![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
I've started a discussion on standardizing how unranked clades are listed by the automatic taxobox here: Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 8#clade vs. unranked - how to list unranked clades. Any input would be appreciated. If the outcome is to standardize on "clade" rather than "(unranked)", I imagine we may want to discuss changing this template as well to match. Kaldari ( talk) 22:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It should be:
[[es:Plantilla:Ficha de taxón]]
-- Canyq ( talk) 01:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
This one's new to me. User:Ptelea contacted me to ask about File:Ulmus uyematsui leaf with 1 Euro coin.jpg being displayed sideways in the taxobox on the Ulmus uyematsui article. I tried a dummy edit, nothing looks wrong with the taxobox code on that article, and there haven't been any recent edits to this template (or /core) that would explain the undesirable image rotation. Any ideas? Rkitko ( talk) 14:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I note this template currently has cascading protection set. I'm not sure what was intended by doing so, but it is probably not doing what you actually intend and is therefore worse than useless. In particular, the cascading protection results in Template:Taxobox/doc being editable only by admins, which is contrary to the intent of a template documentation subpage. The only interesting subtemplates that are covered by the cascading protection and not themselves already protected are Template:Next period and Template:Period color (I consider Template:MoS-guideline, Template:Taxobox colour scheme, Template:Style-guideline, and Template:UF-species uninteresting for this purpose as they are not transcluded onto articles), and these are only accidentally protected as they are used in examples in the documentation. See also further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#/doc subpages of cascade-protected templates.
Unless someone can give a good reason for this template to continue to have cascading protection, I intend to remove the cascading protection (and fully-protect Template:Next period and Template:Period color to maintain the status quo) soonish. This template would, of course, retain its normal full protection and move protection. Anomie ⚔ 14:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Requiring an unused value for the incomplete param doesn't make much sense. It's existence, whether empty or not, is the trigger for it's activation. bondolo ( talk) 03:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{incomplete|}}}|{{incomplete taxon list}}}}
{{Speciesbox | taxon= | image= | image_caption= |authority= }}
|image_caption=
doesn't mean "insert a blank caption" but that no caption is present at all. So personally I would prefer to maintain the same logic for |incomplete=
, i.e. that no value is the same as omission. (Although I understand that it's odd that |incomplete=no
means the same as |incomplete=yes
.)
Peter coxhead (
talk)
12:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
|parametername=<!-- Note. -->
HTML comments where an explanation can be given for editors, e.g. why a parameter is blank and must remain blank, and that its emptiness isn't accidental. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs.
23:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Can some check why does the image File:Grypania spiralis.JPG not show up in the taxobox of Grypania. Is there a problem or it's something that has to do with my settings? -- Geilamir ( talk) 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
|image_width=
parameter meant that the image was displayed. It should not generally be necessary to specify the image widths, either in the taxobox or elsewhere, so that should be an acceptable solution. Quite why |image_width=
stops the image from showing, I couldn't say. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
07:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It suprises me that a range of basal metabolism rate is not considered as part of this template. Not the exact amount, but a range, much like the range of when the species originated (recent - long ago). For example, canidae "have more energy" per pound of weight than felidae; flying creatures more than slugs; that sort of thing. Also, require more energy. Student7 ( talk) 20:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Please add a rank parameter to this template. That will make it easier for bots to figure out the rank of any taxon by reading the taxobox. For example, rank = Family, rank = Species, rank = Genera etc. — Ganeshk ( talk) 00:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|binomial=
, it's a species; otherwise use the lowest rank for which the name is bolded).
Ucucha (
talk)
03:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|trinomial=
that would take precedence over |binomial=
in determining the rank. In theory, a bot should be able to figure it out based on the trinomial, binomial, or lowest-positioned rank that represents an actual taxon rank, in that order. That said, I think it should be far easier to program a bot to recognize this pattern than it would be to program a bot to update all the taxoboxes to add the requested rank parameter.
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs)
05:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
rank
. For every other instance, looking at which taxon is marked in boldface (generally the last one) gives you all the information you need. Adding a rank
parameter is entirely pointless. I should also point (to balance Erik's comments) out that automatic taxoboxes are not a panacea; they create a number of significant problems, and there are other ways of achieving the benefits that they do bring. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
08:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
rank=species
" is entirely false. Moreover, the subject of the taxobox is simulataneously the species, genus, family and order, whereas your proposed parameter could only contain one rank, and would therefore inevitably misrepresent the page. I think this just underlines how flawed the proposed assignment scheme for importance is; would Amphionides be low-importance because it's a species, mid-importance because it's a genus, or high-importance because it's a family? It's all three, but it can only have one importance. It would be better if your project assigned importance ratings based on the importance of the topic, not the rank of the taxon. Sure, rank could be part of that assignment, but only part. An obscure family is much less important than a major commercial species or a model organism. Taxonomic rank simply doesn't provide enough information to assess importance by. If you want to automate it, have a robot set them all to low-importance, and then manually change the small number that are considered more important. This template doesn't need an extra parameter for any of its functions, so let's not add any unnecessary complications. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
13:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Isn't the point of a bot supposed to be to make someone's life simpler by doing something difficult for them? Seriously...if you really think you need this bot, we've told you what steps need taken already without adding the new parameter, and that's a flawless method that will work on any article with {{ taxobox}}, {{ automatic taxobox}}, {{ speciesbox}}, and {{ subspeciesbox}}, and can easily be improved to include the rest of the taxobox family as well with no errors. I think someone's a bit daunted by the work that would go into parsing, and there's no reason to be. Parsing for multiple attributes in the post-processed text really isn't that difficult. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the consensus here is adding the Rank parameter is not a good idea. Please consider this request withdrawn. Thanks for all the input. — Ganeshk ( talk) 23:43, 1 February 2012 (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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
I've started a discussion on standardizing how unranked clades are listed by the automatic taxobox here: Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 8#clade vs. unranked - how to list unranked clades. Any input would be appreciated. If the outcome is to standardize on "clade" rather than "(unranked)", I imagine we may want to discuss changing this template as well to match. Kaldari ( talk) 22:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It should be:
[[es:Plantilla:Ficha de taxón]]
-- Canyq ( talk) 01:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
This one's new to me. User:Ptelea contacted me to ask about File:Ulmus uyematsui leaf with 1 Euro coin.jpg being displayed sideways in the taxobox on the Ulmus uyematsui article. I tried a dummy edit, nothing looks wrong with the taxobox code on that article, and there haven't been any recent edits to this template (or /core) that would explain the undesirable image rotation. Any ideas? Rkitko ( talk) 14:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I note this template currently has cascading protection set. I'm not sure what was intended by doing so, but it is probably not doing what you actually intend and is therefore worse than useless. In particular, the cascading protection results in Template:Taxobox/doc being editable only by admins, which is contrary to the intent of a template documentation subpage. The only interesting subtemplates that are covered by the cascading protection and not themselves already protected are Template:Next period and Template:Period color (I consider Template:MoS-guideline, Template:Taxobox colour scheme, Template:Style-guideline, and Template:UF-species uninteresting for this purpose as they are not transcluded onto articles), and these are only accidentally protected as they are used in examples in the documentation. See also further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#/doc subpages of cascade-protected templates.
Unless someone can give a good reason for this template to continue to have cascading protection, I intend to remove the cascading protection (and fully-protect Template:Next period and Template:Period color to maintain the status quo) soonish. This template would, of course, retain its normal full protection and move protection. Anomie ⚔ 14:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Requiring an unused value for the incomplete param doesn't make much sense. It's existence, whether empty or not, is the trigger for it's activation. bondolo ( talk) 03:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{incomplete|}}}|{{incomplete taxon list}}}}
{{Speciesbox | taxon= | image= | image_caption= |authority= }}
|image_caption=
doesn't mean "insert a blank caption" but that no caption is present at all. So personally I would prefer to maintain the same logic for |incomplete=
, i.e. that no value is the same as omission. (Although I understand that it's odd that |incomplete=no
means the same as |incomplete=yes
.)
Peter coxhead (
talk)
12:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
|parametername=<!-- Note. -->
HTML comments where an explanation can be given for editors, e.g. why a parameter is blank and must remain blank, and that its emptiness isn't accidental. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs.
23:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Can some check why does the image File:Grypania spiralis.JPG not show up in the taxobox of Grypania. Is there a problem or it's something that has to do with my settings? -- Geilamir ( talk) 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
|image_width=
parameter meant that the image was displayed. It should not generally be necessary to specify the image widths, either in the taxobox or elsewhere, so that should be an acceptable solution. Quite why |image_width=
stops the image from showing, I couldn't say. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
07:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It suprises me that a range of basal metabolism rate is not considered as part of this template. Not the exact amount, but a range, much like the range of when the species originated (recent - long ago). For example, canidae "have more energy" per pound of weight than felidae; flying creatures more than slugs; that sort of thing. Also, require more energy. Student7 ( talk) 20:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Please add a rank parameter to this template. That will make it easier for bots to figure out the rank of any taxon by reading the taxobox. For example, rank = Family, rank = Species, rank = Genera etc. — Ganeshk ( talk) 00:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|binomial=
, it's a species; otherwise use the lowest rank for which the name is bolded).
Ucucha (
talk)
03:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|trinomial=
that would take precedence over |binomial=
in determining the rank. In theory, a bot should be able to figure it out based on the trinomial, binomial, or lowest-positioned rank that represents an actual taxon rank, in that order. That said, I think it should be far easier to program a bot to recognize this pattern than it would be to program a bot to update all the taxoboxes to add the requested rank parameter.
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs)
05:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
rank
. For every other instance, looking at which taxon is marked in boldface (generally the last one) gives you all the information you need. Adding a rank
parameter is entirely pointless. I should also point (to balance Erik's comments) out that automatic taxoboxes are not a panacea; they create a number of significant problems, and there are other ways of achieving the benefits that they do bring. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
08:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
rank=species
" is entirely false. Moreover, the subject of the taxobox is simulataneously the species, genus, family and order, whereas your proposed parameter could only contain one rank, and would therefore inevitably misrepresent the page. I think this just underlines how flawed the proposed assignment scheme for importance is; would Amphionides be low-importance because it's a species, mid-importance because it's a genus, or high-importance because it's a family? It's all three, but it can only have one importance. It would be better if your project assigned importance ratings based on the importance of the topic, not the rank of the taxon. Sure, rank could be part of that assignment, but only part. An obscure family is much less important than a major commercial species or a model organism. Taxonomic rank simply doesn't provide enough information to assess importance by. If you want to automate it, have a robot set them all to low-importance, and then manually change the small number that are considered more important. This template doesn't need an extra parameter for any of its functions, so let's not add any unnecessary complications. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
13:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Isn't the point of a bot supposed to be to make someone's life simpler by doing something difficult for them? Seriously...if you really think you need this bot, we've told you what steps need taken already without adding the new parameter, and that's a flawless method that will work on any article with {{ taxobox}}, {{ automatic taxobox}}, {{ speciesbox}}, and {{ subspeciesbox}}, and can easily be improved to include the rest of the taxobox family as well with no errors. I think someone's a bit daunted by the work that would go into parsing, and there's no reason to be. Parsing for multiple attributes in the post-processed text really isn't that difficult. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the consensus here is adding the Rank parameter is not a good idea. Please consider this request withdrawn. Thanks for all the input. — Ganeshk ( talk) 23:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)