time editing articles, not correcting templates which are impossible to find, much less edit.
How do I locate all of the algae automatic taxoboxes, or find any category of automatic taxoboxes? I will also be sorting out the "protists" and bacteria. I am not going to do work that is being undone faster than I can do it, so I would like to find these automatic taxobox templates so I can stay on top of them. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 06:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ Taxonomy/Excavata}}, {{ Taxonomy/Eozoa}}, {{ Taxonomy/Loukozoa}}, {{ Taxonomy/Malawimonadea}}, {{ Taxonomy/Malawimonadida}}, {{ Taxonomy/Malawimonadidae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Malawimonas}}, {{ Taxonomy/Chromalveolata}}, {{ Taxonomy/Alveolata}}, {{ Taxonomy/Heterokontophyta}}, {{ Taxonomy/Actinochrysophyceae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Actinophryida}}, {{ Taxonomy/Labyrinthulomycetes}}, {{ Taxonomy/Oomycota}}, {{ Taxonomy/Sagenista}}, {{ Taxonomy/Hacrobia}}, {{ Taxonomy/Cryptophyta}}, {{ Taxonomy/Haptophyta}}, {{ Taxonomy/Pavlovophyceae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Pavlovophycidae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Pavlovales}}, {{ Taxonomy/Pavlovaceae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Diacronema}}, {{ Taxonomy/Diacronema vlkianum}}, {{ Taxonomy/Rhizaria}}, {{ Taxonomy/Retaria}}, {{ Taxonomy/Radiolaria}}, {{ Taxonomy/Polycystinea}}, {{ Taxonomy/Sticholonchea}}, {{ Taxonomy/Taxopodida}}, {{ Taxonomy/Sticholonche}}, {{ Taxonomy/Sticholonche zanclea}}, {{ Taxonomy/Cercozoa}}, {{ Taxonomy/Desmothoracida}}, {{ Taxonomy/Clathrulinidae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Heliomonadida}}, {{ Taxonomy/Gymnosphaerida}}. I am NOT going to do that again...that took a good half hour to come up with that list manually via the steps Martin suggested. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The automatic taxobox for the Trochodendrales, in addition to using the unsupported " Eudocots" instead of " Eudicots" and removing this major clade, replaces it with this:
clade: Angiosperms
Order: Trochodendrales
Family: Trochodendraceae
Genus: Trochodendron
Note that "Trochodendrales" is a redirect to "Trochodendraceae." -- Kleopatra ( talk) 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if a fix for this has already been addressed but this page is getting long... Anyway, having a problem when adding an unranked taxon in between the family level taxa. It's eliminating the taxobox colors. Example, Velociraptor with Eudromaeosauria. MMartyniuk ( talk) 06:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
taxon=
and then use authority=
for the genus and parent_authority=
for the family authority. Hope that helps.
Rkitko (
talk)
13:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm playing around with the auto taxobox for dinosaur articles, and had a question. Are we meant to create individual templates for every taxon down to the genus level? I thought the benefit of the automated box was having one central taxonomy that individual pages could pull info from. Right now it seems like we're just moving the taxobox off to its own page. I can see where this still makes things more consistent, but in the future, is it possible to create some kind of single central taxonomy on one page? For example, I had to create a new template for the clade Euhadrosauria, and change the parent of Lambeosaurinae to shuffle it into the system. Simply editing some kind of list, rather than making new pages and changing others, would be heaps easier. Not sure how feasible that would be. MMartyniuk ( talk) 06:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I am working on the list of validly described Eimeria. This genus of protozoa is unfortuately one of the largest in biology with an estimated 1700 species. I have used the taxobox for genera with about 250 species bfore ( Plasmodium) but I am concerned that Eimeria might make this unworkable. Perhaps a multi column format for species might be a useful addition? DrMicro ( talk) 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The color doesn't show in transclusions of the automatic taxobox template; it does in transclusions of this template. Is it intended that the color bars be phased out, is this an error, or what? I can't find anything that would clarify this in the discussions of the automatic taxobox template. — innotata 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Side question--what does the "always display" field do? I set some important parent taxa like Theropoda to always display, but it still doesn't show on most genus level articles. MMartyniuk ( talk) 01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
For technical reasons, because Template:Automatic taxobox uses this template to produce its output, it is better to move the current template to Template:Taxobox/core.
A direct move of the page, leaving a redirect at Template:Taxobox, will mean that current taxoboxes still work, but may be confusing for editors (who may try to use "Taxobox/core" in articles in place of "taxobox".
An alternative solution is for Template:Taxobox to pass the specified parameters to Template:Taxobox/core in a similar fashion to Template:Citation / Template:Citation/core.
I'm assuming that the second option is preferable and will enact this imminently unless I've overlooked any problems.
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 23:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Martin that during this transitional stage we have two distinct front ends to the same template rendering core, and that moving the core to
Template:Taxobox/core, and decoupling the two front ends from it, is the right thing to do.
I also agree that the manual front end should pass parameters rather than be a straight redirect. Again, I like the decoupling.
One question, though: taxoboxes that were formerly instantiated with parameters omitted will now be instantiated with all parameters present but many of them blank. Can you guarantee that this will not affect behaviour? I've seen many templates that behaved differently according to whether a parameter is passed empty or omitted altogether.
Hesperian 23:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
name
parameter one of these that behaves as such? If that won't pose a problem (and assuming no others surface in this discussion), I'll support this wise move.
Bob the Wikipedian (
talk •
contribs)
03:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)|colour=
but hadn't thought of |name=
. Thanks for all your thoughtful input – good that we've been able to catch this at the sandbox stage.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
03:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)|color=
was the only parameter that didn't work when
Template:Automatic taxobox calls
Template:Taxobox, and that's now fixed, so there shouldn't be any problems. I've modified core a little so as to resolve ambiguous names in the calling template; but it should be ready to launch.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Can anyone please check why the taxobox is completely broken for the page Opisthokont? MichaK ( talk) 15:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I've also noticed unnecessary white space in many taxon articles, at the top of the page. This seems to only occur where there is another template preceding the taxobox. I guess this is related to the recent automatic taxbox-related changes? mgiganteus1 ( talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are you putting the color parameter in taxoboxes at all? A bit of a step backward, to be automating and unautomating at the same time.... --
Kleopatra (
talk)
05:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it my imagination, or are the type_genus and type_genus_authority parameters not showing up in the taxoboxes of family articles? See, for example, Mycenaceae. Sasata ( talk) 19:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't get a collapsible box to show up with the "footer" parameter anymore. See Polyporus squamosus. Sasata ( talk) 02:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In response to recent vandalism, I've permanently protected a number of the templates this references per WP:HRT. I'm sure I've missed several. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Could we get these ranks supported again? They seem to have gone missing when the Taxobox/core was updated.
trinomial2, trinomial3, trinomial4 also appear to have disappeared, but were they ever used? I can't imagine any use for those. Once the above are added back, I will make sure to add them to the documentation. Rkitko ( talk) 23:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Can this badboy be modified to support ichnotaxa, ootaxa, and the like? Abyssal ( talk) 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ichnostem Ichnosuperclass Ichnoclass Ichnosubclass Ichnoinfraclass Ichnodivision Ichnosubdivision Ichnoinfradivision Ichnomagnorder Ichnosuperorder Ichnograndorder Ichnomicrorder Ichnoorder Ichnosuborder Ichnoinfraorder Ichnoparvorder Ichnosuborder Ichnoinfraorder Ichnoparvorder Ichnosuperfamily Ichnofamily Ichnosubfamily Ichnogenus Ichnosubgenus Ichnospecies Ichnosubspecies
Note in particular the suborder within the parvorder.
I also ended up with the ichnostem-group, ranked somewhere above above the ichnoinfraclass, as well as ichnolegion>ichnosublegion>ichnosupercohort>ichnocohort, all ranked somewhere above ichnomagnorder. Hope this helps.
I don't know of any oology references, just happened to remember this ichnology one from earlier browsing sessions. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Can these templates be categorized so I can correct the algae ones? Again, I found automatic taxoboxes with taxonomies that differ from existing wikipedia taxonomies. But there are hundreds of uncategorized pages altogether, [1] and the algae are getting random taxonomies.
I don't think there are many algae editors on wikipedia. If someone is trying to sort out the algae, but other editors are adding mayhem, it makes attempting the task worthless.
I would like to spend time editing articles, not correcting templates which are impossible to find, much less edit.
How do I locate all of the algae automatic taxoboxes, or find any category of automatic taxoboxes? I will also be sorting out the "protists" and bacteria. I am not going to do work that is being undone faster than I can do it, so I would like to find these automatic taxobox templates so I can stay on top of them. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 06:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ Taxonomy/Excavata}}, {{ Taxonomy/Eozoa}}, {{ Taxonomy/Loukozoa}}, {{ Taxonomy/Malawimonadea}}, {{ Taxonomy/Malawimonadida}}, {{ Taxonomy/Malawimonadidae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Malawimonas}}, {{ Taxonomy/Chromalveolata}}, {{ Taxonomy/Alveolata}}, {{ Taxonomy/Heterokontophyta}}, {{ Taxonomy/Actinochrysophyceae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Actinophryida}}, {{ Taxonomy/Labyrinthulomycetes}}, {{ Taxonomy/Oomycota}}, {{ Taxonomy/Sagenista}}, {{ Taxonomy/Hacrobia}}, {{ Taxonomy/Cryptophyta}}, {{ Taxonomy/Haptophyta}}, {{ Taxonomy/Pavlovophyceae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Pavlovophycidae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Pavlovales}}, {{ Taxonomy/Pavlovaceae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Diacronema}}, {{ Taxonomy/Diacronema vlkianum}}, {{ Taxonomy/Rhizaria}}, {{ Taxonomy/Retaria}}, {{ Taxonomy/Radiolaria}}, {{ Taxonomy/Polycystinea}}, {{ Taxonomy/Sticholonchea}}, {{ Taxonomy/Taxopodida}}, {{ Taxonomy/Sticholonche}}, {{ Taxonomy/Sticholonche zanclea}}, {{ Taxonomy/Cercozoa}}, {{ Taxonomy/Desmothoracida}}, {{ Taxonomy/Clathrulinidae}}, {{ Taxonomy/Heliomonadida}}, {{ Taxonomy/Gymnosphaerida}}. I am NOT going to do that again...that took a good half hour to come up with that list manually via the steps Martin suggested. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The automatic taxobox for the Trochodendrales, in addition to using the unsupported " Eudocots" instead of " Eudicots" and removing this major clade, replaces it with this:
clade: Angiosperms
Order: Trochodendrales
Family: Trochodendraceae
Genus: Trochodendron
Note that "Trochodendrales" is a redirect to "Trochodendraceae." -- Kleopatra ( talk) 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if a fix for this has already been addressed but this page is getting long... Anyway, having a problem when adding an unranked taxon in between the family level taxa. It's eliminating the taxobox colors. Example, Velociraptor with Eudromaeosauria. MMartyniuk ( talk) 06:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
taxon=
and then use authority=
for the genus and parent_authority=
for the family authority. Hope that helps.
Rkitko (
talk)
13:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm playing around with the auto taxobox for dinosaur articles, and had a question. Are we meant to create individual templates for every taxon down to the genus level? I thought the benefit of the automated box was having one central taxonomy that individual pages could pull info from. Right now it seems like we're just moving the taxobox off to its own page. I can see where this still makes things more consistent, but in the future, is it possible to create some kind of single central taxonomy on one page? For example, I had to create a new template for the clade Euhadrosauria, and change the parent of Lambeosaurinae to shuffle it into the system. Simply editing some kind of list, rather than making new pages and changing others, would be heaps easier. Not sure how feasible that would be. MMartyniuk ( talk) 06:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I am working on the list of validly described Eimeria. This genus of protozoa is unfortuately one of the largest in biology with an estimated 1700 species. I have used the taxobox for genera with about 250 species bfore ( Plasmodium) but I am concerned that Eimeria might make this unworkable. Perhaps a multi column format for species might be a useful addition? DrMicro ( talk) 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The color doesn't show in transclusions of the automatic taxobox template; it does in transclusions of this template. Is it intended that the color bars be phased out, is this an error, or what? I can't find anything that would clarify this in the discussions of the automatic taxobox template. — innotata 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Side question--what does the "always display" field do? I set some important parent taxa like Theropoda to always display, but it still doesn't show on most genus level articles. MMartyniuk ( talk) 01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
For technical reasons, because Template:Automatic taxobox uses this template to produce its output, it is better to move the current template to Template:Taxobox/core.
A direct move of the page, leaving a redirect at Template:Taxobox, will mean that current taxoboxes still work, but may be confusing for editors (who may try to use "Taxobox/core" in articles in place of "taxobox".
An alternative solution is for Template:Taxobox to pass the specified parameters to Template:Taxobox/core in a similar fashion to Template:Citation / Template:Citation/core.
I'm assuming that the second option is preferable and will enact this imminently unless I've overlooked any problems.
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 23:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Martin that during this transitional stage we have two distinct front ends to the same template rendering core, and that moving the core to
Template:Taxobox/core, and decoupling the two front ends from it, is the right thing to do.
I also agree that the manual front end should pass parameters rather than be a straight redirect. Again, I like the decoupling.
One question, though: taxoboxes that were formerly instantiated with parameters omitted will now be instantiated with all parameters present but many of them blank. Can you guarantee that this will not affect behaviour? I've seen many templates that behaved differently according to whether a parameter is passed empty or omitted altogether.
Hesperian 23:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
name
parameter one of these that behaves as such? If that won't pose a problem (and assuming no others surface in this discussion), I'll support this wise move.
Bob the Wikipedian (
talk •
contribs)
03:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)|colour=
but hadn't thought of |name=
. Thanks for all your thoughtful input – good that we've been able to catch this at the sandbox stage.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
03:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)|color=
was the only parameter that didn't work when
Template:Automatic taxobox calls
Template:Taxobox, and that's now fixed, so there shouldn't be any problems. I've modified core a little so as to resolve ambiguous names in the calling template; but it should be ready to launch.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk)
15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Can anyone please check why the taxobox is completely broken for the page Opisthokont? MichaK ( talk) 15:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I've also noticed unnecessary white space in many taxon articles, at the top of the page. This seems to only occur where there is another template preceding the taxobox. I guess this is related to the recent automatic taxbox-related changes? mgiganteus1 ( talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are you putting the color parameter in taxoboxes at all? A bit of a step backward, to be automating and unautomating at the same time.... --
Kleopatra (
talk)
05:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it my imagination, or are the type_genus and type_genus_authority parameters not showing up in the taxoboxes of family articles? See, for example, Mycenaceae. Sasata ( talk) 19:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't get a collapsible box to show up with the "footer" parameter anymore. See Polyporus squamosus. Sasata ( talk) 02:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In response to recent vandalism, I've permanently protected a number of the templates this references per WP:HRT. I'm sure I've missed several. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Could we get these ranks supported again? They seem to have gone missing when the Taxobox/core was updated.
trinomial2, trinomial3, trinomial4 also appear to have disappeared, but were they ever used? I can't imagine any use for those. Once the above are added back, I will make sure to add them to the documentation. Rkitko ( talk) 23:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Can this badboy be modified to support ichnotaxa, ootaxa, and the like? Abyssal ( talk) 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ichnostem Ichnosuperclass Ichnoclass Ichnosubclass Ichnoinfraclass Ichnodivision Ichnosubdivision Ichnoinfradivision Ichnomagnorder Ichnosuperorder Ichnograndorder Ichnomicrorder Ichnoorder Ichnosuborder Ichnoinfraorder Ichnoparvorder Ichnosuborder Ichnoinfraorder Ichnoparvorder Ichnosuperfamily Ichnofamily Ichnosubfamily Ichnogenus Ichnosubgenus Ichnospecies Ichnosubspecies
Note in particular the suborder within the parvorder.
I also ended up with the ichnostem-group, ranked somewhere above above the ichnoinfraclass, as well as ichnolegion>ichnosublegion>ichnosupercohort>ichnocohort, all ranked somewhere above ichnomagnorder. Hope this helps.
I don't know of any oology references, just happened to remember this ichnology one from earlier browsing sessions. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)