Template talk:Equus

Redlinks

The template at the moment has almost half redlinks. Some are synonyms of other names, and can be fixed simply by creating the appropriate redirect to the other name. Others are missing articles; instead of deleting their redlinks, please turn them into articles. The template is not yet used on any pages, so redlinks won't be bothering anyone who shouldn't be bothered. --Una Smith (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Two templates?

Seems there is no need for two templates for both extinct and living species templates, seems one template with different categories can do both. Montanabw^(talk) 04:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Montanabw, but as discussed recently on Template talk:Equine, that goes against a couple of Wikipedia conventions re categories of navboxes. --Una Smith (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms

Should junior synonyms be included in this navbox, or omitted? I think I would prefer to include them, but perhaps flag them in some way as synonyms. --Una Smith (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think i would be easier to leave out the Synonyms. From what I am finding many of the fossil taxa have anywhere from 2 to 5 Synonyms on average. Take a look at the taxobox for [[Equus Francisci] (I just made the article a couple of hours ago). The second paragrap is a simplified taxonomic history.--Kevmin (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That is okay with me, provided all the synonyms are redirect pages and are included in Category:Equus. That will help future editors avoid making redlinks and expanding those redlinks into duplicate articles. Is this solution satisfactory to all? --Una Smith (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Improvement

I personally have long loathed the awkwardness of the "extinct" and "extant" wording at the top (the user who insisted upon it was ultimately blocked a couple years ago and I hate to dredge this all up again, but...). I think all the extinct species have that little + sign by them, so IMHO, just chopping that and replacing it with a little key indicating that the ones with a + are extinct (or whatever) is neater and more elegant. Montanabw^(talk) 04:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, exactly like that! Thanks. Question: Template:Perissodactyla breaks animals down into genus or some form of grouping. Do you think this template could be improved by such a structure -- maybe not identical, but some way of showing the "taxonomy tree"? Or is it best to just stay with alphabetical order? I don't know, but am wondering. As it sits, I find the navbox not all that helpful if, say, I were looking for all the zebra subspecies or all the prehistoric horses that are now extinct. Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately taxonomy is yet another of those things that is not my best suit. But I think what we have here is one genus, so there's no taxonomic tree, though there may be an evolutionary one. I don't find the navbox particularly helpful as it stands. I wondered about just including the common name after the systematic name for those species that have one. Might that help? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like the idea of adding common names where they exist. We may need Kim or Kevmin to help. Someone who knows taxonomy. I agree that this navbox isn't all that helpful. Maybe evolutionary classifications would work, though we then might want to tap the lead editors over on the evolution article, unless we wanted to just lump ALL the prehistoric ancestors now extinct into one pile at the bottom of the navbox for the day someone else wants to classify them -- I think some were evolutionary dead ends and others were direct ancestors of the modern horse, but evolutionary taxonomy is even more of a blur to me than that of extant species, where I suspect you and I are probably about on the same page. Montanabw^(talk) 04:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible merge to here?

Wondering if we could or should merge {{Equidae extinct nav}} into this one. I don't really know which way to go, as far as the ancestral (and proposed but now rejected) evolutionary forms. Thoughts? Discussion? Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove Selous' zebra

The sources for Selous' zebra are either unreliable or dead links. I have a hard time believing this is a real subspecies, considering I could not find any other sources that mention it. I attempted to remove it before, but others have reverted this. Ddum5347 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ddum5347: This is a navbox, allowing people to find relevant WP articles. If you are dubious the species exists, get the article itself deleted ( see WP:AFD ) or moved. Or, at least edit that article to explain why it’s dubious. That’s the way to solve the problem. Navboxs follow articles... Montanabw^(talk) 01:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)