Template talk:Taxobox/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Continued problem with "status2", etc.

The paramater set for "status2" has all the same problems that "status" used to have: the "status2_ref" doesn't work if CITES is the system, and "Threatened with extinction" is still listed underneath. My guess is this that comes from creating the "status2" set by copying the "status" set code and only making fixes to the latter. I'd fix it, but don't have the rights. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you link to an example? It works fine for me. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Example: Sunda Slow Loris – VisionHolder « talk » 04:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, but the threatened bit shouldn't have shown up. I'll look at the code quickly here. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Turns out the code is duplicated for those without the status system (which, since you misplaced the 2, it thought it had no status system), and I hadn't duplicated the code. Sometime when I'm not busy I'll have to see if I can get the redundancy in that template cleaned up. Anyway, that edit fixed it. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, and sorry for the error on my part. I must admit that it was very confusing since I was using a incorrect parameter but still getting results. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem-- I'm glad you made the error, or we wouldn't have discovered that! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

proposal

Ok, the current tense situation is not good. I therefore make the following proposal in order to keep maintenance of this page going without bogging it down too much under the requirement that everything needs to be discussed to the details before it can implemented. I therefore propose the following procedure:

1. Anything obvious controversial needs to be discussed first.
2. Maintenance, performance, consistency edits can be carried out, and are logged at this talk page. Each log entry should consist of a single issue, which could be complex and cover several templates.
3. Objections to non-controversial edits can be discussed at those log entries.
4. Entries that receive a non-procedural objection are reverted immediately until consensus is achieved.

What do others think? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

Basically, follow policy? I agree with the proposal, but I'm not the one making edits out of consensus. Without an agreement by admins to follow policy editing this template, this proposal seems to be of limited impact.

I do like the idea of a running log of proposed edits, even non-controversial edits. I would like the log to include links to proposed controversial edit discussion, also; just to keep a list of all in one place.

I don't like the revert immediately. Unnecessarily reverting an edit to a protected template can be just as bad as making it in the first place. I think an agreement by administrators to not edit without consensus is necessary to resolve the entire issue and to eliminate creating greater problems by edit/revert/edit/revert.

But, generally support maintaining a log at the top of the page for followers to know what is going on, what will be going on, and to give all interested editors an opportunity to improve good edits and forestall bad or unnecessary edits. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, because you say you support the proposal, but at the same time, you seem to miss that I consider two groups of edits, those potentially controversial that need to be discussed first, while all maintenance etc edits can be carried out as long as they are logged. And I propose that because the current situation, which requires to obtain consensus for each and evry minor edit, does not work. So, in short, no not completely following the guidelines (which are guidelines and not policy for a reason), but working towards a system that would allow non-controversial edits to be done without first gaining consensus with a mechanism to deal with those cases that the editor makes a error in judgment and the edits are controversial.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That is policy (yes, it's policy, click on red lock): non-controversial edits, minor details like spelling grammar corrections emergency maintenance, can be made without consensus. I thought you meant to contain a log of these prior to their being made, but I also support the proposal of just logging the non-controversial edits as they are made.

In addition, I like the idea, also, of having a running log of controversial edits being discussed, a brief set of links, as it appears that a lot of work is being done on this template. This could help in two ways: 1. administrators would see they have to log all of their edits and would begin to understand this is the place to do it 2. interested editors could easily keep up with what is going on. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mostly support. I'm pleased to say this sounds like a good rule, and I'll echo Kleopatra on the "revert immediately"-- I'd rather see the outcome of a discussion before reverting. If it's a snowball, of course, the revert should be applied once that's clear, but in general, I believe there are probably several modifications that require detailed discussions (this happens quite often to me at least, and it can take several days before I see eye to eye with the person who made the edit and finally understand what's going on). Thanks for taking the bull by the horns, Kim. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Like this? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like that, although to keep in line with my never suporting anything you do, and to keep it personal, at the top of the page would be better. It makes it easy for visitors to always catch it and scan it by clicking on the page link rather than the latest diff. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I must say, "to keep in line with my never suporting anything you do, and to keep it personal" provided a nice comfortable laugh for me. That was much-needed after a day like this. Before I say I don't like that idea (I'm not sure yet), I'm not opposed to trying it for a week or even a month and seeing how that fares. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Administrators: Please follow policy and have consensus for editing this template

{{editprotected}}

I would like a note added to the top of this template stating:

Administrators: The full protection policy applies to you and this template. Please follow it.

And, I would like it to stay until administrators acknowledge that they have to achieve consensus before editing the template.

Here's a quote from a discussion about whether the policy for editing templates should have stronger wording advising administrators of the rules:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy

1. Oppose - the implication is that admins feel that policy can be ignored, and so admins need special rules. The policy wording is clear enough that modifications should be discussed first, and only implemented after consensus has been formed. I don't think it is appropriate to go through all our policy document to make special announcements that the rules also apply to admins. Of course policy applies to admins. That admins are not always aware of all policies is human nature - pointing to relevant policy should be enough. If an admin then wilfully and deliberately ignores policy in a harmful way, a trout slap is in order, but if an admin deliberately ignores policy in line with WP:IAR, for the better good of Wikipedia, such as substantially editing a fully protected article without first gaining consensus in order to remove clearly problematic material, that is fine. And in fact I would support such a statement being added. Such as "Where a protected article contains harmful material, an admin may make substantive edits to remove such material without first gaining consensus, provided the admin leaves a note explaining the action." SilkTork *YES! 10:24 am, 11 January 2011, Tuesday (20 days ago) (UTC−7)

So, it appears that administrators don't need stronger language; they already know the policy. Now, why do I have to fight to get the policy followed? This policy applies to administrators. And it's not meant to be acted upon retroactively.

And, this is the place for consensus discussions that impact this template. If the discussion arises elsewhere for good reason, simply link, post the edit you intend to make here, wait a few days for discussion, then, if you have consensus, go ahead and make the edit for which you have consensus.

If you don't have consensus and there's no emergency brewing (a misspelled word, a grammar error, whatever), then please don't edit this or any related and fully protected templates. I have as much right to make edits to this template as any administrator through the same process: gaining consensus for the edit. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the list of policies. About 50,000 words of information which is being constantly updated. It is almost inevitable that users will at some point accidently violate something in that mass of text. That is not a problem, however, as mistakes can be corrected. And the person who made the mistake can be pointed to the appropriate and up to date policy. Where problems occur is when someone (admin or otherwise) continues to work against policy after it has been pointed out to them that their actions are inappropriate. We do, however, have a policy for that situation, and a person (admin or otherwise) who continues to violate policies after warnings will be blocked.

I am uncomfortable with the notion that there should in general be a special warning just for admins, as policies are aimed at all users. I do, though, sense that there is a concern that in some instances admins have greater powers than other users, and so in those instances it might be appropriate to either draw admins attention to a situation which is frustrating other users, or have special rules regarding admins special powers. In the original discussion in which I have been quoted I felt at the time that a special admin note was inappropriate; I am now, however, moving toward the view that in the case of protected pages admins do have special powers and so a special note might be appropriate.

Some clarity regarding template editing would also be useful. I would regard admins being able to edit permenently protected templates the same as admins being able to view deleted material. Admins should be able to edit permenently protected templates as these are not the same as pages protected due to conflict. And admins should make edits to templates on request, after reviewing if the edits are appropriate, in the same way that admins may make deleted material available to users on request. I think this is an unfortunate but necessary protection against vandalism.

So, while I am moving toward having a special note reminding admins that edits to protected pages should be discussed first, in the case of permenently protected templates I feel that a note clarifying that admins do not need to seek consensus first might be useful. SilkTork *^YES! 10:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't see the relationship between deleted material and permanently protected templates. Do you know why this particular template is permanently protected? I don't think that I ever considered that the full protection policy only had to do with protection due to conflict as in article edit controversies. My thought is that this template is fully protected because it appears in so many articles, probably tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of articles. Any edit that can impact 100,000 articles should be made with great care. And, some templates are coded, not just written in plain English with some mark-up. There is nothing that requires or grants that administrators have any greater ability to edit templates that I know of. If there is, please provide me with a link. Treating this template like a sandbox and making a dozen edits to it in a single day could impact tens of thousands of articles a dozen times. This type of editing should be done after consensus has been reached. This gives other editors the additional opportunity to give input about problems with the edit, rather than using a highly used template as a sandbox. If it's not fully protected for this reason, that it appears in so many articles, I don't again see anything that indicates to me that administrators are required to have special abilities in the maintenance of templates. If I am wrong, again, please link. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I find it ironic that you of all people makes this request WITHOUT achieving consensus first. I think this line is bogus to add. To demand that each and every minor edit reaches full consensus first only will bog down the editing, and is in violation with the template posted at the top of the page: {{permprot}} which explicitly states that uncontroversial edits can be added. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Ironically, there is no consensus for the requested edit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet, when administrators edit without consensus you consider retroactive consensus to be sufficient. And, not being able to edit first, then seek consensus later, my requesting an edit in support of policy is "ironic?" Ironic? Really?

Martin, I already know you think I'm American and what you think of Americans (which is not what I think of Americans). Your continued mockery is unnecessary and fails to establish your superiority. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not bring nationality into this. I doubt that's the issue, as he probably knows by now that I'm American, too. Besides, that was a different Martin, best I can tell. We have a lot of people named Martin around here. What the MSGJ Martin is referring to is that the {{editprotected}} template is never added to a discussion until consensus is reached by a community. If you're trying to establish consensus prior to an edit, here's a prime example of where consensus wasn't established before you requested administrative intervention. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, MSGJ, it was indeed a different Martin. But, really, Bob, you don't even get consensus, so you're fussing at me for requesting an edit without consensus, when you just make whatever edits you want without consensus? Oh, that's right, I'm without the superior rank of administrator, so you do have the right to shove me back into my place. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Here is my suggestion:

• Bob the Wikipedian: please stop making edits to this template without proposing them on the talk page first. WP:BOLD does not really apply to fully-protected pages, and your edits are clearly causing some degree of controversy.
• Kleopatra: please stop being hostile and try to work together with people on this page. If anyone makes an undiscussed edit to the template which you do not agree with, just put {{editprotected}} with a request to revert. I will honour any such request made in good faith.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, this template is transcluded on 173,000 articles. If Bob makes 2 million transclusions by editing a dozen times in a day, edits that could have been bundled, test edits that never should have been made, reverting without discussion is not the answer.

That is the reason for fully protecting this page: because it impacts so many articles. It's not fully protected to be a special page for privileged administrators with "rank." It's fully protected to make the community, including administrators, take care in editing it. So, it's not an option: a second wrong.

I get tired of wasting my time explaining community rules that are clearly spelled out to people who should know better--knowing that I would be simply blocked if I engaged in exactly the same behavior.

I can edit the Neomura article and add appropriate secondary and tertiary sources so even Bob wouldn't have made the mistake he made. But I'm not allowed to edit without engaging in the most worthless badgering, wikilawyering, and exploitation. Wikipedia needs to find a way to allow experts to edit; and that may mean simply that everyone should follow policies and guidelines. But a month trying to explain the written policies to an admin? Forget it. That no other admins demanded he follow policy pretty much says it all.

Anyway, I'm giving up, so it's time to close this. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Upgrading to the next version of {{str find}}

Per the recent modifications to {{strfind short}}, it has been advised this faster and more capable template take the place of {{str find}} where possible. Because {{PAGENAMEBASE}} is a structural template at the foundation of the code of this template, this edit could potentially cause havoc if not evaluated first for soundness.

I'm requesting anyone who has enough know-how to evaluate this proposed modification respond to the RfC listed at Template talk:PAGENAMEBASE. The template is being used in this template. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No regnum, no cleanup category

This morning, I found an article where the regnum= field had been inadvertently omitted ([1]). I'm sure that, in the past, an article like that would have appeared in Category:Taxobox cleanup or one of its subcategories. This one didn't. Was there a reason for this change? Can the cleanup flag be restored, please? --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added {{#if:{{{regnum|}}}||[[Category:Taxobox cleanup]]}} to the template, so if no regnum parameter exists, it'll be categorized there. If there are legitimate cases for the regnum to be left blank, this code will need modifying. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't think of any reason why regnum should be blank, but there may be causes for it to be omitted. The only ones I can think of are taxa above the rank of kingdom; I imagine those already specify the taxobox colour manually. At the very least, we will find out once your change filters down, because any legitimate omission will now appear in the cleanup category. If nothing pops up, I think we're probably in the clear. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I should have checked the latest version of this page before duplicating your efforts-- I've added a tracing category to {{taxobox/core}} to return the category if the color is equal to {{taxobox/Error colour}}. This is actually more inclusive and probably a worthwhile check, anyway, though. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it might need to check that both regnum and virus_group are empty (or omitted). We're getting false positives from viruses. I should have foreseen that. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! It's fixed now. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it might be best to use Bob's method alone. I think that would avoid articles with acceptable taxoboxes like Bosworthia and Wahpia appearing in the category (presumably the rest of the red algae will follow). --Stemonitis (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, and I remember now – these articles always used to be categorised in Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color, and I think it would be as well to recreate that situation. Can anyone advise if any of the other cleanup categories are no longer going to be populated? --Stemonitis (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The category you just mentioned is the one where the tracker I just implemented are going. I don't think we've got any redundant categories there. I'd still like to clean out the one with 21,715 pages in it, but I'm trying to wait until the RfC gets automatically closed before I do anything with it. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Fossil range

Example output Temporal range:
Phylum:	Arthropoda
Class:	incertae sedis
Genus:	Skania

Just looking for some opinions about how the fossil range is displayed in taxoboxes. In my opinion, the coloured bar produced by Template:Fossil range is always worth using, if possible: it adds context to the period name that helps those unfamiliar with the geologic column to attach meaning to a stated fossil range.

At Template:Automatic taxobox, we've been experimenting with a way of generating this coloured bar based on whatever text is entered into the |fossil range= parameter. So to generate the example on the right, one need only state |fossil range=Cambrian. This seems like a good solution, and it may be possible to expand this functionality to support such statements as |fossil range=Cambrian to Devonian — although this may come at the expense of performance.

However, this has some disadvantages: most notably, it is rather more difficult to handle more complicated cases, such as adding a reference or a "dubious" extension to the fossil range, or using a numeric and textual range (e.g. |fossil range=67-65 million years ago, Late Cretaceous). So solution two is to use the current syntax, and have a bot go round and convert the straightforward cases to use Template:Fossil range. This has the advantage that it is easier for editors to see exactly how the output is being generated, and to edit it in the future.

What is people's preferred option? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Can the fossil ranges be cached in the same location where daughter taxa are cached? That seems like it would be a quick-to-access area. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Log of edits affecting this template

Support for Template:Speciesbox

[2] [3] : allow Template:Speciesbox to use Template:Taxobox/core to produce its output. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Performance improvements

• Trust user to keep apostrophes out of |name= of automatic taxoboxes: [4] Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What does this mean? I know lots of |name= that have apostrophes to create formatting because the common name is something like "Bentham's foobar," e.g. Banksia benthamiana. And one of these recent edits seems to have made all the text of the taxobox smaller than normal. Can we get that fixed? Rkitko ^(talk) 00:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

    [Clarified wording] Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

    The |name= parameter shouldn't use italic formatting (or bolding, for that matter); that's what the |italic_name= parameter's for. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

    • The reduction in the font-size was due to this edit upstream, I have restored the font-size with this edit. Other tweaks may be necessary. I don't know about the other part of your question. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Better handling of fossil_range parameter: [5] Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Smarter check for when to stop adding parent taxa to the taxobox. If this edit went wrong, it would cause taxoboxes to not display the kingdom, etc; or cause an error message to appear in this place. I couldn't find any errors of this nature. Diff. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Use a switch mechanism to work out whether or not to display a taxon in the taxonomic list, or whether to display a "create this taxon" message: [6] Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Shallower tree-climbing before delegating to next template) in Template:Taxobox/taxonomy, Template:Taxobox/taxonomy/1, etc.

  Performance gains of ~2%

  Possible side-effects: malformed or abbreviated taxonomy lists [avoided by removing seams; 20:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]

  Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Tracking categories

• Checks to see if regnum is filled. If not, places within Category:Taxobox cleanup. Change made by Smith609. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Modified tracking category so it only includes kingdomless taxoboxes if they also do not belong to a virus group. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Undone previous two edits, which are made redundant by this edit to Template:Taxobox/core. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User friendliness

• Instructive messages at Template:Taxon? and the new Template:Taxon??, to help users if taxonomy pages don't yet exist. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Help box if Template:Automatic taxobox is seriously misconfigured. [7] Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)