Last modified on February 13, 2009, at 05:09

Template talk:Taxonomy

Return to "Taxonomy" page.

Expansion?

I would like to have a tinker with this to add in a few extra parameters. I'll sandbox and suggest first before saving. Anybody object? File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 19:11, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

No objections from me. I'm not an expert on taxonomy, and wasn't sure what categories to include and what to not include, as some categories seem to be only used in some cases.
Also, I wasn't sure how to make categories only show if they are needed, but managed to come up with a way of doing that in {{country}}, so the same method could be used here to add as many categories as required, but only showing the ones needed in each case.
I also thought of adding a category for holobaramin.
I'm not fully au fait with how that classification runs, but add the parms in by all means File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 16:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm not either, and in fact I don't think it's an entire system, but simply a grouping, similar, for example to just "family". I also don't know how many have actually beed described and named, so I might wait until I find more about that before adding it. Philip J. Rayment 02:29, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't even bother sandboxing and suggesting unless you want to. Just go ahead and make the changes, unless you expect them to be controversial.
Philip J. Rayment 11:18, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
The revised template works, but I need to go in and add more parms, also unwikify a few fields. Time has the better of me unfortunately, so I'll do that in a few hours. There are only 17 pages linking to it which need tweaking to the new fields, so it isn't a crisis File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 19:40, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Binomial name

Isn't the binomial name simply the genus and species names together? If so, why is there a separate binomial parameter? The template could supply the binomial name from those two, as I believe it used to do. Philip J. Rayment 02:26, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Where the classification runs further than species, or requires more than one species, it fails at that point :( Yes, the binomial name is just the posh way of saying "species", usually quoting the authority responsible for naming; it's useful where the taxobox finishes there, but not where it runs on to subspecies. The template still needs to be tweaked to cope with plurals, as it currently fails to [[]] where the field contains multiple entries. I'll see what I can do with it this morning. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 03:50, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Things done in my edit

  1. I added code for lines, but I nonetheless made the code more efficient - there was a lot of extra code, and a lot of code that wouldn't have done anything. This can be a change regardless of whether you like the aesthetic style.
  2. I edited the template with the assumption that every single parameter would be filled in; even though this is unrealistic, I wanted the test the template in the hardest conditions. I realized that there were too many rows every single row right after another - so I split everything up. Superkingdom, kingdom and subkingdom all have a heading - same with the phyla, the classes etc.
  3. I threw in some yellow just to make it a bit more colorful
  4. I aligned the "Scientific classification" line a bit better (vertically)
  5. I added population stats (as you asked)
  6. I added a bit more spacing (with cellspacing) to make sure it didn't look smooshed--IDuan 00:09, 13 February 2009 (EST)