Six genes from 76 Carnivora species [1] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
46 genes from 75 musteloids [2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
51 mitogenomes from 220 mammals [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Love your work, Jts1882 - /info/en/?search=User:Jts1882/phylogeny/Caniformia Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate VI).png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 16:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate XXVII).png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 09:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miacis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hooker and John Clark. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scrotifera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Placentia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Jts1882: you seem to be the wizard of the speciesbox and subspeciesbox. In these boxes, would you change colocolo to colocola, please, so that there is consistency with the Latin names in the respective texts. Thanks. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 09:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Hyperailurictis, Jts1882!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
The [P[WP:BURDEN]] is on the creator to add sources; please do not create articles without references.
To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Boleyn ( talk) 11:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
My apologies. I have no idea why I undid your edit on the Small Indian Civet. Absolutely dreadful miss in so many ways. Jameel the Saluki ( talk) 11:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that we were fooled by the language used in that document about reclassifying subspecies of lions, besides tigers, See the Surprise and my latest reply in talk page for the lion. Leo1pard ( talk) 04:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882- I went ahead and cleaned up the Diet section of Arabian Wolf. Better? I also added a part about the weird fused paw pads which is apparently true. Thanks for your input- Jeff T. Makumbe ( talk) 02:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
So I'm using
this example to find |status=VU
, but I cannot find an appropriate API example which gives me |status_system=IUCN3.1
. I could use the API to get the URL for a genus+species, then parse that to obtain |status_system=
, but I'd rather not (because its both clumsy and unnecessarily increases server load). Do you know how to get both of these parameters using only the API? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 15:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
|status_system=
. They still provide the criteria version, and I don't want to deviate too much from the template-norm when doing a large update. I'll obtain and update the |status_system=3.1
-type values until a change to the {{
taxobox}}
and {{
speciesbox}}
documentations are made. However, if a WP page uses |status_system=yyyy
or |status_system=IUCNyyyy
, I will update it with the year assessed instead.{{
taxobox}}
says that a |status_system=IUCN3.1
-type value is required. {{
Speciesbox}}
gives no such direction, nor examples. And I see your point, that |status_system=3.1
is redundant if publication year >= 2001. That is part of the reason I got involved with the {{
IUCN}}
template-family, and this effort—I noticed many inconsistencies. I'm not a member of the project, nor do I have the expertise to direct large changes; but, I can help enact them.|status_system=IUCN3.1
-type system to a |<new parameter name?>=yyyy
or yyyy.#
-type system, at least 3 things have to happen (based on my understanding; possibly more).
{{
taxobox}}
es and {{
speciesbox}}
es have to be verified that the assessment made is >= 2001.IUCN3.1
-type parameter, the template documentations can be updated, and then transcluded pages be updated to the new (template) system.References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
I was just passing by this article and noticed 2 African jackals sitting out by themselves unencumbered by any relationship to the Canidae#Phylogenetic relationships. There are some others as well. A good job for someone with the skill-set! William Harris • (talk) • 05:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Jts1882. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Sigh... Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
BigSugarDaddy 12:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
Thanks for updating the link at Central African lion. I'm curious if you think "Odzala National Park" should be updated to "Odzala-Kokoua National Park" at Template:National Parks of the Republic of the Congo, since the Wikipedia article has been moved. I submitted a request on the talk page, but another editor seems to think the article needs further updating before the template should be changed. I'll be suggesting updates for the article soon, but wanted to get a discussion going about updating the template in the meantime. Thanks again, Inkian Jason ( talk) 17:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
You don't seem to have received this notice:
I don't quite understand what is proposed; I'm not sure if the proposer understands how the template works. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Example with cladogram:
Example |
Sample of Template:Cladogram |
Example using clade:
Neornithes |
| ||||||||||||
Sample of Template:Cladogram |
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
I am not sure Vital articles is list for articles ]TODO(See here: [1] - nominationg of paper-and pencil game - this article just has been not added due to fact that article is not good, not is it already). I also nominated Cristiano Ronaldo to 14 vital players. It seems to me Cristiano Ronaldo and Ronaldo should be listed. Although Ronaldo's career was not stable such like Cristiano (due to injury and overweight) he is the youngest winner of Golden Ball and he had also much more success in national team than Cristiano had. Cheers. Dawid2009 ( talk) 07:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to do
this (and |vauthors=
really does need to die), please do it all the way, with |last1=...|first1..., etc. Doing something like |last1=Doe, John X is actually invalid; its falisfying the citation metadata, saying someone's surname is "Doe, John X" and that they have no given name. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for producing the useful looking map module. I'm trying to fix wikilinks to disambiguation page Stamford Bridge. I think Chelsea's entry in Module:Football map/data for p.stadia should read something like
{ "Stamford Bridge (stadium)", 51.481667, -0.191111, "Stamford Bridge", "[[Chelsea F.C.]]", "File:Stamford Bridge Clear Skies.JPG" },
and for p.clubs
{ "Chelsea F.C.", "Stamford Bridge (stadium)", -1, -1 },
but when I try either or both changes and preview the demos, the stadium marker just disappears. Please can you make the appropriate fix? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 12:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Certes: You are correct about the entry in Module:Football map/data. The problem was my fault. One, the demos didn't list the correct wikipedia page for Stamford Bridge and, two, even if they had, I hadn't implemented the alias in the code. Unfortunately, the London stadia were my chosen examples and the mistake carried through to three of the demos. I put the module together in a rush as a prototype and haven't revisited it, which I will try and do soon. I also need to write some documentation. The expected behaviour is as follows:
|stadiumN=
set to the page name of the Wikipedia article (e.g.
Stamford Bridge (stadium)).I have added the alias to the module and updated the demos. At least Stamford Bridge should appear now. Please let me know of any other errors and feel free to make suggestions (e.g. what other information should be included in the popup). Thank-you for taking the time to delve into the problem. Jts1882 | talk 14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Keeping up with the changes in spider taxonomy at present is a full time occupation! Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882. Since you put so much effort into designing the template subspeciesbox, I would appreciate your comment re this question: do you think it is justified to keep this template in wiki pages on populations that are no longer considered distinct subspecies? Like Visayan leopard cat, West African lion, Asiatic lion, Bengal tiger, Siberian tiger, South China tiger, Bali tiger and a few more on tiger populations. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 17:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jackal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lycaon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Lion/sandbox, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk ( talk) 11:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Jts1882. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Jts1882. I'm planning on to do the template for the rankings for ice hockey I created, but I'm having problems with the sandbox template. I'm confused! AaronWikia ( talk) 05:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Rank | Change | Team | Points |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Canada | 3990 | |
2 | 1 | Sweden | 3945 |
3 | 1 | Russia | 3930 |
4 | 2 | United States | 3765 |
5 | 1 | Finland | 3765 |
data.rankings = { .. }
is in a comment in the file.References
Hello, I would be happy to talk to you. Would it be possible to talk to you via Facebook or at least via email, please? If not, no problem I respect your privacy. Thank you for your cooperation, -- Snek01 ( talk) 16:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you biologist? Do you have a degree in biology? Are you good in editing templates? Why are you interested in gastropods? Are you just learning new things on Wikipedia or do you have any special interest in gastropods? Did you write or edit some gastropods articles already? Have you read User:Snek01/Guideline for WikiProject Gastropods? Are you interested in writing Did you know... articles? Those are few of many questions which could be useful for fruitful cooperation. They are usually better for normal discussion with questions followed by answers. And last but not least it would be better for me to understand you easier in chat. I have already planned a task for you, but I do not know if it will suits you. So? -- Snek01 ( talk) 00:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, as I noted at Template talk:Virusbox, there are currently major changes needed to make Virusbox work properly. Thinking about it overnight, there seem to be two lines of attack:
On the whole, I favour (1) as the simplest to use. Also under (2), there would be few uses of Virusbox. I'm interested to know your thoughts. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk moved to Module talk:SportsRankings#Updating data
Thanks for your additional examples. "Paeonia (Paeonia) daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii" is an interesting case. The logic at Module:TaxonItalics|italicizeTaxonName assumes that connecting terms occur in particular places in the string to be italicized. It could look for connecting terms anywhere, but it seemed safer to be restrictive. Also this ensures that only names in the correct format are handled; I didn't want to italicize "Paeonia subsp. mlokosewitschii" as "Paeonia subsp. mlokosewitschii" (it comes out as Paeonia subsp. mlokosewitschii, which is hopefully a hint that something is wrong). I guess that connecting terms used in botanical names could never be used as genus names or specific epithets, so maybe not being so restrictive would be safe. On the other hand, a botanical name with a subgenus and infraspecific epithet is pretty uncommon. Um... What do you think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Talk moved to Module talk:SportsRankings#Is the SportsRankings module it ready?
Talk moved to Module talk:Goalscorers#Module idea.
That was suppose to say Southern League is their first league trophy... Govvy ( talk) 09:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've been tidying up Module:Autotaxobox, and fixing the documentation, both at the module and at WP:Automated taxobox system/map. I think I've converted almost all the templates I want to convert to Lua now; those that are concerned with configuration I think are best left as they are, so editors don't need to change the module, and those that are mainly concerned with layout are easier to understand if left as template code.
I've also fixed {{ Infraspeciesbox}} for the authority display. It should, in my view, never be needed, since displaying authorities above the target taxon is intended to be used only for the sole taxon in a monotypic taxon, and by definition, there aren't such taxa at an infraspecific rank. Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
|display-parents=
yet. I'll have limited internet access for a few days. I think the next simplification is to study what parameters are actually used or needed in the automated taxoboxes and then simplify.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)As per my comment above ("the next simplification is to study what parameters are actually used or needed in the automated taxoboxes"), I was thinking ahead to the next steps. Looking again at Module:Biota Infobox (which, by the way, should be called "Biota infobox", I think, to match the usual WP naming convention), there's a lot of complexity caused by the inconsistencies and peculiarities of the different taxobox templates. If these were tidied up, at least some templates could be merged: {{ Automatic taxobox}} and {{ Speciesbox}} should be able to get enough information from the taxon name to deal with the rank difference; {{ Virusbox}} shouldn't need to be separate either.
So my feeling is that we should continue to work on tidying up the taxobox templates, and only afterwards replace {{ Taxobox/core}} by Module:Biota Infobox, which would then be much cleaner and easier to maintain. What do you think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
#invoke:Biota infobox/core|main}}
instead of {{
taxobox/core}} from the automatic taxobox templates or to use the template core from my functions that emulate the different automatic taxobox templates. I felt this would enable testing different parts better.|dummy=
), manual taxobox parameters (e.g.|ordo=
) or orphaned parameters (e.g. |image2_caption=
without |image2=
).
Jts1882 |
talk 14:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
{{db-empty}}
. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 18:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)|image_size=
in Speciesboxes); not sure if valueless parameters would get caught in your checks. The check for orphaned parameters should include those dependent on |status=
/|status2=
: e.g., |status_system=
, |status_ref=
(and maybe also |type_species_authority=
/|type_genus_authority=
?).
|extinct=
). I can add a category for this or include it in a general one.|range map=
, and every month a few spaced parameters show up in automatic taxoboxes that were just converted from manual).
|trend=
doesn't do anything and is only used in a handful of manual taxoboxes; eliminate it. |image_caption_align=
isn't used anywhere; eliminate. It wouldn't take me long at all to switch all instance of |variety=
over to |varietas=
, so I don't think an alias needs to be maintained. |image_width=
could soon be eliminated from the automatic family; it's only present in Speciesboxes with no value, and I've made some progress over the last week removing it from Automatic taxoboxes (I could easily get rid of it entirely in a month).
Plantdrew (
talk) 19:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
|image_width=
from Automatic Taxoboxes; it is still present in some Speciesboxes with no value specified. While I'm sure it will show up some in the future as taxoboxes are converted from manual to auto, I don't think it's something that auto taxoboxes need to support going forward.
Plantdrew (
talk) 19:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)@
Plantdrew: well, a good first step would be to remove all occurrences of image_width
from {{
Taxobox/core}} which all the taxoboxes currently use. Then even if it's still present in a call to {{
Speciesbox}}, it will have no effect. Unless there's something you can see that I've missed, I'll do this.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 20:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
|image_width=
with {{
Taxobox}} and only 205 uses of |image_upright=
. The most common settings are 200px (4163, the default taxobox width), 240px (5618), 250px (5394), and 300px (2039). None use higher than 300px and only around 900 less than 200px. The 638 at 100px might be useful if used for low resolution images. The others make the images slightly larger, but this probably isn't critical for the images in most cases (it might matter if there are collages using image maps). In many cases it might just been a means of making the taxobox wider for better display of taxa with long names and/or authorities (e.g. in the subdivision section).|image_width=
and |image2_width=
from the automatic taxoboxes, it might be time to stop passing the parameters to the core. That should discourage their use.
Jts1882 |
talk 10:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Separately from this, I've made a list of all the taxobox-related templates I'm aware of at User:Peter coxhead/Work/Taxobox templates. I've been caught out too many times by discovering that what seemed a sensible change to a taxobox-related template messed up one I wasn't aware of. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I've only just realized that you don't have template editor status. You can ask yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor or I'll do it for you. With the work you've done on Module:Clade for example, it should be obvious that you understand what you are doing. (And, selfishly, I don't want to be the only editor responsible for maintaining the automated taxobox system, which I almost seem to be at present.) Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) FYI ~ the TE request process assumes you are making a self-request, and requesting someone else would look a bit odd, possibly raising more questions than it's worth. It would be better for those supporting your TE would chime in below it. If you meet all the standard guidelines, that shouldn't be necessary anyway. As far as guideline #6 goes, you might be able to point to communications with Peter to count towards that. Just to be safe, I would formalize your next few requests (if you're lacking). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
To use the current virus taxonomy, Torque teno sus virus needs a taxobox starting:
{{Paraphyletic group | color_as = Virus | image = | image_alt = | image_caption = | unranked_domain = [[Virus]] | phylum = [[incertae sedis]] | classis = [[incertae sedis]] | ordo = [[incertae sedis]] | familia = ''[[Anelloviridae]]''
However, {{
Paraphyletic group}}/
Module:Biota infobox doesn't seem to pass on |color_as=
, and without it, there's nothing to set the taxobox colour because "Virus group" isn't used now according to the consensus at WikiProject Viruses.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 14:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
|color_as=
but not the other aliases. I need to update the module to the sandbox version with all the parameter checking and aliasing, which will simplify the coding. The color options for manual taxobox emulation is incomplete so I need to have another look at that.|auto=
(leave it blank) and it will use the automatic taxonomy system.
Jts1882 |
talk 16:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
|auto=yes
would be better.)
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Since you have participated in the discussion of revising the primary source for primate taxonomy, I wanted to let you know that a new source has been suggested, the mammal diversity database. Right now I think the 2 main contenders are this and ITIS. Please share any thoughts you have on the discussion on the Primate Project Talk Page. Rlendog ( talk) 01:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for three things: first, assuming that my edits are good faith; second, your detailed explanation of why you reverted two of my edits; and third, your civility. Regards, IiKkEe ( talk) 14:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more! I recently had 32 edits reverted with 1 click. The reason given: "not an improvement" (!). IiKkEe ( talk) 15:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
the one on the left is gracile. What do I win if I'm right? I've been meaning to say hello. Still trying to guess at the letters and numbers in your tag, but haven't yet confounded you another user. I agree, btw, about recognising the value in things like Adl et al, in that they are immediately usable as secondary references to earlier proposals. I'm finding this beautifully demonstrated in a poorly understood group that I am working on, and the way in which workers built on the earlier literature to formulate a slightly clearer understanding over the course of investigations. Blah, blah, anyway, hello! cygnis insignis 15:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
(Also @ Plantdrew:) So far no actual responses to the choice I posed at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Alternatives. It was clear to me from the discussion at WT:TOL that people didn't understand the issue, so I hoped that by giving diagrams and a long text explanation it would be clear, but it seems not. Sigh... (I seem completely unable to communicate what I mean to one editor.)
So I'll respond to your question here. I don't think that skip templates ever work properly to deal with inconsistent ranks or classifications. As far as I know, they were introduced to reduce the depth of the taxonomic hierarchy when processing was coded in the template language, and all kinds of tricks were needed to cope with the depth used for some groups, particularly dinosaurs. (I believe that Smith609, the originator of the system, envisaged the system as mainly using Linnaean ranks, not multitudes of clades.) Once they existed, skip templates were pressed into service to jump over inconsistent ranks. It's hard to know where to put the skip, because unlike my nicely limited examples in the figures I drew, the real hierarchies are deep and branched.
I don't think skip templates should be needed at all now. If no-one makes any useful comments, I will implement my version (4), I think, and then all the skips in the bird/mammal/dinosaur hierarchy can be removed. The remaining issues will be:
|always_display=
? If so, how would it work; how could some clades be displayed for some target taxa and not for others? (Other than by using variant taxonomy templates.)Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
|path=plantae
to indicate that a rank should be shown under certain conditions. How this would be initiated and handle skips needs some thought.
mode
. From then on upwards, every time the system looks for a parent, it first looks for "Template:Taxonomy/parent/mode". If this exists, it follows it, if not it follows "Template:Taxonomy/parent". One advantage of this approach is that it would allow a move away from the 'plain' hierarchy, a return to it, and then another move away. This isn't possible with the system at present: once it rejoins the 'plain' path, it is stuck there.frame:expandTemplate()
, and pcall(frame.expandTemplate, ...)
. pcall()
prevents an error termination and returns a value to show whether an error has occurred, making it easier to tell whether a template exists. I had the impression from somewhere that pcall(frame.expandTemplate, ...)
was expensive, but I must have mis-remembered, because it's not in the manual and when I look at the page source for
Module talk:Autotaxobox/testcases, the expensive parser function count is 1/500. So this means that the idea of selecting a path based on some kind of mode
or path
variable is a possible approach.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 19:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)|always_display=
would be useful. The suggestion I made yesterday was effectively for a |always_display=sometimes
depending on the number of taxa already displayed below the taxon in question. For instance superclass Tetrapod could be displayed if 3 or less taxa were displayed. Thus it would display for bird (class Aves, clade Ornithurae; 2 taxa displayed) or Neoaves (clade Neoaves, infraclass Neognathae, class Aves; N=3) but not for lower bird taxa. The problem is determining rules that apply generally and not just with bird, which is one reason I asked for more examples of skip templates in action. I'll give some more thought to this and the path idea and see if I can come up with something more coherent.
Jts1882 |
talk 07:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
What would be really helpful would be to be able to automatically generate some kind of tree diagram from taxonomy templates, then we could see better where inconsistencies might arise and need fixing. It's tricky because there aren't any downward links in taxonomy templates. There's also the question of how to 'draw' the trees, but as you successfully converted {{ clade}} to Lua, you're the most likely editor I can think of to understand how to do it! Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
|parent=TAXON
to get the children of a taxon, but I don't think this can be done within Lua.
|children=
-like parameter. AWB can use the WP API to find all links to the page and populate (hard-code) a |children=
parameter. This would make another maintenance step for updating taxonomy changes, of course, and would lose accuracy over time. The upside is that discrepancies would be easier to see in a nice tree plot. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
|parent=VALUE
? This could be a way of traversing the taxonomy. I can see how to use the API to get all templates calling a particular taxonomy template, which is useful for lower taxa (e.g. for
Felinae, but you soon get huge numbers higher up the tree. It would be nice to further refine the search somehow, but I assume the API can't do this as it would involve loading the page text. Thoughts?
Jts1882 |
talk 17:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/...
pages would never be very large. I think you can constrain namespace in a wikisearch string, but I don't use it often enough to remember atm. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 18:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)|children=
to taxonomy templates with the idea that the subdivisions in automated taxoboxes would be displayed automatically. This worked ok when the encoded classifications were all Linnaean, as I believe he envisaged and was the case initially, but gave silly results once there were skips and variants (there were even loops, which caused real difficulties), so the bot was stopped, most taxonomy templates lacked this parameter, those that were there were removed, and I did not implement any of the code that processed the bot's actions when I converted to Lua. This might be a way forward though, solely to use in display.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Step One
The children of a taxon in the taxonomy template system can be found with the search facility, e.g.
find taxonomy templates with Felidae as parent. This search checks for |parent=Felidae
using the search insource:"parent[ ]+=[ ]+Felidae"
in the template namespace.
The same search can be made using the API: API search for children of Felidae.
As the next step I'm going to use the API call to make an external script to generate a tree of children from the template system. I'm wondering if a custom JS script can be used to make a tool that can be used within the wikipedia editor. Jts1882 | talk 07:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Step 2. I have a working php program which can traverse the taxonomy downwards from a parent. It does seem to work properly, showing all the expected taxa, although I can't be certain the regex script isn't missing some taxa out. Jts1882 | talk 12:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Step 3. Create a Javascript version and use it as a custom user script. This has the advantage that it is much faster at accessing the API as it is part of Wikipedia. To install add the following to your user common.js file.
importScript('User:Jts1882/taxonomybrowser.js');
The first implementation adds two tools to the side bar.
The tools are inflexible but this is just to demonstrate functionality. Making it "aware" of the page and automatically starting with the Taxonomy template being viewed is the most obvious addition. Jts1882 | talk 13:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/...
template eventually? Perhaps it can default to the current taxonomy template the script is called from, in the future? (gravy) ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)As you may have seen from my post at
Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Arbitrary break, I thought it would be a good idea to make clear which taxa will be shown in automated taxoboxes based on |always_display=
and being of a principal rank, so their ranks are now emboldened, as per
Template:Taxonomy/Pteranodon for example. While testing this change, I've been surprised at how many minor ranks seem to have |always_display=yes
.
If variant paths are to be used more, then I think that the right-hand table should also show this. One possibility is for the middle column in the table to use the taxonomy template name, linking only to the link text, e.g. at Template:Taxonomy/Spermatophyta/Plantae, the lowest row would have " Spermatophytes/Plantae" or perhaps " Spermatophytes /Plantae" or possibly put the "variant path" in a separate column. Thoughts? Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I tried it with my suggestion of putting the "/variant" right after the link, but I didn't like it. It's wasn't much less wide, since the width is effectively determined by the longest taxon name + the variant name in both cases, but because the taxon names are of very variable lengths, the "/variant" was all over the place, not lining up, so it was more difficult to see a "run" of variant taxa. It's very difficult to show the sandbox version working when looking at a taxonomy template because of the way the "Don't edit this line" templates work, so I'll need to make it live to see what it looks like combined with the left-hand table you get on taxonomy template pages. Since you both think it's useful, I'll go ahead.
res = res .. ':||<span style="white-space:nowrap;">' .. link .. '</span>' .. '||<span style="font-size:smaller;">' .. qualifier .. '</span>' .. '||<span style="white-space:nowrap;">' .. frame:expandTemplate{ title = 'Template:Edit a taxon/sandbox', args = { taxon } } .. '</span>\n|-'
I realized some time ago that there's an issue when the name of the taxonomy template and the link text don't "match" – in particular it messes up italicization. It was deeply embedded in the design of the automated taxobox system from the start that the taxon name used was obtained from the template name. I think that |link=
may have originally been intended to be used only to provide a different link target.
I wanted to see how many such cases existed and what kind they were, so I set up Category:Taxonomy templates with different name and link text, initially with very weak rules as to what constituted "different". They are much stronger now, so most of the templates in the category will disappear with time (or a null edit). If you look at my recent contributions, you'll see that I've got bogged down fixing the surprising number of taxonomy templates where the link text is wrong. (The reason why I haven't responded to your great work on displaying the taxonomic hierarchy in taxonomy templates.) There are several main issues:
|link=TAXON|†TAXON
with |extinct=
left blank. This messes up tracking consistency of extinction status.|link=
just to the disambiguated name, which then shows up in the taxobox, e.g. as "GENUS (plant)".All of these except (3) can cause the taxobox to be wrong, but editors don't seem to have noticed this. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Did you see : someone prepared a DUPLICATE of the Felidae page at List of felines with almost identical text. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 12:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The Template Barnstar | ||
For all your work on the automated taxoboxes, it's appreciated! Nessie ( talk) 16:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC) |
I have removed your display_parents = 6
parameter from
Aiteng ater. In general, this parameter is only to be used when a taxon is identical in scope to an ancestor taxon, in order to guarantee that the lowest non-identical taxon shows. If anything higher needs to show, then it should for all pages which are part of the taxon in question; in this case, please edit that taxon's template and add the line |always_display=yes
.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 11:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
|always_display=yes
should be used sparingly. I generally agree that using |display_parents=6
is brute force and ends up displaying unnecessary taxa. Btw, I don't follow your argument on use of |display_parents=
for taxa "identical in scope to an ancestor taxon".
Jts1882 |
talk 12:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
display_parents=2
. This ensures that a user who views the Dhole article can navigate to the immediate parent of the top taxon which the page "Dhole" represents.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 12:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
Happy template editing! — xaosflux Talk 23:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for helping me out! The problem is that, instead of symbols, I would like the text of the club to be displayed. Also, in Lebanon, many teams at the moment use various stadiums throughout the season (meaning that my aim isn't to represent the stadium itself, rather the location of where the team is based). In short, I would just like something similar to the Beirut map in the league season page with Ahed, Bourj, Shahab Bourj and Shabab Sahel (all teams from the Beirut suburbs) included into a map, along with Nejmeh, Safa and Ansar already included in the Beirut map. These are the coordinates:
If anything is unclear please let me know. Nehme1499 ( talk) 16:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jts. I noticed your work on phylogenies in Wikipedia. Let me know if you'd be interested in submitting a Wikipedia article (or even just the phylogenies) for external, academic peer review.
The WikiJournal of Science (www.wikijsci.org) couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. For existing Wikipedia articles, they are a great way to get additional feedback from external experts. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as having changes integrated back into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards authors with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.
The WP:WikiJournal article nominations page should allow simple submission of existing Wikipedia pages for external review.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Jts1882,
In the function addAutomaticTaxonomyET, I saw the line
local autoTaxonomy = frame:expandTemplate{ title = 'taxobox/taxonomy', args = localArgs }
However, Template:taxobox/taxonomy was deleted. Does that mean the function is currently wrong? Or is it a deadcode? Thanks! -- Nullzero ( talk) 05:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to remove the deadcode, then? In any case, thank you for your answer :) -- Nullzero ( talk) 08:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882! Am not sure whether you have these two on your watchlist? The Explaner changed the cladograms there as well and added extinct species that are not part of the cladograms proposed in the published sources. Maybe we should have a closer look at their changes in other pages. Cheers -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 12:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC) PS: and Mongoose too. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 13:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for coming to my defense at my talk page !! :). The same person has posted the exactly same message at The Explaner's talk page. Apart from a single edit on the Viverridae page, I've not seen their contribution on any of the Felidae, mongoose etc. and related pages. So I suggest to not take their comment too seriously. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 15:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Re
this edit: Sorry, I wasn't aware the parentheses changed the meaning. The reason I changed it is that on mobile it appears as "Chlorophycophyta Papenfuss 1946" with no distinction in size, so it looks as though "Papenfuss 1946" (which is inside a <small>
tag) is part of the name. Obviously anyone with half a brain can see it isn't, but it's nonetheless bad style. The {{
small}} template seems to actually work on mobile, so please use that instead.
Hairy Dude (
talk) 12:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, do you have an example of when this edit makes a difference? It seem to me that it must be a failure of the rest of the "bolding logic" if it does. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
Speciesbox}}
gets the italicizing wrong, but I thought the bolding was ok.|link=Gymnorhadinorhynchus|Gymnorhadinorhynchidae
which are undesirable because (1) editors don't know or forget the need for the link and the link text, and (2) when articles get moved, such as to English names or because taxa become no longer monotypic, it's not obvious that |link=
in the taxonomy template needs to be updated.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)local title = mw.title.new( taxon, 0 ) -- taxon would be family name in yesterdays example if title.isRedirect then -- if a redirect, get the target local target = title.redirectTarget -- target is the genus name if frame:getTitle() == tostring(target) then bold = 'yes' end end
Hi, just wondering, is there any way we can map the different time depths assumed by Starostin in the cladogram? – Austronesier ( talk) 16:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
|label=
or |sublabel=
. I'll make an edit to demostrate.
Jts1882 |
talk 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|label1=
has non-breaking spaces ( ) to increase the length of the B line. But as Jts1882 notes above, because the layout is controlled by the way the browser lays out tables, there are severe limits on what you can achieve, and the C line is automatically lengthened too. If line length really matters, then you'll have to draw a diagram.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Thanks a lot, Jts1882, Peter coxhead for your suggestions! I have experimented a bit, and solved it by moving Austro-Tai down by one taxonomic level in order to separate the levels of bifurcation, plus doing the non-breaking spaces-trick.
Dene‑Daic |
| |||||||||
I'll check first how this will come out in different views (PC, mobile etc.), before taking it to the Austric page. – Austronesier ( talk) 18:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you see Skipp there? [2] Govvy ( talk) 12:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you very much for updating the Taxonbar template with the Ecocrop link. Much appreciated. Darwin Naz ( talk) 23:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. As you may remember. I changed the Bilateria article's phylogeny section such that the Philippe et al. (2019) hypothesis on obsolescence of Deuterostomia has its own little section, and added an emphasis saying that the authors themselves admit that it's too early to come to a consensus on this matter. However, I have discovered that these changes have been propagated on several other articles. These include Deuterostomia, Nephrozoa, the template for Animalia, and the template for Xenacoelomorpha. I have modified all of these such that the language is much more couched to reflect the lack of scientific consensus on the matter, or I reverted them to the previous versions. In all cases I have left my rationale.
However, the trouble is that these changes are spread all over the place, and it seems like I keep finding more of them as time passes. I don't want to play whack-a-mole on this matter. As such, is there some unified place that the Wiki community can get together and come to a consensus on all related changes? Should there be a Request for Comment in some unified place? It seems that it's really just one user who has made all these changes, plus a bunch of IP users. Maybe it would be good to get some fresh opinions on this matter. What do you think? BirdValiant ( talk) 18:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Jts1882,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Chirixalus vittata for deletion in response to your request.
If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can edit the page and remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Xx236 ( talk) 09:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to derail the discussion on the project page further with the details of this case. The Melzer et al. paper is behind a paywall for me, but from reading the abstract, I don't see how The Reptile Database's treatment of Oligosoma robinsonii is consistent with Melzer. Melzer says "Further taxonomic work will be required to determine the taxonomy of other speckled skink genetic lineages in the South Island, particularly O. aff. infrapunctatum “cobble”, O. “Hokitika”....". RD lists "Cobble skink" and "Hokitika skink" as common names for O. robinsonii, but doesn't include the provisional name "O. aff. infrapunctatum “cobble”" in the synonyms section (although the provisional name "Oligosoma aff. infrapunctatum “crenulate”" is listed). I also don't understand why RD has parentheses for (Wells and Wellington, 1985); I don't see any other combinations of robinsonii listed in the synonyms. If cobble skinks are O. robinsonii, the Wikipedia article should use the scientific name for the title since O. robinsonii is also the name for crenulate skinks. Maybe the full text of Melzer makes some of this clearer, but I'm pretty confused by what the Reptile Database has. Plantdrew ( talk) 18:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882, there seems to be a problem with the display of the conservation status for Vulnerable (VU) species in both manual and automatic taxoboxes. Older classifications (IUCN 2.3) appear to work correctly. There has been no recent editing activity to the template:{{ IUCN 3.1 navmap/VU}}. Can you help try and diagnose the problem? 'Cheers, Loopy30 ( talk) 00:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882, I noticed that a data deficient entry ( Oedipina ignea) is now showing the same type of behaviour as described above. IUCN 3.1 data deficient articles are visible to me on Chrome, but not Safari. As you had mentioned above that Sierra de las Minas hidden salamander produced a blank classification status image for you on Firefox, I checked and found that while I cannot see it in Safari, it does display properly in Chrome. This pattern is consistent for other data deficient articles as well. As this problem now appears to cover at least two O/S's (Firefox and Safari), IUCN templates (VU and DD), and users (both of us), I am even more puzzled. Your thoughts? Loopy30 ( talk) 11:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I love the changes! Thank you so much, that's truly awesome! - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 06:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, I changed the wording of the lead to make sense where English got garbled:
"...various genetic analyses have placed Eurypygimorphae in the almost obsolete clade Metaves, with uncertain placement within that group."
Does it make sense now?-- Quisqualis ( talk) 20:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Would you be able to help me out with something? I want to expand upon our Betta articles, but I’m afraid I’m not a biologist. I looked at the Ocean sunfish and I’m impressed by how thorough and readable the articles is - I’d like to improve our articles on betta similarly. However, where I’m getting stuck is on how to describe fish. Is there a systematic way of describing fish species that you know of? I would be very grateful for any advise! - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 04:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Help:Edit summary#Section editing says your own edit summary should be added after the section title. You add it before and this makes it harder to read page histories where everybody else add it after. Will you please follow the convention? PrimeHunter ( talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882,
Thanks for replying to my question on the Automated taxobox system page. I thought it might be easier to post my question here. I was talking about the Practice page – sorry for not clarifying earlier. I'm trying to create a new page on Psychopsiella limminghei, so I pasted in the page being used for D. speciosum. I thought I would first change the speciesbox before editing the content. In essence, I'm trying to create a new taxonomy template for P. limminghei (which is the parameter that is currently not working in the speciesbox). Sorry for confusing you. :)
JadeSpire ( talk) 20:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
— xaosflux Talk 20:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Splachnaceae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tayloria ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jts, were you still interested in completing an interview for the newsletter? If so, I wrote some questions out here. If you're no longer interested, that's fine too! Enwebb ( talk) 16:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
You've earned it.
That being said, I doubt the change will get implemented despite the effort! Felixsv7 ( talk) 14:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC) |
Template:Species table/end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 14:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
hello,
List_of_South_American_countries_by_population is pulling an incorrect number for the population of Brazil. this is messing up the function built into that chart- where it calculates each country's proportion of total population of south america. it looks like you set this chart up initially. please take a look when you get a chance. thanks. skak E L 12:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I thought I might ask you some basic questions here to reduce clutter on the Wikiproject page. I've updated Black-tailed dasyure as a first go. As part of this, I adjusted the genus name, added the old name as a synonym, removed the parent_authority (also removed that from Short-furred dasyure as my understanding is it only applies to monotypic taxa), and checked the IUCN citation was accurate. I have not yet updated Template:Taxonomy/Murexia, perhaps this is better done when a genus article is created? I am unsure what to do with Template:Taxonomy/Murexechinus. I am unfamiliar with the Wikidata and Taxonbar system. The Wikidata needs updating, but I do not know what to fill in for the "stated in" field in the reference data point. I would appreciate it if you let me know if there are any further or different changes I should have made. Thanks, CMD ( talk) 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
You have a much better handle on regex than I do. I'd like to find articles with automatic taxoboxes that have a reference in |subdivision_ranks=
in order to move that ref to |subdivision_ref=
. I figure something that would match e.g. "|subdivision_ranks=Genera<" as well as "| subdivision_ranks = Species <" (spacing varies, but there must be a < preceded by an alphabetic string). Thanks in advance.
Plantdrew (
talk) 02:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
<ref
. This search gets
132 results. I also added a hyphen (adds one) and possibly other punctuation could be added. There is also the possibility of adding references with a template. This search gets
five results, two using {{
sfn}} and two using {{
r}}. I think these will do what you want. —
Jts1882 |
talk 06:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
[ a-zA-Z\-\[\]]*
. That means any characters between the outer square brackets in any combination (space, any lower or uppercase letters, hyphen, square brackets). The * means none or many and \ is the escape character for the square brackets and hyphen. So you just need to add the escaped pipe within the outer square brackets (so this [ a-zA-Z\-\[\]\|]*
). There are
three more results with the pipe.—
Jts1882 |
talk 06:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alcippe (bird), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sylvia.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Giraffomorpha Add Palaeomerycidae and Giraffoidea Bovoidea Add Antilocapridae and Bovidae Cervoidea Add Cervidae and Moschidae Antilocapridae will be transferred from Giraffoidea to Bovoidea Pillow6 ( talk) 15:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Fix these errors for me please You Edit for me Please and just Do it Jts1882 and ignore BlackcurrantTea Please Pillow6 ( talk) 07:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC) What does draft mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillow6 ( talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Calyptorhynchus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zanda.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I have done one update that looks good to me, but others may not like it: Bletchley Park (actually infobox museum} – I just removed the picky details that I assume were needed when the article was created.
The reason for this ping is that I wanted to fix Milton Keynes Coachway. But that uses {{ infobox station}}, which doesn't seem to have this clever mapping facility. I am well aware that bus and rail fans are very touchy about outsiders 'interfering' so I am not optimistic about fixing it. Am I wasting my time? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
{{infobox station/sandbox
and add |mapframe=yes
at the bottom. You can change zoom etc using |mapframe-XXX=
parameters but these give a warning about unknown parameter at the moment. I can add the allowed parameters later if it is agreed to add the feature. It's off by default so shouldn't change any existing maps. In this particular case, I'm not convinced the mapframe map is an improvement on the existing map, but I see no reason not to add the option to the template. —
Jts1882 |
talk 09:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Tottenham Hale Station |
---|
Grammistops, could you contribute to this? Quetzal1964 ( talk) 10:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for being lazy, this can't be that hard, but I'm distracted with something else and you can probably fix this in a few seconds (if necessary). I just noticed that the info about the IUCN concept of endangered species has been removed from that article to here: endangered species (IUCN status). Thought it might be handy if the link in the template went directly to that article. Or actually just revert the change: outside of the USA the word "endangered" is almost always going to mean the IUCN definition... Eh? What's your take?
Turns out the EU also has (very unpublicised) conservation statuses for 6,000 species (basically 'good', 'bad' and 'very bad')... I'm still looking it over. Not sure yet if it merits a status bar, probably not. Cheers, Leo Breman ( talk) 21:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I always find it difficult to decide how far to go in "correcting" what I see to have been less good design decisions built into the automated taxobox system. Overloading parameters and the use of "blank vs. any nonblank" as a test are two features I wouldn't have included in the first place (although I still have enormous admiration for the way in which Smith609 managed to use – even "subvert" – the template coding language to automate taxoboxes).
When I started converting the system to Lua, there really wasn't anyone around to have a useful discussion with. So I'm delighted that you are involved now – and are checking up on me! Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
|status=
and |status_system=
(i.e. parameters {{{2}}} and {{{1}}}). However, I baulked at tackling all the options in the lower half of the template where there is just a |status=
as I wasn't sure about the template code. I need to revisit that at some point and we can remove another convoluted template. —
Jts1882 |
talk 16:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)What do I mean? I wanted to write a page for Fagraea racemosa, except now it is Utania racemosa. The genus list at Gentianaceae is out of date., I tried importing from the list at POWO using some "format linked taxon" and other tools and couldn't get them to work properly. Is there one you recommend? Thanks for your work and your help, hope you and yours are well. Brunswicknic ( talk) 04:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
|mode=genus
and |mode=taxon
which assume a single word genus or taxon name, possibly followed by an authority. Use |mode=genus
for a list of genera to italicise the name and |mode=taxon
for lists of families or other higher taxa without italics. The form to use is{{subst:Format species list|mode=genus| COPY AND PASTED LIST }}
Just a heads up. A recent creation of two redirects instead of taxonomy templates, such as here, caused a large number of taxobox errors, which took me some time to debug. Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the comment. Perhaps it is a good idea to slightly rephrase those sentences to describe Paulinella chromatophores as a distinct kind of plastids? What are your thoughts? Thank you, -- Pinoczet ( talk) 21:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll tell you my jury-rigged method for creating a stub. For the base, I use the numerical ID of PoWO, which theoretically is already in the Wikidata item. The fields are "PoWO_ID", "Wikidata_item", "Generic_name", "Specific_epithet", "Image", "Caption", "Authority(s)", "Distribution", "Synonym(s)", "Subtaxa", "Author_citation", "Common_name(s)", and "Year_described". The PoWO_ID is used to as the base of the the URL, and as the name of the ref so it can also be reused as the ref for the synonyms and subtaxa. The Wikidata item is used in the taxonbar. "Year_described" is used to create the category "Plants described in …". An example of one of my stubs is Carex lepidocarpa. Ideally the template could take the Wikidata item and fill in everything but "Caption", "Distribution", "Synonyms", "Subtaxa", and "Author_citation". "Authority" might be a problem since Wikidata does not use the proper abbreviation. Even more awesome, the template could look at the PoWO listing (if given the PoWO ID, not the binomial, as there are numerous duplicates) and grab the info directly from there. Abductive ( reasoning) 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
I wanted to thank you again for all the work you have done on the SportsRankings and Goalscorer modules. These modules have been extremely useful/efficient and have saved a tremendous amount of time, your contributions to Wikipedia are greatly appreciated! S.A. Julio ( talk) 18:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC) |
Noah 💬 19:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC) |
Thanks for your encouragement. Can I ask a question here? I'm happy to keep working toward a much longer genus list (and damn the torpedoes ... until it blows up, I guess), but even so, there's no world in which it makes sense to delete the four current FLs. It might make sense to add new information to the four current FLs, if that's deemed necessary to distinguish that 4-part list from the new, much longer list, per WP:Summary style. I once reviewed a FL candidate that was a sublist of a longer FL list ... and the longer list had around 35 rows! And reviewers agreed that that was "long enough" to justify a new, shorter FL with more information! The longer genus list we're talking about here might have 14,000 rows, or possibly more. So this talk about not being able to have two separate lists is ... well, I won't say what I think it is. Also, four people helped me create these pages, and each had 3 reviewers, a source reviewer, and a closer at FLC. Wikipedians tend to get a little cranky when you throw their hard work in the garbage for no good reason ... particularly when they were taking time away from their lists to help me with my nomination. So, my question is: is there any suitable name that comes to mind for the 4-page list? Choess doesn't like "Stearn" in the title, and maybe you don't either, and that's fine ... so how do we disambiguate the current lists from a new, longer genus list with sparser information? Or do I need to add more information to the current lists before we can answer that? - Dank ( push to talk) 17:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm picking up here the point you made in response to my post about Gesneriaceae at WT:PLANTS because it's about the workings of the automated taxobox system. At present, ranks are classified as either "major" and always displayed, or "minor" and only displayed if forced, either in the taxonomy template or in the taxobox, including if immediately above the target of the taxobox. There could be a third category, "minimus", to which subtribe would certainly belong, which would only display if forced, even if immediately above the target of the taxobox. It would be relatively easy to implement, although it would, of course, need a wide consensus across biology wikiprojects.
An extension would be to be able to force display of minor parents but not minimus parents, so that:
|display_parents=N
meant display N parents regardless of kind, minor or minimus (major are always displayed anyway)|display_minor_parents=N
meant display N parents, but not minimus onesI suspect this would be harder to gain support for.
Picking up another point you made, I've thought for some time that displaying by default only one minor rank above the target taxon doesn't work when that rank is like "subtribe" or "subsection". Even if rank "R" is a minor rank, if rank "subR" is displayed, "R" should be as well. This would be more fiddly to implement, but I would be willing to try it.
Thoughts? Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
|display_minor_parents=N
probably makes things too complicated, although it might help with some of the gastropod taxoboxes where there are relatively rare ranks that are important.rankOffset = rankValue - math.ceil(rankValue/100)*100;
if rankOffset < 0 and rankOffset > -10 then always display (rankValue - rankOffset);
{{
Anglicise rank}}
on 20 July 2020, but I didn't add it to the rank table for some reason, so its ordering would not have been checked. Now done. I think it's only used in
Template:Taxonomy/Blattoidae.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 08:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
-poidae
if using epifamilies for musteloids and herpestoids. —
Jts1882 |
talk 11:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
|display-parents=
.>>> import pykew.powo as powo >>> from pykew.powo_terms import Filters >>> result=powo.search('Gesneriaceae',filters = [Filters.accepted, Filters.genera]) >>> [r['name'] for r in result if 'name' in r] ['Achimenes', 'Aeschynanthus', 'Agalmyla', 'Allocheilos', 'Alloplectus', 'Allostigma', 'Alsobia', 'Amalophyllon', 'Anetanthus', 'Anna', 'Asteranthera', 'Beccarinda', 'Bellonia', 'Besleria', 'Billolivia', 'Boea', 'Boeica', 'Briggsiopsis', 'Cathayanthe', 'Centrosolenia', 'Championia', 'Chautemsia', 'Chayamaritia', 'Christopheria', 'Chrysothemis', 'Codonanthe', 'Codonanthopsis', 'Codonoboea', 'Columnea', 'Conandron', 'Coptocheile', 'Corallodiscus', 'Coronanthera', 'Corytoplectus', 'Crantzia', 'Cremersia', 'Cremosperma', 'Cremospermopsis', 'Cubitanthus', 'Cyrtandra', 'Damrongia', 'Deinostigma', 'Depanthus', 'Diastema', 'Didissandra', 'Didymocarpus', 'Didymostigma', 'Dorcoceras', 'Drymonia', 'Emarhendia', 'Episcia', 'Epithema', 'Eucodonia', 'Fieldia', 'Gasteranthus', 'Gesneria', 'Glabrella', 'Glossoloma', 'Gloxinella', 'Gloxinia', 'Gloxiniopsis', 'Goyazia', 'Gyrocheilos', 'Gyrogyne', 'Haberlea', 'Hemiboea', 'Henckelia', 'Heppiella', 'Hexatheca', 'Jerdonia', 'Kaisupeea', 'Kohleria', 'Lampadaria', 'Lembocarpus', 'Leptoboea', 'Lesia', 'Liebigia', 'Litostigma', 'Loxocarpus', 'Loxonia', 'Loxostigma', 'Lysionotus', 'Mandirola', 'Metapetrocosmea', 'Microchirita', 'Middletonia', 'Mitraria', 'Monophyllaea', 'Monopyle', 'Moussonia', 'Napeanthus', 'Nautilocalyx', 'Negria', 'Nematanthus', 'Neomortonia', 'Niphaea', 'Nomopyle', 'Orchadocarpa', 'Oreocharis', 'Ornithoboea', 'Pachycaulos', 'Pagothyra', 'Paliavana', 'Paraboea', 'Paradrymonia', 'Parakohleria', 'Pearcea', 'Peltanthera', 'Petrocodon', 'Petrocosmea', 'Pheidonocarpa', 'Phinaea', 'Platystemma', 'Primulina', 'Pseudochirita', 'Rachunia', 'Ramonda', 'Raphiocarpus', 'Reldia', 'Resia', 'Rhabdothamnopsis', 'Rhabdothamnus', 'Rhoogeton', 'Rhynchoglossum', 'Rhynchotechum', 'Rhytidophyllum', 'Ridleyandra', 'Rufodorsia', 'Sanango', 'Sarmienta', 'Seemannia', 'Senyumia', 'Sepikea', 'Shuaria', 'Sinningia', 'Smithiantha', 'Solenophora', 'Somrania', 'Spelaeanthus', 'Sphaerorrhiza', 'Stauranthera', 'Streptocarpus', 'Tetraphylloides', 'Titanotrichum', 'Tribounia', 'Trichodrymonia', 'Tylopsacas', 'Vanhouttea', 'Whytockia']
>>> result=powo.search('Gesneria',filters = [Filters.accepted, Filters.species]) >>> [r['name'] for r in result if 'name' in r] ['Gesneria acaulis', 'Gesneria alpina', 'Gesneria aspera', 'Gesneria barahonensis', 'Gesneria binghamii', 'Gesneria brachysepala', 'Gesneria bracteosa', 'Gesneria brevifolia', 'Gesneria bullata', 'Gesneria calycina', 'Gesneria calycosa', 'Gesneria celsioides', 'Gesneria christii', 'Gesneria citrina', 'Gesneria clandestina', 'Gesneria clarensis', 'Gesneria cubensis', 'Gesneria cuneifolia', 'Gesneria decapleura', 'Gesneria depressa', 'Gesneria duchartreoides', 'Gesneria ekmanii', 'Gesneria exserta', 'Gesneria ferruginea', 'Gesneria filipes', 'Gesneria fruticosa', 'Gesneria glandulosa', 'Gesneria gloxinioides', 'Gesneria haitiensis', 'Gesneria harrisii', 'Gesneria heterochroa', 'Gesneria humilis', 'Gesneria hybocarpa', 'Gesneria hypoclada', 'Gesneria jamaicensis', 'Gesneria lanceolata', 'Gesneria libanensis', 'Gesneria nipensis', 'Gesneria odontophylla', 'Gesneria onychocalyx', 'Gesneria pachyclada', 'Gesneria parvifolia', 'Gesneria pauciflora', 'Gesneria pedicellaris', 'Gesneria pedunculosa', 'Gesneria pulverulenta', 'Gesneria pumila', 'Gesneria purpurascens', 'Gesneria quisqueyana', 'Gesneria reticulata', 'Gesneria salicifolia', 'Gesneria scabra', 'Gesneria sintenisii', 'Gesneria sylvicola', 'Gesneria ventricosa', 'Gesneria viridiflora', 'Gesneria wrightii']
Just wanted your opinion. List of mammals of Sardinia and List of mammals of Corsica exist, yet there is no reason for them to, since the two islands have no endemic mammal species, and those that might be are already included in List of mammals of Italy and List of mammals of France, respectively. Do you think this warrants a merge? And if so, should I write a post about it on WProject Mammals? Thanks. Ddum5347 ( talk) 21:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to bring this official club source to your attention: Blank officially announces name as Atlanta United Football Club. There is a user who shows strong displays of WP:OWN, WP:ROWN and WP:BATTLEFIELD and wantonly reverts and blocks the addition of the club’s full name to the article. I’d appreciate a response when you have the time so that a resolution can be found. Thanks. - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem ( talk) 10:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
It's been awhile. I read this discussion again:
There is new discussion about problems with the row number column here:
I was thinking that the simplest solution would be to add an integrated blank column on the left side of a table.
Then use Wikipedia:TemplateStyles to create a class=rownumbers.
The column head for that blank column would be
class=rownumbers|Row
The styles template would use whatever is the simplest CSS row counter.
The Phabricator thread has several methods:
The web has several methods:
All or most Numbeo.com tables have an integrated fixed column of row numbers. For example; click the column heads here:
Found these 2 CSS methods with Google searches:
Both of them use very little CSS to do the job. I would do it myself, but I know only some very basic CSS.
After the template stylesheet is created I would go through the many existing fixed-row-number tables listed here:
I would put the tables in templates using that stylesheet. I would add a blank column. That is easy to do with the visual editor.
This would solve all the problems with flag icons, zooming in and out, alignment, wide tables, etc.. I could remove class=nowrap too. Tables could contract and expand depending on screen size. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 11:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
display:
value that makes it behave like a header cell (the darker grey background). —
Jts1882 |
talk 06:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)static-row-number-column
).class="blank-header"
or class="hash-header"
). The background colour should also be an option so it can be used with different table classes. I think different numbering styles possible (e.g. i,ii,iii
or a,b,c
), although I don't see a need. What can't be done is passing a parameter such as |header-title=
or |row-number-offset=2
. The options need to be hard coded into classes in the styles file (a few fixed colour options) and then selected by adding the appropriate class to the table. —
Jts1882 |
talk 12:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
row-number-align-top
, row-number-align-middle
and row-number-align-bottom
can be set up to handle the alignment. —
Jts1882 |
talk 12:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Templatestyles is underused on Wikipedia as it can provide very simple solutions if you can find the appropriate css code (often quite difficult).
The formating you want needs to know the content of the element.
data-sort-type=number
? Could there be a way to right justify them by default using TemplateStyles?
— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (
talk) 07:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
data-sort-type=number
, adding a style in the same place has a clarity that automating the alignment wouldn't.—
Jts1882 |
talk 08:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
|-class=sort-row
below the header row. I
got started, and quickly got stuck at figuring out how many columns to add.
— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (
talk) 03:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
style=background-position:center
. While it might be possible to use something like thead:after
, I think that could only introduce a blank row (without cells). It would also only work on sortable tables in deskview, so wouldn't be an acceptable solution. —
Jts1882 |
talk 07:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It would also only work on sortable tables in deskview
(unindent). See: T35249. Sorting icon needs to be below the table header text to keep tables narrower, and for screen readers. Jts1882. Do you have any pull with the other developers? Having the core mediawiki table software put the sorting icon below the header text would be so much simpler. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
templatestyles
. —
Jts1882 |
talk 13:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why the developers will not fix this.
— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ( talk) 21:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)it is not unusual for phab reports to be open for a long time, sometimes in excess of a decade.
This is simple and doesn't need templatestyles.
|-class=sort-row
instead of having to manually repeat !!style=background-position:center|
multiple times.
— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (
talk) 21:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thead tr.sort-row th { background-position: center; } /* thead only used for sortable tables in desktop view */
Unindent. I like your idea of using the same name for the template and the class. I like simple. How about Template:Static row numbers and class="static row numbers"?
Also, how about a class that names the row header column "Row". class=row-header. Then the background color is less important for distinguishing this static column of numbers from the regular sortable column of numbers. I think the static column of row numbers will eventually take over.
I was wondering if the periods are necessary after the row numbers?
Can you link to a cladogram example using templatestyles? I am curious as to how it is done.
I am wondering why the principle of templatestyles does not completely take over how all table CSS and JS is downloaded to articles. I think the Mediawiki software should be set up to recognize any table wikitext, and then (and only then) download table CSS and JS. This would make articles without tables open faster. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
|class=row-header
wouldn't work. Each option would need a named class and code to handle it (e.g. row-header-hash, row-header-blank
).row-numbers-period
).row-header-hash, row-header-blank, row-header-row
. These sound good, simple, and easy to remember. I would use all 3 depending on the table. I would put "Row" on long tables. Because it would not make the table wider since there would be numbers like 222 already using 3 spaces.row-numbers-period
sounds good as the name for an option to add periods.Hello and good morning @ Jts1882:, i would to know of what did you exactly mean by "I think we should consider what people are expecting when they come to the article. I suspect most people are expecting mammals found there now, so don't want a list dominated by extinct animals. On the other hand, people might be interested to know about what mammals live there in the past have been made extinct by man. For instance would they be interested that the UK used to have wolves, lynxes and bears or would they only have interest in those making it past 1500AD? The IUCN 1500 is arbitrary (presumably something to do with written records) and I don't think arbitrary limits are particularly encyclopaedic (i.e. only listing the wolf and not bears and lynxes in my UK example). Perhaps there is a compromise. Restrict the main list to extant mammals (and recently extinct with documented last sightings) and have a section for selected extinct mammals which would need to be properly sourced for each entry." because i happen to have a deep feeling that having a cut off date for the IUCN which is 1500 AD specifically, is not appropriate for the list of mammals of anywhere and that we should allow animals that became extinct/extirpated in each region by the Iron Age, Bronze Age, Ancient History, Post classical history or any timeframe in written history but prior to 1500 AD. I personally suggest that the list of mammals of each region should include mammals that are either extinct or extirpated in any type of region in the world by anytime of written history (e.g. Bronze Age, Ancient History, Post classical history, Iron Age, or whatever time frame but before 1500 AD), due to the fact that having mammals only becoming in each region by 1500 AD or later after that particular timeframe is precisely illogical and not fair for the list of mammals only including 1500 AD. Anyways, so could you please tell me of what you meant by the quote that i included? -- Animalworlds314 ( talk) 12:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've just compared the the phylogenies of Oliveros et al 2019 again Kuhl et al 2020 for three superfamilies: Muscicapoidea, Certhioidea and Bombycilloidea. I had assumed that there would be general agreement in these simple cases - but no such luck (that is unless I'm getting confused between suborders, parvorders, Infraorders etc). The two articles agree on Certhioidae but for Muscicapoidea the position of Cinclidae differs. For Bombycilloidea Oliveros has the family Bombycillidae in a basal position but Kuhl has it as sister to Hypocoliidae in a derived position. Kuhl didn't sample all the families - but this isn't encouraging.
The wikipedia articles on the higher level passerine taxonomy are often out of date - but it isn't easy to know the best way to fix them - especially as there seems to still be uncertainty in the phylogeny and also in which names above family level are generally accepted by ornithologists. In 2014 Cracraft changed some of the oscine superfamilies to parvorders. Oliveros used many of the Cracraft definitions - but for example omitted Meliphagides (previously Meliphagoidea) which appears to form a good clade. Kuhl avoids using higher level names altogether - "Passeri OHC 10A" etc. (Note the Cracraft is one of the authors of Oliveros et al).
I notice in your enormous new cladogram you have the parvorder Meliphagida - where did this name come from? Happy editing - Aa77zz ( talk) 15:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Aa77zz: Apart from differences in family coverage and recognition, the differences I see between the two studies are as follows:
The guide tree phylogeny in Feng et al (2020) is more compatible with Oliveros, with only the position of Regulidae different (agreeing with Kuhl). They agree on the positions of Neosittidae, Dicruridae, Cisticolidae and Cinclidae, but don't sample Psophodidae, Pnoepygidae, or sufficient bombycilloid families. — Jts1882 | talk 10:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox netball biography/club career has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX talk 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Jts1882, I'm trying my hand at typestyes. I was wondering if it'd be possible to id cells on tables with css, and then refer to them with a Lua function. Somehing like this:
table.spreadsheet { counter-reset: row; counter-reset: col; } table.spreadsheet tr { counter-increment: row; } table.spreadsheet td { counter-increment: col; id: 'R'+row+'C'+col }
What do you reckon? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 01:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I originally misspelled the title of this article as Paradichthyinae and have now corrected it, however the Automatic taxobox is still showing my misspelt name. Any ideas how to fix this? Does the redirect from my misspelt title need deleted? TIA Quetzal1964 ( talk) 10:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
could you fix the bottom two bar lines in User:Dracophyllum/sandbox#Full Dracophyllum Cladogram? It's annoying me.
Thanks. Draco phyllum 06:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
|grouplabel=
on the outer clade as when nested in the structure it does strange and hard to predict things to the HTML table structure (the cladogram is made up of nested HTML tables). It also makes positioning the group labels easier as its 0-100% of the whole cladogram rather than 0-100% of the nested table.|style=
(for all labels) or |style1=
, |style2=
, etc. for the individual labels. I've added text colour. —
Jts1882 |
talk 07:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, just wondering if you could update Module:SportsRankings/data/BSWW World Ranking? The rankings are now on [4], and the layout of the page was significantly changed, now including not only men's national teams. There are no previous rankings listed on this website. Regards.-- User:Tomcat7 ( talk) 09:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jts1882, I assume you created the Template:Static row numbers. I don't claim to understand it fully, but it appears to be a significant improvement for Wikipedia and I want to thank you for it. A related issue: the Template:Row numbers is discussed for deletion. I am hesitant to join the discussion because I am not sure if I understand the issue well enough. Maybe you could add some clarity to discussion? -- Kallichore ( talk) 04:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Thanks for taking on the project of enabling references to work within {{ Mapframe}} and seeing it through! Myself and many other editors and readers will benefit 🙂 {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
Re our comm : after your last edit, the popup displays : The jaguar ( ) (Panthera onca) is a large ..
, but the full page view does show the content inside the 2 IPA templates. It looks like it does not matter whether and what is written between 2 {{}} templates. Perhaps the preview popups can just NOT render text inside such templates? –
BhagyaMani (
talk) 11:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I still do not understand what you mean by not adding in scientific papers published by wikipedia users and common names used for specific periods of time. Could you elaborate, but in layman's terms? Firekong1 ( talk) 20:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Clade gallery/styles-div.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 ( talk) 00:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Clade/styles2.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 ( talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Did you mean to add a couple of references at Prasinophyte? YorkshireExpat ( talk) 18:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Goal/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 ( talk) 09:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you !! While working on the aurochs, I referenced umpteen articles; some authors referred to BP, some to BC, others to 'years ago' – quite a mix of different time scales. Is there any template that allows to translate them all into just one, either BP or BC? Or can you devise one, e.g. similar to the {{mya}}? Cheers – BhagyaMani ( talk) 10:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
approx. BCdates, I convert to BP using ↑ formula. I just want to avoid BC and use BP as consistently as possible, so that the reader is not left puzzling. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 17:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your good and constructive addition to Talk:Giraffe#Pros and cons, and I respect you for your knowledge of the subject. While we still differ on the one issue you replied to in the parent section, I want to focus on what's likely to lead to a good solution. Cheers! ◅ Sebastian 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your further additions. Now I have a question: In one case, you write “favours reticulata as fourth species”. What do you mean by that? I was under the impression that all ‘four species’ sources include G. reticulata. Are you saying that somehow the sequence matters? ◅ Sebastian 12:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
reticulata has been treated as a subspecies of G. campelopardalis by some recent authors, although it appears to be better recognized as a distinct species based on the most recent publications using whole genome data. Earlier versions of database followed Petzold & Hassanin in recognising three species. The download of version 1.31 says
reticulata has been treated as a distinct species by some recent authors, although it appears to be better under G. camelopardalis based on the most recent publicationsand cites Petzold & Hassanin (2020). In version 1.5 they changed it to the current version recognising four species and added Coimbra et al 2021 to the citations. — Jts1882 | talk 12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This search finds a large number of articles where the species has the status EX but † doesn't show against the species name because |extinct=yes
is missing. However, this search also finds some cases where the genus is extinct, so |extinct=yes
isn't needed, and † does show correctly.
I haven't been able to figure out a search which leaves out the extinct genus cases. Can you?
(One possibility rather than going through and adding |extinct=yes
is to use |status=EX
in {{
Speciesbox}} to insert the †, but this would need some discussion I think.)
Peter coxhead (
talk) 07:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
|status=EX
, it's not obvious that another parameter is needed to mark the names extinct. Let |extinct=
be reserved for when there is no conservation status. I think this would further rationalise the extinction parameters, along with adding |extinction_date=
.|fossil_range=
to get extinction status, but that's probably too complicated for the number of cases involved. —
Jts1882 |
talk 08:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Although the ICZN doesn't recognize 'ranks' below subspecies, there are things like forms and morphs (the latter beloved of lepidopterists for example), so I think it is worth providing some way of varying the name of the infra-subspecies rank, so that it's effectively an "infraspecies zoology" taxobox template. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
|infraspecies_rank=
collection of parameters, which confusingly are currently using {{
paraphyletic group}}, as well as for zoological terms like forms and morphs. They could use the same parameters or possibly analogous zoological ones to keep separate from the plant/fungal ones.|infraspecies_rank=
parameters. —
Jts1882 |
talk 12:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Code | Output | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{Population taxobox | name = Pied raven | status = EX | extinct = 1948 | genus = Corvus | species = corax | subspecies=varius | population = ''leucophaeus'' | population_rank_name = Morpha | population_rank_abbrev = [[Polymorphism (biology)|morpha]] }} |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{Population taxobox | name = Pied raven | status = EX | extinct = 1948 | genus = Corvus | species = corax | subspecies=varius | infraspecies_rank1 = ''leucophaeus'' | infraspecies_rank1_name = Morpha | infraspecies_rank1_abbrev = [[Polymorphism (biology)|morpha]] }} |
|
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
In appreciation for your efforts to design and improve templates and resolve disputes so creatively! – BhagyaMani ( talk) 20:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC) |
This 2020 edit you made to {{
Subspeciesbox/sandbox}} was never applied to the live version. Should it be? I think it was a fix for name =
with no value.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 07:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
|name=
is empty and absent (tested at
orange-bellied trogon). However, is that the desired behaviour? Should the page title set the taxobox title when name is absent?|name=
is absent, but the page name when it is empty.|name=
is absent and when it is empty.|name=
is absent and when it is empty.I applied your old edit to {{
Subspeciesbox}} so that absent and empty |name=
have the same behaviour – which we agree is the wrong behaviour, but at least it's now consistent. The next step is to fix both this template and {{
Infraspeciesbox}}.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
{{ Subspeciesbox/sandbox}} now appears to have the correct behaviour, e.g. using it at Orange-bellied trogon causes the taxobox name to be "Orange-bellied trogon". I need to do some more tests where the page is at the scientific name and there are complications, like disambiguated genus names. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Greetings. I came to ask for advice when it comes to editing grammar of other users, since I'm a bit of a grammar nazi, and I have no intention of disruptive editing or vandalism. I'm speaking from a place of understanding, as I'm still learning and growing as a wikipedian. Firekong1 ( talk) 16:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand now. I just hope that my edits didn't come off as disruptive or vandalism. That's never my intent. Firekong1 ( talk) 19:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Good to hear! Do you mind linking me to them so I can ask them in the future? Firekong1 ( talk) 20:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey: I collated this with 3 different basemaps, all with labels; and tried a few colours for the polygon layers: in the 1st, blue turned out to be the best colour for the layers as it contrasts with the red labels for cities of the basemap. In the 2nd + 3rd map, red layers are best imo. The 1st + 3rd basemaps are also available withOUT labels for cities, but the 3rd without city labels has state borders. So the question is : are city labels important? – BhagyaMani ( talk) 15:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The cladograms are now so, so much better. Thanks for being bold. I was hesitating, unsure what to do.
It could be useful, I think, to show the paraphyletic s.s. definition of Charophyta as per the taxobox. It could be put on one of the cladograms using the "bar" parameters, and if separately explained and referenced shouldn't be synth. This could serve as a ref, but this doesn't show embryophytes either, so both could just be because they aren't algae. Is there a good recent source for the paraphyletic circumscription? Or is it just historical? Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
which edition says "preferred"? ~ cygnis insignis 10:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Could review for the article? I think we only need one more such we have two contents reviews a source check and an image check. LittleJerry ( talk) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Would you please give advice how to improve the layout of the cladogram in the section *Phylogeny* on this page? At present, it is set in a 3-column table, which looks ok on a wide screen. But on a small screen requires scrolling to the right. Wouldn't it be better to set this in a clade gallery ? – BhagyaMani ( talk) 15:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Six genes from 76 Carnivora species [1] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
46 genes from 75 musteloids [2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
51 mitogenomes from 220 mammals [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Caniformia |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mustelidae (weasels and allies)wrapping to 3 lines. Perhaps a bit narrow? Or the text in () needs not be repeated ? — BhagyaMani ( talk) 18:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Template:Passeroidea Cladogram has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 01:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
While looking through pages marked with a lua script error, I noticed {{ CladeN hidden}}. After looking through the revision history of the lua module, you mentioned you moved the hidden function to a seperate sub-module. Do you think you could fix the CladeN hidden template to use this sub-module? Thanks. Aidan9382 ( talk) 17:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Would you be able to create two cladograms of the genera Macaca, Mandrillus, Cercocebus, Theropithecus, Papio and Lophocebus (ignore species) using this and this. Structure them like you did for the red panda cladograms above. Thank you. LittleJerry ( talk) 17:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
header1 text |
---|
footer1 text |
header2 text |
---|
footer2 text |
Requesting another double cladogram. Could you pair up the one below with a another one based on this Thanks again. LittleJerry ( talk) 01:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add an option to alphabetize the child templates displayed in your taxonomy browser script? Plantdrew ( talk) 01:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
There's an inconsistency in whether the non-underscore variants are included or not in the check for unknown parameters: compare {{ Speciesbox}} and {{ Automatic taxobox}}. Personally, I'd like to get rid of the non-underscore variants altogether, but this may be too drastic to gain support. I would be happy to remove "type strain ref" that I added to {{ Speciesbox}}. Articles using it would then show up in the error-tracking categories and could have the parameter changed to "type_strain_ref". Thoughts? Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I've been checking Automatic Taxobox for spaced parameter every couple weeks. But it's better to have that in the tracking category. There are few enough instances of spaced parameters manual taxonomies that it wouldn't be too onerous for me to eliminate them but I may not have time to work on it for a few weeks. Plantdrew ( talk) 18:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding "other monocots" ... of course we needed that, sorry I missed it.
I thought my next list was going to be the commelinids, but I've run into a US$380 snag ... that's how much Kubitzki's FGVP will cost, and I'd like to add that as a source when possible to beef up my descriptions of the type genera. I may pass on that list for now, I haven't decided.
Consider this an open invitation to improve cladograms in my lists in any way you like. Check my user page any time you like, to see which lists are "in progress" and what's currently at WP:FLC. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brewcaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Navia.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I remember asking you last time about how changing common names for species would occur, and I did not get any answer. Could you get back to me on that when you can? Firekong1 ( talk) 18:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Another example would be giving African bush elephants and African forest elephants the simple common names "bush elephants" and "forest elephants" respectively. There are no bush elephants and forest elephants outside of Africa, so there is no need to strictly refer to them as "African". So references would not always be needed for such a name.
Hi Jts. Template:Taxonomy/Trachelipus has a duplicate id= parm in the {{ BioRef}}. I'm guessing id=1083 is spurious (it's for Tantulocarida). Also, Template:Taxonomy/Trachelipodidae has the same problem. Davemck ( talk) 03:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you have edited the Mapframe module and I was wondering if you could help: I left a question at the bottom of Module talk:Mapframe regarding missing scales in maplink frames. Or maybe you know a Lua hacker that I could contact about this? Thanks, AxelBoldt ( talk) 22:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Heya... Can we get an update of the output so that it's more along the lines of how it is formatted on ASM MDD's About page? Also, the current output produces a broken URL. They no longer use species-account.php, and the URL now requires the id.
Current output:
Desired output:
Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
|genus=
+|species=
option as an alternative to |id=
got broken. I have talked to them about changes to allow linking to the expanded explore taxonomy table (e.g. to show the genera in a family or species in a genus), but that hasn't happened yet.|id=
and |title=
with |version=
, e.g.
{{BioRef|asm|title=''Dipodomys deserti'' Stephens, 1887|id=1001892 |version=1.10 |access-date=23 January 2023}}
|version=
, |date=
or |mode=cs1/cs2
, so alternatives would be:
{{BioRef|asm|title=''Dipodomys deserti'' Stephens, 1887|id=1001892 |version=1.10 (December 2022) |mode=cs2 |access-date=23 January 2023}}
{{BioRef|asm|title=''Dipodomys deserti'' Stephens, 1887|id=1001892 |version=1.10 |date=December 2022 }}
{{BioRef|asm|title=''Dipodomys deserti'' Stephens, 1887|id=1001892 |version=1.10 |year=2022 }}
|access-date=
and |version=1.10
. —
Jts1882 |
talk 08:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
|title=
and |url=
, e.g.
{{BioRef|asm|title=''Dipodomys deserti'' Stephens, 1887|url=https://www.mammaldiversity.org/explore.html#genus=Dipodomys&species=deserti&id=1001892 |version=1.10 |access-date=23 January 2023}}
{{BioRef|asm|genus=Dipodomys|species=deserti|id=1001892 |version=1.10 |access-date=23 January 2023}}
I've made a temporary change to fix the link with the genus+species+id link. Your example should work now. — Jts1882 | talk 11:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Turns out the genus and species parameters are not required. All it needs is the id as the third parameter. It doesn't matter what is in the genus and species parameters or what the first two parameters are called. All the following urls work:
So I've been able to fix the references which just have the id.
Hopefully there will be some improvements at the ASM end soon. — Jts1882 | talk 14:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
There is now an interactive treeview display:
— Jts1882 | talk 07:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm using User:Jts1882/taxonomybrowser.js (although I notice you have a page at User:Jts1882/taxonomybrowser2.js). If I go to Template:Taxonomy/Quercus sect. Cerris and invoke the taxonomy browser, the taxon name box shows "Quercus_sect._Cerris" and pressing "Get taxonomic tree" shows nothing. I have to manually change the underscores in the taxon name box to spaces, and then it works. Presumably this can be fixed, or am I using the wrong version? Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Could you make some cladograms? The first one based on the molecular tree here and the second one here using only Phascolarctidae. Please keep them boundaryless. Thank you. LittleJerry ( talk) 22:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Relationship between families |
---|
Phascolarctidae | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hello. Could you make a cladogram based on fig 15.2 in this article? You can ignore the species, just list the genera. LittleJerry ( talk) 23:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Proboscidea | "plesielephantiforms" "mastodonts" | |
Hello again. I'd like to request a cladogram based on this. Don't replicate all the clades of each species. Just represent the species. Please add the giant panda as basal to the group. The whole clade can be labeled "Ursidae" and the clade that contains the polar, brown, blacks, sun and sloth bear can be labeled Ursinae. Thanks again! LittleJerry ( talk) 22:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Would you be able to flip it so that polar bear is at the top? LittleJerry ( talk) 09:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
For helping a Luddite's poor brain! Much appreciated :) SN54129 13:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC) |
Template:Multiref/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 11:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure we should have articles on bacterial strains like
Escherichia coli O104:H4, but if we do, it seemed to me that {{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
offered a way to create a taxobox. However,
Module:Biota infobox would not handle a null value for |infraspecies_rank1_abbrev=
, so I modified it so that it would. This makes the taxobox on
Escherichia coli O104:H4 work and so far as I can tell doesn't mess up any other uses, but you are better placed than me to check.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 06:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
{{-}}
for empty rank abbreviations, so left out infraspecies_rank1_abbrev
and got a Lua error, which I decided to fix – it seemed to me more logical just to leave the parameter out or give it an empty value. So, no, you now don't need {{-}}
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)How can we improve these three templates? They're unused but contain useful-looking sources. The wikilink for each genus redirects to Douglas Lake Member. We normally bypass such redirects, but then they normally lead to a related taxon rather than a geology article. Pinging Plantdrew who knows more than I do about such things. Certes ( talk) 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thank you!
Myth Sys (
talk) 22:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882, I'm trying to fix up this article for GAN. The evolution section is proving challenging. I wondered since you often work on phylogenies if you knew where the cladogram came from, or which sources would be best if not? Any help would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you look at this and weigh in please? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Template:Multiref2/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 10:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
What do you make of this new article? Is it just another bird cladogram to add to your collection, or does it finally resolve the phylogeny?
I understand very little of the analysis, but it is worrying that results are so dependent on the exact data used. Extended Data Fig. 4 includes a comparison of the "main tree" with the results obtained using UCEs (with 1000bp flanking regions). The trees are different. Many recent studies rely on sequence capture with UCEs - often with less generous flanking regions. - Aa77zz ( talk) 13:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I was considering adding to the plant articles on English wikipedia - but I'm unsure of which modern source to cite for the taxonomy. When editing bird articles I cite the original description together with a modern source that cites the original description.
In Corsica a common prickly plant is Asparagus albus. This was first formally described in 1753 by Linnaeus on page 314 of his Species plantarum - the BHL scan is here. As far as I can determine, there was only one edition/printing of this book - but several databases claim that the description occurs on page 313:
It seems that these databases are not independent sources and data is simply copied without any form of human curation. Are they considered to be reliable?
The correct page number is given in the multi-volume Flora Europaea: Volume 5. Alismataceae to Orchidaceae (Monocotyledones) (1980) p. 72 Link is to volume - (need to search for albus) https://www.google.fr/books/edition/Flora_Europaea/v11xJgWbUDcC?hl=en&gbpv=1
The original Euro+Med plantbase website claims to be based on Flora Europaea but strangely has the wrong page (ie p 313) http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameCache=Asparagus%20albus&PTRefFk=8000000
but the newer version of Euro+Med plantbase has the correct page 314 - with a link to the BHL scan: https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d42dad9c-10b6-452c-88ae-08146436a78e
So which modern source should I cite for European plants? It seems that Flora Europaea would be ideal but for this I would need to visit a specialist library - which I can only do when I'm in London. - Aa77zz ( talk) 15:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Love your work, Jts1882 - /info/en/?search=User:Jts1882/phylogeny/Caniformia Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate VI).png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 16:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate XXVII).png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 09:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miacis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hooker and John Clark. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scrotifera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Placentia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Jts1882: you seem to be the wizard of the speciesbox and subspeciesbox. In these boxes, would you change colocolo to colocola, please, so that there is consistency with the Latin names in the respective texts. Thanks. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 09:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Hyperailurictis, Jts1882!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
The [P[WP:BURDEN]] is on the creator to add sources; please do not create articles without references.
To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Boleyn ( talk) 11:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
My apologies. I have no idea why I undid your edit on the Small Indian Civet. Absolutely dreadful miss in so many ways. Jameel the Saluki ( talk) 11:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that we were fooled by the language used in that document about reclassifying subspecies of lions, besides tigers, See the Surprise and my latest reply in talk page for the lion. Leo1pard ( talk) 04:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882- I went ahead and cleaned up the Diet section of Arabian Wolf. Better? I also added a part about the weird fused paw pads which is apparently true. Thanks for your input- Jeff T. Makumbe ( talk) 02:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
So I'm using
this example to find |status=VU
, but I cannot find an appropriate API example which gives me |status_system=IUCN3.1
. I could use the API to get the URL for a genus+species, then parse that to obtain |status_system=
, but I'd rather not (because its both clumsy and unnecessarily increases server load). Do you know how to get both of these parameters using only the API? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 15:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
|status_system=
. They still provide the criteria version, and I don't want to deviate too much from the template-norm when doing a large update. I'll obtain and update the |status_system=3.1
-type values until a change to the {{
taxobox}}
and {{
speciesbox}}
documentations are made. However, if a WP page uses |status_system=yyyy
or |status_system=IUCNyyyy
, I will update it with the year assessed instead.{{
taxobox}}
says that a |status_system=IUCN3.1
-type value is required. {{
Speciesbox}}
gives no such direction, nor examples. And I see your point, that |status_system=3.1
is redundant if publication year >= 2001. That is part of the reason I got involved with the {{
IUCN}}
template-family, and this effort—I noticed many inconsistencies. I'm not a member of the project, nor do I have the expertise to direct large changes; but, I can help enact them.|status_system=IUCN3.1
-type system to a |<new parameter name?>=yyyy
or yyyy.#
-type system, at least 3 things have to happen (based on my understanding; possibly more).
{{
taxobox}}
es and {{
speciesbox}}
es have to be verified that the assessment made is >= 2001.IUCN3.1
-type parameter, the template documentations can be updated, and then transcluded pages be updated to the new (template) system.References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
I was just passing by this article and noticed 2 African jackals sitting out by themselves unencumbered by any relationship to the Canidae#Phylogenetic relationships. There are some others as well. A good job for someone with the skill-set! William Harris • (talk) • 05:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Jts1882. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Sigh... Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
BigSugarDaddy 12:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
Thanks for updating the link at Central African lion. I'm curious if you think "Odzala National Park" should be updated to "Odzala-Kokoua National Park" at Template:National Parks of the Republic of the Congo, since the Wikipedia article has been moved. I submitted a request on the talk page, but another editor seems to think the article needs further updating before the template should be changed. I'll be suggesting updates for the article soon, but wanted to get a discussion going about updating the template in the meantime. Thanks again, Inkian Jason ( talk) 17:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
You don't seem to have received this notice:
I don't quite understand what is proposed; I'm not sure if the proposer understands how the template works. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Example with cladogram:
Example |
Sample of Template:Cladogram |
Example using clade:
Neornithes |
| ||||||||||||
Sample of Template:Cladogram |
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
I am not sure Vital articles is list for articles ]TODO(See here: [1] - nominationg of paper-and pencil game - this article just has been not added due to fact that article is not good, not is it already). I also nominated Cristiano Ronaldo to 14 vital players. It seems to me Cristiano Ronaldo and Ronaldo should be listed. Although Ronaldo's career was not stable such like Cristiano (due to injury and overweight) he is the youngest winner of Golden Ball and he had also much more success in national team than Cristiano had. Cheers. Dawid2009 ( talk) 07:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to do
this (and |vauthors=
really does need to die), please do it all the way, with |last1=...|first1..., etc. Doing something like |last1=Doe, John X is actually invalid; its falisfying the citation metadata, saying someone's surname is "Doe, John X" and that they have no given name. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for producing the useful looking map module. I'm trying to fix wikilinks to disambiguation page Stamford Bridge. I think Chelsea's entry in Module:Football map/data for p.stadia should read something like
{ "Stamford Bridge (stadium)", 51.481667, -0.191111, "Stamford Bridge", "[[Chelsea F.C.]]", "File:Stamford Bridge Clear Skies.JPG" },
and for p.clubs
{ "Chelsea F.C.", "Stamford Bridge (stadium)", -1, -1 },
but when I try either or both changes and preview the demos, the stadium marker just disappears. Please can you make the appropriate fix? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 12:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Certes: You are correct about the entry in Module:Football map/data. The problem was my fault. One, the demos didn't list the correct wikipedia page for Stamford Bridge and, two, even if they had, I hadn't implemented the alias in the code. Unfortunately, the London stadia were my chosen examples and the mistake carried through to three of the demos. I put the module together in a rush as a prototype and haven't revisited it, which I will try and do soon. I also need to write some documentation. The expected behaviour is as follows:
|stadiumN=
set to the page name of the Wikipedia article (e.g.
Stamford Bridge (stadium)).I have added the alias to the module and updated the demos. At least Stamford Bridge should appear now. Please let me know of any other errors and feel free to make suggestions (e.g. what other information should be included in the popup). Thank-you for taking the time to delve into the problem. Jts1882 | talk 14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Keeping up with the changes in spider taxonomy at present is a full time occupation! Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882. Since you put so much effort into designing the template subspeciesbox, I would appreciate your comment re this question: do you think it is justified to keep this template in wiki pages on populations that are no longer considered distinct subspecies? Like Visayan leopard cat, West African lion, Asiatic lion, Bengal tiger, Siberian tiger, South China tiger, Bali tiger and a few more on tiger populations. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 17:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jackal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lycaon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Lion/sandbox, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk ( talk) 11:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Jts1882. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Jts1882. I'm planning on to do the template for the rankings for ice hockey I created, but I'm having problems with the sandbox template. I'm confused! AaronWikia ( talk) 05:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Rank | Change | Team | Points |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Canada | 3990 | |
2 | 1 | Sweden | 3945 |
3 | 1 | Russia | 3930 |
4 | 2 | United States | 3765 |
5 | 1 | Finland | 3765 |
data.rankings = { .. }
is in a comment in the file.References
Hello, I would be happy to talk to you. Would it be possible to talk to you via Facebook or at least via email, please? If not, no problem I respect your privacy. Thank you for your cooperation, -- Snek01 ( talk) 16:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you biologist? Do you have a degree in biology? Are you good in editing templates? Why are you interested in gastropods? Are you just learning new things on Wikipedia or do you have any special interest in gastropods? Did you write or edit some gastropods articles already? Have you read User:Snek01/Guideline for WikiProject Gastropods? Are you interested in writing Did you know... articles? Those are few of many questions which could be useful for fruitful cooperation. They are usually better for normal discussion with questions followed by answers. And last but not least it would be better for me to understand you easier in chat. I have already planned a task for you, but I do not know if it will suits you. So? -- Snek01 ( talk) 00:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, as I noted at Template talk:Virusbox, there are currently major changes needed to make Virusbox work properly. Thinking about it overnight, there seem to be two lines of attack:
On the whole, I favour (1) as the simplest to use. Also under (2), there would be few uses of Virusbox. I'm interested to know your thoughts. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk moved to Module talk:SportsRankings#Updating data
Thanks for your additional examples. "Paeonia (Paeonia) daurica subsp. mlokosewitschii" is an interesting case. The logic at Module:TaxonItalics|italicizeTaxonName assumes that connecting terms occur in particular places in the string to be italicized. It could look for connecting terms anywhere, but it seemed safer to be restrictive. Also this ensures that only names in the correct format are handled; I didn't want to italicize "Paeonia subsp. mlokosewitschii" as "Paeonia subsp. mlokosewitschii" (it comes out as Paeonia subsp. mlokosewitschii, which is hopefully a hint that something is wrong). I guess that connecting terms used in botanical names could never be used as genus names or specific epithets, so maybe not being so restrictive would be safe. On the other hand, a botanical name with a subgenus and infraspecific epithet is pretty uncommon. Um... What do you think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Talk moved to Module talk:SportsRankings#Is the SportsRankings module it ready?
Talk moved to Module talk:Goalscorers#Module idea.
That was suppose to say Southern League is their first league trophy... Govvy ( talk) 09:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've been tidying up Module:Autotaxobox, and fixing the documentation, both at the module and at WP:Automated taxobox system/map. I think I've converted almost all the templates I want to convert to Lua now; those that are concerned with configuration I think are best left as they are, so editors don't need to change the module, and those that are mainly concerned with layout are easier to understand if left as template code.
I've also fixed {{ Infraspeciesbox}} for the authority display. It should, in my view, never be needed, since displaying authorities above the target taxon is intended to be used only for the sole taxon in a monotypic taxon, and by definition, there aren't such taxa at an infraspecific rank. Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
|display-parents=
yet. I'll have limited internet access for a few days. I think the next simplification is to study what parameters are actually used or needed in the automated taxoboxes and then simplify.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)As per my comment above ("the next simplification is to study what parameters are actually used or needed in the automated taxoboxes"), I was thinking ahead to the next steps. Looking again at Module:Biota Infobox (which, by the way, should be called "Biota infobox", I think, to match the usual WP naming convention), there's a lot of complexity caused by the inconsistencies and peculiarities of the different taxobox templates. If these were tidied up, at least some templates could be merged: {{ Automatic taxobox}} and {{ Speciesbox}} should be able to get enough information from the taxon name to deal with the rank difference; {{ Virusbox}} shouldn't need to be separate either.
So my feeling is that we should continue to work on tidying up the taxobox templates, and only afterwards replace {{ Taxobox/core}} by Module:Biota Infobox, which would then be much cleaner and easier to maintain. What do you think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
#invoke:Biota infobox/core|main}}
instead of {{
taxobox/core}} from the automatic taxobox templates or to use the template core from my functions that emulate the different automatic taxobox templates. I felt this would enable testing different parts better.|dummy=
), manual taxobox parameters (e.g.|ordo=
) or orphaned parameters (e.g. |image2_caption=
without |image2=
).
Jts1882 |
talk 14:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
{{db-empty}}
. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 18:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)|image_size=
in Speciesboxes); not sure if valueless parameters would get caught in your checks. The check for orphaned parameters should include those dependent on |status=
/|status2=
: e.g., |status_system=
, |status_ref=
(and maybe also |type_species_authority=
/|type_genus_authority=
?).
|extinct=
). I can add a category for this or include it in a general one.|range map=
, and every month a few spaced parameters show up in automatic taxoboxes that were just converted from manual).
|trend=
doesn't do anything and is only used in a handful of manual taxoboxes; eliminate it. |image_caption_align=
isn't used anywhere; eliminate. It wouldn't take me long at all to switch all instance of |variety=
over to |varietas=
, so I don't think an alias needs to be maintained. |image_width=
could soon be eliminated from the automatic family; it's only present in Speciesboxes with no value, and I've made some progress over the last week removing it from Automatic taxoboxes (I could easily get rid of it entirely in a month).
Plantdrew (
talk) 19:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
|image_width=
from Automatic Taxoboxes; it is still present in some Speciesboxes with no value specified. While I'm sure it will show up some in the future as taxoboxes are converted from manual to auto, I don't think it's something that auto taxoboxes need to support going forward.
Plantdrew (
talk) 19:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)@
Plantdrew: well, a good first step would be to remove all occurrences of image_width
from {{
Taxobox/core}} which all the taxoboxes currently use. Then even if it's still present in a call to {{
Speciesbox}}, it will have no effect. Unless there's something you can see that I've missed, I'll do this.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 20:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
|image_width=
with {{
Taxobox}} and only 205 uses of |image_upright=
. The most common settings are 200px (4163, the default taxobox width), 240px (5618), 250px (5394), and 300px (2039). None use higher than 300px and only around 900 less than 200px. The 638 at 100px might be useful if used for low resolution images. The others make the images slightly larger, but this probably isn't critical for the images in most cases (it might matter if there are collages using image maps). In many cases it might just been a means of making the taxobox wider for better display of taxa with long names and/or authorities (e.g. in the subdivision section).|image_width=
and |image2_width=
from the automatic taxoboxes, it might be time to stop passing the parameters to the core. That should discourage their use.
Jts1882 |
talk 10:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Separately from this, I've made a list of all the taxobox-related templates I'm aware of at User:Peter coxhead/Work/Taxobox templates. I've been caught out too many times by discovering that what seemed a sensible change to a taxobox-related template messed up one I wasn't aware of. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I've only just realized that you don't have template editor status. You can ask yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor or I'll do it for you. With the work you've done on Module:Clade for example, it should be obvious that you understand what you are doing. (And, selfishly, I don't want to be the only editor responsible for maintaining the automated taxobox system, which I almost seem to be at present.) Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) FYI ~ the TE request process assumes you are making a self-request, and requesting someone else would look a bit odd, possibly raising more questions than it's worth. It would be better for those supporting your TE would chime in below it. If you meet all the standard guidelines, that shouldn't be necessary anyway. As far as guideline #6 goes, you might be able to point to communications with Peter to count towards that. Just to be safe, I would formalize your next few requests (if you're lacking). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
To use the current virus taxonomy, Torque teno sus virus needs a taxobox starting:
{{Paraphyletic group | color_as = Virus | image = | image_alt = | image_caption = | unranked_domain = [[Virus]] | phylum = [[incertae sedis]] | classis = [[incertae sedis]] | ordo = [[incertae sedis]] | familia = ''[[Anelloviridae]]''
However, {{
Paraphyletic group}}/
Module:Biota infobox doesn't seem to pass on |color_as=
, and without it, there's nothing to set the taxobox colour because "Virus group" isn't used now according to the consensus at WikiProject Viruses.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 14:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
|color_as=
but not the other aliases. I need to update the module to the sandbox version with all the parameter checking and aliasing, which will simplify the coding. The color options for manual taxobox emulation is incomplete so I need to have another look at that.|auto=
(leave it blank) and it will use the automatic taxonomy system.
Jts1882 |
talk 16:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
|auto=yes
would be better.)
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Since you have participated in the discussion of revising the primary source for primate taxonomy, I wanted to let you know that a new source has been suggested, the mammal diversity database. Right now I think the 2 main contenders are this and ITIS. Please share any thoughts you have on the discussion on the Primate Project Talk Page. Rlendog ( talk) 01:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for three things: first, assuming that my edits are good faith; second, your detailed explanation of why you reverted two of my edits; and third, your civility. Regards, IiKkEe ( talk) 14:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more! I recently had 32 edits reverted with 1 click. The reason given: "not an improvement" (!). IiKkEe ( talk) 15:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
the one on the left is gracile. What do I win if I'm right? I've been meaning to say hello. Still trying to guess at the letters and numbers in your tag, but haven't yet confounded you another user. I agree, btw, about recognising the value in things like Adl et al, in that they are immediately usable as secondary references to earlier proposals. I'm finding this beautifully demonstrated in a poorly understood group that I am working on, and the way in which workers built on the earlier literature to formulate a slightly clearer understanding over the course of investigations. Blah, blah, anyway, hello! cygnis insignis 15:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
(Also @ Plantdrew:) So far no actual responses to the choice I posed at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Alternatives. It was clear to me from the discussion at WT:TOL that people didn't understand the issue, so I hoped that by giving diagrams and a long text explanation it would be clear, but it seems not. Sigh... (I seem completely unable to communicate what I mean to one editor.)
So I'll respond to your question here. I don't think that skip templates ever work properly to deal with inconsistent ranks or classifications. As far as I know, they were introduced to reduce the depth of the taxonomic hierarchy when processing was coded in the template language, and all kinds of tricks were needed to cope with the depth used for some groups, particularly dinosaurs. (I believe that Smith609, the originator of the system, envisaged the system as mainly using Linnaean ranks, not multitudes of clades.) Once they existed, skip templates were pressed into service to jump over inconsistent ranks. It's hard to know where to put the skip, because unlike my nicely limited examples in the figures I drew, the real hierarchies are deep and branched.
I don't think skip templates should be needed at all now. If no-one makes any useful comments, I will implement my version (4), I think, and then all the skips in the bird/mammal/dinosaur hierarchy can be removed. The remaining issues will be:
|always_display=
? If so, how would it work; how could some clades be displayed for some target taxa and not for others? (Other than by using variant taxonomy templates.)Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
|path=plantae
to indicate that a rank should be shown under certain conditions. How this would be initiated and handle skips needs some thought.
mode
. From then on upwards, every time the system looks for a parent, it first looks for "Template:Taxonomy/parent/mode". If this exists, it follows it, if not it follows "Template:Taxonomy/parent". One advantage of this approach is that it would allow a move away from the 'plain' hierarchy, a return to it, and then another move away. This isn't possible with the system at present: once it rejoins the 'plain' path, it is stuck there.frame:expandTemplate()
, and pcall(frame.expandTemplate, ...)
. pcall()
prevents an error termination and returns a value to show whether an error has occurred, making it easier to tell whether a template exists. I had the impression from somewhere that pcall(frame.expandTemplate, ...)
was expensive, but I must have mis-remembered, because it's not in the manual and when I look at the page source for
Module talk:Autotaxobox/testcases, the expensive parser function count is 1/500. So this means that the idea of selecting a path based on some kind of mode
or path
variable is a possible approach.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 19:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)|always_display=
would be useful. The suggestion I made yesterday was effectively for a |always_display=sometimes
depending on the number of taxa already displayed below the taxon in question. For instance superclass Tetrapod could be displayed if 3 or less taxa were displayed. Thus it would display for bird (class Aves, clade Ornithurae; 2 taxa displayed) or Neoaves (clade Neoaves, infraclass Neognathae, class Aves; N=3) but not for lower bird taxa. The problem is determining rules that apply generally and not just with bird, which is one reason I asked for more examples of skip templates in action. I'll give some more thought to this and the path idea and see if I can come up with something more coherent.
Jts1882 |
talk 07:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
What would be really helpful would be to be able to automatically generate some kind of tree diagram from taxonomy templates, then we could see better where inconsistencies might arise and need fixing. It's tricky because there aren't any downward links in taxonomy templates. There's also the question of how to 'draw' the trees, but as you successfully converted {{ clade}} to Lua, you're the most likely editor I can think of to understand how to do it! Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
|parent=TAXON
to get the children of a taxon, but I don't think this can be done within Lua.
|children=
-like parameter. AWB can use the WP API to find all links to the page and populate (hard-code) a |children=
parameter. This would make another maintenance step for updating taxonomy changes, of course, and would lose accuracy over time. The upside is that discrepancies would be easier to see in a nice tree plot. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
|parent=VALUE
? This could be a way of traversing the taxonomy. I can see how to use the API to get all templates calling a particular taxonomy template, which is useful for lower taxa (e.g. for
Felinae, but you soon get huge numbers higher up the tree. It would be nice to further refine the search somehow, but I assume the API can't do this as it would involve loading the page text. Thoughts?
Jts1882 |
talk 17:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/...
pages would never be very large. I think you can constrain namespace in a wikisearch string, but I don't use it often enough to remember atm. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 18:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)|children=
to taxonomy templates with the idea that the subdivisions in automated taxoboxes would be displayed automatically. This worked ok when the encoded classifications were all Linnaean, as I believe he envisaged and was the case initially, but gave silly results once there were skips and variants (there were even loops, which caused real difficulties), so the bot was stopped, most taxonomy templates lacked this parameter, those that were there were removed, and I did not implement any of the code that processed the bot's actions when I converted to Lua. This might be a way forward though, solely to use in display.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Step One
The children of a taxon in the taxonomy template system can be found with the search facility, e.g.
find taxonomy templates with Felidae as parent. This search checks for |parent=Felidae
using the search insource:"parent[ ]+=[ ]+Felidae"
in the template namespace.
The same search can be made using the API: API search for children of Felidae.
As the next step I'm going to use the API call to make an external script to generate a tree of children from the template system. I'm wondering if a custom JS script can be used to make a tool that can be used within the wikipedia editor. Jts1882 | talk 07:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Step 2. I have a working php program which can traverse the taxonomy downwards from a parent. It does seem to work properly, showing all the expected taxa, although I can't be certain the regex script isn't missing some taxa out. Jts1882 | talk 12:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Step 3. Create a Javascript version and use it as a custom user script. This has the advantage that it is much faster at accessing the API as it is part of Wikipedia. To install add the following to your user common.js file.
importScript('User:Jts1882/taxonomybrowser.js');
The first implementation adds two tools to the side bar.
The tools are inflexible but this is just to demonstrate functionality. Making it "aware" of the page and automatically starting with the Taxonomy template being viewed is the most obvious addition. Jts1882 | talk 13:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/...
template eventually? Perhaps it can default to the current taxonomy template the script is called from, in the future? (gravy) ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)As you may have seen from my post at
Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Arbitrary break, I thought it would be a good idea to make clear which taxa will be shown in automated taxoboxes based on |always_display=
and being of a principal rank, so their ranks are now emboldened, as per
Template:Taxonomy/Pteranodon for example. While testing this change, I've been surprised at how many minor ranks seem to have |always_display=yes
.
If variant paths are to be used more, then I think that the right-hand table should also show this. One possibility is for the middle column in the table to use the taxonomy template name, linking only to the link text, e.g. at Template:Taxonomy/Spermatophyta/Plantae, the lowest row would have " Spermatophytes/Plantae" or perhaps " Spermatophytes /Plantae" or possibly put the "variant path" in a separate column. Thoughts? Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I tried it with my suggestion of putting the "/variant" right after the link, but I didn't like it. It's wasn't much less wide, since the width is effectively determined by the longest taxon name + the variant name in both cases, but because the taxon names are of very variable lengths, the "/variant" was all over the place, not lining up, so it was more difficult to see a "run" of variant taxa. It's very difficult to show the sandbox version working when looking at a taxonomy template because of the way the "Don't edit this line" templates work, so I'll need to make it live to see what it looks like combined with the left-hand table you get on taxonomy template pages. Since you both think it's useful, I'll go ahead.
res = res .. ':||<span style="white-space:nowrap;">' .. link .. '</span>' .. '||<span style="font-size:smaller;">' .. qualifier .. '</span>' .. '||<span style="white-space:nowrap;">' .. frame:expandTemplate{ title = 'Template:Edit a taxon/sandbox', args = { taxon } } .. '</span>\n|-'
I realized some time ago that there's an issue when the name of the taxonomy template and the link text don't "match" – in particular it messes up italicization. It was deeply embedded in the design of the automated taxobox system from the start that the taxon name used was obtained from the template name. I think that |link=
may have originally been intended to be used only to provide a different link target.
I wanted to see how many such cases existed and what kind they were, so I set up Category:Taxonomy templates with different name and link text, initially with very weak rules as to what constituted "different". They are much stronger now, so most of the templates in the category will disappear with time (or a null edit). If you look at my recent contributions, you'll see that I've got bogged down fixing the surprising number of taxonomy templates where the link text is wrong. (The reason why I haven't responded to your great work on displaying the taxonomic hierarchy in taxonomy templates.) There are several main issues:
|link=TAXON|†TAXON
with |extinct=
left blank. This messes up tracking consistency of extinction status.|link=
just to the disambiguated name, which then shows up in the taxobox, e.g. as "GENUS (plant)".All of these except (3) can cause the taxobox to be wrong, but editors don't seem to have noticed this. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Did you see : someone prepared a DUPLICATE of the Felidae page at List of felines with almost identical text. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 12:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The Template Barnstar | ||
For all your work on the automated taxoboxes, it's appreciated! Nessie ( talk) 16:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC) |
I have removed your display_parents = 6
parameter from
Aiteng ater. In general, this parameter is only to be used when a taxon is identical in scope to an ancestor taxon, in order to guarantee that the lowest non-identical taxon shows. If anything higher needs to show, then it should for all pages which are part of the taxon in question; in this case, please edit that taxon's template and add the line |always_display=yes
.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 11:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
|always_display=yes
should be used sparingly. I generally agree that using |display_parents=6
is brute force and ends up displaying unnecessary taxa. Btw, I don't follow your argument on use of |display_parents=
for taxa "identical in scope to an ancestor taxon".
Jts1882 |
talk 12:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
display_parents=2
. This ensures that a user who views the Dhole article can navigate to the immediate parent of the top taxon which the page "Dhole" represents.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 12:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
Happy template editing! — xaosflux Talk 23:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for helping me out! The problem is that, instead of symbols, I would like the text of the club to be displayed. Also, in Lebanon, many teams at the moment use various stadiums throughout the season (meaning that my aim isn't to represent the stadium itself, rather the location of where the team is based). In short, I would just like something similar to the Beirut map in the league season page with Ahed, Bourj, Shahab Bourj and Shabab Sahel (all teams from the Beirut suburbs) included into a map, along with Nejmeh, Safa and Ansar already included in the Beirut map. These are the coordinates:
If anything is unclear please let me know. Nehme1499 ( talk) 16:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jts. I noticed your work on phylogenies in Wikipedia. Let me know if you'd be interested in submitting a Wikipedia article (or even just the phylogenies) for external, academic peer review.
The WikiJournal of Science (www.wikijsci.org) couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. For existing Wikipedia articles, they are a great way to get additional feedback from external experts. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as having changes integrated back into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards authors with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.
The WP:WikiJournal article nominations page should allow simple submission of existing Wikipedia pages for external review.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Jts1882,
In the function addAutomaticTaxonomyET, I saw the line
local autoTaxonomy = frame:expandTemplate{ title = 'taxobox/taxonomy', args = localArgs }
However, Template:taxobox/taxonomy was deleted. Does that mean the function is currently wrong? Or is it a deadcode? Thanks! -- Nullzero ( talk) 05:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to remove the deadcode, then? In any case, thank you for your answer :) -- Nullzero ( talk) 08:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882! Am not sure whether you have these two on your watchlist? The Explaner changed the cladograms there as well and added extinct species that are not part of the cladograms proposed in the published sources. Maybe we should have a closer look at their changes in other pages. Cheers -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 12:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC) PS: and Mongoose too. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 13:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for coming to my defense at my talk page !! :). The same person has posted the exactly same message at The Explaner's talk page. Apart from a single edit on the Viverridae page, I've not seen their contribution on any of the Felidae, mongoose etc. and related pages. So I suggest to not take their comment too seriously. -- BhagyaMani ( talk) 15:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Re
this edit: Sorry, I wasn't aware the parentheses changed the meaning. The reason I changed it is that on mobile it appears as "Chlorophycophyta Papenfuss 1946" with no distinction in size, so it looks as though "Papenfuss 1946" (which is inside a <small>
tag) is part of the name. Obviously anyone with half a brain can see it isn't, but it's nonetheless bad style. The {{
small}} template seems to actually work on mobile, so please use that instead.
Hairy Dude (
talk) 12:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, do you have an example of when this edit makes a difference? It seem to me that it must be a failure of the rest of the "bolding logic" if it does. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
Speciesbox}}
gets the italicizing wrong, but I thought the bolding was ok.|link=Gymnorhadinorhynchus|Gymnorhadinorhynchidae
which are undesirable because (1) editors don't know or forget the need for the link and the link text, and (2) when articles get moved, such as to English names or because taxa become no longer monotypic, it's not obvious that |link=
in the taxonomy template needs to be updated.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)local title = mw.title.new( taxon, 0 ) -- taxon would be family name in yesterdays example if title.isRedirect then -- if a redirect, get the target local target = title.redirectTarget -- target is the genus name if frame:getTitle() == tostring(target) then bold = 'yes' end end
Hi, just wondering, is there any way we can map the different time depths assumed by Starostin in the cladogram? – Austronesier ( talk) 16:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
|label=
or |sublabel=
. I'll make an edit to demostrate.
Jts1882 |
talk 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|label1=
has non-breaking spaces ( ) to increase the length of the B line. But as Jts1882 notes above, because the layout is controlled by the way the browser lays out tables, there are severe limits on what you can achieve, and the C line is automatically lengthened too. If line length really matters, then you'll have to draw a diagram.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Thanks a lot, Jts1882, Peter coxhead for your suggestions! I have experimented a bit, and solved it by moving Austro-Tai down by one taxonomic level in order to separate the levels of bifurcation, plus doing the non-breaking spaces-trick.
Dene‑Daic |
| |||||||||
I'll check first how this will come out in different views (PC, mobile etc.), before taking it to the Austric page. – Austronesier ( talk) 18:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you see Skipp there? [2] Govvy ( talk) 12:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you very much for updating the Taxonbar template with the Ecocrop link. Much appreciated. Darwin Naz ( talk) 23:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. As you may remember. I changed the Bilateria article's phylogeny section such that the Philippe et al. (2019) hypothesis on obsolescence of Deuterostomia has its own little section, and added an emphasis saying that the authors themselves admit that it's too early to come to a consensus on this matter. However, I have discovered that these changes have been propagated on several other articles. These include Deuterostomia, Nephrozoa, the template for Animalia, and the template for Xenacoelomorpha. I have modified all of these such that the language is much more couched to reflect the lack of scientific consensus on the matter, or I reverted them to the previous versions. In all cases I have left my rationale.
However, the trouble is that these changes are spread all over the place, and it seems like I keep finding more of them as time passes. I don't want to play whack-a-mole on this matter. As such, is there some unified place that the Wiki community can get together and come to a consensus on all related changes? Should there be a Request for Comment in some unified place? It seems that it's really just one user who has made all these changes, plus a bunch of IP users. Maybe it would be good to get some fresh opinions on this matter. What do you think? BirdValiant ( talk) 18:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Jts1882,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Chirixalus vittata for deletion in response to your request.
If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can edit the page and remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Xx236 ( talk) 09:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to derail the discussion on the project page further with the details of this case. The Melzer et al. paper is behind a paywall for me, but from reading the abstract, I don't see how The Reptile Database's treatment of Oligosoma robinsonii is consistent with Melzer. Melzer says "Further taxonomic work will be required to determine the taxonomy of other speckled skink genetic lineages in the South Island, particularly O. aff. infrapunctatum “cobble”, O. “Hokitika”....". RD lists "Cobble skink" and "Hokitika skink" as common names for O. robinsonii, but doesn't include the provisional name "O. aff. infrapunctatum “cobble”" in the synonyms section (although the provisional name "Oligosoma aff. infrapunctatum “crenulate”" is listed). I also don't understand why RD has parentheses for (Wells and Wellington, 1985); I don't see any other combinations of robinsonii listed in the synonyms. If cobble skinks are O. robinsonii, the Wikipedia article should use the scientific name for the title since O. robinsonii is also the name for crenulate skinks. Maybe the full text of Melzer makes some of this clearer, but I'm pretty confused by what the Reptile Database has. Plantdrew ( talk) 18:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882, there seems to be a problem with the display of the conservation status for Vulnerable (VU) species in both manual and automatic taxoboxes. Older classifications (IUCN 2.3) appear to work correctly. There has been no recent editing activity to the template:{{ IUCN 3.1 navmap/VU}}. Can you help try and diagnose the problem? 'Cheers, Loopy30 ( talk) 00:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882, I noticed that a data deficient entry ( Oedipina ignea) is now showing the same type of behaviour as described above. IUCN 3.1 data deficient articles are visible to me on Chrome, but not Safari. As you had mentioned above that Sierra de las Minas hidden salamander produced a blank classification status image for you on Firefox, I checked and found that while I cannot see it in Safari, it does display properly in Chrome. This pattern is consistent for other data deficient articles as well. As this problem now appears to cover at least two O/S's (Firefox and Safari), IUCN templates (VU and DD), and users (both of us), I am even more puzzled. Your thoughts? Loopy30 ( talk) 11:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I love the changes! Thank you so much, that's truly awesome! - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 06:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, I changed the wording of the lead to make sense where English got garbled:
"...various genetic analyses have placed Eurypygimorphae in the almost obsolete clade Metaves, with uncertain placement within that group."
Does it make sense now?-- Quisqualis ( talk) 20:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Would you be able to help me out with something? I want to expand upon our Betta articles, but I’m afraid I’m not a biologist. I looked at the Ocean sunfish and I’m impressed by how thorough and readable the articles is - I’d like to improve our articles on betta similarly. However, where I’m getting stuck is on how to describe fish. Is there a systematic way of describing fish species that you know of? I would be very grateful for any advise! - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 04:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Help:Edit summary#Section editing says your own edit summary should be added after the section title. You add it before and this makes it harder to read page histories where everybody else add it after. Will you please follow the convention? PrimeHunter ( talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882,
Thanks for replying to my question on the Automated taxobox system page. I thought it might be easier to post my question here. I was talking about the Practice page – sorry for not clarifying earlier. I'm trying to create a new page on Psychopsiella limminghei, so I pasted in the page being used for D. speciosum. I thought I would first change the speciesbox before editing the content. In essence, I'm trying to create a new taxonomy template for P. limminghei (which is the parameter that is currently not working in the speciesbox). Sorry for confusing you. :)
JadeSpire ( talk) 20:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
— xaosflux Talk 20:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Splachnaceae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tayloria ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jts, were you still interested in completing an interview for the newsletter? If so, I wrote some questions out here. If you're no longer interested, that's fine too! Enwebb ( talk) 16:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
You've earned it.
That being said, I doubt the change will get implemented despite the effort! Felixsv7 ( talk) 14:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC) |
Template:Species table/end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 14:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
hello,
List_of_South_American_countries_by_population is pulling an incorrect number for the population of Brazil. this is messing up the function built into that chart- where it calculates each country's proportion of total population of south america. it looks like you set this chart up initially. please take a look when you get a chance. thanks. skak E L 12:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I thought I might ask you some basic questions here to reduce clutter on the Wikiproject page. I've updated Black-tailed dasyure as a first go. As part of this, I adjusted the genus name, added the old name as a synonym, removed the parent_authority (also removed that from Short-furred dasyure as my understanding is it only applies to monotypic taxa), and checked the IUCN citation was accurate. I have not yet updated Template:Taxonomy/Murexia, perhaps this is better done when a genus article is created? I am unsure what to do with Template:Taxonomy/Murexechinus. I am unfamiliar with the Wikidata and Taxonbar system. The Wikidata needs updating, but I do not know what to fill in for the "stated in" field in the reference data point. I would appreciate it if you let me know if there are any further or different changes I should have made. Thanks, CMD ( talk) 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
You have a much better handle on regex than I do. I'd like to find articles with automatic taxoboxes that have a reference in |subdivision_ranks=
in order to move that ref to |subdivision_ref=
. I figure something that would match e.g. "|subdivision_ranks=Genera<" as well as "| subdivision_ranks = Species <" (spacing varies, but there must be a < preceded by an alphabetic string). Thanks in advance.
Plantdrew (
talk) 02:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
<ref
. This search gets
132 results. I also added a hyphen (adds one) and possibly other punctuation could be added. There is also the possibility of adding references with a template. This search gets
five results, two using {{
sfn}} and two using {{
r}}. I think these will do what you want. —
Jts1882 |
talk 06:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
[ a-zA-Z\-\[\]]*
. That means any characters between the outer square brackets in any combination (space, any lower or uppercase letters, hyphen, square brackets). The * means none or many and \ is the escape character for the square brackets and hyphen. So you just need to add the escaped pipe within the outer square brackets (so this [ a-zA-Z\-\[\]\|]*
). There are
three more results with the pipe.—
Jts1882 |
talk 06:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alcippe (bird), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sylvia.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Giraffomorpha Add Palaeomerycidae and Giraffoidea Bovoidea Add Antilocapridae and Bovidae Cervoidea Add Cervidae and Moschidae Antilocapridae will be transferred from Giraffoidea to Bovoidea Pillow6 ( talk) 15:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC) Fix these errors for me please You Edit for me Please and just Do it Jts1882 and ignore BlackcurrantTea Please Pillow6 ( talk) 07:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC) What does draft mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillow6 ( talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Calyptorhynchus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zanda.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I have done one update that looks good to me, but others may not like it: Bletchley Park (actually infobox museum} – I just removed the picky details that I assume were needed when the article was created.
The reason for this ping is that I wanted to fix Milton Keynes Coachway. But that uses {{ infobox station}}, which doesn't seem to have this clever mapping facility. I am well aware that bus and rail fans are very touchy about outsiders 'interfering' so I am not optimistic about fixing it. Am I wasting my time? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
{{infobox station/sandbox
and add |mapframe=yes
at the bottom. You can change zoom etc using |mapframe-XXX=
parameters but these give a warning about unknown parameter at the moment. I can add the allowed parameters later if it is agreed to add the feature. It's off by default so shouldn't change any existing maps. In this particular case, I'm not convinced the mapframe map is an improvement on the existing map, but I see no reason not to add the option to the template. —
Jts1882 |
talk 09:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Tottenham Hale Station |
---|
Grammistops, could you contribute to this? Quetzal1964 ( talk) 10:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for being lazy, this can't be that hard, but I'm distracted with something else and you can probably fix this in a few seconds (if necessary). I just noticed that the info about the IUCN concept of endangered species has been removed from that article to here: endangered species (IUCN status). Thought it might be handy if the link in the template went directly to that article. Or actually just revert the change: outside of the USA the word "endangered" is almost always going to mean the IUCN definition... Eh? What's your take?
Turns out the EU also has (very unpublicised) conservation statuses for 6,000 species (basically 'good', 'bad' and 'very bad')... I'm still looking it over. Not sure yet if it merits a status bar, probably not. Cheers, Leo Breman ( talk) 21:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I always find it difficult to decide how far to go in "correcting" what I see to have been less good design decisions built into the automated taxobox system. Overloading parameters and the use of "blank vs. any nonblank" as a test are two features I wouldn't have included in the first place (although I still have enormous admiration for the way in which Smith609 managed to use – even "subvert" – the template coding language to automate taxoboxes).
When I started converting the system to Lua, there really wasn't anyone around to have a useful discussion with. So I'm delighted that you are involved now – and are checking up on me! Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
|status=
and |status_system=
(i.e. parameters {{{2}}} and {{{1}}}). However, I baulked at tackling all the options in the lower half of the template where there is just a |status=
as I wasn't sure about the template code. I need to revisit that at some point and we can remove another convoluted template. —
Jts1882 |
talk 16:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)What do I mean? I wanted to write a page for Fagraea racemosa, except now it is Utania racemosa. The genus list at Gentianaceae is out of date., I tried importing from the list at POWO using some "format linked taxon" and other tools and couldn't get them to work properly. Is there one you recommend? Thanks for your work and your help, hope you and yours are well. Brunswicknic ( talk) 04:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
|mode=genus
and |mode=taxon
which assume a single word genus or taxon name, possibly followed by an authority. Use |mode=genus
for a list of genera to italicise the name and |mode=taxon
for lists of families or other higher taxa without italics. The form to use is{{subst:Format species list|mode=genus| COPY AND PASTED LIST }}
Just a heads up. A recent creation of two redirects instead of taxonomy templates, such as here, caused a large number of taxobox errors, which took me some time to debug. Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the comment. Perhaps it is a good idea to slightly rephrase those sentences to describe Paulinella chromatophores as a distinct kind of plastids? What are your thoughts? Thank you, -- Pinoczet ( talk) 21:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll tell you my jury-rigged method for creating a stub. For the base, I use the numerical ID of PoWO, which theoretically is already in the Wikidata item. The fields are "PoWO_ID", "Wikidata_item", "Generic_name", "Specific_epithet", "Image", "Caption", "Authority(s)", "Distribution", "Synonym(s)", "Subtaxa", "Author_citation", "Common_name(s)", and "Year_described". The PoWO_ID is used to as the base of the the URL, and as the name of the ref so it can also be reused as the ref for the synonyms and subtaxa. The Wikidata item is used in the taxonbar. "Year_described" is used to create the category "Plants described in …". An example of one of my stubs is Carex lepidocarpa. Ideally the template could take the Wikidata item and fill in everything but "Caption", "Distribution", "Synonyms", "Subtaxa", and "Author_citation". "Authority" might be a problem since Wikidata does not use the proper abbreviation. Even more awesome, the template could look at the PoWO listing (if given the PoWO ID, not the binomial, as there are numerous duplicates) and grab the info directly from there. Abductive ( reasoning) 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
I wanted to thank you again for all the work you have done on the SportsRankings and Goalscorer modules. These modules have been extremely useful/efficient and have saved a tremendous amount of time, your contributions to Wikipedia are greatly appreciated! S.A. Julio ( talk) 18:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC) |
Noah 💬 19:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC) |
Thanks for your encouragement. Can I ask a question here? I'm happy to keep working toward a much longer genus list (and damn the torpedoes ... until it blows up, I guess), but even so, there's no world in which it makes sense to delete the four current FLs. It might make sense to add new information to the four current FLs, if that's deemed necessary to distinguish that 4-part list from the new, much longer list, per WP:Summary style. I once reviewed a FL candidate that was a sublist of a longer FL list ... and the longer list had around 35 rows! And reviewers agreed that that was "long enough" to justify a new, shorter FL with more information! The longer genus list we're talking about here might have 14,000 rows, or possibly more. So this talk about not being able to have two separate lists is ... well, I won't say what I think it is. Also, four people helped me create these pages, and each had 3 reviewers, a source reviewer, and a closer at FLC. Wikipedians tend to get a little cranky when you throw their hard work in the garbage for no good reason ... particularly when they were taking time away from their lists to help me with my nomination. So, my question is: is there any suitable name that comes to mind for the 4-page list? Choess doesn't like "Stearn" in the title, and maybe you don't either, and that's fine ... so how do we disambiguate the current lists from a new, longer genus list with sparser information? Or do I need to add more information to the current lists before we can answer that? - Dank ( push to talk) 17:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm picking up here the point you made in response to my post about Gesneriaceae at WT:PLANTS because it's about the workings of the automated taxobox system. At present, ranks are classified as either "major" and always displayed, or "minor" and only displayed if forced, either in the taxonomy template or in the taxobox, including if immediately above the target of the taxobox. There could be a third category, "minimus", to which subtribe would certainly belong, which would only display if forced, even if immediately above the target of the taxobox. It would be relatively easy to implement, although it would, of course, need a wide consensus across biology wikiprojects.
An extension would be to be able to force display of minor parents but not minimus parents, so that:
|display_parents=N
meant display N parents regardless of kind, minor or minimus (major are always displayed anyway)|display_minor_parents=N
meant display N parents, but not minimus onesI suspect this would be harder to gain support for.
Picking up another point you made, I've thought for some time that displaying by default only one minor rank above the target taxon doesn't work when that rank is like "subtribe" or "subsection". Even if rank "R" is a minor rank, if rank "subR" is displayed, "R" should be as well. This would be more fiddly to implement, but I would be willing to try it.
Thoughts? Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
|display_minor_parents=N
probably makes things too complicated, although it might help with some of the gastropod taxoboxes where there are relatively rare ranks that are important.rankOffset = rankValue - math.ceil(rankValue/100)*100;
if rankOffset < 0 and rankOffset > -10 then always display (rankValue - rankOffset);
{{
Anglicise rank}}
on 20 July 2020, but I didn't add it to the rank table for some reason, so its ordering would not have been checked. Now done. I think it's only used in
Template:Taxonomy/Blattoidae.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 08:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
-poidae
if using epifamilies for musteloids and herpestoids. —
Jts1882 |
talk 11:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
|display-parents=
.>>> import pykew.powo as powo >>> from pykew.powo_terms import Filters >>> result=powo.search('Gesneriaceae',filters = [Filters.accepted, Filters.genera]) >>> [r['name'] for r in result if 'name' in r] ['Achimenes', 'Aeschynanthus', 'Agalmyla', 'Allocheilos', 'Alloplectus', 'Allostigma', 'Alsobia', 'Amalophyllon', 'Anetanthus', 'Anna', 'Asteranthera', 'Beccarinda', 'Bellonia', 'Besleria', 'Billolivia', 'Boea', 'Boeica', 'Briggsiopsis', 'Cathayanthe', 'Centrosolenia', 'Championia', 'Chautemsia', 'Chayamaritia', 'Christopheria', 'Chrysothemis', 'Codonanthe', 'Codonanthopsis', 'Codonoboea', 'Columnea', 'Conandron', 'Coptocheile', 'Corallodiscus', 'Coronanthera', 'Corytoplectus', 'Crantzia', 'Cremersia', 'Cremosperma', 'Cremospermopsis', 'Cubitanthus', 'Cyrtandra', 'Damrongia', 'Deinostigma', 'Depanthus', 'Diastema', 'Didissandra', 'Didymocarpus', 'Didymostigma', 'Dorcoceras', 'Drymonia', 'Emarhendia', 'Episcia', 'Epithema', 'Eucodonia', 'Fieldia', 'Gasteranthus', 'Gesneria', 'Glabrella', 'Glossoloma', 'Gloxinella', 'Gloxinia', 'Gloxiniopsis', 'Goyazia', 'Gyrocheilos', 'Gyrogyne', 'Haberlea', 'Hemiboea', 'Henckelia', 'Heppiella', 'Hexatheca', 'Jerdonia', 'Kaisupeea', 'Kohleria', 'Lampadaria', 'Lembocarpus', 'Leptoboea', 'Lesia', 'Liebigia', 'Litostigma', 'Loxocarpus', 'Loxonia', 'Loxostigma', 'Lysionotus', 'Mandirola', 'Metapetrocosmea', 'Microchirita', 'Middletonia', 'Mitraria', 'Monophyllaea', 'Monopyle', 'Moussonia', 'Napeanthus', 'Nautilocalyx', 'Negria', 'Nematanthus', 'Neomortonia', 'Niphaea', 'Nomopyle', 'Orchadocarpa', 'Oreocharis', 'Ornithoboea', 'Pachycaulos', 'Pagothyra', 'Paliavana', 'Paraboea', 'Paradrymonia', 'Parakohleria', 'Pearcea', 'Peltanthera', 'Petrocodon', 'Petrocosmea', 'Pheidonocarpa', 'Phinaea', 'Platystemma', 'Primulina', 'Pseudochirita', 'Rachunia', 'Ramonda', 'Raphiocarpus', 'Reldia', 'Resia', 'Rhabdothamnopsis', 'Rhabdothamnus', 'Rhoogeton', 'Rhynchoglossum', 'Rhynchotechum', 'Rhytidophyllum', 'Ridleyandra', 'Rufodorsia', 'Sanango', 'Sarmienta', 'Seemannia', 'Senyumia', 'Sepikea', 'Shuaria', 'Sinningia', 'Smithiantha', 'Solenophora', 'Somrania', 'Spelaeanthus', 'Sphaerorrhiza', 'Stauranthera', 'Streptocarpus', 'Tetraphylloides', 'Titanotrichum', 'Tribounia', 'Trichodrymonia', 'Tylopsacas', 'Vanhouttea', 'Whytockia']
>>> result=powo.search('Gesneria',filters = [Filters.accepted, Filters.species]) >>> [r['name'] for r in result if 'name' in r] ['Gesneria acaulis', 'Gesneria alpina', 'Gesneria aspera', 'Gesneria barahonensis', 'Gesneria binghamii', 'Gesneria brachysepala', 'Gesneria bracteosa', 'Gesneria brevifolia', 'Gesneria bullata', 'Gesneria calycina', 'Gesneria calycosa', 'Gesneria celsioides', 'Gesneria christii', 'Gesneria citrina', 'Gesneria clandestina', 'Gesneria clarensis', 'Gesneria cubensis', 'Gesneria cuneifolia', 'Gesneria decapleura', 'Gesneria depressa', 'Gesneria duchartreoides', 'Gesneria ekmanii', 'Gesneria exserta', 'Gesneria ferruginea', 'Gesneria filipes', 'Gesneria fruticosa', 'Gesneria glandulosa', 'Gesneria gloxinioides', 'Gesneria haitiensis', 'Gesneria harrisii', 'Gesneria heterochroa', 'Gesneria humilis', 'Gesneria hybocarpa', 'Gesneria hypoclada', 'Gesneria jamaicensis', 'Gesneria lanceolata', 'Gesneria libanensis', 'Gesneria nipensis', 'Gesneria odontophylla', 'Gesneria onychocalyx', 'Gesneria pachyclada', 'Gesneria parvifolia', 'Gesneria pauciflora', 'Gesneria pedicellaris', 'Gesneria pedunculosa', 'Gesneria pulverulenta', 'Gesneria pumila', 'Gesneria purpurascens', 'Gesneria quisqueyana', 'Gesneria reticulata', 'Gesneria salicifolia', 'Gesneria scabra', 'Gesneria sintenisii', 'Gesneria sylvicola', 'Gesneria ventricosa', 'Gesneria viridiflora', 'Gesneria wrightii']
Just wanted your opinion. List of mammals of Sardinia and List of mammals of Corsica exist, yet there is no reason for them to, since the two islands have no endemic mammal species, and those that might be are already included in List of mammals of Italy and List of mammals of France, respectively. Do you think this warrants a merge? And if so, should I write a post about it on WProject Mammals? Thanks. Ddum5347 ( talk) 21:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to bring this official club source to your attention: Blank officially announces name as Atlanta United Football Club. There is a user who shows strong displays of WP:OWN, WP:ROWN and WP:BATTLEFIELD and wantonly reverts and blocks the addition of the club’s full name to the article. I’d appreciate a response when you have the time so that a resolution can be found. Thanks. - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem ( talk) 10:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
It's been awhile. I read this discussion again:
There is new discussion about problems with the row number column here:
I was thinking that the simplest solution would be to add an integrated blank column on the left side of a table.
Then use Wikipedia:TemplateStyles to create a class=rownumbers.
The column head for that blank column would be
class=rownumbers|Row
The styles template would use whatever is the simplest CSS row counter.
The Phabricator thread has several methods:
The web has several methods:
All or most Numbeo.com tables have an integrated fixed column of row numbers. For example; click the column heads here:
Found these 2 CSS methods with Google searches:
Both of them use very little CSS to do the job. I would do it myself, but I know only some very basic CSS.
After the template stylesheet is created I would go through the many existing fixed-row-number tables listed here:
I would put the tables in templates using that stylesheet. I would add a blank column. That is easy to do with the visual editor.
This would solve all the problems with flag icons, zooming in and out, alignment, wide tables, etc.. I could remove class=nowrap too. Tables could contract and expand depending on screen size. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 11:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
display:
value that makes it behave like a header cell (the darker grey background). —
Jts1882 |
talk 06:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)static-row-number-column
).class="blank-header"
or class="hash-header"
). The background colour should also be an option so it can be used with different table classes. I think different numbering styles possible (e.g. i,ii,iii
or a,b,c
), although I don't see a need. What can't be done is passing a parameter such as |header-title=
or |row-number-offset=2
. The options need to be hard coded into classes in the styles file (a few fixed colour options) and then selected by adding the appropriate class to the table. —
Jts1882 |
talk 12:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
row-number-align-top
, row-number-align-middle
and row-number-align-bottom
can be set up to handle the alignment. —
Jts1882 |
talk 12:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Templatestyles is underused on Wikipedia as it can provide very simple solutions if you can find the appropriate css code (often quite difficult).
The formating you want needs to know the content of the element.
data-sort-type=number
? Could there be a way to right justify them by default using TemplateStyles?
— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (
talk) 07:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
data-sort-type=number
, adding a style in the same place has a clarity that automating the alignment wouldn't.—
Jts1882 |
talk 08:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
|-class=sort-row
below the header row. I
got started, and quickly got stuck at figuring out how many columns to add.
— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (
talk) 03:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
style=background-position:center
. While it might be possible to use something like thead:after
, I think that could only introduce a blank row (without cells). It would also only work on sortable tables in deskview, so wouldn't be an acceptable solution. —
Jts1882 |
talk 07:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It would also only work on sortable tables in deskview
(unindent). See: T35249. Sorting icon needs to be below the table header text to keep tables narrower, and for screen readers. Jts1882. Do you have any pull with the other developers? Having the core mediawiki table software put the sorting icon below the header text would be so much simpler. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
templatestyles
. —
Jts1882 |
talk 13:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why the developers will not fix this.
— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ( talk) 21:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)it is not unusual for phab reports to be open for a long time, sometimes in excess of a decade.
This is simple and doesn't need templatestyles.
|-class=sort-row
instead of having to manually repeat !!style=background-position:center|
multiple times.
— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (
talk) 21:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thead tr.sort-row th { background-position: center; } /* thead only used for sortable tables in desktop view */
Unindent. I like your idea of using the same name for the template and the class. I like simple. How about Template:Static row numbers and class="static row numbers"?
Also, how about a class that names the row header column "Row". class=row-header. Then the background color is less important for distinguishing this static column of numbers from the regular sortable column of numbers. I think the static column of row numbers will eventually take over.
I was wondering if the periods are necessary after the row numbers?
Can you link to a cladogram example using templatestyles? I am curious as to how it is done.
I am wondering why the principle of templatestyles does not completely take over how all table CSS and JS is downloaded to articles. I think the Mediawiki software should be set up to recognize any table wikitext, and then (and only then) download table CSS and JS. This would make articles without tables open faster. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
|class=row-header
wouldn't work. Each option would need a named class and code to handle it (e.g. row-header-hash, row-header-blank
).row-numbers-period
).row-header-hash, row-header-blank, row-header-row
. These sound good, simple, and easy to remember. I would use all 3 depending on the table. I would put "Row" on long tables. Because it would not make the table wider since there would be numbers like 222 already using 3 spaces.row-numbers-period
sounds good as the name for an option to add periods.Hello and good morning @ Jts1882:, i would to know of what did you exactly mean by "I think we should consider what people are expecting when they come to the article. I suspect most people are expecting mammals found there now, so don't want a list dominated by extinct animals. On the other hand, people might be interested to know about what mammals live there in the past have been made extinct by man. For instance would they be interested that the UK used to have wolves, lynxes and bears or would they only have interest in those making it past 1500AD? The IUCN 1500 is arbitrary (presumably something to do with written records) and I don't think arbitrary limits are particularly encyclopaedic (i.e. only listing the wolf and not bears and lynxes in my UK example). Perhaps there is a compromise. Restrict the main list to extant mammals (and recently extinct with documented last sightings) and have a section for selected extinct mammals which would need to be properly sourced for each entry." because i happen to have a deep feeling that having a cut off date for the IUCN which is 1500 AD specifically, is not appropriate for the list of mammals of anywhere and that we should allow animals that became extinct/extirpated in each region by the Iron Age, Bronze Age, Ancient History, Post classical history or any timeframe in written history but prior to 1500 AD. I personally suggest that the list of mammals of each region should include mammals that are either extinct or extirpated in any type of region in the world by anytime of written history (e.g. Bronze Age, Ancient History, Post classical history, Iron Age, or whatever time frame but before 1500 AD), due to the fact that having mammals only becoming in each region by 1500 AD or later after that particular timeframe is precisely illogical and not fair for the list of mammals only including 1500 AD. Anyways, so could you please tell me of what you meant by the quote that i included? -- Animalworlds314 ( talk) 12:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've just compared the the phylogenies of Oliveros et al 2019 again Kuhl et al 2020 for three superfamilies: Muscicapoidea, Certhioidea and Bombycilloidea. I had assumed that there would be general agreement in these simple cases - but no such luck (that is unless I'm getting confused between suborders, parvorders, Infraorders etc). The two articles agree on Certhioidae but for Muscicapoidea the position of Cinclidae differs. For Bombycilloidea Oliveros has the family Bombycillidae in a basal position but Kuhl has it as sister to Hypocoliidae in a derived position. Kuhl didn't sample all the families - but this isn't encouraging.
The wikipedia articles on the higher level passerine taxonomy are often out of date - but it isn't easy to know the best way to fix them - especially as there seems to still be uncertainty in the phylogeny and also in which names above family level are generally accepted by ornithologists. In 2014 Cracraft changed some of the oscine superfamilies to parvorders. Oliveros used many of the Cracraft definitions - but for example omitted Meliphagides (previously Meliphagoidea) which appears to form a good clade. Kuhl avoids using higher level names altogether - "Passeri OHC 10A" etc. (Note the Cracraft is one of the authors of Oliveros et al).
I notice in your enormous new cladogram you have the parvorder Meliphagida - where did this name come from? Happy editing - Aa77zz ( talk) 15:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Aa77zz: Apart from differences in family coverage and recognition, the differences I see between the two studies are as follows:
The guide tree phylogeny in Feng et al (2020) is more compatible with Oliveros, with only the position of Regulidae different (agreeing with Kuhl). They agree on the positions of Neosittidae, Dicruridae, Cisticolidae and Cinclidae, but don't sample Psophodidae, Pnoepygidae, or sufficient bombycilloid families. — Jts1882 | talk 10:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox netball biography/club career has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX talk 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Jts1882, I'm trying my hand at typestyes. I was wondering if it'd be possible to id cells on tables with css, and then refer to them with a Lua function. Somehing like this:
table.spreadsheet { counter-reset: row; counter-reset: col; } table.spreadsheet tr { counter-increment: row; } table.spreadsheet td { counter-increment: col; id: 'R'+row+'C'+col }
What do you reckon? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 01:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I originally misspelled the title of this article as Paradichthyinae and have now corrected it, however the Automatic taxobox is still showing my misspelt name. Any ideas how to fix this? Does the redirect from my misspelt title need deleted? TIA Quetzal1964 ( talk) 10:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
could you fix the bottom two bar lines in User:Dracophyllum/sandbox#Full Dracophyllum Cladogram? It's annoying me.
Thanks. Draco phyllum 06:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
|grouplabel=
on the outer clade as when nested in the structure it does strange and hard to predict things to the HTML table structure (the cladogram is made up of nested HTML tables). It also makes positioning the group labels easier as its 0-100% of the whole cladogram rather than 0-100% of the nested table.|style=
(for all labels) or |style1=
, |style2=
, etc. for the individual labels. I've added text colour. —
Jts1882 |
talk 07:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, just wondering if you could update Module:SportsRankings/data/BSWW World Ranking? The rankings are now on [4], and the layout of the page was significantly changed, now including not only men's national teams. There are no previous rankings listed on this website. Regards.-- User:Tomcat7 ( talk) 09:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jts1882, I assume you created the Template:Static row numbers. I don't claim to understand it fully, but it appears to be a significant improvement for Wikipedia and I want to thank you for it. A related issue: the Template:Row numbers is discussed for deletion. I am hesitant to join the discussion because I am not sure if I understand the issue well enough. Maybe you could add some clarity to discussion? -- Kallichore ( talk) 04:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Thanks for taking on the project of enabling references to work within {{ Mapframe}} and seeing it through! Myself and many other editors and readers will benefit 🙂 {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
Re our comm : after your last edit, the popup displays : The jaguar ( ) (Panthera onca) is a large ..
, but the full page view does show the content inside the 2 IPA templates. It looks like it does not matter whether and what is written between 2 {{}} templates. Perhaps the preview popups can just NOT render text inside such templates? –
BhagyaMani (
talk) 11:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I still do not understand what you mean by not adding in scientific papers published by wikipedia users and common names used for specific periods of time. Could you elaborate, but in layman's terms? Firekong1 ( talk) 20:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Clade gallery/styles-div.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 ( talk) 00:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Clade/styles2.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 ( talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Did you mean to add a couple of references at Prasinophyte? YorkshireExpat ( talk) 18:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Goal/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 ( talk) 09:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you !! While working on the aurochs, I referenced umpteen articles; some authors referred to BP, some to BC, others to 'years ago' – quite a mix of different time scales. Is there any template that allows to translate them all into just one, either BP or BC? Or can you devise one, e.g. similar to the {{mya}}? Cheers – BhagyaMani ( talk) 10:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
approx. BCdates, I convert to BP using ↑ formula. I just want to avoid BC and use BP as consistently as possible, so that the reader is not left puzzling. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 17:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your good and constructive addition to Talk:Giraffe#Pros and cons, and I respect you for your knowledge of the subject. While we still differ on the one issue you replied to in the parent section, I want to focus on what's likely to lead to a good solution. Cheers! ◅ Sebastian 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your further additions. Now I have a question: In one case, you write “favours reticulata as fourth species”. What do you mean by that? I was under the impression that all ‘four species’ sources include G. reticulata. Are you saying that somehow the sequence matters? ◅ Sebastian 12:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
reticulata has been treated as a subspecies of G. campelopardalis by some recent authors, although it appears to be better recognized as a distinct species based on the most recent publications using whole genome data. Earlier versions of database followed Petzold & Hassanin in recognising three species. The download of version 1.31 says
reticulata has been treated as a distinct species by some recent authors, although it appears to be better under G. camelopardalis based on the most recent publicationsand cites Petzold & Hassanin (2020). In version 1.5 they changed it to the current version recognising four species and added Coimbra et al 2021 to the citations. — Jts1882 | talk 12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This search finds a large number of articles where the species has the status EX but † doesn't show against the species name because |extinct=yes
is missing. However, this search also finds some cases where the genus is extinct, so |extinct=yes
isn't needed, and † does show correctly.
I haven't been able to figure out a search which leaves out the extinct genus cases. Can you?
(One possibility rather than going through and adding |extinct=yes
is to use |status=EX
in {{
Speciesbox}} to insert the †, but this would need some discussion I think.)
Peter coxhead (
talk) 07:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
|status=EX
, it's not obvious that another parameter is needed to mark the names extinct. Let |extinct=
be reserved for when there is no conservation status. I think this would further rationalise the extinction parameters, along with adding |extinction_date=
.|fossil_range=
to get extinction status, but that's probably too complicated for the number of cases involved. —
Jts1882 |
talk 08:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Although the ICZN doesn't recognize 'ranks' below subspecies, there are things like forms and morphs (the latter beloved of lepidopterists for example), so I think it is worth providing some way of varying the name of the infra-subspecies rank, so that it's effectively an "infraspecies zoology" taxobox template. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
|infraspecies_rank=
collection of parameters, which confusingly are currently using {{
paraphyletic group}}, as well as for zoological terms like forms and morphs. They could use the same parameters or possibly analogous zoological ones to keep separate from the plant/fungal ones.|infraspecies_rank=
parameters. —
Jts1882 |
talk 12:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Code | Output | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{Population taxobox | name = Pied raven | status = EX | extinct = 1948 | genus = Corvus | species = corax | subspecies=varius | population = ''leucophaeus'' | population_rank_name = Morpha | population_rank_abbrev = [[Polymorphism (biology)|morpha]] }} |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{Population taxobox | name = Pied raven | status = EX | extinct = 1948 | genus = Corvus | species = corax | subspecies=varius | infraspecies_rank1 = ''leucophaeus'' | infraspecies_rank1_name = Morpha | infraspecies_rank1_abbrev = [[Polymorphism (biology)|morpha]] }} |
|
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
In appreciation for your efforts to design and improve templates and resolve disputes so creatively! – BhagyaMani ( talk) 20:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC) |
This 2020 edit you made to {{
Subspeciesbox/sandbox}} was never applied to the live version. Should it be? I think it was a fix for name =
with no value.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 07:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
|name=
is empty and absent (tested at
orange-bellied trogon). However, is that the desired behaviour? Should the page title set the taxobox title when name is absent?|name=
is absent, but the page name when it is empty.|name=
is absent and when it is empty.|name=
is absent and when it is empty.I applied your old edit to {{
Subspeciesbox}} so that absent and empty |name=
have the same behaviour – which we agree is the wrong behaviour, but at least it's now consistent. The next step is to fix both this template and {{
Infraspeciesbox}}.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
{{ Subspeciesbox/sandbox}} now appears to have the correct behaviour, e.g. using it at Orange-bellied trogon causes the taxobox name to be "Orange-bellied trogon". I need to do some more tests where the page is at the scientific name and there are complications, like disambiguated genus names. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Greetings. I came to ask for advice when it comes to editing grammar of other users, since I'm a bit of a grammar nazi, and I have no intention of disruptive editing or vandalism. I'm speaking from a place of understanding, as I'm still learning and growing as a wikipedian. Firekong1 ( talk) 16:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand now. I just hope that my edits didn't come off as disruptive or vandalism. That's never my intent. Firekong1 ( talk) 19:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Good to hear! Do you mind linking me to them so I can ask them in the future? Firekong1 ( talk) 20:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey: I collated this with 3 different basemaps, all with labels; and tried a few colours for the polygon layers: in the 1st, blue turned out to be the best colour for the layers as it contrasts with the red labels for cities of the basemap. In the 2nd + 3rd map, red layers are best imo. The 1st + 3rd basemaps are also available withOUT labels for cities, but the 3rd without city labels has state borders. So the question is : are city labels important? – BhagyaMani ( talk) 15:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The cladograms are now so, so much better. Thanks for being bold. I was hesitating, unsure what to do.
It could be useful, I think, to show the paraphyletic s.s. definition of Charophyta as per the taxobox. It could be put on one of the cladograms using the "bar" parameters, and if separately explained and referenced shouldn't be synth. This could serve as a ref, but this doesn't show embryophytes either, so both could just be because they aren't algae. Is there a good recent source for the paraphyletic circumscription? Or is it just historical? Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
which edition says "preferred"? ~ cygnis insignis 10:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Could review for the article? I think we only need one more such we have two contents reviews a source check and an image check. LittleJerry ( talk) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Would you please give advice how to improve the layout of the cladogram in the section *Phylogeny* on this page? At present, it is set in a 3-column table, which looks ok on a wide screen. But on a small screen requires scrolling to the right. Wouldn't it be better to set this in a clade gallery ? – BhagyaMani ( talk) 15:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Six genes from 76 Carnivora species [1] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
46 genes from 75 musteloids [2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
51 mitogenomes from 220 mammals [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Caniformia |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mustelidae (weasels and allies)wrapping to 3 lines. Perhaps a bit narrow? Or the text in () needs not be repeated ? — BhagyaMani ( talk) 18:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Template:Passeroidea Cladogram has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 01:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
While looking through pages marked with a lua script error, I noticed {{ CladeN hidden}}. After looking through the revision history of the lua module, you mentioned you moved the hidden function to a seperate sub-module. Do you think you could fix the CladeN hidden template to use this sub-module? Thanks. Aidan9382 ( talk) 17:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Would you be able to create two cladograms of the genera Macaca, Mandrillus, Cercocebus, Theropithecus, Papio and Lophocebus (ignore species) using this and this. Structure them like you did for the red panda cladograms above. Thank you. LittleJerry ( talk) 17:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
header1 text |
---|
footer1 text |
header2 text |
---|
footer2 text |
Requesting another double cladogram. Could you pair up the one below with a another one based on this Thanks again. LittleJerry ( talk) 01:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add an option to alphabetize the child templates displayed in your taxonomy browser script? Plantdrew ( talk) 01:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
There's an inconsistency in whether the non-underscore variants are included or not in the check for unknown parameters: compare {{ Speciesbox}} and {{ Automatic taxobox}}. Personally, I'd like to get rid of the non-underscore variants altogether, but this may be too drastic to gain support. I would be happy to remove "type strain ref" that I added to {{ Speciesbox}}. Articles using it would then show up in the error-tracking categories and could have the parameter changed to "type_strain_ref". Thoughts? Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I've been checking Automatic Taxobox for spaced parameter every couple weeks. But it's better to have that in the tracking category. There are few enough instances of spaced parameters manual taxonomies that it wouldn't be too onerous for me to eliminate them but I may not have time to work on it for a few weeks. Plantdrew ( talk) 18:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding "other monocots" ... of course we needed that, sorry I missed it.
I thought my next list was going to be the commelinids, but I've run into a US$380 snag ... that's how much Kubitzki's FGVP will cost, and I'd like to add that as a source when possible to beef up my descriptions of the type genera. I may pass on that list for now, I haven't decided.
Consider this an open invitation to improve cladograms in my lists in any way you like. Check my user page any time you like, to see which lists are "in progress" and what's currently at WP:FLC. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brewcaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Navia.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I remember asking you last time about how changing common names for species would occur, and I did not get any answer. Could you get back to me on that when you can? Firekong1 ( talk) 18:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Another example would be giving African bush elephants and African forest elephants the simple common names "bush elephants" and "forest elephants" respectively. There are no bush elephants and forest elephants outside of Africa, so there is no need to strictly refer to them as "African". So references would not always be needed for such a name.
Hi Jts. Template:Taxonomy/Trachelipus has a duplicate id= parm in the {{ BioRef}}. I'm guessing id=1083 is spurious (it's for Tantulocarida). Also, Template:Taxonomy/Trachelipodidae has the same problem. Davemck ( talk) 03:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you have edited the Mapframe module and I was wondering if you could help: I left a question at the bottom of Module talk:Mapframe regarding missing scales in maplink frames. Or maybe you know a Lua hacker that I could contact about this? Thanks, AxelBoldt ( talk) 22:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Heya... Can we get an update of the output so that it's more along the lines of how it is formatted on ASM MDD's About page? Also, the current output produces a broken URL. They no longer use species-account.php, and the URL now requires the id.
Current output:
Desired output:
Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
|genus=
+|species=
option as an alternative to |id=
got broken. I have talked to them about changes to allow linking to the expanded explore taxonomy table (e.g. to show the genera in a family or species in a genus), but that hasn't happened yet.|id=
and |title=
with |version=
, e.g.
{{BioRef|asm|title=''Dipodomys deserti'' Stephens, 1887|id=1001892 |version=1.10 |access-date=23 January 2023}}
|version=
, |date=
or |mode=cs1/cs2
, so alternatives would be:
{{BioRef|asm|title=''Dipodomys deserti'' Stephens, 1887|id=1001892 |version=1.10 (December 2022) |mode=cs2 |access-date=23 January 2023}}
{{BioRef|asm|title=''Dipodomys deserti'' Stephens, 1887|id=1001892 |version=1.10 |date=December 2022 }}
{{BioRef|asm|title=''Dipodomys deserti'' Stephens, 1887|id=1001892 |version=1.10 |year=2022 }}
|access-date=
and |version=1.10
. —
Jts1882 |
talk 08:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
|title=
and |url=
, e.g.
{{BioRef|asm|title=''Dipodomys deserti'' Stephens, 1887|url=https://www.mammaldiversity.org/explore.html#genus=Dipodomys&species=deserti&id=1001892 |version=1.10 |access-date=23 January 2023}}
{{BioRef|asm|genus=Dipodomys|species=deserti|id=1001892 |version=1.10 |access-date=23 January 2023}}
I've made a temporary change to fix the link with the genus+species+id link. Your example should work now. — Jts1882 | talk 11:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Turns out the genus and species parameters are not required. All it needs is the id as the third parameter. It doesn't matter what is in the genus and species parameters or what the first two parameters are called. All the following urls work:
So I've been able to fix the references which just have the id.
Hopefully there will be some improvements at the ASM end soon. — Jts1882 | talk 14:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
There is now an interactive treeview display:
— Jts1882 | talk 07:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm using User:Jts1882/taxonomybrowser.js (although I notice you have a page at User:Jts1882/taxonomybrowser2.js). If I go to Template:Taxonomy/Quercus sect. Cerris and invoke the taxonomy browser, the taxon name box shows "Quercus_sect._Cerris" and pressing "Get taxonomic tree" shows nothing. I have to manually change the underscores in the taxon name box to spaces, and then it works. Presumably this can be fixed, or am I using the wrong version? Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Could you make some cladograms? The first one based on the molecular tree here and the second one here using only Phascolarctidae. Please keep them boundaryless. Thank you. LittleJerry ( talk) 22:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Relationship between families |
---|
Phascolarctidae | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hello. Could you make a cladogram based on fig 15.2 in this article? You can ignore the species, just list the genera. LittleJerry ( talk) 23:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Proboscidea | "plesielephantiforms" "mastodonts" | |
Hello again. I'd like to request a cladogram based on this. Don't replicate all the clades of each species. Just represent the species. Please add the giant panda as basal to the group. The whole clade can be labeled "Ursidae" and the clade that contains the polar, brown, blacks, sun and sloth bear can be labeled Ursinae. Thanks again! LittleJerry ( talk) 22:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Would you be able to flip it so that polar bear is at the top? LittleJerry ( talk) 09:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
For helping a Luddite's poor brain! Much appreciated :) SN54129 13:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC) |
Template:Multiref/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 11:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure we should have articles on bacterial strains like
Escherichia coli O104:H4, but if we do, it seemed to me that {{
Infraspeciesbox special}}
offered a way to create a taxobox. However,
Module:Biota infobox would not handle a null value for |infraspecies_rank1_abbrev=
, so I modified it so that it would. This makes the taxobox on
Escherichia coli O104:H4 work and so far as I can tell doesn't mess up any other uses, but you are better placed than me to check.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 06:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
{{-}}
for empty rank abbreviations, so left out infraspecies_rank1_abbrev
and got a Lua error, which I decided to fix – it seemed to me more logical just to leave the parameter out or give it an empty value. So, no, you now don't need {{-}}
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)How can we improve these three templates? They're unused but contain useful-looking sources. The wikilink for each genus redirects to Douglas Lake Member. We normally bypass such redirects, but then they normally lead to a related taxon rather than a geology article. Pinging Plantdrew who knows more than I do about such things. Certes ( talk) 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thank you!
Myth Sys (
talk) 22:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jts1882, I'm trying to fix up this article for GAN. The evolution section is proving challenging. I wondered since you often work on phylogenies if you knew where the cladogram came from, or which sources would be best if not? Any help would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you look at this and weigh in please? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Template:Multiref2/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 10:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
What do you make of this new article? Is it just another bird cladogram to add to your collection, or does it finally resolve the phylogeny?
I understand very little of the analysis, but it is worrying that results are so dependent on the exact data used. Extended Data Fig. 4 includes a comparison of the "main tree" with the results obtained using UCEs (with 1000bp flanking regions). The trees are different. Many recent studies rely on sequence capture with UCEs - often with less generous flanking regions. - Aa77zz ( talk) 13:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I was considering adding to the plant articles on English wikipedia - but I'm unsure of which modern source to cite for the taxonomy. When editing bird articles I cite the original description together with a modern source that cites the original description.
In Corsica a common prickly plant is Asparagus albus. This was first formally described in 1753 by Linnaeus on page 314 of his Species plantarum - the BHL scan is here. As far as I can determine, there was only one edition/printing of this book - but several databases claim that the description occurs on page 313:
It seems that these databases are not independent sources and data is simply copied without any form of human curation. Are they considered to be reliable?
The correct page number is given in the multi-volume Flora Europaea: Volume 5. Alismataceae to Orchidaceae (Monocotyledones) (1980) p. 72 Link is to volume - (need to search for albus) https://www.google.fr/books/edition/Flora_Europaea/v11xJgWbUDcC?hl=en&gbpv=1
The original Euro+Med plantbase website claims to be based on Flora Europaea but strangely has the wrong page (ie p 313) http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameCache=Asparagus%20albus&PTRefFk=8000000
but the newer version of Euro+Med plantbase has the correct page 314 - with a link to the BHL scan: https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d42dad9c-10b6-452c-88ae-08146436a78e
So which modern source should I cite for European plants? It seems that Flora Europaea would be ideal but for this I would need to visit a specialist library - which I can only do when I'm in London. - Aa77zz ( talk) 15:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)